RollinThundr wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 09:48:
Honestly this is part of the reason I don't think Obama's a good leader, he's still inexperienced and still naive, and to top it off the man exhibits symptoms of narcissism, which for a POTUS isn't a very good mix. I'm more disappointed in the SCOTUS though, allowing an unconstitutional health care bill to pass by calling it a tax, a bill that's going to make health care cost more in the long run. Pretty damn ridiculous. I already knew going in Barry would make a terrible president and sadly I haven't been proven wrong thus far.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 22:17:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 13:33:
Add in pressuring banks to give loans to anyone who wants one, even those that can't afford it, and there's your crisis in a nutshell.

Loans to unqualified borrowers were certainly part of the problem. However, as far as the "pressuring banks to give loans" -- I consider that hogwash. Even if it was true the government pressured banks into making loans they otherwise wouldn't have (which I'm not convinced is true) -- if the banks didn't want the loans, all they had to do was sell them to Freddie or Fannie. Poof! No issue for the bank.

Instead what happened is the government lowered the requirements. The banks saw an opportunity to make money and did everything they could to take advantage. Unfortunately, they weren't quite as smart as they thought they were. Eventually they and their wall street buddies painted themselves into a corner. And we, not they, ending up paying the price.

I think the Gitmo closure issue is a great example of "you never know what it is like to be President, until you are President." Which may or may not be obvious, but clearly some politicians don't get it. I would guess President Obama actually wants to close Gitmo. However, he has come to realize, it isn't that simple. Most things in politics rarely are.

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 13:33:
Add in pressuring banks to give loans to anyone who wants one, even those that can't afford it, and there's your crisis in a nutshell.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 10:19:
When did I ever say I was for or against the bailouts? Just listing some facts here, but I gotta be careful using that Bush name because it could prompt a Tourettes like response in some folks.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:52:
Yes, deficit spending has been a problem for a long time. That is why when people try to complain about it in my presence, I usually ask how long they've been complaining about it. I usually get a blank look. And I then say, "Well, if you haven't been complaining about it for the last 40 years at least, STFU."

My main issue/complaint with blaming the current administration for the economy is this: The current problems with the economy are the direct result of housing market collapse and the credit crunch. There is plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble, but giving any of the blame to the administration which took office just as it was collapsing, doesn't hold water for me.

Could more have been done to help the recovery? Beats the hell out of me. Economics is more voodoo like than psychiatry. I do think given the current extreme partisan nature of our legislature it's unlikely -- even if someone could definitively say what it was we should do.

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 08:44:

Sepharo wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 23:56:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 22:21:
I was more commenting on that is the fall back excuse of Libs, Bush, blame Bush. Obama does something stupid, oh that's Bush's fault. At some point Obama needs to be held accountable for his fuck ups.

You act as if he isn't. It's just when people point out things that are left over from the previous administration you parrots squawk like this.
Solyndra, Fast and Furious, NDAA, bronies, that all happened under Obama.
Iraq, Afghanistan, patriot act, deregulation across the board, Bailout part 1, that's from Bush.

*squawk* Obama does something stupid, Bush's fault! *squawk*

Riiiiight, Here's the thing, you can't be against 1 president "bailing people out" then be for the next one doing it even more so just due to a D or R next to their name. Just saying.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 23:56:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 22:21:
I was more commenting on that is the fall back excuse of Libs, Bush, blame Bush. Obama does something stupid, oh that's Bush's fault. At some point Obama needs to be held accountable for his fuck ups.

You act as if he isn't. It's just when people point out things that are left over from the previous administration you parrots squawk like this.
Solyndra, Fast and Furious, NDAA, bronies, that all happened under Obama.
Iraq, Afghanistan, patriot act, deregulation across the board, Bailout part 1, that's from Bush.

*squawk* Obama does something stupid, Bush's fault! *squawk*

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 22:21:
I was more commenting on that is the fall back excuse of Libs, Bush, blame Bush. Obama does something stupid, oh that's Bush's fault. At some point Obama needs to be held accountable for his fuck ups.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 09:17:
Yep. Being in charge of the country eight years prior to an economic collapse, and travelling back in time to start world wars are exactly the same thing. Glad we could reach this agreement.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 30, 2012, 20:47:
If only he had led us into two separate decade long wars or eight years of economic policies leading to the worst recession since the 1930s, then you could love him so much more.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 30, 2012, 10:29:

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:52:
Oh yes alternative energy, another failure that Obama funded with tax payer money that has already failed. Had we authorized more drilling a decade ago, we wouldn't be paying 4-5 bucks a gallon now.

As I understand it, even if we produced as much oil as Saudi Arabia we wouldn't be self sufficient. And we are never going to reach those levels. So finding alternatives seems like a good plan. Now, do we currently have the technology to replace oil? No. Would additional drilling relieve the price pressure some? Some. Enough to matter? Unclear, but it seems unlikely.

Yeah, Solyndra was a failure. Frankly I haven't looked closely enough to know if it was bad management, a bad business model, bad technology, or simple theft of government funding. But we need a solution besides oil. Having the government give incentives to develop new technologies, in general, seems like a reasonable idea to me.

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:52:
Oh yes alternative energy, another failure that Obama funded with tax payer money that has already failed. Had we authorized more drilling a decade ago, we wouldn't be paying 4-5 bucks a gallon now.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 18:05:

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:52:

Oh yes alternative energy, another failure that Obama funded with tax payer money that has already failed. Had we authorized more drilling a decade ago, we wouldn't be paying 4-5 bucks a gallon now.

Wow. Such ignorance is breathtaking. It's as if Rush is beaming a signal into your brain and you're just repeating verbatim.

THERE IS NO MORE OIL TO FIND. Peak oil is here. Even the US Military agrees. We need something different, as peak coal and peak gas aren't far off. And the stomach for nuclear grows weak.

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:36:
You don't need government to stimulate anything, the Great Depression wouldn't have dragged on as long if Gov didn't meddle and spend spend spend. Markets tend to correct themselves. This is something democrats just don't understand.

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:52:

Oh yes alternative energy, another failure that Obama funded with tax payer money that has already failed. Had we authorized more drilling a decade ago, we wouldn't be paying 4-5 bucks a gallon now.

Beelzebud wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 16:57:

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 15:02:

Rattlehead wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 14:39:
Don't you love how people use the world liberal like it's a derogatory term.

Let's be honest, if it were a republican President who bailed out all these banks and companies, we'd never hear the end of "corporate welfare" yada yada. Obama does it, it's ok, no one cares.

Remember kids it's alright to add record debt as long as you're a democrat. Is that pretty much the moral of the story or what?

I have a memory. Bush signed TARP into law, in case you forgot. It was better than a full blown depression. You can knock down as many straw-men as you want to.

Who said this: "Deficits don't matter." Surly a liberal, right? Oh wait, no that was Dick Cheney, when he was VP during Bush's spending spree.

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 15:02:

Rattlehead wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 14:39:
Don't you love how people use the world liberal like it's a derogatory term.

Let's be honest, if it were a republican President who bailed out all these banks and companies, we'd never hear the end of "corporate welfare" yada yada. Obama does it, it's ok, no one cares.

Remember kids it's alright to add record debt as long as you're a democrat. Is that pretty much the moral of the story or what?

jdreyer wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 15:42:

RollinThundr wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 15:25:
So the taxpayer should pay for them making too many SUV's rather than making a Prius? (and no that god awful Volt doesn't count) Here's the thing, when you or I screw up at work, or screwed up growing up, we paid the consequences for it.

This is the main issue with political correctness, there's no such thing as personal responsibility being taught these days.

Government is there to provide infrastructure, roads, police, fire military protection etc. They're not there to hand out bailouts for companies or individuals fucking off.

Unions were necessary 30 years ago, the unions of today that thrive off greed and making political contributions to the DNC are not the same as those working for worker's rights back then. And this is coming from someone in one.

Here's a better analogy: your company builds solar panels, but the main silicon plant is destroyed by a hurricane driving prices up. Your company has to lay off 30% of its workers, and you're one of them. It's the recession, so it will take you a years to get another. By your logic and credo, you're going to refuse government unemployment assistance and welfare, am I correct?

As for making a Prius, only a couple companies in the world at that time were working on hybrids or electrics out of dozens and dozens. GM was hardly in the minority. Ford survived b/c they'd just sold off a bunch of assets and had lots of liquid cash, and they'd just restructured. It was foresight combined with luck.

Unions of the past were much more in control of politics than they were today. Unions back then basically bought and paid for politicians, even selecting who would run. Today things are much less corrupt. Corporations are much more in control which is why the system is rigged so strongly in their favor. Read that article I linked to above. Wages are suffering b/c union influence is waning.