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.
Sitting back in an armchair and insulting other people and calling them spineless. I hope you don't look in a mirror today.
The editorial, not news, but editorial, notes both that the money used at the convention had been set at this level during W's administration. Thus, conventions of this type would have happened all the way to the Bush administration. Should you be mad at this instance, then you should be pissed off at previous administrations, no?
Thus, the Bush administration gets the blame for letting it get this bad and for having the GSA have lavish conferences and nobody catching that they were over spending. The Obama administration gets the blame for not catching that they were overspending. Both get blame, but the increase occurred under the former, so they should get a little more.
There are few cardinal sins in politics, so you're being a little dramatic here. You're also ignoring that yes, both administrations get blame for this issue.
There are plenty of people who are intelligent enough to realize that either he or McCain were going to be handed an absolute mess. Largely, those who complain about him want to do so in order to avoid admitting something rather difficult to themselves. They put a group of Republicans into power in the 2000's. They had full control of the country for 6/8 years before Obama and were able to do whatever they wanted. The end result wasn't the dream of the Freshman Class from the 90's, but the result was people more worried about Terry Schiavo than the deficit. The end result was almost a full economic collapse. Most people who whine about Obama are doing so in order to avoid the realization that their own person beliefs caused this mess.
It's sort of pathetic that these people used to shout the mantra of personal responsibility, but are unable to take any responsibility.
Did the spending increase under the Bush administration? Yes? Then it's their fault as well. That's not sad and disgusting. That's rather factual isn't it? It's either true or not true. Put away the emotion and debate logically here. We're adults, not school children.
If by his record you blame him for the state of the economy when he took over then sure. If you think rationally, then probably not. Feel free to outline what, other than health reform, McCain would have done differently. Also, who was in control of the house, senate and Presidency for 6/8 years leading up to the collapse of the economy.
It's a political forum here. You need to back up your ideas with something or people like me are going to call you on it.
How was the economy when Bush took office? Remember that little thing called the dot com crash at all? Who was in control of Congress when things started to head South? Feel free to outline what Bush and/or the GOP did to get us in the position that we're in today.
Nice troll. I don't work for the government and have no stake in any of this and I'm not some pathetic, childish, emotion drive partisan. I have no stake either way thus there's no deflecting here.
Either the points I put forward are true or they're not. Should they not be, then grow a set and point out how they're wrong.
Quote:
How was the economy when Bush took office? Remember that little thing called the dot com crash at all? Who was in control of Congress when things started to head South? Feel free to outline what Bush and/or the GOP did to get us in the position that we're in today.
Yeah, I remember who was in Congress then. It was a Republican congress actually. What's your point? Did you think that Democrats were in power at that time?
I'm not sure what your point is. The blame for the dot com bubble is largely on investors and speculators. There's not much blame there for government on either side.
You're complaining about people deflecting and your argument is to look back at the Republican congress in 2000? What are you even talking about?
Again, you're the one putting forward that Obama is, "Nobody needs to manufacture anything to discredit the worst POTUS of all time. His record speaks for itself."
Feel free to grow a set and defend that position. He took office during the Great Recession. Feel free to outline, with data, how his policies and not the Great Recession have caused the current economic climate. Also, feel free, when you do grow that set, to outline how he is doing anything differently, other than healthcare reform, than would have been done by either his predecessor or the guy he beat.
I'm waiting. I look forward to your opinions and the data you're going to present to back up what you said here. I'm sure you won't come back with a one line quip 'deflecting'.
Never before in contemporary history has a POTUS been more at fault for the adverse condition that nation suffers through, while, simultaneously, the least-willing to accept responsibility for those same ills.
Considerable improvement would be required to achieve the level of Pathetic. Half-Assed is out of the question, and Mediocre is a pipe-dream, for the Bozo America elected to the singularly-most-important job in all of civilization.
Nice troll. I don't work for the government and have no stake in any of this and I'm not some pathetic, childish, emotion drive partisan. I have no stake either way thus there's no deflecting here.
Either the points I put forward are true or they're not. Should they not be, then grow a set and point out how they're wrong.
Yeah, I remember who was in Congress then. It was a Republican congress actually. What's your point? Did you think that Democrats were in power at that time?
I'm not sure what your point is. The blame for the dot com bubble is largely on investors and speculators. There's not much blame there for government on either side.
You're complaining about people deflecting and your argument is to look back at the Republican congress in 2000? What are you even talking about?
Again, you're the one putting forward that Obama is, "Nobody needs to manufacture anything to discredit the worst POTUS of all time. His record speaks for itself."
Feel free to grow a set and defend that position. He took office during the Great Recession. Feel free to outline, with data, how his policies and not the Great Recession have caused the current economic climate. Also, feel free, when you do grow that set, to outline how he is doing anything differently, other than healthcare reform, than would have been done by either his predecessor or the guy he beat.
I'm waiting. I look forward to your opinions and the data you're going to present to back up what you said here. I'm sure you won't come back with a one line quip 'deflecting'.
It's hard to debate someone who has reading comprehension issues. Try again: Who was in control of Congress when things went South? Why do I think Obama is the worst POTUS of all time? That's easy. Here's one example.
The only 'sin' I can see is that the administration was negligent in not expecting that people would take advantage of the structure that was already in place. And, I think that people forget that a lot of these lower level employees are "burrowed in" - hold overs from past adminstrations who cannot be fired except for the most grievous of offenses.
Clearly this is not the first time that people have behaved very badly - I'm sure that everyone remembers what happened at the Denver office of Interior back in 2008.
One does have to wonder why it was still possible for people to book this sort of event at such a high cost in light of past abuses.
Again, if there was a "sin" committed, it was no doubt due to the new adminstration ignorantly assuming that restrictions had been put into place, but, it doesn't really surprise me that it was overlooked.
The Bush administration never really seemed particularly good at follow-up.
There's no lack of reading comprehension here. You said, "Remember that little thing called the dot com crash at all? Who was in control of Congress when things started to head South?"
Thus, if you were talking about who was in congress at the time of the start of the Great Recession, then you should have pointed that out. You could have done that either by starting a new paragraph or explaining the subject which you were discussing. There was no reading comprehension there. Just poor writing on your part.
At the real beginning of the Great Recession, there was a Republican President, Republican Senate and a Democratic Congress.
Yes spending is up under President Obama, but your argument seems to be that the current economic climate has nothing to do with the environment which he inherited which is rather silly. Had McCain won, he would have had an equal amount of deficit spending. The gross receipts dropped due to the spending and the gross government outlays increased due to an increased use in existing government programs.
Your one example really means nothing other than you had to seek some other people's opinions to try to help you justify yours.
Sadly, you seem to be making a rather rudimentary (sorry, that means basic if you don't know the word) logical fallacy. You're confusing cause an effect. You assert, correctly, that deficit spending is higher under Obama, yet you falsely present no causation to show that he is the cause of most of this.
Most people were taught this in grade school, but I dug up a list for you.
The President has little direct control over increasing gross receipts and less control over spending since most of it is mandatory and not discretionary.
Quote:
We agree on a lot more than just Obama I see.
You might think of yourself that way, but you've stated that, "Nobody needs to manufacture anything to discredit the worst POTUS of all time. His record speaks for itself." when in fact you yourself have manufactured logical fallacies here and you still can't justify your opinion.
Feel free to grow a set and give something other than the one liners you throw out here to justify it, and I'll actually buy the above. Otherwise, you'll just prove yourself as the opposite.
Why all this comparing ? Obama promised that things would change and that BAU was not going to happen anymore.
And then we spend the next 3 years hearing.."Well Bush did it worse than us".
We shouldn't be hearing this. It was supposed to END, not get "less worse" people.
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.
BTW: if you think it takes a set to post on some forum I feel very sad for you.....
