We've Gone Backward?

EdsonNascimento

Hmmmm.. Interesting.



Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis is switching sides, abandoning his former ally President Obama to become a Republican -- lamenting that the country has "gone backward" since Obama took office.

Davis is making the announcement in the run-up to a possible congressional comeback in Virginia, though he says he has not yet made up his mind whether he'll challenge Democratic incumbent Rep. Gerry Connolly. He used to represent Alabama.

In an interview on Thursday, Davis explained the rationale behind his switch. He said he "took inventory" and decided "what we're doing is not working."

Davis said the government's policies are "counterproductive," suggested businesses were hurting and described economic growth as stagnant.

"Every time we think we're beginning to move forward, we fall backward," he said.

He also sounded a note of disenchantment with Obama.

"I supported President Obama four years ago because I wanted to see this country come together. I want us to change the way we talk to each other ... Unfortunately, we've gone backward on both fronts over the last several years."

He said Obama's "main offer" was that he could bring the country together, "and we've gone backward."

Democrats have blamed Republicans, particularly those in the House, for the persistently coarse political tone in Washington.

Davis left public office after losing in the Democratic primary in the 2010 race for Alabama governor.

mickeyrat

completely selfserving. F'n douchebag politicians.

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat wrote:

completely selfserving. F'n douchebag politicians.

No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.

Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?

Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more? Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?

Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.

I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).

mickeyrat

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

completely selfserving. F'n douchebag politicians.

No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.

Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?slow and steady is the rate we are growing. As it should be

Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more?the people that walk away or sit on the sidelines pointing fingers shoulder their own responsiblity for where we are at as a country Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?I think he's tried to do his part, it helps when you have the other party ready to dialoge

Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.

I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).

Congress has always had the real power, in that they can overturn a pres veto. THEY hold the purse strings. From what I have seen he's been more than willing to work with the repubs in congress, THEY on the other hand are not looking to do their elected duty. Just DEFEAT this pres. I ask you, HOW can any president be effective in that kind of environment? To me it doesnt matter what party you belong to, in the end you work for ALL , even those that didnt vote for you.
I think its telling that the pres conceded so much to repubs and that wasnt good enough.. The art of politics is compromise. AT least it used to be.
As for the economy, it took a long time for that bubble to grow. The pop and its effects were quite sudden. It will take some time to get close to the level we were at. I think its the usual deal, companies are learning how to get more done with less. This bust made banks less likely to loan money for business ideas that had viable chances of succeding. Its a keep it while since you got mentality.

Also, IF the economy is as bad as they claim, how is it then that companies are still posting record profits?

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

completely selfserving. F'n douchebag politicians.

No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.

Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?

Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more? Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?

Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.

I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).

Congress has always had the real power, in that they can overturn a pres veto. THEY hold the purse strings. From what I have seen he's been more than willing to work with the repubs in congress, THEY on the other hand are not looking to do their elected duty. Just DEFEAT this pres. I ask you, HOW can any president be effective in that kind of environment? To me it doesnt matter what party you belong to, in the end you work for ALL , even those that didnt vote for you.
I think its telling that the pres conceded so much to repubs and that wasnt good enough.. The art of politics is compromise. AT least it used to be.
As for the economy, it took a long time for that bubble to grow. The pop and its effects were quite sudden. It will take some time to get close to the level we were at. I think its the usual deal, companies are learning how to get more done with less. This bust made banks less likely to loan money for business ideas that had viable chances of succeding. Its a keep it while since you got mentality.

Also, IF the economy is as bad as they claim, how is it then that companies are still posting record profits?

It's Bush's fault. Now it's Republican House's fault (it's not the Senate. Just the House, you forgot to pinpoint) Where's the leadership? The Presidency rarely has had control of Congress. Yet, he had it for 2 years. Why was it just the last year and a half that the Congress is a problem? Stop rationalizing.

And, isn't that the irony? Conservatives recognizing the economy is a problem when (some) businesses are making profits?

mickeyrat

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.

Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?

Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more? Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?

Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.

I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).

Congress has always had the real power, in that they can overturn a pres veto. THEY hold the purse strings. From what I have seen he's been more than willing to work with the repubs in congress, THEY on the other hand are not looking to do their elected duty. Just DEFEAT this pres. I ask you, HOW can any president be effective in that kind of environment? To me it doesnt matter what party you belong to, in the end you work for ALL , even those that didnt vote for you.
I think its telling that the pres conceded so much to repubs and that wasnt good enough.. The art of politics is compromise. AT least it used to be.
As for the economy, it took a long time for that bubble to grow. The pop and its effects were quite sudden. It will take some time to get close to the level we were at. I think its the usual deal, companies are learning how to get more done with less. This bust made banks less likely to loan money for business ideas that had viable chances of succeding. Its a keep it while since you got mentality.

Also, IF the economy is as bad as they claim, how is it then that companies are still posting record profits?

It's Bush's fault. Now it's Republican House's fault (it's not the Senate. Just the House, you forgot to pinpoint) Where's the leadership? The Presidency rarely has had control of Congress. Yet, he had it for 2 years. Why was it just the last year and a half that the Congress is a problem? Stop rationalizing.

And, isn't that the irony? Conservatives recognizing the economy is a problem when (some) businesses are making profits?

oh Bush had his hand in this (lets start two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, how is this smart business?)as did Clinton. What we have are selfserving people working toward the next election. IF any had the balls to do the right thing, perhaps our electorate would be better informed. Instead they only grow a pair when they are ready to hang up the spurs.

The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat wrote:

oh Bush had his hand in this (lets start two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, how is this smart business?)as did Clinton. What we have are selfserving people working toward the next election. IF any had the balls to do the right thing, perhaps our electorate would be better informed. Instead they only grow a pair when they are ready to hang up the spurs.

The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.

You see? I don't see what the wars have to do with this. You can disagree with them. That's fine. But, he didn't and Obama obviously didn't. So, that seems to be a moot point (not in their entirety, but how it gets used by the liberals - either they were a good idea or not. I'm not deciding not to protect my brother because it's not good for my face - or wallet - my brother gets in a fight with a gigantic guy, I'm jumping in the fray even if I think my face - or wallet - is going to take a beating. So, that argument re: economy is specious. It's mixing issues. Yes, there's an impact, but that's - mostly - besides the point).

But, I agree about the deviciveness and politicians - and, yet, a person with no experience running anything whatsoever got hired to run not only a troubled economy, but the Armed Forces that everyone sites as the issue. Now, given the opportunity, why wouldn't we give someone who's at least run a business successfully try his hand at economic policy?

So, who's creating these politicians?

mickeyrat

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

oh Bush had his hand in this (lets start two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, how is this smart business?)as did Clinton. What we have are selfserving people working toward the next election. IF any had the balls to do the right thing, perhaps our electorate would be better informed. Instead they only grow a pair when they are ready to hang up the spurs.

The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.

You see? I don't see what the wars have to do with this. You can disagree with them. That's fine. But, he didn't and Obama obviously didn't. So, that seems to be a moot point (not in their entirety, but how it gets used by the liberals - either they were a good idea or not. I'm not deciding not to protect my brother because it's not good for my face - or wallet - my brother gets in a fight with a gigantic guy, I'm jumping in the fray even if I think my face - or wallet - is going to take a beating. So, that argument re: economy is specious. It's mixing issues. Yes, there's an impact, but that's - mostly - besides the point).

But, I agree about the deviciveness and politicians - and, yet, a person with no experience running anything whatsoever got hired to run not only a troubled economy, but the Armed Forces that everyone sites as the issue. Now, given the opportunity, why wouldn't we give someone who's at least run a business successfully try his hand at economic policy?

So, who's creating these politicians?

FYI, registered Independent here.
As for hiring someone with business experience , we had that with Bush? It didnt seem to help.

if you refer to Romney, hes a politician too. So lets not forget that.

The wars? Well, one was necessary the other not so much, IMO. And yes, HOW do we go from a SURPLUS to deficit spending in Bush's first 2 years.


Heres the real problem in our government and this country as a whole. It rests on my shoulders. I vote, but I'm not nearly as informed as I could or should be. So MY voice is largely silent throughout the year. I could write or call or email the elected officials in my district on local, state and federal levels. I dont. Its difficult for me to sustain interest when those speaking to me are dont seem to have OUR interest at heart.

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

oh Bush had his hand in this (lets start two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, how is this smart business?)as did Clinton. What we have are selfserving people working toward the next election. IF any had the balls to do the right thing, perhaps our electorate would be better informed. Instead they only grow a pair when they are ready to hang up the spurs.

The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.

You see? I don't see what the wars have to do with this. You can disagree with them. That's fine. But, he didn't and Obama obviously didn't. So, that seems to be a moot point (not in their entirety, but how it gets used by the liberals - either they were a good idea or not. I'm not deciding not to protect my brother because it's not good for my face - or wallet - my brother gets in a fight with a gigantic guy, I'm jumping in the fray even if I think my face - or wallet - is going to take a beating. So, that argument re: economy is specious. It's mixing issues. Yes, there's an impact, but that's - mostly - besides the point).

But, I agree about the deviciveness and politicians - and, yet, a person with no experience running anything whatsoever got hired to run not only a troubled economy, but the Armed Forces that everyone sites as the issue. Now, given the opportunity, why wouldn't we give someone who's at least run a business successfully try his hand at economic policy?

So, who's creating these politicians?

if you refer to Romney, hes a politician too.

Umm.. No doubt. But, they are our only choices. And, at least he's run a successful something. In 4 years, I'll get a chance to assess his performance.

mickeyrat

and why is that? they are our only 2 choices?



btw, i edited my earlier post.

JonnyPistachio

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

oh Bush had his hand in this (lets start two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, how is this smart business?)as did Clinton. What we have are selfserving people working toward the next election. IF any had the balls to do the right thing, perhaps our electorate would be better informed. Instead they only grow a pair when they are ready to hang up the spurs.

The devisivness we have has been growing for a long long time.

You see? I don't see what the wars have to do with this. You can disagree with them. That's fine. But, he didn't and Obama obviously didn't. So, that seems to be a moot point (not in their entirety, but how it gets used by the liberals - either they were a good idea or not. I'm not deciding not to protect my brother because it's not good for my face - or wallet - my brother gets in a fight with a gigantic guy, I'm jumping in the fray even if I think my face - or wallet - is going to take a beating. So, that argument re: economy is specious. It's mixing issues. Yes, there's an impact, but that's - mostly - besides the point).

But, I agree about the deviciveness and politicians - and, yet, a person with no experience running anything whatsoever got hired to run not only a troubled economy, but the Armed Forces that everyone sites as the issue. Now, given the opportunity, why wouldn't we give someone who's at least run a business successfully try his hand at economic policy?

So, who's creating these politicians?

I think its possible the wars had a lot to do with this...We already are one of, if the top spender in the world on military, and the daily cost of running two wars... and the people of the USA slowly learning that the fight in Iraq was not about WMD or al quaida...what was it for? They lost confidence in their leadership, and att he same time, people lost a lot in housing bubble and then they were afraid to spend their money because of the chance they might lose their jobs.

polaris_x

republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin ...

having said that ... people should be disgusted with the GOP ... when the country is struggling mighty - they were more concerned with derailing a presidency than helping the people ... they should all really be put in jail ... and now they are gonna nominate another guy of privilege who's never had to work a day in his life for anything to be president ... romney is an idiot just like bush was ... he hasn't accomplished jack shit on his own ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin ...

having said that ... people should be disgusted with the GOP ... when the country is struggling mighty - they were more concerned with derailing a presidency than helping the people ... they should all really be put in jail ... and now they are gonna nominate another guy of privilege who's never had to work a day in his life for anything to be president ... romney is an idiot just like bush was ... he hasn't accomplished jack shit on his own ...

I find your 1st and 3rd sentences (skipping the having said that) interesting when put together. :?

What exactly did Obama accomplish? Romney has actually accomplished more at this point than Obama did when he was elected. You should stop with the liberal rhetoric. Obama has not accomplished what he set out to. Leaders have only themselves to blame. Blaming others is not leadership.

Godfather.

mickeyrat wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

completely selfserving. F'n douchebag politicians.

No doubt. I thought the same thing. Yet, it's still interesting.

Do you think businesses are NOT hurting and economic growth is NOT stagnant?slow and steady is the rate we are growing. As it should be

Do you think he's brought the country together or divided it more?the people that walk away or sit on the sidelines pointing fingers shoulder their own responsiblity for where we are at as a country Do you think he's helped the way we talk to each other?I think he's tried to do his part, it helps when you have the other party ready to dialoge

Don't get caught up in the politics (as you are accusing the quoted). Think about the points he raises. I'd be interested to hear your take on these.

I'm not saying both parties are not at fault in the latter questions. But he is the LEADER. And, ultimately, the buck stops there (unless you truly are NOT a leader - in which case, you pass it. Let's face it. He can't - or shouldn't - win this argument in either circumstance).

Congress has always had the real power, in that they can overturn a pres veto. THEY hold the purse strings. From what I have seen he's been more than willing to work with the repubs in congress, THEY on the other hand are not looking to do their elected duty. Just DEFEAT this pres. I ask you, HOW can any president be effective in that kind of environment? To me it doesnt matter what party you belong to, in the end you work for ALL , even those that didnt vote for you.
I think its telling that the pres conceded so much to repubs and that wasnt good enough.. The art of politics is compromise. AT least it used to be.
As for the economy, it took a long time for that bubble to grow. The pop and its effects were quite sudden. It will take some time to get close to the level we were at. I think its the usual deal, companies are learning how to get more done with less. This bust made banks less likely to loan money for business ideas that had viable chances of succeding. Its a keep it while since you got mentality.

Also, IF the economy is as bad as they claim, how is it then that companies are still posting record profits?

one of the ways a corp gets higher profit is by laying off hundreds of employees and asking the remaining emplyees to carry the extra load.


Godfather.

EdsonNascimento

mickeyrat wrote:

and why is that? they are our only 2 choices?



btw, i edited my earlier post.

Again, I don't disagree the process is broken. I'm all for finding change. I hate that Giuliani doesn't run simply because the Christian Right won't allow a twice divorced man with skeletons run. He is THE best person for the job. But, why should he put himself through the ringer of both his own party and then a general election when he can go to Mexico and make millions teaching them how to run their police force?

So, the process is more broken than most folks realize.

But, that being said - we are where we are at NOW. Obama has failed. Romney's our only other choice. I know what hasn't worked. Believe me, Romney is not my first, second or third choice either. But, writing in Rudy Giuliani isn't going to help our best option at the moment.

Cliffy6745

Rudy

I posted this a while back in another conversation....this is not backwards.

Helping to fend off a depression while having the bailouts almost entirely paid back with interest, passing the largest and most important piece of domestic legislation in decades, ending the bigoted policy of don't ask don't tell, saving the auto industry, ended one war and is bringing the other to a close, oversaw the death of the top commanders of al qaeda, including the person who was responsible for over 3,000 civilian deaths. Not bad for 3 years.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I find your 1st and 3rd sentences (skipping the having said that) interesting when put together. :?

What exactly did Obama accomplish? Romney has actually accomplished more at this point than Obama did when he was elected. You should stop with the liberal rhetoric. Obama has not accomplished what he set out to. Leaders have only themselves to blame. Blaming others is not leadership.

... liberal rhetoric! ... listen - i wouldn't vote for obama nor any other democrat ... i think i'm objective enough to see tho that a huge part of his failure is his seeming necessity to please the republicans when their only agenda is to screw him over ... it is evident ... his failure is due in large part to the partisanship by which americans view politics ... these politicians don't care about the people ... they are in it for their own personal goals ... mitt is a prime example of that ...

EdsonNascimento

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think its possible the wars had a lot to do with this...We already are one of, if the top spender in the world on military, and the daily cost of running two wars... and the people of the USA slowly learning that the fight in Iraq was not about WMD or al quaida...what was it for? They lost confidence in their leadership, and att he same time, people lost a lot in housing bubble and then they were afraid to spend their money because of the chance they might lose their jobs.

There's obviously some truth to this. It's not totally discrete. It all feeds each other. And, there's not doubt why we choose to go into the Mid East more often than we decide to go into Africa where even more genocides are happening - oil. So, yes, it's all tied together. All I'm saying is - either the war is worth while or its not. There is actually POSITIVE economic impact from wars. Does it outweigh the negative (not to even speak of the human cost which despite the liberal's bent nobody, and I mean nobody takes lightly or desire)? But, it's myopic to pretend we are going to live in a world of fairies and rainbows because war sucks.

At least war PUTS money into the economy. Welfare does not. That's the point (not saying we need NO welfare).

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I find your 1st and 3rd sentences (skipping the having said that) interesting when put together. :?

What exactly did Obama accomplish? Romney has actually accomplished more at this point than Obama did when he was elected. You should stop with the liberal rhetoric. Obama has not accomplished what he set out to. Leaders have only themselves to blame. Blaming others is not leadership.

... liberal rhetoric! ... listen - i wouldn't vote for obama nor any other democrat ... i think i'm objective enough to see tho that a huge part of his failure is his seeming necessity to please the republicans when their only agenda is to screw him over ... it is evident ... his failure is due in large part to the partisanship by which americans view politics ... these politicians don't care about the people ... they are in it for their own personal goals ... mitt is a prime example of that ...

OBAMA HAD BOTH HOUSES FOR 2 YEARS!!!! Sorry for the caps, but folks seem to keep forgetting this. That is more time than any President in the last 50 years. And if anything the impact of those 2 years is what should be getting felt now, not the last 18 months (especially if the argument is it takes time). And he squandered it worrying about his legacy (health care). Which is sort of ironic for a President to do in the first year of his intended 8 year stay. That's usually reserved for years 7 and 8.....

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

OBAMA HAD BOTH HOUSES FOR 2 YEARS!!!! Sorry for the caps, but folks seem to keep forgetting this. That is more time than any President in the last 50 years. And if anything the impact of those 2 years is what should be getting felt now, not the last 18 months (especially if the argument is it takes time). And he squandered it worrying about his legacy (health care). Which is sort of ironic for a President to do in the first year of his intended 8 year stay. That's usually reserved for years 7 and 8.....

i would agree his focus on healthcare was misguided and although in principal, he thought it was a good idea, it's just not gonna work in americia ...

ultimately tho - who would you rather have? ... bush or obama?

EdsonNascimento

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Rudy

I posted this a while back in another conversation....this is not backwards.

Helping to fend off a depression while having the bailouts almost entirely paid back with interest, passing the largest and most important piece of domestic legislation in decades, ending the bigoted policy of don't ask don't tell, saving the auto industry, ended one war and is bringing the other to a close, oversaw the death of the top commanders of al qaeda, including the person who was responsible for over 3,000 civilian deaths. Not bad for 3 years.

That is funny. First, I'm not saying he hasn't done ANYTHING. But - depression? What depression? There was no DEPRESSION when he took over.

His larges piece of legislation is about to be rightfully declared unconstitional.

Don't ask, don't tell was on its way out. IT was a matter of time.

Saving the auto industry - well, if you're going to blame Bush for the "depression," let's give "credit" where it's due. I was against this, but he's the impetus.

As for the wars - Bush's time table as he was leaving office was almost exactly how it was carried out.

Osama - yes, he gets credit. But, who wouldn't have given that order? That was a tough order to give? Not trying to take it away. It's on his watch. It's part of his legacy. It's not like the decision to drag a rat responsible for 10's of 1,000s of deaths out of its hole (Saddam) at the peril of his own legacy.