Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

i will read anything i find. but what i will not do is listen to some idiotic self serving journalist out to make a name for themselves. makes as much sense as listening to rush limbach . it's hard to pick through the bs and find something worth reading. but obama has to go . even friends who voted for him have given up . we need another slick willy

well fox always throws a lefty on to speak there peace fair and some what balance. not so with cnn or msnbc. or nbc abc. if you think we can sit on are hands till 2016 to get obama out there will not be much to worry about by then??? get news from colbert or daily ? as for romney not always on the same point ? a thinking man in time may change his mind ? he not in office yet ? but care to run down the list of stuff obama he did run on list is very long of failures and debt

The debt was in the toilet when Obama took over. The last time we had no debt was at the end of the Clinton Administration, we also had a budget surplus....didn't take Bush long to run the debt up in his two terms...

Then we could assume that it's ok for Romney to change his mind (again) if he's elected and make all the same mistakes made in the Bush years that brought about the economic collapse of 2008??

no dave i talking about all his wizzz bang job deals.. shovel ready . cash for clunkers .solyndra .. list is long .... and all money he flush down the drain ? the money he has added to THE NEW debt thats all on him not bush 4 years and it way past what bush rang up there were no wars under clinton less you count the bombing of a drug store no 911.

Just what was the wizzz bang job deal??? So, the debt he inherited and the bank failures brought about from Bush's deregulation, none of that counts??? This country was very, very close to economic bankruptcy, no recovery was going to be fast no matter what the program was!!!! Cash for clunkers did sell a lot of new cars and sure did help the dealerships! How much of this "new debt" belongs to his programs and initiatives, and how much is the result of programs that were already in place prior to Obama taking office?

I'm not endorsing Obama for re-election, just wondering how much of the blame cast on him was the fault of the state of the nation when he took office? For the Republicans, it's very easy to place all the blame on Obama, but then he doesn't write bills, he doesn't pass bills on his own, he only signs or vetoes the bills that come to his desk.... Not everything he tried worked, but then I don't recall anyone else in any job or position that has a 100% success rate, either!!! There's plenty of blame to go around, I just wish it would get passed around to all the responsible parties involved rather then just make Obama the scapegoat for everything!!!! But, I guess as with most things, if we have someone to blame then everything is ok......Don't worry that no one has a solution for the problems we face, just so we can blame someone for the failures........

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

Just what was the wizzz bang job deal??? So, the debt he inherited and the bank failures brought about from Bush's deregulation, none of that counts??? This country was very, very close to economic bankruptcy, no recovery was going to be fast no matter what the program was!!!! Cash for clunkers did sell a lot of new cars and sure did help the dealerships! How much of this "new debt" belongs to his programs and initiatives, and how much is the result of programs that were already in place prior to Obama taking office?

I'm not endorsing Obama for re-election, just wondering how much of the blame cast on him was the fault of the state of the nation when he took office? For the Republicans, it's very easy to place all the blame on Obama, but then he doesn't write bills, he doesn't pass bills on his own, he only signs or vetoes the bills that come to his desk.... Not everything he tried worked, but then I don't recall anyone else in any job or position that has a 100% success rate, either!!! There's plenty of blame to go around, I just wish it would get passed around to all the responsible parties involved rather then just make Obama the scapegoat for everything!!!! But, I guess as with most things, if we have someone to blame then everything is ok......Don't worry that no one has a solution for the problems we face, just so we can blame someone for the failures........

so then why blame bush ? why blame anyone?it just happen shit happens cash for clunkers did nothing and cost more as GM cars were sold .own by the ? all the people of the usa that will never see that money back and paying for a new car for you neighbor .hell of a great deal . money for solyndra . to big to fail ? pay off to wall street ?

My statement was that the blame needs to be passed around, same thing that went on during the Bush Administration!!!! The same Congressional Fat Cats that take care of themselves and their party first could have, should have taken some action to prevent these debacles. Congress, by the way, did approve the Gm Bailout, as well as many others.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on the bailout.... Seems it depends (as usual) on which side you want to believe,

Quote:

United States
Although the Obama administration had initially provided the automaker five years to repay the money in full, in March 2010 GM made more than $2 billion in payments to the U.S. and Canadian governments and promised to pay the full balance of the loan portion by June. The company beat that self-imposed deadline when on April 21, 2010, GM CEO Ed Whitacre, Jr. announced that the company had paid back the entire amount of the U.S. and Canadian government loans, with interest, a total of $8.1 billion. The government still has $2.1 billion invested in preferred shares that pay dividends, plus a 61% share of common equity valued at about $45 billion to the U.S. and another $8.1 billion to Canada. Improved sales of new models are cited as improving the company's cash flow and allowing for the early payments. GM is also investing hundreds of millions in assembly plants in Kansas and Detroit, credited for preserving jobs.[95] A White House report sent to Congress in August 2012 estimated the sale of the remaining G.M. stock acquired by the United States Treasury during the company's bankruptcy will result in a loss of $25.1 billion to the American taxpayer.[96] The total cost to the taxpayer will be determined after the government sells its 26% stake in G.M. and its 74% stake in Ally Financial, formally known as GMAC, G.M.’s financing arm.
Some Republican congressmen were critical of the statement that GM had repaid the loan from TARP calling it a "lie to the American people". They say the money for the loan repayment came from other bailout funds housed in an escrow account belonging to the company. In a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to Ed Whitacre, it is called an "attempt to disguise what is merely the exchange of one pool of taxpayer money for another pool of taxpayer money as 'real progress'". Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa called it a government-enabled “TARP money shuffle.”[97][98][99]
Because GM was mentioning the loan repayment in commercial advertising, the non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank funded by conservative groups such as the Koch brother's charitable foundations, said it filed a false-advertising complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

Un quote......

By the way, after the Chapter 11 restructuring, GM is again a profitable company!

Just goes to show that their are two sides (at least) to every issue, just depends on who you want to believe. Stating other's opinions as some sort of fact does absolutely nothing to clarify an issue any more then here-say an innuendo prove a person guilty!

and here's a link to some interesting counters that show where way too much of our tax money and the loss of way too many lives goes on.....

http://costofwar.com/

Where are the anti-war protesters when we really need them????

there is still Solyndra and shovel ready many other things . the hope and change dream has worn off. i hoped for the best . but a guy that never was on time for any thing. never had a job ..needs to go. many may see it has the worst of the two evils. i do not see it that way obama has to go along with eric holder and the big mouth that slip out top secrets .to make obama look good.. then a movie ? what the hell????

And the democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obama's first two years as they have done at least 90% of the time since the 40's. Remember Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

I totally agree with Dave. Obama inherited Bush polices. I do think it ,given the huge amount of money in the US economy,takes yrs for things to spiral so far out of control to have a serious effect on us.

Also for anyone to tell us a president is to blame,is a out and out lie. That office does not have that kind of power.

so the democratic controlled house was to blame ????

Originally Posted by shine

so the democratic controlled house was to blame ????

It's much easier for a president to push through his agenda if the Congress is controlled by his party. Do you think obamcare would have passed if the republicans had control of the house 3 years ago? Remember that for all practical purposes the Vietnam war ended when Congress defunded it.

it was paid for by money raided from social security thanks to lbj.

I don't disagree, but Congress had to approve it. There might not have been a Vietnam had truman listened to HO Chi Min in the late 40's when he asked for help to rid the country of the french.

While the president alone cannot do much, I disagree wholeheartedly with the statements that the president is not to blame. The country, from bottom to top including the house & senate look to the president for his PLAN, and that PLAN must be clear, definitive, and be repeated often without waffling, changes, or backpedaling. The PLAN cannot simply be "I want things changed", it must have the path defined with enough detail that it leads to the desired end result; and it cannot be "...whatever someone brings me tomorrow that looks like it might work." This is one of the problems with a lame duck president, as he gets into his last couple of years in an eight year run everyone knows that someone else's plan is going to be coming, so things get more "interesting" in the policy world. Then everyone blames him for any problems, generally until we get a qualified leader to make people forget. No one's forgetting at this point, because we have a total lack of leadership.

Our problem here, IMO, was that Obama touted "I will bring change, it's not gonna' stay like it is now" but he had no plan, and once elected he brought in cronies and deep pocket contributors who didn't have a clue about how to make a plan and then work that plan. The bigger problem, again IMO, is that he still has no plan today, other than scrambling in a duck & cover to hide the problems and convince enough people that "It just takes more time." Bottom line, the president must be a natural leader, one who everyone looks to and says, "Well, he's not my party, I may not have voted for him, but by golly he's got a plan to get things fixed, so I'll support him." Obama will never have that, simply because he's never had to work for anything, and thus he's never been exposed to "Plan the Work, Work the Plan", once again, IMO.