 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:23 AM Amos, "What MIGHT have happened is a lot more catastrophic than what did happen, because of TARP and Obama's Stimuus plan--" 1. verb should be "could have been" NOT "is" 2. You earlier stated that TARP was a Bush item, and could not be blamed on Obama. WHICH IS IT? During the Bush administration, we did not have a nuclear war- want to give him credit NOW for saving the human race???? If not, be careful how you attempt to justify your own biases about Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:03 AM TARP funds were "administered" by both Bush and Obama... The operative word here is "administered"... That seems to be where the rub is... I'm not saying that Bush did or didn't do a better job with them, that is not at issue... What is at issue is that as the economy was spinning out of control toward the end of Bush's term the Obama folks were pushing it to put money into the financial markets to stave off a total collapse... Granted, it wasn't just the Obma folks as just about every non-flat-earth economist was saying the same thing... If ya'll recall, Bush wasn't all that eager to for TARP because it went against his basic instincts (think C- student here) but went along with TARP... All these things were occuring between the elcetion and when Obama was innagurated... Any disputes so far??? I mean, we were all here watching these thing's unfold... Now as to "collapse" of "no-collapse"??? Does it really matter... It was like an airplane with a dead engine heading straight down and there are alot of reasons for that, 30 years of supply-side economics being the the largest reason... So TARP was kinda like the engine restarting just before impact and th stimulis package was like the pilot having in the instincts to pull back on the yoke... That is what we came thru and I don't think it can be reasonably argued otherwise... Was this all Bush's fault??? No... It began with Reagan and continued right up until TARP... Tey were all guilty, some more than others... What Bush will be remembered for, however, is the ill-timed tax cuts that Alan Greenspan initially thought were a bad idea and only after being beaten up in the Oval Office went along with... That was straw that broke the "deregulation camel's" back... It was totally irresponsible in terms of sound fiscal policy but... ...it was like left-hook from hell to the beast that the Repubs have been trying to land to starve the beast going back to FDR... So, the bottom line was the economy was right where the old Repubs had drawn it up on paper... They have hated the New Deal forever and have periodicaly tried to starve the beast but none as well as George W, who spent like a drunken sailer and started expensive wars for no reason and then put thru a massive tax cut (using reconciliation, BTW- Horrors!!!)... Yup, the boy had accomplished what no Repub had ever accomplished... Problem is that Repubs didn't rralize that you couldn't just starve the beast without crippling the economy... Not reall long range thinkers, them Repubs... So "collapse" or "collapsing"... Doesn't much make much difference... The cure was going to have to be the same... Get money into the economy... Ain't rocket surgery here, folks... Now I *do* have to go to work... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM When does a mere lapse become a co-llapse? That is the question. ;-) Sawzaw, I see that you approve of Obama's war policy in Afghanistan! ;-) What a surprise! All a Democrat ever has to do to gain a Republican's approval is go to war somewhere...anywhere...just like a good Republican would. ;-D I want to remind you of one thing. The USA armed forces NEVER lost a single battle on the ground in Vietnam with the Viet Cong or the NVA. Why? Well, simple. The USA could always bring greater firepower to bear on the battlefield until they eventually won any specific battle on any specific piece of ground. They controlled the air with the world's biggest airforce. They controlled the ground with the world's most heavily armed army. They controlled the sea with the world's biggest navy. The result of any land battle would inevitably be an American victory, no matter how long it took... So they never lost a single battle in Vietnam. But they still lost the Vietnam war. Remember that. All the Vietnamese had to do was never stop fighting until the Americans finally got out of their country and went home. The British also won the majority of battles that they fought with the American revolutionaries in the American Revolutionary War...but they still lost the war! That is how insurgents who are fighting for their homeland defeat a more heavily armed occupying force...not by holding ground, but simply by never giving up until the invaders go home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM LH: Sorry to disappoint you but they lost battles on the ground in Vietnam. I wish I could tell you the name, but I read a moment-by-moment vivid reconstruction of one in particular where a whole platoon of US soldiers was completely wiped out by the NV. They were green, and they landed right where the NV general wanted them to be. Anyway, I am sure your sweeping statement is flawed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM On's chioce of words matter. Especially when trying to use two standards to define the word in different ways. Obviously two different terms should be used. #1 the Wall street bailout was engineered by Paulson, Geithner and others associated with the current administration so they can't stand back and claim it was a 100% Bush action. #2 It was loans to be paid back with interest at a profit to be paid back into the treasury to lower ther national debt. Where is the money that is being paid back going? I forgot that I posted something from Michael more that claimed there was a collapse. I should have put a disclaimer on it saying I do not endorse this disingenuous, capitalist, blowtoad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:10 PM The fact that the collapse of the US economy did not reach terminal conditions, thanks to interventions, does not mean it did not collapse. It is a very good thing to do as you are doing and differentiate among shades of meaning. We'll make a liberal of you yet!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:58 PM "All a Democrat ever has to do to gain a Republican's approval is go to war somewhere" All a Democrat has to do the justify an ongoingwar is to be able to say a Republican got us into it. It didn't work for the war in Viet Nam or in Korea did it? Mr O said the war in Afghanistan was the war of necessity but he can still placate the peace mongers by saying Bush started it. Nobody is right all the time or wrong all the time and I try to give people credit when they are right. Washington Examiner: "This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people." Read more at the Washington Examiner Time: In the weeks after president Obama took office, his Administration sought to manage expectations on Afghanistan. Yes, it was the right war, a war of necessity — but winning didn't require turning the country into a "Jeffersonian democracy" (Obama's phrase) or a "Central Asian Valhalla" (as Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it). The implication was that President Bush had become too distracted by secondary, nation-building goals, such as ensuring that Afghan girls went to school. Obama would focus on the main task: defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But as Afghanistan holds its presidential election, the Obama Administration has arrived at the same conclusion that Bush did: nation-building is essential to defeating extremism in Afghanistan. U.S. security goals in the region cannot be achieved purely by military means; in order for American and NATO troops to someday be able to head home, Afghanistan needs good governance and modern institutions. Read more |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:26 PM I guess with the magical powers that Liberals have, the way they can use two different standards to judge things by, they can avoid giving straight answers. Did the economy collapse or did it not collapse? You said it collapsed. The other guy you posted said it didn't. One of you is wrong and one is right. Choose one definition and tell us who? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:41 PM A double standard can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. Do you believe in moral fairness Amos? Do you believe in the principle of justice known as impartiality? Do you value modern jurisprudence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM Why yes, Sawz, I do. But what I certainly do NOT believe in is a certain literal-minded binary-values only Manichean mode of thought with which you try to disrupt the conversation. A collapse of something as large as the US economy is not a binary event. It occurs over time and occurs on a gradient progression. Our economic collapse started. It continued. It has been slowed and possibly turned around at this point, before it reached a condition that could fairly be described as completely collapsed. Your disputation is kind of like saying "You say night fell, but look!! Its light out!! DId it fall or not?" Your question, in other words, is falsified by its own unexamined (or disingenuous) assumptions. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM I can't speak for every single small, isolated firefight which may have occurred in Vietnam, Amos...but I know that any sustained battle which was fought there by American troops to secure an objective or hold ground or take ground eventually ended with them succeeding in that objective. That wasn't enough to win the war, because those kind of tactics couldn't win that war. When I said that the Americans never lost a ground battle in Vietnam, I was merely repeating what I've seen various writers and journalists say in several books and articles I've read about the subject. Perhaps they were all mistaken? If so, then my statement about it was also mistaken. If the NVA did indeed wipe out an entire American platoon somewhere, despite the disadvantage of having massive American airpower on their backs, I hope they got a unit commendation from their high command (the NVA, I mean)...because it can't have been easy. I read that the NVA lost an average of 100,000 men a year fighting the campaign in South Vietnam and along the Ho Chi Minh trail. **** Sawzaw, I appreciate your giving credit to people you would normally disagree with when credit is due. I can't applaud Obama's upgrading of the USA war effort in Afghanistan, however, because I never approved of that war being fought in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM More endless babble from Amos: "a workable method which we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men." Stiglitz: Tearing Down the Walls The deregulation philosophy would pay unwelcome dividends for years to come. In November 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act the culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial-services industries, and spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm. McCain, Cantwell Battle The Monolith To Reinstate Glass-Steagall Huffington Post 12-17-09 Yesterday, the decidedly odd couple of Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to introduce legislation that would restore the Glass-Steagall Act (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which would force giant banking institutions to choose between operating as a commercial bank or an investment bank. For decades, Glass-Steagall imposed a firewall between the two, until it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. Give McCain and Cantwell a big round of applause for their effort, because in Washington, this seemingly obvious response to the financial crisis is considered the domain of wild-eyed hippies (and Paul Volcker.) It is, after all, the sort of idea that would bring real pain to the banking industry, who'd much rather we quickly forget about the collapse of the economy last year and return to business as usual. The most cutting remark against McCain and Cantwell's efforts comes courtesy of Unnamed Treasury Official, who, as you might imagine, is some kind of awesome prick: "I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman."read more |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:26 PM Collapse v. collapsing??? Like, who gives a rat's ass... Doesn't change anything that I said above... It's a non-starter... Just diversionary debating... Fact is, that without TARP it is universally accepted by economists that it was not going to pull out of a deep depression... I rmemeber seein' an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by hundreds of leading economists saying that TARP was needed to steer the economy away from a serious depression... I don't understand the debate here.... Bush used TARP... Obama followed... Who cares??? Nothin to see here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM During yesterday's seven-and-a-halfÊhour bipartisan health care reform summit, President Obama urged Republicans to abandon their obstructionist tactics and work with Democrats to pass comprehensive reform. Obama highlighted areas of bipartisan agreement in his health care proposal and suggested that Democrats would move forward with or without Republican support. "I will tell you this, that when I talk to the parents of children who don't have health care because they've got diabetes or they've got some chronic heart disease; when I talk to small business people who are laying people off because they just got their insurance premium, they don't want us to wait. They can't afford another five decades," Obama said. And while it's unclear whether the forum moved the debate forward, it provided Obama with an opportunity to engage "in a spirited and detailed policy debate with Republicans about one of the most compelling and ideologically polarizing issues facing the nation." The New York Times observed that "Mr. Obama's mastery of the intricacies of health policy was impressive even to some Republicans." "It was sort of his classroom," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said. "I was glad we did it, because the president's megaphone is the biggest one and when he shares it with Republicans like he did, that gives us several hours to make our case, and I thought we made it well.'" ,,, (Progressive Report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:37 PM Come on, Amos... Let's get real here... Yeah, I like Obama allright and the Repubs are bordering on treason but... ...geese, son, yesterday was pure ***politics***... Yeah, it was a good move on Obama's part but it wasn't intended to bridge the divide... It was intended to get health care reform on Page 1 and get then Dems on board for the Shoot-out at the OK Corral... Nothin' more, nothin' less... Okay, he did kinda ***use*** the Repubs and I'm sure they are a little steamed over it but... ...hey, the Repubs will get over it... I recall Bush drapin' himself in the flag for a couple years after 9/11 on every issue and I'm sure the Dems didn't much like that either but... ...it was politics then and it's politic now... Hey, it is Washington!!! Now, back to collapsing v. collapsed... 'Er was it dieing v. dead???? No matter... Neither is condition is something for Sawz to be boasting about... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM "President Obama urged Republicans to abandon their obstructionist tactics and work with Democrats to pass comprehensive reform." Get real! ;-D Why would the Republicans do that? They have no desire to work with the Democrats to pass anything. They wish the Democrats to fail, and they want to maintain and aggravate the divisions in your country...with an eye toward gaining ground in the midterm elections. I can see why Obama would urge them to, though. It's good political theatre. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:15 AM Well Amos, Geuthner said it didn't collapse and Valerie Jarrett said it didn't collapse. Do you know something that they don't? Presidential Adviser Valerie Jarrett February 24, 2010 "And so today, the president really said, look, this is about an alignment of interests between business, the business sector, government and the workers. And we should all be working together. We're just pulling ourselves from, really, the brink of an economic collapse in our country." Our financial system is far stronger than it was a year ago, but it is operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse and a dangerous recession, Geithner said in prepared testimony to the House Budget Committee. These rules must be changed to keep the system from taking unjustifiable risks and so that it can fuel growth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:16 AM It was kept from total collapse. It sure as hell started to colllapse. You are ignoring my earlier point with the enthusiastic persistance of a carved totem. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 10 - 08:02 AM col-lapse (ke-laps') v. -lapsed, -lapsing, -lapses. -intr. 1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in. 2. To cease to function; break down suddenly in strength or health; a monarchy that collapsed. 3, To fold completely; chairs that collapse forc storage. -To cause to collapse. -n 1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports. 2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; breakdown [Lat. collabi, collaps-, to fall together + labi, to fall] -collapsible, collapsablt adj. -collapsibility n. ("The American Heritage Dictioary, 2nd College Edition) Hmmmmmmmmm??? And so, Sawz feels comfy arguing that things weren't all that bad when Obama became president becasue of what part of the above definition???? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:37 PM Amos and Bobert want to contradict Obama's hand picked officials? Get your selves a ticket and fly to Reagan Airport, grab a cab and check in at the Marriott. Then call and make an appointment with Geithner or Jarret. When you get in, ask them if the economy collapsed or not. I am just reporting what they said. Take up the argument with them. Take your dictionary. Ask them who eradicated Glass-Steagal while you are there. Do you think you should take a gun Bobert? Just in case you are attacked by one of those teabag terrorists. What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week's Key Polls Rasmussen Reports 2 27, 2010 President Obama and congressional Democrats seem to be doing everything in their power to revive their national health care plan, but the public still isn't buying. A survey this past week prior to the president's televised bipartisan summit on the topic found that voters still oppose the plan and question many of its details - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan versus 23% who strongly favor it. Supporters are citing a jump in rates by a California health insurer as grounds for getting the national plan back on track, but most voters are still more fearful of the federal government than private insurance companies when it comes to health care decisions. These views are unchanged from early August when many congressmen went home to town hall meetings filled with voters angry about the proposed health care plan. Voters also remain closely divided on the creation of a government-run health insurance option. But opposition increases dramatically if its creation might force people to change their existing coverage. That's because 59% of voters believe it is more important to guarantee that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage than to give consumers the choice of a public option. Despite the president's bipartisan outreach efforts, 50% of voters rate his handling of the health care issue as poor. Of course, the president's efforts aren't helped by the low opinion voters have of Congress. Seventy-one percent (71%) now say Congress is doing a poor job, the highest level of disapproval ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. Only nine percent (9%) now believe members of Congress are interested in helping the people they represent; 81% say they're more interested in helping themselves. This unhappiness, primarily directed at Democrats because of their majority control of the House and Senate, is reflected in numerous state surveys Rasmussen Reports has taken in recent months....Read More Here Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Rasmussen Reports 2 27, 2010 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for President Obama.....Read More Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:53 PM The polls are all over the place... Ya' see, depending on wording you could prolly find a good percentage of Isrealis who like the PLO... I don't trust polls any further than I can throw them... Heck, you can't even trust elections.... That's just how far the US has come down over the years... But, never the less, the poll numbers posted above by the Rasmussen polls are so far off the ones that MSNBC has posted that it is utterly rediculous... But I don't trust that poll either... I've had at least three different pollin' companies call me over the last several months and based on the wording of the questions I knew excatly what percfentages they were looking for and who they were working for... The last one was one paid for by the health insurance industry and I ended up tellin' the pollster that she was partly responsible for the screwed up health care system in this country for working for such a bogus company... She was polite but you could tell by her response that a lot of folks had allready told her as much and had also refused to answer the questions they way thet were written... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM Sawz: You are persisting in your literal-minded approach. I warn you that this path of thought is a direct road to delusion. You have started creating completely deluded assertions because you cannot get it into your head that collapses occur on a gradient slope. Sheeshe, dude!! Get another brain cell. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:14 PM And while you two happy campers are in DC, go by the USDA and ask them where they got that "1 in 5 children go hungry" fact from. And visit the Haitian Embassy and ask them if it's true that "1% owns all the wealth". Maybe a visit to NIH can help Amos with his inability to tell the difference between the two terms "did" and "didn't". Bubba had trouble with that too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:39 PM Yeah, like the Haitian Embassy is going to tell you the truth... The problem we have here is that there are amny sources of information and many condtridictions... If you take the goevernment of corporate's "facts" they usually don't jive with other sources which are many times the sources alot closer to the situation than either the government or the corporation... Alot of the stuff that I kearn about comes from listening to NPR while I am working... It's amazing how different the world looks when you take those sources and mix them in with the propaganda that the government puts out... There is no way to be 100% sure of much of anything other than we are all going to die one day... Ohter than that, in the words pof Woodie Allen, "It's a crap-shoot"... That's part of what Amos is saying... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:49 PM Oh, shut up! All of you. ;-) Get a Dachshund, take him out for a walk, and start enjoying life for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:23 PM Yer just mad 'cause I ain't postin' to no sumabichin' thread about dogs... Plus, if I wanta talk about a dog I'm gonna talk about a real dog... You know, one with legs... Not no freek show dog without 'um... Plus, you don't talk one of them dogs fir a walk... You take the sumabich fir "a pull"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Feb 10 - 09:12 PM Humpf!!! Slander is what that is. Uninformed fiddle faddle. Balderdash. Horse puckey. Why, son, if you ever had the chance to spend time with a REAL hound...meanin' a Dachshund...then, by golly, you'd change yer tune right fast. Yessiree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 10 - 12:36 AM Come on, LH. You can't really call something a real dog when it can't even run upstairs with a hard-on. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM Run, Amos??? Sheet fire, son... They ain't got no legs... They ain't much more than fat, furry snakes that bark... Now back to out regularially scheduled debate about Obama... Hey, Amos... Ya ever heard of the "Coffee Party"??? Google it up... You'll love this one... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:28 AM A REAL Dachshund with a hardon doesn't run upstairs at all. He serenades his lady love from the foot of the stairs, and she comes down to see him, of course, because she just can't resist that sort of romantic flair. If you've heard a REAL Dachshund sing, you'd know what I mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:41 AM Pee in the cup. LH... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Feb 10 - 12:36 PM Amos: "the brink of an economic collapse" "its near collapse" Do these two Obama official's terms indicate the economy collapsed or not? They are quite different from your term "collapsed" which is in the past tense as an event that has occurred. It's really not that hard to understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM Sawz: OK, so you just won't get it. Not that you couldn't get it, you just won't. The intentionally obdurate approach. Dunno how you expect to get anywhere with it, but whatever creams your coffee. Good luck with it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 10 - 05:28 PM He learnt it from Teribus, Amos... Don't ever look at the big piccure because that is a losing side to pick... Just find minute details to debate and hope for the best... You know, kinda like arguin' over how many angels can dance on the end of a pin while Rome burns??? It's a run-out-the-clock strategy that, face it, is working better than the big piccure because "they" have more money to craft tons more ads that try to keep people bogged down in the details and away from the big piccure... I'd give them more credit if the playing field was level but it isn't... Their side has the big bucks and has controled the media very well thru this... Money buys elections and it buys puiblic opinion in this tribalized world in which we live... Sad reality but reality none the less... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:30 PM PBS Newshour September 16, 2008 SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This morning, instead of offering up concrete plans to solve these issues, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book. You pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. Here's the thing: This isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it; John McCain won't. And that's the choice for Americans in this election. Obama creates fiscal reform commission UPI Feb. 18, 2010 WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- A bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility and reform came into being Thursday when U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order. "I know the issue of deficits has stirred debate. And there's some on the left who believe that this issue can be deferred. There are some on the right who won't enter into serious discussions about deficits without pre-conditions." Obama said during the signing ceremony. "But those who preach fiscal discipline have to be willing to take the hard steps necessary to achieve it.".... If Obama is willing, why is he passing the buck to a commission? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Mar 10 - 12:17 AM They all contradict themselves after a little while, Sawzaw. They all do what they criticized the other guy for doing not very long ago. You just have to wait a little while. That's politics. Politics is all about creating ephemeral appearances and vague impressions in the public mind. It's marketing, man. Marketing. If McCain was president now, he'd be doing similarly idiotic things, I'm sure, and contradicting himself too. So would Al Gore. So would Hillary. So would Giuliani. Romney. Whover. Just standard Washington bla-bla. Pay it little mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 10 - 12:34 AM WHere did it say he was passing the buck, Sawz? Maybe he's just trying to keep the nation from splitting down the middle. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:14 PM NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT East Room July 22,2009 THE PRESIDENT: We were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. And the reason was because Wall Street took extraordinary risks with other people's money, they were peddling loans that they knew could never be paid back, they were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans and higher and higher mountains of debt were being built on loans that were fundamentally unsound. And all of us now are paying the price. Now, I believe it was the right thing to do -- as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today had those steps not been taken. It originated under the Bush administration. We continued it because whether you're on the left or the right, if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would drop us into a deep depression and not simply a very severe recession..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM You're hopeless, Sawz. A meltdown began. A collapse started. Intercession occurred. The collapse was slowed and perhaps halted before it became complete in the sense of ruining the whole economic system. What the hell is the matter with you? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM Amos, Even Obama says it started under Bush- SO OBAMMA DOES NOT GET CREDIT. "Now, I believe it was the right thing to do -- as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today had those steps not been taken. It originated under the Bush administration. We continued it ..." YOU have stated that the problems started under Bush are Bush's fault- so the SOLUTIONS started under Bush are his as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM The real question is: Why bail out criminals in the banking system and reward the very people who created the problem? Why not take government action to break up the 5 largest banks (which have become, in effect, a criminal cartel), protect their depositors, the public, from loss of their deposits by government-supported insurance of those deposits during that process, and end the damned banking cartel of the 5 huge banks which brought the economy into a state of disaster to pad their own pockets? The biggest criminals at Wall Street have been bailed out. The public has not been protected by protecting and rewarding those criminals. There is the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM What I'm saying is...Bush rewarded the criminals...and Obama agrees with doing that. Obviously, I disagree with both Bush and Obama on this matter. The biggest banks are a cartel that has become a virtual monopoly. They should be broken up, and their top CEOs should be charged with having committed major financial crimes at the expense of the entire world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 01 Mar 10 - 02:41 PM AMos: It is very simple. You said it collapsed, Obama said it didn't. Who is correct? Now you want to modify your "collapse" with started and began. From: Amos - PM Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:16 PM I don't think anyone has said that Obama was not responsible for his administration, Bruce. However, even you will allow that starting with a record surplus, as Bush did, and no wars, is a LOT easier than starting with two wars, a collapsed economy, and the largest deficit in history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM Bruce: No sense waving your arms about; the collapse was Bush's responsibility and so were the initial efforts to prevent it from worsening. I pointed this out myself, pal. Your stereotype isn't keeping up with reality here. Sawz, you are being completely thickheaded and I am not going to repeat myself in an effort to get you to understand ordinary English. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM Nothing could be simpler than did and didn't. You said it collapsed. Obama said it didn't collapse. Are you wrong or is Obama wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM Nothing could be simpler to the simple-minded, Sawz. It did AND it didn't. Your Manichean worldview just does not work, sorry. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Mar 10 - 03:28 PM Something can begin to collapse without collapsing completely. That would be termed a partial collapse. The process of any ongoing collapse, physical or financial, can be halted by the application of some external agent which shores up that which is in the process of collapsing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM Yeah, I think we can all agree on partial collapse... Thanks, LH... This was getting nowhere and really no more than an academic exercise to avoid the big picture of 30 years of voodoo economics... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:00 AM Right. I mean, heck, any financial collapse I ever heard of was a partial collapse. A complete collapse would mean that money became totally worthless, everyone lost everything they had, the marketing economy ground to a halt, and society disintegrated into total chaos with people fighting in the street for scraps of food... Neither Obama nor Bush would have been able to find any ready solution to a situation like that. All this longwinded bitching and bellyaching over whether someone said the economy "collapsed" or someone didn't say the economy collapsed has been a meaningless waste of keystrokes. ;-) An exercise akin to emptying the Atlantic ocean with a spade or peeling off the Earth's crust with a spoon. Useless. Futile. Vain. Not to mention... downright silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:49 PM "Something can begin to collapse without collapsing completely. That would be termed a partial collapse." That is true if you state that but Amos did not. He said it "a collapsed economy". Did you see any thing about partial or begin there? Now he tries to backpedal and try to modify what he said while launching ad hominem attacks. You can say half dead or nearly dead or dying but saying dead is final. A dying dog, a nearly dead dog, a half dead dog is different from a dead dog. My personal view is that the economy would have collapsed if nothing was done but something was done before it collapsed and Obama said so. "it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse" Amos does not want to acknowledge that the collapse was prevented and did not happen. Notice the word us. It indicates that he was involved so the claim that it was GWB's bailout does not compute either. It was not Paulson or GWB that bailed out the banks but all of us and it prevented the collapse. Also the "bailout" was loans to the banks, to be paid back with interest at a profit, and not money "given" to the banks as is repeated over and over by hysterical people. However the money being paid back is not going to the treasury to reduce the national debt as was written into the bailout, it is being diverted into more ineffective Obama spending programs |
