|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Obama’s Top Accomplishments
Extended the Bush tax cuts
This is number one on my list. However, I almost left it off altogether. I think he did this because he “had” to and not because he wanted to.
In the end, he did it…and that was a good decision.
Ended the War in Iraq
This needed to happen…even though a large number of soldiers remain(ed) after the War ended.
I believe the timeline for the end was drawn up under Bush’s term and the followed by Obama. Nevertheless, it ended during Obama’s term and he stuck with ending it there.
Followed through with the troop draw-down in Afghanistan
I probably should have put this one first. I don’t think we should have ever gone there in the first place.
We still have way too many troops there today.
Gave the order to kill Bin Laden
That was a gutsy move…on multiple levels. I’m glad he did it. It was the only thing that could make our investment in Afghanistan anything but a disaster.
Shown the light on pre-existing conditions
While I think Obamacare is a disaster and the poorest-crafted legislation of my lifetime, it was high time that the country understood what a travesty is the insurance industry stance on pre-existing conditions.
I’d rather the “fix” be done quite differently, but bringing the issue to light is a very good thing.
Well…that’s (5)…and while I feel dirty doing so, I have a couple more.
Deportation of illegals
He has deported more illegals than many would realize.
It is an unusual fact given his stance on Arizona’s immigration challenge and the recent effort to allow certain illegals to remain here as – basically - citizens.
Shook up “welfare to work”
I am disgusted at how he went about it, but any provision that puts the state in charge of their own issue(s) is a good thing.
That's all I could come up with...but I exceeded the list of many Obama supporters on this website.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Thanks for sharing. Quote:
That's all I could come up with...but I exceeded the list of many Obama supporters on this website.
That may have more to do with the fact that this board is very heavily conservative and those who support Obama feel it would fall on deaf ears.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
I don't think Obama has any supporters here outside of Charlie and mac.
Just ones that get labeled that way because they dislike republicans just as much as they dislike democrats (more accurately, dislike stupidity), but are forced into a position of arguing against the right more often than not because this place is populated with people who take positions that support the right even when it defies logic and shows extreme cognitive dissonance.
No reason for me personally to even read Charlie or mac anymore, nor the replies to them. They post the same whacked out ideology (Charlie) or only respond via huffington post article (mac) and then get piled on by the same people in outbursts of (justified) furstration. Its like groundhog day every time they post.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,077
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,077 |
Thanks, Willie. I appreciate the effort. I apologize for calling you to this task, and I believe I owe you an explanation as to why I did it. It actually dates back to a thread I started called "Confirmation Bias" about a year ago. I'd noticed that many posters, both here and at other sites (both Con & Lib) have a similar tendency: to take a stand based on their beliefs or political affiliations, then defend them using talking points culled from various sources that confirm their original POV. It caused me to surmise that most folk look first to sources that bolster, rather than challenge their beliefs. (Don't think that I'm pointing a finger directly at you- we ALL are guilty of this, to some degree.It's part of what makes us human). As I may have mentioned before, some folks think I'm a bit of an 'odd duck.' I lean slightly left on social issues and slightly right on fiscal ones. I try very hard to take each issue one by one, and decide what I think based on as much info as I can gather. The idea of being an 'arch'-anything seems silly to me... so when I hear of environmentalists plotting terror acts upon corporate offices, or guys like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols blowing up federal buildings, I just have to shake my head. It's too far out there for me to even fathom. Anyway, I put you to the test in the way I put my own self to the test. One day every week or so, I'll watch a few hours of MSNBC. Another day of the week, I'll watch the same amount of FOX. I listen to NPR on the radio in my cars, grab some CNN on another day, and scan the web for content from story to story. I do this on purpose, so I can at least TRY to maintain a balance, instead of simply seeking out those sources that confirm which way I'm inclined. My challenge to you was a little like that. To look at a person you already have deep convictions about... and see him through a different set of glasses. I never expected to see you change your mind about BO, but I thought I'd at least open the door to see if you could show some sense of nuance in your view of him. Mission: accomplished. Not my mission.... yours. By doing what you did, you've shown me in one post something I'd not seen in literally hundreds of other posts. In doing so, you've established a cred that makes me want to read your posts a bit more carefully than I have in the past. And finally: you and I both know that this is pretty much our first encounter in the political threads. Wanna know the other reason why I did it? For the same reasons that I watch all those various different news sources... to get new feedback- and maybe learn something that I didn't know. Dawg- we're probably gonnna disagree on a good many issues as we go forward, but I truly am glad we did ths little exercise. I've been basically a pro-Obama citizen (with a good many reservations), and you've... uh, not.  What was cool about this was that we had a good exchange without any rancor or animus. There might be hope for the world after all.... or maybe just Dawg Talkers at the EE forum. Thanks again for playing along, Clem
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
Ok, I will play, since I voted for Obama, the things that I do not like.
1. Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.
This probably represents 600 billion of the national debt. I did not like the 2 percent reduction in social security, which will affect solvency in the future. He should have cut checks like Bush did.
2. Not advocating a government or public option (e.g. Medicare for all) in the healthcare plan.
Yes, we know it it a mess, but I would have preferred the option to opt in to a Medicare type program.
3. The immigration issue. (non-deportation of illegal immigrants who came as children)
I really thought that this was a bit over the top. I would have rather seen something more comprehensive, even though there was a snowballs chance of that happening in Congress.
4. A poor mix in the stimulus
I would have weighted the program to infrastructure, instead of assistance to states and unemployment benefits, that have a less lasting impact.
5. Spending too much time on Obamacare.
This went on for months, and set the negative tone.
Last edited by ChargerDawg; 09/13/12 12:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Don't think that I'm pointing a finger directly at you- we ALL are guilty of this, to some degree.It's part of what makes us human
This is true. That's why people need unbiased ways of determining fact and truth, like science.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Quote:
The few Independents that I know walk around thinking they're somehow intellectually superior for holding this position. It makes me chuckle.
I just think it makes us honestly feel that people shouldn't be beholding to any given set of politicians simply based on whether they have a R or a D in front of their name.
That votes should be based on who one feels is the best candidate rather than pure ideology.
There are so many issues facing states, local governments and on the national level, that if people focus on a very few issues rather than look at things big picture, they often end up stalemating government to a point that nobody gets anything accomplished and everyone suffers as a result.
JMHO
I agree with you on that Pit...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
That votes should be based on who one feels is the best candidate rather than pure ideology.
How could you possibly feel that the best candidate is the one who does not share your ideology? I believe in X, Y, and Z... this candidate doesn't share my beliefs but I will vote for him anyway because I think he's the best candidate.. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Quote:
Quote:
Don't think that I'm pointing a finger directly at you- we ALL are guilty of this, to some degree.It's part of what makes us human
This is true. That's why people need unbiased ways of determining fact and truth, like science.
Which science?
The one that supports their beliefs? Or the "other" science?
Scientists are the masters at presenting their case as if there is no doubt to their conclusions...just like someone toeing a party line.
I'm not picking a fight here. I'm simply stating that the same advice applies when there is a debate involving science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Don't think that I'm pointing a finger directly at you- we ALL are guilty of this, to some degree.It's part of what makes us human
This is true. That's why people need unbiased ways of determining fact and truth, like science.
And science works great for proving some things, but not all things.... and science is a constantly evolving thing that routinely unproves, that which it thought it had already proven. I'm not an anti-science guy, I think science is great... I also think we need to accept its limitations.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
I also think we need to accept its limitations.
Like your golf game?  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
I also think we need to accept its limitations.
Like your golf game?
As my average drive dipped under 280 this year I did what any self-respecting golfer would do... I bought a new driver. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
How's that working out for you? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Beautifully... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777 |
Quote:
Quote:
That votes should be based on who one feels is the best candidate rather than pure ideology.
How could you possibly feel that the best candidate is the one who does not share your ideology? I believe in X, Y, and Z... this candidate doesn't share my beliefs but I will vote for him anyway because I think he's the best candidate..
That all depends. Some vote strictly upon religious beliefs. More to the point, the abortion issue. While I am a firm believer in God and in Jesus Christ, I do not feel inflicting my own personal beliefs on everyone in our nation is in the best interest of my country.
I'm told it's not for me to judge. I'm told that vengance isn't mine and not to cast the first stone. So while I do feel strongly about that issue, I will let others decide and it will be them who is judged.
I saw a tax break given to the welthiest in a claim it would help create jobs. Yet those tax breaks are still in place that were designed to create jobs, yet jobs are not being created.
I've seen business de-regulated to the point that we reached a finacial crisis bordering on yet another great depression. You know, with all of those tax breaks that created all of those jobs?
And now I see that same party make those same claims that got us in that situation in the first place. More tax cuts to the wealthy that will help create jobs and de-regulation. The very same theory that helped sink us to begin with are being regujitated yet again.
In the only tax statement returns Romney will alow to be revealed, he pays a lesser % of income tax than many above average households with children.
I have seen a common sense proposal to cutting taxes on businesses. One that rewards businesses with tax cuts for creating jobs in our country. While it adds penalties for shipping jobs overseas. But it comes from the wrong side of the aisle and while it would help create jobs here, it's not something that will pass.
What those who are so entrenched in our capitalist system of acquiring wealth at the cost of the poor should remember is this.............
Matt. 9:14
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
----------------------------------------------
Jesus taught that one should give of themselves. He taught us that feeding the poor and healing the sick were very noble causes.
So for those so entrenched in "being of this world", one might wish to remember, according to most people on this board...... Jesus was a Socialist.
I've watched presidents from both parties raid Social Security then complain it's going broke. There's nothing Christian at all about lining the pockets of the wealthy while burdening the poor.
I watched a man work his entire life hoarding his wealth. His wife developed Alzheimer's. I've watched while he's had to pay so much out of pocket expences on medication, his wealth is dwindling down to almost nothing.
I used to give my uncle money while he was still alive so he could pay his heat bill, pay for his co-pays on his medicine and still be able to buy groceries.
So in the end, I really don't like either party. I don't like the special interests that exist in both. I feel lobbyists should be outlawed all together. It's a curse and blight on our nation.
But I've also seen the devistation that our system has caused to hard working people that have simply gotten old. I've seen us claim we can't afford health care, while we can afford unecassary wars. I've seen us say we can't afford medicare, while we can permiate lies that these rax cuts create jobs "in our country", while those tax cuts have mainly created jobs overseas and left our economy far worse off than it was.
It's a funny thing. You can spend months working on abuilding a structure only to have a tornado tear it down in a matter of moments. Then people can expect you to not only rebuild that building, but build it in lass time than it took that tornado to tear it down.
Life just doesn't work that way.
So while I don't know if Obama can actually fix anything, I've seen every proposal he's made over the past two years stonewalled. I've seen everything he's tried to propose shot down by congress because defeating Obama seems more important to some than actually trying to move this nation forward and getting better.
I've watched people complain about the price if gas, then turn right around and complain about spending money on alternative fuel solutions. Yes, having wars, killing people and trying to control oil rich nations has turned out to be a SO MUCH better plan.
Right now I'm pretty much forced to vote for Obama. It's either that or go right back to the same failed policies of Bush via Romney. People just refuse to look at it for what it is.
I can't see lining the pockets of the rich even more by causing more anguish on our elderly who are the one's who fought for and built this nation.
I feel Christianity has gone astray. That they have lost their way. That they are being tricked by the snake oil salesmen.
How quickly so many forget and how quickly they choose the parts of the bible they wish to use for their own purpose, while leaving out the real message.
Yes Jesus was a Socialist by todays standards and I guess I'm the kind of guy who chooses to actually join him rather than buy a bittle of snake oil......
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
So you agree with Obama more than you agree with Romney so you are going to vote for Obama. How is that different than what I said?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
That all depends. Some vote strictly upon religious beliefs. More to the point, the abortion issue.
The abortion issue comes down to standing up for the rights of the unborn. There was a time in the country when people felt slaves weren't real people, and therefore didn't have the same rights as regular citizens. The Supreme Court even ruled as such. The abortion issue is very similar. At one point people could kill their slaves, because they were viewed simply as property and not actual humans. The same goes for abortion now ... it's not about restricting rights of women, it's about protecting the rights of unborn children.
Quote:
While I am a firm believer in God and in Jesus Christ, I do not feel inflicting my own personal beliefs on everyone in our nation is in the best interest of my country.
*reading rest of your post* .... unless it has to do with other people's money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
So you agree with Obama more than you agree with Romney so you are going to vote for Obama. How is that different than what I said?
The funny thing about Pits post is, he isn't lying or making stuff up.,
It's a view that some folks don't want to hear, don't want repeated, but really what's a lie about it. What's untrue?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
So you agree with Obama more than you agree with Romney so you are going to vote for Obama. How is that different than what I said?
The funny thing about Pits post is, he isn't lying or making stuff up.,
It's a view that some folks don't want to hear, don't want repeated, but really what's a lie about it. What's untrue?
I never said Pit was lying or making stuff up... Pit said to vote for the best candidate and not along the lines of your ideology and I'm saying that those two things are one and the same. He then proceeded to lay out his ideology and why he feels Obama and the democrats represent his ideology better than Romney does so he has no choice but to vote for Obama.
If he feels Obama represents his views better, then vote for him, I don't really care... but don't act like he is somehow more pure and is voting for the right reasons and others are voting for the wrong reasons... Pit IS voting his ideology.... as should everybody.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So you agree with Obama more than you agree with Romney so you are going to vote for Obama. How is that different than what I said?
The funny thing about Pits post is, he isn't lying or making stuff up.,
It's a view that some folks don't want to hear, don't want repeated, but really what's a lie about it. What's untrue?
I never said Pit was lying or making stuff up... Pit said to vote for the best candidate and not along the lines of your ideology and I'm saying that those two things are one and the same. He then proceeded to lay out his ideology and why he feels Obama and the democrats represent his ideology better than Romney does so he has no choice but to vote for Obama.
If he feels Obama represents his views better, then vote for him, I don't really care... but don't act like he is somehow more pure and is voting for the right reasons and others are voting for the wrong reasons... Pit IS voting his ideology.... as should everybody.
OK DC,.. Cool Jets Please.;) I wasn't knocking you, just commenting on what Pit said. he's not really wrong, he IS telling the truth. Those things he mentioned are accurate and a bit on the scary side..
I can't make myself vote for Romney for some of those very reasons, but then, I have a list of reasons not to vote for Obama.. I'm in a bit of a pickle as to who to vote for.
The good news is, I don't have to make that decision today. one of them will certainly shoot himself in the foot. But even if they don't, I still don't see myself voting for either of the leading candidates.
I'm not sure it's possible or even legal, but I'd absolutely love it if everyone of us wrote in our own names..
I'd love to see both top candidates try and spin their way out of that one. I'd pay admission to see those speeches..LOL
Long time ago, folks accused me of being a fence rider. at first I took offense to that, but I don't anymore. I can look at a circumstance, listen to both side of an argument and the funny thing is, there is generally both good and bad, right and wrong on both sides.
That's why I always say take governmental issue, start in the middle and work your way out left and right until you come up with a solution that works for the majority of Americans.
Maybe I'm saying that wrong,, maybe you start at the left and the right and work towards the middle. maybe that's the better way to put it.
End result, you find solutions that are best for America.. not just the left or right.
And in my eyes, Extremists, be they right or left or islamic (as an example) don't have the best interest of the masses in mind. It's impossible.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And in my eyes, Extremists, be they right or left or islamic (as an example) don't have the best interest of the masses in mind. It's impossible.
Of course they do.... other people just find them misguided. Look, if I'm a Taoist and I live on on a commune where we grow our own vegetables, educate our own children, there is no violence, everybody gets along, we don't need or use currency because we are self-supporting... and life is great, then by default, what do I think is best for the masses? TO LIVE LIKE I DO.
Now there is a big difference between wanting that for others and forcing that on others... and that is where true extremism leaves the paved road... a lot of people are labeled as "extremists" because they think others would be better off if they lived and believed the same way... true extremists are the ones who are willing by force or politics to make you live that way... and there are a lot fewer of them..
But all of this still doesn't address the original point Pit and I were discussing.. and that is voting for the best candidate compared to voting ideologically... and I still maintain that there isn't much of a difference.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777 |
Quote:
So you agree with Obama more than you agree with Romney so you are going to vote for Obama. How is that different than what I said?
Somewhat but not really.
I like what the GOP says about immigration. I think Arizona is a fine model to follow. It's just what I percieve as the lesser of two evils and basic math.
Tax breaks for the rich was supposed to create jobs. Yet by the time Bush left office, we were losing 100's of thousands of jobs. De-regulation caused business to run amuck and caused a lot crooks and thieves praying on the working class and an almost total collapse in our economy.
So since it usually takes longer to fix things that to tear them up, I'm not willing to buy into the exact same theory to help the economy Romney is peddling. I see where that theory got us by the time Bush was ready to leave office.
So it's more about giving one party equal time to fix things as the other party took to screw it up.
I mean if you looked at the economy at the end of Bush's first term, things didn't look bad. But we can see where his second term got us.
The very same thing could be said for Obama if given the chance. I don't realisticly see how all of the failed policies of an eight year president can be cured in four years. So it's more about giving something new a chance, equal time as it were.
I've already witnessed where those same Bush policies took us. I try to learn from history. And it's much easier to learn from recent history. I can't really imagine how anyone, after looking where those policies got us, can promote Bush 2.0.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Tax breaks for the rich was supposed to create jobs. Yet by the time Bush left office, we were losing 100's of thousands of jobs.
And if we didn't rush to pass the stimulus package Obama threatened that unemployment could get as high as 8%... we passed it and unemployment still went to 10% and hasn't been below 8% since.
Quote:
De-regulation caused business to run amuck and caused a lot crooks and thieves praying on the working class and an almost total collapse in our economy.
It has been well documented that a lot of the funny business that the banks did which caused the collapse pre-dated Bush, much of it was under Clinton and before that.
Quote:
The very same thing could be said for Obama if given the chance. I don't realisticly see how all of the failed policies of an eight year president can be cured in four years. So it's more about giving something new a chance, equal time as it were.
They probably can't be, but they can be made considerably worse in 4 years evidently.
Quote:
I've already witnessed where those same Bush policies took us. I try to learn from history. And it's much easier to learn from recent history. I can't really imagine how anyone, after looking where those policies got us, can promote Bush 2.0.
Some of us have studied the history and we know what Bush is responsible for and what he's not responsible for and you are putting 100% of the blame on him for what happened during his 8 years and that's just not the case. I've compared Bush's 8 years to Obama's 4 years... both sucked. Obama is promising in the next 4 years to do more of the same things he did in his first 4 years.. I don't need to live through it to know what the result will be.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
That was perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777 |
Quote:
Quote:
Tax breaks for the rich was supposed to create jobs. Yet by the time Bush left office, we were losing 100's of thousands of jobs.
And if we didn't rush to pass the stimulus package Obama threatened that unemployment could get as high as 8%... we passed it and unemployment still went to 10% and hasn't been below 8% since.
Yes, it didn't as of yet fix the mess it took 8 years to create.
I'll tell you what, every time the economy tanks, we'll just keep cutting taxes for the rich until they pay zero taxes. Maybe then they'll finaly shut up.
As is proven, it will never actually help anything accept jobs overseas, but hey, who really cares about that fact.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Yes, it didn't as of yet fix the mess it took 8 years to create.
Well if you want to be factual, then it took 9 years to create it because the tech bubble started to collapse the year before Bush took office. Or maybe 12 years to create it because thats at least how far back the banking regulation changes go that eventually caused the housing bubble collapse... or we could put other dates on it..
Quote:
I'll tell you what, every time the economy tanks, we'll just keep cutting taxes for the rich until they pay zero taxes. Maybe then they'll finaly shut up.
No, in a down economy you cut taxes for everybody, which if I'm not mistaken, is what Bush did.... and if raising taxes on the rich is the answer, why hasn't Obama done it yet? Why didn't he do it at a time when his party controlled everything and there was nothing the R's could do to stop it? Why hasn't he even put up a fight to do it? He keeps talking about it and blaming all of our problems on it but then when things get a little heated, he backs off of it.
I liked Fred Thompson's facebook post the other day.. (If anybody likes a little conservative satire and is actually on facebook, Fred Thompson is a good guy to follow)... his post said... "It was been reported that the Democratic convention ran $15 million over budget. Who would have ever guessed.... the democrats actually had a budget."
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,777 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, it didn't as of yet fix the mess it took 8 years to create.
Well if you want to be factual, then it took 9 years to create it because the tech bubble started to collapse the year before Bush took office. Or maybe 12 years to create it because thats at least how far back the banking regulation changes go that eventually caused the housing bubble collapse... or we could put other dates on it..
What I find odd about all of this is that it seems many hold Obama responsible for not fixing the mess we're in within a four year window, yet they seem not to hold Bush responsible for having eight years to fix these regulations.
Everyone here is accountable when it comes to the political parties. Nobody is immuned here. And on your other point?
I feel Obama did not and does not want to raise taxes on anyone and tried exhausting all other venues first without having to do so. I wouldn't say that's such a bad thing, would you?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424 |
Both parties were responsible for the mess that created the recession.
Both parties wanted so desperately to put people into houses, whether or not they could afford them, and they saw the increasing housing values as a way to justify it. If they had to foreclose, they'd recoup their losses in increased value. The Republicans wanted less regulation, and the Democrats (and some Republicans) wanted everyone who could be stuffed into a home of their own into one .... so they did what it took to make that happen. Both sides were to blame.
I have to ask, because I haven't looked ..... but the Democrats ruled the House and Senate for the final 2 years of Bush's term ...... so how many pieces of legislation did they propose and/or pass to "fix" this problem before it imploded?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
Quote:
What I find odd about all of this is that it seems many hold Obama responsible for not fixing the mess we're in within a four year window, yet they seem not to hold Bush responsible for having eight years to fix these regulations.
Lol. A lot of conservatives, myself included....said Bush screwed the pooch with excessive spending. Obama's continuing the process, and he's the current president. So, how long do we give Obama before we can hold him accountable? According to your logic, I guess it's 8 years.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424 |
I think that most of us complained about Bush's spending.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Quote:
I think that most of us complained about Bush's spending.
I still do.
His stimulus plans were just as stupid and wasteful as Obama's.... though, Obama one-upped him a few times over with his packages plus "Cash for Clunkers", the $8,000 housing "rebates", and the "buy an Energy Star appliance, get $500" deals.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
What I find odd about all of this is that it seems many hold Obama responsible for not fixing the mess we're in within a four year window, yet they seem not to hold Bush responsible for having eight years to fix these regulations.
Again I think its pretty well documented that the Bush administration made passing mention of the fact that the regulations were doomed to fail... but he caved and did little to nothing about it... I mean who wants to be the President that goes to congress and says, "There are far too many poor people buying houses, we need to put a stop to it." Yea, that would have been popular.  In the end, he did nothing to stop it, and part of being the President is making unpopular choices if that's what is best... and he failed to do it. So yes, he is as responsible as anybody else.
I don't hold Obama responsible for not fixing it as much as I hold him responsible for making it so much worse. He was in the same situation, he had the chance to make some tough choices... primarily to cut spending, it would have put us on a tough road for a while but it would have put us in a better position to recover in the long term.. instead he paid off old credit cards with new credit cards, charging more every time.. now we are up to our wazooos in even more debt. Both are guilty of failed leadership as far as the economy is concerned.
Quote:
I feel Obama did not and does not want to raise taxes on anyone and tried exhausting all other venues first without having to do so. I wouldn't say that's such a bad thing, would you?
What other venues? All he did was give away a crap load of money we didn't have to give away.... and increase regulation and the burden on business considerably.. and I'm not talking about protecting us from the evil banks, I'm talking about ALL business..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Just a note from an Independent
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
