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.

Well, that was kind of my point. As far as the presidency is concerned, most everyone starts out inexperienced because there is no other job like it. The only chance to have any idea is if you were VP before being President. I suspect he could have gotten past that, if partisanship wasn't at an all time high and the economy hadn't nose dived. Maybe not a "perfect storm" but certain bad seas to govern on. I could agree it hasn't been a great presidency so far (I suspect the President would agree), but I see no reason to believe McCain (or anyone else) could have done significantly better.

I'm more annoyed with SCOTUS over Citizen's United. The legality of the ACA is certainly pushing the envelope. And I'd really like a more detailed and personal explanation from Justice Roberts on his seemingly contradictory interpretations. I don't think the idea of the ACA is a bad thing. And a large majority of the population like many of it's elements (no caps, no issues with pre-existing conditions, coverage of children to age 25). The issue is can we make it work from the cost side. And I would certainly agree there are legitimate concerns there.

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.

I'm sure there was quite a bit of what you're suggesting as well, no doubt. Though I'm leary to soley lay the blame on Wall St. and the rich like the OWS'ers or Obama's chronies want people to do.

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.

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.

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.

Weren't you saying before the auto bailout had to happen and shifting any of the auto industry fallout from union greed? Or was that someone else?

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.

I in a way agree, though really the recession started setting in when Bush took office. It was going to happen anyway with alot of deregulating of banks by the Clinton administration thanks to lots of lobbying dollars. 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. Bush didn't create that. Clinton did, but because the shit finally hit the fan with Bush in office, it's his fault.

Not that Bush's spending helped anything, or the 2 wars that Junior started in the Middle East. Though at some point since we still have men and women over there, it becomes Obama's issue to deal with, considering he's still using Bush's time table for withdrawal and taking the credit as if it was all his doing in the first place, I believe it's just fair to give him some of the blame in that our boys are still there 4 years after he took office. Oh and hey, Gitmo's still open too isn't it? Boy that Obama sure keeps promises.

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.

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.

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.

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. Personally I wish all these fuckers would stop printing money and meddling.

That's the difference between those who are actual conservatives and those who just tow the party line, Republicans do it too spending wise. Just as annoyed with them. But I swear to god if I hear one more "Bush's Fault" for something Obama did, nearly a full term in to his joke of a presidency I'ma be a sad panda.

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*

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 2012, 00:01.

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.

To be honest Clinton's policies are what started the recession ball rolling, Bush's spending just made it worse. Much like Obama's wasteful spending hasn't made it any better. Notice a trend? Sound much like the Great Depression? A recession was inevitable regardless if Bush was in office or not.

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.

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.

Yep Bush's fault. Obama's failures are also Bush's fault. So was War War 1 and 2.

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.

Thing is it wasn't just Solyndra, there's a good 10 or so that he gave money to that have all failed. I agree with you, finding alternatives is the way to go. And no obviously drilling more here wouldn't sustain or solve it, but it'd be better than what we're paying at the pump right now.

The fact that Obama came out and said he didn't care about high gas prices because it would push the want for alternatives, and seeing him hand money to one failed solar company after another just infuriates me to no end. It's reasons like that are why I don't like him and don't have any respect for him. The Julia memo, the Fast and Furious bullshit and then sealing the evidence. To me it's like how much more proof do people need that this guy is quite possibly the worse president we've ever had since Carter?

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.

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.

You took me too literal there, I'm all for finding alternative sources, but in the mean time oil is what is going to be used, that's just reality, . Obama funded many alternative energy companies with tax payer money, most of which have since gone belly up. [url=http://tinyurl.com/cffet6m[/url] No one cares though and you won't see that kind of thing reported on MSN.

There are many states in the US with large reserves of oil. Montana, Utah, Calfornia, Alaska etc. The thing is we don't use our own. Instead we buy everything from Opec and let them dictate prices.

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.

Right, if only we had followed Hoover's lead everything would be fine. - FSM knows when FDR showed up with the new deal it ruined EVERYTHING.

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.

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.

I've said time and time again I didn't like Bush, I didn't support his spending either. Being a fiscal conservative for me comes before putting an R or D anywhere because I realize both parties have a spending addiction. I think the argument comes from who does one side with more on how things are spent. Democrats tend to be all for political correctness and handing out welfare like candy to those who have means to work. Republicans generally focus on military spending which in my mind is also way out of control.

Fact of the matter is, we need to start cutting spending everywhere, because plain and simple it's not sustainable the rate we're going.

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.

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.

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.