Our president, not many threads about him.

[Mighty Mouse]

@get some . . . Weren't the Democrats also part of the previous 8 years? Or are you giving them a pass because it was Bush in charge? I don't recall any of the Democrats proposing anything substantive in the previous 8 years other than ABB (anyone but Bush), or suggesting they could/would have done better. Oh yeah. Other than not being in Iraq. When are we leaving Iraq for good again?

[Rogue]

Hey Mighty Racist, looking to see where Get Some mentioned the word "Democrats" in his post. Looks like to me he's speaking of Obama.

Sounds like, but only in reverse, those who say that the Kennedy seat going to the Right was a vote against the Democrats. Not possible that the Democrat was just a crappy candidate and the people selected the better option?

[Mighty Mouse]

^ for a guy whose organs get lit up over my posts, you sure respond to them often. Way to pick up on my stipulation in your rendering of my nick. Must have taken all of 2 points of IQ to come up with Mighty Racist. Now go back to fantasizing about being Obama's *woman*

Read his post moron. No he does not say Democrats, but it's not leap of faith to go from criticism of "previous administration" and not Bush specifically to speaking of Obama. or does not your brain function enough when your organs are excited by my posts? Or do you believe that Obama rules in a monarchy? You do know that he is a party leader?

Apparently logical thinking is not part of your world.

* censored for forum rules.

[Rogue]

if you've ever read any of Get Some's posts you already know he's not a company man for the Democrats.

*ADMIN NOTE* Please take personal attacks to the PMs. This is General Talk not the Dungeon.
On a side note, please no swearing. Remember there are people under 13 here.
Cloud

[fishtank]

lulz

[NUTS!]

So, two questions for you: 1) What's he specifically doing economically that will make sure there will never be another Obama? and 2) How do you fix the deficit and national debt without reforming healthcare?

Well to answer question one. As I was alluding to in my first missive. Were do you think all the money is going that we are paying? To the elite class, the bankers, etc. You had trillions of dollars that should have put companies under for making bad investments. The government took dollars from you and I to make those bad investments whole. Hence all my ramblings about the transfer of wealth. Let me repeat that. The government made the bad investments whole and used yours and mine future tax dollars to pay for it. So basically have wiped out the middle class by doing so. I bet that you believe them when they say they had to do it, they did, for there own personal accounts. Fun part is that they have paid for this with debt that really does not start to expire until about 2012, so enjoy it. So unlless you are part of that class, good luck ever becoming President.

As others have pointed out we have had balanced budgets and surpluses without a healthcare system. I would ask you how the heck can we have balanced budget with a government run health care system? As I have stated before I do believe that the health care industry does need some overhauling. Such as allowing any health care insurance company into any state that it wants to, like car insurance. Gross generalization, sorry, but I am to tired to get into it further ( or really care).

FYI- Your trying to goad me with the your little comments is not going to work. I have children and they do the same.

[Cannon-Dale J]

erm I thought we had done all this & come to a conclusion: we are all doomed.

The solution to this has to be global now. All our econmoies rely on infinite growth, thats the nub. The problem with this is we rely on natural resources which are finite. Globe has 7 billion people with 2 billion going hungry. We are all striving to get 9 billion to live like we do in the west. Do the maths. To do that we would have to rip our planet apart. Yes, we can hope technology will rescue us, but it is lagging miles behind.

Someone, or more precisely a group of global leaders are going to have to make some pretty major decisions. Yes we can invest internally & on renewables, nothing wrong with that, but it's all just lip service. We all need to get smarter (obviously, coz what we are doing is dumb) & live differently, that means you & me.

Can't see THE decision being made, so I assume we will still be doomed. Least we have another 20 years of Ostrich mode till things get really tricky...

[Mighty Mouse]

@cannon . . . I believe that resources are finite, but with proper management, the Earth can handle an even bigger population. It's just that in our greed, we are mismanaging and misutilizing. Agreed on your second paragraph, we are going to have to change and become smarter about how we do what we do, but if we expect that to come from the top, sadly, I think we will be waiting a long time for naught.

I'm just glad I'll be dead before that.

[KKB]

Obama blows.

He won't get re-elected.

He is either entirely clueless or bent on ruining capitolism (this country).

I think he's bent...

[44]

The government took dollars from you and I to make those bad investments whole.

As others have pointed out we have had balanced budgets and surpluses without a healthcare system. I would ask you how the heck can we have balanced budget with a government run health care system?

Your first post says Obama sucks because his budget does not include added trillions to bailout Fannie/Freddie. Now you say Obama sucks because of TARP. What is your argument? That we should budget for bailouts? Or we shouldn't?

If you want to argue that TARP was a bad idea and Obama sucks for supporting it, go ahead. Let's hear your argument. But make sure it recognizes the FACT that the best economic minds of today -- liberal and conservative alike -- said we needed TARP, and needed to do it extremely quickly, in order to avoid a financial meltdown the likes of which I'm not sure many can imagine. Also, make sure your argument acknowledges that it was not Obama's administration that oversaw the situation that created the need for TARP nor the reckless spending that exacerbated the situation in the run up. If you're real good, and have given this a lot of thought, perhaps your argument can also draw a line of distinction between Obama's support for TARP and the plan's development by the previous administration.

Next, if you want to make an argument that we can solve the nation's fiscal problems without reforming healthcare and that Obama sucks for trying to do so, go ahead. Let's hear your argument. But make sure it distinguishes between a TEMPORARY BUDGET surplus and a LONG-TERM strategy to solve for the national DEBT. Also, see if your argument can acknowledge the FACT that healthcare spending now represents over $2 trillion dollars annually, nearly 20% of our GDP and is growing at 6% per year. If you're real good, and have given this a lot of thought, perhaps your argument can also include a little bit of an explanation for how we can solve our fiscal challenges without reforming healthcare.

I would honestly like to hear a real argument from you explaining why Obama sucks for supporting TARP and/or trying to reform healthcare. Yes, a real argument, as opposed to Fox News gibberish about socialist plots and wasted, out-of-control spending.

Or, if you can't handle those arguments, maybe you'd rather just hang some tea-bags from your hat, hold a poster of Chairman Mao and yell "Obama blows!". That takes a lot less thought.