I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.
Let's give someone else a chance.
People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.
All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.
Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.
Dude, we're all for good debate here, but come on.
I'm all in for Obama, but that performance.......And, I think Reuters is a reputable source.
Romney has a lot, a lot, of ground to make up, but last night was a serious blow.
I honestly don't agree.
I really don't think it makes a difference.
Maybe fewer people think he's a boob. But it's not going to change anything.
I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.
The debt he racked up is mostly paying for the things that Bush bought without having a way to pay for it.
And you want to give someone a chance who wants to go back to that.
Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama. I
Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush. Romney hasn't raised the debt. If you want to elect someone who hasn't raised the debt are you going to vote for the guy in office who has continued to raise the debt or the guy who says he is going to reduce the debt?
It is very logical. I never said Romney was absolutely going to lower the debt, I just said why vote for the guy who has proved he can't lower the debt. Maybe Romney will fail too. But I am not going to vote for a failure (Obama) and will vote to give someone else a chance.
You say the current debt is bush's fault. If true, why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?
I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.
Let's give someone else a chance.
People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.
All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.
Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.
Dude, we're all for good debate here, but come on.
So what is the problem? Obama raised the debt at a huge pace. I want to reduce the debt. Would be really stupid to vote for Obama if I want the debt lowered. If Romney increase the debt then I will vote him out next time.
The country would be better off if we held politicians accountable like this instead of voting based on party lines or issues that neither side intends to change (like abortion).
So what is the problem? Obama raised the debt at a huge pace. I want to reduce the debt. Would be really stupid to vote for Obama if I want the debt lowered. If Romney increase the debt then I will vote him out next time.
The country would be better off if we held politicians accountable like this instead of voting based on party lines or issues that neither side intends to change (like abortion).
That's fine, dude. You're right; it's all good. It's just that they were very basic statements--true, but basic. There are a lot of reasons for the debt, deficit, unemployment, etc.
Might as well give another person a try.
My take is this (I am copying this from another one of my posts; it's late, I'm being lazy and simply
taking a break from my work because I have writer's block):
The funny thing is though (as I stated on another thread) in my opinion, the field is, and has been, perfectly set for trickle-down economics. Taxes are low--loopholes-- CEO pay is unchanged, corporate profits are very strong, Wall St. is through the roof......it's a shame. The poor and the working class ALWAYS pay.
And now we want to double-down on this approach? Other than the Stimulus, which analysts have said staved off a more severe recession and which was 1/3 tax cuts, Obama hasn't been able to pass any other legislation. See: Republican obstructionism.
So, if one is to say that Obama has failed because of his policies, they are basically saying that trickle-down economics--the plant hat Romney wants to double-down on--is a failure.
And, there's this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... t_freeland
A lot of hypocrisy going on. Is it too much of a stretch to think these CEOs, these poor, poor fuckbags, are not hiring out of spite. If Romney wins, watch hiring spike. This won't be because of policies, this will be because of their dislike/hatred of Obama because Obama yelled at them....waahhhh
Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama.
Prove me wrong.
Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush.
No... Obama is still paying for the debt created by him. Two unfunded wars, millions of jobs lost... tax cuts we couldn't afford, a prescription drug plan that had no plan to actually pay for it.
That's the problem when you elect a rich brat who has never had to really budget for anything. Never had to worry where the money was going to come from. They just... get things they want and the money just shows up.
That's what Mitt Romney is. He worries about cash this year? Fire some of the help and sell one of the condos.
Let's see how he runs the country. Hope you don't have kids or parents who might need to see a doctor any time soon.
Romney hasn't raised the debt.
really?
Because he's fired how many thousands of people who then had to take unemployment? Did that just pay for itself?
why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?
Uh... no... actually, it looks like you are. You get it that the president isn't Dumbledore, right? That huge problems like we had four years ago can't just go away in a couple years? That especially when bitter Republicans who are angry he won the election and have said their #1 goal is to ruin him, it's hard to actually make real changes but we STILL have GM alive, Bin Ladin dead, the stock market worth double what it was and that we're not losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH like before?
But you want to vote for another spoiled rich guy who says that anyone who has ever taken any form of government help is a lazy moocher he plans to set adrift? Whines that veterans on disability "think they're entitled to food?"
Good luck with that.
You are the problem with American politics. You want everything to just magically fix itself. It doesn't work like that.
That's true. Pearl Jam have really turned into some type of corporation, huh? But, in the end, the people don't have to buy the stuff....especially if they can't afford it, or if they are putting it all on credit cards.
that's what I mean. the band is perfectly within their right to put out all the merch they want to, but if you can't afford it, don't buy it.
I completely agree with this.
And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?
How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?
Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?
(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)
That's true. Pearl Jam have really turned into some type of corporation, huh? But, in the end, the people don't have to buy the stuff....especially if they can't afford it, or if they are putting it all on credit cards.
that's what I mean. the band is perfectly within their right to put out all the merch they want to, but if you can't afford it, don't buy it.
I completely agree with this.
And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?
How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?
Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?
(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)
To a point...but not really the same thing at all.
It's too big of a topic to elucidate in a thread; and, where you place blame will rest on your political and economic views.
Some want to blame the industry, some want to blame the borrowers, some want to blame government, etc.
And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?
How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?
Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?
(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)
To a point...but not really the same thing at all.
It's too big of a topic to elucidate in a thread; and, where you place blame will rest on your political and economic views.
Some want to blame the industry, some want to blame the borrowers, some want to blame government, etc.
Everyone has blood on their hands
I blame the irresponsible and dishonest, which has nothing to do with my political views.
My economic views are about common sense and responsibility. No matter how much I'm being wooed to make a purchase, why would I do so when I clearly can't afford it?
I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.
Let's give someone else a chance.
People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.
All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.
Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.
Voted 4 Obama and will do so again with great heartache due to the spending you mentioned in your message. Romney is a weasel and have no trust in the guy. Add social positions he accepted once he all of a sudden became a rep nominee, can see he is not genuine. If he becomes a chicken hawk president, which he may as he'll reap rewards, he'll easily outspend Obama. So in the end, Obama's better for me and probably better for US.
Voted 4 Obama and will do so again with great heartache due to the spending you mentioned in your message. Romney is a weasel and have no trust in the guy.
What makes him a weasel?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I like how Romney criticized Obama for spending 2 years on Obamacare instead of the job issue, but here is what Romney is going to do on day one as President instead of working on the job issue.
I like how Romney criticized Obama for spending 2 years on Obamacare instead of the job issue, but here is what Romney is going to do on day one as President instead of working on the job issue.
You do realize Day 1 is a euphamism. Right? It was hysterical in the debate when Obama said - you're going to be busy on day 1.
That comment sort of backfires because:
1) It assumes Romney is elected
2) It shows the stupidity of taking literal translations of things
3) If you are in a literal translation mode as that statement is, it also intimates that Romney can actually do all those things in 1 day. That's quite a President. Even if you don't think it's the right thing to do. It would be impressive.
At least he didn't claim to be closing Guantanamo in 1 year and 4 years later still not do it. Perhaps, I should have interpreted that as a euphamism, as well.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
closing Guantanamo ? sounds like there may be more to the rotton little bastards that got locked up than meets the media eye or else they would be driving cabs in New York by now
Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama.
Prove me wrong.
Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush.
No... Obama is still paying for the debt created by him. Two unfunded wars, millions of jobs lost... tax cuts we couldn't afford, a prescription drug plan that had no plan to actually pay for it.
That's the problem when you elect a rich brat who has never had to really budget for anything. Never had to worry where the money was going to come from. They just... get things they want and the money just shows up. You hate the rich we know. maybe because you don't understand that they work also. The money doesn't just show up. They have to make the money BUDGET the money and invest wisely. If they just spend spend spend (like Obama) they will go broke.
That's what Mitt Romney is. He worries about cash this year? Fire some of the help and sell one of the condos.
Let's see how he runs the country. Hope you don't have kids or parents who might need to see a doctor any time soon. Not everyone need Government assistance, and Mitt has a plan.
Romney hasn't raised the debt.
really?
Because he's fired how many thousands of people who then had to take unemployment? Did that just pay for itself? Companies pay into the unemployment it doesn't just come from the tax payers....except when it gets extended for years
why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?
Uh... no... actually, it looks like you are. You get it that the president isn't Dumbledore, right? That huge problems like we had four years ago can't just go away in a couple years? That especially when bitter Republicans who are angry he won the election and have said their #1 goal is to ruin him, it's hard to actually make real changes but we STILL have GM alive, Bin Ladin dead, the stock market worth double what it was and that we're not losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH like before? GM is about to file bankruptcy. Republicans did not say they wanted to ruin him...What was said they hoped his policies fail because if they did not he would run this country into bankruptcy (as he is doing now)
But you want to vote for another spoiled rich guy who says that anyone who has ever taken any form of government help is a lazy moocher he plans to set adrift? Whines that veterans on disability "think they're entitled to food?"
Good luck with that.
You are the problem with American politics. You want everything to just magically fix itself. It doesn't work like that.
I trust a business man that knows how to run a business over a street organizer with a big chip on his shoulder!
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I like how Romney criticized Obama for spending 2 years on Obamacare instead of the job issue, but here is what Romney is going to do on day one as President instead of working on the job issue.
You do realize Day 1 is a euphamism. Right? It was hysterical in the debate when Obama said - you're going to be busy on day 1.
That comment sort of backfires because:
1) It assumes Romney is elected
2) It shows the stupidity of taking literal translations of things
3) If you are in a literal translation mode as that statement is, it also intimates that Romney can actually do all those things in 1 day. That's quite a President. Even if you don't think it's the right thing to do. It would be impressive.
At least he didn't claim to be closing Guantanamo in 1 year and 4 years later still not do it. Perhaps, I should have interpreted that as a euphamism, as well.
Don't worry london bridge, some posters use literal translations all the time here on AMT to shoot themselves in the foot
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
You hate the rich we know. maybe because you don't understand that they work also. The money doesn't just show up. They have to make the money BUDGET the money and invest wisely. If they just spend spend spend (like Obama) they will go broke.
I trust a business man that knows how to run a business over a street organizer with a big chip on his shoulder!
Um... I think I've mentioned before that I'm one of the people whose taxes will go up when the bush tax cuts expire.
So I don't hate "the rich."
The national debt had gone up not because the president has spent so much but becuase he's still paying for the things Bush bought without a way to fund them. Trusting a businessman whose history is "fire everyone and hire the Chinese to do their jobs" is not really a good idea. I'm so sick of people who think a country is a business.
closing Guantanamo ? sounds like there may be more to the rotton little bastards that got locked up than meets the media eye or else they would be driving cabs in New York by now
Godfather.
What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever. I mean there is always a risk when you lock someone up with out a trial of any sort.
You seem to have a particular distaste for brown people, I mean between the Islam posts, these lovely zingers, and now cab drivers in New York, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
closing Guantanamo ? sounds like there may be more to the rotton little bastards that got locked up than meets the media eye or else they would be driving cabs in New York by now
Godfather.
What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever. I mean there is always a risk when you lock someone up with out a trial of any sort.
You seem to have a particular distaste for brown people, I mean between the Islam posts, these lovely zingers, and now cab drivers in New York, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
brown people ? :shh: my wife and kid are brown....I'd sure hate for the world to find out
I'm seeing a trend in you also, you seem to be from another country ..Ireland ? and are always taking jab's at America for just about any reason and in a very disrespectful way, so don't worry about the USA we'll be just fine without you
oh and as far as What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever.......well mr.know it all why don't you tell us ? ....what so ever myn ass !
I was reading here in the thread about the home fiasco...
We have been hit, one of the hardest in the country, our Atlanta housing market.
Foreclosures still coming on the market big time. This is effecting being able to sell ours
for what we need out of it.
We've lived in this house since 96' at the time we came from a $125,000 house selling it for
$145,000 after 5 years in it. We priced by owner for quick sale and got it but had to
sit and wait for our buyers house to sell only about 9 months.
It was a good market back then.
Then when looking for our new home the agents and bankers qualified us for a $750,000
mortgage ... say what!! :shock: That felt more than extravagant it was crazy talk!
We were smart we bought this home for $207,000. We would be so upside down now
if we hadn't.
Fishiness was about that long ago. Us going on our fifth home purchase
we knew not to take on a loan like that but many people listened to those 'experts'
and followed their lead over the years to come.
I really don't fault them because home buying can be a very emotional
process. It's a purchase with a lot of love attached, part of the American dream
and inhibitions and good common sense can go when someone wants something
very much.
So now did I hear the Federal Reserve is buying the foreclosed mortgages
at an alarming rate?
Basically helping the banks once again. And then who will they resell them too?
Landlords? perhaps landlords not even on American soil? We are seeing this happening to
many properties here, bought up and rented out.
So one more dream is dying?
The dream of being a homeowner and with it the power that owning property gives.
And then what if a law is passed that only property owners can vote, those who directly
have a property tax bill in their names.
Not so far fetched .....
closing Guantanamo ? sounds like there may be more to the rotton little bastards that got locked up than meets the media eye or else they would be driving cabs in New York by now
Godfather.
What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever. I mean there is always a risk when you lock someone up with out a trial of any sort.
You seem to have a particular distaste for brown people, I mean between the Islam posts, these lovely zingers, and now cab drivers in New York, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
brown people ? :shh: my wife and kid are brown....I'd sure hate for the world to find out
I'm seeing a trend in you also, you seem to be from another country ..Ireland ? and are always taking jab's at America for just about any reason and in a very disrespectful way, so don't worry about the USA we'll be just fine without you
oh and as far as What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever.......well mr.know it all why don't you tell us ? ....what so ever myn ass !
Godfather.
I have great respect for America, sure being Irish, a lot of us are over there, and I take an interest in the country.
The reason why I have opinions on America is, this message boards threads tend to be related to the subject, imagine that. You interpret my comments as jabs, I would imagine, because you disagree with my point of view, which I had figured was welcomed, once upon a time in your nation.
Now if you want to start a thread on Ireland and it's foreign policy, banking regulations, checkered history etc... then be my guest, and I will be just as forthcoming.
With respect to your last question - you have made numerous generalisations around peoples of the middle eastern heritage and of a certain religious affiliation. My only question is that you back these assertions up with more than your opinion or feeling.
The comment I made about your dislike or otherwise of a particular persuasion of people, is due only to the posts you have put up. If I am wrong then please enlighten me, or not, if you don't care to.
Andrew Sullivan, known for steadfastly supporting President Obama, is worried — and that's putting it mildly.
After Obama's poor debate performance last week, and the release of what Sullivan described as "devastating" Pew poll results yesterday, the Newsweek/Daily Beast writer had what can only be described as a major freakout. He flatly declared that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney "is kicking the president's ass."
Sullivan did not hide his astonishment that, after the debate, Romney's poll numbers swung 12 points in his favor. "I repeat: a 12 point swing," he stressed. "On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney - even though they are all much diminished."
Sullivan wrote that he was "trying to see the silver lining" and "trying to rally some morale," but that he's "never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week." He described the president as "too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve."
These words are incredibly harsh for a writer who once called Obama "the Democrats' Reagan," declared him "the first gay president" after the president announced his support for same sex marriage, and asked, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"
Seems like Sullivan is now humming a different tune.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
Dude, we're all for good debate here, but come on.
I hope you're right, brother.
Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama. I
Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush. Romney hasn't raised the debt. If you want to elect someone who hasn't raised the debt are you going to vote for the guy in office who has continued to raise the debt or the guy who says he is going to reduce the debt?
It is very logical. I never said Romney was absolutely going to lower the debt, I just said why vote for the guy who has proved he can't lower the debt. Maybe Romney will fail too. But I am not going to vote for a failure (Obama) and will vote to give someone else a chance.
You say the current debt is bush's fault. If true, why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?
So what is the problem? Obama raised the debt at a huge pace. I want to reduce the debt. Would be really stupid to vote for Obama if I want the debt lowered. If Romney increase the debt then I will vote him out next time.
The country would be better off if we held politicians accountable like this instead of voting based on party lines or issues that neither side intends to change (like abortion).
That's fine, dude. You're right; it's all good. It's just that they were very basic statements--true, but basic. There are a lot of reasons for the debt, deficit, unemployment, etc.
Might as well give another person a try.
My take is this (I am copying this from another one of my posts; it's late, I'm being lazy and simply
taking a break from my work because I have writer's block):
The funny thing is though (as I stated on another thread) in my opinion, the field is, and has been, perfectly set for trickle-down economics. Taxes are low--loopholes-- CEO pay is unchanged, corporate profits are very strong, Wall St. is through the roof......it's a shame. The poor and the working class ALWAYS pay.
And now we want to double-down on this approach? Other than the Stimulus, which analysts have said staved off a more severe recession and which was 1/3 tax cuts, Obama hasn't been able to pass any other legislation. See: Republican obstructionism.
So, if one is to say that Obama has failed because of his policies, they are basically saying that trickle-down economics--the plant hat Romney wants to double-down on--is a failure.
And, there's this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... t_freeland
A lot of hypocrisy going on. Is it too much of a stretch to think these CEOs, these poor, poor fuckbags, are not hiring out of spite. If Romney wins, watch hiring spike. This won't be because of policies, this will be because of their dislike/hatred of Obama because Obama yelled at them....waahhhh
Prove me wrong.
No... Obama is still paying for the debt created by him. Two unfunded wars, millions of jobs lost... tax cuts we couldn't afford, a prescription drug plan that had no plan to actually pay for it.
That's the problem when you elect a rich brat who has never had to really budget for anything. Never had to worry where the money was going to come from. They just... get things they want and the money just shows up.
That's what Mitt Romney is. He worries about cash this year? Fire some of the help and sell one of the condos.
Let's see how he runs the country. Hope you don't have kids or parents who might need to see a doctor any time soon.
really?
Because he's fired how many thousands of people who then had to take unemployment? Did that just pay for itself?
Uh... no... actually, it looks like you are. You get it that the president isn't Dumbledore, right? That huge problems like we had four years ago can't just go away in a couple years? That especially when bitter Republicans who are angry he won the election and have said their #1 goal is to ruin him, it's hard to actually make real changes but we STILL have GM alive, Bin Ladin dead, the stock market worth double what it was and that we're not losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH like before?
But you want to vote for another spoiled rich guy who says that anyone who has ever taken any form of government help is a lazy moocher he plans to set adrift? Whines that veterans on disability "think they're entitled to food?"
Good luck with that.
You are the problem with American politics. You want everything to just magically fix itself. It doesn't work like that.
And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?
How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?
Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?
(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)
To a point...but not really the same thing at all.
It's too big of a topic to elucidate in a thread; and, where you place blame will rest on your political and economic views.
Some want to blame the industry, some want to blame the borrowers, some want to blame government, etc.
Everyone has blood on their hands
My economic views are about common sense and responsibility. No matter how much I'm being wooed to make a purchase, why would I do so when I clearly can't afford it?
Voted 4 Obama and will do so again with great heartache due to the spending you mentioned in your message. Romney is a weasel and have no trust in the guy. Add social positions he accepted once he all of a sudden became a rep nominee, can see he is not genuine. If he becomes a chicken hawk president, which he may as he'll reap rewards, he'll easily outspend Obama. So in the end, Obama's better for me and probably better for US.
What makes him a weasel?
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/235499-romney-campaign-day-one-job-one-repeal-obamacare
You do realize Day 1 is a euphamism. Right? It was hysterical in the debate when Obama said - you're going to be busy on day 1.
That comment sort of backfires because:
1) It assumes Romney is elected
2) It shows the stupidity of taking literal translations of things
3) If you are in a literal translation mode as that statement is, it also intimates that Romney can actually do all those things in 1 day. That's quite a President. Even if you don't think it's the right thing to do. It would be impressive.
At least he didn't claim to be closing Guantanamo in 1 year and 4 years later still not do it. Perhaps, I should have interpreted that as a euphamism, as well.
Godfather.
I trust a business man that knows how to run a business over a street organizer with a big chip on his shoulder!
Don't worry london bridge, some posters use literal translations all the time here on AMT to shoot themselves in the foot
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
Um... I think I've mentioned before that I'm one of the people whose taxes will go up when the bush tax cuts expire.
So I don't hate "the rich."
The national debt had gone up not because the president has spent so much but becuase he's still paying for the things Bush bought without a way to fund them. Trusting a businessman whose history is "fire everyone and hire the Chinese to do their jobs" is not really a good idea. I'm so sick of people who think a country is a business.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Vote for him?
What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever. I mean there is always a risk when you lock someone up with out a trial of any sort.
You seem to have a particular distaste for brown people, I mean between the Islam posts, these lovely zingers, and now cab drivers in New York, I'm beginning to spot a trend.
brown people ? :shh: my wife and kid are brown....I'd sure hate for the world to find out
I'm seeing a trend in you also, you seem to be from another country ..Ireland ? and are always taking jab's at America for just about any reason and in a very disrespectful way, so don't worry about the USA we'll be just fine without you
oh and as far as What percentage of those "rotten little bastards" are completely innocent of any crime what so ever.......well mr.know it all why don't you tell us ? ....what so ever myn ass !
Godfather.
We have been hit, one of the hardest in the country, our Atlanta housing market.
Foreclosures still coming on the market big time. This is effecting being able to sell ours
for what we need out of it.
We've lived in this house since 96' at the time we came from a $125,000 house selling it for
$145,000 after 5 years in it. We priced by owner for quick sale and got it but had to
sit and wait for our buyers house to sell only about 9 months.
It was a good market back then.
Then when looking for our new home the agents and bankers qualified us for a $750,000
mortgage ... say what!! :shock: That felt more than extravagant it was crazy talk!
We were smart we bought this home for $207,000. We would be so upside down now
if we hadn't.
Fishiness was about that long ago. Us going on our fifth home purchase
we knew not to take on a loan like that but many people listened to those 'experts'
and followed their lead over the years to come.
I really don't fault them because home buying can be a very emotional
process. It's a purchase with a lot of love attached, part of the American dream
and inhibitions and good common sense can go when someone wants something
very much.
So now did I hear the Federal Reserve is buying the foreclosed mortgages
at an alarming rate?
Basically helping the banks once again. And then who will they resell them too?
Landlords? perhaps landlords not even on American soil? We are seeing this happening to
many properties here, bought up and rented out.
So one more dream is dying?
The dream of being a homeowner and with it the power that owning property gives.
And then what if a law is passed that only property owners can vote, those who directly
have a property tax bill in their names.
Not so far fetched .....
I have great respect for America, sure being Irish, a lot of us are over there, and I take an interest in the country.
The reason why I have opinions on America is, this message boards threads tend to be related to the subject, imagine that. You interpret my comments as jabs, I would imagine, because you disagree with my point of view, which I had figured was welcomed, once upon a time in your nation.
Now if you want to start a thread on Ireland and it's foreign policy, banking regulations, checkered history etc... then be my guest, and I will be just as forthcoming.
With respect to your last question - you have made numerous generalisations around peoples of the middle eastern heritage and of a certain religious affiliation. My only question is that you back these assertions up with more than your opinion or feeling.
The comment I made about your dislike or otherwise of a particular persuasion of people, is due only to the posts you have put up. If I am wrong then please enlighten me, or not, if you don't care to.
Andrew Sullivan Freaks Out Over Obama: 'Romney Is Now Kicking The President's Ass'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 50792.html
Andrew Sullivan, known for steadfastly supporting President Obama, is worried — and that's putting it mildly.
After Obama's poor debate performance last week, and the release of what Sullivan described as "devastating" Pew poll results yesterday, the Newsweek/Daily Beast writer had what can only be described as a major freakout. He flatly declared that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney "is kicking the president's ass."
Sullivan did not hide his astonishment that, after the debate, Romney's poll numbers swung 12 points in his favor. "I repeat: a 12 point swing," he stressed. "On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney - even though they are all much diminished."
Sullivan wrote that he was "trying to see the silver lining" and "trying to rally some morale," but that he's "never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week." He described the president as "too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve."
These words are incredibly harsh for a writer who once called Obama "the Democrats' Reagan," declared him "the first gay president" after the president announced his support for same sex marriage, and asked, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"
Seems like Sullivan is now humming a different tune.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertai ... ear/57774/
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
He is closing the gap, but Obama is still ahead.