goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
Why were you listening to Medvedev? What was he saying about the US/Obama that made you do this post?
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter): So, what has changed? How much has Obama added in just 2 years
The robber-barons on Wall Street crashed the global banking system and the real estate bubble burst, leading to mass confusion and anxiety in corporate boardrooms around the country, thus leading to the massive layoffs or offshoring of good-paying American jobs. Greed won, patriotism be damned - that is what happened in a nutshell.
Enough Obama bashing and irresponsible labeling - let's be Americans and work out our differences and relearn the art of compromise. That would be a POSITIVE change that WE all can believe in.
This registered Libertarian is tired of all of the rhetoric - Democratic and Republican potlitical leaders need to show RESULTS, not just "activity" and "partisanship". Otherwise, we all should be supporting third party candidates in the next general election.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
Quoting goblin211 (Reply 1): Why were you listening to Medvedev? What was he saying about the US/Obama that made you do this post?
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 2): Enough Obama bashing and irresponsible labeling - let's be Americans and work out our differences and relearn the art of compromise. That would be a POSITIVE change that WE all can believe in.
Compromise is the soup where principles dissolve. ~paraphrased from an unknown source
Actually, I'm a fan of compromise, when it benefits me or my cause. That is the Liberal mantra, isn't it?
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 2): that is what happened in a nutshell
No, what happened was that Obama and the Left capitalized on a recession, that was exasperated by high fuel prices. The real estate bubble helped them immensely. Throw in a mediocre GOP candidate. And, you have a political victory. Then, the spending begins and it is no longer "irresponsible' or "unpatriotic" to spend way beyond our means.
That's what happened.
Oh yeah, and the Pelosi/Obama/Reid economic/social agenda have kept us in recession since it began.
WarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6548 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1544 times:
I would say that compromise is more than the mantra of Liberals. I suggest compromise is responsible for our Constitution. Thank goodness we had people with enough intelligence to realize that we cannot have our way all the time. I suggest the Repbulicans and TP folks realize this, before we have no Constitution.
[Edited 2011-08-24 20:11:14]
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 4): I suggest compromise is responsible for our Constitution.
I'll more than suggest it. I'll declare it. Our Constitution was built on compromise and principle.
My point is that when you compromise, you must rely on your principles and not compromise them. The GOP should not compromise away their core principles.
Back to the original video. Why hasn't the media attacked Obama for calling Bush's spending irresponsible and unpatriotic, while he spends us over a cliff?
The man is a hypocrite, a liar, a political opportunist and bad for this country. He was the wrong man at the wrong time. An inexperienced dilettante that is playing at being President.
By contrast, the dirges of "hypocrite, a liar, a political opportunist" are really getting very tiring. An inexperienced dilettante playing at President, yes that was Bush. Whatever it was that Obama did before coming to office, he was more successful at it than the Bush association with Arbusto and Harken - and I do not recall the Bin Ladens investing in Obama's previous enterprises.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5): Back to the original video. Why hasn't the media attacked Obama for calling Bush's spending irresponsible and unpatriotic, while he spends us over a cliff?
Why wasn't it ok, to Obama, for Bush to spend irresponsibly and unpatriotically, yet it's perfectly ok for Obama to do so?
n318ea From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
The Internet (Thanks Al)is a wonderful thing!. I save clips like these for the Progressive/Liberals whom are so fond of re-writing history. One of the best is President Clinton, Hilary, Teddy and Kerry on WMD in Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts
Another keeper.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9911 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7): Why wasn't it ok, to Obama, for Bush to spend irresponsibly and unpatriotically, yet it's perfectly ok for Obama to do so?
Let's be clear here: The Constitution grants powers of spending to the House. Not the president. Much as I think Bush was not a leader at all, how many years of right-wing spending were there that were approved and off-the-books? When the Democrats finally took over in 2008, all that spending was put on the books and, lo and behold, it was all the Democrats fault for over spending. It was the Democrats fault for wanting a nation wide and open and honest dicussion about health care and that ment no budget passage; again blame for Democrats. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 9): Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
Why wasn't it ok, to Obama, for Bush to spend irresponsibly and unpatriotically, yet it's perfectly ok for Obama to do so?
Let's be clear here: The Constitution grants powers of spending to the House. Not the president. Much as I think Bush was not a leader at all, how many years of right-wing spending were there that were approved and off-the-books? When the Democrats finally took over in 2008, all that spending was put on the books and, lo and behold, it was all the Democrats fault for over spending. It was the Democrats fault for wanting a nation wide and open and honest dicussion about health care and that ment no budget passage; again blame for Democrats. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Not much I need to add except there is a graph showing spending and revenue loss that were initiated under Bush and similar for under Obama - posted I think by Racko. Next time I will save it. But by far the major part of the current expenditure results from Bush admin commitments. History can be unforgiving.
So basically that summary of O and B is twaddle - not to mention being wrong in fact.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
I see that the lead Obama apologists will still deflect the argument.
This isn't a question about spending per se. It is about a hypocrite that claimed one thing while running for the office and then, when in the office, did the same thing, except at a much higher level.
Oh, by the way. I'm going to guess that if you used the search function you will not find one instance of my defending the Bush Administration's rubber stamp of Congressional largesse.
I see that the lead Obama apologists will still deflect the argument.
The word deflection must have taken on a new meaning since I lived in the US. One more time with feeling, most of the current debt is due to commitments made under the Bush administration, or to revenue foregone as a result of Bush tax cuts that Obama wished to terminate.
Obama does have a problem, paying off his inheritance.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3): Actually, I'm a fan of compromise, when it benefits me or my cause. That is the Liberal mantra, isn't it?
Haha. You're being totally sarcastic, right?
Have you been paying attention to the compromises democrats have made during the course of Obama's administration? None of their compromises have benefited anyone but conservatives, yet they still keep making them.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7): Why wasn't it ok, to Obama, for Bush to spend irresponsibly and unpatriotically, yet it's perfectly ok for Obama to do so?
And to answer this question, Obama has added most of his share of nat'l debt on Stimulus to fix an economy that was (and is) broken. Bush and a Republican Congress added to the nat'l debt during prosperous times (and on very long-term additions to the nat'l debt that Obama and subsequent administrations will have to pay for without any additional means to pay those obligations, such as Medicare Part D and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
In fact, they now have even less to pay for those obligations because of lower-than-necessary tax rates that haven't done anything to boost a very-much struggling economy.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
Quoting planespotting (Reply 14): Have you been paying attention to the compromises democrats have made during the course of Obama's administration? None of their compromises have benefited anyone but conservatives, yet they still keep making them.
All of Obama's compromises, while his party enjoyed majorities in both the House and Senate were to keep Democrats on his side. All except he Obama tax increases that were scheduled to go into effect on 1-Jan-11, but, by then the poeple had already spoken.
Didn't, no, couldn't work. There were no 'shovel-ready', there were no plans other than 'get the money to the States so that they can prop up their budgets'. An absolute waste of ~$800B, plus the opportunity cost of actually using that money for something useful, like not borrowing it from 'who-ever'.
How about 'lower-than-necessary tax revenues' due to the business adverse environment that Obama and gang have engendered since day one.
Ok, I guess we'll never understand how Obama (and his sycophants) rationalize his responsible and patriotic spending while lambasting Bush's 'irresponsible' and 'unpatriotic" spending.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
"The problem with quotations you read on the internet is that it is difficult to determine their veracity." -Abraham Lincoln
I like that.
Didn't read it though..heard it...though the guy I heard it from probably read it...or it was read to him...it was on the Thom Hartmann show on Sirius Left.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
Yes, because it was too small. Again, the president compromised to try and get Republicans to sign on - like every piece of major legislation he has tried to put forth. If you somehow ignore that fact then you don't care to see any truth at all.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16): How about 'lower-than-necessary tax revenues' due to the business adverse environment that Obama and gang have engendered since day one.
Ahh yes, this hypothetical business-averse environment that hasn't attempted to take on anything like climate change or corporate tax rates. In fact, all they took on was healthcare reform, and unless you're a health insurer, that won't affect your business until 2013, and only then on business who don't already provide employees some kind of healthcare coverage.
Yes, what a terrible, anti-business environment our poor businesses have had to put up with. The large, multi-national company I work for has been doing great, and so have a ton of other businesses too. They're just holding onto their money or returning it to their shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividends, instead of investing in their business. They're returning cash to shareholders because they're afraid to go overboard hiring employees so they don't ever get caught overextended again, which means lots of people are still looking for jobs, which is why the stimulus should have been larger in the first place, both to promote more hiring and less cash hoarding.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1202 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19): Didn't read it though..heard it...though the guy I heard it from probably read it...or it was read to him...it was on the Thom Hartmann show on Sirius Left.
Either way, I'll add one more:
"No problem has ever been solved by a principle." - D L X
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1167 times:
President Obama "anti business"..hows that? If that were true, how much of the TARP funds went to "business" compared to "main street?" As for the promises made during the election, do you honestly think canditate Obama was privy to how rotten the core of the economy was? I have a pretty good hunch that he got a bit of a shock when Bush handed over the keys...
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1095 times:
Quoting bhill (Reply 23): President Obama "anti business"..hows that? If that were true, how much of the TARP funds went to "business" compared to "main street?"
TARP was Bush. I grudgingly supported TARP, not because it was Bush and certainly not because I'm a fan of governmental bailouts of businesses that are failing, especially those that were badly managed. I was ok with it because if the US banking system collapsed, then we would be living in a much different world right now. One, that most of us, except the hardest of the hard-core Marxists, wouldn't want to envision. That bail-out was a psychological necessity.
Quoting planespotting (Reply 20): Yes, because it was too small. Again, the president compromised to try and get Republicans to sign on
Again, his compromises had nothing to do with the GOP and had everything to do with getting his party in line. The only thing (in the House) bi-partisan about Stimulus was the opposition to it. Same thing about PPACA. So, to say that he compromised for the GOP is to be disingenuous.
So, you want Obama to be more 'irresponsible' and 'unpatriotic'?
When seconds count...the police are minutes away!
25 MAH4546: There's no point arguing with a democrat. Once you utter the words "citing facts," they go on a tangent. It's no surprise Obama acts the way he does.
26 tugger: OK, from a Republican: The simple reason is that during the Bush II years, he had a surplus, a booming economy, a Republican legislature for time, an
27 WarRI1: He certainly does. Absolutely Take a look at the approval rating of congress, versus Obama. Yes indeed.
28 steeler83: I believe that's what has happened. I never trusted the Obama Administration, and I still don't. Government intervention will not solve anything; it
29 tugger: Please demonstrate where this has happened. "Belief" in this situation is not enough. Tugg
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
