BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:18 PM

Let's say you're right, Sawzaw, and Amos used slightly incorrect wording on one occasion to express an idea he had about an economic crisis....

So what? ;-)

If your objective is to get him to admit he that used slightly incorrect wording on that one ocassion...well, who here has not done that? ;-) We all do that now and then. We don't express an idea perfectly.

What if he never consents to admit to the specific error in wording that you want him to admit to?

Then what? What shall we DO????????

And will we still be reading about it here in 2015?

Man, I can only hope not! ;-D (rolling my eyes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

Sawz:

I'm sorry. I have said OVER and OVER and OVER that the complete collapse was prevented.

Your tin ear is making you look dense, and I know you are not, but show a little semantic flexibility here.

WHen an avalanche starts, you do not wait for it to get to the bottom to say that the snow has collapsed. Please drop this stupid literal-minded shtick of yours. You are made for better things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

I've got an idea!

You (Amos) admit that Chinga is not Chongo's sister, but only imagines that she is.

Sawzaw will admit that it doesn't really matter if your wording was less than perfect on one occasion, and that he now understands what you actually meant to say.

Everything will be hunky-dory. ;-D

Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:35 PM

Yeah, I think it time to move on... Nuthin' to see here...

But the new assertion that putting money returned from TARP back into the economy as being this evil and wrong thing to do flies in the face of modern day econimic theory... Until there is a greater level of spending by the general public for a quarter then the government, Repub or Dem, would have to keep puttin' logs on the fire...

BTW, this is basic Econ 201 which is taught in both liberal and conservative colleges... It's not some crazy theory... It's bsic...

Now, of course, if it made the righties happier, the money could go back into the treasury and then reborrowed and put back into the economy but that's just accounting and probably wouldn't get quite the bang-for-the-buck since then you'd have alot more tedius work achieving the same thing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:53 PM

I'm not saying money shouldn't have been put into the economy to stimulate it. I'm saying that money mostly went to the wrong people...meaning: the 5 biggest American banks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:02 AM

Amos,

"I'm sorry. I have said OVER and OVER and OVER that the complete collapse was prevented."

Yes, but you have yet to admit it was BUSH that did so, according to what you have stated before (re TARP). IF Bush gets the BLAME, he should also get the PRAISE for the actions during his administration.

Unless you want your normal dual standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:00 AM

LH,

You are confusing TARP and the Economic Stimulis Plan... BTW, this is exactly what the Repub PR machine wants... They don't want people to seperate them because in doing so then folks would have to realize that TARP, even though supported by the incoming president, was on George Bush... So the Repub PR mixers 'n mashers want to link it the Stimulis becaause it plays better... The fact that is a lioe is of no concern to the Repubs... They have become the Party of the Big Lie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:29 AM

Bobert, You say "You are confusing TARP and the Economic Stimulis Plan... BTW, this is exactly what the Repub PR machine wants."

I am glad you have decided that Amos is a part of the Repub PR machine- he has given more effort to proving Bush right than anyone else here, by his words that make it worse to agree with him than to decide he is wrong.

AMOS is the one who represents the Party of the Big lie, I guess. Or at least the Party of the Personal attack.


"From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:43 PM

...
You figure is one out for yourself. What MIGHT have happened is a lot more catastrophic than what did happen, because of TARP and Obama's Stimuus plan--regardless of your foaming diatribes to the contrary."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:31 AM

You're spewing sewage again, Brucie. Look up the word "and" carefully.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:03 AM

Righto, Bobert. Yes, I was confusing the two. Thanks for pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:51 AM

"the complete collapse was prevented"

No collapse ever began. There was no partial collapse or any kind of collapse at all, just an impending collapse that never happened at all, none what so ever because it was prevented.

What Amos needs to do is say that there was no collapse. The collapse was prevented like Obama said, instead of implying with carefull wording that the collapse was in progress but then reversed by Obama.

This is known as spin. I didn't see Obama put any spin on it.

Of course if a Republican does not state the absolute, literal binary truth, it is called a "Big Lie". Even when they do state the truth thay are called lies because of the double standard employed by Libs to prove their "abstract formulations" which they claim to be the truth.

By the way Amos, Has anyone ever been able to stop an avalanche?

I am not going to call you stupid Amos. I feel that such name calling has no place in a legitimate forum.

Bobert: Why is it so tedious to show who spent what? You would rather have the record say that GWB "gave" the money to the banks rather than loaned it to them. You would rather have it added to the Bush deficit and subtracted from the Obama deficit rather than the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:02 PM

Another Oboondoggle?

Consumer Agency Within Fed Seen as Victory for Banks
March 3 (Bloomberg) -- For consumer advocates, housing a new agency to protect Americans from financial-product abuse within the Federal Reserve would be a defeat after lobbying for an independent body. For banks, it would represent a victory.
      Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called a Senate plan to house the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency at the Fed "a joke." Shielding consumers from harmful financial products is "the most conspicuous failure by the Fed," Frank said in an interview yesterday.
      The Fed has an "innate conflict of interest" in trying to protect consumers while fulfilling its mission of safeguarding the rest of the financial system, billionaire George Soros said at a conference in New York today. "When Barney Frank called it a joke, I think he's right," Soros said.
      Banks say placing the agency with the Fed alleviates their concern that an independent entity would ignore the health of the financial system. Consumer advocates say it's a mistake because the Fed didn't succeed in curbing abuses during the subprime lending boom that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
      "We have all sorts of individual agencies that protect Americans, and none of them is subservient to the regulator that is in charge of looking out for the industry," said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Washington. "This agency has to be independent so that it can fix the problems the banking regulators failed to fix."
      The Obama administration's proposal for a consumer protection agency is part of the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s. Putting it inside the Fed, instead of creating a standalone bureau, was a compromise proposed by Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.
      Frank, who oversaw legislation passed by the House in December that would create an independent agency, said the chamber wouldn't accept the proposed deal. Senators joined in the criticism yesterday.
      Jeff Merkley of Oregon said the Fed had an "abysmal" record on consumer protection. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, said the entity shouldn't be autonomous within the Fed. "If you have something at the Federal Reserve, the Board of Governors ought to have the control," he said.
      Banking lobbyists say the Fed's knowledge of the banking system makes it well-suited to coordinate rules on credit cards and other consumer financial products.
      "Regulation of the products should be connected to the regulation of the bank," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the largest financial institutions.
      The financial-services industry has lobbied lawmakers to defeat the plan for a consumer agency. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called the agency "just a whole new bureaucracy" on a December conference call with analysts.
      The American Bankers Association, the largest trade group representing banks, organized hundreds of meetings with its members and Congressmen and spearheaded a campaign that encouraged almost 300,000 letters to be sent to Capitol Hill, all in opposition to the CFPA. ABA spokesman John Hall said the organization wouldn't comment on the Fed idea until the proposal became official.
      Consumer advocates say the Fed didn't use its authority to put in place stronger protections for home buyers as the subprime mortgage market began to expand earlier this decade. The Fed has the broadest authority of any regulator to write rules on lending practices and disclosure.
      The Fed's specific enforcement authority is limited to 800 state member banks. It wields much more clout as the supervisor of bank holding companies, such as Bank of America Corp., some of which had subprime mortgage lending subsidiaries.
      Some $600 billion in subprime mortgages were originated in 2006, up from $310 billion in 2003, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. The Fed began to hold hearings around the country in 2006, and consumer advocates provided details of abuse, transcripts from the meetings show.
      "We were yelling at them in 2001 and 2002" to use their authority, says Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending in Durham, North Carolina, and the current chairman of the Fed Board's Consumer Advisory Council. "It wasn't like people didn't know this stuff was going on."
      Edward Gramlich, a Fed Governor from 1997 to 2005, proposed that the Fed use its bank holding company authority to examine subprime lending subsidiaries. The proposal was opposed by then- Chairman Alan Greenspan, he said, and never went to the Board of Governors. Gramlich died in September 2007. Greenspan in the past has declined to comment.
      Among the subprime casualties on Wall Street: Bear Stearns Cos., acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. with help from the Fed, Merrill Lynch & Co., taken over by Bank of America, and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which went bankrupt.
      Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke began to step up restrictions on subprime lending only after Congress threatened to strip the Fed of its authority. In a June 2007 hearing, Frank told then- governor Randall Kroszner: "Use it or lose it."
      "If the Fed doesn't start to use that authority to roll out the rules, then we'll give it to somebody who will," Frank said.
      The Fed drafted tougher mortgage lending rules in 2007 and completed them in 2008. The rules prevented mortgages for borrowers with no documented income, required lenders to write loans borrowers could repay and made escrow accounts mandatory for high-cost mortgages. The Fed also toughened restrictions on prepayment penalties.
      Separately, the Fed has forced credit-card companies to improve disclosure and has increased its scrutiny of possible discrimination in lending. The central bank referred 17 cases to the Justice Department in the three-year period ending 2009, up from nine the prior three years....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:05 PM

Sawz:

Definitions can be formed by describing actions (the process of falling apart is called a collapse) or states "When it was finished collapsing the tower was completely collapsed"). Your inability to deal with this facet of language has glued you to a single definition of a word which may only be applied to a terminal state. But that is a narrow view of themeaning of the word. A quick search using the Define: function of Google, for example, brings up:

"# break down, literally or metaphorically; "The wall collapsed"; "The business collapsed"; "The dam broke"; "The roof collapsed"; "The wall gave in"; "The roof finally gave under the weight of the ice"
# break down: collapse due to fatigue, an illness, or a sudden attack
# fold or close up; "fold up your umbrella"; "collapse the music stand"
# crumble: fall apart; "the building crumbled after the explosion"; "Negotiations broke down"
# an abrupt failure of function or complete physical exhaustion; "the commander's prostration demoralized his men"
# cause to burst; "The ice broke the pipe"
# a natural event caused by something suddenly falling down or caving in; "the roof is in danger of collapse"; "the collapse of the old star under its own gravity"
# crack up: suffer a nervous breakdown
# flop: the act of throwing yourself down; "he landed on the bed with a great flop"
# lose significance, effectiveness, or value; "The school system is collapsing"; "The stock market collapsed"
# crash: a sudden large decline of business or the prices of stocks (especially one that causes additional failures) "

I have underlined the ones relevant to this discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

You two just aren't going to let go of the old bone of contention, are you? ;-) I've seen Dachshunds doing exactly the same sort of thing, but it usually doesn't last nearly this long!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:01 PM

LH:

Don't be so judgmental. Be grateful that you are only occasional judged for your own persistent delusions on this forum, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

And usually by you. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:03 PM

Yeah...well, I have no idea why you elected me, but one must serve where one is called, mustn't one?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM

True enough, pard. "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

I'm with you, LH... I don't understand why Sawz is so obsessed with whether the economy that Bush turned over to Obma was collapsing or had collapsed... Twiddle dee, twiddle dum... Both strongly imply that it was a very messed up situation... Neither is a ringing endorsement of the Bush administration economic policies...

Me thinks this has become like one of those "hot spots" that dachounds get occasionally on a leg where they just can't stop lickin'... The boy (Sawz) just no longer has any control of himself... He thinks, I guess, that he is amking some kinda point but, for the life of me, I am clueless as to what point that might be???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM

He's trying to humble Amos and get him to admit he made an error.

It takes a lot of hubris to try that! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

LOL!! Now, c'mon, Hawkster, be fair. I have often admitted errors in various threads, but not until I believe I made them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:54 PM

FOXNews.com: The White House has gone on the offensive this week and it's about time they did. The President has taken on the Republicans on health care. He was conciliatory in his East Room speech this week but it was clear that the time has come to pass health care. History is on his side. Had the Carter plan or Clinton plan been passed health care would not be taking a huge percentage of the GDP right now.

This new get tough tactic is showcasing President Obama at his best. And the tactic is beginning to show up in the polls, too. Although, in truth, the president has just a 46-50 percent approval rating. On Friday, his Real Clear Politics average was 48.7 percent.

In late February the president had an unscheuled press conference in the Press room. He did not use the TelePrompter when he answered questions and he appeared resonable but tough. He said, "Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want." Quoting the late Senator Pat Moynihan he said of the Republicans, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to your own facts." When he touched on the Republicans holding up nominations, including one that was delayed for nine months although the nominee was eventually confirmed 96-0, he said "That's not advise and consent, that's delay and obstruct."

At the Republican House Issues conference in Baltimore, President Obama showed that he sympathizes with GOP concerns. Not only that he was able to explain to them that polls show that the public sides with him on important issues like tax cuts and unemployment assistance.

Mr. Obama was able to answer Republican questions without getting defensive, and in doing so, displayed a depth of knowledge previously doubted by the the GOP, whose members often characterize him as a good speech-giver but not much else. He did the same when he spoke to Democratic Senators, taking questions from Senators feeling the 2010 election heat.

Refusing to be painted as being soft on terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week refuting McConnell's accusations that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be held as an enemy combatant, and therefore should not have been read his Miranda rights. Holder's letter said that he had stuck with the Bush administration's policy -- which used the criminal justice system to try over 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges.

Holder also pointed out the fact that only two people apprehended in this country have been held under the law of war: Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Mari. Holder said that in both cases, transfer to the law of war raised serious statutory and constitutional questions in the courts, and spawned lengthy litigation.

The GOP sent out talking points to radio shows and reporters questioning the reading of Mr. Abdulmutallab's Miranda rights. But again, Holder came out swinging, pointing out that many terror suspects held by the Bush administration had been read their Miranda rights -- in one case 20 minutes after apprehension and several times within a 48-hour period afterwards. The Bush administration found that they got cooperation from apprehended terror suspects, even after the Miranda readings.

On the same topic, Senator Kit Bond said the White House released classified information during a background briefing. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went straight after Bond, calling on the Republican Senator to apologize to the men and women in our intelligence agency, as they would never give out classified information to the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Amos,

"When he touched on the Republicans holding up nominations, including one that was delayed for nine months although the nominee was eventually confirmed 96-0, he said "That's not advise and consent, that's delay and obstruct"

Yet you seemed to think it was ok in the case of BUSH appointees. So, you think tyhat Obama needs a different, lower set of standards to apply for what reason? His race? His lack of intelligence? Come on, explain it to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

He needs a different set of standards because he's on the "good" side...the side Amos likes! ;-) That's how it works in partisan politics. Errors and imperfections are easily forgiven if committed by those we like....but NEVER forgiven when committed by those we dislike! This is the basic principle that drives all partisan dialogue, Bruce. ;-)

(and it's one of the reasons I detest the very idea of having political parties)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM

Bruce:

I have said nothing either way about Bush appointees, and I think you are being disingenuous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:56 PM

Ok Amos. Bullshit your way through this one.

Redefine eradicated so it appears that something that happened 1n 1999 happened in the 1980's.

"Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

Another Obama Flip Flop but one I agree with:

AP News Mar 05, 2010

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior officials said......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

"The economy avalanched"

How do you stop or reverse an avalanche Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:14 PM

Avalanche is a noun. An economy can't "avalanche".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

Ya' know, it takes a certain amount of wisdom to "flip-flop"... Bush did not have this wisdom... He thought of himself as "The Decider" and once that decision was made it was cast in stone (just like his head)... I respect that Obama has shown an ability to change course where and when required... That is real leadership and that how people are successful...

As fir appointees, I recently heard that the Repubs are holding up 60% of Obama's appointees... Now I have not spent any time Googling up how many of Bush's were held up at a similar point in his presidency but I would be mazed if it was anywhere near 60%... And these aren't even Federal judes... These are just folks who work in various governemnt agencies...

What else??? Oh yeah, the avalamche??? What, are we now debating whether the US economy was collapsing or caught in an avalance when Bush was done with it??? Geeze, Louise!!! Fact is stranger than fiction!!!

How about this one: It sucked!!! That better???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:34 PM

Amos 04 Nov 09 - 03:46 PM

"When Obama took office, there were widespread fears that the system was on the verge of collapse"

Didn't you say that the economy collapsed?

Back then you said it was on the verge of collapse meaning it had not collapsed and was not collapsing or partially collapsed.

In other words, there was no collapse at all because it was prevented before it collapsed.

Even then the possibility of a collapse was only a widespread fear meaning it may not have been on the verge of collapse at all but only feared to be on the verge of collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:44 PM

Let's say you're in a house, and it partially collapses. But not entirely.

That's still one hell of a big problem, isn't it?

I wouldn't want to live in a partially collapsed house, specially if I was under the part that fell down.

That's the position a lot of people find themselves in when the economy takes a turn for the worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:53 PM

Well, Amos... Just throw in the towell here... Admit that George Bush's economic policies musta been not so sucky afterall because the economy that he left Obama had not collapsed but was just in a state of collapsing... That oughtta settle this thing once and for all... Maybe get Bush an award somewhere at some school of economics... Like the Bob Jones University School of Economics... Maybe they give George an honorary PHD for the fine job he did in gettin' outta the way before the total collapse, I donno???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 02:20 AM

As long as the house is partially collapsed. But Amos does not say partially collapsed. He says collapsed.

But Mr Obama says the collapse was avoided.

Further more he says it was the bailout was the right thing to do.

I agree with Obama. It did not collapse because a collapse was avoided and it was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:09 AM

Test...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:13 AM

Nevermind... I wrote a rather long post which is in another window but it wouldn't post and I gotta go so I'll have to rewrite it later...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

Sawz:

How about you let it go, and call me out on a more serious misstatement that the tense and state of language? What do you think this is, a grammar contest?

TARP was necessary, according to Paulson and Bush, because the economy was collapsing.

If you think there was no collapse, survey the thousands who lost their homes, their jobs, or both because of your non-collapse.

Sure, it could have collapsed further.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

The thing that I find rather unbelievable is that anyone would be putting forth a defense of the Bush economic policies by arguing that when Bush turned the country over to Obama that the economy was collapsing??? This is a rediculous argument... Face it, these policies of Bush were a failure... The two tax cuts were irresponsible... They didn't create the jobs that Bush & Co. said that they would...

(But, Boberdz... The unemployement rate was only 5% or less for most of those years...)

Yes, it was... But lets take the wrapper off those figures and see what was really happening... The US was borrowing lots of $$$ from China to build what??? Infastructure??? Factories??? Nah, about all that got built with that borrowed money were houses... And the money that was lent to folks to by them was also borrowed... I reckon that is why the 00s is being called the "lost decade"...

But the US oughtta know all about "lost decades" when it comes to the economy... The 80's was the same... Lots of huffin' 'n puffin' by Repubs about tax and spend Dem but out-of-control spending and not-paying-the-bills by Reagan... And at the end of Reagan's administartion??? A housing bubble and another collapsing economy...

Ya'll see... There is a pattern here... The Repub talk the talk but won't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility... I saw a chart recently of the deficits during the last 30 or so years and it's amazing how the deficits are much higher under Repub administartions than undewr Dems.... Seems that Dems constantly have to come in an restore fiscal discipline fater yet another drunken-sailor spending spree of yet another Repb... Carter cleaned up after Nixon and Ford... Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Bush I and
now...

... looks as if Obama is gonna have to clean up after Bush II...

But, hey??? According to Sawz the economy didn't completely collapse under Bush II... I guess that is what he is arguing... I donno, If I were Sawz I'd just pick another issue to debate 'cause this one is a losin' one for his side...

B~
...looks as if Obama is going to

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM

"I guess that is what he is arguing... I donno"

You are completely correct about not knowing Bobert.

Amos:"If you think there was no collapse"

Obama:"the financial system did not collapse".

What part of "did not collapse" do you not understand Amos?

I notice you keep skipping over your Reagan eradicated statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:39 PM

Well, yeah, Sawz... I am clueless how you go about forming responsible opiniones with such a limited knowledge of real events, past or present...

(Maybe they aren't responsible opinions, Boberdz???)

Well, that's what I meant...

Case in point is the completelu dumbass defense of George Bush's economic policies by arguing that the economy that Bush left was collapsing??? That is not a logical argument... Or the argument about the Dems being the party of slavery without the historical perspective that the Dems of old ain't the same Dems of today...

I mean, no offense here, pal, but your arguments just aren't too grounded on knowledge...

Yeah, okay, you can call me a pot-head 'er whatever makes you warm and fuzzy but I do have 30 some college credits in history and another 20 or so in poli-sci... Add to that 20 years working in the jail house, a drug treatment facility and as a social worker not to mention that I read alot of current events stuff everyday, I'd say that this pot-head has worked purdy hard at trying to find the real story and not the propaganda that is found in the company fight song...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

My opinion is the same as Mr Obama's:

NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
East Room July 22,2009

"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

It don't sound like rocket science to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:08 PM

It's getting awful close Amos. If he sinks below 50/50 will the media turn on him like a pack of wild dogs on a rabbit?

RCP Averages

  Obama job approval                Approve    Disapprove         Spread
  RCP Average        2/17 - 3/9      48.6%        46.1%            +2.5
  
  Health Care Plan                   For      Against
  RCP Average 2/13 - 3/8             41.3%     48.9%  Against/Oppose +7.6
  

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:57 PM

Sorry to interject something that doesn't matter at all, but...

Why are there two of these threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:05 AM

One was started before there even was an Obama administration, when he was but a candidate.

Sawz: Your irresponsible media whangers have demonsrated time and time again they can lead a lot of half-wits into positions of bad judgement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM

Kansas City had to shut down schools today, 700 people are out of work and kids can't go to school due to lack of money while Obama's deficit spending can find billions of dollars to piss away important things like pig odor research. What is more important than educating kids?

Kansas City to Close Nearly Half Its Schools

Before the Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have shorn 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the $410 billion spending bill, the Arizona senator twittered lists of offensive bipartisan pork, including:

$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York.
$1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, Tex.
$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa.
$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah.
$819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama.
$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi.
$951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas.
$2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii
$167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles.
$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii.
$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past.
$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

Hey, man....DON'T underestimate the importance of eliminating pig odor!!! ;-)

I doubt that Obama personally had much to do with thinking up any of that stuff you listed. It's probably been put together by an army of lobbyists, lawyers, special interests, and bureaucratic bean counters of every type imaginable.

Do really think the head of the this giant governmental chicken knows what the rest of the damn chicken is doing or can control it? I don't. I think the head got cut off long ago, and the headless body is just running around the yard, bleeding money and making a bunch of noise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

Well Amos, you don't mind hooting what the irresponsible media whangers say if it supports your agenda.

From Amos Nov 2008:

Indeed, recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find the public exuberant about Mr. Obama and optimistic that he will solve the nation's problems.

The Gallup Poll also showed Mr. Obama getting a higher post-election favorable rating (68 percent) than either George W. Bush in 2000 (56 percent) or Bill Clinton in 1992 (60 percent).

I don't think you are stupid or evil or mean or wrong all the time Amos. I simply believe you get caught up in the irrational exuberance of whomever you believe to be in the majority.

Nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time, Idolizing or Demonizing people is not using good judgment. That is gang mentality.

You have to make your own judgment of things that people say and do on an item by item basis, not with some sweeping "he is all bad" or "he is all good" mentality.

The media whangers use this to their advantage, for a profit, while the nations problems get worse instead of better.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped using the "he is all bad" or "he is all good" approach?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

Sorry. That last sentence should start with the words: "Do you really think..." to read properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:08 PM

"Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped using the "he is all bad" or "he is all good" approach?"

Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:27 PM

Yeah LH and after he campaigned on no more earmarks, he signed the bill and said "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government,"

State spends about $140,000 on signs for stimulus projects
Oct. 16--The reflective, green sign stands out among the orange construction cones and miles of freshly paved road eastbound on Interstate 84 in Pike County.

Its white lettering reads "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

The sign, and three others in Northeast Pennsylvania, are supposed to serve as a nice reminder that federal stimulus funds are putting Pennsylvanians to work.

However, the price tag of the signs, about $2,342 each, has created controversy. Pennsylvania has spent nearly $140,000 on 63 signs to mark 33 construction projects paid for with stimulus funds.