Why would I criticize both sides equally if I have a belief system closer to one than another? Someday, you'll learn the difference between partisanship and philosophy.
From what I read, your belief system is pretty far away from that of Bush's administration. Yet you fail to criticize him because pubs need to stick together?
The country is center-right. Our President, Senate Majority Leader and former Speaker are all far, far, far to the Left of where the country is. Hence the pushback over their policies. It's too bad, because Harry Reid used to be a reasonable guy. Nancy Pelosi was always batshit crazy and my former State Senator wears a mask that occasionally slips off. An interesting proposition. When did President Bush take over 1/6 of the US economy? When did he take over the largest US automaker, pushing out bondholders for unions? Again, President Obama and the Democratic Congress increased the size of the Federal Government 24% in two years. Project that over four or eight years and ask yourself again who has a more expansive view of the role of the Federal Government. Are you serious? Try reading some of the links here: http://www.google.com/search?q=GM c...=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1053f4e28f68f9f6 I'm sorry you can't see the accounting chicanery going on to put lipstick on this pig, but this was a move to bail out the UAW at the expense of the taxpayers, period.
You must have missed my posts against the prescription drug bill or the PATRIOT Act. I was a strong supporter of his foreign policy, but he was no limited government guy domestically. Compassionate Conservatism is simply big government with a religious overlay. No fucking thanks.
Its apples and oranges. The situation obama came in was dire. If he would have come in in 2001, I believe we would have a better country for it. Didn't bush create the biggest clusterfuck of a gov't program in history in homeland security? *shiver* Just like the taxcuts were payback to the rich from the pubs. Yet they both helped the economy. Alternative was to let them go under. Even worse economy. I will give you Pelosi and that is all. To call Obama far far far left of where the country is is laughable, and simply a restatement of Beck's lies.
Agreed. If something is "too big to fail" it needs to be broken up before you're forced to bail it out. We need to re-instate the part of Glass-Steagall that separated commerical and investment banking functions. It won't hinder investment banks from doing big business; they'll just have to partner as they did before.
Um, contradictory much? This sentence doesn't even make sense. That doesn't mean Obama isn't trying to take it more to the left. Those are two completely different topics, have the second has nothing to do with proving that Obama isn't a leftist. This is just so incredibly out there, I don't know how to respond. It is asinine to even try to make that argument as we have seen a larger takeover of the economy than ever before and spending is ridiculously higher than ever before. No. Says who? Those of you that support larger government.
I don't see many here supporting Bush and the bailouts. But that doesn't prove that Obama isn't taking us further towards socialism.
Leftist meaning left-wing. As it was described, apparently Obama is far far far left. This is not true. The country was center right, and in that sense he has taken us more to the left, but to call him a liberal or a leftist (left wing) is not correct. Selective quoting FTL. Is there a more pervasive and intrusive government program than the Patriot act? Did Obama create a whole new beauracracy the size of Homeland Security? If we are talking government take over's through bailing out private too big to fail corporations, then let us see how it plays out. If the government retains its share in those companies, then we can talk. Ouch. Good one.
No. Your response was: Followed up by: Left(ist) is relative. In this context, we are obviously referring to this country, the USA. To say Obama isn't left, but has taken the country more to the left is just ridiculous and illogical. Yeah, if your reference point is France. Again, liberal and leftist is relative and depends on context. This context is this country. We are and have been referring to THIS country. You agree, since you talk about this country in the same sentence. To continue claiming that somebody is taking the country further left but that person isn't liberal or leftist is asinine. Me analyzing your response just shows how illogical it is. Sorry. I didn't realize you hadn't heard about the healthcare reform. You should read up on it since it might affect you. It will make the size of the Homeland Security beauracracy look like peanuts. This is just completely illogical...again. That is like saying: "We'll see if the US stays in Iraq before we can gauge Bush's stance on war. If the US remains in Iraq forever, then we can talk." See how stupid that sounds?
Um, isn't TARP considered an example of legislation that helped out during a crisis? I mean this article shows that as of December 2010 all but $25B was repaid and that number would likely go down, if you believe the Treasury Secretary. All but $25B returned from a $700B program? Seems like a decent deal to me, and it might even become a profit program soon. And DHS wasn't created out of thin air...it was an amalgamation of multiple (at one point I think it was 33) separate departments, organizations and forces that consolidated assets, communication, training, coordination and control to ensure that if there was mission overlap it was intentional and Memoranda of Agreement and Understanding were in place. It's not perfect, and it's not finished, but consolidation of multiple programs into one leaner and less expensive program is closer to what we should be doing than implementing health insurance overhaul that does nothing for health "care". For instance, the Coast Guard is over 1/4 of DHS's budget (and radically underfunded for the mission required of it). But it wasn't like the Coast Guard wasn't being paid for before...it was just paid for by Dept of Transportation before DHS came about. DHS was a re-organization, not a creation.
The government bailout and takeover of Ford was the biggest success story of the "never let a good crisis go to waste" recession.
There's a big difference between what was done for Chrysler and Ford in the 80s and what transpired in 2009. It's the difference between debt (first priority and limited liability) and equity (last priority and unlimited liability).
I hated every bit of TARP, but it was a necessary evil due to the policy objective of putting people into homes whether or not they can afford it (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were commanded to securitize shit loand), insufficient oversight by the SEC (they just hire stupid people) and the Congress allowing the wall between investment and commercial banks to be torn down. With the right policies, TARP wouldn't have been necessary. And the shitty thing is we haven't fixed anything. Banks are still too big to fail. Oversight still sucks. And the attempted propping up of the residential market has just made the dip worse and more sustained, forcing people who may not have gone into bankruptcy to have to take that option. For $700B, shouldn't we at least learn a lesson?
Obama's not a socialist. You can't make him guilty of that through his associations. It's another matter to say some of his programs are socialist or outright fascist. The concept of universal health care is socialist in nature, but in ObamaCare implementation it's govt. in bed with the insurance industry and rather fascist. The takeover of GM was a fascist kind of move as well. The big spending and big government is a progressive sort of agenda. While he has demonstrated he will have govt. buy whole HUGE businesses, it doesn't at all look like he's trying to nationalize all businesses (which is socialist). As for Sammon, he's a very smart fellow, if not misguided. You can call him a liar, etc., but it was for effect and effect achieved.
He knew Ayers, and so what even if they were friends. I have pals who are Republican but thankfully that doesnt make me one. What an ignorant take Shooter. Guilt by association. Pure McCarthyism. Obama - the millionaire socialist.
Nonsense. Read his books. Look at his public statements. Look at his interpretation of the constitution. Look at the federal takovers of private business that he approved since coming to power. And look at the people he associates with, as well as the church he attended for 20 years. ALL of it supports the idea that he's a socialist. And lest you forget, here's the cover of Newsweek magazine shortly after Obama was elected . . .
