Isn’t it just horrible that posts like that are repressed?
It’s the sort of thing that’ll bring on Another 9/11.
:::Whimpers and hides under chair[sup]*[/sup]:::
*[sub]Nope, no WMD’s under here. [/sub]
The OP is not only requesting responses from Republicans, but this thread is going to be pointless if it devolves into BBQ Pit-style conservative bashing. Let’s not poison the well too much.
Come and see the indifference inherent in the system!
I don’t think they should have to disgorge their “ill-gotten gains” unless they violated the law or banking and securities regulations. However, perhaps those making the risky loans should not have been bailed out at all either.
I don’t know, I thought we were talking “Republicans.”
Pretty Good Summary Via YouTube
The link is to a Michael Berry presentation (conservative Talk host from Houston)
Yes, I’d vote for them. Being able to say ‘screw the polls, I’m doing what I think is right’ is an admirable quality. I may disagree with their policy, but at least I know they believe in their actions rather than doing what was politically expedient.
My issue with Obama is not that some disagree with him. It’s that he gained nothing from this. When he weighed in on the Gates thing by calling the cop stupid, he hurt his political standing with no upside. Same with the mosque thing. I actually agree with him about it, but he gained nothing by stepping into that hornets nest. His foreign policy attitude has annoyed many in America, but we have yet to see any real benefit from it.
Contrast that to Bush. Bush offended a lot of people with his Iraq invasion and his standing by that war. However, he got something from that. He got to invade Iraq, do the surge, and as a result today we’re in a position where we can withdraw (most) troops without it being a clear loss. Now I’m not saying Iraq was a good thing, just that when Bush pissed people off he did so to accomplish his goals. So far, when Obama ticks people off it’s usually over some issue that doesn’t get him jack shit.
A very succinct and accurate description of how I view Obama’s handling of health care and the stimulus.
Then I suppose it’s a simple matter of determining the precise percentage of legislative vs. executive branch involvement. One assumes that if this condition were met, then we could actually talk about the issues involved.
Or not, and such is my point. For many of the president’s enemies, there are no specifics. Which is ironic, because there are plenty of specifics to choose from. Although I voted for Obama, I’m not a particular fan of his, or any politician. I have a fair number of gripes with his performance, but will point and laugh at people making arguments like, “too much congressional involvement.”
I don’t know who you guys are, but we can still kick your ass. And I think we could buy two or three large countries. And of course we have the largest deficit in history, we are always #1. And my children’s future is none of your business, but if they have trouble making the mortgage payments, they’ll beat up your kids and take their money.
Anyway, were you talking about the OP there, or just picking a fight?
I was a proposing a reason why a Republican or any other kind of American could have a perfectly reasonable motive to think Obama had been doing a less than smashing job at it, but the fight thing sounds more fun. Anyway I hope the party was fun and you like your Chinese bric-a-brac. If you get Sarah to move to NY then perhaps you can convince the Russians to take Alaska back as payment for some of the loans.
What does this have to do with President Obama and Republican hatred of him?
Obama didn’t get us into this mess, so logically he’s the one to blame.
The problem is that it is not really that reasonable a reason. Most of the deficit was inherited. The health care reform is most likely going to cost less that the Medicare D benefits and might even save the government money in the long run. The stimulus was much less the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and it was also less than the TARP. At least he is trying to impose spending rules (PAYGO) on the legislature, that is a lot more than the past administration or Republican dominated House and Senate would do. So I just don’t see how this a reason is reasonable.
That’s right, except for the 1995 to 2007 span, the Democrats have been in control of the House of Representatives since 1949 and along with that the Federal Purse Strings.
Obama is now seen as being the driving force behind Pelosi.
BTW, that 1995 - 2007 that the Republicans ran the House - wasn’t that also the only time we’ve come close to having a balanced budget in decades?
Excuse me, picking my jaw up off the floor. Not for the last six years, it wasn’t. When they had the chance to balance the budget, they decided to cut taxes instead.
Due to the dotcom boom, things looked pretty good in the middle there, but that likely would not have been sustainable without tax increases &/or serious Medicare reform.
Why would you even post something this idiotic? Fox news is not a cite, using the CBO numbers for the stimulus and not for the wars is dishonest at best.
I will try to respond to your other posts in a bit (I have some things to do right now), but this one I will respond to now. The balancing of the budget during the Clinton Administration was due to a confluence of factors, most notably the peace dividend and the Paygo rules established by the legislature during the Bush I Administration. To save time, I am going to quote myself in another thread:
flickster, you know that there has not been a Republican President that decreased the debt as a percentage of GDP since President Nixon and there has not been a Democratic President that has increased it since President Roosevelt (Cite). Party of fiscal responsibility indeed. If you want to see who was in control of the house and senate during these periods, we can do that too…
Neither of those cites say what you think they do. My statement was that “Obamacare” may (most likely) cost less than the Medicare Drug benefit. Your cite say nothing about that. I also said that “Obamacare” may save the government money. Your cite says nothing about that either. You cite says that the health care reform is not going reduce health care spending in America which currently consumes about 20% of our GDP.
Look, flickster, I don’t think the health care bill was perfect, I don’t even think it was that good, but it was far from the socialist money-sink most conservatives claim it to be. Medicare and Medicaid are a problem. The uninsured using emergency services for well doctor visits are a problem. Hell, I will even agree that immigrants here illegally using these resources are a problem, but “Obamacare” is based on the 90’s Republican plan for Health care reform and should cost the government little while shifting the burden of the uninsured onto the uninsured. What is the problem with that?
Your second site shows that the deficits increased in the last two years, much faster than the deficit increased during the early war years, but this is just disingenuous. The deficit increased during the Obama administration because of the TARP, because of the unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit, because of the “Porkulus”, but also from reduction in tax receipts. That is what the deficit is, government outlays minus receipts, and in these financial times receipts are down a lot. So lets just look at the cost of the wars, the TARP, and the stimulus and compare them. According to a CBO report issued in 2007 the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be around 2.4 Trillion Dollars (cite - if you want a direct link to the CBO report, I can provide that too). This is lower than some estimates, like that of the Nobel Prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank, who says the real number is closer to 3 Trillion dollars (cite). This does not even count the long term losses to our military armory. I work in Aerospace and I have family members that work for the NSA and the Navy, and the cuts that have been made in the budgets in order to keep the boots on the ground and the armor on the Humvees has really hurt our preparedness. If you want a cite for this, I am sure I could find one…
The cost of the stimulus 820 Billion Dollars, 275 Billion of which were tax cuts (yet another decrease in tax receipts). I am sure you can verify this, but if you want a cite I will provide one. The cost of the TARP, originally a 700 Billion dollar bailout, is now projected to only cost 89 Billion dollars, so you were right there. Thanks for making me do some research there, I had no idea we had gotten so much of that money back.