Well I didn't notice anyone else use the term "Shrub' and I knew I had. I'm human, I make mistakes. I just agreed with you- name calling is a piss poor debate tool.

Straw man. In a previous post I had already made reference to banks that got money from AIG. One of the points is the false outrage over bonuses compared to the larger amounts at risk, paid to trading partners, etc. Perhaps, you should try to keep up with me.

what on earth are you talking about, ace? on what planet is that a strawman? you've made a series of false claims concerning the pressures that were brought to bear on the bush administration from outside the united states to bail out aig because both significant national banks and in some cases government themselves were in trouble if the firm went south. that's the point. you disputed this argument, i posted evidence, you misconstrued it to support an irrelevant claim that you had been making which i did not and do not consider interesting enough to bother with, you undertake an adolescent bait and switch and not presume to call a straw man?

this is a joke.

It just keeps getting better. Democrats (and stupid Republicans) rush a bailout through without reading it, and go public in an attempt to direct the public's attention away from their idiocy. They make fine statements about "rewarding incompetence" with straight faces, hoping no one will mention their re-elections in this context.

Unfortunately, it comes to light that Chris Dodd made sure the bonuses weren't reduced! He finally admitted this, after first denying it. Now he is saying he will return the $100,000 AIG gave him, some of it after the bailout vote. Let's see, that only leaves another $181,000 from them he's keeping.

Of course, the major media don't seem to want to mention any of the above. It would have been great to ask Obama if he was going to give HIS AIG $100,000 back, but NBC would never do that to their messiah.

You just couldn't make this shit up.

Chris Dodd AIG admission: Senator says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses -- chicagotribune.com

What do our politicos plan to do about say, the British people who received bonuses? Or about the Fannie and Freddie bonuses? Is Franklin Raines going to give back the $24 million (or so, can't remember the exact number of millions) he received?

That's all for now. I want to watch Obama on the Tonight Show. It won't be much fun, because they'll edit out any portion where he thanks himself for giving himself a gift again. If Bush isn't too busy, maybe he could help Obama out with that public speaking problem he has.

Edit: Breaking news! Obama says Geithner is doing a "great job!"
:lol::lol::lol::shakehead:

Nope not aimed at Tully, most likely aimed at me, although I may be mistaken, oh well, I'd hardly consider 'shrub' name calling anyways, more like a nickname, not like I'm calling him that cock sucking donkey fucker George W. Bush or anything, now that would be name calling, or if I called him the little abortion that got away, that's name calling, but shrub, meh if it is considered a 'weak debate tool' so be it, I honestly don't care, I'm not using it as a debate tool, just a nickname, if it weakens my argument that much, people don't have to read or respond to what I type.:).

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 AM ----------

This makes me chuckle, it's like your pulling reasons out of your ass and hoping one sticks, especially when on the last page of this thread you agreed when I said the mission was something else, what is it going to change again to the mission was for shrub to spell mission?

Not quite as funny as what was it shrub(that's right I typed shrub) said about his buddy 'Brownie' again? That FEMA guy who ran horse shows?

Obama is a failure. He promised change. So far he hasn't changed that haters are still haters.

Impeach!!!

good god ace. When Bush got up there and declared mission accomplished he declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. He said exactly what mission he was talking about. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Here ace, I'll even give you the meaty part of the text of the speech
Bush Mission Accomplished Speech Aboard USS Abraham Lincoln

When Silent Jay posted this, my response was "Yes".

I agree now and I agreed then. I had mixed feelings about the occupation. I finally agreed with the sentiment of Powel when he said "you broke it, you fix it". I think people in the Bush administration had mixed views on the occupation as well. It is clear there was no real and effective plan for the occupation. They developed a plan, and it was working for awhile and things took a turn for the worse. Eventually, the administration made the needed changes and developed a plan that actually did work.

I don't know what you folks want from me. It is clear in my mind that there was the initial phase of the war, the invasion and then a second phase which I would broadly describe as the occupation. The first phase was well planned and a success. The occupation was not initially well planed.

Sorry to post so late into the thread, but I've been reading it attentively from a distance, and waiting to hear more from the gov't on what was actually being done.

But now we're talking about something that is not happening now, but has happened in the past. it is now part of recent, well document, broadly covered history, and to twist it is just not helpful.
How was the first phase of the Iraq war a success, exactly? Maybe the first part of bringing our soldiers into Iraq and beginning combat was, as in, they did that. But the outcome was a total failure.
It's a war that was started on false claims of WMDs and threats to America, and there shouldn't even need to be a debate on it.
The invasion was not "a mission", it didn't have a clear set of goals, or even a truthful reason to exist. It was not correctly justified, and ended in the worst possible way: the need for American and other troops from around the world to die for several years, get injured for life and often times handicapped, trillions spent, a distraction from larger threats such as Afghanistan, and especially lying to the people that this was about fighting back after 9-11.
I do not feel that America is safer after this still ongoing war, but it could have been if American efforts were focused in a more effective way on real threats to the American people.

To call what started this a "Mission accomplished" is a joke, no matter what way you turn it.

As for the other things being discussed in this thread, I would like to talk about later, since this thread's about Obama's achievements (hopefully) and not Bush's terms in office.

Has the messiah mentioned a)our goal/plans and b) our exit strategy in Pakistan?

-10 Respect for Marv.

You'll have to excuse Marv. He gets all his information about Obama from conservative conspiracy blogs circa mid-2008.

He is made of fail.

Filth, ratbastid.....in anticipation of the jazz or bakara coming around chastising you for your lack of effort, perhaps pm'ing you asking you to remove your posts so the high standards this board insists upon aren't jeopardized.........don't let it get you down.

This is what you do: apologize and ignore.

Um. Did you see Marv's post? High standards have been out the window on this thread for PAGES now. I'm to the point where I'm just having some fun with it. I'm WAY beyond taking this thread seriously.

Simple enough! Consider it done.

yeah, I'm not touching this pile of stink with a ten foot pole. I'm out.

I will respond to your question with a question to help clarify the way I see the situation.

Was the Normandy invasion during WWII a success?

The invasion was well planned and Allied forces obtained a foot-hold leading to the liberation of France. About one month after "D-Day" Allied forces had about one million troops in France. The Normandy invasion was a pivot point. In the history of most wars, we can point to clearly defined "pivot points". I think there were about three in the Iraq war, two were in the favor of the US - the first being the initial invasion.

I think the Normandy invasion was a mission, and Allied forces accomplished their mission. To me that does not mean the war ended, however, that mission was critical to success and was a clear pivot point in the war.

He hasn't done bad on his March Madness picks :D

The way it was explained to me in Boot Camp was soldiers go on missions in battles and those battles win wars.

What are the three pivot points in your opinion?

First, the initial invasion and the elimination of Sadaam's military to wage war or to instigate Israel into the conflict.

The second:

Bombing Shatters Mosque In Iraq

Prior to the bombing political progress was being made in Iraq. Afterward sectarian violence increased and US forces seem to loose control.

The third was the "surge".

The surge was only necessary because the original mission and it's aftermath were such a clusterfuck

Sorry, Ace, but to me this is what happens.
WW2: D-Day, troops go in, many die, but still kick ass. A bit later, they defeat the Third fucking Reich.
GWOT(Iraq): troops go in, a few die, kick some Sadaam statue ass. A bit later, many years of a few deaths every day, thousands of civilians and soldiers killed.

If your "mission" was: let's start a "Civil War", then OK. Otherwise, no, nothing was "Accomplished."

The old butterfly effect argument. Sure, how about this -the surge was necessary because Saddam was not breast fed, leading to him becoming a tyrant.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Unfortunately wars are not faught in a vacuum. In war there are normally two sides - each with people formulating strategies to win and adjusting to what the opponent does. A strategy can work, or work until the other side adapts with a better strategy of their own.

It takes a bit of arrogance to think one side can formulate a perfect strategy that can be executed perfectly from beginning to end. If your expectation of our military is based on that level of arrogance your perception will always be one of a focus on temporary failures.

Dude, that's weak. My point is that you're taking credit for a "successful" mission that was only necessary because we created a mess that needed cleaning up. Had we not made the mess to begin with, we wouldn't have needed the surge. Is this hard to comprehend?

Yes. At least for me it is, I don't get your point at all. I understand being responsible for initiating an action, and I understand that if things go bad still being responsible for initiating the action and being responsible for things going bad. But, if things go well, you accomplish what you wanted to accomplish - I would call that a success.

So, if in the course of accomplishing a goal, I create a mess - and then I clean that mess up allowing me to accomplish my goal, I would consider cleaning the mess up a success. And I would call accomplishing my goal a success.

I generally divide large goals into smaller pieces, pieces necessary for the large goal. I measure success by accomplishment of those smaller pieces - or "missions".

Perhaps, we just don't communicate or see things in the same way.

ace--everything about your position on iraq is patently absurd. i'm not going to waste my time arguing against your ridiculous analogy to d-day for example---but suffice it to say on this "surge" business that a fact--and it is a fact--which explains the reduction of violence FAR more than does the "surge" is the trace agreed to with the mahdi army that coincided with it. look it up.

What goal? What is, or was the goal? What did we win?

Of course it is, you told me that a long long time ago.:thumbsup:


Good for you. But, you waste time telling me you are not going to waste time...what is that all about?

You miss the point of the surge. The surge was not so much about the number of troops as it was about the US commitment to see the issue through and to provide the needed support to the Iraqi people who wanted to move toward a independent elected government.

The man managed to turn a 300 year old Capitalist/Mixed Economy into a Socialist leaning government.

From your point of view I am going to assume that going to war in Iraq had no value, so "winning" has no value to you. The war had value from my point of view, and I see the value in "winning" the war. I can not explain what we "won" if you don't understand or accept the reasons for the war or the value in going to war in the first place. In many of the threads on the subject of the Iraq war and the value in going to war in Iraq has been discussed frequently. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is not possible to reconcile the differences between those who honestly supported the war and those who honestly don't. Just like now, it is not possible for me to understand how some think the initial invasion was not a "mission" and not a success.

I hope you don't think this. There are an infinite number of factors in war, far beyond just two flags going at it, and the fact that you have this very limited idea that two differently colored flags are the main players show's your lack of knowledge and understanding of the reality of the World. Unless, of course, you choose to limit yourself to the extremely narrow, extremely simplified view, then by all means go for it.

Certainly, individuals participate or support wars for various reasons. Governments participate or support wars for various reasons. And certainly wars can be fought on different fronts with local participants having their own goals and objectives. However, normally, in war, there are two sides. It is very rare to have like, a triangular war, with three sides and each side at war with the other two, normally an alliance would be formed, leading to two sides and then potentially a second war after the first ended.

{added} It is getting boring having people say things like I "lack knowledge", my views are "absurd", and then when I respond with a counter-point or ask a question, they turn tail and run. I don't get that. Why include the personal attack, why not make your point, let me respond, and then you respond? And, if I am not worthy of a dignified response, why read what I post?

just to say this, ace, when i find myself qualifying a position you outline as absurd, it's not about you as a person but about the position. obviously, using words like absurd creates problems for that separation, both for myself and you and for other folk who read the posts. i feel like we've been fencing long enough that you would understand as much, but maybe this is a good time to remind you and myself of this.

the persistent explanation for talking past each other is that there's no agreement on framework.
given that a framework is what allows one to define variables, see relations between them and assign importance or weight, if there's no agreement about framework there won't be agreement about anything else.

maybe at some point we'll figure out how to get around this, but for the moment it seems like that's where things are stuck.

but it's not personal, for what it's worth.
i'll try to ramp back my writing a bit so that fact is clearer.

In other words, it was about an increase in troops...

The more important point is regarding backing up a claim. I have no problem with occasionally being the target of someone blowing off steam or whatever (I do it), but when a direct question is asked or a response given to a counter point and then those making personal attacks don't have the (fill in the blank) to respond with an answer/agreement or further justification for continued disagreement, it kind of takes the fun out of an exchange and certainly is not a challenge.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

I think the Iraqi people were getting mixed messages from the US regarding our resolve to see the Iraqi matter through, creating an environment of uncertainty. In an environment of uncertainty, those promoting chaos can easily prevail. The surge sent a message that the US was committed to the "end" (not literal).

Well, I don't think it had "no value." I think some people made money off of it, but I think that those who supported didn't justify it with true, valid arguments. The WMD's weren't found, and it looked to me (and many other people) like it was a distraction from the other, bigger problem: Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.
But I would sincerely like to know what made it worth it, or more exactly, what was planned as an achievement at the start of it. I don't usually go in Tilted Politics, and the past threads about Iraq were such clusterfucks of bitter bickering that they were hard to read.
Maybe you can tell me what it was, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on whether it was worth it.
My problem with this thing is that many right-leaning people(and I know you don't like labels, ace, but I mean no disrespect) tend to not want to admit it was a mistake, because they supported it at first. So that's why I'd like to know if they still deeply feel that it was a great decision, or not. I know where you stand, so I'm asking you.

Nothing?

When the last 60 posts are on the Battle of Iraq, yet the thread is called "How is Obama doing?", I'd say you have run of track.

Yeah, we have run off track. Still, questions unanswered. And the reason for the GWOT discussion is that it affects how much change, (or, god forbid, lack thereof), Obama is making.

It's April now. And I think Obama is doing quite well. It's a big mess, and it's going to be tricky. I really like him. I'm glad he's in charge. His administration is doing pretty awesome job considering the circumstances.

thank you for re-railing (un-derailing?) this thread ;)

I'm overall happy with Obama. There are a few things I'm not pleased about. He keeps calling it a war on terror, which is a terrible idea. You cannot fight and win wars against tactics. Calling it a war on terror automatically makes it a never ending war. I'm ready for the war to be over.

I'm also not thrilled that he isn't pushing prosecution of Bush and his fellow criminals. Yes, I know, I've heard the "we gotta let the country heal" argument ad nauseum since even before Bush left office. We heard the same thing when Ford pardoned Nixon. But, we need to send a clear message that even Presidents are not above the law. Right now the lesson is that once you become president, you can do anything you want and you won't get into trouble for it. Perhaps if Bush and his cronies did some jailtime, future presidents would realize that using the constitution as toilet paper, and torturing people, and committing treason, not to mention war crimes, are not things that they can get away with.

He won't push for any war crimes on Bush, not when he's already started doing some of the things Bush did (wiretaps, etc.)

He is doing really good so far. He was able to stop the freefall on the economy and it has rebounded and may be a net positive since he took office soon. He also handled the pirate/hostage situation very well.

How is Obama doing? I guess it depends on "winners" and "losers".

After a trillion or so dollars on corporate aid and bailouts in the financial sector, companies in the financial sectors are starting to report profits that exceed expectations and new shareholders are making a shit load of money. The XLF is a exchange traded funds representative of the broad financial market. Among the top holdings include Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citi. On March 6 the XLF was trading at $6.18. Today it is trading around $10.85. That is a 75% return in about a month.


No doubt the XLF was hit pretty hard from a year ago, but a lot of investors were dumping their investments and only the bravest who held to the bottom lost massive amounts of their investment. Now lots of investors have bought into these companies at or near the bottom given the government commitment to bail them out.

But here is the kicker. While these firms got a trillion or so in bailouts, and now starting to show some profits, with stock prices starting to go through the roof....Guess what...foreclosures continue to rise...banks are doubling credit card rates...raising fees... etc., etc. and basically screwing the American public with the costs of the bailout on one hand and securing their profits on the other.

I am a "capitalist pig" and I can appreciate making money and taking advantage of opportunity. But I wonder why Obama did not focus more on helping people rather than financial institutions, why not focus on consumers rather than investors.

The winners of round one are clearly the financial institutions and investors. The losers - average Americans

So, perhaps on this basis you can tell me how Obama is doing. Personally, I can love Obama if he can give me a 75% ROI every month.

RNC faction wants Dems branded socialists - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Keep it up GOP, keep grasping at those straws

For the first month and a half after Obama got elected we would here non-stop from the media and many members on this board about how the Dow had dropped because of Obama (of course this ignored the fact that the economy was in a free fall for 5 months prior).

In March the free fall stopped and the markets started going up. The comments about the Dow and Obama disappeared. Now the Dow is up since Obama took office and has been climbing consistently for 2 months (longer than what it dropped under Obama). Will these same members have enough credibility to come out and admit one of these 2 things:

1) Obama had nothing to do with the free fall.

or

2) Obama stopped the free fall and so far appears to have turned the market around.

I'm betting no.

Wait....socialism works?

Interesting how the "evil mainstream liberal media" put the dow dropping as their top story every night, but now that it's going up, we don't hear anything about it. boy, these media outlets sure are in the bag for Obama!

/sarcasm

How is Obama doing?

Does anyone know what his objectives are in Afghanistan? How does he define success in Afghanistan?

July deadliest month for U.S. in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com

Gates announces temporary increase in U.S. Army | Reuters

Obama budget cuts target military funding - Washington Times

What is his plan for national defense? Why does he no longer think our military resources are over extended?

Seems to me like we have lost focus with no clearly defined purpose.

Honestly, I have no idea what his strategy is. If it's not part of his white house briefings....

well, first off it's pretty bloody disengenuous for any supporter of the bush administration to talk about a lack of clarity on obama's part in afghanistan. seven years of incoherence and now obama's is a Problem? horsepucky. that's right, i said horsepucky.

i haven't a real sense of how afghanistan makes sense. never had it. this ludicrous "war on terror" was the ostensible motivator, then it turned into the americans being part of a civil war in afghanistan and later on the border of pakistan and then the americans as a dimension of what was happening in the swat valley...none of this makes any sense. obama keeps troops there because, apparently, he buys something about this nitwit "war on terror" thing--at least enough to see it as something potentially rational, which i don't and haven't. i think he's kinda boxed in there. but i can't say that i know the strategy---or the objectives.

my main problem with obama is that he's gone nowhere near far enough in torching the legacy of the bush people and the neoliberalism of which they were a singularly incompetent expression. nowhere near.
the problems neoliberalism has wraught are not over, the "crisis" is not finished--but obama seems to be more or less content with half-assed measures circumscribed by assumptions that are of almost exactly the same logic as that of the bush people.

it's not great.

there are things he's doing that i support--i think he's right about health care for example, even i am continually baffled about why the french model is not considered as a template for an alternative to the american. but whatever, he's doing something about it. i like his green emphasis, but haven't really seen much action in that direction yet. i'm more supportive of the changes in direction in foreign policy, particularly with respect to israel. but we'll see how things play out.

The Bush focus on Iraq was heavily criticized by Obama. Obama stated the "real" war was in Afghanistan. Bush's actions in Iraq, agree or disagree, had clear goals and objectives.

Given the exhaustive discussions on the war in Iraq explaining the strategy and reasons for support of military actions in Iraq, your comment about being disingenuous, seems to me to be disingenuous.

Bush had clear objectives in Iraq? How could they have been "clear" when they changed every 6 months?

The broad goals and objectives did not change. The tactics and strategy did, this is the nature of war. I can not image what you would have said about Lincoln, given the number of Generals he fired before sticking with Grant.

Why waste time feeding the troll?

Aceventura revives this dead thread talking about Afghanistan, Roachboy points out that Obama's dealing with Afghanistan is near enough to Bush's that it's ridiculous to argue one is any more or less sensible than the other, and in response Aceventura posts a non-sequitur about Bush and Iraq. Why argue over an irrelevant point? If he wants to get back to Afghanistan then whatever, but he's trying to shift the discussion for some reason--from past posts my guess is he wants to argue for the sake of disagreement and not really to understand what's going on or even what he himself dug the thread up to discuss.

ace's point, I think, is that Obama is Bad.

No, no, he is a ...bad, bad man.


:thumbsup:

Back away from the koolaid.

DOW just closed above 9000.

yep.

554,000 jobless claims last week. The housing market is still in shambles. The rich got richer with the bailout while the poor got poorer. Wasn't that the big complaint about Bush, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer??? Tell me again whats different??

I have little confidence that either party has the average American best interest at heart. When are the average jane and joe blows from both parties going to awake and figure out most of the controversy is merely to keep you occupied while they pillage the public coffers?

Under Bush the rich got richer & the Lazy got poorer. I see nothing wrong with this. Obama is taking away for the incentive for the rich & successful to continue. After you take everything away from the rich & redistribute to the poor where or who do you steal from next? The rich as you say already pay most of the tax burden. Under obama everyone except the political class will be poor. unemployment continues to rise & the Dems want more tax dollars.
If the so labeled middle class earners do not get hit directly with an increase in income tax, there will be an increase in tax on consumer goods. With all of the increase in unemployment, the tax revenue was destined to drop, soooooooooooooo therefore they will have to increase tax on everyone to be able to give away all of the free stuff they are promising to give away.

please cite all the programs Obama has implemented that have stolen from the rich and given to the poor.

Any tax increase on a class of taxpayers and not the rest of the tax payers is stealing from the rich & giving to the poor. Any tax increase at all is Govt. stealing from the citizens.

No, no. You are wrong! According to Derwood, since we elected them, they can do whatever they want and we are in defacto agreement - since we elected them. It isn't theft because we elected them.

Personally, I'm in favor of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Consider the rich have been stealing from the poor for generations, I call that justice... There's a reason Robin Hood is thought of as a hero, and it ain't just his skill with a bow.

Not that I'm necessarily agreeing that that's what's happening here. But if it were, I wouldn't personally be sad about it.

Digbudro--where do you personally fall, economically, if you don't mind me asking? Are you among the rich you're afraid are going to get stolen from?

I'm considered by most to be upper middle class. I work in the oil industry for a living. I work offshore in the Gulf Of Mexico. I spend 260 +/- days a year away from my family. I sacrifice a lot to provide for my family. So I do not need some two bit socialist to take more of my money that I work for.

I'm just curious. Did you ever meet a "poor" person that managed to make good? Did they make good from "stealing back" their money from some "rich" person or did they make good by shear hard work? How do you reconcile this and fit it into your political beliefs?

As a former poor person, now a marginally nonpoor person, I made good via a healthy dose of educational grants, which were no doubt ripped from the clenched fist of a person more wealthy from me (assuming one likes making stupid simplifications about the tax system).

Anyone who thinks success is solely the result of hard work is either ignorant or delusional.

I'm just curious. Do the people who claim so vehemently that their money is being stolen to be given to the poor actually know where most of the tax revenues go towards? Do they know how much of the tax revenues actually go towards poverty reduction?

Of all the countries in the world we have reliable data for, the only nations where the taxes and spending reduce inequality less than the United States are Taiwan and Switzerland, and that is only because they have very low inequality to begin with.

In fact, just to bring in an example from this own thread, the oil industry receives about 15-18 billion a year in subsidies. If you add subsidies to oil transportation, that figure increases to close to 35 billion dollars. TANF, in contrast, costs about 18 billion dollars.

I do know several people who were poor and have worked hard & have built successful businesses. Some who work for someone else and are very successful. The secret is hard work. Not holding your hand out for the government to feed you.
By the way what is that you do for a living?

I wonder if digbudro would still be considered upper class if his salary were reduced in proportion to how much of our money he is getting paid?

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Research for a nonprofit.

The oil industry does employ thousands of people. Transportation, construction, planning, research, food services, medical, just to name a few.

You offering me a job?

I have to ask Digbudro, since you are so anti-tax are you against all oil subsidies?

I told my son - "If you got mad crazy skilz, you will never have to worry about a job".
He says to me - "Watch me play Halo on the 360."
I say to him - "Son, if you have marketable skills, you will never have to worry about a job. Go, do your homework.


This is not direct to you or anyone else in particular. It is just an observation on my part. People who have something to offer, that is needed and has value, don't stay unemployed long. They don't stay poor either.

Or employing scare-rhetoric to protect a privileged economic position.

It's the trailer-park Fox News watchers spouting this bullshit that I really feel bad for.

Do you need a job Fitherton?
No Renka I am not anti tax, I think everyone should pay their share. I do not think taxing at different rates is fair. A flat tax would be fair. Everyone who earns money no matter how much or how little should be taxed at the same rate. Flat tax rate would be the only fair tax in my opinion.

I disagree, but that's for another forum

I'll let you know about the job when I finish grad school.

And if you don't mind me asking, aren't you the one who was saying you would deign to work for someone else, because your workload was so spotty? It isn't surprising that you would be willing to line up for money forcibly taken from people whose success you envy.

The funny part is how you support Obama, when he has given hundreds of billions to the very people you despise.

That's one way to interpret my actions and what I said. Not an accurate way, but a way.

I presume you're talking about the bank bailouts? Yeah, I'm not crazy about that. I see the necessity of it--unlike, I think, most on the other side of this debate, I'm able to see from a bigger picture than my own checkbook--but I wish it had been done with some harsher sanctions against the financial industry executives who steered the ship onto the rocks in the first place.

I think it's funny how you take what I said and cast it in charged, emotional terms. Suddenly there's a whole class of people I envy and despise. I never said any of that. But if that's how you have to put it so you understand it... You go right ahead.

Well, that and the minor point that Obama didn't orchestrate the bank bailouts...

Obama is the "man" now. He needs to start acting like it. What is Obama doing as the banks continue to screw the American public? Why is he letting banks get away with it? He wants us to buy into all of these government programs, but they don't follow up on the programs they have. Short memories.


From my local paper's editorial page.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...ry/870166.html

That article seems to be more upset about the general population not receiving handouts than the banks receiving them.

In any case, how is Obama to blame for the program lacking proper guidelines when the Bush administration set the program up and Congress was running around crazily claiming if they didn't act before December the entire economy would collapse?

What would him acting like "the man" entail? Doing whatever he wants regardless of how the program was initially designed before he was president without Congressional approval?

I'm not sure I understand your political philosophy. It seems to me that you would want a limited government, but when it comes to Obama and this bank loan program you want him to operate outside the bounds of Congressional and contractual limits constraining his power to do what he wants. How do you reconcile these kinds of disjunctions in your reasoning?

It's because Obama = Bad. :rolleyes:

The editorial board is known locally as notoriously left leaning.

Yes.

He is the establishment now, in my opinion he often still acts like he is a street protester. If he wants to do good for working people there are many simple and basic things that could be done, one being enforcing the loan modification program. The bank bailouts were a problem from the very beginning, most of us knew that, most of us thought government should give money directly back to the "people". If the program was set up inadequately (which as a candidate Obama said he was confident it met all of his requirements), he and Congress should change it, and do it now.

I don't like getting screwed up the a$$, figuratively (never tried it literally and have no interest). My dislike of getting screwed up the a$$ is not a partisan issue. I don't like the fact that my tax dollars were given to banks, and then have these banks turn around and raise fees, credit card rates, cut credit limits, restrict access to credit, and in the case of some like Goldman - make record profits, and give out billions in bonuses. Where is the outrage!!! I don't get it.:shakehead:

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

Obama is "bad" for a reason in my book. I don't like bullshit artists, do you? Obama has not done a single thing for the average man since taking office. All his talk has been bullshit. All of it.

He brought Helen Thomas cupcakes in the White House Briefing Room for her birthday this morning. Does that count?

The WH press group is a joke. Have you noticed Helen has not been able to ask a question since:

Helen Thomas Ridicules Obama Torture Investigation Stance With Bush Comparison

I am betting she would rather be professionally respected than to get cup cakes from a bull sitter, wouldn't you?

ace....wtf are you babbling about now?

I recall her asking questions about Sotomayer, the Iran elections......

If true I stand corrected. I guess she got the message, hence the reward of cupcakes.

I like how your definition of "done" varies depending on the type of action. He "did" the bailout, but apparently he didnt do any of the provisions in the stimulus package, one or two of them Im quite sure are beneficial to the average man.

So Obama didn't sign credit card reform? Didn't get harder regulation on the sale of tobacco products?

Next time I use hyperbole, I will clearly state it is being used.

Like right now - I am using hyperbole - the bailout benefited finance fat cats/union fat cats/pet patronage projects, while the unemployment rate sky-rockets, foreclosures continue to go through the stratosphere, small businesses close shop, and little puppies go unadapted.

---------- Post added at 01:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Let me know when the difference between the interest rate on a savings account and a credit card is less than 20%.

Obama signed the "credit card holders bill of rights" legislation in May.

Today, President Obama signs the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, marking a turning point for American consumers and ending the days of unfair rate hikes and hidden fees.
The White House - Press Office - Fact Sheet: Reforms to Protect American Credit Card Holders

Campaign Promise - establish a credit card holders bill of rights

While it is not a perfect bill, there were no efforts at credit card reform by the previous administration and Congress.
ace....is it better than NO credit card reform at all?

So Obama = Bad.

I got it, ace.