• 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!

Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

Depends on the roadblock. If the roadblock is to limit risky behavior and protect the environment, I'm for the road blaock. The best answer in the gulf is for it to not have happened in the first place, for example.

From what I understand the problem was a lack of enforcement of regulations. There are from what I understand hundreds of wells. One leaked because of a lack of enforcement.
 
From what I understand the problem was a lack of enforcement of regulations. There are from what I understand hundreds of wells. One leaked because of a lack of enforcement.

Here, on our shoes. Lot's of leaks elsewhere as I understand it. But, if those regulations kept the number down, then I'm for the regulations. I don't see that as hindering.
 
Here, on our shoes. Lot's of leaks elsewhere as I understand it. But, if those regulations kept the number down, then I'm for the regulations. I don't see that as hindering.

Me either. I just don't think the idea that regulators refusing to do their job is a reason to stop something.
 
No, I understand that. I would argue, however, that had he actually tackled healthcare reform properly, it would have helped the economy more than anything else he could have done. He could remove health care benefits from the work place. The public option would have gone a ways toward that. This would help business much more than taxes.

And the stimulus bill was something, and in line with what little government can do. He could have made it larger, but I doubt that would have pleased his opponents. But, government is limited in what it can do to move the economy. Even more limited when it comes to jobs. Outside of hiring people, spending tax dollars to do so, government has few options.

And yes, he will have to explain why he let republicans derail him. Why he wasn't stronger. But no president has the power to fix the economy. They have to get lucky, and this whole will be a long time coming out of no matter who we elect.

First where i agree with you. If we had a public option that would have greatly helped our economy long term.

I do not agree that we could not do more to fix the economy. He could have( and still could) done something to fix the mortgage crisis. After all most of the underwater loans are guareenteed by Fannie and Freddie, which are essentially controlled by the government. You can't really fix unemployment when you have 12% of GDP, construction on it's butt. People will not buy houses until the mortgage overhang gets worked off for fear that prices still have further to decline. Yes there are other issues but this is an example of an area that could be fixed with real leadership. We could have put an effort into the new shale technology which would have added many jobs while reducing our trade deficit. We could have put money into truly bettering our infrastructure perhaps with a smart grid.

Yes presidents have to get lucky. But that reminds me of a saying:

" The better you are the luckier you get".
 
Somebody at the WH. PLEASE lock Mr. Obama in a closet and keep him there.


"First do no harm" .....he's a disaster. Another year and a half before he's out???
 
First where i agree with you. If we had a public option that would have greatly helped our economy long term.

I do not agree that we could not do more to fix the economy. He could have( and still could) done something to fix the mortgage crisis. After all most of the underwater loans are guareenteed by Fannie and Freddie, which are essentially controlled by the government. You can't really fix unemployment when you have 12% of GDP, construction on it's butt. People will not buy houses until the mortgage overhang gets worked off for fear that prices still have further to decline. Yes there are other issues but this is an example of an area that could be fixed with real leadership. We could have put an effort into the new shale technology which would have added many jobs while reducing our trade deficit. We could have put money into truly bettering our infrastructure perhaps with a smart grid.

Yes presidents have to get lucky. But that reminds me of a saying:

" The better you are the luckier you get".

Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis. ;) I really would have. But that too would have taken money, and republicans and tea party folks have drawn a line that this president can't spend. But I do agree he should have fought that battle. Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong things.
 
Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis. ;) I really would have. But that too would have taken money, and republicans and tea party folks have drawn a line that this president can't spend. But I do agree he should have fought that battle. Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong things.

A little historical perspective. This would have been done as opposed to spending $800 billion paying people to buy cars and filling the coffers of European banks.
 
CHICAGO (WLS) - Illinois Senator and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin is admitting the scandal at Solyndra is a big deal.

Taping WLS Radio's "Connected to Chicago" for Sunday morning at 6, Durbin was not making any excuses for the Solyndra scandal.


WLS 890AM

Durbin: "If there was rank stupidity and a terrible thing, let the chips fall where they may"

Cameron (Host of program) : "and it might hurt Democrats in next year's election."

Durbin: "Well, of course."


All because Obama is black.
 
Lord, I would have loved to see the fight over fixing the morgage crisis. ;) I really would have. But that too would have taken money, and republicans and tea party folks have drawn a line that this president can't spend. But I do agree he should have fought that battle. Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong things.

Typical more borrow and spend mentality
 
You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments.

The Reverend's comments are quite clear and there is only one way to read them. As well, there were many similar comments made which we needn't add here, unless there is denial.
Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim.

I'm claiming he has been a domestic failure and an international failure and I don't see how it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful,

Been more forceful? Where? He had control of the house and Senate and couldn't even pass a budget? What sort of extra force did he need?
but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time

"A Long, long time"? How long is that?
and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now

Certainly he had the power. Not only does he not have a budget, he's wasted trillions of dollars that will take a generation to repay, if it ever is. Unlike past generations of Americans who fought for the future of their country, he has passed on the bills to children and grandchildren that will leave the country in debt for at least a generation.,

2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support.

And what sort of change is that??
Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.

I'm quite clear in my criticism while your criticisms, such as they are, are vague to the point of having no substance whatsoever. In fact having no substance would describe Barrack Obama perfectly.
 
The Reverend's comments are quite clear and there is only one way to read them. As well, there were many similar comments made which we needn't add here, unless there is denial.

As some have read them incorrectly, you would be factually wrong. All you are really saying is that your reading is the only one you willlisten to. Noted.


I'm claiming he has been a domestic failure and an international failure and I don't see how it can be demonstrated otherwise.

Compared to who he replaced, he has been an improvement. Not the great success many had hoped for, true, but an improvement. But, where I differ most is how much hyperbole I hear coming from his opponents. Many go over the edge often.


Been more forceful? Where? He had control of the house and Senate and couldn't even pass a budget? What sort of extra force did he need?

I'm always surprised when someone I'm having a dicussion with seems to not have any idea about the events we're discussing. You make a common mistake in thinking that all you need to know is that power was mostly held by one party. I realize much of this requires more than opponents want to look at, as it would make their hyerbolic nonsense less easy to pass off with a straightface. But, I said he needed to be more forceful, as in insist on things, push his party, make the case, lead. Instead, he was under the mistaken impression congress would work together and actually try to do some good for the country. He was wrong.

"A Long, long time"? How long is that?

As long as I can remember. We're been borrowing since the country was first created. But we fell hard in the depression, which changed the rules, and VN was an economic low point, and every present in our life time has contributed to the debt. Every congress, regardless of party has contributed. And all of us have really not doen enough to hold any of the accountable. Point is, this isn't in any way new.

Certainly he had the power. Not only does he not have a budget, he's wasted trillions of dollars that will take a generation to repay, if it ever is. Unlike past generations of Americans who fought for the future of their country, he has passed on the bills to children and grandchildren that will leave the country in debt for at least a generation.,

No, he never did. He'spresident and not ruler, dictator, king. Just president. And nearly all of our past presidents, espeically in the modern era, have passed on the debt. It is dishonest to only single out Obama.

And what sort of change is that??

UHC, a HUGE expendature of government money, more spending and control than either of us would completely support. But that is the only way GOVERNMENT can fix this. Your better to seek others to step up and help. I suggest partnerships.

I'm quite clear in my criticism while your criticisms, such as they are, are vague to the point of having no substance whatsoever. In fact having no substance would describe Barrack Obama perfectly.

You must be asking the wrong questions or reading the wrong posts. Republicans have played rerail the president, and not let's roll up our selves and help. That's a specific and real criticism. Like republcians, democrats have been too close to business, too willing to let them dictate policy, and have been too partisan while doing too little actual work. Neither can claim the high ground. But if you're confused, ask a specific question, and then listen to the answer with just looking for the ONE you want to hear.
 
As some have read them incorrectly, you would be factually wrong. All you are really saying is that your reading is the only one you willlisten to. Noted.

Where have I been factually wrong? Did Rev. Wright not say "God Damn America"?

Compared to who he replaced, he has been an improvement. Not the great success many had hoped for, true, but an improvement. But, where I differ most is how much hyperbole I hear coming from his opponents. Many go over the edge often.

Why compare him to previous Presidents? Surely, by now, he can be judged on his own merits, or lack of them. But, in any case, how is he an improvement on George Bush? Bush inherited a recession and turned it around. Obama has not only made a recession worse, the American people will be paying for the debts he created for years to come.

I'm always surprised when someone I'm having a dicussion with seems to not have any idea about the events we're discussing. You make a common mistake in thinking that all you need to know is that power was mostly held by one party. I realize much of this requires more than opponents want to look at, as it would make their hyerbolic nonsense less easy to pass off with a straightface. But, I said he needed to be more forceful, as in insist on things, push his party, make the case, lead. Instead, he was under the mistaken impression congress would work together and actually try to do some good for the country. He was wrong.

In other words, the Congress and Senate couldn't agree with this nincompoop either.
As long as I can remember. We're been borrowing since the country was first created. But we fell hard in the depression, which changed the rules, and VN was an economic low point, and every present in our life time has contributed to the debt. Every congress, regardless of party has contributed. And all of us have really not doen enough to hold any of the accountable. Point is, this isn't in any way new.

As you may have heard, there is good debt and there is bad debt. Debt as a manageable percentage of the GDP is nothing new in any economy. But when you make the claim that there is nothing new with BHO's debt you are wrong. Barrack Obama has not only put the country deeper in debt than any previous President, he has put the country deeper in debt than all other Presidents combined! That he is not being held accountable by you and many others is obvious, and you'll continue to look for a scapegoat or make excuses for this clown.
No, he never did. He'spresident and not ruler, dictator, king. Just president. And nearly all of our past presidents, espeically in the modern era, have passed on the debt. It is dishonest to only single out Obama.

A leader need not be a dictator in order to get a budget passed or get debt under control. In fact BHO said he would be a "pay as you go" President. How ridiculous that sounds now!
UHC, a HUGE expendature of government money, more spending and control than either of us would completely support. But that is the only way GOVERNMENT can fix this. Your better to seek others to step up and help. I suggest partnerships.

More spending will control more spending? And more spending will fix the problem? This is madness. And who would want to partner this insanity?

You must be asking the wrong questions or reading the wrong posts. Republicans have played rerail the president, and not let's roll up our selves and help.

Help where? Spend more money? How is more pork the answer?

That's a specific and real criticism. Like republcians, democrats have been too close to business, too willing to let them dictate policy, and have been too partisan while doing too little actual work. Neither can claim the high ground. But if you're confused, ask a specific question, and then listen to the answer with just looking for the ONE you want to hear.

So the American government is in irredeemable debt because of the business community? This is really getting weird. Again, can you be specific as to examples to support your theories?
 
You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments. Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim. Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful, but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now, and 2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support. Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.

u right about that everyone on the hill is a crook.2 different gangs.kabuki theatre at it's best.key issues that have to do with tightening the grip on the population pass without much ado....from them or the media.interesting isn't it?
peace.
 
Where have I been factually wrong? Did Rev. Wright not say "God Damn America"?

You seem to be wrong about what that means. That's why I asked if you knew the tradition. If your did, you wouldn't react as strong as you do. Mindless overreaction doesn't do anyone much good.

Why compare him to previous Presidents? Surely, by now, he can be judged on his own merits, or lack of them. But, in any case, how is he an improvement on George Bush? Bush inherited a recession and turned it around. Obama has not only made a recession worse, the American people will be paying for the debts he created for years to come.

Comparisons often tell us better how someone is doing. Poor and great is usually a judgement based on a comparison. Helps to put things in perspective.

In other words, the Congress and Senate couldn't agree with this nincompoop either.

Not how I would present it. Congress, you migth remember, rates pretty low as well. I woudl say congress didn't do its job, and Obama wasn't forceful enough to move them forward.

As you may have heard, there is good debt and there is bad debt. Debt as a manageable percentage of the GDP is nothing new in any economy. But when you make the claim that there is nothing new with BHO's debt you are wrong. Barrack Obama has not only put the country deeper in debt than any previous President, he has put the country deeper in debt than all other Presidents combined! That he is not being held accountable by you and many others is obvious, and you'll continue to look for a scapegoat or make excuses for this clown.

Sounds to me you're just looking for a way not to criticize your guys for debt. Sorry, but it won't hold. There's really nothing new here. Too many are just selective in their faux outrage. :coffeepap

A leader need not be a dictator in order to get a budget passed or get debt under control. In fact BHO said he would be a "pay as you go" President. How ridiculous that sounds now!

Budget is different than economy. Which one do you want to talk about? Even if we get the budget under control, this does not translate into the economy doing well.

More spending will control more spending? And more spending will fix the problem? This is madness. And who would want to partner this insanity?

YOu do seem confused and like you're confusing two differetn issues.

Help where? Spend more money? How is more pork the answer?

The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork. Focus.


So the American government is in irredeemable debt because of the business community? This is really getting weird. Again, can you be specific as to examples to support your theories?

You are confused about two separat issues, but the Walstreet bailout was government money to the private sector. The auto industry bailout was to business. Banks also fall under business. Not to menetion what we give in drug reseach at teaching hospitals, and how we give money for jobs programs where companies take the money and fire people (see GM).Corproate welfare far out costs government that welfare to the poor, so,while you are leaping a ways from what we were discussing and what I said, it is true much of the debt is the cost of what we give to business.
 
You seem to be wrong about what that means. That's why I asked if you knew the tradition. If your did, you wouldn't react as strong as you do. Mindless overreaction doesn't do anyone much good.

I've already told you I'm aware of this tradition. Did he say it or not? What do you think "God Damn America" really means?
Comparisons often tell us better how someone is doing. Poor and great is usually a judgement based on a comparison. Helps to put things in perspective.

It's also a tired way of deflecting the debate away from the sorry mess you now have as President.
Not how I would present it. Congress, you migth remember, rates pretty low as well. I woudl say congress didn't do its job, and Obama wasn't forceful enough to move them forward.

A failure of Democrats on all fronts then. Is that how you would put it?

Sounds to me you're just looking for a way not to criticize your guys for debt. Sorry, but it won't hold. There's really nothing new here. Too many are just selective in their faux outrage. :coffeepap

My guys? What guys are these? I'll happily criticize any leader for running up insurmountable debts. What you are doing, again, and repeatedly, is deflecting from the present situation and this president's sad and destructive record.
Budget is different than economy. Which one do you want to talk about? Even if we get the budget under control, this does not translate into the economy doing well.

Yes, I know a budget is different than an economy. Is this a recent revelation you're choosing t share? The fact is there was no budget. One attempt was made by BHO and it was turned down by both Dems and Republicans, 97-0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time such a thing has happened in any democracy.
YOu do seem confused and like you're confusing two differetn issues.

I'm quoting you!

The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork. Focus.

LOL!! I Love ii!! That should be the bumper sticker on every democrat vehicle and every election pooster and evry sign at their conventions. "
The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork.
You are confused about two separat issues, but the Walstreet bailout was government money to the private sector. The auto industry bailout was to business. Banks also fall under business. Not to menetion what we give in drug reseach at teaching hospitals, and how we give money for jobs programs where companies take the money and fire people (see GM).Corproate welfare far out costs government that welfare to the poor, so,while you are leaping a ways from what we were discussing and what I said, it is true much of the debt is the cost of what we give to business.

It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.
 
I've already told you I'm aware of this tradition. Did he say it or not? What do you think "God Damn America" really means?

It is a call to bring bad a godly country. It's a calling out. Much like when MLK called the US the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. You said you knew the tradition, so you should know this and not react like you are.

It's also a tired way of deflecting the debate away from the sorry mess you now have as President.

More a way for those who don't want to aknowledge the comparions to complain without admitting this isn't new. The diversion is mostly on your side.

A failure of Democrats on all fronts then. Is that how you would put it?

A failure for eveyone, including democrats. While republicans didn't have ALL the power, they certainly worked hard to derail, and this gives them part of the failure.

My guys? What guys are these? I'll happily criticize any leader for running up insurmountable debts. What you are doing, again, and repeatedly, is deflecting from the present situation and this president's sad and destructive record.

If that were true, you would have been so for decades, and would still include all the others. I see no evidence of you doing that. And speaking the truth is not a deflection. Our history is what it is.

Yes, I know a budget is different than an economy. Is this a recent revelation you're choosing t share? The fact is there was no budget. One attempt was made by BHO and it was turned down by both Dems and Republicans, 97-0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time such a thing has happened in any democracy.

Again, our discussion was over the economy. Speaking of distractions, when we're discussing the economy and you switch to the budget, taking cmments about teh economy and pretending they are about the budget, what would you call that?

As for the vote, sound like he didn't give either enough of what they wanted. Republicans won't support him period, and are fixated on tax cuts. Democrats are fearful of even talkng about the big three, especially medicare. As Obama is right to consider all that, is he to be criticized or congress?

I'm quoting you!

Not in contect of the issue I speak to, and what I was commenting on. Not even close.


LOL!! I Love ii!! That should be the bumper sticker on every democrat vehicle and every election pooster and evry sign at their conventions. "

It is true for republicans as well. The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people. This is not complicated.

It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.

Again, where were you when it was happening. Adding to something is nto the same as creating it. This problem has been buidling for a long, long time. And when a republicna was president, republicans said it didn't matter. That was the argument.

The Democrats aren’t the only ones who have reversed their opinions about deficits. Republicans were relatively comfortable with Reagan’s unbalanced budgets. And when President George W. Bush turned a massive surplus into a series of giant deficits, few in the GOP objected. During the administration’s internal debates over proposed tax cuts in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly told Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

When Do Deficits Matter? - Reason Magazine
 
It is a call to bring bad a godly country. It's a calling out. Much like when MLK called the US the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. You said you knew the tradition, so you should know this and not react like you are.

You seem to be saying that because I am aware of the tradition I should therefore ignore the words or approve of them. That doesn't necessarily follow and, furthermore, I feel it's patronizing to the Black Community.

More a way for those who don't want to aknowledge the comparions to complain without admitting this isn't new. The diversion is mostly on your side.

Do you see the title of this thread? What does it have to do with previous Presidents? It is all bout the current BHO administration and its corruption and ineptitude. Nothing else.
A failure for eveyone, including democrats. While republicans didn't have ALL the power, they certainly worked hard to derail, and this gives them part of the failure.

How is it failure for everyone if everyone didn't have any control? But in any case do you expect the Republicans to support an agenda they feel is bad for the country? BHO cannot be supported by anyone but the most committed ideologue. The polls reflect that.

If that were true, you would have been so for decades, and would still include all the others. I see no evidence of you doing that. And speaking the truth is not a deflection. Our history is what it is.

But history is not the topic. the presnt is. You can see at the top of the page waht the subject is, or should be, yet you continue to deflect.

Again, our discussion was over the economy. Speaking of distractions, when we're discussing the economy and you switch to the budget, taking cmments about teh economy and pretending they are about the budget, what would you call that?

It's all about Brack Obama and his incompetence and corruption. Not about LBJ, JFK or FDR.

As for the vote, sound like he didn't give either enough of what they wanted. Republicans won't support him period, and are fixated on tax cuts. Democrats are fearful of even talkng about the big three, especially medicare. As Obama is right to consider all that, is he to be criticized or congress?

A 97-0 count strongly suggests that poor BHO had no support whatsoever, and that he will continue his slide into what will become little more than a bad memory.
Not in contect of the issue I speak to, and what I was commenting on. Not even close.

When I'm quoting you the context is obviously there.
It is true for republicans as well. The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people. This is not complicated.

Except that's not what you said.. What you said was
The only way government can provide jobs is to hire people, this requires pork.

Again, where were you when it was happening. Adding to something is nto the same as creating it. This problem has been buidling for a long, long time. And when a republicna was president, republicans said it didn't matter. That was the argument.

You have very low credibility. You should submit quotes.

The Democrats aren’t the only ones who have reversed their opinions about deficits. Republicans were relatively comfortable with Reagan’s unbalanced budgets. And when President George W. Bush turned a massive surplus into a series of giant deficits, few in the GOP objected. During the administration’s internal debates over proposed tax cuts in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly told Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

When Do Deficits Matter? - Reason Magazine

The title of the thread is Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan
It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney.
 
You seem to be saying that because I am aware of the tradition I should therefore ignore the words or approve of them. That doesn't necessarily follow and, furthermore, I feel it's patronizing to the Black Community.

You should at least understand what they mean, which would temper any real or honest outrage. And it is not at all patronizing to understand tradition. Knowing what is meant in context is not equal to patronizing.

Do you see the title of this thread? What does it have to do with previous Presidents? It is all bout the current BHO administration and its corruption and ineptitude. Nothing else.

As they contributed to the current state of affairs, a lot. No president did this all by themselves.

How is it failure for everyone if everyone didn't have any control? But in any case do you expect the Republicans to support an agenda they feel is bad for the country? BHO cannot be supported by anyone but the most committed ideologue. The polls reflect that.

I may not be running in a race, for example, but if I stick out my foot and trip the runner, I'm responsible for that action. Republicans are responsible for their efforts to confuse the issue, for lying, for their efforts to derail this presidency at the cost of the country.

But history is not the topic. the presnt is. You can see at the top of the page waht the subject is, or should be, yet you continue to deflect.

Of course it is. Next to nothing is done in a vaccum.


It's all about Brack Obama and his incompetence and corruption. Not about LBJ, JFK or FDR.

Only if you want to be dishonest about the deficit. It is that simple. Past presidents played a role in where we are. Dishonest to pretend otherwise.

A 97-0 count strongly suggests that poor BHO had no support whatsoever, and that he will continue his slide into what will become little more than a bad memory.

And would you agree for the reasons I suggested? Not sure those he didn't have support from are right in their beliefs.

When I'm quoting you the context is obviously there.

As you got it wrong, how obvious could it be? I was talking about the economy, and you switched it to the debt.

Except that's not what you said.. What you said was

How is that not what I said? Can you hire people without pork, in large numbers? The bridge to no where was a job for some, and clearly pork.


You have very low credibility. You should submit quotes.

Because you don't like the quotes? By all means do your own search. I suspect you just don't want to know.

The title of the thread is Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney.

So, you're doing poorly in OUR discussion, so you want to go back to the other one. That would also mean we can't speak of the deficit, the economy, or the vote in congress. A dicussion you jump into readily. :lamo
 
[...] It doesn't really matter anymore what went where. The fact is that the the United States has become hopelessly in debt, the economy is in a shambles, and you have saddled future generations with unpayable debt. It was done on this President's watch and it borders on treason.
Interesting... your comment indicates that as of January 19, 2009 you think that the U.S. was not hopelessly in debt ($10.6 trillion) and the economy was not in a shambles (losing 550,000 jobs per month, or 1.8 million jobs lost in the previous 3 months), stock market down 38% in the past 8 months (13,000 to 8,000).

To summarize, in your opinion $14.6 trillion in debt is hopeless, but $10.6 trillion is not hopeless.

... and gaining a few ten thousand jobs a month is a shambles, while losing a half million jobs a month is not a shambles.

... and a stock market limping along at around 11,000 is a shambles, while a stock market bouncing around the bottom at 8,000 is not a shambles.

Somehow that looks rather partisan to me (not to mention completely off topic)... but perhaps I'm just reading too much into it :mrgreen:
 
Obama will do anything to garner votes, even grant money to businesses that may or may not produce something worthwhile. You gotta' love Obama...he is his own worse enemy.
 
Obama will do anything to garner votes, even grant money to businesses that may or may not produce something worthwhile. You gotta' love Obama...he is his own worse enemy.

Yep, and Bush, too, who signed the loan program into law. And the very same Republicans who are complaining about it now, who made a specific amendment to the loan program that only benefitted one company ... Solyndra.

The birthing of Solyndra - Other Views - MiamiHerald.com
 
Obama will do anything to garner votes, even grant money to businesses that may or may not produce something worthwhile. You gotta' love Obama...he is his own worse enemy.

Politiical does things to get votes. In order news, fire is hot. :coffeepap
 
To summarize, in your opinion $14.6 trillion in debt is hopeless, but $10.6 trillion is not hopeless.
Nowhere did i say that but yes, it is pretty much hopeless/. Do you expect that money to ever be paid back and,m if so, who's going to pay it?
... and gaining a few ten thousand jobs a month is a shambles, while losing a half million jobs a month is not a shambles.

Unemployment, despite a trillion dollars worth of promises, has increased. Obama promised a "pay as you go presidency".

... and a stock market limping along at around 11,000 is a shambles, while a stock market bouncing around the bottom at 8,000 is not a shambles.

It seems you don't understand the stock market either. You must be an Obamaniac.
Somehow that looks rather partisan to me (not to mention completely off topic)... but perhaps I'm just reading too much into it :mrgreen:]

If your idea of a "partisan" is someone who believes that being $15 trillion dollars in debt is a bad thing then yes, you can say I'm partisan.
 
Back
Top Bottom