• 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!

Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama

Well if you have a problem with Boo, you take it up with him and leave me out of it.

As for any partisanship I have, it is with eyes wide open.

Your comment about an unknown and mythical McCain presidency is as stupid as any blind republican ideologue making a negative comment about ANY democrat being president simply by simple virtue of them being a democrat. You have no idea what he would have done or how he would have done it and with who's support. Oh...but you are CERTAIN it would have been worse. And THATS what makes you 'that guy'.

As for my comment to Boo...I was making it...directly...and to him...and he got it.
 
Your comment about an unknown and mythical McCain presidency is as stupid as any blind republican ideologue making a negative comment about ANY democrat being president simply by simple virtue of them being a democrat. You have no idea what he would have done or how he would have done it and with who's support. Oh...but you are CERTAIN it would have been worse. And THATS what makes you 'that guy'.

And yet none of what I said would happen goes against how Republican Presidents and Congressional Republican historically act when in power. Which is why I am so certain. Which doesn't make me that guy.

As for my comment to Boo...I was making it...directly...and to him...and he got it.

Really? So this post in which you asked me to talk about something Boo said was addressed to Boo?

Wait...are you STILL not getting Boos contention that no president has such pull? And....just for fun...how did your dem controlled house, senate and white house do on those tax cuts? :lamo:lamo
 
And yet none of what I said would happen goes against how Republican Presidents and Congressional Republican historically act when in power. Which is why I am so certain. Which doesn't make me that guy.

Really? So this post in which you asked me to talk about something Boo said was addressed to Boo?

Here is the stupity equivalent of your comment..."I KNOW that the next democrat president will be a horrible president. ALL DEMOCRATS are horrile politicians and weak leaders."

As for the Boo comments...he knows what time it is.
 
today:

The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday.

In a blunt critique of his successor, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Greenspan said the $2 trillion in quantative easing over the past two years had done little to loosen credit and boost the economy.

"There is no evidence that huge inflow of money into the system basically worked," Greenspan said in a live interview.

"It obviously had some effect on the exchange rate and the exchange rate was a critical issue in export expansion," he said. "Aside from that, I am ill-aware of anything that really worked. Not only QE2, but QE1."

Greenspan’s comments came as the Fed ended the second installment of its bond-buying program, known as QE2, after spending $600 billion. Greenspan said he "would be surprised if there was a QE3" because it would "continue erosion of the dollar."

On Greece, Greenspan said a default is likely and will "affect the whole structure of profitability in the U.S." because of this country's large economic commitments to Europe, which holds Greek debt.

Greenspan: QE Had Little Impact
 


Anything that Greenspan says should be taken with a grain of salt since this is the same man who said, while out of power, the FED should basically be abolished.

Also, Greenspan admited that exports increased during QE1 and QE2, which means job growth did happen and he linked the two.

And yet none of what I said would happen goes against how Republican Presidents and Congressional Republican historically act when in power. Which is why I am so certain. Which doesn't make me that guy.

Historically republicans rely on tax cuts and deficit spending to stimulate growth. That only works so far, as seen by the recent "recovery"
 
It seems that Republicans are winning the messaging war, as usual. Unfortunately for the country, the Republicans look at the faultering economy with greedy eyes, and they have no intention of doing anything to help revive the economy until they win back the White House. They have been trying to sabotage any efforts to help the economy since Obama was elected, and proof of that is the number of bills that Republicans have backed or sponsored that would have gone towards helping the economy: zero. Their duplicity is transparent, as are their souls.
Thank goodness! I was afraid you had not received the democratic parties talking points.
Let's see. House. Senate. Presidency. Yep. All under control of the Democrats for the first couple of years.

The Democrats are now accusing the Republicans of doing what the democrats have actually done. Democrats intentionally sabotaged the economy to help move us from a free market economy to top down centralized, government directed economy.

But you have the talking points so we know the nation is secure.
 
The Democrats are now accusing the Republicans of doing what the democrats have actually done. Democrats intentionally sabotaged the economy to help move us from a free market economy to top down centralized, government directed economy.

This is why I cannot debate with people of your ilk. You seriously believe that the Dems are doing more harm to the economy and trying to move the US away from a free market economy more than repubs. NEWSFLASH, we haven't had a capitalist country since at least the late 1800s and certainly before the NEW DEAL.
 
job growth did happen and he linked the two

grain of salt?

LOL!

barack the slasher hussein himself brags about the 2.1 million private sector jobs created since the recovery

that's less than 100000 per month and far too few even to keep up with population

in times like these

after all we've been thru

which is why the usa today called out for everyone our historically slow recovery

Job creation limps along after recession - USATODAY.com

it's pretty hard to promote a recovery summer, even a year later, when ONE MILLION AMERICANS one day apply for an entry level, minimum wage job disdained by generations of teens as beneath THEM

and NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND of em get turned away

Daily Kos: One Million Apply for McDonald's Jobs

when the housing market has OFFICIALLY reached DOUBLE DIP

CNBC: It's Official, Home Values Double Dip

CNBC: Housing Crisis Now Worse Than Great Depression

when gdp is 1.8

and yes, sadly, it's very hard to sell success when poll after poll shows americans in terrifying proportions saying we're heading for a great depression, our best days are behind us, our right track/wrong track numbers are FORTY points upside down

CNN Poll: Obama approval rating drops as fears of depression rise – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

U.S. Economy In Permanent Decline, Say 39 Percent of Americans: HuffPo

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country

this economy, ominously, has by now become psychologized

who's spinning?

greenspan?
 
Last edited:
This is why I cannot debate with people of your ilk.
I like people of my ilk. And we are fun to debate with. People of my ilk, that is.
You seriously believe that the Dems are doing more harm to the economy
Yep.
and trying to move the US away from a free market economy more than repubs.
Yep. It is intentional. And it has accelerated under the one term Marxist president Obama.

NEWSFLASH, we haven't had a capitalist country since at least the late 1800s and certainly before the NEW DEAL.
Really? FDR lengthened the depression with his policies. And he certainly did a great many extra constitutional programs that haunt us to this day. He was a democrat, wasn't he?

So if we want to keep our country we need to return to the Constitution. We need to limit government and eliminate everything that is extra constitutional. Whole departments need to close, fire all the people, and sell the buildings.
 
So if we want to keep our country we need to return to the Constitution. We need to limit government and eliminate everything that is extra constitutional. Whole departments need to close, fire all the people, and sell the buildings.

And you seriously believe the corporate shrills that the repubs have become will do that? And you seriously believe that the repubs aren't as bad as the dems?
 
And you seriously believe the corporate shrills that the repubs have become will do that? And you seriously believe that the repubs aren't as bad as the dems?
Actually, the statist republicans are in fact nearly as bad as the statist democrats. It will take conservatives to turn this around. But time is nearly up. We don't have a generation. In my opinion we don't even have a decade. We may have only one more election cycle.
 
FDR lengthened the depression with his policies

it was eponymously called the roosevelt recession

1937

Recession of 1937

it got a lot worse

a recession on top of, in the midst of, a great depression

he also screwed up really bad at yalta
 
What Bush policies did he continue?

Oh the tax cuts for the rich which conservatives insisted on.

This insane argument is so old and out of date it's sickening .. I'll point this out to one more time for you bleeding heart liberals.. . the bush tax cuts (for the rich as you say) we passed by your own friggin liberals, they controlled the house .. the senate .. and the white house .. . There was no voted even needed .. those tax cuts were all set to expire .. gone .. no longer there .. I'll say it again . .they didn't have to do anything . Something they are normally very good at .. liberal Democrats “voted” to extend those tax cuts .. those tax cuts now belong to the liberals … and no one else.
 
This insane argument is so old and out of date it's sickening .. I'll point this out to one more time for you bleeding heart liberals.. . the bush tax cuts (for the rich as you say) we passed by your own friggin liberals, they controlled the house .. the senate .. and the white house .. . There was no voted even needed .. those tax cuts were all set to expire .. gone .. no longer there .. I'll say it again . .they didn't have to do anything . Something they are normally very good at .. liberal Democrats “voted” to extend those tax cuts .. those tax cuts now belong to the liberals … and no one else.

And I'll remind you, that when those tax cuts were renewed, the dems, as a voting bloc if they all voted for the same thing, was no longer filibuster proof.
 
Actually, the statist republicans are in fact nearly as bad as the statist democrats. It will take conservatives to turn this around. But time is nearly up. We don't have a generation. In my opinion we don't even have a decade. We may have only one more election cycle.

Where on this board did I read these same comments before and who posted them? Any help?
 
it's difficult to pin the current malaise completely on either of the popular political parties. what we're experiencing is the inevitable culmination of the transition to a less industrial society, and that transition has been happening for more than three decades. only recently has the easy credit that was masking the problem collapsed; prior to 2008, it was possible for Americans with stagnant wage growth to continue to increase consumption. that was always a house of cards, though. cheaper goods also slowed the arrival of the crash.

the goal has been decreasing prices of consumer goods at any societal cost. the result of that is that a significant portion of the revenue generated by production that used to go to workers (and then back into the economy through consumption) now goes overseas. while this could turn into an outsourcing rant for me, i would have to admit that mechanization can lead to the same scenario, and most people don't want to see a halt in new technology. however, some industry will have to absorb the displaced workers for this cycle to cease.

this is far from the first transitional period America has lived through. not so long ago, we were an agricultural economy. however, when that changed, industry was able to pick up the displaced workers. if a new growth industry is unable to utilize our workforce soon, i'm not sure how a 70 percent consumer spending GDP can recover, as it requires employed people with income to spend. i don't see a lot of room for government to pick up the slack, either, considering our current debt situation.

if i had the magic wand, i would seriously reallocate our tax revenue and spend it on infrastructure repair / rebuilding and investment in domestic energy technology. a tiered corporate tax that encourages corporations to hire domestically might help. and as much as i don't think tax cuts are the be all / end all, our corporate tax rates are not competitive for smaller corporations while loopholes allow larger ones to skirt taxes almost entirely. a clearer corporate tax policy would benefit everyone, and might encourage corporations to headquarter here.

i suppose my long winded point is that it's critical to solve the employment problem without getting quagmired in the tar pit of partisan gamesmanship. this is unlikely to happen, unfortunately.
 
it's difficult to pin the current malaise completely on either of the popular political parties. what we're experiencing is the inevitable culmination of the transition to a less industrial society, and that transition has been happening for more than three decades. only recently has the easy credit that was masking the problem collapsed; prior to 2008, it was possible for Americans with stagnant wage growth to continue to increase consumption. that was always a house of cards, though. cheaper goods also slowed the arrival of the crash.

the goal has been decreasing prices of consumer goods at any societal cost. the result of that is that a significant portion of the revenue generated by production that used to go to workers (and then back into the economy through consumption) now goes overseas. while this could turn into an outsourcing rant for me, i would have to admit that mechanization can lead to the same scenario, and most people don't want to see a halt in new technology. however, some industry will have to absorb the displaced workers for this cycle to cease.

this is far from the first transitional period America has lived through. not so long ago, we were an agricultural economy. however, when that changed, industry was able to pick up the displaced workers. if a new growth industry is unable to utilize our workforce soon, i'm not sure how a 70 percent consumer spending GDP can recover, as it requires employed people with income to spend. i don't see a lot of room for government to pick up the slack, either, considering our current debt situation.

if i had the magic wand, i would seriously reallocate our tax revenue and spend it on infrastructure repair / rebuilding and investment in domestic energy technology. a tiered corporate tax that encourages corporations to hire domestically might help. and as much as i don't think tax cuts are the be all / end all, our corporate tax rates are not competitive for smaller corporations while loopholes allow larger ones to skirt taxes almost entirely. a clearer corporate tax policy would benefit everyone, and might encourage corporations to headquarter here.

i suppose my long winded point is that it's critical to solve the employment problem without getting quagmired in the tar pit of partisan gamesmanship. this is unlikely to happen, unfortunately.

I see it differently. The common complaint has been for probably the last 10 years or more, that both political party's are the same and it doesn't really matter which one is in control - they both suck, they both spend beyond their means, they both expand government control and they both expand military control overseas. It's difficult to refute that. I believe the reason for this popular view is due to: Too much compromise. Yes that's right - too much. Both party's compromise on legislation, compromise their views, compromise their votes, and where does it get us? Screwed no matter who's in charge. We were screwed with all Republicans in Congress and the Whitehouse, we were equally as screwed with all Democrats in Congress and the Whitehouse. The only time we're NOT screwed, is when they're fighting so much that nothing gets done, lending credibility to: Less government is better.

So I say, polarization politically is good. Hard ideologies are GOOD. Fighting so that only a limited number of things legislatively get done is GOOD. Now, if we can only pare back the last 30 years of government expansion in ALL areas including defense, including entitlement programs and focused instead on a closer (not 100%) but closer constitutional government, we'd all be better off.
 
Surely the result of dedication and hard work...

And don't call me sir... that is reserved for my 92-year-old grandfather... :)

I am blessed. Far too many are not. And as I will always say, if you or yours are looking to make money at home, online. PM me. I have leads.
 
Back
Top Bottom