| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mcgruff wrote: | @spam
Probably because he's interested in the truth and thus doesn't have a blinkered, party-political affiliation which obliges him to spin any facts which might favour democrats. |
Wrong. He started right in from the OP with an article that is exactly the crap you are talking about: a mindless, partisan, brainwashed perspective on the subject.
As both Old School and I stated early in the thread:
| Quote: | | Both parties in Congress are responsible. They spent more than was coming in. It ain't fucking rocket science. |
| Quote: | If one's insight into this problem can be summed up as "Wah! Teh Democrats did it!" or "Wah! Teh Repubicans did it!", then one is a lemming -- a propaganda victim -- a puppet of the populist demagogues.
Both parties have been responsible for bad fiscal and budgetary policy. This must become officially criminal. It's time for a balanced budget amendment. |
Even pitcrawler agreed, after he reviewed the facts.
Apparently you are the only one in this thread who is so detached from reality and personally afflicted with deeply-seeded political bias they are unable to perceive the bilateral nature of this problem.
Petrejanda has it about right, I'd say.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Clinton was no less or more fiscally disciplined than Bush or Obama; they just had different economies. |
Clinton spent what he could afford. How can you possibly claim that was undisciplined? |
Clnton guessed at what he could afford, just like they all do. He spent what the guy before him was spending, and didn't make any major changes (other than trying and failing to institute communist health care). Moreover, he got it wrong -- he ended up taxing people too much and gave some back (which he should have snatched and applied to the national debt). He benefited fiscally from a boom cycle of the economy which was just natural timing although catalyzed by conservative deregulation (in which he was fully complicit), which popped just as he was handing it over to his successor (there are many in here who remember the 2000 dot-com bubble bursting and the ensuing recession). Clinton also played his part in planting the seeds of the financial disaster Obama has had to deal with, by fully supporting deregulation of financial markets and expansion of the housing bubble through the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions and associated programs. He also bears responsibility for the economic consequences of 9/11 and the "War on Terror" by doing nothing about Osama bin Laden when al Qaeda could have been nipped in the bud. |
So, can I to guess you think that obama has been hurt by the natural business cycle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was nothing natural about this cycle. All caused by regulations and lack of oversight.
And yes, Obama was hurt. Hurt by the very policies he has supported his entire career.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | There was nothing natural about this cycle. All caused by regulations and lack of oversight.
And yes, Obama was hurt. Hurt by the very policies he has supported his entire career. |
is there evidence that had he followed some other policies, you lot would be better off? as it stands, you people are coming out of recession faster than nations doing the opposite (austerity). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never said it's the Republicans fault, as BK claimed. I did not write the article. I have seen more than once on where people have laid all the blame at the Democratic congress, as the article says. I said people should look at the graph and see for themselves. I don't do it to defend the Democrats or Obama. I do it because I want the forum to be a little less one sided, as most posts are berating the Democrats and Obama. And also to point out hypocrisy (e.g. Having one set of rules for one party and another set for the other party). I have nothing against people saying whatever the crap they want about the Democrats and Obama, whether I agree with it or not. Why are people getting so butt-hurt when someone does different? (Why are you defending him? Stop saying things I don't agree with? Waah waah!)
BK said "a mindless, partisan, brainwashed perspective on the subject" Well this forum is about as partisan and one sided as I've seen. If I didn't put up posts like this, it would be all about Obama bashing and Republican praising. Would that be right? If you look at the polls, it's still very close between Romney and Obama, with some polls showing that Obama would win. Polls have a margin of error of course, but the majority of posts on this forum at the reflect the views of only ~half of the country.
I really have two main points to make:
1. Make sure that if you call someone biased, you're not a pot calling the kettle black.
2. If everyone on here takes only one side, it would be a very boring forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
britain, the austerity queen amongst the healthy, just hit double dip. Spain, greece and italy don't seem to be helped by austerity. just saying - those examples along with Obamanation give a 4 - 0 score for the non-austere. ireland seems to be the counter example, so let's say 4-1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: |
britain, the austerity queen amongst the healthy, just hit double dip. Spain, greece and italy don't seem to be helped by austerity. just saying - those examples along with Obamanation give a 4 - 0 score for the non-austere. ireland seems to be the counter example, so let's say 4-1. |
Britain did double dip, but it's a mild double dip.. so far. That still doesn't mean non-austere is the way to go though. The US may be in recovery but the stimulus has greatly added to the ticking time-bomb of a national debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Things are not all rosy
Consumer spending is the only thing keeping the economy on life support.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: |
britain, the austerity queen amongst the healthy, just hit double dip. Spain, greece and italy don't seem to be helped by austerity. just saying - those examples along with Obamanation give a 4 - 0 score for the non-austere. ireland seems to be the counter example, so let's say 4-1. |
How many double-dips do you need before it stops being a double dip?
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | I don't do it to defend the Democrats or Obama. I do it because I want the forum to be a little less one sided, as most posts are berating the Democrats and Obama. |
Just like you did when the forums were all Bush bashing.,.. oh wait, you just piled on then.
So let's not pretend that you're trying to make it less one sided, you're trying to make it less one sided against the 'team' you like.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think he's talking about reasonable criticism - and lord knows Bush could reasonably be criticised. That requires a sense of perspective which is sadly lacking in people who see things in terms of "teams".
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | I don't do it to defend the Democrats or Obama. I do it because I want the forum to be a little less one sided, as most posts are berating the Democrats and Obama. |
Just like you did when the forums were all Bush bashing.,.. oh wait, you just piled on then.
So let's not pretend that you're trying to make it less one sided, you're trying to make it less one sided against the 'team' you like. |
Back then there were plenty of Bush butt-lickers to balance things out.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | I don't do it to defend the Democrats or Obama. I do it because I want the forum to be a little less one sided, as most posts are berating the Democrats and Obama. |
Just like you did when the forums were all Bush bashing.,.. oh wait, you just piled on then.
So let's not pretend that you're trying to make it less one sided, you're trying to make it less one sided against the 'team' you like. |
Back then there were plenty of Bush butt-lickers to balance things out. |
Which in turn would make you an Obama butt-licker 
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | Which in turn would make you an Obama butt-licker |
I don't like how Obama's first term turned out. You have my permission to continue bashing him. I just think the Republicans suck more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | Which in turn would make you an Obama butt-licker |
I don't like how Obama's first term turned out. You have my permission to continue bashing him. I just think the Republicans suck more. |
apparently republicans hate romney almost as much as democrats. let's not forget how many people had the lead in the party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Clinton was no less or more fiscally disciplined than Bush or Obama; they just had different economies. |
Clinton spent what he could afford. How can you possibly claim that was undisciplined? |
Clnton guessed at what he could afford, just like they all do. He spent what the guy before him was spending, and didn't make any major changes (other than trying and failing to institute communist health care). Moreover, he got it wrong -- he ended up taxing people too much and gave some back (which he should have snatched and applied to the national debt). He benefited fiscally from a boom cycle of the economy which was just natural timing although catalyzed by conservative deregulation (in which he was fully complicit), which popped just as he was handing it over to his successor (there are many in here who remember the 2000 dot-com bubble bursting and the ensuing recession). Clinton also played his part in planting the seeds of the financial disaster Obama has had to deal with, by fully supporting deregulation of financial markets and expansion of the housing bubble through the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions and associated programs. He also bears responsibility for the economic consequences of 9/11 and the "War on Terror" by doing nothing about Osama bin Laden when al Qaeda could have been nipped in the bud. |
So, can I to guess you think that obama has been hurt by the natural business cycle? |
Let's put it this way: he will never be held up as a paragon of fiscal discipline.
As to whether he has been "hurt" in the broader sense, I would say no, because it resulted in him having financial carte blanch to surreptitiously carry out enormous wealth transfer under the guise of "stimulus" and to implement a shift to the left (socialism is always popular when and where people are destitute).
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | Which in turn would make you an Obama butt-licker |
I don't like how Obama's first term turned out. You have my permission to continue bashing him. I just think the Republicans suck more. |
apparently republicans hate romney almost as much as democrats. let's not forget how many people had the lead in the party. |
I think he'll get elected if he has the balls to pick Ron Paul as his running mate, and will not get elected if he doesn't. The powers-the-be probably won't let him.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
