OK, but sometimes a difference in opinion is interpreted as disrespectful.
Sometimes, yes, but calling people names or ridiculing them, or mocking them, is disrespectful.
This is perplexing to me considering that it was Bushâ€™s continuation of deregulation that by and large ushered us into economic doom. Most credible economists now point to deregulation starting with Reagan thru to George W. (including Clinton) as a major culprit.
And as such, the political philosophy of small government, reduced regulation and an end to government oversight, you know: the Rightâ€™s political platform has pretty much put the ship on the rocks at the foot of the lighthouse.
It is meaningless to go back in history to where something started that was all upside and created a boom of economics, but now has caused a problem. This country's economy was much healthier for over a decade up until the last three years. Deregulation is not a BAD thing. Is it very risky? Yes. Remember, we had huge economic boom with the Dot Com era and the continuation of the tech industry creating a lot of competition. When you deregulate an economy, banking system included, for too long, you do tend to risk an economic downfall. We've had recessions, but came back from those and you can argue that the system of then, which was very deregulated, may have helped as well.
Still, it is of no use to point fingers at politicians, or parties, because our government didn't really care about the deregulated economy from the past 15 years or so. Not like our government was nearly bright in detecting Fanny Mae's issues anyway.
If you regulate too much then you end up limiting the growth of an economy as proven in any socialistic countries, many of them in Europe. Not much growth. I am in favor of deregulation, but the government still has to watch from the sidelines, and it did not. Just because you deregulate, does not mean that the government has no right to take a peak and make sure things are fine. We still have laws that regulate our economy, thus making it a mixed economy, not a socialistic or capitalistic one. The problem is that our government has been way too careless from both parties and did not bother to look. Rather than watching the game from the sidelines, they were watching the cheerleaders.
For starters, part of Obamaâ€™s platform was to put thru a healthcare program but the level of white noise run by the right has been astounding. They have used the word â€śsocializedâ€ť roughly an infinite number of times. They have used â€śgovernment run healthcareâ€ť about the same number.
Well, Obama's original plan was as equal as the ones used in Europe, which are socialized and run by the government. People don't want that. The majority of Americans don't want that and if we're talking about the majority, then i don't think the majority is right wing.
Look, there has been very little intellectual honesty going on here. And I would argue that as a result the country has been turning cynical as they watch the government tearing themselves up about it.
Absolutely. The GOP screwed up so badly and the people took action handing power to the Democratic party. In the end, it's the same garbage, for the most part, just a different party and people are losing faith in this country's government no matter who is running it.
Rahm Emanuel is a bully only because he is not on the right. He is very â€śun-democrat.â€ť He is a take no prisoners enforcer the likes the country has not seen for a long time. Way back in 2006 the Republicans had a similar personality in the White House. His name was Dick Chaney.
Except Cheney was an elected official, Emmanuel is an appointed staff member trying to run the show and bullying his own members as well. Big difference.
Quick note: drop the polls thing. George Bush had one of the lowest ever poll ratings and still got reelected so donâ€™t put too much credence in a poll. They are politically shallow and rarely reflect overarching strategy.
Ehhh, Bush had over 50% in approval rating by 2004, second term re-election. I am not a polls/survey fan, but when it is consistent polling on the same subject for consecutive months then they are fairly reliable.
On Terrorism: if you think that the â€śunderwear bomberâ€ť wouldnâ€™t have happened under the Bush watch then I donâ€™t know what to tell ya.
Does it matter? Nothing happened under his watch since 9/11 so what do we know?
Meanwhile, THIS administrations ratcheted up pressure on Pakistan is now resulting in Al Qaedaâ€™s original propagandist leadership getting hammered and squeezed. In one year no less. So, I resent the notion that anyone makes (not saying you are here) that under Bush we were safe and under Obama we are fucked.
That's fair, but there are some years left still.
Terrorism will happen. But while Bush was shrewd in his calling for a downscaling of operations (so he could: mission accomplish) in Iraq before he left, Obamaâ€™s international policies have as of this time bore more fruit then Bushâ€™s last 4 years.
Huh? In what sense and how can you even prove that unless you are a top guy in the CIA? Obama has also pissed off the extreme nutty far left for pretty much continuing Bush's terrorism policies.
As for trials??? I cannot and will not accept the notion that America can throw out its entire justice system over terrorism. That is stunning. Israel has faced more Islamic fascism than the US has and they have placed these bums on trial and locked their asses up.
Please, don't say islamic fascism as the silly conservatives say because it's not even correct to use fascism when terrorists do not even have a form of government. Israel is not the US. They have a different system than the US. And it probably does not cost them millions to try these assholes either, and keep them "healthy" in prisons. If these guys tried to fight our military, then it should be a military trial. But that is not the argument. I disagreed with Obama in pushing for this civil trial and putting it in New York. Ok, fine. I disagreed, so what? But for him to react to the negativity and say "Hmmm....ok, don't get too mad! I'll move it back to a military trial!" is telling. Stick to your guns, Bam Bam. Some democrats disagreed with Bush but respected the way he stuck to his guns. Obama has not stuck to his guns on anything but the GITMO closing which is still unfinished business.
When I see Americans so frightened, or elitist that they would sacrifice one of the cornerstones of Americaâ€™s greatnessâ€¦ I weep for how weak we have become. I am proud of this country but the last 10-years of suspension of trials and Guantanamo Bay are one of the darkest moments in my life politically and it shames us. I feel that each and everyone of us bare fault for something so beneath us. Nothing about it has been good for America. And to think that we would suspend our self imposed human rights while exporting democracy is hypocritical and a black mark on our flag.
I understand that, and Bush should have put these guys through military trials. But civil trials? These scumbags don't deserve one. Also, our justice system fails within our own criminals. Would i have full faith in it for trying a terrorist? Hmmm.........yeaaaaah but definitely not 100% faith.
We are one year in for goodness sakes crawling out of the largest economic disaster in the entire modern era. We were a pubic hair away from a complete economic collapse.
We're not crawling out, though. We still are a pubic hair away from complete collapse. Are we better than a year ago? Somewhat, yes in few areas of the economy, but we're far from any kind of promising recovery.
And they had their best chance to change things? I am not going to argue too much here because a lot of corporate bailouts were done and they all were standing there with their hands open. But these are also the very corporations that utilized deregulation to squeeze everything out of the US economy that they could get. And so after one year, the Right makes a sweeping indictment that this government is a failure and we need to get back to True Conservative Values to save the country by cutting the burdens of taxes and deregulating to get government out of peopleâ€™s live so the economy can flow. A New Contract with America 16 years after the last one contributed to the economic disaster we are now in.
The Democrats have been throwing money at the problems. I understand the first stimulus, both parties agreed to that, but the continuous spending and printing money is not helping this country. The GOP was not the only one to choose deregulation. The whole government, both parties, did not mind that kind of deregulation for years. As i said. They were at the sidelines but did not watch. What has the Democratic party done to increase small businesses to help employ people? You are talking about corporations, but they don't make up most of the American economy. Small businesses make up the US economy. If i am not mistaken, small businesses employed 90% or more of Americans. Small businesses are suffering and closing. We need to fix that. Corporations all depend on investors in the end. The banks also, and i think the banks are more responsible here, but i am not savvy enough on the banking industry to figure out how it could be fixed. Corporations? Yeah. Small businesses? Yes. Banks? No clue.
Still, the unemployment rate is bad. Small businesses are still suffering. I used to go to Boca Dolce which was a bakery/pastry shop in Boca on Glades Road. The other shop is in Boynton, but they expanded because they were doing well. I actually managed to find the company's income in the Boca store and it was estimated at $500k. Speaking with the part owner, who is from Argentina, he said the expenses were too much despite a good customer base, and yes......that included TAXES! I hope he doesn't close the one in Boynton Beach. But see? This is the problem. Small businesses. The democratic party is not helping. If they were, then unemployment would not be so terrible for this nation's standards. We do not want to go back to a careless deregulation system. The GOP wants back in because Obama has spent a ridiculous amount of money and has no improvements to show for, except for more government jobs that now pay more, on average, than the private sector jobs (way to boost that sector's health -NOT-). And yet!!!! He still has to get this chaotic healthcare program passed that will be a massive spending bill.
Look at GM for a moment. Long speared in the gut by the unions and paying so much dead money out, that it was breaking their backs. If a public option existed, there would be no healthcare included in the CBA. The workers have their health protected and the company is free to use that money for more profit inducing components of their business.
So in other words, you say GM's demise was largely due to the expenditures of the unions and their healthcare. Right? Okay, yeah that is fair but GM foolishly spoiled their employees for too many years. Their fault. Anyway, so you say that is what caused damage for GM, yes? Ok, let me rephrase a part of your quote:
"""Look at the federal government for a moment. Long speared in the gut by the people and paying so much dead money out, it was breaking their backs."""
If it bankrupted GM, it would also bankrupt the government. What would you rather have? GM bankrupted, or the country bankrupted?
Deregulation has helped (edited) lead this country to become an economic superpower after the Soviet Union crumbled. Yeah, Reagan did reverse CERTAIN parts of his free for all ideas, but it carried on through Bush senior. Through Clinton. And through most of W.
If the government was paying more attention, this chaos would not have happened. They didn't though. They did not care because they were making money as well.
I am not posting anything in this thread to blame one politician, or one party. I am blaming our government as a whole, both parties. And the worst part of it is that the main debate is not even the economy, but whose agenda should be inserted in this healthcare bill.