• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

It's about as logical as blaming Obama for not instantly having an economic recovery from the longest recession since the Great Depression.

History isn't your friend, the 81-82 recession was every bit as bad as this recession as it was a double dip recession and affected every American. No one is blaming Obama for the recession only the very poor recovery due to poor leadership skills and incompetence. The recession ended in June 2009 a few months ever Obama took office. Guess those cherry picked facts are ones you don't want to hear.
 
Were 1960s medium household income data largely based on a single worker in the family? That would add insult to the injury!
 
Last edited:
History isn't your friend, the 81-82 recession was every bit as bad as this recession as it was a double dip recession and affected every American. No one is blaming Obama for the recession only the very poor recovery due to poor leadership skills and incompetence. The recession ended in June 2009 a few months ever Obama took office. Guess those cherry picked facts are ones you don't want to hear.

Exactly. Reagan's poor management resulted in his recession double dipping. While the one that Obama inherited was over in just a few months, and despite all the conservative's who were predicting a double dip, it never happened.
 
Exactly. Reagan's poor management resulted in his recession double dipping. While the one that Obama inherited was over in just a few months, and despite all the conservative's who were predicting a double dip, it never happened.

Says who? In some respects today, real people look at the situation around them, and their circumstances haven't changed during Obama's entire term....In fact they would argue that Obama took what should have been a 1 year, or 18 month bad recession and extended it to 6 years at least....I see nothing of substance that Obama actually made better through his policies, and instead see a long string of changing language, and manipulating stats to paint a false picture...Sure you may hate Booooosh, but to continue to blame Bush for today's problems is not only ridiculous, but laughable Scott....You have got to be better than that....?
 
Says who? In some respects today, real people look at the situation around them, and their circumstances haven't changed during Obama's entire term....In fact they would argue that Obama took what should have been a 1 year, or 18 month bad recession and extended it to 6 years at least....I see nothing of substance that Obama actually made better through his policies, and instead see a long string of changing language, and manipulating stats to paint a false picture...Sure you may hate Booooosh, but to continue to blame Bush for today's problems is not only ridiculous, but laughable Scott....You have got to be better than that....?

Actually, I don't believe we should be blaming or crediting every president with every thing that goes on during the time he happens to be in office.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in the posts of many conservatives, who whine about Obama/Clinton/Carter and blame everything bad that happens in the world on them, but refuse to do the same with republican presidents.

This is a huge double standard, that I find dishonest. But in all fairness, I suppose that those on the left do the same thing also.

As far as me "hating" Bush, I voted for him, and I didn't vote for Obumer.
 
Actually, I don't believe we should be blaming or crediting every president with every thing that goes on during the time he happens to be in office.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in the posts of many conservatives, who whine about Obama/Clinton/Carter and blame everything bad that happens in the world on them, but refuse to do the same with republican presidents.

This is a huge double standard, that I find dishonest. But in all fairness, I suppose that those on the left do the same thing also.

As far as me "hating" Bush, I voted for him, and I didn't vote for Obumer.


Yes, obviously that is why you used the "Blame Bush" talking points of the ideological progressive, must have been why you voted for him eh? Just a thought.
 
Exactly. Reagan's poor management resulted in his recession double dipping. While the one that Obama inherited was over in just a few months, and despite all the conservative's who were predicting a double dip, it never happened.

Exactly, Reagan takes office in January 1981 and because of Reagan who didn't get an economic plan passed by Congress until August put us into a double dip recession in June?? yes that is liberal logic and obviously the blame game continues but only with Reagan
 
Exactly. Reagan's poor management resulted in his recession double dipping. While the one that Obama inherited was over in just a few months, and despite all the conservative's who were predicting a double dip, it never happened.

Exactly, Reagan takes office in January 1981 and because of Reagan who didn't get an economic plan passed by Congress until August put us into a double dip recession in June?? yes that is liberal logic and obviously the blame game continues but only with Reagan
 
Yes, obviously that is why you used the "Blame Bush" talking points of the ideological progressive, must have been why you voted for him eh? Just a thought.

I find that most Obama supporters and others here lack basic leadership skills and understanding exactly what a leader is and does. The blame Reagan, blame Bush, and then blame the Republican House with Obama in office continues probably more of a diversion from Obama than anything else. Too many have no concept of how leadership influences economic and foreign policy which makes me wonder why did these same people vote for Obama?
 
Yes, obviously that is why you used the "Blame Bush" talking points of the ideological progressive, must have been why you voted for him eh? Just a thought.

No, I was offering a sarcastic response to a hackish conservative post.
 
Exactly, Reagan takes office in January 1981 and because of Reagan who didn't get an economic plan passed by Congress until August put us into a double dip recession in June?? yes that is liberal logic and obviously the blame game continues but only with Reagan

See, you have no issue with blaming the administration prior to Reagan, for the economic disaster that was occuring just as Reagan took office, yet you can't seem to admit that the same thing happened when Obama first took office.
 
I find that most Obama supporters and others here lack basic leadership skills and understanding exactly what a leader is and does. The blame Reagan, blame Bush, and then blame the Republican House with Obama in office continues probably more of a diversion from Obama than anything else. Too many have no concept of how leadership influences economic and foreign policy which makes me wonder why did these same people vote for Obama?

That's EXACTLY what you do, only in reverse. You blame dems, for the same thing that you absolve republicans from.
 
No, I was offering a sarcastic response to a hackish conservative post.

Hackish? LOL, yep, results really are hackish in your world, you know, results you claim I cherry pick yet never are able to refute them? It is sarcastic to say that Reagan's poor leadership didn't prevent a double dip when his policies weren't implemented until August 1981 and the recession began two months earlier? I suggest you define hackish because I call your post one of a true hack.
 
That's EXACTLY what you do, only in reverse. You blame dems, for the same thing that you absolve republicans from.

You choose what you want to believe, I don't blame Dems in general but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid specifically for the terrible recovery, lack of leadership, and poor economic results. You want to ignore that I grew up a Democrat voted for Democrats but that party of the past, the party of JFK doesn't exist any more because of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who seem to believe it is the Federal Government's role to social engineer.
 
See, you have no issue with blaming the administration prior to Reagan, for the economic disaster that was occuring just as Reagan took office, yet you can't seem to admit that the same thing happened when Obama first took office.

I don't blame the Carter Administration, history and the results do it for me. I just point out those results. I voted for Carter but realized the mistake I made. Will never vote for another Democrat in the mode of Carter, Clinton, or Obama
 
Yes, there is some truth to that...But weakness comes in many forms..Not having your eye on the ball can be a weakness too...No?

Yes, it can.

But, going back to OPEC, had the president and his minions had their eye on the ball, how might they have prevented OPEC from driving up the price of oil?
 
No, I was offering a sarcastic response to a hackish conservative post.

Easy to say afterward isn't it...In fact you do that alot it seems to me Scott...Getting hard to just pass it off as sarcasm when you follow the same theme often.
 
Easy to say afterward isn't it...In fact you do that alot it seems to me Scott...Getting hard to just pass it off as sarcasm when you follow the same theme often.

Yea, you are right. I should probably just be more honest and straightforward, and directly point out partisan hypocrisy, instead of engaging in my own partisan hypocrisy game.
 
Yes, it can.

But, going back to OPEC, had the president and his minions had their eye on the ball, how might they have prevented OPEC from driving up the price of oil?

Well, if in fact oil is a world commodity as it is, then it would seem that whether the oil comes from SA, or Venezuela, Canada, or right here in the US, the more of it on the market means the lower the cost to the end products...So, we could have ramped up our own production to put pressure on OPEC to play ball. That's my take anyway.
 
Yea, you are right. I should probably just be more honest and straightforward, and directly point out partisan hypocrisy, instead of engaging in my own partisan hypocrisy game.

Well, I don't think that one can be politically honest without acknowledging that hypocrisy is a pretty big part of it. I can accept that, it is those who throw things out there and then try to feign like they, and only they can call it out without looking in the mirror themselves that gets me from time to time...
 
Well, if in fact oil is a world commodity as it is, then it would seem that whether the oil comes from SA, or Venezuela, Canada, or right here in the US, the more of it on the market means the lower the cost to the end products...So, we could have ramped up our own production to put pressure on OPEC to play ball. That's my take anyway.

That's what we should have done. It would have taken a few years, of course, to get enough production to affect world markets, and our oil is more expensive to recover than that of most of the OPEC nations, but it would have paid dividends in the long run.

What actually did happen to OPEC? If we didn't develop our own resources, how is it that the crisis eventually ended?
 
...

What actually did happen to OPEC? If we didn't develop our own resources, how is it that the crisis eventually ended?

The way I understand it, there wasn't a lot of trust between OPEC countries, and several OPEC countries constantly "cheated" on the amounts that they agreed to produce, producing far more, thus benefiting disproportionately from the artificially created shortages.
These OPEC nations don't like or trust each other, any more than they like the US.
 
The way I understand it, there wasn't a lot of trust between OPEC countries, and several OPEC countries constantly "cheated" on the amounts that they agreed to produce, producing far more, thus benefiting disproportionately from the artificially created shortages.
These OPEC nations don't like or trust each other, any more than they like the US.

You mean to say you don't think it had anything to do with the American president?

How about that.
 
You mean to say you don't think it had anything to do with the American president?

How about that.

So your point is that you think it unfair to blame a President for oil prices, did it stop anyone in the past? Hell no it didn't.
 
So your point is that you think it unfair to blame a President for oil prices, did it stop anyone in the past? Hell no it didn't.

Of course not.

Blaming the POTUS for events beyond his control has become a national past time, regardless of the letter after the POTUS' name.

The only difference is, when things go well, and the president is a D, then the D's gloat, but the R's point out he had nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, things go bad, then the opposite happens. If the president is an R, roles reverse.

That's how it's been for as long as I can remember.
 
Back
Top Bottom