Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

He also needs another term to fix the economy which was totally not his fault!

If that was an attempt at sarcasm, it failed. Because seriously....not his fault.

[Nadaka]

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

He also needs another term to fix the economy which was totally not his fault!

Yes. The economy was not his fault. We know this because it went all to hell before he entered office.

Yes. All the economic plans of his competitors are inherently destructive to the economy, so he does need another term to "save" it.

[Bauglir]

The economy is Obama's fault in the same way as any deaths would be if he were in that thought experiment where you have a train on course for a group of 10 people, and a lever that will put it on a course where it only hits one of them.

[NinjaBoot]

Oh I know sarcasm was evident, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to throw that out there to see who would bite!

But yeah, in the soon to be 4 years since taking office, Obama hasn't done anything to fix the problem with the economy.  Hell, he couldn't even his own congress to pass a budget from with the government tries to work within (1000+ days without a budget). 

Yes. The economy was not his fault. We know this because it went all to hell before he entered office.

Yes, it was terrible when he entered office.  However, his whole presidency has done nothing to even come close to turning it around.  Cash for Clunkers?  Failed.  The keystone pipeline?  Can't lose the environmentalist vote, so I'll make a decision until after the election.  His trumpeting of 'green tech' industries?  Nothing.  He hasn't even done anything to fix anything.  Taxation?  He hasn't even made a decision on the Bush tax cuts (he says he will.. in the future).  Entitlement reform?  Oil dependency on foreign countries (middle east)?  Tackling the debt? 

Yes. All the economic plans of his competitors are inherently destructive to the economy, so he does need another term to "save" it.

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

Oh, they're evil because they don't want the Bush tax cuts to expire.  We need to let them expire so EVERYONE pays more taxes. 

And so on.

[NinjaBoot]

The economy is Obama's fault in the same way as any deaths would be if he were in that thought experiment where you have a train on course for a group of 10 people, and a lever that will put it on a course where it only hits one of them.

Nah. The more real-life comparison would be, "It was John Cretien's fault for giving Stephan Harper such a terrible economy that he couldn't do anything with it, he needed another term to fix it!"  *cough*

[GlyphGryph]

I honestly don't think Obama OR McCain would have accomplished anything that would have come close to "saving" the economy - that ship was sunk.

And dealing in what-ifs doesn't get us very far.

But most of the Republican rhetoric up to this point doesn't seem like it would do any more to help than Obama's stuff did. (And yes, it is very possible for doing something to be worse than doing nothing. If you get cut, lighting you on fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding could very well be WORSE than leaving you be)

Who knows though. The Republican leadership have stated outright they'd be willing to sink the economy to take the presidency, so I'm not sure how much of Obama's ineffectiveness is his own fault or not. I certainly don't see the Republican field as showing any more signs of /competency/, anyways.

[RedKing]

Most of what the Republicans have offered is "Cut ALL the taxes! Stop spending ANY money! (except for things in my district, and defense spending)"

That's not "offering something", that's akin to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" It's so far from realistic that it doesn't even merit discussion.

In essence, they want us to be a much larger version of Greece, only they'd cut taxes too so the whole thing would implode even faster.
I think a lot of people (my staunch Republican father-in-law, for instance) who don't fault Obama that harshly because they realize he's faced an opposition party that has been operating in scorched-earth mode since about two weeks after Inauguration Day.

[NinjaBoot]

But most of the Republican rhetoric up to this point doesn't seem like it would do any more to help than Obama's stuff did. (And yes, it is very possible for doing something to be worse than doing nothing. If you get cut, lighting you on fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding could very well be WORSE than leaving you be).

Indeed, that line of thinking is what lead to the eventual housing market bubble exploding. 

Who knows though. The Republican leadership have stated outright they'd be willing to sink the economy to take the presidency, so I'm not sure how much of Obama's ineffectiveness is his own fault or not. I certainly don't see the Republican field as showing any more signs of /competency/, anyways.

Do you have a direct quote to back that statement up?  I doubt it but whatever.  And how could the Republicans sink the economy?  You mean by compromising with Democrats repeatedly on a myriad of issues? 

Lets remember here, back when Democrats had the majority to pass the PPACA, they did nothing to fix the economy.  They didn't pass a budget (1000+ days now), or any meaningful reform to fix government spending, taxation, or enact their own economic policies.

[Nadaka]

Saying Obama is "doing nothing" for the economy is extremely ignorant. He has done a lot, and tried to do much more. He could have done more before the senate was taken over by hooligans who wanted to destroy the economy in order to ensure that Obama would not get a second term and stonewalling every attempt at compromise. But fighting for a sluggish recovery is a much better option than letting those traitors in the tea party burn this country to the ground.

[NinjaBoot]

Most of what the Republicans have offered is "Cut ALL the taxes! Stop spending ANY money! (except for things in my district, and defense spending)"

We both know that extreme is highly unlikely. 

They are more for keeping the bush tax cuts in place and, you know, ensuring those 46% of Americans who pay no tax to have some skin in the game.  But whatever, apparently taxing the rich is "good" and not doing so is "evil", heh. 

That's not "offering something", that's akin to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" It's so far from realistic that it doesn't even merit discussion.

Uh, no.  What Obama is doing is trying to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" through the PPACA and sweet college loans. 

And, uh.. what specific examples can you cite where Republicans are offering something for free?

In essence, they want us to be a much larger version of Greece, only they'd cut taxes too so the whole thing would implode even faster.

Really?  How so? 

You mean those Republicans who advocate for controlling and reigning in government spending across the board are pushing for another Greece?  Drilling for oil?  Yeah, I suppose a government who wants another Greece would do that. 

Go read up on all the news regarding the California government having to cut essential services across the board because they are in debt and can't meet their budget goals WITHOUT raising taxes and getting federal assistance.  California is a microcosm for what Democrats can do with their economic policies.  California IS the next Greece.

I think a lot of people (my staunch Republican father-in-law, for instance) who don't fault Obama that harshly because they realize he's faced an opposition party that has been operating in scorched-earth mode since about two weeks after Inauguration Day.

Enough so that they stopped the passage of the PPACA (!), enough so that they stopped Democrats with full control from passing a budget, and all of their other policies! 

Man, yeah, when Democrats had full control for Obama's first 2 and a half years, they sure did cause enough problems for Democrats, enough so they scared them into doing NOTHING. 

Oh, they were even more obstinate when they got back enough control to make things even.  They did this by... playing nice and compromising on issues?  Ok. 

[GlyphGryph]

46% of Americans who pay no tax

This is what we call a "lie".

Care to qualify that?

[NinjaBoot]

Saying Obama is "doing nothing" for the economy is extremely ignorant.

How so? 

He has done a lot, and tried to do much more.

Like... what?  Bear with me here when I harp on the fact that Obama and the Democrats had full control do to anything they wanted for the first two and a half years of his presidency.  This is why Obamacare (PPACA) was passed. 

Did he pass a budget when he had a chance and time to do so?  No, rather, he would focus on other areas that needed attention. 

Now, if you can provide proof aside from the few I have cited, such as Cash for Clunkers, his stance on the Keystone Pipeline, then please provide them.

He could have done more before the senate was taken over by hooligans who wanted to destroy the economy in order to ensure that Obama would not get a second term and stonewalling every attempt at compromise.

Again, he didn't do ANYTHING when he did have full control.  The only thing he did was pass the PPACA, and they are still trying to work on it, hell.. the CBO has to reissue its preliminary report on Obamacare because parts of the bill were unworkable. 

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.  Is their not wanting to tax the rich back to the stoneage really that much of an ideological sticking point?  I don't see how wanting to restrict the power of the EPA and loosen environmental restrictions on companies so they can explore and drill for oil an issue that would make them WANT to destroy the economy? 

Remember people, Obama himself has delayed his decision on the Keystone Pipeline, a Pipeline that would bring in whatever jobs and money it could into the economy, and also boost and strength relations with Canada.  Instead, to win the environmentalist vote, he decided to delay the decision until after the election.  In this specific example, the Republicans did not put a gun to his head and force him to do it, because they are for it too. 

But fighting for a sluggish recovery is a much better option than letting those traitors in the tea party burn this country to the ground.

Really?  You mean because the Tea Party is specifically for fiscal sanity?  Damn, I suppose expecting a government to run within its means and not rack up $15 trillion debt within 11 years is something that only traitors think of!

[Aqizzar]

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

And this is where you prove you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Opening new oil fields is not the problem, neither is building guaranteed-to-spill pipelines right over America's largest water table.  Not to mention every realistic appreciation of the "jobs" created by such products, i.e. appreciations by people who aren't being paid to make it happen, put it at a couple thousand temporary positions maybe.

American oil production and number of functioning wells has been increasing every year since 2007.  American oil consumption has actually reduced a bit in the same time frame (mostly because people don't have enough money to do more driving than they absolutely need, and there's less shipping going on).  The inflated price of oil and gas is largely due to completely unregulated commodity speculation, driven into overdrive by automatic stock trading, which is in turn based on global insecurity about Europe's economy and the physical stability of the Middle East.  And if you're going to blame things like that on the American President, especially how Obama has reacted to these situations, you really are an ideologue.

Really, dude, you need to turn off the Fox News and Drudge Report, and get some actual information instead of good soundbites.

[NinjaBoot]

46% of Americans who pay no tax

This is what we call a "lie".

Care to qualify that?

Nope, I got that one wrong!  Confused it with income tax rates :O

[GlyphGryph]

And even then I'm pretty sure that's only federal income tax rates, isn't it? (Do you have a cite for that number, by the way? I've heard that 80% of statistics are made up, and another 10% are wrong!)

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.

Not Republicans as in your average Republican, who is probably gonna be pro-economy as a general rule, but Republican Politicians who see victory as more important than collateral damage. I guarantee there are at least SOME Republicans who sincerely hope the economy suddenly nosedives, at the very least (just as I'm sure some Democratic politicians hoped for the same during Bush's terms)