poet
Banned
LOL. You're funny.
America Loses If Obama Wins
- Thread starter Alias
- Start date
LOL. You're funny.
poet
Banned
LOL. I understand.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
So you think that its a good idea to force people to buy something that they don't want/ cannot afford? Something that prfits wallstreet and hurts the poor more than anyone else?
I don't blame him for the crash, I blame him for focusing on ideological rather than practical solutions and having no focus on jobs until election time. He'd talk about them, but even he recognized it when he said he was going to "shift his focus" to jobs just before this campaign season started.
Didn't realize that he pushed the stimulus through so close to election time.
I guess if you're working on a geological level...
I wish the stimulus actually was something to actually create jobs. We've spoken about this the past two years.
I wonder how Obama realized his focus needed to shift, but don't take his own word for it... because clearly he has no truck with you.
You're of the opinion that the stimulus didn't create jobs?
poet
Banned
Rather than our tax dollars to go for emergency room treatment and indigent care, for the uninsured, by their own fault or no fault of their own. Wall St isn't even in it, and the poor are not hurt. I have no idea where you got your information, but I worked in healthcare for almost 20 years.....15 years for a provider and 3 years as a billing analyst agent, so both sides of the equation. Universal healthcare should be a right, not a privilege, and it shouldn't be based on the ability to pay. I can't believe such heartless people exist in the world. As long as you're fine, right? The hell with everyone else. So "Christian".
poet
Banned
Oh, give me a break. It's the Republican Congress, who refused to have a real "adult" conversation about "jobs". They were too busy and intent on obstructing Obama's every move, to be concerned about jobs, the economy or much else. When your hands are literally and figuratively "tied", how can blame be applied?
Easy there. You're talking about Damo's favorite people in the whole wide world...
poet
Banned
And? You can't make silk purses out of sows' ears. Perhaps if they hadn't attacked President Obama so viciously, during his campaign, after his election, and for the duration of first term, then I might give them benefit of the doubt. But didn't Mitch McConnell say that it was every Repubs mission to ensure that President Obama was a "one-term president", above all else? My spit is too rare and valuable to project it onto a Republican. I'd rather be bitten by a poisonous snake than to have to be in the company of one.
LOL. This ignores 2 years with super majorities in both houses. There was nothing at all "obstructing" Obama and, according to you, he tried to pass nothing of value until there was contention for his ideas in the Congress?
Why do you ignore the Democrats' total ownership of the government for 2 years of his Administration to say that the past 10 months are the only ones that could possibly have been used to pass anything of importance?
Damo is saying that we spent $1 Trillion and didn't get enough jobs, it was a terrible investment. Damo is also noting what Obama said, how he "turned his focus" to jobs just before this election cycle.
Damo will also point out zillion year old posts from when the stimulus first was passed and how I said that it would do exactly what it is doing now, create a slightly better economic environment during this election cycle....
And Onceler will point out the many posts you have had where you claimed it created zero jobs, and ignored CBO reports, and failed to understand what a baseline is, and claimed that supporters of the stimulus argued it would fix the economy, etc, etc, etc.
You were wrong on the stimulus, and wrong on the bailouts. In a huge way. Usually, when people are as partisan as you, they end up being wrong, because their view is clouded.
And Damo will point out the promises of the Administration again, how it failed, and the reality that the stimulus was passed above and beyond the baseline (and created a new baseline for automatic government growth).
I will note that Obama was wrong, and that this investment didn't pay off even close to well enough to merit your support.
sedan
red panda
Obama had 60 senators (if you want to count Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman as Democrats, which I don't) for a year. During that year he got the stimulus passed and nearly got health care done. Republicans got their 41st seat on Feb. 4, 2010 when Scott Brown took office, and from that point on could effectively obstruct anything they wanted to -- which is exactly what they did.
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, Obama did have a majority but unlike the Repubs he tried to work across the isle. One party always accuses the other of ramming a bill through so Obama, regardless of his majority, tried to get the Repubs involved. Unfortunately, that was a waste of time but he tried. In the end, like disruptive children, he had to excuse them from conversations and pass ObamaCare without their participation. He has realized the Repubs will do nothing to help the people.
From medical care to unemployment extensions any time Obama tries to help the people the Repubs do everything to block him to the point of affecting the country's credit rating. After the teabaggers win a number of candidates for the Repub leadership jumped on the blame-the-poor bandwagon with Cain specifically saying poverty was the individual's fault. Their message is "make everyone rich" as opposed to "help the poor". What they either intentionally or unintentionally omit is poverty is not about having a specific amount of money. If we look back 100 years people earning $10,000/yr would have been considered quite wealthy. So, why isn't $10,000/yr considered wealthy today? Because wealth is determined by a comparison among people and not on a specific amount. The person earning $10,000/yr, one hundred years ago, was wealthy when compared to the rest of the population.
So, can everyone be wealthy? Obviously not. If everyone was wealthy no one would be wealthy because wealth is determined/defined by comparison and not by a number. Thus the age old phrase, "There will always be poor among us." Therefore, regardless of how we may help someone increase their income there always will be poor among us. The upside is that while poverty will always be with us it doesn't necessarily mean the same individuals will be poor. The composition, the specific individuals involved, will and does frequently change so it's only logical to help the poor in a proper manner knowing that for the vast majority it is a temporary situation.
Proper help, given in a timely manner, will prevent many from losing what they have spent decades acquiring. They will rebound quicker. It will prevent or lessen everything from families falling apart to disruption in children's education to people giving up and turning to drugs/alcohol to violence and petty crimes committed by those who have nothing more to lose.
While the economy and jobs may be big on voter's minds those who are aware will realize many jobs are not coming back. It's fine to say we'll work at making everyone wealthy but the reality is there will be a shortage of jobs for some time. The toss-up is between believing the Repubs will miraculously conjure up jobs for everyone or understanding the chances are greater one will require basic help before the job situation changes, basic help being medical care and a decent living allowance.
I have no doubt Obama and the Dems will deal with a majority win much differently than they did the first time.
He tried to work across the aisle? Are you kidding. He told us "we won" and tried for force feed us crap.
This ignores the fact that the same company that changed our credit rating pointed out that just increasing the cap would not be enough to maintain our rating.
What are you talking about here? This is nonsense and has nothing to do with anything I have ever stated here.
More of that same, nobody objects to a safety net.
There will especially be a shortage of jobs if the WH objects to any solution other than their ideological solution of a "green economy", ignoring the solution that could provide us more security and immediate jobs due to a rejection of solutions on an ideological basis. A more pragmatic approach needs to be taken.
I have no doubt that Obama would deal with a majority of republicans in both houses differently... blah, blah.
If Obama gets reelected it is not a guarantee he'll ever have a such a huge majority in both houses.
poet
Banned
What? What is the problem in pointing out the truth, that the right refused to acknowledge, let alone, believe?
Didn't George W. Bush, do the exact same thing, with the aid of a Republican dominated Congress, and spent, like drunken Democrats. You can be in denial all you want, the reality is different than what you suggest.