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.
Blip you realize that the recession started on the backend of the policies for housing market that were put in place by the democrats...remember it was Clinton that stated that every american should own a home. It takes longer then 8 years to screw a nation. Bush certainly did nothing to help any of it, but he is not responsible for the recession. I wouldn't have much faith in the big gov't democrat economic centrists either.
Which foriegn policy nightmares are you talking about?
I think 8 years isn't enough to build a great long-term economy, but it is more than enough to really screw things up.
There is a lot of truth to your first point, though, and I believed we were due a more severe recession than we got in 2001. Plus, housing was already pretty frothy. But, Bush and the fed's mishandling of the economy by enormous deficit spending and overly cheap money during the economic expansion poured vast amounts of fuel on the fire, making the crash far more severe and leaving us less means to tackle it now. (Never mind putting 3/4 of the economic expansion solely into the hands of the richest 1%.)
I believe Bush did some other things to boost the housing market in his first term, but I'm blanking on what they were. And Republicans are pushing to to try to inflate it some more now.
Clinton was also fortunate to benefit from some natural expansion and low inflation due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, but he did the right things to decrease debt during the years of expansion and build confidence in the US economy.
FP nightmares: Guantanamo, torture, Iraq and the "war on terror". I think Bam's entire campaign stance of a changing course in Iraq has gotten the Iraqis more prepared for us to leave and for them to step up preparations to handle their own security. He's not referring to Iraq as part of "the war on terror", which continued the implication of a connection to 9/11, and seemed either stupid or devious--or both. His more nuanced tone in general about FP matters is going to help in diplomacy. Bush's "you're either with us or against us" tone may play well to pea-brained voters here, but it's offensively stupid to citizens in other countries, and to a lot of us here.
If your mind's already made up against him, that's fine, and nothing I say will change that. I think I gave even Bush more benefit of the doubt 2 weeks in than you're showing Obama.
Wait, now I'm confused. I wasn't aware that Bush was running last election, so if being sick of him is "the only reason" Obama won (because that statement indicates that voting for GWB's third term was the only other available option), then where does that leave "the only reason he won is because he's black" argument?
Because McCain was viewed by most people as just a guy who would continue Bush's policies, mainly the Iraq war.
You'll have to ask someone else about the "black" argument, I never felt that way.
Despite his views on abortion (which as a pro-life individual I most humbly disagree with him upon), I'm delighted with his performance thus far otherwise. He took a bold move by capping the salaries for executives at $500,000 if they had had received Federal assistance recently, with any additional incentives only being offered as stock in their own company. I agree with that wholeheartedly. In that sense of you want to rake in more than $500,000/year (Hell, I'd be happy around here with $40,000!), then it would behoove you to upright your company as swiftly as possible to increase the value of your stock to increase your own return on investment when you cash in those stock options you received in excess of your $500,000. President Obama is also a REALIST. He acknowledges that things are only going to get worse (unlike President Bush who painted a Pollyanna picture of the economic turmoils we were enduring that made him seem very out-of-touch with America).
Thus far he gets my nod of approval.
ScanBarre mine too! But its early. At the moment he is pulling a page out of the Bush's playbook and saying the sky is falling if we don't pass the stimulus package by 02/16/2009. How much of that is just ceasing the moment?
Our governments built on debate. Where bills are introduced and our elected officials actually 'READ' them and time is allowed to get their constituents input and then debated on the house floor so opponents and supports get time to have an actual debate. Today everything is a crisis no time to debate,no time to review and analysis the bill, no time to get constituent input.....so one has to ask why? What is the real motive to push these mega $$ bills through in lightning speed?
If one looks at the current bills being pushed it is easy to see some powerful political groups will benefit nicely from the passage. Big business and unions will benefit greatly from the stimulus bills. Unions both in the private and public sectors will have a major windfall in the stimulus spending. Government at all level will benefit by growth in the short term and long term. The issue I have and there are many but the one that scares me the most is the growth in governments will mean more tax dollars to support the new government programs and tax money will be needed from you and me long after the stimulus dollars are spent.
So as a tax payer why am I for this? Why am I for our Federal Government nationalizing our banks, owning our homes, telling our State Governments how to run their states. Something has gone terribly wrong when we all have become Dependants of the Federal Government. This is NOT what our founding fathers fought for. In fact this was one of Thomas Jefferson's greatest fears that Government will take away the freedom of the common citizen to be independent and self sufficient.
Unfortunately too many Americans believe the liberal media & think the problems we are facing are the fault of Republicans, simply because George Bush is a Republican. They fail to recognize that Democrats have held the majority in congress since 2006 and that individuals like Chris Dodd, chairman of the senate committee on banking, housing & urban affairs, as well as NY's own Chuck Shumer, who helped bring down IndyMac with his ill advised letter, have been over-seeing the industry most at fault for our current economic crisis, and they're all democrats! Enough said!
NO....I do not think a majority of people are in favor of Obama's views on abortion....especially not with his views of taxpayer-funded abortion, no parental notice, partial-birth abortion, etc. Many people may support legal abortion in certain circumstances, but Obama and his far-left ilk are extremists, they support no limits on abortion, forcing American taxpayers to pay for it, and forcing Catholic and other faith-based hospitals to perform abortions. That is not in line with a majority of Americans' thinking.
The only reason Obama won is that most Americans have just had it with George W. Bush (myself included). I think time will prove that Obama will not be a good president, and before long, most people won't be able to wait to get rid of him. I think he'll be a typical politician, and that all this "hope" and "change rhetoric is just a load of BS.
I don't believe this to be true either. I don't believe the majority of Americans support abortions period, let alone tax payer, overseas funded abortions. That is just crazy. Obama is a radical, leftist and in the end, may cause more damage to this country than anything Bush could have ever done.
When you say Obama won because most people were fed up with Bush, I agree to a point. A lot of people were soured on the Republicans. But for the country to vote for change, just for the sake of change, is very near-sighted. The liberal media has some sort of love affair with Obama and the country took notice of that and voted that way, without probably ever hearing what his policies were and what we wanted to enforce once he became President. He'll be out in four. And he doesn't get my nod of approval for what he's done so far.
Unfortunately too many Americans believe the liberal media & think the problems we are facing are the fault of Republicans, simply because George Bush is a Republican. They fail to recognize that Democrats have held the majority in congress since 2006 and that individuals like Chris Dodd, chairman of the senate committee on banking, housing & urban affairs, as well as NY's own Chuck Shumer, who helped bring down IndyMac with his ill advised letter, have been over-seeing the industry most at fault for our current economic crisis, and they're all democrats! Enough said!
People also tend to forget the President (Executive Branch) 'proposes' budgets and laws but ONLY CONGRESS (Legislative Branch) has the power to enact them. Other than a Presidential Degree's the President is NOT legally empowered to spend tax payers money, Congress is.
So I would not pin blame on either party disproportionately but I would BLAME both parties equally on where we are at as a nation. People need to stop asking what the government can do for them and starting looking in the mirror and asking what THEY need to do for themselves.
People also tend to forget the President (Executive Branch) 'proposes' budgets and laws but ONLY CONGRESS (Legislative Branch) has the power to enact them. Other than a Presidential Degree's the President is NOT legally empowered to spend tax payers money, Congress is.
So I would not pin blame on either party disproportionately but I would BLAME both parties equally on where we are at as a nation. People need to stop asking what the government can do for them and starting looking in the mirror and asking what THEY need to do for themselves.
I agree. That was the point I was trying to make about Congress having the power to enact laws, not the President. People love to bash Bush and praise Obama, when neither is as bad or as good as people think they are. Obama is not the savior we are looking for and in the end is just another politician with his own agenda.
NO....I do not think a majority of people are in favor of Obama's views on abortion....especially not with his views of taxpayer-funded abortion, no parental notice, partial-birth abortion, etc. Many people may support legal abortion in certain circumstances, but Obama and his far-left ilk are extremists, they support no limits on abortion, forcing American taxpayers to pay for it, and forcing Catholic and other faith-based hospitals to perform abortions. That is not in line with a majority of Americans' thinking
Well, you argued that his views were "far-left fringe;" not that they commanded less than a majority.
(1) In fact, over 60% of people think late-term abortions should be legal if giving birth would pose a threat to the health of the woman. That is Obama's position. He voted down laws that lacked that health of the woman provision.
(2) I can only find a Fox News poll for the parental notification issue, so it's not all that reliable. But I can say that it's generally a contentious issue on both sides. Opposing parental notification is solidly within mainstream opinion.
(3) I don't know what "taxpayer-funded abortion" is supposed to mean, but I think any polling on that issue depends significantly on the wording of the question. Your wording is a bit charged.
(4) Obama is not planning to make religious hospitals perform abortions.
(5) And the last claim is utterly ludicrous: Obama does not favor unrestricted abortions. He supports the legal framework of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. That framework, of course, allows states to restrict abortion at the point of viability. Again, Obama does not support overturning that framework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008
I don't believe the majority of Americans support abortions period, let alone tax payer
Obama is not the savior we are looking for and in the end is just another politician with his own agenda.
Voters don't think Obama is the "savior."
That is a racist right-wing talking point designed by right-wingers to make Obama seem "uppity." (Note, not calling you racist obviously-- you're far from it-- just letting you know where that talking point comes from). Voters see him as a politician with a particularl agenda to enact; an agenda that they voted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weluvpa
The democrats could of had Donald Duck and Goofy on the ticket and they would have still won. Out of desperation for change our nation cut off its nose off to spite its face. I would love to know who the rocket scientist is that is doing Obamas vetting.
He would have won whether he was black or not and he would have won whether Bush could of run again.
I agree that any Democrat could have won this election, but for a different reason: elections are primarily about fundamentals, not the performance of individual candidates. The media focuses on the latter because it makes for good television and it sells newspapers. It's hard for them to admit that things candidates cannot change like the state of the economy largely control who wins elections.
Thank you Commish for clarifying that I'm not racist. On the subject of abortion. I'm for late-term abortions, if indeed it poses a threat to the woman. But I'm not for abortions that are the result of not responsible people having sex without birth control and see abortion as a "way out". This is wrong. If you want to have unprotected sex, you have to pay the consequences if in fact you get pregnant. I don't think our tax paying dollars should go to fund any abortion, anywhere.
For the record, how could President Obama be a "far-left liberal" if he OPPOSES same-sex marriage? This kind of throws a spear right through your arguments, right-wingers, does it not?
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.
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.
Wait, now I'm confused. I wasn't aware that Bush was running last election, so if being sick of him is "the only reason" Obama won (because that statement indicates that voting for GWB's third term was the only other available option), then where does that leave "the only reason he won is because he's black" argument?
