cappy wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:01:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
Hold on a second. What most conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives complain about is rewarding those that refuse to work when they're capable of it.
I don't think anyone is against helping out small businesses (not that 38 Studios really fits into that category) or having a safety net for veterans or people who are truly disabled that can't work.
You're using the usual liberal stereotype that only Republicans are rich. Or only Republicans get corporate lobbying etc. Which is total bs. Oprah's pretty rich, Bill Cosby and most of liberal hollywood are pretty rich, Obama's certainly not a poor man. Warren Buffet, who's company owes billions in back taxes is a liberal last I checked.
Obama didn't need to bail GM out with tax payer money, they could and SHOULD have filed for bankruptcy and refinanced/restructured themselves. GM still owes the taxpayers millions, and guess what we'll never see it. The only entity that won out in that deal was the auto workers union, surprise surprise. Same thing with Crysler, the kicker there? Crysler is now owned by a European car maker.
The man added 5 trillion to the debt in 3 and half years. Has yet to pass a single budget since coming into office, has wasted tons on a failed stimulus, failed green energy companies, all on the tax payer's dime.
Obama didn't bail out the auto industry. Remember that TARP and all the accompanying bailout legislation happened in the last quarter of 2008 under President Bush. When Obama took office several months later, he continued those programs and expanded some of them:
Auto Bailout Timeline
As far as Buffett being a "liberal" - that's completely debateable. Let's see - on the conservative side of the coin, he is quite wealthy and always expanding his massive business with new opportunities. He buys companies because he believes they will be profitable, not because he sympathizes with their goals or politics. He took major stakes in Goldman Sachs and other firms that no liberal investor would touch. He lives in the same house in Omaha he's owned for decades, and rather modestly - especially when compared with people on the coasts like Ellison or Trump. In other words, he is personally and fiscally conservative.
His social views are more progressive or liberal, but they're performed under the mantle of his conservatism. Like Bill Gates (with whom he's partnered for his philanthropy) he's doing careful and targeted approaches toward social spending - basically areas where they believe they can achieve return on investment in a big way.
When he argues for increasing taxes to what they were in the 1990s, somehow that's deemed "liberal" I suppose. But he's not advocating pre-1982 top rates of 70% or anything like that.
I would call him a conservative in virtually every major aspect of his life, with some liberal social leanings.
As far as "Obama hasn't passed a budget in 3 years" I believe you're getting that confused with the criticism the Senate has been taking for not passing a budget resolution for the past 3 years:
Wall Street Journal
Politifact
HuffingtonPost
And as far as the increase in debt, again - a good amount owes itself to TARP and other programs already put into place before he took office, as well as effects related to extending tax cuts and the general state of the economy. I suppose he *could* have just terminated TARP and reined in spending to see what would happen. But that's academic debate (mostly debated by non-academics) on Keynes vs. Friedman vs. whatever other economic school du jour is popular to prop up one's chosen policies.
A couple more balanced looks (that take issue with both sides):
FactCheck
Washington Post Fact Checker
I don't see anything conservative about "conservatives" who stridently cry out about debt and spending but then sheepishly shuffle their feet when it's pointed out that Defense Spending accounts for the greatest amount of discretionary spending. No one wants to cut that one. And realistically, no one really wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, either.
Instead, we get entertained with clown and pony shows - where ridiculous self-styled "conservatives" go on about pennies hidden between couch cushions (million-dollar programs allocated to some special-interest or another). We're assured that those "dollars add up" - except they don't. The entirety of Coburn's most recent "wasteful spending" opus would account for only about a day or so of interest on the national debt.
If someone wants to play real "conservative" - here's how:
If you want to balance a budget, you need to bring in more revenue, or make meaningful (and quite large and painful) cuts in spending. It's that simple!
But when the angry howls rise against raising taxes of any sort (never mind that even Reagan was ever pragmatic and doesn't get nearly enough credit for that and raised payroll taxes to shore up Social Security and Medicare for years to come), that sort of flies in the face of anyone being serious. I'd just as soon they just shut up. They can stay quiet and work on the problem if they want. But the puling and whining makes me want to spank the lot of them.
As far as cutting spending, they're big boys and girls and they know the rules. You don't get to cut just the other side's spending and leave your own intact. It doesn't work that way. So quit pointing fingers and work with the other side if they're really serious about it. Which they aren't.
Neither side wants to work with the other, and neither side is serious about cutting spending.
The dems only want to cut the military. repubs want to cut social spending, and really with how fucked up the welfare system is with the amount of loopholes it has, I dunno call me unfeeling or an asshole or whatever, but I kinda side more with the GOP on where to cut.
When I was growing up I was taught that no one is going to hold my hand or give me a life or a roof over my head, I was taught to work hard, and earn shit. People nowadays don't get that. They expect government to hold their hand.
I get it, you need some form of social net for those who can't work, or temporarily fall on hard times and need a hand, I have no issue with that. But our welfare system is completely broken and doesn't at all work that way.
I also have no issue with raising taxes since they're the lowest they've ever been pretty much.
The things I have a problem with however is increasing government size and them dictating how people should live, Bloomberg with his wanting to ban surgary drinks or snacks from movie theaters as an example. That tends to be what liberals are about on the social level. They want government to decide for them because god forbid they're responsible for themselves. That and the whole political correctness bullshit. Obama with his "Bush's fault Bush's fault I'ma go play some golf" Hey O, you've almost served a full term now, the Bush's fault excuse is wearing a tad thin. The libs gave Bush so much shit anytime he took a vacation or played golf, Obama's played over 100 rounds so far. The media could care less. MSN is so soft on the guy it's not even funny.
I also can't stand the people he tends to associate himself with. Marxists and socialists. Fact of the matter is aside from making the right call about going in after Bin Laden he's not kept one campaign promise, (and yes I realize they all lie, they're politicians that's what they all do regardless of party)
But for a guy who campaigned on transparency and turning this country around, he's done the opposite, spent even more than Bush, quicker than Bush, and has done more back room deals and played bipartisan games after preaching about working with the GOP and being a "transparent administration. Kudos on him sealing those fast and furious documents btw. Wouldn't want to paint himself in a bad light, especially if he was at all involved. Add in his love for the UN above his own citizens with his apologize for America tour and the kowtowing he does to anyone and everyone except Israel.
And please don't solely try to blame the GOP on passing a budget. Every single one of Obama's budget proposals has been unanimously defeated by both sides, 414-0, 97-0. The man is not a fiscal conservative by any means. His spending shows it. His own party won't even vote for his budgets. That should mean something.
On the Buffet thing, I'll start taking him seriously when he pays all the back taxes his company owes. Until then he and his secretary can eat a dick.