Originally posted by Mindship
20 years of Repub presidents vs 8 of Dems. The buck stopped much more with the former.
That's what I thought you were using as the unit of measure; I agree. Congress controls the purse-strings; not the President.
Any President can ask for money on a failed concept, it's congress who ultimately writes the check(at our expense). E.G. "Space Platform".
bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.
and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.
{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}
Originally posted by dadudemon
🤨Seriously?
I shouldn't be so quick to criticize you, though. Go ahead and explain what you mean before I settle with the "wtf" look...
Poor business sense like Democrats forcing banks to give out loans to people that have very little chance of paying back?
Then those same government bureaucrats that forced the banks to give out the bad loans deciding they might want to take the banks over because they can do a better job managing them?
WTF indeed.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.
{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}
Congratulations, almost everything you typed is wrong. Oil prices causing the global recession? LOL. Please do explain.
Extreme spending on the war? Barack Obamas "stimulus plan" put us more into debt in one day then the war has in 6 years.
And anyone that is still moaning and crying about Fox news being bias needs to open their eyes and go watch MSNBC, it's just as bad, if not worse, then Fox news is in terms of being all over a political parties sack.
Originally posted by KidRock
Poor business sense like Democrats forcing banks to give out loans to people that have very little chance of paying back?Then those same government bureaucrats that forced the banks to give out the bad loans deciding they might want to take the banks over because they can do a better job managing them?
WTF indeed.
Congratulations, almost everything you typed is wrong. Oil prices causing the global recession? LOL. Please do explain.
Extreme spending on the war? Barack Obamas "stimulus plan" put us more into debt in one day then the war has in 6 years.
And anyone that is still moaning and crying about Fox news being bias needs to open their eyes and go watch MSNBC, it's just as bad, if not worse, then Fox news is in terms of being all over a political parties sack.
nice blanket statement. mind giving any evidence for it or shud we take the words of a mouthpiece for the right at face value? forgive me if i laugh. to start off with, you DO know of the current recession in the world economy do you not, everywhere from japanese carmakers losing over 50% of their sales to china putting in 6 billion yuan into the economy. what is the driving force behind it? rising oil prices are CHIEFLY to blame. not only have they been at record highs very recently, but no other comodity worldwide has shown such a long and continuous high in the world market, energy driven economies have had to pay the price causing a trickle effect in everythign from oil based products to transport and industry causing MASSIVE inflation worldwide{ofcourse you can check the rates of inflation yourself compared to before} and much hardship. any basic economist can tell you that. ofcouse any1 with brains can tell you that tha main economic motivation{and many wud say the CHEIF motivation} for going into iraq was the lucrative OIL.
as for military spending, are you KIDDING ME?! the U S of A spent over 800 BILLION dollars in 2008 ALONE! accounting for around 30% of ALL taxes. shit, no republican complains about THAT, yet when president, tries to jumpstart an economy which has been RAPED for the last eaight years by wealthy republicans, comes along and proposed, what was it, around 900 billion dollars to be injected in a 10 TRILLION dollar debt courtesy of the bush regime, every republican screams bloody murder?! so not only is your information UTTERLY wrong, it doesnt count who created the damn problem in the first place. do you also know that during the bush years, the difference between rich and poor has reached some of the highest{if not THE highest levels} in the WORLD, you know what actually humour me, how much of the country's money does that top ONE percent own?! if the answer to that doesnt justify the economic redustribution than your beyond hope.
as for fox news, please do not be so callous and tell the wrest of the world to GET OVER IT. the problem lies with FOX NEWS, it is a criminally deceptive prpaganda network haveing NO journalistic integrity or fact check, duping people by spewing selective and made up figures and points of view. msnbc is not even a TENTH of the hypocricy and national insult to the truth that fox news is for america. btw, nice try on not actually replying to any of the points made before you.
i dont love american democrats, on the other hand i truly am disgusted by the current state of republican party. just a bunch of corrupt bible thumping, redneck bigots who rent even smart enough to run their own country, let alone, participate in failed empire building ventures. most{not all though} of them, shameless liars.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
nice blanket statement. mind giving any evidence for it or shud we take the words of a mouthpiece for the right at face value? forgive me if i laugh. to start off with, you DO know of the current recession in the world economy do you not, everywhere from japanese carmakers losing over 50% of their sales to china putting in 6 billion yuan into the economy. what is the driving force behind it? rising oil prices are CHIEFLY to blame. not only have they been at record highs very recently, but no other comodity worldwide has shown such a long and continuous high in the world market, energy driven economies have had to pay the price causing a trickle effect in everythign from oil based products to transport and industry causing MASSIVE inflation worldwide{ofcourse you can check the rates of inflation yourself compared to before} and much hardship. any basic economist can tell you that. ofcouse any1 with brains can tell you that tha main economic motivation{and many wud say the CHEIF motivation} for going into iraq was the lucrative OIL.
Can you explain why the world is still in a recession, and getting worse, while oil prices are hitting their lowest cost in a decade? So by your logic shouldnt the world be bouncing back now that the cost of oil is down? Also, if we went to Iraq for oil, why were oil prices at their all time hire during the war? Introduction of all that supply would lower the price of oil, would it not?
Oil didn't cause the worldwide recession. The collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in a worldwide credit crunch did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009
Educate yourself.
Oh and: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
"Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory.""
Originally posted by leonheartmmas for military spending, are you KIDDING ME?! the U S of A spent over 800 BILLION dollars in 2008 ALONE! accounting for around 30% of ALL taxes. shit, no republican complains about THAT, yet when president, tries to jumpstart an economy which has been RAPED for the last eaight years by wealthy republicans, comes along and proposed, what was it, around 900 billion dollars to be injected in a 10 TRILLION dollar debt courtesy of the bush regime, every republican screams bloody murder?! so not only is your information UTTERLY wrong, it doesnt count who created the damn problem in the first place. do you also know that during the bush years, the difference between rich and poor has reached some of the highest{if not THE highest levels} in the WORLD, you know what actually humour me, how much of the country's money does that top ONE percent own?! if the answer to that doesnt justify the economic redustribution than your beyond hope.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Please show your sources.
And Obama plans to quadruple our budget deficit..this year. It will be the highest since WWII.
And does Obama plan to end the war? Yeah, he will just leave a 'security force' there..of 50,000 soldiers. Sure doesnt like an end to me. I wonder if he will end his bombing campaign against Pakistan as well?
You want to talk about redistribution of wealth? Like how the top 5% of this country pays 60% of this countries taxes? That was under Bush, with Obama I would bet it's going to be 90%. Yet Obama is pushing for all these social projects that will be paid for by taxes (healthcare, bailouts, education). It's the rich paying for all this, while the poor (who pay nothing compared to the rich) take in all the benefits.
By the way, Democrats controlled congress for the past 2 years was it? How have they done to change the situation? Oh yeah, they approved bush's billion dollar spending and Obama's 800 billion dollar spending program. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation if the rich democrats in Obamas cabinet didn't 'rape' the system and 'forget' to pay their taxes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19587.html
Even Democrats are getting worried and sick of Obamas spending, hahaha.
"I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.” Says Democrat Senator Bill Nelson
Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
as for fox news, please do not be so callous and tell the wrest of the world to GET OVER IT. the problem lies with FOX NEWS, it is a criminally deceptive prpaganda network haveing NO journalistic integrity or fact check, duping people by spewing selective and made up figures and points of view. msnbc is not even a TENTH of the hypocricy and national insult to the truth that fox news is for america. btw, nice try on not actually replying to any of the points made before you.
Dont watch it then? It's a news network, they can do as they choose. I am just pointing out how ignorant people like you are when you cry how bias Fox News is when there is another news network one channel away that is just as bad. You're obviously completely delusional if you think Olbermann and Matthews arent as bad as O'reilly or Hannity.
Reply to the points? Like I said, everything you stated was wrong. "Bush is responsible for the current crisis". Nobody, even the most hardcore Democrats, would put the blame on one man unless they're just utterly retarded.
Bush didn't inspire growth? Go ahead and explain how raising taxes on corporations and on investors (capital gains tax) will inspire growth. I'll wait.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
most{not all though} of them, shameless liars.
[QUOTE}Can you explain why the world is still in a recession, and getting worse, while oil prices are hitting their lowest cost in a decade? So by your logic shouldnt the world be bouncing back now that the cost of oil is down? Also, if we went to Iraq for oil, why were oil prices at their all time hire during the war? Introduction of all that supply would lower the price of oil, would it not? [/QUOTE}
1. your assuming i meant AMERICA went to war to get oil. wrong, the private CORPORATIONS which control the business party{i.e. republican party} went to war in iraq, dragging america along for their own interests. thats why the PUBLIC felt the brunt. and who was earning from the poor man's loses? the FREE MARKET providers.
2. even if you get rid of the initial causitive factor, ther trickle effect and inflation cant simply be gottecn back on track overnight
Oil didn't cause the worldwide recession. The collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in a worldwide credit crunch did.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009
Educate yourself.
Oh and: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
"Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory.""
no, i did mention the housing, but that wasnt the only factor. domestic credit crunches have to be TRANSMITTED to the intenational marker. oil not onlu did that, it ended up serving as a perpetrater itself. or do you honestly beleive that the gas prices for the past 6 years sumhow just HAPPENED?! i dont need to be educated by sum1 so completely blind to everything. and nice one, trying to blame it on clinton, but that boat sailed 9 year ago my friend.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_homePlease show your sources.
And Obama plans to quadruple our budget deficit..this year. It will be the highest since WWII.
REALLY, are you claiming that the deficit wil be thirty trillion by the end of this year?! erm, i gotta ask, how the HELL do u figure that my friend?!?! {on top pf it being completely ridiculous}
military budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
And does Obama plan to end the war? Yeah, he will just leave a 'security force' there..of 50,000 soldiers. Sure doesnt like an end to me. I wonder if he will end his bombing campaign against Pakistan as well?You want to talk about redistribution of wealth? Like how the top 5% of this country pays 60% of this countries taxes? That was under Bush, with Obama I would bet it's going to be 90%. Yet Obama is pushing for all these social projects that will be paid for by taxes (healthcare, bailouts, education). It's the rich paying for all this, while the poor (who pay nothing compared to the rich) take in all the benefits.
By the way, Democrats controlled congress for the past 2 years was it? How have they done to change the situation? Oh yeah, they approved bush's billion dollar spending and Obama's 800 billion dollar spending program. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation if the rich democrats in Obamas cabinet didn't 'rape' the system and 'forget' to pay their taxes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19587.html
Even Democrats are getting worried and sick of Obamas spending, hahaha.
"I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.” Says Democrat Senator Bill Nelson
Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October.
no but the democrats probably would not have gone INTO the war. and i didnt say they were saints. you are making another mistake by thinking im a democrat. im only saying it lie it is. afghanistan and iraq are messes, made that way because of the bush regime when nobody shud have gone into these crazy wars. now even pulling out is hard, but again, whose fault it that?! and your economics are SEVERELY lacking, or you just beleive right wing prpaaganda too much. THINK about it, if the top 5 percent really were unequivically paying 60% of their income, then would they be able to REMAIN the to 5% and maintain over 50% of the countrie's money for anything longer than a couple of years?!?!?!? ofcourse not, your not factoring in legal tax evasion/exempts/relegious organisations/having factories etc outside the country where the laws dont apply. seriously if you actually beleive the top 5% are paying that money you have another thing coming. rich democrats???????? i mean theyr rich for politicians but surely NOTHING on the oil and gas lobby of the republicans. add to that the evangelical church owners, the alcohol/tobacco and firearms and you have a ruthless party run by self interest with a relegious agenda working under the guise of less government domain and freedom to do business. its disgusting.
Dont watch it then? It's a news network, they can do as they choose. I am just pointing out how ignorant people like you are when you cry how bias Fox News is when there is another news network one channel away that is just as bad. You're obviously completely delusional if you think Olbermann and Matthews arent as bad as O'reilly or Hannity.Reply to the points? Like I said, everything you stated was wrong. "Bush is responsible for the current crisis". Nobody, even the most hardcore Democrats, would put the blame on one man unless they're just utterly retarded.
Bush didn't inspire growth? Go ahead and explain how raising taxes on corporations and on investors (capital gains tax) will inspire growth. I'll wait.
Much like the Democrat party.
msnbc never had anne coulter on as a serious interviewer and correspondant did they?! that is where i draw the line. please do not evin BEGIN to defend fox, as people will refuse to debate with you at this point, that is how vile an organisation fox news is. hannity/o rielly etc, have you ever even SEEN these bastards in action. to any1 who knows about logical argumentation or linguistics or even simple COURTESY like letting the guy being interviewed talk and not being rude to them, wud tell you that they run on NOTHING BUT ZEALOTRY, Lloaded question, interruptions and logical fallacies. they attack guests on their show among other things.
claiming again that everything i stated was wrong is equal to whining. if you cant wake the HELL up even after everything thats happened in the world, then your a lost cause. you can be smug and pretentious as the world burns, but it wont make u right. as i said, the democrats are bitches. but the republicans are the scum of the earth.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
[QUOTE}Can you explain why the world is still in a recession, and getting worse, while oil prices are hitting their lowest cost in a decade? So by your logic shouldnt the world be bouncing back now that the cost of oil is down? Also, if we went to Iraq for oil, why were oil prices at their all time hire during the war? Introduction of all that supply would lower the price of oil, would it not? [/QUOTE}
1. your assuming i meant AMERICA went to war to get oil. wrong, the private CORPORATIONS which control the business party{i.e. republican party} went to war in iraq, dragging america along for their own interests. thats why the PUBLIC felt the brunt. and who was earning from the poor man's loses? the FREE MARKET providers.
2. even if you get rid of the initial causitive factor, ther trickle effect and inflation cant simply be gottecn back on track overnight
1. Conspiracy Theory, no thanks.
2. Price of oil has been dropping for around 9 months now..am I understanding you correctly in that the market hasn't reacted to the drop in oil yet?
If this is the case then okay, how long in your mind does it take for the market to bounce back with these new low prices since, ya know, the global recession revolves around oil.
(hint: the price of oil, is a reaction to the global recession, not the other way around).
Originally posted by leonheartmmno, i did mention the housing, but that wasnt the only factor. domestic credit crunches have to be TRANSMITTED to the intenational marker. oil not onlu did that, it ended up serving as a perpetrater itself. or do you honestly beleive that the gas prices for the past 6 years sumhow just HAPPENED?! i dont need to be educated by sum1 so completely blind to everything. and nice one, trying to blame it on clinton, but that boat sailed 9 year ago my friend.
That was the main factor, not oil. How was the credit crunch translated over to the world market? NOT BECAUSE OF OIL DUKE. It was because of all the money and credit backing the mortgages which collapsed. How stupid can you be to blame all of this on oil prices? The price of oil was 140 and we were in a recession, the price of oil now is 40 and we still are and will be. Use some common sense.
And it's easy to put some blame on Clinton. He contributed to the cause of the housing failure. And LOL if people like you wont be putting the blame on Bush 9 years from now after Obama fails.
Originally posted by leonheartmmREALLY, are you claiming that the deficit wil be thirty trillion by the end of this year?! erm, i gotta ask, how the HELL do u figure that my friend?!?! {on top pf it being completely ridiculous}
military budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_Statesdeficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Obama budget proposal would quadruple deficit
Andrew Taylor - The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all -- accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.
Google: Obama to quadruple budget deficit..and enjoy reading the 20+ links.
Not only will he quadruple the bugest deficit, but also double the debt.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/301413/36/
What a guy.
Military spending?
http://www.slate.com/id/2212323
Obama's estimates for military spending over the next few years are roughly the same as George W. Bush's.
Ruh-Roh! So much for change! Obama regime marches forward..I wonder how much war with Pakistan and Iran is going to cost?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no but the democrats probably would not have gone INTO the war. and i didnt say they were saints. you are making another mistake by thinking im a democrat. im only saying it lie it is. afghanistan and iraq are messes, made that way because of the bush regime when nobody shud have gone into these crazy wars. now even pulling out is hard, but again, whose fault it that?! and your economics are SEVERELY lacking, or you just beleive right wing prpaaganda too much.
Iraq was a mess and a mistake, I have said this on the forum many times. But saying Afghanistan was is foolish. We were attacked by the Taliban backed Al-Quaida. You really believe we shouldn't have attacked those who attacked us?
And Obama has already said war with Iran is on the table and he IS already bombing Pakistani land.
Again whos pulling out? Obama is leaving half the troops in Iraq that are there right now. And the rest are going to Afghanistan.
What is lacking about my economics? You seem confused about what you're saying.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
THINK about it, if the top 5 percent really were unequivically paying 60% of their income, then would they be able to REMAIN the to 5% and maintain over 50% of the countrie's money for anything longer than a couple of years?!?!?!? ofcourse not, your not factoring in legal tax evasion/exempts/relegious organisations/having factories etc outside the country where the laws dont apply. seriously if you actually beleive the top 5% are paying that money you have another thing coming. rich democrats???????? i mean theyr rich for politicians but surely NOTHING on the oil and gas lobby of the republicans. add to that the evangelical church owners, the alcohol/tobacco and firearms and you have a ruthless party run by self interest with a relegious agenda working under the guise of less government domain and freedom to do business. its disgusting.
Read what I said, you're confused again. I didn't say the top 5 percent are paying 60% of their income, they're paying 60% of all taxes collected in this country. So pretty much everything you said is irrelevant.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
msnbc never had anne coulter on as a serious interviewer and correspondant did they?! that is where i draw the line. please do not evin BEGIN to defend fox, as people will refuse to debate with you at this point, that is how vile an organisation fox news is. hannity/o rielly etc, have you ever even SEEN these bastards in action. to any1 who knows about logical argumentation or linguistics or even simple COURTESY like letting the guy being interviewed talk and not being rude to them, wud tell you that they run on NOTHING BUT ZEALOTRY, Lloaded question, interruptions and logical fallacies. they attack guests on their show among other things.
Fox News is bias towards conservatives, everybody knows this, nobody is debating that so no need to regurgitate your dribble. The difference is there are morons that believe Fox news is evil for being bias while at the same time watching MSNBC for 2 hours a night.
Keith Olbermann is a liberal Sean Hannity..he is no different. And if you disagree it just shows how completely slanted you are.
Originally posted by leonheartmmclaiming again that everything i stated was wrong is equal to whining. if you cant wake the HELL up even after everything thats happened in the world, then your a lost cause. you can be smug and pretentious as the world burns, but it wont make u right. as i said, the democrats are bitches. but the republicans are the scum of the earth.
I am just sick of uneducated fools that don't understand the problems going on and what caused them.
Where do you get most of this crap from? A news channel? The internet? Which shows/websites are you getting this stuff?
. Conspiracy Theory, no thanks.
are you idiotic?! there is no conspiracy involved here, the whole world knows the war has rather awesome economic benekefits through thw stealing anf control of oil and that american private corporations are intricately involved in it. you might say that it may not have been the primary reason buch went into iraq{and one cud still provide convincing evidence against that assertion} but your blind if your denying the role of oil in the war. and please, if you want to reply with dismissive red neck logic, then i will end this discussion right here and now as there is no point arguing over sumthing the other party simply dismisses with one liner.
{QUOTE}
2. Price of oil has been dropping for around 9 months now..am I understanding you correctly in that the market hasn't reacted to the drop in oil yet?
If this is the case then okay, how long in your mind does it take for the market to bounce back with these new low prices since, ya know, the global recession revolves around oil.
(hint: the price of oil, is a reaction to the global recession, not the other way around).
[/QUOTE]
not the same in the wrest of the world as it is in america, for one. and the market HAS reacted , but you should know that in more unstable/corrupt economies, bringing the prices of things DOWN after rapid inflation is near impossible. the trickle effect remains. but as far as the energy sector goes, yes, that is showing some deflation in the rate of downfall.
hint: credit crunch/housing in america is a DOMESTIC economic issue, how the HELL did that alone translate to the wrest of the world economies?
That was the main factor, not oil. How was the credit crunch translated over to the world market? NOT BECAUSE OF OIL DUKE. It was because of all the money and credit backing the mortgages which collapsed. How stupid can you be to blame all of this on oil prices? The price of oil was 140 and we were in a recession, the price of oil now is 40 and we still are and will be. Use some common sense.And it's easy to put some blame on Clinton. He contributed to the cause of the housing failure. And LOL if people like you wont be putting the blame on Bush 9 years from now after Obama fails.
again, how did that translate into a recession on the international stage my friend?????? and what had the INTERNATIONAL community pissing their pants for the last few years. it wasnt the housing or the credit crunch. it was the price of CRUDE!
so lemme get this straight, your willing to EASILY but blame on clinton after 9 years in a thread with a topic which puts the blame squarely on obama less than 3 MONTHS after he has been in office?!?!?!?!?!!??! 😆
Obama budget proposal would quadruple deficit
Andrew Taylor - The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all -- accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.Google: Obama to quadruple budget deficit..and enjoy reading the 20+ links.
Not only will he quadruple the bugest deficit, but also double the debt.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/301413/36/What a guy.
Military spending?
http://www.slate.com/id/2212323
Obama's estimates for military spending over the next few years are roughly the same as George W. Bush's.
Ruh-Roh! So much for change! Obama regime marches forward..I wonder how much war with Pakistan and Iran is going to cost?
america's gross external debt as of june 2008 - 13.77 TRILLION dollars
america's public debt as of february 2009 - 10.88 TRILLION dollars
1.75 trillion less than 17% of americas public debt and even less than that from the foreign debt.
a 17% increase in debt wud increase the debt by less than 1/5 times, as oppsed to 2 or 3 times as you say. so your information is either out of context, or plain wrong. or r u talking about annual project budject deficit?
no they arent. and bush didnt have the balls to go into iran or pakistan. what makes u think obama wud even think of doing it at a realistic level???? btw, neither iran nor pakistan are like afghanistan or iraq both have nukes, one is a nuclear power and rather trained and formidable military mights.
Iraq was a mess and a mistake, I have said this on the forum many times. But saying Afghanistan was is foolish. We were attacked by the Taliban backed Al-Quaida. You really believe we shouldn't have attacked those who attacked us?And Obama has already said war with Iran is on the table and he IS already bombing Pakistani land.
Again whos pulling out? Obama is leaving half the troops in Iraq that are there right now. And the rest are going to Afghanistan.
What is lacking about my economics? You seem confused about what you're saying.
was any positive evidence given to the international community that the taliban did it? but assuming{and i accept the significant possibility} they did partake in a terrorist attack. the way to deal with a terrorist organisation is internal infiltration, espionage and assasinations or even{but this is pushing it}, targeted missile strikes or smart bomb strikes against their strongholds. even mother ****ing israel doesnt just permanently INVADE all of palestine. consider the number dead/displaced in afghanistan. remember that the taliban have not been defeated and are becoming stronger everyday, remember that most of the dead are innocent civilians, and also remember that number taken without trial or any evidence of guilt to international prisons for torture and other revolting things. then tell me how it is even justified, much less the right thing to do.
pakistan did NOT attack the us{And yes, obama is an ******* for allowing attacks into pakistan, this isnt about protecting obama at all, this is about making those who are responsible TAKE responsibility and not put it on the shoulders of others or brush it away, as republicans are all to familiar with doing} and cooperated to the point that its corrupt money eating military dictator went as far as to bomb tens of thousands of its own innocent people just to make america HAPPY. and the strikes still continue killed predominantly civilians with empty claims of having hit KEY terrorist targets.
Read what I said, you're confused again. I didn't say the top 5 percent are paying 60% of their income, they're paying 60% of all taxes collected in this country. So pretty much everything you said is irrelevant.
then how is it unfair to the top 5% if their collective wealth isnt decreasing at all from taxation. why did u then argue in their favour???
Fox News is bias towards conservatives, everybody knows this, nobody is debating that so no need to regurgitate your dribble. The difference is there are morons that believe Fox news is evil for being bias while at the same time watching MSNBC for 2 hours a night.Keith Olbermann is a liberal Sean Hannity..he is no different. And if you disagree it just shows how completely slanted you are.
I am just sick of uneducated fools that don't understand the problems going on and what caused them.
Where do you get most of this crap from? A news channel? The internet? Which shows/websites are you getting this stuff?
bill maher out this better than i ever could. "you dont have to consider both sides of a debate when one side is absolute bullshit!" the republicans, currently, have terrible oppinion on MANY MANY significant issues, even if both networks SUPPORT the parties equally, its simply true that ideologically, one party is MUCH more evil than the other, decreasing msnbc's crime. and if you read my reply, it had many things concerned with simply neocon/relegious OUTLOOK, which isnt really political on the face of it, their behaviour, journalistic ethic, manners, and fact checking is COMPLETELY ****ed, shamelessly spewing propaganda. you cant in a million years compare msnbc to fox. ok actually, if the republican party stopped supporting subterfuge/corruption/relegion and just became the business/capitalist party and fox news REFLECTED that and supported them, then i cud say that msnbc and fox are compareable, otherwise, NO ****ING CONTEST!!!!!
keith olberman and hannity are the same?! are you friggin BLIND?!?!?!? hannity is an utter bastard, olberman is not only claiming humour, but he is still 20 times the journalist that hannity is. it seems republicans just try and reutter the same arguments presented against them by liberals without actual validity to make it seem like they are being targetted/victimised by the other side as much as they are victimising it. newsflash, its NOT TRUE!!!!!!!
i get my facts from multiple news channels domestic private news channels like geo for pakistan/afghanistan/iraq news, or in the case of domestic news, sumtimes straight from the mouth of senators or ministers in the government. aljazeera english/cnn/bbc/msnbc{sumtimes, seeing as its coverage is limited outside america} for international news. books by people like norman chomsky etc, and the internet wikipedia among other things, and articles from the websites of many large media groups. and for the other side, well, i do get fox news, lmao.
where do you get your facts from??
Hey KidRock
what about the fact that banks were given the ability to sell their debt to other companies, thus loaning more money than they could cover?
From my understanding, they lobbied for and got that ability, and used it with essentially no regard for the consequences.
I think it might be a little difficult to paint this as entirely the fault of the democratic party?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.
{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}
You are right to say Obama isn't responsible for this mess we're in but wrong to say Bush is. 30 years of economic expansion based on debt is what caused is. The government is in debt, the corporations are in debt and the consumers are in debt, something finally had to give. This crisis has it's roots way back in the 70s, way before Bush and EVERY administration since Richard Nixon shares in the blame. Obama inherited this mess, problem is his "solution" is to create yet even more debt which won't work.
hehe the 70s good times cheech n chong at the drive in theater ahh the days.....hey wasnt bush head of the cia back then asked for a 10 million dollar grant to fund genetically engineering an airborne cancer and thus aids came about instead by combining errr...wait man sorry wrong forum..that belongs in the conspiracy forum...though bush family has had their hands in everything for a long long time...
I should add that Congress, moreso than the President, is responsible for this mess and it's been controlled by Democrats more than Republicans for the last 35 years but that's oversimplifying things as well. This is larger and more complex than any one person or even one branch of government. Ultimately it's probably consumers and investors who should take the ultimate blame, wanting cheap products and high returns on investment that weren't ultimately sustainable. But it's easier just to point the finger at one person. We learn nothing from history.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
are you idiotic?! there is no conspiracy involved here, the whole world knows the war has rather awesome economic benekefits through thw stealing anf control of oil and that american private corporations are intricately involved in it. you might say that it may not have been the primary reason buch went into iraq{and one cud still provide convincing evidence against that assertion} but your blind if your denying the role of oil in the war. and please, if you want to reply with dismissive red neck logic, then i will end this discussion right here and now as there is no point arguing over sumthing the other party simply dismisses with one liner.
Sorry if you believe the whole "Blood for oil!" "Omg Bush went to Iraq for oil!" garbage..that's too bad. Economic benefits? Again, is that why oil hit its record high during this great surge of oil supply? Do you know what supply-demand means?
Yeah, we went to Iraq for their oil fields, oil fields being bought and used by the Chinese.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?ref=world
Your logic fails.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
not the same in the wrest of the world as it is in america, for one. and the market HAS reacted , but you should know that in more unstable/corrupt economies, bringing the prices of things DOWN after rapid inflation is near impossible. the trickle effect remains. but as far as the energy sector goes, yes, that is showing some deflation in the rate of downfall.hint: credit crunch/housing in america is a DOMESTIC economic issue, how the HELL did that alone translate to the wrest of the world economies?
What? The rest of the world is seeing high oil and energy prices just like the US is. Again, oil prices have fallen due to lack of demand for it now. And the mortgage and housing crisis is not just a domestic issue. There is so much money and securities that are supported by mortgages and the loans banks lend out. Once the mortgages crash everything on top comes down with it.
Take a basic economics class, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security
Originally posted by leonheartmmagain, how did that translate into a recession on the international stage my friend?????? and what had the INTERNATIONAL community pissing their pants for the last few years. it wasnt the housing or the credit crunch. it was the price of CRUDE!
so lemme get this straight, your willing to EASILY but blame on clinton after 9 years in a thread with a topic which puts the blame squarely on obama less than 3 MONTHS after he has been in office?!?!?!?!?!!??! 😆
So again by your logic..we should be out of this recession by summer, correct? The world and the United States will be great, back in a nice boom! The price of crude is down, economies will stabalize! It's ridiculous, whoever taught you this needs to be shot.
And no 1 person can be blamed for the crisis, only an ignorant person would put the entire blame on a single individual (like you blaming Bush). In our system of government it's impossible for one person to bear the blame of something. Clinton did play a big part in it, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Originally posted by leonheartmmamerica's gross external debt as of june 2008 - 13.77 TRILLION dollars
america's public debt as of february 2009 - 10.88 TRILLION dollars1.75 trillion less than 17% of americas public debt and even less than that from the foreign debt.
a 17% increase in debt wud increase the debt by less than 1/5 times, as oppsed to 2 or 3 times as you say. so your information is either out of context, or plain wrong. or r u talking about annual project budject deficit?
Budget deficit and debt are 2 different things buddy 🤪 my god.
"or r u talking about annual project budget deficit"
Read what I posted and it should be cleaaaar as day.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no they arent. and bush didnt have the balls to go into iran or pakistan. what makes u think obama wud even think of doing it at a realistic level???? btw, neither iran nor pakistan are like afghanistan or iraq both have nukes, one is a nuclear power and rather trained and formidable military mights.
Obama has already bombed Pakistani land, for your information. He also said military action against Iran is an option.
Originally posted by leonheartmmthen how is it unfair to the top 5% if their collective wealth isnt decreasing at all from taxation. why did u then argue in their favour???
How is it not decreasing? If you make 100 dollars a day, and I take 30 of it, then decide to take 30 more of it, you're losing money. And it's about the hypocrisy of Obama's "fair" bullshit. Claiming how the rich take advantage of the poor, that the rich don't pay as much in taxes. It's all bullshit. The middle class are given jobs by the rich, their benefits and social programs are paid for by the rich and the rich pay the most taxes in this country..yet it isnt fair to the working class?
Originally posted by leonheartmmbill maher out this better than i ever could. "you dont have to consider both sides of a debate when one side is absolute bullshit!" the republicans, currently, have terrible oppinion on MANY MANY significant issues, even if both networks SUPPORT the parties equally, its simply true that ideologically, one party is MUCH more evil than the other, decreasing msnbc's crime. and if you read my reply, it had many things concerned with simply neocon/relegious OUTLOOK, which isnt really political on the face of it, their behaviour, journalistic ethic, manners, and fact checking is COMPLETELY ****ed, shamelessly spewing propaganda. you cant in a million years compare msnbc to fox. ok actually, if the republican party stopped supporting subterfuge/corruption/relegion and just became the business/capitalist party and fox news REFLECTED that and supported them, then i cud say that msnbc and fox are compareable, otherwise, NO ****ING CONTEST!!!!!
It's pointless to argue, it's anybody opinion. But many people do agree MSNBC is just as slanted as Fox is, or more. Cant deny it.
I'm pretty sure fox is the most watched news channel as well for the record. They must be doing something right. And you seem to know so much about them, so you must watch as well.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
keith olberman and hannity are the same?! are you friggin BLIND?!?!?!? hannity is an utter bastard, olberman is not only claiming humour, but he is still 20 times the journalist that hannity is. it seems republicans just try and reutter the same arguments presented against them by liberals without actual validity to make it seem like they are being targetted/victimised by the other side as much as they are victimising it. newsflash, its NOT TRUE!!!!!!!
Yeah, they are the same. Olbermann's show is an hour of bashing Republicans and blaming Bush for everything. Just like Hannitys is an hour of criticizing Obama. They arent any different. The difference between you and me is I can tell both Hannity and Olbermann are bias and completely skewed to their parties, while you just see Hannity, thus showing your ignorance and own slanted views.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i get my facts from multiple news channels domestic private news channels like geo for pakistan/afghanistan/iraq news, or in the case of domestic news, sumtimes straight from the mouth of senators or ministers in the government. aljazeera english/cnn/bbc/msnbc{sumtimes, seeing as its coverage is limited outside america} for international news. books by people like norman chomsky etc, and the internet wikipedia among other things, and articles from the websites of many large media groups. and for the other side, well, i do get fox news, lmao.where do you get your facts from??
All the links I post that actually back up and support my statements.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the Dow drops, the Obama Admin. runs out of pe
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonHowever, I find it far game to blame the current president for the economy from day one. That is just how I am. If you think that is unfair, then change the political reality that we live in today, and I will do what I can to help.
I think it is mostly dumb...but you don't mind that.
Just a little smodcast/Conan thinking. Does anyone think the economy would go back up if Obama held a press conference announcing that he had issued an executive order defining outsourcing as a form of high treason (and it kind of is). Then, if at said press conference he took out a large paper bag and pulled the severed heads of Osama Bin Laden, Black Water founder Erik Prince and former AIG CEO Martin Sullivan out of it and showed them to reporters?