An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

[theclemsonkid]

Alright, so let me get this straight. For the past eight years prior to Mr. Obama taking office, you had George W. Bush in office. I can only assume, that even if you didn't agree with his policies 100%, you were at least more on his side than you currently are with Obama.
That being said, how can you possibly be in complete disagreement with pretty much everything that the new administration does? We tried the republican point of view, and I don't need to tell you the results.
I guess that's my main question.
Why, if everything that the Republicans did, got us in this wonderful mess we're in, do you want to go right back to it?
If I touch the stove and it's hot, I'm gonna get burned and learn my lesson. I'm certainly not just going to look at another burner on the same stove and expect a different result... so why are so many of you?
Also, while I have your attention, why is it that every time a "liberal" does something to question America (i.e. the war in Iraq), it's considered to un "unpatriotic", or they "hate america", yet when a conservative does something to question America (i.e. Texas leaving the union, or the tax day tea parties) they are looked at as "patriots" and "heroes".
Seems a little hippocritical to me, no?

 

[nano reefer]

was it not the clinton administration that wanted to give everybody loans so they could buy a home, even if they couldnt pay it?

 

[uneverno]

Was it not the Bush 41 administration that presided over the S&L crisis to essentially the same effect - housing value collapse and construction downturn?
Where is Neil these days anyway? Sipping cocktails at W's 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay?

 

[chilwil84]

i am pretty sure bush was president during one of the longest periods of growth in americas history. he was also given a recession when he started and turned it around. for some strange reason the downturn happened when the democrats took over congress (due to the media driving the war in iraq as a bad thing down the publics throat) and didnt allow any bills to be passed including trying to fix the housing mess that the dems said wasnt a problem. thank you barny frank and chris dodd.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025340
If I touch the stove and it's hot, I'm gonna get burned and learn my lesson. I'm certainly not just going to look at another burner on the same stove and expect a different result... so why are so many of you?
I ask you this, what is new about obama policy? When has more government intervention EVER fueled economic growth? Third when has tripling the national debt ever been a good thing?
Second, Bush had his strong points, mainly on the international stage, but he spent like a democrat. And failed to stop Fanny and Freddy from cooking their books, when the dems circled the wagons around them.

 

[uneverno]

Which Bush?
If you mean 43, then yes. That period of growth started under Clinton.
Meantime, 43 turned a 127 billion dollar "surplus" into a 482 billion dollar additional deficit, not counting 700 billion in TARP funds, the AIG bailout, Bear Stearns, Bernanke and Paulson's connections to those failures and how their former companies profited and/or benefited from those bailouts........
(Year over year, accounting details -- yawn. Clinton didn't actually run a surplus, he just didn't add to the deficit.)
Arbusto, OTOH - same guy that ran an oil company and a baseball team into the ground in America. How the hell does that happen?
And yeah - war is a good thing. For Haliburton, Kellog Brown and Root, Blackwater, et al. Not so much for those on the ground.

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025423
Which Bush?
If you mean 43, then yes. That period of growth started under Clinton.
Meantime, 43 turned a 127 billion dollar "surplus" into a 482 billion dollar deficit, not counting 700 billion in TARP funds, the AIG bailout, Bear Stearns, Bernanke and Paulson's connections to those failures and how their former companies profited and/or benefited from those bailouts........
Same guy that ran an oil company and a baseball team into the ground in America. How the hell does that happen?
And yeah - war is a good thing. For Haliburton, Kellog Brown and Root, Blackwater, et al. Not so much for those on the ground.
ohhh boy wait til 1journey gets ahold of this post...

 

[uneverno]

k, bring it. I can hold my own.
Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly care for Obama either - just the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned - 'cuz oooohhh I can get all excited about McCain

. Politicians in general are liars and thieves. Just check Diane Feinstein's voting record and how it's benefitted her husband's businesses. No conflict of interest there...
I'm a registered independent which, in the CA primary, means I can vote any affiliation I want except Republican. Apparently they don't trust us to toe the line.
I am overall a liberal however, so perhaps the R's are correct in not trusting me.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3025420
when the dems circled the wagons around them.
That's the whole problem as I see it. R's? D's? equally culpable, equally criminal. When it comes to answering to the people (on the extremely rare occasion that actually takes place), then they both circle the wagons and throw "We the People" under the bus.

 

[wattsupdoc]

First I didnt read anyone elses reply's but I will.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025340
Alright, so let me get this straight. For the past eight years prior to Mr. Obama taking office, you had George W. Bush in office. I can only assume, that even if you didn't agree with his policies 100%, you were at least more on his side than you currently are with Obama.
Didn't agree with many things. But did on the big ticket things.
That being said, how can you possibly be in complete disagreement with pretty much everything that the new administration does? We tried the republican point of view, and I don't need to tell you the results.
First anyone who has to be elected president to finally be proud of this country is in no doubt a hater...Converted probably, but still. Second Your narrow minded manner of seeing the world and what goes on around you limits you from seeing "the big picture". Look outside the box and you will see the "right" logic. You believe that everything that goes on in a presidents term is that presidents fault or credit. This is not so. Any simple minded person can see that just because you pick up the reins on a living, breathing, evolving country doesn't mean you have control over everything that occurs. Yet everyone blames W. for what shape we are in....Because they want a scape goat and wont assume responsibility. Why exactly is it we are in this shape my friend? Because stupid, greedy, people bought houses and paid stupid ridiculous prices for the. Under stupid terms...Simple. Then when they couldn't pay their mortgages because the revolving rate skyrocketed, or they splurged on Xmas and couldn't pay their stupid balloon payment, they just walked. Robbing the homes blind of things that didn't belong to them anymore. Because it was the "banks" fault.
Now a narrow minded person would blame W. for this, he was the president, it happened under his watch...BS Step up America..Take responsibility for your actions you POS'S...
Third. Cant you see that he has repeatedly reneged on many issues he was supposedly elected on?
Fourth. He's a hater... I love my country, even though my government has let me down...Country and government are two different things. Do you know the difference?

I guess that's my main question.
Why, if everything that the Republicans did, got us in this wonderful mess we're in, do you want to go right back to it?
Comment is not valid...open your eyes.
If I touch the stove and it's hot, I'm gonna get burned and learn my lesson. I'm certainly not just going to look at another burner on the same stove and expect a different result... so why are so many of you?
Then why sre you supporting more of what got us into this situation?
Also, while I have your attention, why is it that every time a "liberal" does something to question America (i.e. the war in Iraq), it's considered to un "unpatriotic", or they "hate America", yet when a conservative does something to question America (i.e. Texas leaving the union, or the tax day tea parties) they are looked at as "patriots" and "heroes".
That's funny. I thought I saw a "reporter" on the tax day thing stating that it was a "racist act", and "hate against CNN"....Look around you. Just forget what whoever is influencing you is saying. Take in all from both sides, educate your self on the truth, listen to your heart and what your mother taught you was right and wrong, then see where you stand.
Seems a little hippocritical to me, no?
YEP, lots of hypocrisy my friend lots of it...

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025340
Alright, so let me get this straight. For the past eight years prior to Mr. Obama taking office, you had George W. Bush in office. I can only assume, that even if you didn't agree with his policies 100%, you were at least more on his side than you currently are with Obama.
That being said, how can you possibly be in complete disagreement with pretty much everything that the new administration does? We tried the republican point of view, and I don't need to tell you the results.
I guess that's my main question.
Why, if everything that the Republicans did, got us in this wonderful mess we're in, do you want to go right back to it?
If I touch the stove and it's hot, I'm gonna get burned and learn my lesson. I'm certainly not just going to look at another burner on the same stove and expect a different result... so why are so many of you?
Also, while I have your attention, why is it that every time a "liberal" does something to question America (i.e. the war in Iraq), it's considered to un "unpatriotic", or they "hate america", yet when a conservative does something to question America (i.e. Texas leaving the union, or the tax day tea parties) they are looked at as "patriots" and "heroes".
Seems a little hippocritical to me, no?
1.) How is protesting high taxation Unamerican? Our country was founded on the premise of small gov't and low taxation.
I agreed with Bush on the War on Terror , strong defense, and actually fighting to win ( he fell short at times, but he did OK. I agreed with Bush on the tax cuts, and the numbers proved more mooney flowed in after the taxes were lowered.
I disagreed with Bush on amnesty for illegal immigrants, increased gov't size and increased gov't spending. Bush was by far NOT a fiscal/gov't conservative.
Obama is weak on defense ( cutting missile research, releasing interrogation techniques etc). He is spending even more than Bush, and he is expanding the role of gov't even more than Bush.
I disagree with Obama on the "spread the wealth" socialist plan, that IS truely Unamerican and Unconstitutional.
I disagree with Obama on abortion, and removing religion from our lives. Family and religion should be the fountation, to a liberal gov't is the foundation.
So, yes just about everything Obama does is contrary to my beliefs, and the founding principles of the United States of America. On the other hand, I also blasted Bush (and RINO's in Congress) when I thought he/they were wrong too.
Unlike liberals I will not call Obama names, I will just point out where he is wrong and Unamerican.

 

[kjr_trig]

Are you completely blaming the economy on GW???? I forget which magazine did this (I think it was Time, or Newsweek) but they rated the top 25 people most responsible for the current economic situation.....GW didn't even crack the top 10 (I think like 17), below Clinton.
Clinton beefed up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force

[hr]
lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans.
In 1999 Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks. This prompted the era of the superbank and primed the sub-prime pump. The year before the repeal sub-prime loans were just 5% of all

[hr]
lending. By the time the credit crunch blew up it was approaching 30%.
The only thing they could say about GW "It started on his watch".
#1 was the moron from Countrywide that started all the lending to the deadbeats with the 5 year ARM's.

 

[reefraff]

Revisionist history time again

Bush actually turned a nice profit on the baseball team
My brother knew people who lost money in Bushes oil company deal but then again what do either of these have to do with his job as president?
The economic growth Clinton had actually started during Reagan, had a small hiccup under Bush one and was already growing again before Clinton was even elected. Clinton's best years of economic growth didn't happen until the Republicans took control of Congress in 95 and actually enacted some conservative policies. Those were the days.
As far as not liking anything Obama has done on most of the big issues he has sold the country down the river so far. Too much spending, foreign policy goofs, encouraging political witch hunts, whats to like?
I think his overture to Cuba is OK as long as he doesn't give them any rewards until they make some moves in the right direction. This could be one of his best policy moves if he plays his cards right and the Cubans are interesting in bettering their country.
Other than that I can't think of a thing he has done I would look at as a positive. I am sure there are a lot of little things that have been OK but they don't get the press.

 

[uneverno]

From Wiki:
After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, Bush learned from fellow Yale alumnus William DeWitt, Jr., that family friend Eddie Chiles wanted to sell the Texas Rangers baseball franchise along with the new sports dome; built on land acquired under eminent domain law and built under funding financed through taxpayers' funds backed by a bond issued for its debt. The new home of the Texas Rangers is still being contested in court by the original landowner who has not received payment for the land. The sports dome has not yet been paid off with the tax increase enacted to pay off the bond. The selling of the baseball team included the new stadium, which accounts for the huge profits the investors received. The benefits to the taxpayers or the landowner from their contributions are unknown. In April 1989, Bush assembled a group of investors from his father's close friends, including fellow fraternity brother Roland W. Betts; the group bought an 86% share of the Rangers for $75 million. Bush received a 2% share by investing $606,302, of which $500,000 was a bank loan. Against the advice of his counsel, Bush repaid the loan by selling $848,000 worth of stock in Harken Energy. Harken reported significant financial losses within a year of this sale, triggering allegations of insider trading. On March 27, 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Bush had a "preexisting plan" to sell, that Bush had a "relatively limited role in Harken management", and that it had not seen evidence of insider trading. [1][2][3][4]
The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result".[5] Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. The chairman at the time was Richard Breeden, a good friend of the Bush family's who had been nominated to the SEC by President George H. W. Bush and who had been a lawyer in James Baker's firm, Baker Botts. The SEC's general counsel at the time was James Doty, who had represented George W. Bush when he sought to buy into the Texas Rangers (although Doty recused himself from the investigation.) Bush's own lawyer was Robert Jordan, who had been "partners with both Doty and Breeden at Baker Botts and who later became George W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia".
In House of Bush, House of Saud, Craig Unger notes that at the time of Bush's sale, Harken Energy "was expected to run out of money in just three days" (p. 123). In a last-ditch attempt to save the company, Harken was advised by the endowment fund of Harvard University to spin-off two of its lower-performing divisions. "According to a Harken memo, if the plan did not go through, the company had 'no other source of immediate financing.'" Bush had already taken out a $500,000 loan and sought Harken's general counsel for advice. The reply was explicit: "The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information... the insider should be advised not to sell". This memo was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading. On June 22, Bush sold his 212,140 shares of stock anyway for a net profit of $848,560. The very next quarter, Harken announced losses of $23 million, which continued to the end of the year when the stock "plummeted from $4 to $1.25".
As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation.[6] When the Rangers franchise was sold for $250 million in 1998, at a total profit of $170 million, Bush personally received $14.9 million for his $600,000 investment.[7]
So ok, under allegations of scandal by the same SEC that vetted Bernie Madoff, Bush himself did indeed turn a HUGE profit. Just like Hillary did from her piddly investments in Tyson and Whitewater.
As far as I'm concerned, Clinton and Bush together did far more damage to the economy (NAFTA under Clinton and the war under Bush) than Obama has yet had a chance to (not that he won't).

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025471
From Wiki:
So ok, under allegations of scandal by the same SEC that vetted Bernie Madoff, Bush himself did indeed turn a HUGE profit. Just like Hillary did from her piddly investments in Tyson and Whitewater.
As far as I'm concerned, Clinton and Bush together did far more damage to the economy than Obama has yet had a chance to (not that he won't).
But Obama has only been in office about 100 days

 

[uneverno]

Absolutely agreed. I'm not so sure however, that had he been re-electable and won that Bush would've behaved differently. Of the 2.5 trillion spent so far on this "crisis", half of it belongs to Bush's oval office and the Pelosi/Reid congress.
See what I'm saying? R+D = screw you and me.

 

[theclemsonkid]

$127 billion dollar surplus to $482 billion dollar deficit.
If you can explain how that happened without government spending, then I will gladly take my questions and comments off the table.
Just because 43 spent money on a war, and not rebuilding some bridges, doesn't mean he wasn't spending money.
On top of that, the only people who benefited from that, were a bunch of Iraqi's who for the most part can't stand us anyways (Ask any vet, they'd be happy to tell you) and a lot of private contractors.
Again, maybe I don't see the "big picture", or maybe you just see something that isn't there...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025479
Absolutely agreed. I'm not so sure however, that had he been re-electable and won that Bush would've behaved differently. Of the 2.5 trillion spent so far on this "crisis", half of it belongs to Bush.
You know, I don't honestly wish any people dead but sometimes I think the only hope for our country is a commit striking the capital dome while Obama is addressing a joint session of congress

If the 1994 class of congress was still in charge (or at least acted like they did the first 4 or 5 years) we would be so much better off

The spending during Bush wouldn't have happened and it wouldn't be needed by President McCain (Obama would have never won without the economic meltdown)

 

[uneverno]

Absolutely true, and I'm not so sure that wasn't by design.
In politics, nothing ever happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
FDR

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025482
$127 billion dollar surplus to $482 billion dollar deficit.
If you can explain how that happened without government spending, then I will gladly take my questions and comments off the table.
Just because 43 spent money on a war, and not rebuilding some bridges, doesn't mean he wasn't spending money.
On top of that, the only people who benefited from that, were a bunch of Iraqi's who for the most part can't stand us anyways (Ask any vet, they'd be happy to tell you) and a lot of private contractors.
Again, maybe I don't see the "big picture", or maybe you just see something that isn't there...
Bush over spent on a heck of a lot more than just Iraq.