Depends on the roadblock. If the roadblock is to limit risky behavior and protect the environment, I'm for the road blaock. The best answer in the gulf is for it to not have happened in the first place, for example.
From what I understand the problem was a lack of enforcement of regulations. There are from what I understand hundreds of wells. One leaked because of a lack of enforcement.
Here, on our shoes. Lot's of leaks elsewhere as I understand it. But, if those regulations kept the number down, then I'm for the regulations. I don't see that as hindering.
No, I understand that. I would argue, however, that had he actually tackled healthcare reform properly, it would have helped the economy more than anything else he could have done. He could remove health care benefits from the work place. The public option would have gone a ways toward that. This would help business much more than taxes.
And the stimulus bill was something, and in line with what little government can do. He could have made it larger, but I doubt that would have pleased his opponents. But, government is limited in what it can do to move the economy. Even more limited when it comes to jobs. Outside of hiring people, spending tax dollars to do so, government has few options.
And yes, he will have to explain why he let republicans derail him. Why he wasn't stronger. But no president has the power to fix the economy. They have to get lucky, and this whole will be a long time coming out of no matter who we elect.
First where i agree with you. If we had a public option that would have greatly helped our economy long term.
I do not agree that we could not do more to fix the economy. He could have( and still could) done something to fix the mortgage crisis. After all most of the underwater loans are guareenteed by Fannie and Freddie, which are essentially controlled by the government. You can't really fix unemployment when you have 12% of GDP, construction on it's butt. People will not buy houses until the mortgage overhang gets worked off for fear that prices still have further to decline. Yes there are other issues but this is an example of an area that could be fixed with real leadership. We could have put an effort into the new shale technology which would have added many jobs while reducing our trade deficit. We could have put money into truly bettering our infrastructure perhaps with a smart grid.
Yes presidents have to get lucky. But that reminds me of a saying:
" The better you are the luckier you get".
Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis.I really would have. But that too would have taken money, and republicans and tea party folks have drawn a line that this president can't spend. But I do agree he should have fought that battle. Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong things.
Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis.I really would have. But that too would have taken money, and republicans and tea party folks have drawn a line that this president can't spend. But I do agree he should have fought that battle. Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong things.
You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments.
Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim.
Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful,
but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time
and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now
2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support.
Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.
The Reverend's comments are quite clear and there is only one way to read them. As well, there were many similar comments made which we needn't add here, unless there is denial.
I'm claiming he has been a domestic failure and an international failure and I don't see how it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Been more forceful? Where? He had control of the house and Senate and couldn't even pass a budget? What sort of extra force did he need?
"A Long, long time"? How long is that?
Certainly he had the power. Not only does he not have a budget, he's wasted trillions of dollars that will take a generation to repay, if it ever is. Unlike past generations of Americans who fought for the future of their country, he has passed on the bills to children and grandchildren that will leave the country in debt for at least a generation.,
And what sort of change is that??
I'm quite clear in my criticism while your criticisms, such as they are, are vague to the point of having no substance whatsoever. In fact having no substance would describe Barrack Obama perfectly.
As some have read them incorrectly, you would be factually wrong. All you are really saying is that your reading is the only one you willlisten to. Noted.
Compared to who he replaced, he has been an improvement. Not the great success many had hoped for, true, but an improvement. But, where I differ most is how much hyperbole I hear coming from his opponents. Many go over the edge often.
I'm always surprised when someone I'm having a dicussion with seems to not have any idea about the events we're discussing. You make a common mistake in thinking that all you need to know is that power was mostly held by one party. I realize much of this requires more than opponents want to look at, as it would make their hyerbolic nonsense less easy to pass off with a straightface. But, I said he needed to be more forceful, as in insist on things, push his party, make the case, lead. Instead, he was under the mistaken impression congress would work together and actually try to do some good for the country. He was wrong.
As long as I can remember. We're been borrowing since the country was first created. But we fell hard in the depression, which changed the rules, and VN was an economic low point, and every present in our life time has contributed to the debt. Every congress, regardless of party has contributed. And all of us have really not doen enough to hold any of the accountable. Point is, this isn't in any way new.
No, he never did. He'spresident and not ruler, dictator, king. Just president. And nearly all of our past presidents, espeically in the modern era, have passed on the debt. It is dishonest to only single out Obama.
UHC, a HUGE expendature of government money, more spending and control than either of us would completely support. But that is the only way GOVERNMENT can fix this. Your better to seek others to step up and help. I suggest partnerships.
You must be asking the wrong questions or reading the wrong posts. Republicans have played rerail the president, and not let's roll up our selves and help.
That's a specific and real criticism. Like republcians, democrats have been too close to business, too willing to let them dictate policy, and have been too partisan while doing too little actual work. Neither can claim the high ground. But if you're confused, ask a specific question, and then listen to the answer with just looking for the ONE you want to hear.
You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments. Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim. Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful, but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now, and 2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support. Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.
Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis.I really would have.
Where have I been factually wrong? Did Rev. Wright not say "God Damn America"?
Why compare him to previous Presidents? Surely, by now, he can be judged on his own merits, or lack of them. But, in any case, how is he an improvement on George Bush? Bush inherited a recession and turned it around. Obama has not only made a recession worse, the American people will be paying for the debts he created for years to come.
In other words, the Congress and Senate couldn't agree with this nincompoop either.
As you may have heard, there is good debt and there is bad debt. Debt as a manageable percentage of the GDP is nothing new in any economy. But when you make the claim that there is nothing new with BHO's debt you are wrong. Barrack Obama has not only put the country deeper in debt than any previous President, he has put the country deeper in debt than all other Presidents combined! That he is not being held accountable by you and many others is obvious, and you'll continue to look for a scapegoat or make excuses for this clown.
A leader need not be a dictator in order to get a budget passed or get debt under control. In fact BHO said he would be a "pay as you go" President. How ridiculous that sounds now!
More spending will control more spending? And more spending will fix the problem? This is madness. And who would want to partner this insanity?
Help where? Spend more money? How is more pork the answer?
So the American government is in irredeemable debt because of the business community? This is really getting weird. Again, can you be specific as to examples to support your theories?
You seem to be wrong about what that means. That's why I asked if you knew the tradition. If your did, you wouldn't react as strong as you do. Mindless overreaction doesn't do anyone much good.
I've already told you I'm aware of this tradition. Did he say it or not? What do you think "God Damn America" really means?
Comparisons often tell us better how someone is doing. Poor and great is usually a judgement based on a comparison. Helps to put things in perspective.
It's also a tired way of deflecting the debate away from the sorry mess you now have as President.
Not how I would present it. Congress, you migth remember, rates pretty low as well. I woudl say congress didn't do its job, and Obama wasn't forceful enough to move them forward.
A failure of Democrats on all fronts then. Is that how you would put it?
Sounds to me you're just looking for a way not to criticize your guys for debt. Sorry, but it won't hold. There's really nothing new here. Too many are just selective in their faux outrage. :coffeepap
My guys? What guys are these? I'll happily criticize any leader for running up insurmountable debts. What you are doing, again, and repeatedly, is deflecting from the present situation and this president's sad and destructive record.
Budget is different than economy. Which one do you want to talk about? Even if we get the budget under control, this does not translate into the economy doing well.
Yes, I know a budget is different than an economy. Is this a recent revelation you're choosing t share? The fact is there was no budget. One attempt was made by BHO and it was turned down by both Dems and Republicans, 97-0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time such a thing has happened in any democracy.
YOu do seem confused and like you're confusing two differetn issues.
I'm quoting you!
The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork. Focus.
LOL!! I Love ii!! That should be the bumper sticker on every democrat vehicle and every election pooster and evry sign at their conventions. "
The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork.You are confused about two separat issues, but the Walstreet bailout was government money to the private sector. The auto industry bailout was to business. Banks also fall under business. Not to menetion what we give in drug reseach at teaching hospitals, and how we give money for jobs programs where companies take the money and fire people (see GM).Corproate welfare far out costs government that welfare to the poor, so,while you are leaping a ways from what we were discussing and what I said, it is true much of the debt is the cost of what we give to business.
It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.
I've already told you I'm aware of this tradition. Did he say it or not? What do you think "God Damn America" really means?
It's also a tired way of deflecting the debate away from the sorry mess you now have as President.
A failure of Democrats on all fronts then. Is that how you would put it?
My guys? What guys are these? I'll happily criticize any leader for running up insurmountable debts. What you are doing, again, and repeatedly, is deflecting from the present situation and this president's sad and destructive record.
Yes, I know a budget is different than an economy. Is this a recent revelation you're choosing t share? The fact is there was no budget. One attempt was made by BHO and it was turned down by both Dems and Republicans, 97-0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time such a thing has happened in any democracy.
I'm quoting you!
LOL!! I Love ii!! That should be the bumper sticker on every democrat vehicle and every election pooster and evry sign at their conventions. "
It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.
It is a call to bring bad a godly country. It's a calling out. Much like when MLK called the US the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. You said you knew the tradition, so you should know this and not react like you are.
More a way for those who don't want to aknowledge the comparions to complain without admitting this isn't new. The diversion is mostly on your side.
A failure for eveyone, including democrats. While republicans didn't have ALL the power, they certainly worked hard to derail, and this gives them part of the failure.
If that were true, you would have been so for decades, and would still include all the others. I see no evidence of you doing that. And speaking the truth is not a deflection. Our history is what it is.
Again, our discussion was over the economy. Speaking of distractions, when we're discussing the economy and you switch to the budget, taking cmments about teh economy and pretending they are about the budget, what would you call that?
As for the vote, sound like he didn't give either enough of what they wanted. Republicans won't support him period, and are fixated on tax cuts. Democrats are fearful of even talkng about the big three, especially medicare. As Obama is right to consider all that, is he to be criticized or congress?
Not in contect of the issue I speak to, and what I was commenting on. Not even close.
It is true for republicans as well. The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people. This is not complicated.
The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork.
Again, where were you when it was happening. Adding to something is nto the same as creating it. This problem has been buidling for a long, long time. And when a republicna was president, republicans said it didn't matter. That was the argument.
The Democrats aren’t the only ones who have reversed their opinions about deficits. Republicans were relatively comfortable with Reagan’s unbalanced budgets. And when President George W. Bush turned a massive surplus into a series of giant deficits, few in the GOP objected. During the administration’s internal debates over proposed tax cuts in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly told Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
When Do Deficits Matter? - Reason Magazine
You seem to be saying that because I am aware of the tradition I should therefore ignore the words or approve of them. That doesn't necessarily follow and, furthermore, I feel it's patronizing to the Black Community.
Do you see the title of this thread? What does it have to do with previous Presidents? It is all bout the current BHO administration and its corruption and ineptitude. Nothing else.
How is it failure for everyone if everyone didn't have any control? But in any case do you expect the Republicans to support an agenda they feel is bad for the country? BHO cannot be supported by anyone but the most committed ideologue. The polls reflect that.
But history is not the topic. the presnt is. You can see at the top of the page waht the subject is, or should be, yet you continue to deflect.
It's all about Brack Obama and his incompetence and corruption. Not about LBJ, JFK or FDR.
A 97-0 count strongly suggests that poor BHO had no support whatsoever, and that he will continue his slide into what will become little more than a bad memory.
When I'm quoting you the context is obviously there.
Except that's not what you said.. What you said was
You have very low credibility. You should submit quotes.
The title of the thread is Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney.
Interesting... your comment indicates that as of January 19, 2009 you think that the U.S. was not hopelessly in debt ($10.6 trillion) and the economy was not in a shambles (losing 550,000 jobs per month, or 1.8 million jobs lost in the previous 3 months), stock market down 38% in the past 8 months (13,000 to 8,000).[...] It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.
Obama will do anything to garner votes, even grant money to businesses that may or may not produce something worthwhile. You gotta' love Obama...he is his own worse enemy.
Obama will do anything to garner votes, even grant money to businesses that may or may not produce something worthwhile. You gotta' love Obama...he is his own worse enemy.
Nowhere did i say that but yes, it is pretty much hopeless/. Do you expect that money to ever be paid back and,m if so, who's going to pay it?To summarize, in your opinion $14.6 trillion in debt is hopeless, but $10.6 trillion is not hopeless.
... and gaining a few ten thousand jobs a month is a shambles, while losing a half million jobs a month is not a shambles.
... and a stock market limping along at around 11,000 is a shambles, while a stock market bouncing around the bottom at 8,000 is not a shambles.
Somehow that looks rather partisan to me (not to mention completely off topic)... but perhaps I'm just reading too much into it :mrgreen:]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?