Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

54. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 30, 2012, 16:24 RollinThundr
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 16:07:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
Clinton set the ball rolling on the housing collapse, Bush got the blame since it happened on his watch. Bush alone didn't cause the financial meltdown but any liberal will tell you it was him and him alone. The democrat party had control of both the the House and Senate, starting January 4th, 2007 they didn't seem to have much issue with Bush's policies at the time either but soley trying to blame the recession on Junior is flat out rediculous.
Where did I solely blame it on GWB? Some of the deregulation was passed by the Republican congress and signed by Clinton, and some was passed on a bipartisan basis, so I do think that both share some blame for it, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Clinton set the ball rolling on the housing collapse". Maybe you could clarify.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
Like I said, I'm no cheerleader for Mittens, but Obama gives me a strong impression that he flat out won't get anything done in a positive manner, he refuses to work with republicans then blames them for not working with him, while he signs another executive order to get his way.
Umm... are you even aware of what the GOP said when Obama took office? They flat out stated that they were going to try to prevent him from getting anything done, and that their number one goal was to make sure that he fails and doesn't get a second term. Oh, and let's not forget all the Tea Party folks who came in and flat refuse to compromise on practically anything. So who's not willing to work together again?

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
Rather than talk about ways to cut spending, he peddles nationalized heathcare and shit like his "Julia" pitch, government handholding from cradle to grave.
Nationalized health care? What planet do you live on? How exactly is it nationalized? Do you even know what that means?

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
He apparently didn't get the memo that our spending is going to bankrupt us. Which is a memo the republicans neither seem to have gotten. And really, robbing Peter to pay Paul via wealth redistribution isn't an answer unless you seriously cut spending.
Actually, when you're faced with a recession, especially one as severe as this one, deficit spending is exactly what you have to do to get the economy started again. Yes, we need to pay it down later, but saying that right now is the time to eliminate the deficit is just crazy. Do that and watch the economy sink right back into recession.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
The whole idea if the rich just pay a little bit more it'll balance out is bullshit. The rich could be taxed 100% of their income and it still wouldn't cover even a half of the spending the pigs in DC keep pushing.
This I actually agree with, but it also misses the point. The point being that the tax increases on the wealthy are just a part of the solution. The Dems have proposed a lot of cuts as well, but the Republicans refused and demanded only cuts and no revenue increases. It's not realistic. It's going to do too much damage and the folks in the middle (who already saw their incomes stagnate for the past 10+ years) and at the bottom who are going to feel the brunt of the pain. Not only that, but it will also ensure that those folks have a much harder time improving their situation, getting an education, getting decent food, etc. It's not going to hurt jobs, we've seen far higher taxes in the past and still had a strong economy. We've got a lot of debt incurred under Bush, along with the debt incurred trying to get out of the recession, that we need to pay down, and we can only do that if the economy recovers.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
If Romney has a plan to create substainable jobs, give him the chance to do so, and if he's serious about cutting spending that's far more talking about cuts than I've heard out of the Obmessiah's mouth.
I'd like to hear Romney's plan, but so far he doesn't seem to have one. He talks a lot about he's going to cut taxes, maintain war-time military spending, and get rid of loopholes and deductions to pay for all that, but has so far refused to even propose anything. All this despite his yapping about Obama's lack of leadership in working with Congress. He just expects them to put a plan together apparently with no real guidance from him? Has he met congress?

Obama has offered a lot of cuts, 3 or 4 to 1 cuts to revenue, but has been rebuffed each time. So, according to Romney, he has a better plan for the economy and a better plan for health care, but doesn't actually lay out those plans. His campaign did at least correct him that his health care plan won't actually cover pre-existing conditions, so we'll continue to see most of the same problems that we've been seeing for decades now. I really don't see him fixing anything that's going to matter. He's mostly just trying to follow the GOP line of repealing Obamacare, but doesn't have any better ideas for what to replace it with.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:13:
At the end of the day it's voting for the lesser of the two evils and granted it's only my opinion but Romney seems to be the lesser of the two this go around.
Romney has so been twisted by the primaries and trying to keep his base with him that he's gone off the deep end and can't do what's actually needed, but has to pursue pleasing the right-wing bumper sticker crowd instead. That's going to spell disaster for us.
I really wasn't saying that you yourself were blaming Bush just that in general that's the line you get from libs anytime Obama's policies are questioned.

You can't spend your way out of a recession, you let the market correct itself which it would if politicians would allow it to rather than print money like it's going out of style further devaluing said money.

This wasn't true for the great depression and it isn't true now between Junior and Obama's spend spend spend til the cows come home mentality.

I have zero issue with raising taxes, but on the same hand in order to bring the deficit down and actually have a budget (something else Obama's ongoingly failed to have since day 1) you need to cut spending, and lots of it, or you're not going to go anywhere.

Personally I would rather see government get the fuck out of health care period, all they're going to do is fuck it up more and pass the costs onto us. You know this, I know this, Obama and Mittens know this.

The GOP proposed cuts as well, the problem is the two parties can't agree on what to cut and how much due to completely opposite ideologies. That's where they need to meet in the middle and compromise, something I'm not sure is even in Obama's vocab.

I'm with you, I'd like to hear exactly what Romney's plan entails as well but I still find it better than the alternative of 20 trillion in debt and nothing to show for it after another 4 year Obama term. Because honestly, what do we have to show now? More debt, the same level of unemployment (more if you count those who just gave up looking) and very little progress on anything important that Obama said he would do.

Look I realize he came in during the biggest fiancial crisis since the great depression but it's been 4 years now since he took office. Time to stop blaming the last administration and take some damn responsibility.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 2012, 17:26.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo