Occupy Wall Street

[almost40]

Ok, so its not the issue that the democrats didnt really do anything when they were in charge. Other than add trillions to the debt....Its a matter of blaming the republicans (the newly elected ones mostly) for doing eactly what they were elected to do? (which was to stop obama in his tracks)
That is what they campaigned on. Is it not?

[Alex]

Follow along, the trillions were the theoretical fiscal conservatives, who are either really bad at it, or are simply lying.

Originally Posted by almost40

Its a matter of blaming the republicans (the newly elected ones mostly) for doing eactly what they were elected to do? (which was to stop obama in his tracks)
That is what they campaigned on. Is it not?

Funny, I thought they were elected to improve the lot of their constituents. It almost defies mathematical possibility that it has turned into "stop everything and anything, and then blame someone else for nothing good happening".

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Follow along, the trillions were the theoretical fiscal conservatives, who are either really bad at it, or are simply lying.

Ya lost me?? the trillions were the theoretical fiscal conservatives??
So they didnt spend the money outlined in the budgets that were passed??
nor did the spend the omnibus bill money or the 821 billion stimulus money?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Ya lost me?? the trillions were the theoretical fiscal conservatives??
So they didnt spend the money outlined in the budgets that were passed??
nor did the spend the omnibus bill money or the 821 billion stimulus money?

Try and keep up. Obama is painted as this huge spending wackadoo, while the prior 8 years of spending increases coupled with tax decreases are the main driver for the governmental fiscal problems today. Conservatives, and Republicans, are supposed to be the ones to keep tabs on spending. But it's just pandering, as in practice they are terrible at it. But they continue to campaign on it every election cycle.

My ideal candidate isn't particularly close to Obama, BTW. I just find the bashing here and elsewhere a little silly.

True fiscal conservative + moderate to liberal on social issues + electable + pragmatic enough to continue to take action in improving things. Rather than just picking up political points and work on reelection by blaming the other side.

Right now, the repubs are way, way far away from that. It's clear at this point though, that their presidential candidates don't have a chance in he**, so it's pretty pointless to support any one of them anyway.

[kyrider]

Months ago I was watching Glenn Beck and I have disagreed with him on many things but he predicted this. This movement has some serious infiltration from socialist and communist groups. When Iran and Venezuela support what is going on people need to wake up!

Even these guys support it!



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011...reet-movement/

[kyrider]

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/...s-governments/

Link to original page on YouTube.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Try and keep up. Obama is painted as this huge spending wackadoo, while the prior 8 years of spending increases coupled with tax decreases are the main driver for the governmental fiscal problems today. Conservatives, and Republicans, are supposed to be the ones to keep tabs on spending. But it's just pandering, as in practice they are terrible at it. But they continue to campaign on it every election cycle.

My ideal candidate isn't particularly close to Obama, BTW. I just find the bashing here and elsewhere a little silly.

True fiscal conservative + moderate to liberal on social issues + electable + pragmatic enough to continue to take action in improving things. Rather than just picking up political points and work on reelection by blaming the other side.

Right now, the repubs are way, way far away from that. It's clear at this point though, that their presidential candidates don't have a chance in he**, so it's pretty pointless to support any one of them anyway.

Ok, well I get that point. Ill even agree that GW was a spendaholic and nowhere near being a conservative. Ive even stated as much. But to gloss over the current administrations record and blame it all on the guy who was in office 3 years ago is a little disingenuous at best. You cant tell me that Obama and the administration had of has no culpability in this mess. The democrats had 2 years of full control to change the status-quo. What did they do??? They spent even more than the previous administation. And rammed Obamacare thru despite popular opinion being against it. (Then and today) Hence the election of conservatives to stop him in his tracks.

We got just as many empty promises, platitudes, and overall pandering from the democrats. Just as we do ever election cycle. They roll out the same lines every 4 years just like the republicans do.


I just cant understand your adamant defense of this administation if what you posted about your political stance above is true.

Im not defending GW......Im just pointing out that it has gotten worse in the past 3 years.

Im not interested in giving the guy (obama) another 4 years....just to see what will happen.

We have a long way to go until election day and ruling out anyone other than Ron Paul and Bachmann is silly.

Who knows??? Obama might not even get the nod from the democrats. There is a rumor or two out there about Hillary.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by kyrider

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/...s-governments/

Read that and not sure what your point of linking that is. From reading the emails it's just mostly warning of how the politicians are going to try and use the movement to garner votes for themselves by supporting the movement. Well anyone with a brain could see that one coming from a mile away.

Originally Posted by kyrider

Oh yes, that's exactly how it was..... not. The person behind that artwork and anyone that supports it is delusional to what's going on. The movement is not about punishing the rich like right-wing radicals keep trying to convince you of. Rather it's about taking the corporations out of our politics so we can go back to being a democracy of/for/by the people instead of a pseudo-democracy of/for/by the lobbyists of the corporations.

Originally Posted by kyrider

[/quote]

Got news for ya. That's exactly what has already happened with the current system. The mega-rich take advantage of those looking for a job and pay them very little for long hours. They then in turn sell the end product/services for over-bloated prices and rake in the profits all while sitting in their million and billion dollar mansions doing absolutely nothing. In the mean time the working class is forced to struggle with ever increasing cost-of-living expenses and stagnant pay for years on end with the end result being that either their job is sent overseas or they have next to nothing in retirement because it's all been taken by the rich to pay for their mistakes. Unregulated capitalism is a destructive system that has proven time and time again to be a faulty system that can not support itself.

In countries where they use a mixed system of free-market controlled by both state and private groups within a heavily regulated market are thriving while our chaotic "let the corporations do as they please" system has continued to falter.

It's not a matter of too much government. It's a matter of misdirection of power from said government. They were put in power with idea of protecting the MASSES from anyone, foreign or domestic, that would do them harm. That includes those attempting to manipulate politics and policy so as to strip the masses of their rights and property in order to give it to themselves. So far the government (both parties) have not done this. Instead of trying to protect the masses from the greed of the mega-rich, they have sided with them to help the mega-rich in their agenda to strip the masses down to obedient servants thankful for the scraps they let them have.

[eddiekay]

The cartoons are a nice summary of the direction the Occupy movement is taking us in. It's not about the money and never was...it's about the way we want to live. Do you want to depend on the govt for the air you breathe ? ( they already decide who gets the water and land) or do you want to hold off what seems inevitable for as long as you can hoping maybe to someday regain some of the personal freedoms you've lost?
We're all rich enough and smart enough to offer our opinions online but how many of us will spend some of that time defending what we believe one way or the other? At the very least...vote.

[greg737]

A dissenting opinion.... I just thought this guy's take was funny (and it does contain some truth).

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Ok, well I get that point. Ill even agree that GW was a spendaholic and nowhere near being a conservative. Ive even stated as much. But to gloss over the current administrations record and blame it all on the guy who was in office 3 years ago is a little disingenuous at best. You cant tell me that Obama and the administration had of has no culpability in this mess. The democrats had 2 years of full control to change the status-quo. What did they do??? They spent even more than the previous administation. And rammed Obamacare thru despite popular opinion being against it. (Then and today) Hence the election of conservatives to stop him in his tracks.

Popular opinion has never been against health reform. The politically cynical (borderline evil) demonized reform into death panels and fear to scare people from any change. Even naming it Obamacare is calculated to make it seem as if Obama is sitting there deciding who gets an operation and who doesn't. Fighting against this isn't to help constituents, it's to scare the wits out of them, and then aim that fear at the administration to score political points. And in the end, there is little to no reform, costs continue to spiral, and ultimately, most people continue to pay more and more for less and less care. Status quo and dropping.

Originally Posted by almost40

I just cant understand your adamant defense of this administation if what you posted about your political stance above is true.

It's less defending this administration, and more pointing out the flaws in the arguments about those who are so against it due to not understanding either the facts or the issues.

Originally Posted by almost40

Im not defending GW......Im just pointing out that it has gotten worse in the past 3 years.

Im not interested in giving the guy (obama) another 4 years....just to see what will happen.

Things aren't much better or much worse economically. But internationally, we're that much more successful in all arenas. Domestically, I don't know what he possibly could have done differently other than calling out the pedantic fools of the clan "No" much earlier on, and taking his policies more directly to the people. Articulating what and why, and forcing the other side to explain why they were against it (more thoroughly than "because he's for it!"). Rather than trying to negotiate with legislators too clueless and cynical to work for the good, instead of lining up four years in advance to try for the next election cycle. He has been ineffective in pushing any agenda whatsoever. The other side has been equally ineffective at doing much of anything either, other than scoring points by preventing the former. And real problems that really do need solving, fall to the bottom of both side's agendas. Blaming the result of all that on Obama just doesn't hold water. More importantly, thinking that the fix is to go back to leadership that is even less clueful than GWB, is like shooting yourself in the stomach because of an upset tummy. Sure, it might change things, but you're unlikely to prefer the result.

Originally Posted by almost40

We have a long way to go until election day and ruling out anyone other than Ron Paul and Bachmann is silly.

Perhaps, but that party continues to need to pander to fools, and exile anyone who's actually both electable and capable. The chances of anyone coming in anew at this point are low, and the chances of anyone in the race winning remain extremely low.

Originally Posted by almost40

Who knows??? Obama might not even get the nod from the democrats. There is a rumor or two out there about Hillary.

Never going to happen.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Popular opinion has never been against health reform.

Now thats a nice play on words and very clever alex. But I cant let it slide.
Of course everyone wants reform. They just didnt want Obamas or the democrats version.

I was talking about Obamacare. As you very well know.

To quote you "Follow along"

I can point to lots and lots of polls that dispute that claim
try this CNN poll
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...3/22/rel5a.pdf
how about this poll
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/1...are-hardening/
heres pages off CNN polls
http://www.bing.com/search?q=CNN+Pol...are&FORM=QSRE2
heres pages of rasmussen polls.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Rasmuss...care&FORM=R5FD
How about gallop??
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/Fa...hcare-Law.aspx


Come on alex you can google. Maybe thats why I got the "Popular opinion has never been against health reform" line.

Originally Posted by Alex

It's less defending this administration, and more pointing out the flaws in the arguments about those who are so against it due to not understanding either the facts or the issues.

Please point to my misunderstanding of the facts or issues. Im interested in learning where my logic is flawed.

It is worse out there for the majority of people under Obama.
We have spent more money than ever before, money we dont have. Unemployment is still mired at over 9%, inflation is a concern unlike it was during GW, The price of fuel is still out of control, regulations are pouring out of this administation faster than ever. The treasury is having a hell of a time selling our debt. All the while running the printing presses nonstop. (unlike before) Need I go on? Seriously??

Originally Posted by Alex

But internationally, we're that much more successful in all arenas.

Care to expand on that one??

Originally Posted by Alex

Blaming the result of all that on Obama just doesn't hold water.

I surely didnt do that.
Im happy to spread the blame around to all that are responsible. Regaurdless of party affiliation.
Something you seem reluctant to do.
Come on....I dare ya to blame obama and or the democrats for something.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

I can point to lots and lots of polls that dispute that claim
try this CNN poll
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...3/22/rel5a.pdf
how about this poll
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/1...are-hardening/
heres pages off CNN polls
http://www.bing.com/search?q=CNN+Pol...are&FORM=QSRE2
heres pages of rasmussen polls.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Rasmuss...care&FORM=R5FD
How about gallop??
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/Fa...hcare-Law.aspx

None of the polls show anything other than better marketing by the forces of fear and cynicism.

Originally Posted by almost40

Please point to my misunderstanding of the facts or issues. Im interested in learning where my logic is flawed.

You keep asking that, and I keep telling you, yet you then keep asking. You're wrong on the numbers. You blame the wrong people for spending problems. You point to the wrong solutions.

Originally Posted by almost40

It is worse out there for the majority of people under Obama. We have spent more money than ever before, money we dont have.

Right. So the answer is less spending, and cutting taxes. Does anyone really believe that with a straight face?

Originally Posted by almost40

Unemployment is still mired at over 9%, inflation is a concern unlike it was during GW, The price of fuel is still out of control, regulations are pouring out of this administation faster than ever.

So the white house is to blame for unemployment. Not the lack of any legislation passed to actually do anything about it. Not the "free market' taking any of the stimulus to actually try and create sustainable jobs. And not the continual lack of that same "free market" to invest in home-grown jobs. Or the lack of skilled workers to take on those same jobs.

The regulations issue has something to it, but it's never as clearcut as the soundbites make it appear. This Economist article covers it reasonably well. There's nothing wrong with including economic analysis on environmental regulations. But the knee-jerk reaction such as "eliminating the EPA" and putting the burden on the general public to sue or otherwise combat any environmental issues is an example of where the anti-regulation folks are off-base as well.

Originally Posted by almost40

Im happy to spread the blame around to all that are responsible. Regaurdless of party affiliation.
Something you seem reluctant to do.

Really? Then get the spending numbers right. Once. When you say "Obama is spending X!" actually point to anything that the spending is made up of that is different than was already going on prior to him taking office.

Originally Posted by almost40

Come on....I dare ya you blame obama and or the democrats for something.

Failing to understand the true goals of the opposition early enough to do anything about it until his second term.

[sombo]

First off, the whole "Obamacare" term is like Alex said, designed to put the blame on Obama instead of where it really lies. You, like virtually all other misinformed Obama bashers, act like the bill that was passed was exactly what he wanted or was trying to do. In fact that couldn't be further from the truth. Many people seemed to have not followed the debate that dragged on between the Democrats and Republicans over the original bill that Obama presented them.

One major key point in the bill was a public option that allowed people to opt out of participating. It was in fact the Republicans that refused to pass the bill until that was taken out. This was a major critical point in that whole bill, which now made it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance of some kind by 2014. This was one of the highlights of the bill that made it so controversial and disliked, and has even been ruled as unconstitutional. They knew what they were doing when they did that and they also knew what they were doing when they started labeling THEIR idea of reform as Obamacare. They wanted to make his plan a pile a crap that would look like trash to everyone, be ruled unconstitutional, and thereby be gotten rid of while at the same time making Obama look like the bad guy in it all.

The original plan was nothing more than trying to reign in the greedy health care system that has turned human health into a business instead of a public service. The current system does everything it can to charge more and pay less. The hospitals charge more every year for the same services, pharmaceuticals charge more every year for the same medicines, doctors charge more for their services while at the same time putting people in for more and more tests and prescribing more and more medicines. This then causes the insurance companies to raise their rates ever higher while doing everything they can to reduce coverage.

To date, in the industrialized world the US has the highest costing healthcare, and one of the only privately run healthcare systems. When you make sickness a profitable commodity, it's the lower class that will always suffer. Healthcare is a public service and should be treated as such, not as a multi-trillion dollar a year business.

[kyrider]

[kyrider]

http://startthinkingright.wordpress....ponsible-ever/

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

That graph is not just misleading, but it's wrong. Either unintentionally mistaken, or outright lying. Pick one.

I'll give you a hint:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../mspd/mspd.htm

When Bush took office in January, 2001, the outstanding public debt was $5.716T as of the 31st of that month. link

When Obama took office in January, 2009, the outstanding public debt was $10.632T, as of the 31st of that month. link

As of September 30, 2011, the outstanding public debt is now $14.79T. So 33 months into a 48 month term, the increase in public debt has risen $4.158T. And if you extrapolate that over 48 months, it comes up with that $6.1T that is projected.

Funny how they got that number right.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

http://startthinkingright.wordpress....ponsible-ever/

Dumbest math ever. A daily average over 8 years is completely silly, as there as barely any deficit spending in year 1 of his term, which rose to a rate of $1.1T per year by the time he headed back to his ranch.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

None of the polls show anything other than better marketing by the forces of fear and cynicism.

Ok.... got it polls are BS when they dont agree with a democrats view of things. Even the ones conducted by the democrat leaning CNN
Ironic to me how the democrats will cite a poll when its leaning tword the position they support.

You have done it in the past alex...You know you have. Havent ya??

Originally Posted by Alex

You keep asking that, and I keep telling you, yet you then keep asking. You're wrong on the numbers. You blame the wrong people for spending problems. You point to the wrong solutions.

What numbers are wrong?? the 2008, 2009 and 2010 spending numbers are in the books. Those are the numbers I used. I havent pulled a single number from 2011.
So exactly what numbers are wrong. Obamas spending numbers?? GW's spending numbers?? The unemployment numbers??? The lottery numbers??

Originally Posted by Alex

Right. So the answer is less spending, and cutting taxes. Does anyone really believe that with a straight face?

So more taxes and more spending will help?? Thats the solution then?? and you can say that with a straight face??
I would say based on the midterm 2010 elections the public would disagree, and voted as such.

Originally Posted by Alex

So the white house is to blame for unemployment. Not the lack of any legislation passed to actually do anything about it. Not the "free market' taking any of the stimulus to actually try and create sustainable jobs. And not the continual lack of that same "free market" to invest in home-grown jobs. Or the lack of skilled workers to take on those same jobs.

yes they are. They had all 3 branches of government for 2 years and passed exactly what they wanted. (with a promise that unemployment wouldnt rise above 8 %)
Where are we today on that figure??

So its the free markets fault?? and you can say that with a straight face??
Guess we should appoint Obama as king and let him decide everything?

Originally Posted by Alex

The regulations issue has something to it, but it's never as clearcut as the soundbites make it appear. This Economist article covers it reasonably well. There's nothing wrong with including economic analysis on environmental regulations. But the knee-jerk reaction such as "eliminating the EPA" and putting the burden on the general public to sue or otherwise combat any environmental issues is an example of where the anti-regulation folks are off-base as well.

Nice that you bring the EPA into the discussion.... and that means what to my argument? I have just mentioned overegulation but havent used it as a tool to bash Obama as GW was just as guilty as Obama in overregulation.

Originally Posted by Alex

Really? Then get the spending numbers right. Once. When you say "Obama is spending X!" actually point to anything that the spending is made up of that is different than was already going on prior to him taking office.

Um ok.....Thought I did.

Omnibus Appropriations Act (which was a massive spending bill which included 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion. The spending bill added $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase .)

The stimulus package failure (Which adds $821 billion in new spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Also the White House promises this infusion of spending and borrowing would keep unemployment rate below 8%. As millions of Americans are painfully aware, that promise was broken.)


They passed the FY 2010 budget which called for a $2 trillion debt increase in 2010, and another 8.9% increase in non-defense discretionary spending.


All this was above and beyond what was going on before Obama and every bit of it is his and the democrats baby.
Now im sure you will say the stimulus package was GW's baby....but It was passed by the democrat controlled house, the democrat controlled senate, and Mr Obama himself who at the time did have a filibuster proof majority and could have passed anything he or they wanted. Or done nothing at all for that matter.
They wrote it up and passed it all by themselfs.
They chose to spend it. It is all on the Obama books so to speak. Just as the GW stimulus was on his books. The results or thr stimulus as stated by NYTimes this way
"While Republicans have derided the 2009 stimulus as a failure, the consensus among economists is that it helped stave off deeper job losses and supported a modest recovery"
The whole bill is touted by the president everytime its brought up with the corresponding saved or created jobs.

Yes I will stipulate they the economy need something........But you cant blame someone else for something that was written and passed by all 3 branches of government that were under total control of the democrat party.

Funny thing is.... heres a link to what the money was spent on. We were promised full accounting and transparency on the matter. This is what we got, and its vauge at best.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Ironicly theres a dot on the map less than 100 yards from my parents house. I can assure you its a nice residential neighborhood. I cant imagine what stimulus money was spent there.

Heres what was turned up by a couple congressmen shortly after it passage
http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation...lus-money-went

And heres some interesting reading on the topic
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=2810

Originally Posted by Alex

Failing to understand the true goals of the opposition early enough to do anything about it until his second term.

This statement........... following this statement
Come on....I dare ya you blame obama and or the democrats for something
Means what???
It will take another 5 years and Obamas reelection till you might blame the democrats for something????

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

That graph is not just misleading, but it's wrong. Either unintentionally mistaken, or outright lying. Pick one.

I'll give you a hint:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../mspd/mspd.htm

When Bush took office in January, 2001, the outstanding public debt was $5.716T as of the 31st of that month. link

When Obama took office in January, 2009, the outstanding public debt was $10.632T, as of the 31st of that month. link

As of September 30, 2011, the outstanding public debt is now $14.79T. So 33 months into a 48 month term, the increase in public debt has risen $4.158T. And if you extrapolate that over 48 months, it comes up with that $6.1T that is projected.

Funny how they got that number right.

So 4.1+ trillion in 33 months. Vrs just shy of 5 trillion in 8 years
Your cited numbers mind you, and the same place I have pulled numbers from.
8 years is 108 months. 33 months is just under of 1/3 of 8 years. so dividing GW's number by 1/3 for some quick math would make things a little more fair as a rough comparison??
1.6 trillion vs 4.1 trillion
That work better for you??

I dont need to do the exact math to figure out Obama spent more
But your welcome too.

[almost40]

Sombo....Im not about to redebate Obamacare. The polls show its unpopular and the republicans took back control of congress running partially on its repeal. The majority of american people dont like it. Deal with it.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by almost40

Sombo....Im not about to redebate Obamacare. The polls show its unpopular and the republicans took back control of congress running partially on its repeal. The majority of american people dont like it. Deal with it.

Of course they don't like, because the Republicans designed it to be that way and then blamed it on Obama. What part of that don't you get?

[almost40]

Originally Posted by sombo

Of course they don't like, because the Republicans designed it to be that way and then blamed it on Obama. What part of that don't you get?

Where oh where do you get your information??
I let your last post slide even though it was full of crazyness.... but this is too much.

The republican designed it????
WHAT???
There was not a single republican in the house or senate that voted for it.

Obamacare was written by democrats and passed by all 3 branches of governement that were under democrat control. With a filibuster proof majority no less.
Not that the republicans didnt try to filibuster. They did They didnt have the votes.
were you asleep during them days??
Or are you saying he really didnt want it.......... but he signed it anyway?

Start here if you please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

Im not even going to try to debate this with you as you are terribly ill informed.

[kyrider]

Obamacare’s CLASS Act Collapses; White House Pulls Plug -

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/14/...res-class-act/

[kyrider]

(2008) Wall Street puts its money behind Obama

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/0...53525520080605

[mrlmd]

"Obamacare" as you want to call it is bad and is rejected by a majority of the nation?, while Romneycare in Massachusetts is well liked and very valuable and worthwhile? Your first point is wrong, most Americans approve of that plan, but the GOP spins it and lies about it to try and sway opinion, ie., death panels and other bullcrap they made up. Obama had multiple meetings in Washington DC and in the White House with 6 of the authors and advisers on Romney's team to come up with basically the same universal health care program as in Massachusetts. But Romney has the balls to say that his plan, working very well in Mass, is no good for the rest of the country, each state is different? What drugs is he on?, where does he even think that reasoning makes sense? But swing whatever way you want to get a vote, be a whore and keep changing your mind, on that and abortion and gay rights and all kinds of other stuff.
And when I was involved with medical care, still the same today - about 40% or more of the premiums charged by the medical insurance companies goes back to them for their "overhead", which includes huge salaries for the corporate elite, while the Fed Medicare program only has about a 3% overhead and expense to run it. In other words, 97% of the Medicare premiums goes directly to pay medical expenses, to doctors and hospitals and patients,, not 60% back to paying patients and doctors like in the private sector. In addition, the private sector companies go out of their way to deny claims and payments. If there was a single payor or public option available, like a good majority of the country want, the premiums would come down to less than a half of what the private insurers charge now. But their lobbying power in Washington is much too great. It would really take a joint effort in Congress to do this, like every other civilized country in the world has, with a much cheaper and in some cases, better health system than we have here. But Romney, Perry, Boehner, and everybody else (too numerous to list here) say NO.

[mrlmd]

Getting back to the topic at hand that I originally posted - it seems like this is working already, at least it's helping a few people here and there against the greedy banks with their shady foreclosure practices.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44908122/ns/us_news-life/

[Alex]

This is my last response in this thread. I have found that I am not learning anything, and neither is anyone else, other than the fact that people are so ingrained in their own long-held misconceptions that "informed debate" is terribly useless.

Originally Posted by almost40

Ok.... got it polls are BS when they dont agree with a democrats view of things. Even the ones conducted by the democrat leaning CNN
Ironic to me how the democrats will cite a poll when its leaning tword the position they support.

You have done it in the past alex...You know you have. Havent ya??

Polls are BS when they are BS. They are never an arbiter of truth, just a collection of how people answer a few questions at a single point in time. Unless those questions are exactly what you're trying to figure out, the interpretations are endless.

Originally Posted by almost40

What numbers are wrong?? the 2008, 2009 and 2010 spending numbers are in the books. Those are the numbers I used. I havent pulled a single number from 2011.
So exactly what numbers are wrong. Obamas spending numbers?? GW's spending numbers?? The unemployment numbers??? The lottery numbers??

You post incorrect numbers for spending. You mistake yearly deficit spending for overall deficit. You underquote the spending done for the prior 8 years.

Originally Posted by almost40

yes they are. They had all 3 branches of government for 2 years and passed exactly what they wanted. (with a promise that unemployment wouldnt rise above 8 %)

This could not be more wrong. When the opposition filibusters or threatens to filibuster everything other than the renaming of post offices, a majority of less than 60% no longer means anything. It just means that government has been rendered ineffective.

Originally Posted by almost40

Omnibus Appropriations Act (which was a massive spending bill which included 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion. The spending bill added $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase .)

Here's an example where you are clueless on the numbers. The reason Omnibus Appropriations Acts happen is when there is no agreement reached on all of the funding bills to actually make the government work. They are bundled, voted on as a group, and have become reasonably common over the past few administrations. Pointing out a number of $11B in earmarks as a huge problem and some type of failure in the bill is an example of not understanding scale.

The fact that all of this is cut and pasted from Paul Ryan's site is the silly part. His own pie-in-the-sky budget proposals have already been discredited, and his star has fallen quite far as even his supporters realized his own budget proposals are absurdly hypocritical. (By forcing the fight on the debt ceiling increase as if this was the last time it would happen, and then proposing budgets that would require it to be raised year after year in the future).

Originally Posted by almost40

Now im sure you will say the stimulus package was GW's baby....but It was passed by the democrat controlled house, the democrat controlled senate, and Mr Obama himself who at the time did have a filibuster proof majority and could have passed anything he or they wanted. Or done nothing at all for that matter.

Um, no. The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks near the end of 2009. (link) The stimulus package you're referring to was passed before that was the case.

/I'm out.

[greg737]

/I'm out.

Good. It was painful watching this thread progress.

[sombo]

Oh yes, it was getting painful watching him try in vain to educate the ignorant.

[greg737]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it was painful because any particular person in the thread was right. We are far from shore, drifting in an ocean of unintended consequences.

Nobody is right. In fact, most of us know so little we can't even be wrong in a coherent manner. That's the painful part.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by greg737

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it was painful because any particular person in the thread was right. We are far from shore, drifting in an ocean of unintended consequences.

Nobody is right. In fact, most of us know so little we can't even be wrong in a coherent manner. That's the painful part.

I can agree with that. With the amount of information on the same subjects being projected and interpreted several different ways depending on who is reporting, it's any wonder that we can figure out what's really going on. Which is probably what "they" want. dun dun dun........

[CynicalC]

ok back on track then.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

This is my last response in this thread. I have found that I am not learning anything, and neither is anyone else, other than the fact that people are so ingrained in their own long-held misconceptions that "informed debate" is terribly useless.

I agree with this....to a point...how do you know that everyone else is not learning something. Isnt that just a matter of opinion on your part?

Theres my side and your side and it seems neither of us are willing to budge. Ill buy that.

Originally Posted by Alex

Polls are BS when they are BS. They are never an arbiter of truth, just a collection of how people answer a few questions at a single point in time. Unless those questions are exactly what you're trying to figure out, the interpretations are endless.

Ok so it is true....polls are BS unless they agree with your side. IYO...or mine. IMO. so you wont ever cite another poll again right?? Nor will you use the very same polls to make a statement like this.

Did you actually read that poll? The first line is: "Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. "

And the headline adds together the same and the worse numbers, for a total of 56%, and then reinterprets that to mean that the majority feel that Bush was doing a better job. That's some top-notch Fox News-style math right there.
An opinion obviously driven by poll results.

Popular opinion has never been against health reform.
The politically cynical (borderline evil) demonized reform into death panels and fear to scare people from any change.

Im guessing this statement was poll driven.....or is it something you just pulled out of thin air.

Originally Posted by Alex

You post incorrect numbers for spending. You mistake yearly deficit spending for overall deficit. You underquote the spending done for the prior 8 years.

I used the same numbers as you did..... from the same exact place to illistrate my point about obama spending more than any other.

so your numbers are just as wrong as mine??

So 4.1+ trillion in 33 months. Vrs just shy of 5 trillion in 8 years
Your cited numbers mind you, and the same place I have pulled numbers from.
8 years is 108 months. 33 months is just under of 1/3 of 8 years. so dividing GW's number by 1/3 for some quick math would make things a little more fair as a rough comparison??
1.6 trillion vs 4.1 trillion
That work better for you??

I dont need to do the exact math to figure out Obama spent more
But your welcome too.

Originally Posted by Alex

This could not be more wrong. When the opposition filibusters or threatens to filibuster everything other than the renaming of post offices, a majority of less than 60% no longer means anything. It just means that government has been rendered ineffective.

Yet the spending bills passed

Originally Posted by Alex

Here's an example where you are clueless on the numbers. The reason Omnibus Appropriations Acts happen is when there is no agreement reached on all of the funding bills to actually make the government work. They are bundled, voted on as a group, and have become reasonably common over the past few administrations. Pointing out a number of $11B in earmarks as a huge problem and some type of failure in the bill is an example of not understanding scale.

Maybe you misread what I highlighted. it said 19 billion in new spending an 8.6% increase over the prior year. It had nothing to do with the 11b cost of the earmarks.

Originally Posted by Alex

The fact that all of this is cut and pasted from Paul Ryan's site is the silly part. His own pie-in-the-sky budget proposals have already been discredited, and his star has fallen quite far as even his supporters realized his own budget proposals are absurdly hypocritical. (By forcing the fight on the debt ceiling increase as if this was the last time it would happen, and then proposing budgets that would require it to be raised year after year in the future).

Sayin that his proposals are pie-in-the-sky and have been discredited and absurdly hypocritical.
means what exactly??? Is that not just rhetoric that has nothing to do with his report on HR1105
It is a cute way to try and discredit a report thru character assaination that has nothing to do with the report itself. Nice try.

It is copy and pasted from his site. But they do happen to be a matter of record and a fact. Its all right here.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1105

Paul Ryan just made it alot more simple. And to this day none of his claims about HR 1105 has been disputed.

Originally Posted by Alex

Um, no. The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks near the end of 2009. (link) The stimulus package you're referring to was passed before that was the case.

And had enough votes to overcome a filibuster if I recall. Sharon Sherod on Ohio democrat put it over the top.
Yes there were 3 republicans that voted with the democrats. One of which switched parties to become a democrat and lost his primary. (Spector) The other 2 voted just as they did nearly every other time they were asked too until the change of the gaurd in the house in 2010. Hence the trem RINO (republican in name only) was born. Whenever the democrats need the 3 votes they got em. Effectively they did have a filibuster proof majority.




So I guess its over??? I get the last word??? Really???

Ill close with this..........

It is a shame that neither of us can see the forest because of all the damn trees. But the fact that there are 2 different sides is what has made this country the greatest in the world in a little over 2 centurys. It is also the reason that we will survive the mess we are in at the present time. It is in fact the swinging pendulum that keeps us driving forward economicly and socially. I have faith in the american people to change the course of the nation when things arent going so swimmingly. Its happened before. for a multitude of reasons. It will happen again.

Guess Im out too........Now back to bashing the fake "common folk" as cynical likes say.

Hey Alex....care to jump back to the corprate tax discussion. I still have plenty of ammo to fire on that one. lol......... I digress

[greg737]

[greg737]

But the fact that there are 2 different sides is what has made this country the greatest in the world in a little over 2 centurys.

No. Nearly unlimited access to nearly unlimited (and cheap) resources is what made this country the greatest in the world. It was a great place to hold a two-century freedom-rave/petro-orgy.

The only reason you don't view it as such is that you've lived within it your whole life (it's your "matrix").

[mrlmd]

Anybody know what is the best oil to put in my Ninja 250?

[almost40]

Great....Chi-Com support for the movement.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-17-07-40-45

BTW Greg737 loved the pjtv link. Oh how true it is.

[greg737]

BTW Greg737 loved the pjtv link. Oh how true it is.

yes, it's hard to think "outside the box" if the box is all you've ever known.

[kyrider]

This post is symbolic of just how divided a country we are. There are those who like to focus on all that divides us then there are those who like to focus on what unites us.

I do not want to see the United States go the way of Europe. Americans are different and the American and French Revolution was a perfect example of that.

I feel there is a reason everyone who sacrificed to come to this country is here. I honestly feel it is not for a hand out but for a way up.

I can't remember a time in my life that I have seen this country so divided and yes I do blame Obama and his rhetoric. The people he appointed in his cabinet and his policies have shown him no better than his predecessor.

He had promised those on the left that he would leave the wars and close Gitmo but when he did not he gets a pass. I have seen the leftist march and spew anti-semitic remarks and the press has remained silent. The left accused the Tea Party of being racist and said that they had spit on black congressmen yet when offered a reward could pose no proof. Yet time after time we have seen anti-semitic remarks yet the leftist media remains silent. Can anyone remember any time in history when the media remained silent when such remarks were made?


The left in this country is the true racist. The Libertarians and the Conservatives need to join forces to combat such blatant bias that controls our media.