Just looked at your pole and got a good chuckle out of this. "D He missed on everything and he is a horses ass." Thanks for the laugh.
My point exactly. BOTH sides should be offended by such childish nonsense about our President. The left uses this type of thing to show how Obama haters hate no matter what, so the right should be laughing, or maybe crying, about this type of representation. And, I assume the left just doesn't like the hating of their elected president. Again, very sad. c
Landis is so much of a leftist wacko, I don't need to argue with him. Extremely few people would not consider Obama a leftist.
I've had kind an opposite reaction to Obama. I have always been conservative also, just like my family. I hated Clinton. I thought he was a tool who would say anything to make people like him. No Backbone or conscience. My initial reaction to Obama when he hit the scene was 'he's just like Clinton. He doesn't believe anything he says. Just wants to sound good'. I didn't vote for him. I do try to be fair though, and I can respect when someone doesn't agree with my way of thinking. Long story short, I have a lot of respect for Obama. I think he's a good guy. I think he's intelligent. I think he's had to put up with a lot of bullshit from the hard-core conservatives, and now from the folks who voted for him who are disappointed that he didn't solve all of our economic problems in 2 years. I don't always agree with Obama but I would love a chance to debate with him, and I have a lot of respect for him.
It makes little difference if you support the left or the right...when it came to Obama's campaign pledges as a "progressive" and "reform oriented" candidate (remember the whole "change you can believe in" b.s.?), he has failed absolutely miserably on that front. Epic failure. The point is that Obama ran a sound campaign at that time, and it was incredible timing that we were in the midst of the bailouts and the overwhelming public negativity towards approval of the initial 700 billion bailout package. Anybody that listened to his rhetoric at the time could hear him campaign about reforming the financial system and I firmly believe that it was the potential for meaningful reform that swayed independent voters. You have completely misread the concept that people are frustrated with his attempts to turn around the economy. That's a shallow, simpleton analysis that the media posits to the public for its dissatisfaction. Instead, it's the fact that we are simply replaying for the umpteenth time another insider bailout of the financial system at the expense of the public, at the expense of the savers, at the expense of future generations.
Yeah, it was statements like 'change you can believe in' that turn my stomach. That's the kind of shit I associate with Clinton and why I have such little respect for him. Obviously 'change you can believe in' is the kind of shit a dude says to get elected. Here is where you and I disagree. I tend to think the bailouts were a necessary evil. In a perfect world, nobody wants to see that shit. The fact that Obama supported the bailouts, indicates to me that he thought they were the right thing to do. I suppose you think we'd be better off without the US auto industry, eh? I suppose you think you know better what's good for the country than the President, Secretary of the Treasury, etc... Forgive me if I don't agree with you
Fine, bail them out and then regulate the living hell out of them, if you want a compromise. Break up the largest banks into smaller less risk concentrated entities. Return to Glass-Steagall. ALL of these were possible resolutions that could have been incorporated with a bailout package. It's the "no strings attached" bailouts that have created a good part of the ire. Of course, I'm also well aware of that vocal faction that always mentions that the bank's repaid the loans, yada, yada. AFTER the mark to fantasy rules were implemented and, obviously all of the mortgage market shenanigans continued unabated (as we've seen surface in recent months). I won't even mention speculation about the cozy relationship between the NY Fed and the Primary Dealers, it's just not worth the hassle of debating that. But I do ask you one major question. In all seriousness, no partisan shit implied, how do you reconcile the value of bailouts if it removes the free market principles of supply and demand? For instance, since the student loan market hit the skids in 2008, the government has become the lender of last resort, with no obvious lending standards to abide by when issuing billions in loans (don't have the exact numbers). In turn, tuition prices far outpace inflation (at least stated inflation) and students go into enormous debt for that piece of paper. Without generous loan availability, with less students able to secure the loans, what do you think would happen to tuition prices? Yesterday it was the auto industry, tomorrow it's the states. We know there will be bailouts for years to come. If they are going to continue down this road, then the LEAST they could do is play hardball like a Christie in New Jersey. The private taxpayer should never be secured as a means to fund a favored segment of the populations entitlement costs.