Financial Policy Despair

[blackascoal]

If biggest critic means writing an OPED that says 'We want Obama to succeed, but he really should readjust his plan some', then I'd really like to see what most hateful critic means.

You're speaking in ideology.

Being critical does not necessarily mean you want someone to fail.

You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Krugman.

What his most hateful critics say is dumb shit like "muslim", "not an American", "socialist" and other really easily ignored dumb shit. What his most hateful critics have to say is unimportant, but what sane critics have to say is.

 

[DamnYankee]

Too many take a wait and see approach, resigned to be followers, instead of thinking for themselves.

 

[DamnYankee]

You're speaking in ideology.

Being critical does not necessarily mean you want someone to fail.

You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Krugman.

What his most hateful critics say is dumb shit like "muslim", "not an American", "socialist" and other really easily ignored dumb shit. What his most hateful critics have to say is unimportant, but what sane critics have to say is.

Correctly calling Obaman a "socialist" is "easily ignored", yet you describe yourself as a "SOCIALIST". How ironic.

 

[blackascoal]

They all love the guy but hate his policies- otherwise they'd be racists.

You're speaking in stupid.

I don't "love the guy", didn't vote for him, and I'm critical of many of his policies.

Does that make me "racist?"

Nor is anyone else "racist" simply because they're critical of him .. nor are they deemed to be unless they are racist.

 

[blackascoal]

Correctly calling Obaman a "socialist" is "easily ignored", yet you describe yourself as a "SOCIALIST". How ironic.

It isn't "ironic", it's real simple .. simple enough for even you to figure out.

I'm a socialist, Obama is not.

How tough was that?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're speaking in ideology.

Being critical does not necessarily mean you want someone to fail.

You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Krugman.

What his most hateful critics say is dumb shit like "muslim", "not an American", "socialist" and other really easily ignored dumb shit. What his most hateful critics have to say is unimportant, but what sane critics have to say is.

I guess I'm dumber than a box of liberals. my bad.

 

[blackascoal]

I guess I'm dumber than a box of liberals. my bad.

You're not dumb at all my brother, you're simply wrong about Krugman.

There is a very good reason why Krugman is not in the Obama Administration. Obama would view Krugman as a socialist.

 

[DamnYankee]

You're speaking in stupid.

I don't "love the guy", didn't vote for him, and I'm critical of many of his policies.

Does that make me "racist?"

Nor is anyone else "racist" simply because they're critical of him .. nor are they deemed to be unless they are racist.

There are many Democrats who have publicly blasted his policies, then couch their remarks by proclaiming their undying admiration. They didn't do that for Clinton, so what is the most likely explanation?

 

[DamnYankee]

It isn't "ironic", it's real simple .. simple enough for even you to figure out.

I'm a socialist, Obama is not.

How tough was that?

Actually, he is.

 

[Bonestorm]

I sometimes wonder how many actually would want to take the assets of our nation, divide them evenly each year and then distribute them to every individual out there?

I am no financial head and don't often engage in discussions of the sort but the more I see people gripe about Obama and the direction of that griping the more I think they won't be satisfied until the above is law.

I have plenty to be concerned about with this administration but this isn't near the top of my list. I'll take a "wait and see" stance.

I don't even know what this means.

The problem with the plan is that it is a direct transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the bankers AND it likely won't solve the underlying problems.

 

[Bonestorm]

There are many Democrats who have publicly blasted his policies, then couch their remarks by proclaiming their undying admiration. They didn't do that for Clinton, so what is the most likely explanation?

Name them.

 

[blackascoal]

There are many Democrats who have publicly blasted his policies, then couch their remarks by proclaiming their undying admiration. They didn't do that for Clinton, so what is the most likely explanation?

Now you're talking in ideology.

Clinton was criticized by democrats who were at the same time enamoured by his charisma and intelligence.

Being critical of those one your own side of the political divide is how it's supposed to be.

Too bad the right didn't think of that before they completely imploded.

 

[DamnYankee]

Name them.

Warren Buffett, for one:

On Card Check: “I think the secret ballot's pretty important in the country. I'm against card check, to make a perfectly flat statement.”

On Cap and Trade: “Anything you put in that effectively taxes carbon emissions is... Somebody's going to bear the brunt of it. In the case of a regulated utility, the utility customers are gonna pay for it. I mean, it's going to become, in effect, a tax. I think we should get the economy straight. I think job one, job two, and job three is the economy.”

On Executive Jets: “I do have a -- a -- a dog in this fight. (snickering) So put me down as biased, but I -- I do think -- I use a jet both personally and with business. I mean, I have my own things I pay for, but I use it in business. Berkshire has been better off by me having a -- a plane available to go and do deals or whatever it may be. I think it's a big mistake to start demonizing anybody in this game. I -- I just think that it -- it causes the American people to look backwards, and we don't want villains.”

On economic Stimulus: “Job one is to win the war. Job -- the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throats. I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said that a war is a terrible thing to waste and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things. It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective to try and muddle it up with a whole bunch of other things.”

Yet he loves Obama: “The minority has... They really do have an obligation to support things that, in general, are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. Republicans have a -- an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and -- and in general support of that. But I think that the Democrats -- and I -- I voted for Obama, I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, but I think they should not use this... When they're calling for unity on a question this important they should not use it to roll the Republicans.”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/

 

[DamnYankee]

Now you're talking in ideology.

Clinton was criticized by democrats who were at the same time enamoured by his charisma and intelligence.

Being critical of those one your own side of the political divide is how it's supposed to be.

Too bad the right didn't think of that before they completely imploded.

This goes beyond simple critism, doesn't it? Buffet can't say a single good thing about Obama's policies, yet he not simply "likes" the guy, but "supports" him.

The Right didn't implode: the Republicans did. Big mistake for you to think otherwise.

 

[Bonestorm]

Warren Buffett, for one:

On Card Check: “I think the secret ballot's pretty important in the country. I'm against card check, to make a perfectly flat statement.”

On Cap and Trade: “Anything you put in that effectively taxes carbon emissions is... Somebody's going to bear the brunt of it. In the case of a regulated utility, the utility customers are gonna pay for it. I mean, it's going to become, in effect, a tax. I think we should get the economy straight. I think job one, job two, and job three is the economy.”

On Executive Jets: “I do have a -- a -- a dog in this fight. (snickering) So put me down as biased, but I -- I do think -- I use a jet both personally and with business. I mean, I have my own things I pay for, but I use it in business. Berkshire has been better off by me having a -- a plane available to go and do deals or whatever it may be. I think it's a big mistake to start demonizing anybody in this game. I -- I just think that it -- it causes the American people to look backwards, and we don't want villains.”

On economic Stimulus: “Job one is to win the war. Job -- the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throats. I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said that a war is a terrible thing to waste and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things. It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective to try and muddle it up with a whole bunch of other things.”

Yet he loves Obama: “The minority has... They really do have an obligation to support things that, in general, are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. Republicans have a -- an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and -- and in general support of that. But I think that the Democrats -- and I -- I voted for Obama, I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, but I think they should not use this... When they're calling for unity on a question this important they should not use it to roll the Republicans.”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/

Is he even a Democrat?

 

[blackascoal]

This goes beyond simple critism, doesn't it? Buffet can't say a single good thing about Obama's policies, yet he not simply "likes" the guy, but "supports" him.

The Right didn't implode: the Republicans did. Big mistake for you to think otherwise.

A lot of people liked Reagan. Thought his policies were "voodoo", but they still supported him .. in fact, one became his Vice President.

The right did indeed implode right (pun intended) along with the Republican Party.

Who is the influential leader of the right that mainstream America cares about?

Christian conservatives have been reduced to non-existent status .. Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell into joke status.

Cheney is about as influential as Castro in America.

Mike Huckabee is just waiting for his shot on Comedy Central.

The right-wing couldn't even get any of their candidates nominated for the presidency, so McCain won by default.

The RNC is looking for a psuedo-Obama to lead them AWAY from the dreaded stain of the right-wing.

Tell me what I'm missing.

 

[Cancel3]

A lot of people liked Reagan. Thought his policies were "voodoo", but they still supported him .. in fact, one became his Vice President.

The right did indeed implode right (pun intended) along with the Republican Party.

Who is the influential leader of the right that mainstream America cares about?

Christian conservatives have been reduced to non-existent status .. Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell into joke status.

Cheney is about as influential as Castro in America.

Mike Huckabee is just waiting for his shot on Comedy Central.

The right-wing couldn't even get any of their candidates nominated for the presidency, so McCain won by default.

The RNC is looking for a psuedo-Obama to lead them AWAY from the dreaded stain of the right-wing.

Tell me what I'm missing.

But BAC, you forgot Sarah Palin!! She will save the RNC in 2012.

Then abortions will be illegal, there will be prayer in schools, Creationism will be taught in biology class, homosexuality will be illegal, geology classes will teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old, public libraries will have to have books approved before putting them on the shelves, and.......and....and......there will be less government interference in our lives!




the above is sarcasm

 

[DamnYankee]

Is he even a Democrat?

He voted for Obama, that obviously makes him one.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

Tell me what I'm missing.

Conservatives were a minority in the GOP in the last primary and so McCain got the nomination. Since he was not simply the least favorite GOP choice but despised by Conservatives many refused to vote at all in the general election. Conservatism didn't "implode"; the GOP did. I fully expect a resurgence of the Conservative movement in 2010 and 2012 just like we saw after Carter. *shrug*

 

[Cancel3]

Conservatives were a minority in the GOP in the last primary and so McCain got the nomination. Since he was not simply the least favorite GOP choice but despised by Conservatives many refused to vote at all in the general election. Conservatism didn't "implode"; the GOP did. I fully expect a resurgence of the Conservative movement in 2010 and 2012 just like we saw after Carter. *shrug*

I don't think anyone would characterize the GOP Primary as a liberal event.

I think the majority of people in the GOP were fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives. The majority of the GOP is still right of center, but perhaps not as far right as you would like them.