28 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionSo I have not been very tough on Bush, eh? How this for tough, Bush is the best friend liberals have ever had and probably ever will have. His Presidency was an abysmal and abject failure for the conservative movement. Although I agree in part with many of his goals, his lack of execution in accomplishing these goals and/or thought into the execution of those goals was wanting to say the least. In addition, fiscally he was anything but a conservative. He and the Republican Congress doubled the national debt single handedly. As a result, the Republicans now have no moral footing to object to Obama doing the same or worse as seen in their deafening silence in regards to Obama's policies.
If you guys are shocked that liberals aren't in a fit about this, then at least admit that everyone else isn't shocked that you guys are throwing such a fit about it.
Although you are all doing it, I'll call out whodey in particular since he starts most of these threads. Whodey, the entire tone of your posts has changed. You might try to feign to believe that he is not taken very seriously by people who aren't also politicians.
I will admit I have changed over the last couple of years. I had always been sold on the gospel of capitalism and the evils of socialism. As a result, I had a tendency to speak out against the left on issues and be silent during times of trouble for the right, much like yourself in regards to defending only the left and attacking the right. However, looking back I could not have been more wrong. Both Democrat and Republican alike have gone hand in hand down the road of this financial crisis and they are both equally to blame. This mess is all due to corruption within both the corporate world and the political world and, as a result, I have felt compelled to become a sounding board to corruption in either arena. While you and others turn your head on such corruption as Geithner due to political partisanship, much like I may have done in the past with the Bush administration, these punks continue their corrupt ways as they corrode away our once great nation. In short, I now believe it matters less the form of government than it does the morality within such a government and the society at large. After all, any form of government can work on paper and any form of government can and WILL be brought to its knees if the people in and around it are corrupt to the core. So I guess what I'm saying is, get used to it guy!!
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by whodeyI turn my head on Geithner because I could honestly care less. I think there are much bigger fish to fry. In other words, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides I just wrote that I do not have much respect for Geithner. How is that partisan?
So I have not been very tough on Bush, eh? How this for tough, Bush is the best friend liberals have ever had and probably ever will have. His Presidency was an abysmal and abject failure for the conservative movement. Although I agree in part with many of his goals, his lack of execution in accomplishing these goals and/or thought into the execution of th ...[text shortened]... in and around it are corrupt to the core. So I guess what I'm saying is, get used to it guy!!
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by telerionYou may say you don't have much respect for the man but bringing attention or agreeing with those outraged at his "errors" is another thing altogether. Maintly this is because it reflects poorly on Obama. It reflects poorly not because he was found guilty of these things, rather, it reflects poorly because it does not seem to bother him.
I turn my head on Geithner because I could honestly care less. I think there are much bigger fish to fry. In other words, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides I just wrote that I do not have much respect for Geithner. How is that partisan?
29 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhat the heck are you talking about? When on this forum have I been an Obama worshipper?
You may say you don't have much respect for the man but bringing attention or agreeing with those outraged at his "errors" is another thing altogether. Maintly this is because it reflects poorly on Obama. It reflects poorly not because he was found guilty of these things, rather, it reflects poorly because it does not seem to bother him.
Let's talk about your big stand against GWB for a moment. You never started these sort of nitpicky threads about Bush. Generally, you try to make excuses for him. You only made blatant negative statements against him when some one accuses you of being a bush lover. Even then they're broad and lack detail. Basically, you use it as cover for your one-sided attacks. Just admit it. You're still pissed that Obama won, you've got an axe to grid, and you're going to whine about every tiny step he takes (or really those that your right-wing friends and group news sources tell you about).
Anyway this was just an admonishment to you. Think more. Be more independent. Despite your best efforts to paint me as a left-wing commie, I'm no such thing. I'm frankly quite liberal socially, but probably more conservative on economic issues than the average American. I'm neither a populist nor a Libertarian. I'm not an isolationist nor am I a union-lover. I'm generally pro-markets, but I appreciate that they may fail.
So believe what you want about me. Think or not. In the end, I could really care less (as evidenced by the small number of posts I've made on this site over the last 6 months - 1 year). Good luck.
29 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionAs I have said before, I have slowly changed over the last couple of years. In fact, I see Obama headed in the same direction as Bush was going on many issues. I have come to the realization that both parties are more alike than not. In addition, I have never been a Bush worshiper. In fact, I never really cared for his father either. As far as me being "pissed", what I am the most angry about is what corruption has done to my country and where it is now headed. As I have said, the Republicans are just as much to blame, if not more so. What I find amazing, however, is that they Republicans have enough gall to attack Obama for his stimulus package after doubling out national debt after the last 8 years. If you ask me, the only thing they are upset about is that the money is not flowing to those that support them. They could care less about how far in debt we may go as a result or the ramifications thereof.
What the heck are you talking about? When on this forum have I been an Obama worshipper?
Let's talk about your big stand against GWB for a moment. You never started these sort of nitpicky threads about Bush. Generally, you try to make excuses for him. You only made blatant negative statements against him when some one accuses you of being a bush lo number of posts I've made on this site over the last 6 months - 1 year). Good luck.
Edit: I do have one question though, why are not more people as upset as I am? If you are moderate to conservative fiscally, you should be making the same kind of posts as I am.
29 Jan 09
3 edits
Anyone, fiscally conservative or not, can be upset about corruption.
I guess I really don't see the taxes issue with Geithner being as big a deal as some sources are making it out to be. My real concern with Geithner is that I doubt he is actually qualified to make important economic decisions for the country. On the other hand, he may just be a figure head, a political frontman if you will, whose real job is to make statements and sign things. If so, then I trust he is well-qualified so long as he listens to the economists in his charge.
Now as for the bailout plan. I must admit that I'm pretty ambivalent about it. The effectiveness of government spending programs to "jump start" the economy is debatable. Meanwhile, it will undoubtedly have a significant effect over the next few years on our debt. That said, there is a sense that we must try something. I'm not sure that the American people have the stomach to let the economy clear on its own.
29 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI get the sense that the "stimulus package" is nothing more than a "pork package". In fact, I heard someone tell me that only 12 cents on the dollar actually goes to stimulus type targets. The rest is pork. If so, they are merely exploiting the current crisis to achieve their own objectives. It reminds me of when the Republicans voted down the first bail out money proposals. They would not do it unless they could add some pork to it, mind you, it was done while the economy was sinking like the Titanic. In fact, I am confident Congress could not pass legislation to save their own lives unless it was full of pork.
Anyone, fiscally conservative or not, can be upset about corruption.
I guess I really don't see the taxes issue with Geithner being as big a deal as some sources are making it out to be. My real concern with Geithner is that I doubt he is actually qualified to make important economic decisions for the country. On the other hand, he may just be a figu I'm not sure that the American people have the stomach to let the economy clear on its own.
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by whodeySince the efficacy of different spending programs in improving the economy is debatable, defining what is pork and what is true stimulus spending will also be subject to debate. For instance, one might argue that spending on police services improves security which facilitates economic transactions adds a boost to the economy. Another view is that it's a handout to police unions. The problem even with using "traditional stimulus" as a benchmark is that this is really a very unique case. We really don't have any good benchmarks to go by.
I get the sense that the "stimulus package" is nothing more than a "pork package". In fact, I heard someone tell me that only 12 cents on the dollar actually goes to stimulus type targets. The rest is pork. If so, they are merely exploiting the current crisis to achieve their own objectives. It reminds me of when the Republicans voted down the first bail ...[text shortened]... dent Congress could not pass legislation to save their own lives unless it was full of pork.
Of course, with a big bailout like this, everybody wants a piece of the pie. Naturally, our elected representatives will have some desire to satisfy their own constituents, particularly ones that make large campaign contributions.
My hunch is that we'll spend a lot of money; eventually the economy will recover; and we'll all argue endlessly about which parts of the bailout were necessary and which weren't.