Rice and Ryan Speeches Opinions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I think you missed his point. His point was not that your numbers are wrong, it was that you only listed facts that seem to reflect negatively on Obama. You could have listed facts like "There is no longer a huge housing bubble" or "Corporations have unprecendented levels of cash". Further, the facts you listed don't prove Obama did a bad job unless you claim that those numbers are solely the effect of Obama's performance and there were no other affecting factors. Do you believe the president really has much to do with gas prices? I filled up for under 3 bucks a gallon a month ago. Does that mean Obama did something in the past month to raise gas prices by a third?

---

Im sorry i thought we were talking about facts.

Instead of going off on tangents, take responsibility.

The facts are that every american is directly effected in a negative manner (middle class and under). INCOME IS DOWN, UE IS UP, DEBT IS HIGHER, GAS PRICES ARE HIGHER.

I dont give a shit if you think the president can control something or not, because when gas prices SPIKED after Katrina, it was "OH GEORGE BUSH IS FUCKING US".

The difference between me and everyone else is i apply the SAME STANDARD to EVERYONE regardless of political party.

The facts reflect negatively on Obama because HE HASNT DONE ANYTHING TO MAKE THEM POSITIVE.

If youre going to give him a pass because he Killed OBL, great, im not going to. Also, my point is hes doing NOTHING about gas prices or energy in general. We are dependent on foreign oil, period. As long as we stay dependent on that oil, we are at the mercy of the speculators and ME conflicts. If he (and others) wanted to fix this, they could do it easily.

When you veto things like Keystone, and deny permits on federal lands, it just shows me you dont care about the middle class paying $4 a gallong and being beholden to the ME

you guys want to know the REAL dirty secret:

George W. Bush INHERITED the dotcom Bubble from Clinton, but we still call it Bushs recession. Then 9 months into his presidency, 9/11 happened, worst terrorist attack on our soil, most estimate it to cost between 1-2 trillion dollars.

SO, George bush inherited an extremely troubling economy and domestic disaster in the first 9 MONTHS OF HIS PRESIDENCY. SO when i hear OBama talk about how bad he had it coming in, its like, uh, you knew what you were getting into, and you accepted it.

Bush guided us through 7 3/4 YEARS of HISTORIC low Unemployment and job creation. Go look at the DOW, median incomes, housing, everything, we exploded. It only collapsed toward then end of 2007/into 2008.

Did bush have blame, ABSOLUTELY, he kept interest rates artificially low after 9/11 to stave off another recession, he and the GOP didnt sound the alarm loud enough about what was going on in the financial sector. but it was the democrats who FORCED the banks to loan money to UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE who they KNEW couldnt pay the loans back.

So sorry, i dont give a shit about "we are out of the housing bubble" because tell that to anyone who is under water on their mortgage right now.

So you can make all the excuses in the world about why the UE sucks, or economy is stagnate, or why record number of people are in poverty, the facts are this is Obamas presidency , he is the leader of the free world, he was expected to fix this. Hes not doing it, and he has no intention to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

So sorry, i dont give a shit about "we are out of the housing bubble" because tell that to anyone who is under water on their mortgage right now.

---

The bubble has burst and that isnt an issue right now. We are starting to see the rubber band effect though. The market fell so far, so fast that it HAS to rebound because there is just too much inventory at amazingly low prices. If the market doesnt start to rebound with some vigor we will have to worry about investors buying huge amounts of property then leveraging up prices. This can and will likely cause a second crash in the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

WTF do you not understand simple numbers?

Obama takes office 7.8%, NOW 8.3%
Gas when he took office $2.78, $3.85 NOW
Deficit 10 Trillions 2008, 16 trillion NOW
Median income when he took office was $52XXX, its now $49,XXX


This is all scored by the god damn CBO, the fact you would even sit here and propagate that those numbers are biased is laughable. GO TO THE FUCKING GAS PUMP AND TELL ME IF YOU PAY MORE THAN YOU DID 4 YEARS AGO, THE REST IS SELF EXPLANATORY.

---

what was gas when reagan was in office? what was gas when clinton? bush? see WTF I mean?
So him saving GM was a bad decision? even though GM is now the #1 auto company in the world this year.

There are other examples. If you received a car that the previous owner had for 8 years and it's fucked up... do you fix it by looking at it? NO! You have to invest money to make it ride smooth. You can't smoothen something in 4 years that someone fucked up in 8. Makes sense!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I think you missed his point. His point was not that your numbers are wrong, it was that you only listed facts that seem to reflect negatively on Obama. You could have listed facts like "There is no longer a huge housing bubble" or "Corporations have unprecendented levels of cash". Further, the facts you listed don't prove Obama did a bad job unless you claim that those numbers are solely the effect of Obama's performance and there were no other affecting factors. Do you believe the president really has much to do with gas prices? I filled up for under 3 bucks a gallon a month ago. Does that mean Obama did something in the past month to raise gas prices by a third?

---

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I meant.

Gas was actually $1.78 (I think the exact nationwide average was $1.83) when he took office, not $2.78 as Mike posted.


Carry on.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...43_306x462.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson9995

what was gas when reagan was in office? what was gas when clinton? bush? see WTF I mean?
So him saving GM was a bad decision? even though GM is now the #1 auto company in the world this year.

---

you know, im getting to the point that if youre too lazy to do your own research and figure it out on your own, you are not worth me arguing with because all i do is waste my valuable time.

Reagans numbers speak for themselves. Carter left him an economy much like we have now, you just probably werent even born yet (neither was I). You dont know terms like Gas rationing, windfall profits tax, etc. Go look it up.

Gas traditionally stayed low under reagan and Bush Sr, even Clinton. Gas spiked under W when katrina hit and shut down the gulf for 2 weeks. AND in 2007 when the world economic downtown started happeneing and we were still consuming. eventually it caught up and gas went down to $1.78


Yes saving GM was wrong.

How can you advocate for saving a private company that made bad business decisions? Why should the govt step in and save a business that screwed itself? It shouldnt. you guys act like people that lost jobs would NEVER get a job again. simply not true. Someone would have come in, bought GM up, either pieced them out or restructured them to make them profitable again.

you know what they are doing so well? Because of plants they built in CHina, not the USA. Hows that for outsourcing.

Quote:

---

There are other examples. If you received a car that the previous owner had for 8 years and it's fucked up... do you fix it by looking at it? NO! You have to invest money to make it ride smooth. You can't smoothen something in 4 years that someone fucked up in 8. Makes sense!

---

1) you used the word SMOOTHEN
2) bush didnt fuck up anything for 8 years. This just proves how small minded you are.

So you think the economic collapse is SOLELY BUSHS FAULT? LOLOLOL

To use your horrible analogy, the car should be somewhat fixed in 4 years, not worse than the condition you got it in, after spending an insane amount of money on it to begin with.

You need a history lesson. W passed TARP, that is what stabilized the economy, by the time Obama took office, we were in bad shape, but the majority of the bad stuff had eased. STIM 1 is what stabilized it even further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

but Bush had EVERYTHING to do with his term. You cant play both sides of the fence. Dems blame any and everyone but themselves.

---

Bush should be blamed for many things during his term as Obama can be blamed for many things in his term. Neither one of them should be blamed for EVERYTHING that happens during their term though. I don't care what "Dems" say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I dont give a shit if you think the president can control something or not, because when gas prices SPIKED after Katrina, it was "OH GEORGE BUSH IS FUCKING US". The difference between me and everyone else is i apply the SAME STANDARD to EVERYONE regardless of political party.

---

I never blamed Bush for gas prices either. Why is it that instead of responding to what I said, you respond to what someone else said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

The facts reflect negatively on Obama because HE HASNT DONE ANYTHING TO MAKE THEM POSITIVE.

---

There isn't always a simple correlation between those facts and a president's policies especially when it comes to super complex systems like an economy. If Romeny wins in November, I won't say it's all his fault if unemployment is still high in 4 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

If youre going to give him a pass because he Killed OBL, great, im not going to.

---

Uhm, I'm not. I just gave an example of a fact that looks positive. Don't read too much into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

we are at the mercy of the speculators and ME conflicts.

---

We agree 100% on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

If he (and others) wanted to fix this, they could do it easily.

---

Not so much on this.

Ok, so Bush handed Obama a bad economy is what you Dems say..........

Bush also handed Obama a AAA credit rating.....

What's your excuse for that? or just gonna blame it on Bush too even though it happened 3 years into Obama's presidency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Ok, so Bush handed Obama a bad economy is what you Dems say..........

Bush also handed Obama a AAA credit rating.....

What's your excuse for that? or just gonna blame it on Bush too even though it happened 3 years into Obama's presidency?

---

Well I'm not a dem but I'll respond anyways. Obama did inherit the worst economy in almost a century. I think there is widespread agreement on that between economists. I think the credit ratings are pretty meaningless as evidenced by the AAA rated CDOs that are selling for less than pennies on the dollar now but if you look at the report for why the US credit rating was dropped, it specifically states the prolonged argument about raising the debt ceiling was a major factor.

Bush inherited terrible economy from Clinton but no one talks about the 7+ years of economic awesomeness we had during his presidency.

Obama gets shitty economy, makes no improvement and in most cases its WORSE, he gets a pass.

AMAZING

Bush had to deal with a split congress, Obama didnt have to for the first 2 years. Dont make excuses, hold everyone to the same standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Well I'm not a dem but I'll respond anyways. Obama did inherit the worst economy in almost a century. I think there is widespread agreement on that between economists. I think the credit ratings are pretty meaningless as evidenced by the AAA rated CDOs that are selling for less than pennies on the dollar now but if you look at the report for why the US credit rating was dropped, it specifically states the prolonged argument about raising the debt ceiling was a major factor.

---

The point is, every candidate takes credit for everything positive and blames everything negative on the guy before them. Since nobody will take responsibility for anything, we should judge them by the stats....

Obama's stats and numbers could be the worst in history. I dont care if he inherited it from Bush, who knew Bush was the president he was replacing when he stood in front of america and told us he was the right man for the job, if he cant fix this mess... and he obviously hasnt... then he stood up and told us a lie. On to the next one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Bush inherited terrible economy from Clinton but no one talks about the 7+ years of economic awesomeness we had during his presidency.

---

I'm not saying Bush fucked the economy because he didn't do all that much either way in my opinion. He was more focused on foreign policy and terrorism. The "7+ years of economic awesomeness" was an illusion based on phantom real estate equity and worthless derivatives. I'm not saying that was all his fault but I wouldn't consider it a feather in his cap either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Obama gets shitty economy, makes no improvement and in most cases its WORSE, he gets a pass.

---

No pass given here as there are many things he could have done better but I also don't accept that the president can dictate how the market will behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Bush had to deal with a split congress, Obama didnt have to for the first 2 years. Dont make excuses, hold everyone to the same standard.

---

I am holding holding them to the same standard. No president, Republican or Democrat, has that much control over the economy period. The market isn't a ship that politicians are the captain of. They are mostly along for the ride like the rest of us. Therefor, I don't blame it all on Bush or Obama. I am not inconsistent about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

The point is, every candidate takes credit for everything positive and blames everything negative on the guy before them. Since nobody will take responsibility for anything, we should judge them by the stats....

---

Yes politicians will always try to take credit for success and push off blame for failure. No argument there. Judging by stats is fine as long as you include the context of the situation and not just blindly look at numbers regardless of what all the factors are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Obama's stats and numbers could be the worst in history. I dont care if he inherited it from Bush, who knew Bush was the president he was replacing when he stood in front of america and told us he was the right man for the job, if he cant fix this mess... and he obviously hasnt... then he stood up and told us a lie. On to the next one.

---

I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. I will only move "on to the next one" if I think the next one will be better.

Heres how I kinda contextualize the situation.

Imagine you have an Olympic sized pool full of water. This is the economy. Bush, the pool security guard kinda turned a blind eye while someone blew a big hole in it, right before it was time for him to clock out. Obama gets on shift and sees the pool is draining water. The swimmers, that's us, are calling for him to stop the leak and fill the pool back up. He's gotta borrow tools to fix the leak and get some water to fill it up, but it seems some people's top priority is to not let him borrow the tools or get the water turned on. Meanwhile, all some of these swimmers care about is getting the pool filled up and continuously blame Obama for temporarily patching the leak but not filling it back up. The people that have the tools and the key to the water valve might be more willing to let Romney borrow them when he gets on shift. Some people are also frustrated because Obama asked the swimmers to run home and grab a bucket and help refill the pool faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Heres how I kinda contextualize the situation.

Imagine you have an Olympic sized pool full of water. This is the economy. Bush, the pool security guard kinda turned a blind eye while someone blew a big hole in it, right before it was time for him to clock out. Obama gets on shift and sees the pool is draining water. The swimmers, that's us, are calling for him to stop the leak and fill the pool back up. He's gotta borrow tools to fix the leak and get some water to fill it up, but it seems some people's top priority is to not let him borrow the tools or get the water turned on. Meanwhile, all some of these swimmers care about is getting the pool filled up and continuously blame Obama for temporarily patching the leak but not filling it back up. The people that have the tools and the key to the water valve might be more willing to let Romney borrow them when he gets on shift. Some people are also frustrated because Obama asked the swimmers to run home and grab a bucket and help refill the pool faster.

---

horrible analogy, but i give you an A for effort. :P

Assuming Bush was solely responsible for the economy is just flat out ignoring the policies of the previous 2 administrations. If Obama gets to blame Bush, then Bush gets to blame Clinton. sorry, cant have it both ways. The community reinvestment free loans for unqualified people was Clintons big deal, not Bush, what happened under Bushs watch was letting the banks leverage themselves 40-50-60 times over so they could insure and profit from the impending losses but they stopped caring when that would happen.

Obama took office promising change to politics in washington, instead we got more gridlock, less action, more partisanship.

He also said we would be under 6% UE in 2 years, never above 8% after stimulus. every sector of the economy is worse, UNDER HIS POLICIES. It has NOTHING to do with Bush since 2008.

As far as "raising taxes" he had 2 years to do it an didnt, you should count that as A) Lazy B) incompetent.

As far as raising taxes , there is ZERO evidence to show it would solve anything , and in most cases it would hurt us MORE. Even the tax breaks he wants to take away amount to just over 60 billion if we assume revenues stay the same (they dont ever). so, youre telling me 60 billion dollars is what is keeping us from economic prosperity?

if so, why is the FED announcing today they will pump 45-80 BILLION A MONTH to prop up the economy with QE3?

Face it, you may subscribe to the liberal economic policies of taxing the rich , help the middle class etc, that is FINE, but you cannot sit there with a straight face and say that Obama has done anything he promised he would do (outside of healthcare)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Heres how I kinda contextualize the situation.

Imagine you have an Olympic sized pool full of water. This is the economy. Bush, the pool security guard kinda turned a blind eye while someone blew a big hole in it, right before it was time for him to clock out. Obama gets on shift and sees the pool is draining water. The swimmers, that's us, are calling for him to stop the leak and fill the pool back up. He's gotta borrow tools to fix the leak and get some water to fill it up, but it seems some people's top priority is to not let him borrow the tools or get the water turned on. Meanwhile, all some of these swimmers care about is getting the pool filled up and continuously blame Obama for temporarily patching the leak but not filling it back up. The people that have the tools and the key to the water valve might be more willing to let Romney borrow them when he gets on shift. Some people are also frustrated because Obama asked the swimmers to run home and grab a bucket and help refill the pool faster.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

horrible analogy, but i give you an A for effort. :P

---

I would agree with Vteckidd. The economy can't be likened to that of a pool or as many people say, a cake. The economy is more like the weather. The ebb and flow of it is unpredictable and sometimes turbulent, but overall, generally pleasant. It's not until this century that people thought that it is something that we can control. Along with that, it's limitless by nature. Money does not always equate to economy. For example, anyone caught in Hurricane Katrina down in New Orleans would have probably traded bags of gold for bottled water. That's economy. When people are engaged in trade is economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Heres how I kinda contextualize the situation.

Imagine you have an Olympic sized pool full of water. This is the economy. Bush, the pool security guard kinda turned a blind eye while someone blew a big hole in it, right before it was time for him to clock out. Obama gets on shift and sees the pool is draining water. The swimmers, that's us, are calling for him to stop the leak and fill the pool back up. He's gotta borrow tools to fix the leak and get some water to fill it up, but it seems some people's top priority is to not let him borrow the tools or get the water turned on. Meanwhile, all some of these swimmers care about is getting the pool filled up and continuously blame Obama for temporarily patching the leak but not filling it back up. The people that have the tools and the key to the water valve might be more willing to let Romney borrow them when he gets on shift. Some people are also frustrated because Obama asked the swimmers to run home and grab a bucket and help refill the pool faster.

---

I have a better use of your analogy.

More like, Bush was monitoring the pool and doing a fair job until some highschool kids thought it would be funny to take a dump in the pool. So Bush now has to empty the pool and refill it, even though he was pretty strapped on his options, people are still pretty unhappy the pool is closed down and everyone is mad at bush. Towards the end of his shift, bush tells Obama that the pool needs some chlorine in it soon....

Obama says, no problem.... let me go buy walmart since they sell chlorine and bail out the chlorine company, then i'll open an agency specifically for monitoring the chlorine levels in the pool water.......... but, my shift is almost over so i'm gonna put all that on hold until i can talk my supervisor into giving me some overtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I have a better use of your analogy.

More like, Bush was monitoring the pool and doing a fair job until some highschool kids thought it would be funny to take a dump in the pool. So Bush now has to empty the pool and refill it, even though he was pretty strapped on his options, people are still pretty unhappy the pool is closed down and everyone is mad at bush. Towards the end of his shift, bush tells Obama that the pool needs some chlorine in it soon....

Obama says, no problem.... let me go buy walmart since they sell chlorine and bail out the chlorine company, then i'll open an agency specifically for monitoring the chlorine levels in the pool water.......... but, my shift is almost over so i'm gonna put all that on hold until i can talk my supervisor into giving me some overtime.

---

I didn't know Bush left the economy at such a great stand point.

I like your story except, Bush instigated the kids to throw the shit in the pool, he drained it, and left it empty, the paint is now peeling and Obama has to clean, paint, refill, and put the chlorine in. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson9995

I didn't know Bush left the economy at such a great stand point.

I like your story except, Bush instigated the kids to throw the shit in the pool, he drained it, and left it empty, the paint is now peeling and Obama has to clean, paint, refill, and put the chlorine in. lol

---

Oh really? Go do some research, both sides share 50% of the blame, period.

The DEMOCRATS wanted poor people who couldnt afford homes to get loans. They strong armed banks to lend to UNQUALIFIED people or they would "investigate" the banks and pull FHA (federal backed loans) from the banks. IE they were told either LEND THIS POOL OF MONEY OUT, OR YOULL GO UNDER.

BUSH didnt do anything to stop it, and he let Paulson (an ex G+S guy) takeover and let banks leverage themselves 40-50-60 times past their credit lines or cash on hand.

Democrats created the problem, Bush and the republicans (beholden to wall street) found creative ways to make it work and insure it, package it as a security to sell it off and profit.

Bush gave you (although you were probably in elementary school) the largest DOW ever, and a period of 4% UE that we had not seen since CLINTON. Obama knew what he was getting involved in, and HE PROMISED to fix it. He hasnt , if things were getting better, i would say give him time, but they arent, they are WORSE.

if they were getting better, the FED wouldnt be pumping in 40-80 billion a month, as previously stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Oh really? Go do some research, both sides share 50% of the blame, period.

The DEMOCRATS wanted poor people who couldnt afford homes to get loans. They strong armed banks to lend to UNQUALIFIED people or they would "investigate" the banks and pull FHA (federal backed loans) from the banks. IE they were told either LEND THIS POOL OF MONEY OUT, OR YOULL GO UNDER.

BUSH didnt do anything to stop it, and he let Paulson (an ex G+S guy) takeover and let banks leverage themselves 40-50-60 times past their credit lines or cash on hand.

Democrats created the problem, Bush and the republicans (beholden to wall street) found creative ways to make it work and insure it, package it as a security to sell it off and profit.

Bush gave you (although you were probably in elementary school) the largest DOW ever, and a period of 4% UE that we had not seen since CLINTON. Obama knew what he was getting involved in, and HE PROMISED to fix it. He hasnt , if things were getting better, i would say give him time, but they arent, they are WORSE.

if they were getting better, the FED wouldnt be pumping in 40-80 billion a month, as previously stated.

---

You're very in tune with the situation and have a great way of explaining things. Can you explain things in a manner that will convince the avg Obama fan who has unconditional love for him and will desperately attempt to rationalize and defend his every action?


And side note....... one thing i've always given Obama credit for was that he is a great speaker, but that speech he gave for the people who were killed today was absolutely terrible. It sounded like he was handed something to read 5 minutes before he got there.

the unshakable and unrelenting support and loyalty to Obama just blows my mind. politics is can be compared to a quarter. there are two sides to the quarter i.e. dem and rep yet they are the same single coin. One can not have success or failure without the other. Our government is failing us miserably, that is a FACT. It does not matter which party you give your undying allegiance to, this is a true statement. Obama has not fixed anything and has not even shown that his policies will put us on the path to recovery. I don't know that Romney is the man for the job. But I do believe that he has experience that Obama lacks in the financial sector. I believe Romney to be an aggressive business man and that he knows how to make something profitable. Lets be realistic here, America is just one really big business that has millions of employees. Right now America is not profitable. The current CEO is incompetent and has run the business further into the ground. He needs to be fired and replaced. Romney will do what is necessary to make America the business profitable again. Some people will be "cut" or "suffer" and there will be budget cuts and what not. They needs of the many far out weigh the needs of the few. This is reality, life is not fair to anyone. If you think that we can "fix" the economy and everyone is going to prosper and not get hurt then you live in a fantasy world. Romney will make the necessary changes to make America a "good and profitable business" again. And we all can agree that if America is made to be profitable again, then that is good for every American. The more money we the people can make, the more we pump back into merchandise, services, luxuries, ect....it benefits us all.

I myself am a small business owner. Right now I am experiencing a rapid growth and can hardly keep up. ( no thanks to the government by the way). I did this on my own. I provided a great service for an excellent price and did my own marketing and advertising. I got lucky and was blessed by my God to grow. Now, I say this to make this point. Obama as America's CEO had a failing business. He tried to spend his way out of the company tanking and tried to flood the problem with money. I as a business owner, know that this is not how to fix things when you are in trouble. A smart business owner would look at were he is spending too much money, he would evaluate what is necessary and what can be cut, he would then make those changes so that he is not sending out more money then he collects, then he would advise and implement a new plan that would cut costs and maximize his profits. How is it that I as a small individual owner knows this yet the entire government from the president down and all the "financial advisers" and "experts" cant figure this out?

When did America become a big business? Serious question? All this time I thought it was a country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

When did America become a big business? Serious question? All this time I thought it was a country.

---

When the American government thought that they were in control over the people who put them in Washington when in fact, we just put them in charge... not in control.

Although there are certainly some similarities, I think the comparison of government to a big business is not a particularly useful one. For starters, one of government's primary roles should be to address problems that the free market can't/won't solve due to their unprofitable nature. Also, the power to set the rules and print money are fundamentally different than companies. There are certainly some useful tools than cross over such as cost-benefit analysis but in the end, the government is quite different from a typical business.