1 year later, Obama still blames bush

[monicasilver]

I don't care about order of sources and I never claimed an order. Usually so that people are reading the exact same things those who make claims provide their reference.

People make claims all the time about what they think they heard, think they read or what someone else says someone said.

Obviously in the case of the thread starter, he made a claim and referenced some source that in no way supports his claim.

In this case, you've attributed a series of statements to someone bearing a fairly loose context at some point in time.

Forgive my skepticism but I've seen far too many times where individuals attribute statement or circumstance to others but the reference they use supports neither. Again, the original post in this thread would be the classic example. Some say Obama said he would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...based on what they thought they heard or read when he never said that and it's been refuted countless times.

Now you've either copy/pasted or retyped some statement you attributed to Obama (entire context unclear) then suggest I do my own research. In my view, trying to find the exact collection of words you've assembled to see if this or that is what you're referencing amounts to fishing...

Certainly not worth the time for the simple exercise of playing semantics with someone.

IMO it's always smart to put things in perspective and avail people of stark realities. But of course, if someone is inclined to view today's circumstances as no different from any other even though by most standards it is...it's probably a waste of time debating that person to begin with.

It has been a hoot chatting with you.

 

[monicasilver]

I'm interested if the health reform goes through, not sure why so many Republicans are against it unless their all on health insurance?

He needs more than two terms to make a real difference and leave a strong legacy imo.

What Health Care Reform are you looking to see go through?
I've been listening to the news, reading the papers, etc for a while on this topic and I haven't heard Republicans say they were against Health Care Reform.
I have heard Republicans, Independents, and Democrats state that they were against specific actions that are branded as Health Care Reform or against a bill that is unknown and not discussed in the open.

I'm just curious if you are specifically for the current flavors of Health Care Reform being offered in Congress or if you are looking for something specific that may be different than what is being offered.

 

[Hot Mega]

It has been a hoot chatting with you.

Well, <technically> we weren't "chatting".:tongue:

With respect to the non debates of health care reform, I suppose to the degree that any of the countless open public forums, committee meetings, sessions, etc. which have occurred shouldn't be considered debates nor discussions. When you consider all of the good faith efforts to have a these debates and discussions have been met with nothing more than obstructionists tactics over all this time (months as opposed to ramming something) I guess they are anything but that.

It's in the republican's interest to stall the case as long as they possibly can in order to steer public opinion against it altogether. It's clear if you follow the facts and not the spin...nothing is being rammed or else it would have been done by now. The other spin...how many pages in the proposals...It's a massive undertaking...of COURSE it's going to be page intensive. These people have individuals they pay to do nothing but read for them...none of them ever read these types of things themselves. But you can keep buying the same spin...as a matter of fact if you to see the original "movie" go back to the same spin from '93. There are just different actors now...but here's a clue...don't expect a good faith exchange from most of the republicans. They don't believe in the concept to begin with and they are interested in only political defeat for their opposition.

This "movie" is nonetheless a rerun...the American people want the system reformed...they vote in people to do it. The republicans trot out the same old one-liners win the battle of public opinion then do nothing. '93 all over again.

PS: Still no proof to support the basis for this thread...thanks for playing.

 

[drf]

I personally could do without politics and polititians. Just a bunch of old men and women pointing fingers and taking no responsiblity for anything they do wrong just like a fucking 8 year old. (sigh)

 

[GWhizz]

What Health Care Reform are you looking to see go through?
I've been listening to the news, reading the papers, etc for a while on this topic and I haven't heard Republicans say they were against Health Care Reform.
I have heard Republicans, Independents, and Democrats state that they were against specific actions that are branded as Health Care Reform or against a bill that is unknown and not discussed in the open.

I'm just curious if you are specifically for the current flavors of Health Care Reform being offered in Congress or if you are looking for something specific that may be different than what is being offered.

Well it'll be good that it can cover health care for those too poor to afford insurance. It's pretty for a country the size of the United States can't cover basic health for most of its population where insurance is the only expensive option if you're sick.

As long as Health Insurance companies don't bribe senators and those with influence to go against the bill, then many Americans will see the benefits.

 

[D-rock]

That conflicts with what I was taught about economics. Lowering financial restrictions on corporations creates more investment and opportunity. This creates jobs and increased wealth across the board.

I would ask for a new teacher. Whoever was teaching you doesn't pay attention to reality, or maybe they are just teaching political ideology disguised as economics. Creating any new investments and opportunities doesn’t matter that much when it allowed a small portion of the elite to pocket what they want and manipulate that money. Plus it's not like it you gave to poor money they wouldn't decide to spend it. In fact giving how close they are living on the edge the more money that is given to the poor the closer we get to having it almost be absolutely assured to get put back into the economy to help other people on the lower scale with it only trickling up to the people that need it least. After decades of having the trickle down crap not work, but also deeply hurt us, I wonder why so many people try to dig their head in the sand when it comes to admitting it.


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
It's not the most unbiased site ever I will admit, (I didn't have time to go refind sites that showed it even better.) but on this it's covered most of the points on why trickle down economics should be seen as stupid any normal everyday non-rich person.

 

[Hot Mega]

I would ask for a new teacher. Whoever was teaching you doesn't pay attention to reality, or maybe they are just teaching political ideology disguised as economics. Creating any new investments and opportunities doesn’t matter that much when it allowed a small portion of the elite to pocket what they want and manipulate that money. Plus it's not like it you gave to poor money they wouldn't decide to spend it. In fact giving how close they are living on the edge the more money that is given to the poor the closer we get to having it almost be absolutely assured to get put back into the economy to help other people on the lower scale with it only trickling up to the people that need it least.


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
It's not the most unbiased site ever I will admit, (I didn't have time to go refind sites that showed it even better.) but on this it's covered most of the points on why trickle down economics should be seen as stupid any normal everyday non-rich person.

The whole presumption that business owners will in fact create jobs the more revenue they have is a myth. Business owners are overwhelmingly in business to generate revenue for themselves and their interests...not to create jobs.

Job creation is a product of one thing, consumer/customer demand.

If demand is up businesses are fairly immune to virtually any tax implication and job creation will correspond to demand...period.

 

[monicasilver]

Well, <technically> we weren't "chatting".:tongue:

With respect to the non debates of health care reform, I suppose to the degree that any of the countless open public forums, committee meetings, sessions, etc. which have occurred shouldn't be considered debates nor discussions. When you consider all of the good faith efforts to have a these debates and discussions have been met with nothing more than obstructionists tactics over all this time (months as opposed to ramming something) I guess they are anything but that.

It's in the republican's interest to stall the case as long as they possibly can in order to steer public opinion against it altogether. It's clear if you follow the facts and not the spin...nothing is being rammed or else it would have been done by now. The other spin...how many pages in the proposals...It's a massive undertaking...of COURSE it's going to be page intensive. These people have individuals they pay to do nothing but read for them...none of them ever read these types of things themselves. But you can keep buying the same spin...as a matter of fact if you to see the original "movie" go back to the same spin from '93. There are just different actors now...but here's a clue...don't expect a good faith exchange from most of the republicans. They don't believe in the concept to begin with and they are interested in only political defeat for their opposition.

This "movie" is nonetheless a rerun...the American people want the system reformed...they vote in people to do it. The republicans trot out the same old one-liners win the battle of public opinion then do nothing. '93 all over again.

PS: Still no proof to support the basis for this thread...thanks for playing.

The resistance that has been met has been because there have not been open debate (No offense, I don't count your debating).

Yeah, I dropped interest in this discussion when your argument was becoming pedantic. There is nothing wrong with this - I don't think you have an open mind to change your opinion. You're just arguing your position and are dug in. I respect that, but as I said before we'll need to agree to disagree.

 

[monicasilver]

The whole presumption that business owners will in fact create jobs the more revenue they have is a myth. Business owners are overwhelmingly in business to generate revenue for themselves and their interests...not to create jobs.

Job creation is a product of one thing, consumer/customer demand.

If demand is up businesses are fairly immune to virtually any tax implication and job creation will correspond to demand...period.

You have to take some of the emotion out of it. Just look at the economic equations. Business owners drive towards profit. They do it with the least amount of employees. However, the fact is when investment capital is available and purchasing funds are available unemployment goes down. Lower taxes help make that happen.

This is a Freshman discussion in Economics.

 

[monicasilver]

I would ask for a new teacher. Whoever was teaching you doesn't pay attention to reality, or maybe they are just teaching political ideology disguised as economics. Creating any new investments and opportunities doesn’t matter that much when it allowed a small portion of the elite to pocket what they want and manipulate that money. Plus it's not like it you gave to poor money they wouldn't decide to spend it. In fact giving how close they are living on the edge the more money that is given to the poor the closer we get to having it almost be absolutely assured to get put back into the economy to help other people on the lower scale with it only trickling up to the people that need it least. After decades of having the trickle down crap not work, but also deeply hurt us, I wonder why so many people try to dig their head in the sand when it comes to admitting it.


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
It's not the most unbiased site ever I will admit, (I didn't have time to go refind sites that showed it even better.) but on this it's covered most of the points on why trickle down economics should be seen as stupid any normal everyday non-rich person.

Actually my Economic professors were very good.

I've read his book. His data is flawed and his conclusions are wrong.

For instance, when factors change, basic analytic demand you rework all of the data from the beginning. He simply adds the data to the existing analysis. Its lazy and does lend to his arguments.

However, you may be misunderstanding me - I am not saying the implementation of Supply Side worked. I've said the implementation was criminal in my opinion. I'm just saying I think the pure economic model would work.

Is social-politic terms it is like saying Communism is criminal, but pure socialism is good.

I agree with where you are coming from. But...hey, what do I know... I'm basically a hooker.

 

[Hot Mega]

You have to take some of the emotion out of it. Just look at the economic equations. Business owners drive towards profit. They do it with the least amount of employees. However, the fact is when investment capital is available and purchasing funds are available unemployment goes down. Lower taxes help make that happen.

This is a Freshman discussion in Economics.

Hmmm as a current business owner and former owner of a couple more here is the real world. <Surely I can get a little street cred for that.:lovecoupl>

Operating costs (to include taxes) are generally passed on to the consumer/customer anyway. So practically the circumstance doesn't (negatively) impact the bottom line of the business in the overwhelming majority of cases. Here's the neatest real world trick though, businesses generally make more money when taxes on their goods and services go up. Most business minded people concede product and service taxation is inflationary. But not just because the tax added increases the purchase price but because business owners will in many cases add modestly and coincidentally to the price of their good or service with the increased tax.:2 cents:

But to the meat of your response...You simply assert that employment goes down when investment capital and purchasing capital are available. Uh, okay. :dunno: What is the corollary without the (determinative) demand component?? The letter A comes before letter B but A doesn't cause B. You're attempting to suggest that A has some causal relationship to B merely because of proximity.

Again, if a business invests in human resources it is almost exclusively because of some actual demand or imminent expectation of demand <unless there's the case where little Georgie W. needs a job and it's a personal decision to carry him>. Not simply because they have more capital to spend.

Most recently M/S, taxes were/are at their lowest and capital was as available as it has ever been. Why on earth didn't employment rates and business expansion correspond? I believe I know the answer...just curious to find out what your answer is.

Lastly with respect to the alleged Obama whining, complaining or whatever...I'd at least like to earn the distinction of being incorrigible if someone is going to suggest I am. Meaning, I would at least like the opportunity to dismiss outright a reasonable demonstration of your assertion first.:o

 

[316sherm]

I say fuck Bush and Obama, hey both some trash...we need Clinton!

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

In 4 or 8 years the Republican's will blame Obama, if they get back into the oval office. Reagan blamed Carter, W blamed Clinton, Obama blamed W, it is all just a cycle....

What is new?

 

[titsrock]

^
Unless Obama starts listening more to Howard Dean and less to FixedNews, he will be remembered as the new Jimmy Carter, and he will be a 1-termer.

Obama's already publicly backtracking on healthcare reform. That's pretty much the green light for Congress to put healthcare back in desk drawer and not do anything. Healthcare bankruptcies will return. Hospitals will begin to close. Medicare will run out of money in 11 years.

The party's over. Obama turned out not to have the spine needed to usher in all that great change that got him elected in the first place.

We'll still be occupying Afghanistan and Iraq by the 2012 elections, "still on the hunt for Osama" after all these years and elections. What amazing fraud.

 

[monicasilver]

Hmmm as a current business owner and former owner of a couple more here is the real world. <Surely I can get a little street cred for that.:lovecoupl>

Operating costs (to include taxes) are generally passed on to the consumer/customer anyway. So practically the circumstance doesn't (negatively) impact the bottom line of the business in the overwhelming majority of cases. Here's the neatest real world trick though, businesses generally make more money when taxes on their goods and services go up. Most business minded people concede product and service taxation is inflationary. But not just because the tax added increases the purchase price but because business owners will in many cases add modestly and coincidentally to the price of their good or service with the increased tax.:2 cents:

But to the meat of your response...You simply assert that employment goes down when investment capital and purchasing capital are available. Uh, okay. :dunno: What is the corollary without the (determinative) demand component?? The letter A comes before letter B but A doesn't cause B. You're attempting to suggest that A has some causal relationship to B merely because of proximity.

Again, if a business invests in human resources it is almost exclusively because of some actual demand or imminent expectation of demand <unless there's the case where little Georgie W. needs a job and it's a personal decision to carry him>. Not simply because they have more capital to spend.

Most recently M/S, taxes were/are at their lowest and capital was as available as it has ever been. Why on earth didn't employment rates and business expansion correspond? I believe I know the answer...just curious to find out what your answer is.

Lastly with respect to the alleged Obama whining, complaining or whatever...I'd at least like to earn the distinction of being incorrigible if someone is going to suggest I am. Meaning, I would at least like the opportunity to dismiss outright a reasonable demonstration of your assertion first.:o

Wow, no sense trying to discuss if the only think you hear would be full agreement.

I can tell you're really just looking to argue at anything you think your against because while I think we're not completely agreeing, we actually are agreeing on some points.

So, this is pointless. I don't see the value in continuing.

Enjoy the dark. (--hey, I've had some of the most fun in the dark!)

 

[jaygod69]

because its bush fault the horrors perhaps worst president ever and such a bully too...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=334169

 

[Hot Mega]

Wow, no sense trying to discuss if the only think you hear would be full agreement.

I can tell you're really just looking to argue at anything you think your against because while I think we're not completely agreeing, we actually are agreeing on some points.

So, this is pointless. I don't see the value in continuing.

Enjoy the dark. (--hey, I've had some of the most fun in the dark!)

Other people just say, "uncle".:rofl:

 

[habo9]

C'mon hes only got 8 years at most to sort out Bushes mess , my guess is the next president after Obama will be blaming bush , in fact it will be decades before people stop blaming Bush

 

[bodie54]

it will be decades before people stop blaming Bush

Rightfully so.
Idiot boy got played like the greenest rube imaginable, and generations are going to pay for it.

 

[monicasilver]

I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, so I tend to annoy supporters of both parties.

It seems funny to me that Obama hasn't made any change at all. There is not one thing that he has done that Bush wasn't doing or about to do.

Bailouts, Union takeover of GM and Chrysler, Gitmo still open, The Surge.

Argue all you want. I think the rubes who are getting played are the ones that think one party is better than the other.

As I've said before...enjoy the dark.