What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

Only person not getting a bailout is us the taxpayer.
Getting fucked on both ends higher taxes and cost of things keep going up

O now Obama said he's not going to Nevada for fundraiser 143 but returning to Washington to work on student loans.

Who got higher taxes?

Obama doesn't need to be in Washington work on student loans. It's a congressional program. And there are ways to communicate from Nevada to Washington DC with modern technology and all.

You were really taken in by the Republican political theater again though, weren't ya'?

 

[mercury14]

*chuckle*

So no citation?

Sounds like you're ashamed and embarrassed of your "source".

 

[mercury14]

Lol
Who needs a budget not ben one in three years why start now

You know full well that the Democrats can't pass a budget. It's literally impossible because House Republicans would not pass it. They're entrenched in the Ryan plan and not willing to compromise.

Or wait... Lol... You think that Dems in the Senate and the Pres should just do what the Republicans want to do? Republicans don't have to compromise (screw the 200+ year tradition of compromise in the legislature). Republicans have VALUES and should not compromise!!!

Right?

 

[richard_daily]

You know full well that the Democrats can't pass a budget. It's literally impossible because House Republicans would not pass it. They're entrenched in the Ryan plan and not willing to compromise.

Or wait... Lol... You think that Dems in the Senate and the Pres should just do what the Republicans want to do? Republicans don't have to compromise (screw the 200+ year tradition of compromise in the legislature). Republicans have VALUES and should not compromise!!!

Right?

Their "values" include an increase in student loans.. but now they're making the president come back to "work on it" with them.

 

[pete]

You know full well that the Democrats can't pass a budget. It's literally impossible because House Republicans would not pass it. They're entrenched in the Ryan plan and not willing to compromise.

Or wait... Lol... You think that Dems in the Senate and the Pres should just do what the Republicans want to do? Republicans don't have to compromise (screw the 200+ year tradition of compromise in the legislature). Republicans have VALUES and should not compromise!!!

Right?

everybody blames things on the republicans, but the budget that obama offered up didn't get a single vote, even from democrats.

and please don't generalize, there's many republicans who aren't in favor of ryan's proposals.

 

[bra_man69]

Who got higher taxes?

Obama doesn't need to be in Washington work on student loans. It's a congressional program. And there are ways to communicate from Nevada to Washington DC with modern technology and all.

You were really taken in by the Republican political theater again though, weren't ya'?

Sorry property taxes aren't taxes.
Tell your boy Obama that then he said he wasn't going to Nevada for fundraiser 143 but going back to Washington to work on student loans.

Here's what he really saying fuck you Nevada.

 

[richard_daily]

Sorry property taxes aren't taxes.

"property taxes aren't taxes."????


This is pretty fucking dumb, even for you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

Their "values" include an increase in student loans.. but now they're making the president come back to "work on it" with them.

You know all about values don't you
How many lies you tell yourself everyday

 

[bra_man69]

"property taxes aren't taxes."????


This is pretty fucking dumb, even for you.

Read his context you dumb fuck
He said taxes aren't going up so property taxes aren't taxes

 

[mercury14]

everybody blames things on the republicans, but the budget that obama offered up didn't get a single vote, even from democrats.

This doesn't mean anything though. Even if 100% of Democrats voted for the Obama budget (which was submitted by Republicans), it would not have gotten close to passing the House.

Here's a little myth-buster for the low-information Republicans out there (virtually all of you). There have been Democratic budgets submitted in the House. At least three this year. And they've all been voted on, with one getting even 166 votes.

Read about it on your very own Fox News site if you don't believe me: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/house-vote-gop-2012-budget/

But the fact is if the Dems crafted a plan that got a bit of bipartisan support and enough votes to pass, the Republicans simply wouldn't submit it to be voted on. It's their way or the highway - no compromises.

and please don't generalize, there's many republicans who aren't in favor of ryan's proposals.

Many? But not enough that you were able to elect anyone who opposed the Ryan Plan. Every single Republican House member voted for the Ryan plan without exception.

 

[TexasWife25]

Yeah sure, I'm talking about ordinary Americans, not Democrats who think that lying under oath to a federal judge and a federal grand jury are admirable traits.

I dont want to dredge up long dead debates but, I dont know anyone who doesn't look back on the whole Clinton debacle and shake there heads at the embarrassment that the GOP brought on the US by pursuing that.

 

[pete]

This doesn't mean anything though

it doesn't mean anything that not a single member of his own party voted for his budget? fail.

they could have voted for it anyway, to support him, to support the democratic party, to make it look worse for non-partisan republicans. they could have even excused themselves from voting on it, but instead they voted against it.

It's their way or the highway - no compromises.

i don't think their plan (if that's what it is) is the best idea, but then again if they simply don't agree with the proposed budgets and bills that democrats have set forth, why should they vote yes? there's no line item editing, they're either for it or against it (or they can opt out, but whatever).

here's a little myth-buster of my own: i don't watch fox news, nor listen to rush, and no other republicans i know do either.

 

[TexasWife25]

it doesn't mean anything that not a single member of his own party voted for his budget? fail.

they could have voted for it anyway, to support him, to support the democratic party, to make it look worse for non-partisan republicans. they could have even excused themselves from voting on it, but instead they voted against it.



i don't think their plan (if that's what it is) is the best idea, but then again if they simply don't agree with the proposed budgets and bills that democrats have set forth, why should they vote yes? there's no line item editing, they're either for it or against it (or they can opt out, but whatever).

here's a little myth-buster of my own: i don't watch fox news, nor listen to rush, and no other republicans i know do either.

They could have but lets be honest, bottom line politicians do whats best for themselves. Why vote and give the nameless republican you will eventually be running against ammo to use in your next election?

Im not sure when it came about but the GOP seems to be campaigning on "we don't compromise". This has become a good thing now. No, you shouldn't vote for something you don't believe in, but you also shouldn't be more stubborn then my 2 year old and demand "its my way and I don't care if we lose our credit rating and our soldiers have to go without pay until you agree".

 

[unregistered]

 

[TexasWife25]

Actually, a dishonest and immoral President brought it on himself.

And isnt it nice that instead of putting the country 1st we had elected officials who wasted time and money and embarrassed us on a global scale just to out the president as " a man who got a blowjob and then lied about it".

 

[pete]

And isnt it nice that instead of putting the country 1st we had elected officials who wasted time and money and embarrassed us on a global scale just to out the president as " a man who got a blowjob and then lied about it".

that's an interesting perspective.
would you say clinton was putting the country 1st when he was spending so much time sneaking around, lying, and fucking a subordinate?

and why are so many people so concerned with whether or not we're embarrassed, or embarrassing? how does that even begin to translate to our effectiveness as an economic or peace-keeping power? can we quantify how much international trade was lost because businesses in other countries were giggling behind our backs about the fact that the president screwed around?

i think this speaks to an overall difference between liberal and conservative mindsets: liberal-minded people seem to put more emphasis on appearance and less on substance. of course this is only a theory that just popped into my head so i may be way off, here.

 

[TexasWife25]

that's an interesting perspective.
would you say clinton was putting the country 1st when he was spending so much time sneaking around, lying, and fucking a subordinate?

and why are so many people so concerned with whether or not we're embarrassed, or embarrassing? how does that even begin to translate to our effectiveness as an economic or peace-keeping power? can we quantify how much international trade was lost because businesses in other countries were giggling behind our backs about the fact that the president screwed around?

i think this speaks to an overall difference between liberal and conservative mindsets: liberal-minded people seem to put more emphasis on appearance and less on substance. of course this is only a theory that just popped into my head so i may be way off, here.

Im not excusing Clintons behavior. Theres a saying I leaned in kindergarten that most politicians seem to have forgotten.

"two wrongs dont make a right"

He did something stupid, so lets make it ten times worse! yay!

Also I'm not going to start lumping groups and their policy issues, however I will say, the "why do we care what they think" approach is what I would call the GW outlook, and a main reason Americans who go abroad tell people they're Canadian.

 

[pete]

Also I'm not going to start lumping groups and their policy issues, however I will say, the "why do we care what they think" approach is what I would call the GW outlook, and a main reason Americans who go abroad tell people they're Canadian.

yeah i understand this attitude, but again... why is it important? if people aren't proud of their country and lie about where they're from then that's a commentary on THEM, not anything else.

if i met someone from a country whose president looked like an idiot and spoke like an idiot, then should i assume the traveling citizen is also an idiot?

le sigh

 

[TexasWife25]

yeah i understand this attitude, but again... why is it important? if people aren't proud of their country and lie about where they're from then that's a commentary on THEM, not anything else.

if i met someone from a country whose president looked like an idiot and spoke like an idiot, then should i assume the traveling citizen is also an idiot?

le sigh

The general opinion of other counties matter.

Think of it purely from a business standpoint. As a business owner, would it be harder or easier to get the best price or build a working relationship with another distributor or supplier if they started out thinking you were an idiot?

Now look at that from a government prospective. Would you want to be a president who is seen to be friendly with a country that is despised or highly disliked by the people who voted you in to office?

 

[Sean Renaud]

if i met someone from a country whose president looked like an idiot and spoke like an idiot, then should i assume the traveling citizen is also an idiot?

le sigh

If they elect their officials yes you should.

 

[pete]

The general opinion of other counties matter.

Think of it purely from a business standpoint. As a business owner, would it be harder or easier to get the best price or build a working relationship with another distributor or supplier if they started out thinking you were an idiot?

glad you brought this up, because it should only be viewed from these perspectives, though not like you may think.

whether or not people think our president is an idiot, or the voters, or the congress, businesses in other countries have the intelligence to separate politics from every day business. businesses don't deal with bush, or pelosi, or clinton, they deal with other businesses and business people. whether or not government is seen as incompetent, good business is good business, period. similarly, if our president were seen as the coolest, smartest, kindest guy ever, that still wouldn't matter if international businesses weren't getting good deals and good customer service from whoever they were dealing with here in the US.

Now look at that from a government prospective. Would you want to be a president who is seen to be friendly with a country that is despised or highly disliked by the people who voted you in to office?

this is all about ego and self-esteem, and nothing at all to do with effectiveness or competence.

in every huge entity (big corporation, large university, small town, etc) there's always going to be people who don't like who's in charge. there's always going to be people who think the boss is a fucking moron. but what really matters, the ONLY thing that matters, is whether or not he's done a good job.

obama is more popular than bush was, everyone accepts this. but he's failed on many of his campaign promises and hasn't been able to scare up a pulse in the economy, hasn't put people to work, hasn't elevated the lower or middle class, so who cares if he gets a standing ovation from jay leno's audience?

 

[TexasWife25]

whether or not people think our president is an idiot, or the voters, or the congress, businesses in other countries have the intelligence to separate politics from every day business.

Says who?

It would be great if everyone everywhere was able to separate personal feeling from professional dealing but thats just not the case. Also, if you think a country is full of idiots, why wouldnt you think you could charge them more and they would accept it? They're in idiot remember?

businesses don't deal with bush, or pelosi, or clinton, they deal with other businesses and business people. whether or not government is seen as incompetent, good business is good business, period.

Again, not true.

Would you want to enter into a long term contact with a business in a country with civil unrest, where you feel the government isnt stable? Also, if you're dealing with a country your customers despise, don't you think that would effect your business negatively?

similarly, if our president were seen as the coolest, smartest, kindest guy ever, that still wouldn't matter if international businesses weren't getting good deals and good customer service from whoever they were dealing with here in the US.

I agree the bottom dollar matters a lot more then the perception that our president is smart

this is all about ego and self-esteem, and nothing at all to do with effectiveness or competence.

in every huge entity (big corporation, large university, small town, etc) there's always going to be people who don't like who's in charge. there's always going to be people who think the boss is a fucking moron. but what really matters, the ONLY thing that matters, is whether or not he's done a good job.

Back to perception, even if he ISNT getting the job done, if other countries have confidence in the US economy, in the US voters and arent worried about who we will invade next, that matters.It makes them more likely to invest in us.

obama is more popular than bush was, everyone accepts this. but he's failed on many of his campaign promises and hasn't been able to scare up a pulse in the economy, hasn't put people to work, hasn't elevated the lower or middle class, so who cares if he gets a standing ovation from jay leno's audience?

Yes he hasnt kept all his campaign promises, no one is suggesting he has. Im not even suggesting he has done a great job on the whole.

In fact, this whole debate isnt even about Obama but Im sure you brought him up because he embarrasses us significantly less in other counties then Bush did.

The only thing Im arguing is that when other countries perceive us in a negative light, they lose confidence in the US, then it negatively impacts our ability to do business and negotiate around the globe.

 

[mercury14]

it doesn't mean anything that not a single member of his own party voted for his budget? fail.

they could have voted for it anyway, to support him, to support the democratic party, to make it look worse for non-partisan republicans. they could have even excused themselves from voting on it, but instead they voted against it.

And that would be a poor political move. Why give Republicans a free campaign commercial with no possible chance of the budget passing? It's all risk and no reward. Instead the Dems are content to throw stones at the Ryan plan in an election year.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You know full well that the Democrats can't pass a budget. It's literally impossible because House Republicans would not pass it. They're entrenched in the Ryan plan and not willing to compromise.

Or wait... Lol... You think that Dems in the Senate and the Pres should just do what the Republicans want to do? Republicans don't have to compromise (screw the 200+ year tradition of compromise in the legislature). Republicans have VALUES and should not compromise!!!

Right?

Don't tell us how to hold the mop.

That's nice but we won.

Okay, you won, you can get into the car's backseat; don't you dare ask us for the keys...