Every time she opens her mouth...

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
No Peter, I thought Bush did a poor job from day one. Even though Kerry wasn't much, I was still dumbfounded that Bush was re-elected. Sorry.

Besides the default answer of "The Iraq War", what Bush instituted policies caused "a mess".

And if "The Iraq War" is your only answer, what has King Barry done to fix any of that? He promised to bring home the troops...not even close(though now I find it odd that the constant mention of our troops in Iraq seems absent from the mainstream media, don't you?).
He promised to close Gitmo... didn't happen and isn't going to happen. We heard that Bush handled Katrina badly... Ol King Barry didn't handle the oil spill all that well did he? Does he hate black people too? Barry promised to end the Bush tax cuts that "helped only the richest of the rich", yet he just signed to extend them. Besides going against the wishes of the citizens of the country(and The Constitution) by forcing Obamacare down our throats, what the heck has he done to warrant you saying he's done a good job?

"It's the economy, Stupid"

So, your argument is that BushII was a Dem?

What about Medicare Part D, a totally unfunded program, comprising the largest entitlement since the original Medicare bill.

Patriot Act?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
So, your argument is that BushII was a Dem?

What about Medicare Part D, a totally unfunded program, comprising the largest entitlement since the original Medicare bill.

Patriot Act?

Good points, that rotten Bastard.

Peter, Obama wanted to end tax cuts for the rich, but he couldn't get the votes in congress to get it done. You KNOW that.

JUST ONE of the things I hated about the Bush years, besides the mess he helped make of the economy, and besides the war, is his ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES.

quote:

what Bush instituted policies created "the mess"?

Here are a few of his "greatest hits" that passed with a Republican controlled Congress.

American Dream Downpayment Act - contributed to the housing bubble

Medicare Part D - a massive unfunded entitlement program

No Child Left Behind - by all accounts, a giant mess that greatly centralized federal control and funding of education

Sarbanes Oxley - a regulatory mess that many believe has hampered small companies from growing in the US and damaged job growth

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - a gift to banks and credit card companies. Ironically, when the institutions that this benefited the most were facing bankruptcy, Bush was perfectly OK giving them billions of dollars.

There's 5 off the top of my head. The guy was a lousy president, no real way around it.

I disagree with lousy, you did say congress passed them.

If you want to be fair, how about the 16 times the Bush admin tried to rein in Freddie and Fanny?

Or Carter and the CRA?

It was a mess long before Bush and will be one long after. Obama is pushing for even more regulation so I doubt it won't turn out to be a giant mess as well.

Bush also tried to control SS and help get it on track, no dice.

As for giving billions of dollars away to business, don't forget TARP (half Bush/half Obama) and Obama's personal bailouts of banks, car companies, and the wasted tax credit we all got and never noticed. $13 bucks a week, I think?

Obama won't save us alone, and no president got us into this mess alone.

quote:

I disagree with lousy, you did say congress passed them.

Well, it always works that way. They were Bush's initiatives. Bush's party had control of Congress. Bush signed them into law.

quote:

If you want to be fair, how about the 16 times the Bush admin tried to rein in Freddie and Fanny?

Fannie and Freddie endorsed his reform. You can rest assured that when those about to be subjected to regulation endorse their own regulation, it will be ineffective. Beyond that, you'd have to ask his party why they didn't move that legislation forward.

quote:

Or Carter and the CRA?

I'm not endorsing the CRA, but it didn't cause the housing bubble.

quote:

Bush also tried to control SS and help get it on track, no dice.

He tried to privatize it - funnel the money to Wall Street. He had no plan for the projected short falls.

quote:

As for giving billions of dollars away to business, don't forget TARP (half Bush/half Obama)

Wrong. TARP was signed into law by Bush alone.

quote:

Obama won't save us alone, and no president got us into this mess alone.

No argument there. They've all done a lousy job, some more than others, but none are innocent.

Bush signed TARP, but co-president Obama spent the second half.


CRA did indeed lead to the conditions that caused the housing bubble. It was the start of the sub prime loans to risky signers. It was only more intensified as it passed from one admin to the next. The down-payment act was stupid, no argument there.

SS will probably need a separate savings account the way it is going. That is all Bush was trying to do. It was to add a separate account, not privatize it.

quote:

Bush signed TARP, but co-president Obama spent the second half.

There's really no point in going back and forth over this. If your contention is that president's are responsible for legislation when they don't attempt to reverse course from previous administrations, I won't really argue with that. Still, only one president at any given time has the opportunity to sign legislation into law or veto it. With TARP, that was Bush.

quote:

CRA did indeed lead to the conditions that caused the housing bubble.

No evidence supports this. Most sub-prime loans were made independently of CRA requirements. I'm not saying the CRA was good or necessary, but it didn't cause the housing bubble.

quote:

SS will probably need a separate savings account the way it is going. That is all Bush was trying to do. It was to add a separate account, not privatize it.

He wanted to allow people to divert payroll taxes into private accounts, thus reducing the payroll taxes paid into Social Security. This would not have addressed projected shortfalls and would have actually made them worse.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by rexkwondo72:
Apparently you have never seen a Bugs Bunny Cartoon Boy you are a dummy Now go and get your shinebox ya Dolt!

Ah, now I get it--you are in the same league--intellectually--as a rabbit! I would have ranked you within the lower range of of the new world monkeys, but I shall now have to revise that downward.

Betern nuttin,

Seriously, I wonder about you level of knowledge, not only of academics, but of popular American touchstones. Not to recognize Bugs Bunny saying,"whatta maroon!" Or, Daffy Duck blurting out,"That's despicable," with appropriate Bronx cheer pronunciation is puzzling. I know three generations of Americans who recognize the reference. Were you kept in a garret or basement and spoon fed your education?

I am reminded of the Germans, trained by Otto Skorzany, who dressed as US soldiers and spoke good english, who attempted to infiltrate the US lines in the Ardennes Offensive. US soldiers used popular cultural references to detect those infiltrators. "Who is Mickey Mouse's girl friend?" Which the Germans couldn't answer. Its Minnie, in case, you were never told.

You make a good English school mar'm, but you really should get out more often.

Daffy's "That's despicable" is something I am very familiar with. That I was not conversant with Bugs' "Maroon" is no definitive indicator of my general knowledge level, which, I assure you, is very well above average.

I wonder if you know what kind of query American soldiers made of suspected Japanese soldiers in night-time operations in the Pacific theater in WW II.

As to the Japanese, easy answer. If heard, a sentry called out the current sign. If the proper counter-sign wasn't given, he answered with a few .30'06 rounds.

This GEM is from FOX NATION!!!!!!
YES, rethugliteacons, THAT FOX NATION!!!!!!!!!!!
My anti-virus software almost went on overload, BUT notice the remarks section. FROM THE POSTERS AT FOX NATION!!!!!!!!!!
Sister Sarah is GONE if she can't even keep the crowd at FOX NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let the mourning begin: TD politics forum FOXOPHILES

FROM: FOX NATION!!!!!!!!???

http://nation.foxnews.com/poli...er-negative-feedback

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by rexkwondo72:
Apparently you have never seen a Bugs Bunny Cartoon Boy you are a dummy Now go and get your shinebox ya Dolt!

Ah, now I get it--you are in the same league--intellectually--as a rabbit! I would have ranked you within the lower range of of the new world monkeys, but I shall now have to revise that downward.

Betern nuttin,

Seriously, I wonder about you level of knowledge, not only of academics, but of popular American touchstones. Not to recognize Bugs Bunny saying,"whatta maroon!" Or, Daffy Duck blurting out,"That's despicable," with appropriate Bronx cheer pronunciation is puzzling. I know three generations of Americans who recognize the reference. Were you kept in a garret or basement and spoon fed your education?

I am reminded of the Germans, trained by Otto Skorzany, who dressed as US soldiers and spoke good english, who attempted to infiltrate the US lines in the Ardennes Offensive. US soldiers used popular cultural references to detect those infiltrators. "Who is Mickey Mouse's girl friend?" Which the Germans couldn't answer. Its Minnie, in case, you were never told.

You make a good English school mar'm, but you really should get out more often.

Daffy's "That's despicable" is something I am very familiar with. That I was not conversant with Bugs' "Maroon" is no definitive indicator of my general knowledge level, which, I assure you, is very well above average.

I wonder if you know what kind of query American soldiers made of suspected Japanese soldiers in night-time operations in the Pacific theater in WW II.

As to the Japanese, easy answer. If heard, a sentry called out the current sign. If the proper counter-sign wasn't given, he answered with a few .30'06 rounds.

Never heard of that one. But my sources, now passed on to the great beyond, told me that they used code words with lots of "L's," as in lollapalooza. They shouted the word into the darkness and demanded that the hearer repeat it loudly and clearly. If it came back as raraparooza, the hostilities began.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
Peter, Obama wanted to end tax cuts for the rich, but he couldn't get the votes in congress to get it done. You KNOW that.

JUST ONE of the things I hated about the Bush years, besides the mess he helped make of the economy, and besides the war, is his ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES.

But ending tax cuts on the rich doesn't clean the mess, it's dumping more trash on the mess. You penalize rich folks for being rich and they quit spending their money in America on things like wages to employees. That has been proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER again to be a flawed vision. (Check the Jimmah Carter years) It is NOT the federal government's place to forceably remove ANYONE'S money from them, no matter how much they have. Do you disagree with that statement? And if you do, how do you see your stance as Constitutional?

Do you agree that Bush only "helped" make the mess of the economy then? He helped liberal democrats when they took over the House and the Senate. We all seem to be forgetting the boom in the economy in the middle of his time in office. If not of the Iraq War, there would have been very little bad to say about him, and if not for the Iraq War the focus wouldve been on that booming economy and the demos wouldve never taken control. What IMPROVEMENTS have occured with the demos in power???

Environmental policies? What did he do that isn't still being done under King Barry's rule?

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

what Bush instituted policies created "the mess"?

Here are a few of his "greatest hits" that passed with a Republican controlled Congress.

American Dream Downpayment Act - contributed to the housing bubble

Medicare Part D - a massive unfunded entitlement program

No Child Left Behind - by all accounts, a giant mess that greatly centralized federal control and funding of education

Sarbanes Oxley - a regulatory mess that many believe has hampered small companies from growing in the US and damaged job growth

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - a gift to banks and credit card companies. Ironically, when the institutions that this benefited the most were facing bankruptcy, Bush was perfectly OK giving them billions of dollars.

There's 5 off the top of my head. The guy was a lousy president, no real way around it.

I dislike the American Dream Downpayment Act... but that should be right up a lib's ally!! What fault could a lib find in that?

I dislike anything about Medicare unless we are talking about scraping it all together and letting folks be responsible for their own money. But once again, not seeing why libs hate this bill. That's 2 liberal looking policies so far.

No Child Left Behind is an obvious junk bill simply because we should want LESS government in our schools and not more. Once again, a 3rd liberal policy... Why did ya'll hate Bush so much??

I haven't heard of the "Sarbanes Oxley" deal before that... but after reading over it, once again, LIBS SHOULD'VE LOVED THIS GUY!!! More gov't oversight of the private sector...Why all the hateraid for a guy that passed this many lib leaning policies?

The Bankruptcy deal.. once again.. looks like something LIBS WOULD LOVE at least a little. lol.. To me, bankruptcy of anykind is a scapegoat to bad decision making and outside the relm of federal gov't interference. But libs love the fed gov't bailing folks out.

Please, some liberal democrat show me the problem with any of these!!! I couldn't tell if these were Bush policies or Barry policies. WHY DID YA'LL HATE THIS GUY??

If you like the left-leaning policies of BushII, why do you hate OBama???...and love BushII.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
If you like the left-leaning policies of BushII, why do you hate OBama???...and love BushII.

Find one post where I ever mentioned I "loved" W, or thought he was a great prez and I'll answer that for ya.

Just to save you the time, I've never stated that. In many ways, Bush was worse simply because he was viewed as a "conservative" when he really wasn't. But there are stages of socialism and Bush was in that "inbetween" stage. As most republicans, he "leans" towards constitutional conservatism just enough that folks like me vote for them with the "lesser of 2 evils" vote. Folks like Barry are committed socialists, and no matter their words to attempt to contradict that now, their words and actions have already proven it time and time again.
Folks like me, true contitutional conservatives, want NO socialist policies. With Bush we got way more than we wanted, but with Barry that's all we would get if he had his way on the matter. Unfortunately, that's what folks like me are left with...finding politicians who can "stem the tide" of socialism. But there are really no true constitutional conservatives out there for us to vote for in terms of the next prez. At least not any I've seen that may run just yet.

BushII did nothing that even resembles a Conservative. BushII just panders to whomever his personal interests have aligned him with. He was a hypocrite, the result of voting for the lesser of evils. OBama is exactly what this country needs: a POTUS so polarizing that a third viable party may be formed.

quote:

I believe that Sarah Palin is not suitable for the Presidency

Neither is the current occupant! But that did not keep a bunch of idiots from voting for him.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

what Bush instituted policies created "the mess"?

Here are a few of his "greatest hits" that passed with a Republican controlled Congress.

American Dream Downpayment Act - contributed to the housing bubble

Medicare Part D - a massive unfunded entitlement program

No Child Left Behind - by all accounts, a giant mess that greatly centralized federal control and funding of education

Sarbanes Oxley - a regulatory mess that many believe has hampered small companies from growing in the US and damaged job growth

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - a gift to banks and credit card companies. Ironically, when the institutions that this benefited the most were facing bankruptcy, Bush was perfectly OK giving them billions of dollars.

There's 5 off the top of my head. The guy was a lousy president, no real way around it.

I dislike the American Dream Downpayment Act... but that should be right up a lib's ally!! What fault could a lib find in that?

I dislike anything about Medicare unless we are talking about scraping it all together and letting folks be responsible for their own money. But once again, not seeing why libs hate this bill. That's 2 liberal looking policies so far.

No Child Left Behind is an obvious junk bill simply because we should want LESS government in our schools and not more. Once again, a 3rd liberal policy... Why did ya'll hate Bush so much??

I haven't heard of the "Sarbanes Oxley" deal before that... but after reading over it, once again, LIBS SHOULD'VE LOVED THIS GUY!!! More gov't oversight of the private sector...Why all the hateraid for a guy that passed this many lib leaning policies?

The Bankruptcy deal.. once again.. looks like something LIBS WOULD LOVE at least a little. lol.. To me, bankruptcy of anykind is a scapegoat to bad decision making and outside the relm of federal gov't interference. But libs love the fed gov't bailing folks out.

Please, some liberal democrat show me the problem with any of these!!! I couldn't tell if these were Bush policies or Barry policies. WHY DID YA'LL HATE THIS GUY??

Obviously liberals did NOT like Bush, so there goes your premise that we love "socialist" policies. What we love are policies that WORK for the betterment of America.


And just SOME of his environmental policies that I hated are these:

Appointing a former lawyer for utility companies (major polluters) as head of the EPA.

Putting a former lobbyist for the meat industry in charge of meat labeling.

Putting a former energy lobbyist in charge of handing out oil drilling leases.

Reducing pollution runoff limits for factory farms.

Removing some of the safeguards from the Clean Air Act - for example deciding that utility companies did NOT have to install modern pollution control devices when upgrading their output.

Deeming that coal fired power plants could be built near national parks, where they had been previously limited.

Allowing logging and mining in national forests.

Deciding that companies who engaged in mountaintop removal mining could deposit the sludge in nearby streams. (That was one of the first things Obama reversed when he took office.)

There is a PARTIAL list.

quote:

American Dream Downpayment Act - contributed to the housing bubble

Medicare Part D - a massive unfunded entitlement program

No Child Left Behind - by all accounts, a giant mess that greatly centralized federal control and funding of education

Sarbanes Oxley - a regulatory mess that many believe has hampered small companies from growing in the US and damaged job growth

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - a gift to banks and credit card companies. Ironically, when the institutions that this benefited the most were facing bankruptcy, Bush was perfectly OK giving them billions of dollars.

There's 5 off the top of my head. The guy was a lousy president, no real way around it.

All progressive ideas! How many dimwits voted against them? A liberal or progressive idea is bad whether it is promoted by a democrat or republican!

No O No!, you do LOVE socialist policies, but only when a proven leftist lib is laying them out. If King Barry attempted to pass those exact same bills, ya'll would LOVE IT!! That's the problem. Ya'll's ideology follows certain people who have convinced ya'll that the evil ol republicans are out to get you. It is impossible to be objective when you only look at the situation with one eye closed. We should be looking at CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS before we start with policy making. That is what is getting ignored by all, but you only want to bash republicans for it. mad American said it best... socialist policies are bad no matter who is coming up with them. Barack Obama came out full steam ahead with it, and that is the reason for the backlash against him, and why he is backtracking. Socialism is a backdoor deal. It has to be snuck in in small sections over a period of time. That way the citizens unknowingly become dependent on the government for more and more and more until POOF... Constitutional rights are null and void.

What we need is someone from one of the political parties to stand up, make hard decisions, and BE HONEST. And then for Americans to drop the pity party whinin and realize it is THEIR responsibility to take care of themselves and NOT the governments.

As for the energy stuff... Some could be bad, some could be good...who knows. But King Barry hasn't ended polution in any way. He has done nothing to stem the tide of evil of man-made global warming. To cozy to him because he is any better on environmental issues is empty to say the least. But talking about appointments is really crazy... How do you feel about Barry appointing KNOWN AND ADMITTED COMMUNISTS to high ranking positions in his staff? If that doesn't bother you, then nothing should.

Bottom line is, nothing will get better until we find a way to make the citizens understand that sucking at the nipple of the gov't IS NOT THE FOUNDATION THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON. The gov't will continue to fail when it is attempting tasks it was not set up to handle.

Peter-

You asked how Bush contributed to "the mess," and I showed you a few examples. I'm not interested in giving pieces of legislation the lables of "liberal" or "conservative." Legislation is either good or bad. Presidents are either good or bad. Bush was bad.

You then say this:

quote:

But there are stages of socialism and Bush was in that "inbetween" stage. As most republicans, he "leans" towards constitutional conservatism just enough that folks like me vote for them with the "lesser of 2 evils" vote. Folks like Barry are committed socialists, and no matter their words to attempt to contradict that now, their words and actions have already proven it time and time again.

Bush didn't lean towards constitutional conservatism. He might have said he did in a speech a few times, but his actions prove otherwise. If Obama is a "committed socialist," so are most of the president's we've elected in the last 30-40 years. He's bad, but he's not that much worse than the rest of them, and in some areas might be better. I'm not trying to defend Obama, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend he's so much worse than the alternatives.

quote:

No O No!, you do LOVE socialist policies, but only when a proven leftist lib is laying them out. If King Barry attempted to pass those exact same bills, ya'll would LOVE IT!!

Peter, DON'T try to tell me what I think. You don't know me, and you don't know anything about how I think except what I have written in these forums. And if you HAD been paying attention to what I have written in these forums you would know that there are many CONSERVATIVE ideas that I subscribe to, as well as many liberal ones.

As I have already SAID, I don't care whether an idea or policy is considered liberal or conservative. What I care about is A) will it work?, B) will it cause more harm than good?, and C) is it REALISTIC?

Most of Bush's policies failed at all three. THAT is why I didn't like Bush. If he had had a D behind his name I would have disliked him just as much.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:

quote:

No O No!, you do LOVE socialist policies, but only when a proven leftist lib is laying them out. If King Barry attempted to pass those exact same bills, ya'll would LOVE IT!!

Peter, DON'T try to tell me what I think. You don't know me, and you don't know anything about how I think except what I have written in these forums. And if you HAD been paying attention to what I have written in these forums you would know that there are many CONSERVATIVE ideas that I subscribe to, as well as many liberal ones.

As I have already SAID, I don't care whether an idea or policy is considered liberal or conservative. What I care about is A) will it work?, B) will it cause more harm than good?, and C) is it REALISTIC?

Most of Bush's policies failed at all three. THAT is why I didn't like Bush. If he had had a D behind his name I would have disliked him just as much.

But you said you thought Barry was doing a good job though. That's a contradiction to your one points of contention.
Policies that will A) work? B)cause more harm than good and C) Realistic?

King Barry's policies have failed at all three of those over and over and over again. Why is he getting a pass in your eyes other than the fact that he is an obvious leftist liberal and Bush had the "conservative" tag on him?

I mentioned earlier...Not only has Obama not done away with many of the Bush policies you hated, he has continued them(Iraq, GITMO, Bush tax cuts). One of, if not the, first bill he signed was a tax hike on tobacco products..the "sin tax" if you will. How does that help the poor and needy? Now lower income folks just had to pay more for the cigs they were gonna buy anyway. Obamacare is an attempt at massive gov't takeover of the insurance business. The harm has been proven many times in the countries that already have that system and who's citizens subsequently come to America to get treatment. Bush F'ed up with the bail outs, so what does Barry do... he bails out more and 10 fold.

So once again I ask you...is it the policies you dislike or the person describing the policies from the words on a teleprompter.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Peter-

You asked how Bush contributed to "the mess," and I showed you a few examples. I'm not interested in giving pieces of legislation the lables of "liberal" or "conservative." Legislation is either good or bad. Presidents are either good or bad. Bush was bad.

You then say this:

quote:

But there are stages of socialism and Bush was in that "inbetween" stage. As most republicans, he "leans" towards constitutional conservatism just enough that folks like me vote for them with the "lesser of 2 evils" vote. Folks like Barry are committed socialists, and no matter their words to attempt to contradict that now, their words and actions have already proven it time and time again.

Bush didn't lean towards constitutional conservatism. He might have said he did in a speech a few times, but his actions prove otherwise. If Obama is a "committed socialist," so are most of the president's we've elected in the last 30-40 years. He's bad, but he's not that much worse than the rest of them, and in some areas might be better. I'm not trying to defend Obama, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend he's so much worse than the alternatives.

and I agreed with you that they were terrible policies... why so snippy with me??? lol

I agree that socialism has been a part of our elected officials for a long time... more like 70 or 80 years as opposed to the 30-40 you mentioned. My point to O No! was what you are saying. Bush and Obama are not all that different in their policy making decisions. Yet she despises Bush and adores Barry. I'm not that way... any socialist based policy is bad no matter if it is an R or D next to the name.

However, it is a valid statement that typically the R's are not as sold out to socialist policies as the D's are in modern day politics. I don't care which party does it, but one of them needs to, and that's get back to Constitutional honesty in policy making. The logical hope is for the R's to simply because they typically reside closer to that reality than do the D's right now.

I only say one of those two because I don't think anyone from a 3rd party could realistically win right now, and if it were a constitutional conservative platform, the R canidate would only lose votes to that platform. The D canidate would not be affected to near the same level.

Peter, you don't listen very well. YOU may not like what President Obama (not "Barry") has done, but I DO. Could he do more? Undoubtedly. But compared to Bush, he is a breath of fresh air. Seeing you seem not to have comprehended what I wrote the first time, I will repeat it.

quote:

Peter, DON'T try to tell me what I think. You don't know me, and you don't know anything about how I think except what I have written in these forums. And if you HAD been paying attention to what I have written in these forums you would know that there are many CONSERVATIVE ideas that I subscribe to, as well as many liberal ones.

As I have already SAID, I don't care whether an idea or policy is considered liberal or conservative. What I care about is A) will it work?, B) will it cause more harm than good?, and C) is it REALISTIC?

Most of Bush's policies failed at all three. THAT is why I didn't like Bush. If he had had a D behind his name I would have disliked him just as much.

The TARP money has been repaid. GM, Ford and Chrysler are all operating with a net profit for the first time in many years...

A large chunck of the OBama Stimulus was tax cuts, about $350billion of the $750billion bill.

Americans spend about 18% of GDP on health care, while Japan spends 9% and gets about the same results. The Repubs had years to fix the problem and did nothing. OBama said he would fix it and he passed legislation to do so. When the legislation is enacted in 2014, we will see if it works.

quote:

However, it is a valid statement that typically the R's are not as sold out to socialist policies as the D's are in modern day politics. I don't care which party does it, but one of them needs to, and that's get back to Constitutional honesty in policy making. The logical hope is for the R's to simply because they typically reside closer to that reality than do the D's right now.

Not really. Republicans might have the right rhetoric, but their actions don't place them any closer to the Constitution than the Democrats. Republicans will cut taxes, and that's about it. They won't cut spending, they won't de-regulate, they won't shrink government, and in many of these areas they are worse than Democrats. There is simply no reason to credit the modern (30-40 year old) Republican Party for being closer to Constitutionalism than the Democratic Party. It's all empty rhetoric.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

However, it is a valid statement that typically the R's are not as sold out to socialist policies as the D's are in modern day politics. I don't care which party does it, but one of them needs to, and that's get back to Constitutional honesty in policy making. The logical hope is for the R's to simply because they typically reside closer to that reality than do the D's right now.

Not really. Republicans might have the right rhetoric, but their actions don't place them any closer to the Constitution than the Democrats. Republicans will cut taxes, and that's about it. They won't cut spending, they won't de-regulate, they won't shrink government, and in many of these areas they are worse than Democrats. There is simply no reason to credit the modern (30-40 year old) Republican Party for being closer to Constitutionalism than the Democratic Party. It's all empty rhetoric.

I agree with you totally.. but you admitted part of my point. R's, when pushed into a corner, will at least cut the taxes. Dem's have to be pushed into a corner, then TIED TO A PIPE IN THAT CORNER to cut taxes.

As for the rest of your post, you are correct. Cutting taxes is only a small part of it. Some one who has the guts to tell the truth(the hard honest truth to panzied Americans) that along with cuts come spending cuts. The spending cuts and de-regualtion would serve to shrink the government. You and I are not apples and oranges, you don't have to tell me anything. I make Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

If you see some of my earlier posts on these forums you'll see my primary outcry has been over and over again, let us keep our money, and remove federal gov't from our day to day lives. Let citizens, communities, and states make decisions for ourselves, and make sure you are providing for our common defense. It seems simple, yet we have f'ed it up something fierce!

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
Peter, you don't listen very well. YOU may not like what President Obama (not "Barry") has done, but I DO. Could he do more? Undoubtedly. But compared to Bush, he is a breath of fresh air. Seeing you seem not to have comprehended what I wrote the first time, I will repeat it.

quote:

Peter, DON'T try to tell me what I think. You don't know me, and you don't know anything about how I think except what I have written in these forums. And if you HAD been paying attention to what I have written in these forums you would know that there are many CONSERVATIVE ideas that I subscribe to, as well as many liberal ones.

As I have already SAID, I don't care whether an idea or policy is considered liberal or conservative. What I care about is A) will it work?, B) will it cause more harm than good?, and C) is it REALISTIC?

Most of Bush's policies failed at all three. THAT is why I didn't like Bush. If he had had a D behind his name I would have disliked him just as much.

So are you denying that what Barry has done is basically the exact same as what Bush was doing?? It's almost the same EXACT policies except for the train wreck that is Obamacare. Why are those policies okay when Barry is running them, but when Bush is, they're bad? When, as I said... SAME EXACT POLICIES. lol

I dislike the policies by BOTH... but you like em when Barry is doin them but not when Bush was. Same policies.... different guys... one's an R one's a D.... hmmmmm.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
They're not the same policies at all peter, and if you can't see that, you don't WANT to. I think that instead, you just want a "debate". But one needs a valid topic for a debate, and this doesn't qualify because the basic premise is erroneous. Sorry.

quote:

you admitted part of my point. R's, when pushed into a corner, will at least cut the taxes. Dem's have to be pushed into a corner, then TIED TO A PIPE IN THAT CORNER to cut taxes.

Again, not really. Look, I'm not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing, but I just don't like to pretend that the Republican Party is in any way closer to some ideal form of government just because their campaign speeches talk about small government.

Taxes, though I don't like them, are constitutional. When Obama wants a few percentage points increase on those making over $250,000, I disagree with him ethically, but I just don't see it as crossing the line into socialism. Furthermore, it's not even accurate to suggest Republicans always want tax cuts and Democrats always want tax hikes. Carter pushed for tax cuts. Clinton passed tax cuts. Reagan and Bush 41 had tax increases.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The TARP money has been repaid. GM, Ford and Chrysler are all operating with a net profit for the first time in many years...

You are incorrect, GM paid back the first round of TARP money with the second round of TARP money. They are nowhere close to having paid back ALL of their bailout money.

I too could operate with a profit if you give me enough bailout money.

You were however right that Ford is operating profitably. Keep in mind they accepted no TARP money.

The GM advertisement on TV that they had paid back their loan was as false advertising as I have ever seen. The President and his Administration continuing to insist the bailout money has been repaid is flat out not true. The media is just doing what they are told, appearantly.

It takes very little research to de-bunk this myth, but I will leave you to do your own. I wouldn't just believe it because you hear it on your favorite station.

Easy to prove on TARP. Here is factcheck.

quote:

“I think the one thing that a lot of people overlook with this is where they got the money to pay back the loan. And it isn’t from earnings. … It’s actually from another pool of TARP money that they’ve already received,” he said Wednesday. “I don’t think we should exaggerate it too much. Remember that the source of this money is just other TARP money.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/

quote:

The U.S. Treasury Department said Wednesday that General Motors (NYSE: GM) has bought back from the government all the GM preferred stock issued under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP), effectively paying back taxpayers $2.1 billion.

The announcement comes a month after GM raised more $20 billion in the largest initial public offering in U.S. history. Taxpayers received $13.5 billion from that deal, according to a statement released by Treasury.

Treasury invested a total of $49.5 billion in GM, according to the statement. Taxpayers have now received a total of $23.1 billion in return from GM through repayments, interest, and dividends since the company emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009. Treasury’s remaining stake in GM now consists of 500,065,254 shares of common stock.

GM repaid the monies under the terms of TARP and the USTreasury.

FOXBusiness 12-15-2010

from the article I linked.

The president’s and GM’s statements may have given some the false impression that taxpayers have gotten back all the bailout money loaned to or invested in GM. Strictly speaking, Obama was accurate when he said: "GM announced that it paid back its loans to taxpayers with interest, fully five years ahead of schedule." But he alluded only vaguely to other bailout money, which taxpayers may never get back, adding: "It won’t be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM can be sold, helping to reimburse the American people for their investment." Those statements might have confused anyone who wasn’t familiar with the details of GM’s stock-and-loan debt to the Treasury.

As for Treasury’s equity stake, worth $40 billion-plus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Treasury won’t fully recoup that money. The total automaker bailout, including TARP money given to Chrysler, CBO estimates, will cost taxpayers about $34 billion.

quote:

Treasury invested a total of $49.5 billion in GM, according to the statement. Taxpayers have now received a total of $23.1 billion in return from GM through repayments, interest, and dividends since the company emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009. Treasury’s remaining stake in GM now consists of 500,065,254 shares of common stock.

The GM stock is worth about $19billion as of today. The current market says that Treasury needs to sell the GM shares at about $55/share to cover.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
They're not the same policies at all peter, and if you can't see that, you don't WANT to. I think that instead, you just want a "debate". But one needs a valid topic for a debate, and this doesn't qualify because the basic premise is erroneous. Sorry.

ok... so besides the envioronment point you showed that Obama changed from the Bush administration, what has he done differently?

He not only continued with the bail outs, he inflated them.

He promised to bring home the troops from Iraq, but they are still there(though you may not cat tell since all of a sudden it isn't a big story for the mainstream media.)

He promised to end the Bush tax cuts that catered to the evil ol rich...not only did he not end them, he signed to extend them.

He promised to close GITMO, the horrible grounds for torture that Bush loved so much. It ain't closed and ain't gonna close.

Those are 4 biggies there. That is not subjective in any way. Those are facts on record for anyone to see. If you disagreed with W on those 4(not saying you did, just if you did), then why are you okay with Barry rollin business as usual on those 4 topics I mentioned?

http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSTRE67L15520100824


http://www.politifact.com/trut...ay-detention-center/

"Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.

The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.

Obama didn't like those provisions and issued a statement deploring them. He said the limitation on transferring prisoners to the U.S. is "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority ... ." Of the new requirements on transferring prisoners to foreign governments, Obama said it could "hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security."

Obama stopped short of saying he would disregard the law, something presidents sometimes do via "signing statements." President George W. Bush issued many signing statements as president that said he would disregard parts of laws passed by Congress that he believed infringed on his executive authority. During the campaign, Obama said he would not "abuse" signing statements."

Notice how this says Bush "disregarded parts of laws passed by Congress" many times.



http://www.boston.com/news/nat...uts_for_top_earners/

You know he TRIED to end tax cuts for the wealthy, but was blocked by Congress.


http://politifact.com/truth-o-...un-more-debt-bush-d/

"Axelrod argues that Obama also inherited Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug expenses, which add about $200 billion a year to annual deficits (Axelrod called them "unwelcome gifts that keep on giving"). Riedl argues that kind of complaint may be valid in a president's first year, but by a president's second year, he needs to take ownership of programs he has inherited. If, for example, Obama thinks the prescription drug benefits in Medicare are unaffordable, he should try to repeal them, Riedl said. If he thinks the Bush tax cuts were wrong, try to roll them back."

Once again, he DID try. So the blame goes not to Obama, but to Congress.

Bush tried a lot of stuff too that didn't pass.
Obama found out Gitmo was a bigger mess than he thought. If it was so easy to close it and send the prisoners elsewhere, it would have already been done. All Obama did was slow down the military tribunals that had been in place.

I don't want a jihadist in my back yard that thinks killing people gets him a reward from Allah.

If you go back in time, those signing statements came from every pres.