U.S. Politics - Page 537 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5361  
Old 12-03-12, 15:55
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Does that parallel universe still have Bush as our President? Velo seems to think so.
We still have the Bush tax cuts, up until recently his two wars, and the big pharma giveaway. We also have Bush's stimulus and auto bailout. Here in the real universe, many of those policies that began under Bush continue to effect the economy and the country. In the parallel universe of the conservative, the Bush years never happened, conservative ideology is never wrong or at fault (it was Bush, it wasn't conservatism that failed), and the world began in Jan of 2008 and therefore everything is Obama's fault.
Reply With Quote
  #5362  
Old 12-03-12, 16:01
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
BO has had a huge stimulus every year he's been king. He got his 787 billion stimulus his first year and never dialed it back.

So when the Feds take money out of the economy only to reinvest in partisan priorities weird **** happens. Maybe you haven't noticed
Again, conservative parallel universe, etc etc etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Quote:
It’s an old political trick to blame the other side for things that your side is actually responsible for. I remember clearly that Democrats often attacked Reagan for economic conditions and policies that really belonged to Jimmy Carter. Today, Republicans are blaming Obama for those that rightfully should be attributed in large part to Bush. And I'd note: These budget-busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility, while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It's a sight to see.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...uUClGCQGU72.99
Yep, it is quite the sight to see.

And just out of curiosity, if out-of-control spending was such a concern, why did you guys vote for GW Bush twice? Again, I don't recall you, or Paul Ryan, or John Boehner, or Eric Cantor, or any conservative other than Bill Bartlett - who was then trashed by his fellow conservatives and eventually run out of the Republican Party - ever refusing to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was pres - what was it, 7-8 times? Or voting against any spending bill during the Bush years. Can you name one that any of them voted against?

Odd, it really seems as though the right only discovered religion on "spending" and "deficits" when the black D with the funny name became pres?

Sorry, but you're complete hypocrites.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-03-12 at 16:06.
Reply With Quote
  #5363  
Old 12-03-12, 16:16
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Ahhh, Reagan having to deal with the **** Carter left, GHWB getting talked in to raising taxes, Clinton enjoying the Reagan legacy, Bush dealing with the few things Clinton goofed up and Obama.

Oh wait, Obama isn't prez yet, or is he?
Why you start with Reagan fixing Carter? 70s too messy for that neat succession?
Reply With Quote
  #5364  
Old 12-03-12, 16:17
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I prefer Obamacare if you don't mind.
Yeah I know you do. That's why you'll never understand it, you've been biased against it and intent on degrading it from the start without every actually bothering to learn what it's about, what it encompasses, and why it's necessary. It's the typical rightie knee-jerk "Big Government Takover of Health Care!", "Death Panels!", etc etc. The funny thing is that you guys started calling it Obamacare to tie what you thought was going to be a big failure along the lines of Clinton's health care initiative to Obama but the exact opposite happened. And now it's become law and "Obamacare" will historically be thought of as the first step in serious health care reform and (hopefully) the first serious step toward the type of universal health care the rest of the world has. And all thanks to governors like Rick Perry and Scott Walker, who, by refusing to implement the exchanges, allowed the feds to step in and run the exchanges in their states.

Quote:
It's not getting off to a great start, is it? What, 17 States now having informed HHS that they are not going to set up exchanges? Wonder how much that's gonna cost...
What, you mean those 17 Republican states? Huh, never, ever woulda guessed that governors like Rick Perry or Scott Walker would put ideology ahead of country. Who'da thunk it. Of course, what it means is that in those states the exchanges will be run by the feds, and once the ACA is fully in place and practice and people are receiving the full benefits they'll associate it with the federal government - and they'll also remember the Republicans who were against it and tried to block it - and eventually people will start looking for a simpler, federally-run universal system.

How ironic: 50 years from now it's very possilbe that "Obamacare" will be seen as the forerunner of the American universal health care system and it will have begun largely in states like Texas.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-03-12 at 16:53.
Reply With Quote
  #5365  
Old 12-03-12, 16:58
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,126
Default

Any wonder why Sheldon Adelson was pouring so much money into getting Republicans elected?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2223589.html

Quote:
Adelson, a fierce critic of Obama’s foreign and domestic policies, has said that his humongous spending was spurred chiefly by his fear that a second Obama term would bring "vilification of people that were against him." As that second term begins, Adelson's international casino empire faces a rough road, with two federal criminal investigations into his business.

This coming week, Adelson plans to visit Washington, according to three separate GOP sources familiar with his travel schedule. While here, he’s arranged Hill meetings with at least one House GOP leader in which he is expected to discuss key issues, including possible changes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the anti-bribery law that undergirds one federal probe into his casino network, according to a Republican attorney with knowledge of his plans.

During the election, Adelson told Politico that the Justice Department investigation, and the way he felt treated by prosecutors, was a primary motivation for his investment in Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates.
Reply With Quote
  #5366  
Old 12-03-12, 17:27
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,970
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
That is simply because they didn't ask me. I breathed a sigh of relief.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #5367  
Old 12-03-12, 17:40
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
We still have the Bush tax cuts, up until recently his two wars, and the big pharma giveaway. We also have Bush's stimulus and auto bailout. Here in the real universe, many of those policies that began under Bush continue to effect the economy and the country. In the parallel universe of the conservative, the Bush years never happened, conservative ideology is never wrong or at fault (it was Bush, it wasn't conservatism that failed), and the world began in Jan of 2008 and therefore everything is Obama's fault.
Same tired argument, different day.

Pretend land is getting old. You can pretend that dem policies had nothing to do with anything during the Bush admin. You can pretend that Bush is/was a conservative. You can pretend conservatives were thrilled with every Bush policy. You can pretend that a lower tax rate on the op 1% generated less revenue during the Bush years than during the Clinton years. You can pretend that Obama policies have been good for small business job creators. You can pretend that higher taxes are good for the economy. You can pretend Obama wants to take a balanced approach to debt and deficit. You can pretend that national debt does not matter. You can pretend that Bernanke has it all under control. You can pretend that Obamacare is the panacea this country has been begging for. You can pretend that the R's are all about purity. You can pretend dems are acting in good faith. You can pretend dems want a grand bargain. You can pretend Obama has a mandate. You can pretend that all federal spending does not originate from the house of representatives. You can pretend that around half of the country does not agree with this president.

Pretend all you like.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5368  
Old 12-03-12, 18:03
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,970
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Same tired argument, different day.

Pretend land is getting old. You can pretend that dem policies had nothing to do with anything during the Bush admin. You can pretend that Bush is/was a conservative. You can pretend conservatives were thrilled with every Bush policy. You can pretend that a lower tax rate on the op 1% generated less revenue during the Bush years than during the Clinton years. You can pretend that Obama policies have been good for small business job creators. You can pretend that higher taxes are good for the economy. You can pretend Obama wants to take a balanced approach to debt and deficit. You can pretend that national debt does not matter. You can pretend that Bernanke has it all under control. You can pretend that Obamacare is the panacea this country has been begging for. You can pretend that the R's are all about purity. You can pretend dems are acting in good faith. You can pretend dems want a grand bargain. You can pretend Obama has a mandate. You can pretend that all federal spending does not originate from the house of representatives. You can pretend that around half of the country does not agree with this president.

Pretend all you like.
Or we could pretend that any of the ideas that you seem to espouse would result in anything short of a sort of dark ages America where the wealthy all live in walled compounds with private armies of security guards to protect them from the unwashed masses.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #5369  
Old 12-03-12, 18:35
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Again, conservative parallel universe, etc etc etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Yep, it is quite the sight to see.

And just out of curiosity, if out-of-control spending was such a concern, why did you guys vote for GW Bush twice? Again, I don't recall you, or Paul Ryan, or John Boehner, or Eric Cantor, or any conservative other than Bill Bartlett - who was then trashed by his fellow conservatives and eventually run out of the Republican Party - ever refusing to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was pres - what was it, 7-8 times? Or voting against any spending bill during the Bush years. Can you name one that any of them voted against?

Odd, it really seems as though the right only discovered religion on "spending" and "deficits" when the black D with the funny name became pres?

Sorry, but you're complete hypocrites.
Apparently you didn't even read the forbes link you posted.

Let's say I'm President. I'm elected and I inherit an economy that is on the brink of depression. The budget I'm working with when I'm sworn in is 3 Trillion. Then I get my way with a stimulus. That raises the next FY spend to 3.6 Trillion. The next year there's no "stimulus." But my spend stays at 3.5 Trillion. The next year there's no "stimulus." but my spend stays at 3.5 Trillion. The next year there's no "stimulus." But my spend increases to 3.6 trillion.

Now I can brag that I've had the slowest increase in spending in a century or more. Here's the best part: Some people actually buy it.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5370  
Old 12-03-12, 18:37
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Why you start with Reagan fixing Carter? 70s too messy for that neat succession?
Got to start someplace. How far back should I have gone... Nixon?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.