You may want to look at the process as well, as a beauty contest leads us to where we are.
J, the problem is relying on them to figure it out. Only in a government system where the government has complete control can government control the economy to any reasonable measure, and ever there it can and does get away from them. The fact is, sometimes you just have to ride it out.
Yes, it certainly has. I'm just tired of year after year, Congress after Congress, administration after administration of the same thing every time. Who ever is in charge is at fault, and then who is in charge changes and who is at fault changes, but the situation for the People does not. It just keeps getting worse. More government, more debt, more intervention. I think it's insane that we sit here pointing fingers at a side when the data and reality says that both sides are functionally equivalent. We can't change the status quo through support of the status quo. And now the parties run their own debates, and we have set up little shows for us where people run their mouths for 20 seconds and say nothing; but we're supposed to be enthralled and hang on their every word. These puppet shows with planned questions and stump speeches with no information coupled with an obviously biased and inept press.
We deserve better, we should demand better. This is our country, our government, and our Republic; and I'll be damned if I have to sit here and watch the Republocrats piss it all away.
I don't find anything you said to be out of line at all. However, given our current system, how do we do that short of revolution do we do that?
j-mac
I guess we should all clean and service our guns then.
j-mac
What if by riding it out, nothing is done, and this system collapses? What then?
j-mac
Yes, it certainly has. I'm just tired of year after year, Congress after Congress, administration after administration of the same thing every time. Who ever is in charge is at fault, and then who is in charge changes and who is at fault changes, but the situation for the People does not. It just keeps getting worse. More government, more debt, more intervention. I think it's insane that we sit here pointing fingers at a side when the data and reality says that both sides are functionally equivalent. We can't change the status quo through support of the status quo. And now the parties run their own debates, and we have set up little shows for us where people run their mouths for 20 seconds and say nothing; but we're supposed to be enthralled and hang on their every word. These puppet shows with planned questions and stump speeches with no information coupled with an obviously biased and inept press.
We deserve better, we should demand better. This is our country, our government, and our Republic; and I'll be damned if I have to sit here and watch the Republocrats piss it all away.
I don't disagee with you. I also think we should limit the influence of money in politics and much of what you say. How to get there is the largest issue, esepcially as apathetic as the public is on the whole.
"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy."
— Daniel Webster
Well...while you are ROFLYSAO...you might want to examine what the current and previous crop of clowns have done to (errrr...for) us. Oh...you might find Libertarians funny...so by all means...keep electing democrats and republicans. Come on....how can 15 trillion in debt and actual unemployment well over 20% POSSIBLY be a black eye on your two parties?
Whether or not they would have helped the economy is a basis of ideology. If you don't feel something will be beneficial, why do it? Even the CBO and economists are split on how helpful or how a big a hinderance some of the successfully passed policies have been.
If you think Reaganomics was bad, just try and implement the Libertarian fantasyland system. America would truly become a third world country.
Dear Allah, you suck at this...
The new players and coaching staff are his administration... not the economy.
The previous administration is the old team management and coaching staff.
Not making the playoffs is not improving the economy.
The current team management and coaching staff (Obama & his administration), are blaming the previous team management and coaching staff (Bush and his administration), for not making the playoffs (improving the economy).
So if you have an entirely new team, and the officials are totally in the pocket of your opposition. And your locker rooms are freezing because there's no money for heat, so everybody has a cold all the time. And none of the practise balls will hold air.
NOW do you get it?
So you must agree that it was Bush who was resposible for the deep recession during his term in office???I absolutely disagree that the government cannot significantly help or hinder the economy.
Most of that debt was created under Republican presidents, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43.Please...what do you think is happening under YOUR happy leadership? 15 trillion...and counting...go ahead and apoligize to your grandchildren in advance for the ****ed mess you have left them.
Most of that debt was created under Republican presidents, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43.
So Obama has no culpability for anything? Is it still Bush?
Most of that debt was created under Republican presidents, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43.
How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
So you must agree that it was Bush who was resposible for the deep recession during his term in office???
Please...what do you think is happening under YOUR happy leadership? 15 trillion...and counting...go ahead and apoligize to your grandchildren in advance for the ****ed mess you have left them.
Obviously more so than you do.
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?