Printable View
I know this question has been asked numerous times but what the board thinks about this. I get that Bush fucked up America big time as president and the mistakes are going to have a long lasting impact on America. However, Obama has been president for over a year and a half, shouldn't he start taking responsibility for his mistakes as president? Most Americans don't care about Bush anymore. They want the economy fixed and a lot of people want jobs and/or better jobs.
LOL, what Bush caliber mistakes is he making?
Actually polls show that Americans are very aware of who (Dubya and incumbents) and how (deregulation) we got into the mess we are in today....what they disagree on is how we should get out of this mess...
Bush never stopped blaming Clinton
Obama just serving the shit sandwiches he's supposed to serve.
"They want the economy fixed"
It's not fixable. Obama didn't break it, and Repugs won't fix it.
The wealth inequality is now so great, the power/$$$ is so concentrated in the wealthy, that THEY won't fix anything because for them, LIFE IS GREAT, they are, like Wall St, totally detached from the Real Economy. For them, nothing's broken.
Another thing about the wealthy is that they are as sophisticated as they are wealthy, and very opaque, stealthy, focused, coordinated, conspiratorial about how they wield their power. That's why the Repugs have blocked transparency and all attempts to counteract the Repug SCOTUS decision permitting the corps to buy elections.
The Repugs' "hate-all-government-all-the-time" is nothing but the wealthy's strategy of emascualting/killing government and government regulations so the wealthy can rape, plunder, defraud, and amass even more wealth and power.
The widespread and deep damage the dubya/Repugs did is undeniable, but it was simply the culmination of 30+ years of wealthy conservatives, corporations, Wall St successfully implementing their strategy of the wealthy class vs everybody else.
The class war is over, the wealthy class won.
Magic Negro won't and can't fix it. And surely the Repugs will NEVER do anything positive for America.
so why not move since the republicans are stupid and the democracts according to you can not fix it
I'm actually more worried about the GOP message in general. They just haven't aligned themselves behind some kind of project or idea. They're really lacking as far as unity behind propositions. It's like everybody is out for themselves. Coming into the November elections, I would like to see a more organized party, with a unified message if possible, and not playing the same blame game Obama is being accused of playing.
Of course he won't. If a republican follows Obama then that republican will never stop blaming Obama. And so on and so on. Any time there's a change of party in the WH the new guy is always going to blame the old guy.
"unity behind propositions."
propositions? what propositions?
8 yrs of fuckups > 1 year
There's a difference between previous guy fucked it all up and I'm not even trying to fix it.
The GOP has a unified message. It's "we're against whatever Obama is for". It's a crappy message, but it will be an effective one come November.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
That's politics of the 21st century right there. It's not about being good, it's about trying to convince voters that the other team sucks worse than your team.Quote:
Originally Posted by fraga
"I'm not even trying to fix it."
The first stimulus was too small, shoulda been about $2T. Now the Repugs have intimidated and fucked up everybody with "deficit IS the ONLY problem", so more stimulus is politically dead.
What's your Monday morning quarterback solution on how the govt should have fixed the economy?
And what's your recommendation today for getting people back to work, which "polls show", is the PEOPLE's #1 priority, not the bullshit priority of the Repugs deficit-mongering.
It sounded so cool 2 years ago. Just blame one guy for all the problems. Past, present and future.
It's fun..easy...and takes no real thought...now I see why the Right uses it so much...
who is he talking to, jack?
Dick Cheney
Yep, because democrats do no wrong :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Look dude both sides are have fudged things up. It does suck but we have to deal with it.
"democrats do no wrong"
you said that, I didn't
The Repugs have actively, shamelessly, incorrigibly, willfully fucked up, while the Dems have passively acquiesced.
eg, if Gore had won, would we have ever been in Iraq?
Democrats have grown vaginas...
Oh I love that...Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
New sig!
2 tQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
does the usa not have enough debt already
you think the usa is suppose to bail dumbasses out all the time:nope:nope:nope:nope
2 t for stimulas is way more then irag war:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I just picked rainbows. I live in the rainbow state now; thought it was appropriate.
Might be to the rabid right, and that's not enough to win big.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
I have a feeling they're going to need more than that. As a party, they're deeply divided. Cases where candidates from outside the party win and the party backed candidate doesn't. That's the impression I get anyways, and I hope it changes before November.
The thing is the repubs have been against what obama is doing way before barry.
Most of America too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Really? Like Medicare Part-D? Or the Bank bailout? Tax cuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Or those are not real republicans?
Yeah, that why they voted him into office... :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
They thought he was different. They believed him when he talked about no earmarks, transparency, the economy would get better, he would end the wars, all congress would read the bills, place the bills on the internet for atleast 5 days before a vote,etc,etc,etc,,,,,,Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
:rolleyes
Meh... I knew he was sold when he voted for the telecom amnesty before the election. I'm certainly disappointed he hasn't closed Gitmo and ended the wars by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
But back to the claim that most republicans have been against what barry is doing, it's a silly claim. They've been doing the exact same thing, and that's in part why Barry got his job.
1) I got great pleasure in the passing of part D. I'm against most social programs, but i do believe in taking care of our seniors. The really pleasurable part was democrats were promising it for 40 years, always reneging. Then republicans passed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
2) The bank bailout had very few republicans voting for it. Just because a neocon president did... None of the conservatives did now, did they?
3) The tax cuts were a good thing. Sorry you disagree.
You're for more debt and unpaid obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'll remember that when you bitch about debt again.
Are you sure about that? Let's look at the voting record, so you can refresh your memory:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Senate
House
And it's not that a neocon president just signed it, his Treasury Secretary was the one that sent the bill to Congress to begin with.
The increased debt disagrees with you. But more spending seems to be your motto, so you should be right at home with Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So the GOP stopped the obstructionism for a unfunded social programQuote:
1) I got great pleasure in the passing of part D. I'm against most social programs, but i do believe in taking care of our seniors. The really pleasurable part was democrats were promising it for 40 years, always reneging. Then republicans passed it.
Great Job!
...back to the OP, who cares if Obama blames Bush or not, the important part is the voters blame Bush and the GOP for the countries economic woes in Nov...
Think as you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Medicare is a system for our elderly. It's welfare programs that people receive that are capable of working that I have a problem with.
Only one propbelm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Our economic woes didn't start till 6 month of more after the democrats took control of congress.
How can anyone with an above room temperature IQ blame that on Bush, or the republicans?
Yes, because Bush signed these bills into Law......why blame Obama for the cluster-fucks in Iraq and Afghanistan...they were cluster-fucks well before he came into office.....politics isn't fair sometimes, but it is what it is..Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But you said "and the GOP." The GOP had almost no members agreeing the first go-around. It wasn't until an amendment required all money repaid in TARP-1 pay back down the deficit it added to, and not be directed anywhere else, that it received some republican votes. I was still against it thinking more would be lost than what was. TARP-2 is the real problem child. How many republican votes did it get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Are you being a smart ass or does everything viewed by you in black n white? I'll remember that when you bitch about anything. I agree that I hate social programs but seniors are different. raising people on the govt.'s dime from people who earned it vs. helping out seniors to get the medicine that can't live without.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I have no problem with Part D, but the GOP should have raised taxes to pay for it...instead Dubya lowered taxes on the highest earners and started two unfunded wars...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Obama isn't as liberal as the media tries to make him out to be. He continues to do the illegal wiretaps and monitoring that happened when Bush was president. Gitmo is still open. He has deployed more troops to Afghanistan similar to Bush deploying more troops to Iraq. Obama is against gay marriage just like Bush. I know that Obama supports civil unions but he does not support gay marriage. According to him, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Obama loves to spend money just like Bush did. Obama spends money that puts America further in debt just like Bush did. When you think about it, Obama is serving Bush's 3rd term.
how did oif and oef make the unemployment rise and stay to 9%? If we are talking about the massive spending, then why is obama not to blame for his incredible increase?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by 21_Blessings
By the time TARP was being passed it was already too late...we needed legislation and regulation during the GOP do-nothing Congress of 00-04...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Bullshit. TARP was not needed. No business is too big to fail. That attitude is purely elitist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
An industry was accepted by supply and demand that regulation allowed to happen, rather than prevent. If the large government backed places didn't have incentive to buy worthless paper, but were required to operate by market factors, this would have never occurred. several republicans tried to reign this in, but demonrats like Barney Frank prevented it.
God, are all 26 year old virgins this stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
The majority after Dubya promised them rainbows and lollipops...Quote:
How many republican votes did it get?
The market almost collapsed after Lehman brothers was allowed to crash and burn...can you imagine the economic devastation if every brokerage house and over-leveraged bank, not to mention the nation's money supply, was allowed to crash and burn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'd say it's a necessary correction. That after the dust clears, we would now be better off if they did fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
This stagnation we have is not sustainable.
or cut programs in other areas to offset the increase from part d. He shouldn't have to pay for the tax cut since that wasn't the govt.'s money. However I don't see how the congress isn't to blame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
....because that's what you do when the nation is facing slow growth, spend...and preferably spend rich people's money, because they certainly will use it against you if you don't..
Stagflation is characterized by high inflation and high unemployment....we don't have high inflation, we have deflation....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I didn't say stagflation. Did I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
but you see, It was the governments money....there was no need for a tax-cut at that time.....growth under Bush was sustained by deficit-spending...Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
How about cutting expenses somewhere else if this program required so much priority? Full control of Congress and the Executive when this passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Is it that hard to be responsible?
What's going to happen when you are an elder and you can't buy medicines and there's no part-d program because there's no money?
Add to that the hypocrisy to attempt to hold this administration to a different standard. This administration and the last one has much more in common than any of you are willing to admit. They're both a big turd sandwich.
If you got rid of medicare/aid all together, then there wouldn't be a part d.
That is just unreasonable......medicare was profitable until the GOP made it unprofitable......now the GOP wants someone else to fix it....Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Is that the only government program that we have and we can trim?
Although Obama has done things that I think could have been done differently, probably better, I don't see the comparison to Dubya being even in the same ballpark...Quote:
Add to that the hypocrisy to attempt to hold this administration to a different standard. This administration and the last one has much more in common than any of you are willing to admit. They're both a big turd sandwich
We need to make cuts, painful cuts, like cuts in corporate welfare, cuts in defense spending, and cuts in tax-cuts for the rich...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
kinda hard to ignore dubya when he f'ed up the country the way he did
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/g...carter_bashingQuote:
What Carter-bashing tells us about Bush-bashing
By Steve Kornacki
In a Hardball segment last night on Democrats' efforts to resurrect the Bush bogeyman, Chuck Todd noted that Republicans once played the same game with Jimmy Carter, backing it up with Carter-bashing clips from the 1984, 1988 and 1992 Republican conventions.
This is quite true. But the story of the GOP's Carter attacks is actually a complicated one, simultaneously providing today's Democrats with a hopeful example and a cautionary tale.
Carter and Bush, of course, left office under similar circumstances: feeble economy, brutal job approval ratings, sagging national confidence, and so on. And they were both replaced by charismatic leaders, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, whose inaugurations spawned widespread public optimism.
But when the economy worsened in 1981 and 1982, Reagan's popularity wore off -- just as Obama's has deteriorated in the face of strikingly similar unemployment numbers. Which is why, as they confronted grim midterm election outlooks, they both took to invoking their unpopular predecessors on the campaign trail.
This brings us to the first lesson from the GOP's Carter-bashing: Running against the guy you replaced, no matter how unpopular he was, just doesn’t work in midterm elections -- especially when the economy is in the gutter.
"Our critics are saying our economy is on its knees," Reagan said on the '82 campaign trail. "Well, you know something, if the economy is back on its knees, that's quite an improvement because two years ago it was flat on its back."
Those words fell on deaf ears, and Reagan's party was trounced in the '82 midterms -- even though polls showed that voters (especially independent voters) blamed Carter more than Reagan for the country's jobless rate, which was then over ten percent. You can see why Obama and the Democrats are so tempted to run against Bush today, with Americans still blaming him more than Obama for the economy. But, as I wrote last week, they're poised to learn the same lesson the GOP did in '82: It just doesn't matter.
Political circumstances are a bit different this time with the tea party running against their own incumbents in the primaries...we'll see if that spills over into the general election but I really doubt it....the tea party is still a fringe movement capable of attracting enough wing-nuts to win its own party's primaries, but in many states, not likely to beat a more moderate to Progressive Democratic candidate...
at least he has never thrown any polemic against the immigrants that should have been blamed for all the disorders and snags America suffers, which should be enough satisfactory to you. After all Obama is not supposed to aim his gun at the immigrants, knowing he's also one immigrant himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Terry
The immigrant debate is not really an immigrant debate. Everyone knows nothing will be done. That's the point of immigration being thrown into the mix. It's just another way to attempt to show the masses that Obama is weak.
Most people know mexican immigrants are fine and just want work to help their families. We all know we'd be doing the same thing if fate bred us 200 miles south from our original location.
You don't think it registers with the masses when they see that Arizona just wants to take care of Arizona and Obama takes their ass to court for political posturing and votes? It does.
You don't think it registers with the masses when they hear Obama purposely misrepresent the Az. bill and make dumbass comments about po-po's arresting grandma at the ice cream shop thus increasing hostility towards leo's? It does.
Let's keep it real. There are only a handful of border states. The rest of the country couldn't care less. They still see it though. That's the purpose of dredging up the immigration mess at this time.
I didn't say only.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
So there's no excuse for not making Medicare part-d a paid for program.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
medicare and medicaid need to be cut back just like everything else our government is involved in.
Nah, the wonderful wizards of Washington will give us everything we need if we'd just let them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
No excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm calling your lying bluff, asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What specifically did the Dems do in Congress in 6 months that caused the housing/financial bubble to bust?
You logic is as accurate as gay marriage leads to bestiality and destruction of heterosexual marriage.
Corporate welfare, yes. No need to subsidize businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Defense, only the items congress shoves down the Pentagons throat.
How about a minimum 5% federal income tax on all people, all income. You can deduct away, but still pay a 5% minimum.
Now the cuts we need are the handouts. When we cannot afford them, we stop subsidizing the poor who are capable of working. Reduce or eliminate things like food stamps. Make people go back to work, even if they don't like minimum wage jobs. make it impossible for illegals to work, opening up these jobs at fast food restaurants and other places.
Reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse. Try to eliminate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
What does democracy mean, sir, if we are prohibited to restrain our protectors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Any flat tax is regressive because it affects the poor more than the rich...for instance, if your making 20K per year a 5% flat tax would mean you pay $1k in taxes.....now compare that with someone making 150K...they would pay $7.5K in taxes...Sounds fair but that $1k your taking from the poor is gonna hit them much harder than the 7.5 your taking from the 159K guy....that's why our tax system is progressive....the only way to even out this in-balance is to give the poor enough deductions and exemptions that they pay little to nothing in taxes...and your back to the system we have now....Quote:
How about a minimum 5% federal income tax on all people, all income. You can deduct away, but still pay a 5% minimum.
You seriously want to take food away from poor kids? that's what you would be doing..and your attitude that moms (and some dads) want to stay home and collect welfare is a stereotype....that's a typical wing-nut tactic to attack the helpless poor...the biggest waste in govt aid is doctor and contractor fraud...Quote:
Now the cuts we need are the handouts. When we cannot afford them, we stop subsidizing the poor who are capable of working. Reduce or eliminate things like food stamps. Make people go back to work, even if they don't like minimum wage jobs. make it impossible for illegals to work, opening up these jobs at fast food restaurants and other places.
I would be shocked if the conservatives don't do awesomely in November.
rofl at this dumbass American cycle. One party fails or gets the blame so they throw them out of office, then 2-3 years later the other party fails/gets blamed so they run back to the party they were just claiming failed them. It would be like a woman alternating between two shitty husbands every 2-3 years for her whole life.
"take food away from poor kids"
Esp black and brown kids. Racism is behind much of anti-tax/hate-govt/cut-entitlement bullshit.
Bush wasn't the president? He didn't have veto power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And the economic woes started way before then. Unfunded wars. Unfunded spending programs. That was a Republican Congress with a Republican president.
And by this I'm not removing blame from Dems. I'm merely pointing out that both parties are more of the same.
"veto power"
what was there of Dem's nasty, passed, economy-killing legislation to veto?
How did the Dems get their economy-killing legislation past the minority-ruled Senate, where one Senator can block?
Don't cry Boo Boo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Yes, but that's not why we went down. Just the talk that democrats do about taxing the rich makes the economy drop, as they prepare for the future legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
We had a growing economy. Slow, but growing.
Sure, both parties do as they see fit to maintain power and authoritarianism. However, it is the democrats that people with capitol to spend, and make new jobs, fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
"We had a growing economy."
It was a debt-based economy, not real wealth creation. Corp and GDP were doing ok, like now, but the Real America was plunging into $Ts of household debt trying to stand still while real income flattened.
Obama admitted that raising taxes in a recession wasn't smart. What he didn't realize is that stating he will in the future will create the same affects as if they were already raised
WC hates his welfare queen mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
everyone's favorite trustfund baby. why succeed in anything when you can just denounce everyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Are you drunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
God, you are lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Why is it lame to point out the incredible hypocrisy in your stance on welfare when you benefited from it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So SC, tell me how successful WC would have been had he starved without government assistance.
this is what i dont get about some clowns in here who once live on welfare or benefited from welfare then got successful or found a job, and starts hating the ppl whose on welfare like they once did...
You're an idiot. That would have never happened. My mother receiving food stamps when I was a child for a few months helped, but didn't change shit in the long run, except make idiots like yourself think you have something on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Just how stupid do you get anyway?
So your mother didn't really need the food stamps? You're saying she defrauded taxpayers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yeah, amazing how someone can see first-hand that a safety-net is a good idea and then continually rail against the whole program. I have a friend who is a single father (mother's dead) and his choices wereQuote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
(1) Stay in a low-paying full-time job in LA but still be able to raise his kids and keep them off the streets, since it's a day job.
(2) Take a night-job he was offered that paid him a little better (so he wouldn't need any food stamps), but then leave his kids alone all night to do what they wanted in a dangerous neighborhood (you can't live in a decent neighborhood in a city with a cost of living like LA's if you have kids and aren't pulling good money).
(3) Move out of town where he can't get work, and live in a housing project on the government's dime.
Which option sounds like the best? He chose (1), even though WC would stereotype him as a (3).
It's only the long term people anyone complains about here. You know, those who are capable of working, but don't want to take low wage jobs when they can collect as much or more in benefits. These benefits should expire, like unemployment benefits do. Again, I will exclude the disabled from any expiration.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Bum is so dumb, he things he's calling me out. We were never a long term user of government subsidies. Only a short time.
Everyone remember the music to the Dragnet theme?
Dumb dumb dum Bum... Dumb dum Bum dumb Bum....
And you feel that's the truth for everybody? You feel that all people everywhere, born by no fault of their own into shitty socio-economic situations, should pay the cost of society's or their parent's mistakes? Don't believe everything you know; get over your own anecdote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You can't say you want to eliminate food stamps and then act like only do-nothings fall through the cracks when the safety net is removed. The fact that you can't see that a lot of people covered by it are good people is astounding to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra