Blind Faith in Obama

[bucs90]

Yeah....it's called The CLINTON TAX-RATES!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know Bill Clinton didn't pass any of those rates. Presidents don't pass laws. He simply didn't veto them. A Republican controlled Congress ushered in that success. Clinton was a smart politican, however, and wisely didn't veto it. For that, of course, he gets credit as it was under his watch.

There was a lot of behind the scenes compromising between Clinton and Gingrich. Something sadly lacking between the current presidency and legislative minority leadership.

There doesn't have to be compromise. The Dem's control it all now. Before Scott Brown, they could pass anything they wanted with ZERO Republican support.

They didn't because they knew over 60% of Americans would be against most of what they wanted to pass, thus, they needed the "R" support to show on election day to save their own jobs.

It's a funny dynamic when those in power are pandering to 20%> of Americans and hoping the other 80% will still support them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, they passed it. So rather than being the "Party of no" as you like to call them, they did pass it. Had they not, Clinton would've been powerless to pass it himself, because he can't. President's don't pass laws.

And, yes, it did lead to a recession that Bush inherited, did it not?
That argument is always such horseshit. That recession was not as bad as many predicted it would be, nor was it as bad as either of the two previous worldwide recessions. Some economists didn't even consider it a true "recession" since there were not two consecutive periods of negative growth. In Bush's first speech on the economy in February 2001, he didn't even mention the word "recession.

But do you really want to dig deep into the Clinton tax plans? You do know the Fannie/Freddie travesty is rooted in the mid 90's, right? That the ideal of pressuring banks to make risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them was pushed HARD by the Clintons, right? You do know that part of the idea of raising taxes in the 90's was to help fund that risky Fannie/Freddie gamble, right? And of course, we see the long term effects of what happens when banks are pressured by the left into making risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them.........right?

The right should be using the root of the housing collapse, and our current economic situation, as a talking point. But they won't and can't. Because the population and voter pool of America is dumbed down. Thus, blaming today's mess on what people did in 1995 won't fly.

You're correct that the right would much rather avoid using the housing collapse as a talking point because the truth is that they were knee-deep into pushing minority housing even further than the CRA did; they were responsible for the lack of oversight by the SEC on the shenanigans being pulled off by the investment banks. They are the ones currently fighting AGAINST "Wall Street reform." They are the ones making a hero out of BP and demonizing Obama.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look at the facts, Obama's attempt to shut down deep sea drilling, is a job killer, cap and trade another job killer, now explain to me what Obama is doing to help the economy. And please be specific.

Those aren't "Facts." Those are hyperbole. Job shifters at best. Our consumption of energy is not going to evaporate due to either of those things. Cap and trade may even create new economic sectors in the areas of engineering (For greater efficiencies), alternative energies, and carbon consumption (Firms that produce ways to consume carbon, creating credits that could then be sold).

What exactly do you want him to do? Republicans will block anything he tries, even if (and perhaps "especially if") it's legislation that will ease economic suffering. You don't grasp how badly vested your corporate masters are in this man's failure.

A six month moratorium on deepwater drilling would kill jobs, that is a fact, even though your dumbass won't admit it.

As for the cap and trade? Study: Cap and trade would hurt economy About 35 percent of crude-oil-related jobs and 40 percent of coal-related jobs would be lost in 2025, according to the analysis. It assumes that the majority of workers would find new jobs, but the net job loss would be 0.5 percent over the first 10 years that the legislation is in effect.

Perhaps you can tell me which specific private sector jobs Obama has created since the last stimulus package was passed.

Cite some energy publications on cap and trade killing jobs instead of the right-wing Washington Times, and I'll award you a gold star for having at least a modicum of credibility.

 

[Charles_Main]

No. BP's oil leak is a job killer. Cap and trade is not in effect and hasn't killed any jobs. Obama is pushing green energy and jobs. Obama and the Democrat led Congress just recently passed a jobs bill as well as a small business lending intiative.

How can something that's not in effect be blamed for killing jobs? The oil leak hasn't killed one job... Obama's knee-jerk reaction of using it to further his gullible warming agenda IS killing jobs.

How's that jobs bill working? Yep... 40+ million unemployed.

Republicans killed the jobs bill, or haven't you heard. They also killed unemployment compensation extensions.

keep telling yourself that.

 

[MaggieMae]

That seems to be your answer for every criticism. At what point will the Obamabots take responsibility for their man's actions or lack thereof?

Slow down there, Skippy....I am simply pointing out the very honest and real reasons why people WANTED and continue to WANT to believe in Obama. McCain and Palin basically ran on a platform to continue Bush's policies. Many people voted against Bush and the GOP policies. That is fact.

Barry ran on "Hopey Changey".... You suckers bought it...

"Change" is the goal of any campaign. If not "change," why run for anything? Duh...

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, they passed it. So rather than being the "Party of no" as you like to call them, they did pass it. Had they not, Clinton would've been powerless to pass it himself, because he can't. President's don't pass laws.

And, yes, it did lead to a recession that Bush inherited, did it not?
That argument is always such horseshit. That recession was not as bad as many predicted it would be, nor was it as bad as either of the two previous worldwide recessions. Some economists didn't even consider it a true "recession" since there were not two consecutive periods of negative growth. In Bush's first speech on the economy in February 2001, he didn't even mention the word "recession.

But do you really want to dig deep into the Clinton tax plans? You do know the Fannie/Freddie travesty is rooted in the mid 90's, right? That the ideal of pressuring banks to make risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them was pushed HARD by the Clintons, right? You do know that part of the idea of raising taxes in the 90's was to help fund that risky Fannie/Freddie gamble, right? And of course, we see the long term effects of what happens when banks are pressured by the left into making risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them.........right?

The right should be using the root of the housing collapse, and our current economic situation, as a talking point. But they won't and can't. Because the population and voter pool of America is dumbed down. Thus, blaming today's mess on what people did in 1995 won't fly.

You're correct that the right would much rather avoid using the housing collapse as a talking point because the truth is that they were knee-deep into pushing minority housing even further than the CRA did; they were responsible for the lack of oversight by the SEC on the shenanigans being pulled off by the investment banks. They are the ones currently fighting AGAINST "Wall Street reform." They are the ones making a hero out of BP and demonizing Obama.

Really were they the ones who told us Fanny and Freddy were just fine? Or were they the ones saying they needed serious reform?

I don't recall.

LOL

nice try.

 

[MaggieMae]

Those aren't "Facts." Those are hyperbole. Job shifters at best. Our consumption of energy is not going to evaporate due to either of those things. Cap and trade may even create new economic sectors in the areas of engineering (For greater efficiencies), alternative energies, and carbon consumption (Firms that produce ways to consume carbon, creating credits that could then be sold).

What exactly do you want him to do? Republicans will block anything he tries, even if (and perhaps "especially if") it's legislation that will ease economic suffering. You don't grasp how badly vested your corporate masters are in this man's failure.

A six month moratorium on deepwater drilling would kill jobs, that is a fact, even though your dumbass won't admit it.

As for the cap and trade? Study: Cap and trade would hurt economy About 35 percent of crude-oil-related jobs and 40 percent of coal-related jobs would be lost in 2025, according to the analysis. It assumes that the majority of workers would find new jobs, but the net job loss would be 0.5 percent over the first 10 years that the legislation is in effect.

Perhaps you can tell me which specific private sector jobs Obama has created since the last stimulus package was passed.

You only consider it "Fact" because you're an insufferable troll who will believe anything you hear that casts Obama in a negative light.

What do you think a moratorium would do? How do you think companies would respond? Just hang up their hats and give up on the oil industry? No of course not, they'd shift their resources to find reserves elsewhere, or focus on improving other aspects of their industry, or what-have-you. This is basic economics here amigo. There's a need for energy. Neither cap and trade nor a drilling moratorium is going to kill that need hook line and sinker. The economy will evolve to compensate.

If the overall fossil fuel need is reduced as a result, it will be because of reduced consumption for a number of reasons; People will drive more economic cars, or move closer to work or work closer to home, whatever. The result will be more money in their pocket, which they'll spend on leisure industries, or fixing up their house, or taking a vacation, and those economies will benefit. What you're espousing here is what's known as a broken window parable... Jesus I don't have all day to teach you economics. Take your head out of Hannity's ass once in awhile, and prepare yourself to accept that maybe, JUST maybe, Obama is not wrong every single fuckin time.

 

[MaggieMae]

That seems to be your answer for every criticism. At what point will the Obamabots take responsibility for their man's actions or lack thereof?

Slow down there, Skippy....I am simply pointing out the very honest and real reasons why people WANTED and continue to WANT to believe in Obama. McCain and Palin basically ran on a platform to continue Bush's policies. Many people voted against Bush and the GOP policies. That is fact.

That is of course anything but honest and real.
And Obama seems to have continued Bush's "failed policies."

Bush's failed policies were thinking he could conduct two ground wars of major import and cut taxes at the same time. Obama's failed policy is that he thought a major health care initiative could be installed during a time when the economy was flat on its face. Let's just say they both had visions of grandeur, but I have to wonder why Bush's failure is now being minimized and Obama is taking the heat for the failures of not just himself but of Bush.

 

[MaggieMae]

As long as you have a breath to breathe, there is always hope.

It doesn't matter which party brings about the change. We can and should hold out hope for a better America and I believe there is yet hope.

Immie

I also see Obama as being much more conciliatory than Bush, and if a new batch of Republicans are more willing to sit down and discuss serious differences together with workable solutions, I think Obama will be willing to back off on a lot of things. It's telling that Scott Brown has more access to Obama than Mitch McConnell.

How many of Bush's bills had Democrats also voting for them?
How many of Obama's bills have passed with zero Republican votes?
That says everything about who is more conciliatory.
You are an ugly troll and need to lay off the Obama Koolaid.

And you only prove your adolescent ignorance when you are compelled to insult me for no reason. Feel better you whiny prick?

 

[daveman]

George W. Bush and the GOP controlled Congress....

That seems to be your answer for every criticism. At what point will the Obamabots take responsibility for their man's actions or lack thereof?

Slow down there, Skippy....I am simply pointing out the very honest and real reasons why people WANTED and continue to WANT to believe in Obama. McCain and Palin basically ran on a platform to continue Bush's policies. Many people voted against Bush and the GOP policies. That is fact.

And Obama has continued many of Bush's policies, especially in the WoT.

The Left, however, is nowhere near as vocal about Obama, though. When was the last time you heard anything about Gitmo? And Obama's continued the NSA wiretapping program -- expanded it, even!...but the Left gives him a pass for it.

 

[daveman]

YouTube - Scott Ritter - Former Weapons Inspector in Iraq Reveals the Lies
*
YouTube - Scott Ritter on McCain's role in Iraq war


[/CENTER]

Some idiot always busts out the pedophile who was on Saddam's payroll.

 

[daveman]

Liberals sat around for 8 years contemplating why conservatives wouldn't give up on Bush. It boggled their minds. Many did eventually give up on him. You'd think the left would wake up faster than the right did. Fortunately there were so many in the middle who voted for Obama, and they are already snapping out of it.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wake up dude!! I think you're dreaming.

What good does negative thinking do?

Brings one to the right answer. Try it sometime. Just close your eyes and say "Barack Obama is not the answer" about 20 times. You'll be a whole new person.

You know if YOU, personally, asked me to do that and also to pay me a million bucks to say it, I'd turn you down.

The Rabbi

All mouth, no brain​

 

[bucs90]

What good does negative thinking do?

Brings one to the right answer. Try it sometime. Just close your eyes and say "Barack Obama is not the answer" about 20 times. You'll be a whole new person.

You know if YOU, personally, asked me to do that and also to pay me a million bucks to say it, I'd turn you down.

The Rabbi

All mouth, no brain​

The bad part is I believe you.

Thats how brainwashed some left wingers are.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look at the facts, Obama's attempt to shut down deep sea drilling, is a job killer, cap and trade another job killer, now explain to me what Obama is doing to help the economy. And please be specific.

The ban imposed on deep water drilling was lifted by court order, so none of the other rigs has yet been shut down. According to the Interior Department, there are 3,500 drilling rigs and platforms in the Gulf, 79 of them deepwater wells, and they are operating at 97% capacity.

And I fail to see how cap and trade will be a job killer when production will go on as usual.

(This is from another post I wrote, perhaps you should read the link)

The Obama way... I take full responsibility but blame everyone else. This recognized Obama method of leadership just might not be working out so well with the Gulf oil spill dilemma..The oily pelicans are washing up on the White House steps..

---------------------------------------

Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.

The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.

The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.

Another reason: money. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed—including on BP PLC's now-infamous Macondo well, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

Obama Decried, Then Used, Some Bush Drilling Policies - WSJ.com
Reply With Quote

So? He took into consideration the wise arguments FOR offshore drilling. Personally, I'd much rather have a president who "flipflopped" based on further analysis of information rather than one steadfast to the point of stoicism with respect to major decisions. That said, I was referring to his immediate moratorium on deep well drilling, which has been estopped by court action, so the screeching over that can halt, at least temporarily.

 

[MaggieMae]

You know Bill Clinton didn't pass any of those rates. Presidents don't pass laws. He simply didn't veto them. A Republican controlled Congress ushered in that success. Clinton was a smart politican, however, and wisely didn't veto it. For that, of course, he gets credit as it was under his watch.

There was a lot of behind the scenes compromising between Clinton and Gingrich. Something sadly lacking between the current presidency and legislative minority leadership.

There doesn't have to be compromise. The Dem's control it all now. Before Scott Brown, they could pass anything they wanted with ZERO Republican support.

They didn't because they knew over 60% of Americans would be against most of what they wanted to pass, thus, they needed the "R" support to show on election day to save their own jobs.

It's a funny dynamic when those in power are pandering to 20%> of Americans and hoping the other 80% will still support them.

You are dead wrong. There MUST be compromise, or there might as well be a dictatorship and a formal burning of the Contitution. Gridlock accomplishes nothing. And your 80% figure is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off, pal. Even 60% is way off, but I suppose it looks good when you see your made up calculations on your screen. It almost looks true, eh?

You're becoming quite infamous for making up your own little scenarios.

 

[MaggieMae]

How can something that's not in effect be blamed for killing jobs? The oil leak hasn't killed one job... Obama's knee-jerk reaction of using it to further his gullible warming agenda IS killing jobs.

How's that jobs bill working? Yep... 40+ million unemployed.

Republicans killed the jobs bill, or haven't you heard. They also killed unemployment compensation extensions.

keep telling yourself that.

Can you read?

Republicans kill jobless aid measure in Senate - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

Republicans Kill Senate Jobless Aid Bill : NPR

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, they passed it. So rather than being the "Party of no" as you like to call them, they did pass it. Had they not, Clinton would've been powerless to pass it himself, because he can't. President's don't pass laws.

And, yes, it did lead to a recession that Bush inherited, did it not?
That argument is always such horseshit. That recession was not as bad as many predicted it would be, nor was it as bad as either of the two previous worldwide recessions. Some economists didn't even consider it a true "recession" since there were not two consecutive periods of negative growth. In Bush's first speech on the economy in February 2001, he didn't even mention the word "recession.

But do you really want to dig deep into the Clinton tax plans? You do know the Fannie/Freddie travesty is rooted in the mid 90's, right? That the ideal of pressuring banks to make risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them was pushed HARD by the Clintons, right? You do know that part of the idea of raising taxes in the 90's was to help fund that risky Fannie/Freddie gamble, right? And of course, we see the long term effects of what happens when banks are pressured by the left into making risky loans to people who shouldn't be getting them.........right?

The right should be using the root of the housing collapse, and our current economic situation, as a talking point. But they won't and can't. Because the population and voter pool of America is dumbed down. Thus, blaming today's mess on what people did in 1995 won't fly.

You're correct that the right would much rather avoid using the housing collapse as a talking point because the truth is that they were knee-deep into pushing minority housing even further than the CRA did; they were responsible for the lack of oversight by the SEC on the shenanigans being pulled off by the investment banks. They are the ones currently fighting AGAINST "Wall Street reform." They are the ones making a hero out of BP and demonizing Obama.

Really were they the ones who told us Fanny and Freddy were just fine? Or were they the ones saying they needed serious reform?

I don't recall.

LOL

nice try.

Fannie & Freddie weren't at the sole cause of the problem, despite the constant hammering by the right that they were. That fact has been proven time and again. Were they guilty of also guaranteeing subprime loans? Yup. But they also quit the practice sometime in 2005, while all the other subprime lenders were just getting started, and Wall Street investment banks continued buying them up as if they were as valuable as a pot of gold.

 

[Immanuel]

Wake up dude!! I think you're dreaming.

What good does negative thinking do?

I believe this has more to do with being realistic.. whether you can accept the reality of Obama and Democratic Party rule.. from my perspective a dismal and far reaching failure by any standard. On the positive side it with end...the sooner the better..

That is my point. It is bound to end. Things will turn around. They always do and they will this time. And the Democrats will take all the credit for it even though it was bound to happen one way or another despite what they do and if the Republicans were in control, they would do the same thing.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

That seems to be your answer for every criticism. At what point will the Obamabots take responsibility for their man's actions or lack thereof?

Slow down there, Skippy....I am simply pointing out the very honest and real reasons why people WANTED and continue to WANT to believe in Obama. McCain and Palin basically ran on a platform to continue Bush's policies. Many people voted against Bush and the GOP policies. That is fact.

And Obama has continued many of Bush's policies, especially in the WoT.

The Left, however, is nowhere near as vocal about Obama, though. When was the last time you heard anything about Gitmo? And Obama's continued the NSA wiretapping program -- expanded it, even!...but the Left gives him a pass for it.

That's a lame argument. A lot of us were never against wiretapping in the first place. I believe Obama signed an Executive Order banning torture and a commitment to close Gitmo, but the latter of course takes more than just moving the prisoners and then locking the doors. If his policy on torture hadn't been completely contrary to Bush's, Cheney wouldn't have appeared practically every day on some cable show trying to convince the public that torture is good and Obama is risking American lives. Or have you forgotten that.