On September 07 2012 11:46 screamingpalm wrote: Considering the MASSIVE cuts to my kids' school this year, I am left wondering where the support is Mr. President?
That's probably dependent on state budgets. You live in California?
Oregon.. state budgets, but isn't the fed supposed to be helping out in these areas? Maybe not...
I think Obama is talking more about college education and tuitions. States control K-12, although the federal govt does have minimum standards that are required.
On September 07 2012 11:46 screamingpalm wrote: Considering the MASSIVE cuts to my kids' school this year, I am left wondering where the support is Mr. President?
That's probably dependent on state budgets. You live in California?
Oregon.. state budgets, but isn't the fed supposed to be helping out in these areas? Maybe not...
I think Obama is talking more about college education and tuitions. States control K-12, although the federal govt does have minimum standards that are required.
Ah that might be true - regarding the student loan debt issues. I am very fortunate to have full scholarship to my technical school. My friends that came out of business and med school with 40-100k in debt scare me with those numbers. I understand that they make a bit more than me, but to be in that huge of a debt and then depend on this sort of economy...
I have a messy room I clean it up by shoving everything into the closet and shutting the door. Is the room clean? What do I do when it becomes messy again?
I have a messy room I clean it up by shoving everything into the closet and shutting the door. Is the room clean? What do I do when it becomes messy again?
Admittedly it's not a complete solution, but it's a bandage that's needed.
On the other hand, if only we could figure out fusion
I have a messy room I clean it up by shoving everything into the closet and shutting the door. Is the room clean? What do I do when it becomes messy again?
Admittedly it's not a complete solution, but it's a bandage that's needed.
On the other hand, if only we could figure out fusion
Well that's the important part, clean coal is a misleading umbrella term to be sure, but it is a step in the right direction as we continue to research cleaner energy sources. It's a way of "Leaning forward."
On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote]
There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be?
Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really?
Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault".
Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference.
Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact.
If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well.
Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal.
Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office.
The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact.
I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years."
Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
The dismantling of Glass-Steagall which Clinton signed. Those mostly responsible getting rewarded with positions in Obama's administration.
Apples and Oranges. It wasn't dismantled. Part of it was repealed, and it was because Clinton wanted to promote more loans for lower and middle income families, not because he wanted banks to do anything they pleased. The fact that he may have opened up a loophole that was later exploited by a lack of consistent oversight just proves my point. So the housing bubble bursts in 2007, and all the crazy things banks were doing that noone was paying any attention to gets attributed to Clinton back in 1999? Interesting.
Also, it's worth noting that, in "..2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation."
Pretty hard to argue that the massive deregulation of financial institutions wasn't a major reason for the severity of the collapse.
Deregulation certainly played a role. The financial crisis inquiry commission cited 30 years of deregulation as playing a role.
The truth is that deregulation was one factor of many in the financial meltdown, which was one factor of many in the recession. That fact has since morphed into Bush deregulated the banks and caused the recession.
On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote: What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give.
His speech was great. Clinton pounded the policy last night. He did what he needed to do, explain the clear difference in ideologies between himself and mitt romney. This isn't just an election based on a person, its an ideological election (it has sad that politics has come to that, but IMO blame the republicans/tea party)
I have a messy room I clean it up by shoving everything into the closet and shutting the door. Is the room clean? What do I do when it becomes messy again?
Admittedly it's not a complete solution, but it's a bandage that's needed.
On the other hand, if only we could figure out fusion
Well that's the important part, clean coal is a misleading umbrella term to be sure, but it is a step in the right direction as we continue to research cleaner energy sources. It's a way of "Leaning forward."
On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote: What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give.
Oh, so it wasn't the lack of a teleprompter? That was definitely the speech he needed to give. Good mix of issue and rhetoric, excellent delivery, and ownership of the office.
On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote: [quote]
Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really?
Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault".
Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference.
Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact.
If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well.
Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal.
Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office.
The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact.
I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years."
Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
The dismantling of Glass-Steagall which Clinton signed. Those mostly responsible getting rewarded with positions in Obama's administration.
Apples and Oranges. It wasn't dismantled. Part of it was repealed, and it was because Clinton wanted to promote more loans for lower and middle income families, not because he wanted banks to do anything they pleased. The fact that he may have opened up a loophole that was later exploited by a lack of consistent oversight just proves my point. So the housing bubble bursts in 2007, and all the crazy things banks were doing that noone was paying any attention to gets attributed to Clinton back in 1999? Interesting.
Also, it's worth noting that, in "..2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation."
Pretty hard to argue that the massive deregulation of financial institutions wasn't a major reason for the severity of the collapse.
Deregulation certainly played a role. The financial crisis inquiry commission cited 30 years of deregulation as playing a role.
The truth is that deregulation was one factor of many in the financial meltdown, which was one factor of many in the recession. That fact has since morphed into Bush deregulated the banks and caused the recession.
But if we can agree then that deregulation was one of the factors that led to the collapse why would you want to vote for Republicans who want to deregulate them further? Is that not just setting ourselves up for another repeat performance?
On September 07 2012 11:46 screamingpalm wrote: Considering the MASSIVE cuts to my kids' school this year, I am left wondering where the support is Mr. President?
On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote: What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give.
His speech was great. Clinton pounded the policy last night. He did what he needed to do, explain the clear difference in ideologies between himself and mitt romney. This isn't just an election based on a person, its an ideological election (it has sad that politics has come to that, but IMO blame the republicans/tea party)
It was an empty rhetorical appeal. It was 2008 all over again. He needed to really make a case for himself with some very specific solutions. It just wasn't there.
On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote: [quote]
Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really?
Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault".
Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference.
Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact.
If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well.
Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal.
Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office.
The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact.
I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years."
Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
The dismantling of Glass-Steagall which Clinton signed. Those mostly responsible getting rewarded with positions in Obama's administration.
Apples and Oranges. It wasn't dismantled. Part of it was repealed, and it was because Clinton wanted to promote more loans for lower and middle income families, not because he wanted banks to do anything they pleased. The fact that he may have opened up a loophole that was later exploited by a lack of consistent oversight just proves my point. So the housing bubble bursts in 2007, and all the crazy things banks were doing that noone was paying any attention to gets attributed to Clinton back in 1999? Interesting.
Also, it's worth noting that, in "..2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation."
Pretty hard to argue that the massive deregulation of financial institutions wasn't a major reason for the severity of the collapse.
Deregulation certainly played a role. The financial crisis inquiry commission cited 30 years of deregulation as playing a role.
The truth is that deregulation was one factor of many in the financial meltdown, which was one factor of many in the recession. That fact has since morphed into Bush deregulated the banks and caused the recession.
I would say it's being painted as "Republicans deregulated banks."
EPT
