Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
You never came up with this argument before vi.You watched Bill Maher last night and are repeating the british guy,lol.
Here is why you are not voting for Obama
- Thread starter Garden Knowm
- Start date
cleatis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Bush and his cronies are real liberal, in fact there so far left I can't believe it myself.
Or maybe republicans (politicians that is) just don't know how to manage money..... I find it interesting that when a democrat wants to spend a few billion dollars on something social it's an irresponsible waste of cash, but when a conservative wants to spend trillions on a power trip it's all ok and all the liberal whiners just need to shut up and quit being unpatriotic. Then when the guy is seen for the boob that liberal whiners tried to say he was long before, you call the guy a liberal?????? I can see the straightforeward logic in that one, it makes a lot of sense.
He is liberal in spending, (the guy spent more than liberals even wanted to) there is no doubt about that, other than that I think a cat scan is in order if you think that bush is liberal. It would be best for those who loved Bush and probably voted for him both times to admit their failure in judgment and to admit that good old republican politics isn't always the best answer to everything.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Um, the people who keep voting to continue funding the war are, by the majority, Democrats. Most of the wars the U.S. has been involved in? Started with a Democrat as POTUS.
Partisanship is bullshit, because the people who draw the Rep-Dem lines are, frankly, idiots for thinking there are any real differences between the parties. Two legs of the same beast. And that beast does NOT want change.
Partisanship is bullshit, because the people who draw the Rep-Dem lines are, frankly, idiots for thinking there are any real differences between the parties. Two legs of the same beast. And that beast does NOT want change.
desertrat
Well-Known Member
amen sister, but it doesn't make them idiots - as i think they are trainable
medicineman
New Member
Geeze Sea-B, I'd have thought even you would have remembered it took 60 fucking votes to override a veto, 60 fucking votes the 50 democrats don't have, that's right, that asshole Lieberman is as good as a republican, so the republican minority have kept the bush tactics in play. quit blaming these things on the democrats when you Know damn well they can't change anything untill Bush is out of office. Talk about pure partisan bullshit!
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Read the post below yours. Can you train a rabid dog?amen sister, but it doesn't make them idiots - as i think they are trainable
medicineman
New Member
Arff Arrf grrrrrrrrrr..........
Don't blame the democrats? Thats like saying don't blame the republicans. She's right, they are both the same crap.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Some guy did a study of the stock markets and how they've done over the years, broken down by president. Under Democrats, the economy did much better. That's only over the last 60 years; prior to that, who knows, and who cares.
I saw a post from a guy who explained why that is. I'll try to summarize his theory, which makes some sense to me. First, both parties love to spend money, just on different things. Republicans are mainly for deregulation and 'trickle-down' economics, money for the wealthy and big businesses. (Deregulation over the last 30 years is what caused the mess we're in, by the way.) Democrats are for stronger regulation, to protect the common man from having to use taxpayer money on bailouts. They're also for social programs that help the poor, or 'bottom-up' economics.
Now, why is 'bottom-up' economics better for us? Well, take Cindy McCain's dress during the convention. It cost $300,000. And it probably employed five or six people to design it and make it, maybe one to sell it, a couple to transport it. But take that same $300,000 and give it to 300 people to spend $1,000 each on clothes. How many people does THAT employ? Probably an order of magnitude more than Cindy's one (admittedly nice) dress. Luxury goods, especially luxury FOREIGN goods (which is what rich folks buy a lot of) do little for our economy. But give much larger numbers of the less wealthy the same money, and the economic underpinnings of our society explode with productivity. It's not an overnight miracle or anything; it takes time for stuff to bubble up from the bottom. But the stuff that's supposed to 'trickle down' from the wealthy? Well, that NEVER happens. I'm still waiting for Reagan's giant tax cuts to the wealthy to trickle down to the common man. Ain't gonna happen, ever. That's the nice thing about the poor -- you *know* they aren't just going to stash their money in the bank and sit on it for 30 years earning interest but otherwise doing nothing for us. Poor people do not have that luxury; whatever they get, they spend it, on food, education, clothes, a car, a new fridge, they always need something, and when they can afford to get it, you know they will, and that WILL help the economy.
Tada, a fairly simple explanation of why our economy prospers under Democratic presidents, and sucks under Republican presidents. At least after eight years of the sucking (and one final historically monumental taxpayer bailout for the rich), we get to choose whether we want the economy to keep ON sucking, or if we're ready for some more 'bottom-up' economics that will improve our situation. The ball is in our court now. And I know which way I'm voting too.
I saw a post from a guy who explained why that is. I'll try to summarize his theory, which makes some sense to me. First, both parties love to spend money, just on different things. Republicans are mainly for deregulation and 'trickle-down' economics, money for the wealthy and big businesses. (Deregulation over the last 30 years is what caused the mess we're in, by the way.) Democrats are for stronger regulation, to protect the common man from having to use taxpayer money on bailouts. They're also for social programs that help the poor, or 'bottom-up' economics.
Now, why is 'bottom-up' economics better for us? Well, take Cindy McCain's dress during the convention. It cost $300,000. And it probably employed five or six people to design it and make it, maybe one to sell it, a couple to transport it. But take that same $300,000 and give it to 300 people to spend $1,000 each on clothes. How many people does THAT employ? Probably an order of magnitude more than Cindy's one (admittedly nice) dress. Luxury goods, especially luxury FOREIGN goods (which is what rich folks buy a lot of) do little for our economy. But give much larger numbers of the less wealthy the same money, and the economic underpinnings of our society explode with productivity. It's not an overnight miracle or anything; it takes time for stuff to bubble up from the bottom. But the stuff that's supposed to 'trickle down' from the wealthy? Well, that NEVER happens. I'm still waiting for Reagan's giant tax cuts to the wealthy to trickle down to the common man. Ain't gonna happen, ever. That's the nice thing about the poor -- you *know* they aren't just going to stash their money in the bank and sit on it for 30 years earning interest but otherwise doing nothing for us. Poor people do not have that luxury; whatever they get, they spend it, on food, education, clothes, a car, a new fridge, they always need something, and when they can afford to get it, you know they will, and that WILL help the economy.
Tada, a fairly simple explanation of why our economy prospers under Democratic presidents, and sucks under Republican presidents. At least after eight years of the sucking (and one final historically monumental taxpayer bailout for the rich), we get to choose whether we want the economy to keep ON sucking, or if we're ready for some more 'bottom-up' economics that will improve our situation. The ball is in our court now. And I know which way I'm voting too.
Reaganomics? I heard Bill Clinton took credit for that. In the age of bullshit, who knows.
medicineman
New Member
I think Clintons economic policies were more of the bottom up type, like Obama is railing about. Funny how he went and got a bunch of the clinton economic advisors to stand on stage with him, Smart. That's another reason I like Obama, he's smart. Now John McCain was never smart, ordinary at best. His grades were near failing all through school and there's, well, that stunt on the Forestal that killed 134 and wasted 26 airplanes, and a few million bucks, not too smart.
ViRedd
New Member
Seamaiden said ...
"John McCain, the guy who admitted during one of the debates that he doesn't know economics, warned of this..? Are we sure he didn't mean Ron Paul? Ron Paul I can see making such a prediction (as a matter of fact, I believe he did, though I don't recollect when). Hm."
September 16, 2008...6:51 pm
John McCain Supported A Proposal For An Agency To Oversee Fannie And Freddie……In 2005!
In Sept. 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency to oversee regulatory reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is an excerpt form the above linked article from Sept. 11, 2003.
The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May 26th, 2006. Here is an excerpt:
John McCain fought two years ago to shield the American people from the crisis some of us are facing.
What was Barack’s vote??
Update: 09/17/08 5:48am EST (yeah, I dont’ sleep much)
We asked the question: “What was Barack’s vote?” We had the answer on Monday, but didn’t link it here until now. I like dramatic pauses.
As reported here, since 1989, Barack Obama is second only to Sen. Chris Dodd in most amount of Lobbyist money accepted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Are you hearing this? He has been in the Senate less than four years and only Dodd has taken more money than he has. Since 1989. No wonder he wanted to keep Fannie and Freddie under Senate oversight.
And no wonder there isn’t an “Enron type” investigation going on. Nobody wants to investigate themselves.
Hopeandchange certainly sounds like sameoldcrap.
Barack Obama: he loves hates the lobbyists!
"John McCain, the guy who admitted during one of the debates that he doesn't know economics, warned of this..? Are we sure he didn't mean Ron Paul? Ron Paul I can see making such a prediction (as a matter of fact, I believe he did, though I don't recollect when). Hm."
September 16, 2008...6:51 pm
John McCain Supported A Proposal For An Agency To Oversee Fannie And Freddie……In 2005!
In Sept. 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency to oversee regulatory reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is an excerpt form the above linked article from Sept. 11, 2003.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Then in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May 26th, 2006. Here is an excerpt:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
This bill was shot down by the Democrats and some Republicans in Congress.I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
John McCain fought two years ago to shield the American people from the crisis some of us are facing.
What was Barack’s vote??
Update: 09/17/08 5:48am EST (yeah, I dont’ sleep much)
We asked the question: “What was Barack’s vote?” We had the answer on Monday, but didn’t link it here until now. I like dramatic pauses.
As reported here, since 1989, Barack Obama is second only to Sen. Chris Dodd in most amount of Lobbyist money accepted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Are you hearing this? He has been in the Senate less than four years and only Dodd has taken more money than he has. Since 1989. No wonder he wanted to keep Fannie and Freddie under Senate oversight.
And no wonder there isn’t an “Enron type” investigation going on. Nobody wants to investigate themselves.
Hopeandchange certainly sounds like sameoldcrap.
Barack Obama: he loves hates the lobbyists!
ZippyPH
Active Member
I just joined the board to get growtech, but to find intellectual discourse based on both fact and well-thought opinion, well, color me freaking purple.
I am an hour late for work because I've been reading the boards. Very worth it.
McCain or Obama? Don't know which will be better or worse. There's only ever been one thing left in Pandora's box.
I am an hour late for work because I've been reading the boards. Very worth it.
McCain or Obama? Don't know which will be better or worse. There's only ever been one thing left in Pandora's box.