[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ya, Obama is a Communist because when he was nine years old his favorite ice cream parlor was run by a guy named Comrade Shalinksy.
This shit is ridiculous, and note that the smart posters on here never spout this nonsense. They’ll say he’s bad for business, he doesn’t really understand the private sector, he’s arrogant, he’s too progressive, etc. But only the deluded put him in the same column as Stalin. Grab your tinfoil hat and join me on a little excursion:
Obama bailed out the auto industry…at the request of the private sector, to save our free market system from sliding into depression (Unless somebody thinks our economy would have absorbed millions of jobs lost during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression).
Mitt Romney has spent the last 3 debates arguing that the auto bailout was “exactly what [he] called for in [his] Op-Ed.” Close to the truth, except that private financing was not an option. Here’s the bi-partisan Congressional Oversight Panel: “the circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited.”
And here’s Steven Rattner, a former WALL STREET executive who HEADED THE AUTO TASK FORCE (aside: surely it makes sense that a Communist like Obama would appoint one of Capitalism’s standard-bearers to head his Bolshevik takeover. Right? And obviously it also makes sense that the auto executives–including Ford’s CEO, competitor of Chrysler and GM–would come to Washington to beg for it. Because nothing screams Leninist like a fucking Chief Executive Officer): “In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.”
And Bob Lutz, former Vice-Chairman of GM: the bailouts were “necessary government intervention…the banks were even more broke than we were.”
So, to recap: Obama did what Romney said he should do, except for the part where what Romney had prescribed was impossible.
[/quote]
Thank you. This is all I’m looking for. I’m not arguing for or against anything he’s done. I’m just stating a fact that is obvious to all but the unhinged.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ya, Obama is a Communist because when he was nine years old his favorite ice cream parlor was run by a guy named Comrade Shalinksy.
This shit is ridiculous, and note that the smart posters on here never spout this nonsense. They’ll say he’s bad for business, he doesn’t really understand the private sector, he’s arrogant, he’s too progressive, etc. But only the deluded put him in the same column as Stalin. Grab your tinfoil hat and join me on a little excursion:
Obama bailed out the auto industry…at the request of the private sector, to save our free market system from sliding into depression (Unless somebody thinks our economy would have absorbed millions of jobs lost during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression).
Mitt Romney has spent the last 3 debates arguing that the auto bailout was “exactly what [he] called for in [his] Op-Ed.” Close to the truth, except that private financing was not an option. Here’s the bi-partisan Congressional Oversight Panel: “the circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited.”
And here’s Steven Rattner, a former WALL STREET executive who HEADED THE AUTO TASK FORCE (aside: surely it makes sense that a Communist like Obama would appoint one of Capitalism’s standard-bearers to head his Bolshevik takeover. Right? And obviously it also makes sense that the auto executives–including Ford’s CEO, competitor of Chrysler and GM–would come to Washington to beg for it. Because nothing screams Leninist like a fucking Chief Executive Officer): “In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.”
And Bob Lutz, former Vice-Chairman of GM: the bailouts were “necessary government intervention…the banks were even more broke than we were.”
So, to recap: Obama did what Romney said he should do, except for the part where what Romney had prescribed was impossible.
[/quote]
The “second term agenda”: No immigration reform, no entitlement reform[/quote]
I remain completely confused at the Obama campaign’s choices. Not a word about entitlements? When Obama has been attempting to convince voters that if he is re-elected, he’ll strike the “grand bargain”?
I think the easy answer is that Obama is not actually interested in entitlement reform. I think his only issue with entitlements is that they are under-funded.
Also, while I don’t think Latinos are going to suddenly which camps in droves, I’d expect Romney’s camp to make a very big deal out of the fact that Obama’s plan leaves immigrants standing at the altar after many promises.
The “second term agenda”: No immigration reform, no entitlement reform[/quote]
I remain completely confused at the Obama campaign’s choices. Not a word about entitlements? When Obama has been attempting to convince voters that if he is re-elected, he’ll strike the “grand bargain”?
I think the easy answer is that Obama is not actually interested in entitlement reform. I think his only issue with entitlements is that they are under-funded.
Also, while I don’t think Latinos are going to suddenly which camps in droves, I’d expect Romney’s camp to make a very big deal out of the fact that Obama’s plan leaves immigrants standing at the altar after many promises.[/quote]
Let me go on the record as saying that it’s pretty insulting for a candidate to ask for votes for months and then scrape together a “plan” which is really a bulleted stump speech as an afterthought a couple weeks before the election.
Let me go on the record as saying that it’s pretty insulting for a candidate to ask for votes for months and then scrape together a “plan” which is really a bulleted stump speech as an afterthought a couple weeks before the election.[/quote]
I agree, and I’ve heard a number of his supporters openly complain about it. It’s all the more awful because Obama tried to make such a big deal over Romney’s “lack of specifics” - that argument has self-immolated.
Also, while I don’t think Latinos are going to suddenly which camps in droves, I’d expect Romney’s camp to make a very big deal out of the fact that Obama’s plan leaves immigrants standing at the altar after many promises.[/quote]
2 points out of it would be huge, but it would also be killer.
Huge as in: too much of a swing to ask for
Killer as in: seal up Florida, Arizona etc.
It honestly depresses me. It is indisputable that entitlement obligations, and servicing the interest on the debt, will in the not-too-distant future consume all revenue. Everything else will have to be kept on life support with borrowed money. Now, I ask you, in that kind of financial boondoggle, just how much do you folks think we’re going to be able to borrow? And how in the world do you think your children, and their children, have any hope under such a scenario?
And do you honestly believe the rich can and will end up shouldering that burden alone? You are out of your minds if you believe that. Obama at one point said in a speech that this would come to be by 2025. That’s 13 years from now. Actually, closer to 12 years.
Well, guess what? We just witnessed the same President Obama demonize his opponents’ ideas over entitlement reform, while not offering a damn thing in return. He scrapes together a recycled agenda, which doesn’t even begin deal with the issue? Let’s get one thing clear here. One candidate has at least given us a general vision of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid under his administration. One candidate has asked us to look for ourselves and decide. The other has treated you people like a bunch of simpletons.
Edit: Oh, and the depressing part? That this race is even close.
Edit: I mean, for cripes sake, he doesn’t do a damn thing about a problem he’s even spoken of, except to demonize his opponent for offering something. And then, at the last minute, after the debates are over and the polls aren’t looking so great, he does what? Sends a staffer out to a Kinkos? For a last minute 17-18 page–pages largely filled by glossy photos–rehash of his 2008 agenda. Yet, still no entitlement reform.
Also, while I don’t think Latinos are going to suddenly which camps in droves, I’d expect Romney’s camp to make a very big deal out of the fact that Obama’s plan leaves immigrants standing at the altar after many promises.[/quote]
2 points out of it would be huge, but it would also be killer.
Huge as in: too much of a swing to ask for
Killer as in: seal up Florida, Arizona etc.[/quote]
Have you seen what’s going on in Florida ?
People are getting letters in the mail that they are ineligible to vote…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It honestly depresses me. It is indisputable that entitlement obligations, and servicing the interest on the debt, will in the not-too-distant future consume all revenue. Everything else will have to be kept on life support with borrowed money. Now, I ask you, in that kind of financial boondoggle, just how much do you folks think we’re going to be able to borrow? And how in the world do you think your children, and their children, have any hope under such a scenario?
And do honestly believe the rich can and will end up shouldering that burden alone? You are out of your minds if you believe that. Obama at one point said in a speech that this would come to be by 2025. That’s 13 years from now. Actually, closer to 12 years at this.
Well, guess what? We just witnessed the same President Obama demonize his opponents’ ideas over entitlement reform, while not offering a damn thing in return. He scrapes together a recycled agenda, which doesn’t even begin deal with the issue? Let’s get one thing clear here. One candidate has at least given us a general vision of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid under his administration. One candidate has asked us to look for ourselves and decide. The other has treated you people like a bunch of simpletons.
Edit: Oh, and the depressing part? That this race is even close.[/quote]
Politicians control American finances and politicians generally are not versed in business. What did we expect to happen?
I’ve got a big problem with career politicians on both sides, the lack of term limits for both the judicial and legislative branches, and even poli sci majors in college. You should major in/be an expert in a field other than politics BEFORE entering politics.
Imagine in George Washington had been a career politician…
