U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Columbia area
 [Register]
Columbia area Columbia - Lexington - Irmo
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2013, 11:42 AM
 
376 posts, read 602,859 times
Reputation: 101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXGamecock View Post
The State is just a terrible newspaper. They have conservative and liberal writers, but their one common trait is that they're idiots.
Didn't Spurrier get one of their writers fired? LOL

I never seen anybody tweak Spurrier like that, usually Spurrier does that to other coaches. Not sure why he cared so much about what some guy at The State is saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
665 posts, read 603,368 times
Reputation: 188
Please. It was Bush who started us down the rode of
big spending as the depression started at the end of his term. He authorized the first stimulus and he was responsible for the government takeover of GM.

And you should call Obamacare Romneycare. The conservatives can whine all they want about how Romney only meant for it to be for his state, and that the voters of Mass directly voted Romneycare into being, but that's not how things work at the national level. We don't vote on individual federal laws directly. We have representatives who do that. So it's unfair to say Romneycare is only good for Mass because it was voted in directly by the voters, when there is no federal law that has a chance to be voted in directly by voters.

In the end, why did Romney all of a sudden think that Romneycare would good for Mass but bad for the nation ? I'll tell you why: it was to appeal to hyper- conservative folks who can't imagine a scenario where the free market doesn't solve all problems: oh, wait, my bad, they don't like when the free market entices immigrants to come here when it's cheap labor benefitting Americans.. Kind of ironic. Truth be told, Obamacare is not perfect but you're never going to get a useful debate out of most conservatives because they just can't stand Obama to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:06 PM
 
418 posts, read 400,594 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHarrison84 View Post
LOL, you guys always pull this trick.

Those other two are just unelectable,
Obama is most liberal partisan president in history of this country. A centrist isn't seeking to nationalize the healthcare industry, or racking up historic debt and deficits. I think he's spent more money than like 10 presidents before him combined. LOL
LOL

Actually under Obama the U.S. Govt spends at the lowest rate in decades. You would have to go back to Eisenhower to find lower rates. In the past 60 years, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.

If you look at annualized growth of federal spending Reagan was 8.7% in 82-85 and 4.9% in 86-89, Bush 1 was 5.4% in 90-93, Clinton was 3.2% in 94-97 and 3.9% in 98-01, Bush 2 was 7.3% in 02-05 and 8.1 in 06-09, Obama was 1.4% in 10-13

And according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit fell 32% during the first seven months of the government’s fiscal year, compared to the same period last year. Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1 percent of GDP in 2009.

Re

Last edited by AddaVisser; 08-18-2013 at 01:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:14 PM
 
29,716 posts, read 27,143,552 times
Reputation: 18254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHarrison84 View Post
True, but not that close to a major mall.

Wade Hampton would be the closet example in Greenville to Two Notch and I don't think it is nearly as bad.

I don't think Mt. Pleasant really has anything like that, you'd have to go out to some on Rivers Ave closer to Charleston.

I tend to think the blight on Two Notch / Decker and the dead mall and surrounding area is a big factor is why some natives don't like Cola. Cola lacks gentrication, it isn't a big deal to me but it does stand out if you have lived in other cities that do have gentrified areas.

Sandhills mall is also cut off from the city both in terms of distance and by the blight. It's a pain driving out there from Forest Acres. I usually end up taking the interstate.

Forest Acres, of course, is a very genteel city. We are a polished crew.
What "major mall" are you referring to? I think Columbia Mall lost that status some time ago.

And I don't think you're all that familiar with other cities if you think this is somehow unique to Columbia; most sizable cities have those deteriorating older suburban areas stuck between the urban core/in-town neighborhoods and the newer suburban/exurban areas. Take a ride down Central Avenue in Charlotte towards the site of the former Eastland Mall for example.

I seriously doubt this constitutes a reason that some natives dislike the city. If so, they'll be in for a rude awakening to move somewhere else and find the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
6,635 posts, read 14,134,330 times
Reputation: 1830
Most high school kids hate where they are because they want something new and exciting - it's that way everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Irmo, SC
1,533 posts, read 1,421,402 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by waccamatt View Post
Obama is not what I would consider to be particularly liberal. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are liberal. Barack Obama is a centrist.
Agreed. In general, much of the known left wing/liberal party isn't really that liberal in the grand scheme of things. Try telling someone in Europe how liberal Barack Obama is. They'd laugh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:40 PM
 
376 posts, read 602,859 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by AddaVisser View Post
Actually under Obama the U.S. Govt spends at the lowest rate in decades. You would have to go back to Eisenhower to find lower rates. In the past 60 years, Obama has presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.

If you look at annualized growth of federal spending Reagan was 8.7% in 82-85 and 4.9% in 86-89, Bush 1 was 5.4% in 90-93, Clinton was 3.2% in 94-97 and 3.9% in 98-01, Bush 2 was 7.3% in 02-05 and 8.1 in 06-09, Obama was 1.4% in 10-13

And according to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit fell 32% during the first seven months of the government’s fiscal year, compared to the same period last year. Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1 percent of GDP in 2009.

Re
LOL , that was one of the most shockingly wrong things that I ever seen politico people try to argue, that Obama is actually spending at the lowest rate since Eisenhower. They trotted that out during the campaign last fall and we were in utter disbelief they would try to argue that. A good lie has something to it that makes it seem plausible. They should have consulted with Clinton on this. LOL

Obama offers more government programs and somehow reduces government spending to all time lows in decades at the same time. That is quite a magic trick. He might just be the Messiah afterall.

This guy at Forbes slays this idea that Obama has presided the lowest spending in decades. It pains me that this is even necessary though but this is the problem conservative Republicans face right now.

Rick Ungar Is Wrong: Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History - Forbes

Here is what I consider the money quote from the article, really a brilliant line, I never heard Democrat's view of economics put this way:
Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:45 PM
 
418 posts, read 400,594 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHarrison84 View Post
LOL , that was one of the most shockingly wrong things that I ever seen politico people try to argue, that Obama is actually spending at the lowest rate since Eisenhower. They trotted that out during the campaign last fall and we were in utter disbelief they would try to argue that. A good lie has something to it that makes it seem plausible. They should have consulted with Clinton on this. LOL

Obama offers more government programs and somehow reduces government spending to all time lows in decades at the same time. That is quite a magic trick. He might just be the Messiah afterall.

This guy at Forbes dissects this idea that Obama has presided the lowest spending in decades. It pains me that this is even necessary though but this is the problem conservative Republicans face right now.

Rick Ungar Is Wrong: Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History - Forbes

Here is what I consider the money quote from the article, really a brilliant line, I never heard Democrat's view of economics put this way:
Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

That guy is flat out wrong. This isn't right or left, republican or democrat but actual facts. Numbers don't lie but people do. I employ you to do extensive research YOURSELF instead of being spoon fed what you want to hear. Start with the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office data.

Last edited by AddaVisser; 08-18-2013 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:56 PM
 
376 posts, read 602,859 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouje2 View Post
Please. It was Bush who started us down the rode of
big spending as the depression started at the end of his term. He authorized the first stimulus and he was responsible for the government takeover of GM.

And you should call Obamacare Romneycare. The conservatives can whine all they want about how Romney only meant for it to be for his state, and that the voters of Mass directly voted Romneycare into being, but that's not how things work at the national level. We don't vote on individual federal laws directly. We have representatives who do that. So it's unfair to say Romneycare is only good for Mass because it was voted in directly by the voters, when there is no federal law that has a chance to be voted in directly by voters.

In the end, why did Romney all of a sudden think that Romneycare would good for Mass but bad for the nation ? I'll tell you why: it was to appeal to hyper- conservative folks who can't imagine a scenario where the free market doesn't solve all problems: oh, wait, my bad, they don't like when the free market entices immigrants to come here when it's cheap labor benefitting Americans.. Kind of ironic. Truth be told, Obamacare is not perfect but you're never going to get a useful debate out of most conservatives because they just can't stand Obama to begin with.
Well RomneyCare, I think, was a big reason why a lot of conservative Republicans stayed home. Romney just did that b/c he was in a liberal state and he obviously has no problem with pandering. If you try to be all things to all people, nobody will really like you in the end, even though I think Romeny was more likeable than most politicians just from a personality standpoint. You generally don't see politicians with his kind of IQ.
If there was a referendum on ObamaCare, it would have gone down in flames, polls consistently back this up. So obviossly Romney's RomneyCare kind of took this issue off the table which was always the fear.

ObamaCare is already leading to increase premiums, so much for the Affordable Care Act. We could have helped poor people with their healthcare costs by just directing all the wastefull spending to helping them. We didn't have to allow government to take over the industry.

Your point about free markets is specious because healthcare was never free market. IN a free market, you and the provider of services deal directly with each other, there isn't a 3rd party you go are basically forced to go through, in this case the insurance companies. And the insurance companies are regulated by the government, even at the state level, they were forced to cover certain things in their policies, which just jacked up premiums for everybody. A lot of the costs of the healthcare are already associated with government intrusion.

We can't stand Obama because of his policies. You have the cause and effect mixed up, as a bit of clever rhetoric on your part.

Obama has said over and over people will be allowed to keep their insurance plans with their employers but the reality is Obamacare is going to put insurance companies out of business. That's always been his end game and when he has spoken sincerely about this to Democrats in the past, he has said so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 02:01 PM
 
376 posts, read 602,859 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by AddaVisser View Post
That guy is flat out wrong. This isn't right or left, republican or democrat but actual facts. Numbers don't lie but people do. I employ you to do extensive research YOURSELF instead of being spoon fed what you want to hear. Start with the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office data.
Being informed requires reading what other people say. I am not necessarily qualified to research everything on my own but I did understand his points and it clearly is credible.

I don't think most sincere Democrats really going to try to argue Obama has cut spending. I don't think Obama even tried in the debates, this is what Romney hammered him on especially in that first debate.

We probably shouldn't get to carried away with this political debate on this thread, although it is fun sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Columbia area
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top