Unemployment Falls Only to 8.1%

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Well this "meltdown" you speak of is accurately broken down in the following ways:

 

The strain put on the economy during the Bush Administration was obviously financing 2 wars at one time. Now over time these wars suddenly morphed into "a big waste of time" in the eyes of many in the public but I can remember when thousands were stomping on the front gate of the White House and demanding blood be shed in the name of 9/11. We didn't care the costs, somebody was going to pay. My how quick we forget...but even the wars, as taxing as they have been, they aren't to blame for the economic downfall.

 

The Bush Administration also told us we'd be in and out of those wars fairly quickly. Not 10+ years. And in combination with two tax cuts and a gigantic expansion of Medicare called "Part D," he ran up the deficit quite a bit.

 

Back in 1999, Liberals were bragging about how extensions of Affirmative Action signed off by Clinton had led to huge rises in home ownership by Afro and Latino Americans. Meanwhile, economists were pulling out their hair while screaming that Dems were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans which would fail the moment the housing market slowed. Deadbeat borrowers wouldn't be able to get out of their loans by selling their houses and (as predicted) the housing bubble would burst. As I've heard it described once: "The Democrats created an affirmative action time-bomb", and it went off during the Bush years.

 

It was actually in Bush's first term where White House chief economist Gregory Mankiw, (Romney's current chief economist), warned that the Govt's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with masses of loans to unqualified buyers was creating a huge risk for the financial system. Barney Frank (D) denounced Mankiw's theory, claiming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault" by the GOP and went as far as to say: "How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them!"

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars later...the liberal media would have you believe George W. Bush is personally responsible for the collapse of Wall Street. lol The Dems created the banking downfall, not the GOP.

 

 

1. Trying to get the poor into home ownership existed long before 1999. Fannie, Freddie, and other related GSEs have been around since FDR.

2. Extension of affirmative action? wut.

3. The subprime mortgage crisis did not cause a multi-trillion dollar GLOBAL financial crisis. If you believe that, you're the one that's been brainwashed by the media. It was the trigger, yes, but that problem had been brewing since the late 80s. A subprime mortgage crisis alone could not and would not cause the massive financial crisis the entire world endured beginning in late 2007.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[SteelersNation36 128]

Let me vote for the guy who made millions of dollars bankrupting companies. Has 120 million dollars in his IRA which should be impossible, no one knows how he did it. Also hope none of you like medicare if you're voting for him. His running mate is a real piece of work too. I find it funny his running mate wants to do away with in vitro fertilization. How were romeny's children conceived? ohhh by invitro

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I do not like the politics of W. but lets avoid bashing him for spending when we have one of the biggest spenders in the history of the country in office currently.

 

If Obama is elected and his projections become reality, he will have doubled the deficit in 8 years, which is quite impressive. The last 3-4 years have seen the highest rate of spending compared to our GDP in 70 years. And that's getting back to FDRs time... Having your spending record compared to FDR's is not a great thing. The size of government increased 100-fold and record spending numbers are submitted.

 

There are a lot of things to bash Bush for, but we can look elsewhere if we want to bash crazy spending.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

You're the typical Democratic apologist in that you'll take your charts and bar graphs...and as long as there's a + in there somewhere, you'll claim success. Do you not understand that Obama's failure to produce the number of job he claimed he would, the stimulus was an expensive failure? You want to spend $787 million to bring the unemployment to 6% or below, great but spend $831 billion and barely manage to touch %8...hell no, not worth the cost. Any moron could take over $800 billion and cut 2% out of the unemployment rate so let's not act like Obama did something extraordinary here.

 

I never took his optimism to heart when he claimed he'd have the economy back under 6% unemployment. Did he fail to achieve that? Sure. But that was before he faced a brick wall of opposition at every turn by Congressional Republicans (and let's be clear: They said after gaining control of the House that they absolutely would not compromise on any issues with the Obama Administration. That's not heresay, it's fact).

 

 

Is this what makes you feel better about keeping Obama in office then?

 

No, his term has been largely disappointing (from a Democrat's perspective anyway) but I want to keep him in office for 3 reasons: to prevent Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and to allow Dodd-Frank to continue implementation without repeal.

 

Of course they present shit from both sides, hell, even Fox News puts the Liberals on camera b/c it's not much of a debate w/o the other side present to make their argument.

 

The Economist was founded by James Wilson, Liberal politician James Wilson...and the entire basis of the publication is to support the principles of economic liberalism. It supports free trade, global warming, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, central banks, government regulation of health care, free immigration, smoking bans, heavier control laws, progressive taxation...need I go on?

 

Meh. I don't give a damn who founded the newspaper 160 years ago. I read the paper avidly and I don't find cases of bias often.

 

Again, your facts show that Obama's 4 years and billions of deficit spending took an American economy that was 'horrible' and made it 'a little less horrible'. Pat on the back!

 

Do me a favor and read "The New New Deal." I'm tired of regurgitating the same shit over and over.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Paulson made plenty of miscalculations but I think anybody would, given the situation he inherited. The decision to force Lehman into bankruptcy was made without knowing other major banks were nearly in the same bad position. Do I agree with the bank bailout? I think it was absolutely necessary. Would I have structured it differently? Absolutely.

 

But let's put the horse back in front of the wagon here. Is Paulson the face of an bank bailout if there's was no credit crisis to begin with? It's like blaming the mechanic for screwing up the repair when you could've avoided the situation by not smashing up your car in the first place.

Do you have any idea what he was doing before he was secretary of Treasury? lol

 

It's not like Geithner is any better, but come on man.

[WindyCitySports 407]

In order to understand the economy, I believe that you must take a broader look at it. You have to look long term. People think that stimulus packages fix economic downturns. Stimulus packages do create jobs. Throwing billions of dollars at the economy is bound to see a drop in the unemployment rate. However, what you are really doing is creating a bubble. Those jobs are very brief and short-term jobs, and when that stimulus money runs out, the bubble bursts. And it becomes an even bigger economic downturn than it would have already been.

 

People need to understand that economic downturns happen, and that they will be shorter if the government does not throw stimulus at the economy. Also, the economy will become healthier if the government does not intervene with bailouts. Businesses struggle for a reason, and it is usually because people don't want to buy their product. If the government had allowed GM to sink, it would've been tragic, but new companies would have emerged that build better products, therefore strengthening the economy. Instead, the government is keeping a company afloat that people are not enthusiastic about buying into. Now, they are starting to crash again and Obama is prepared to step in with another bailout.

 

The government won't follow this sort of thinking, because then it looks like they don't want to do anything to help the economy. People are not educated enough to understand these concepts and therefore will vote against politicians who propose that the government stays out of economic downturns. Since politicians are so eager to keep their jobs, they do whatever will get them re-elected, and they also aren't educated in this stuff either, so it doesn't make a difference.

 

No bailouts, no stimulus, shorter downturns, healthier economies, Austrian Economics.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I agree with the bailout but the banks should have been broken up into smaller banks. If all those banks failed it could have been a lot worse, but there was also absolutely nothing done to make sure that this doesn't happen all over again. At this point why wouldn't they continue with business as usual?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

In order to understand the economy, I believe that you must take a broader look at it. You have to look long term. People think that stimulus packages fix economic downturns. Stimulus packages do create jobs. Throwing billions of dollars at the economy is bound to see a drop in the unemployment rate. However, what you are really doing is creating a bubble. Those jobs are very brief and short-term jobs, and when that stimulus money runs out, the bubble bursts. And it becomes an even bigger economic downturn than it would have already been.

 

People need to understand that economic downturns happen, and that they will be shorter if the government does not throw stimulus at the economy. Also, the economy will become healthier if the government does not intervene with bailouts. Businesses struggle for a reason, and it is usually because people don't want to buy their product. If the government had allowed GM to sink, it would've been tragic, but new companies would have emerged that build better products, therefore strengthening the economy. Instead, the government is keeping a company afloat that people are not enthusiastic about buying into. Now, they are starting to crash again and Obama is prepared to step in with another bailout.

 

The government won't follow this sort of thinking, because then it looks like they don't want to do anything to help the economy. People are not educated enough to understand these concepts and therefore will vote against politicians who propose that the government stays out of economic downturns. Since politicians are so eager to keep their jobs, they do whatever will get them re-elected, and they also aren't educated in this stuff either, so it doesn't make a difference.

 

No bailouts, no stimulus, shorter downturns, healthier economies, Austrian Economics.

 

I don't have time to explain why because I have to be at work in 20 minutes, but you're wrong on almost every single aspect in this post. I'll try to comment with more later tonight or tomorrow.

[War Eagle714 16]

The Bush Administration also told us we'd be in and out of those wars fairly quickly. Not 10+ years. And in combination with two tax cuts and a gigantic expansion of Medicare called "Part D," he ran up the deficit quite a bit.1. Trying to get the poor into home ownership existed long before 1999. Fannie, Freddie, and other related GSEs have been around since FDR.2. Extension of affirmative action? wut.3. The subprime mortgage crisis did not cause a multi-trillion dollar GLOBAL financial crisis. If you believe that, you're the one that's been brainwashed by the media. It was the trigger, yes, but that problem had been brewing since the late 80s. A subprime mortgage crisis alone could not and would not cause the massive financial crisis the entire world endured beginning in late 2007.

I won't say that I'm anti-medicare but I am definitely not in favor of all the "options" medicare enrollees have been given with the legislation passed over the past decade...especially when these "Plans" are for nothing more than to appease lobbyists. I don't claim Bush was the perfect President but it irks me how Obama supporters try to use the Bush years as a cop-out, an excuse for why their boy hasn't delivered on all his 2008 campaign promises.

 

Extension of Affirmative Action during the Clinton Administration, you don't remember this? Research what he did during his presidency and Affirmative Action will appear in every summary.

 

You're right, the housing crisis was only a trigger but w/o a trigger the gun cannot be fired and I blame the Dems for the bloated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidies. "Free lunches" is the Liberal way, not the conservative preference. I also don't how our Wall Street collapsed equates to, "the whole world endured". Shit, the bailout was so unrestricted and unmonitored that nearly every major foreign bank dumped all debt into their American subsidies and just like that...American taxpayers on are on the hook for that too.

 

 

Let me vote for the guy who made millions of dollars bankrupting companies. Has 120 million dollars in his IRA which should be impossible, no one knows how he did it. Also hope none of you like medicare if you're voting for him. His running mate is a real piece of work too. I find it funny his running mate wants to do away with in vitro fertilization. How were romeny's children conceived? ohhh by invitro

If you honestly think Romney made millions bankrupting companies...then you need to stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid and actually educate yourself. Romney's company, Bain Captial, bought out ailing businesses and then restructured the companies in order to continue whatever business said company was in. Unfortunately this causes outsourcing of jobs but these companies were already bankrupt or pretty damn close to when Bain Capital stepped in.

 

And if you weren't a test tube baby then why the hell do you care about In virto fertilisation? Are you that shocked the conservatives don't agree with scientists "playing God" when it comes to child birth? It's not like Ryan is just being an a-hole; In virto fertilisation goes against Christian beliefs.

 

I never took his optimism to heart when he claimed he'd have the economy back under 6% unemployment. Did he fail to achieve that? Sure. But that was before he faced a brick wall of opposition at every turn by Congressional Republicans (and let's be clear: They said after gaining control of the House that they absolutely would not compromise on any issues with the Obama Administration. That's not heresay, it's fact).No, his term has been largely disappointing (from a Democrat's perspective anyway) but I want to keep him in office for 3 reasons: to prevent Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and to allow Dodd-Frank to continue implementation without repeal.Meh. I don't give a damn who founded the newspaper 160 years ago. I read the paper avidly and I don't find cases of bias often.Do me a favor and read "The New New Deal." I'm tired of regurgitating the same shit over and over.

Doesn't the fact a House controlled by Democrats, for 2 years, wouldn't come to terms with your Democrat President bother you? His political colleagues have never had any confidence in him as a President but they stand by him b/c they'd rather him have the Presidency than the GOP but once the election is over...they basically fight with him as much as the other side of the isle does. I respect the fact you're saying "disappointed" in his first term b/c I can't take a Dem voter seriously who at least won't admit as much. I'm a Republican who had high hopes that he would be able to do a lot of what he promised but he's failed to execute. I really, really liked a lot of his "Blueprint" for a universal healthcare system but this Affordable Care Act isn't anything close to what he campaigned for.

 

I spent the first 2 years of college majoring in History so believe me, I know all about "The New Deal". But because all the money we spent didn't effectively lower unemployment...because taxes have become astronomical...because of effective political lobbying...and because federal programs in this century are met with insane costs........a New Deal in 2008 and beyond just isn't realistic,

[seanbrock 1,684]

Still want to vote Romney? The guy is a fucking SNAKE.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I won't say that I'm anti-medicare but I am definitely not in favor of all the "options" medicare enrollees have been given with the legislation passed over the past decade...especially when these "Plans" are for nothing more than to appease lobbyists. I don't claim Bush was the perfect President but it irks me how Obama supporters try to use the Bush years as a cop-out, an excuse for why their boy hasn't delivered on all his 2008 campaign promises.

 

Extension of Affirmative Action during the Clinton Administration, you don't remember this? Research what he did during his presidency and Affirmative Action will appear in every summary.

 

I know what affirmative action is, but it has nothing to do with getting the poor into homes.

 

You're right, the housing crisis was only a trigger but w/o a trigger the gun cannot be fired and I blame the Dems for the bloated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidies. "Free lunches" is the Liberal way, not the conservative preference. I also don't how our Wall Street collapsed equates to, "the whole world endured". Shit, the bailout was so unrestricted and unmonitored that nearly every major foreign bank dumped all debt into their American subsidies and just like that...American taxpayers on are on the hook for that too.

 

Take away the subprime mortgage market and there still would have been something there in its place.

The entire world uses our currency and it faced a serious devaluation during the crisis, leading to massive trade imbalances among other things. Our financial institutions also sold hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of their failed securities to firms and governments abroad (Iceland is a good example). So yeah, our financial collapse triggered a global collapse. We're not the only ones in a recession. You know that right?

 

And if you weren't a test tube baby then why the hell do you care about In virto fertilisation? Are you that shocked the conservatives don't agree with scientists "playing God" when it comes to child birth? It's not like Ryan is just being an a-hole; In virto fertilisation goes against Christian beliefs.

 

Religion has no place in government or politics. I don't give a damn if its against his "Christian values." Said values shouldn't be pushed on an entire population where not everyone practices Christianity.

 

 

Doesn't the fact a House controlled by Democrats, for 2 years, wouldn't come to terms with your Democrat President bother you? His political colleagues have never had any confidence in him as a President but they stand by him b/c they'd rather him have the Presidency than the GOP but once the election is over...they basically fight with him as much as the other side of the isle does. I respect the fact you're saying "disappointed" in his first term b/c I can't take a Dem voter seriously who at least won't admit as much. I'm a Republican who had high hopes that he would be able to do a lot of what he promised but he's failed to execute. I really, really liked a lot of his "Blueprint" for a universal healthcare system but this Affordable Care Act isn't anything close to what he campaigned for.

 

They passed the stimulus and health care reform. Other than that, yeah, they dropped the ball. Of course it annoys me, but I won't vote for the alternative because their policies are contrary to my ideals.

 

I don't expect much out of any Presidential candidate's campaign promises and anyone basing an administration's success on such a premise is doing it wrong. That being said, he passed health care reform and that Republicans want to repeal every provision or block funding for it is why I'll never vote Republican as long as that's part of their platform.

 

He tried to implement his original version of universal care but the Republicans fear-mongered the living fuck out of it (the kind of fear-mongering that probably hasn't been seen since McCarthy, honestly) to the point where the American people thought socialism was being pushed on them. What you got as a result was the current legislation.

 

I spent the first 2 years of college majoring in History so believe me, I know all about "The New Deal". But because all the money we spent didn't effectively lower unemployment...because taxes have become astronomical...because of effective political lobbying...and because federal programs in this century are met with insane costs........a New Deal in 2008 and beyond just isn't realistic,

 

I said NEW NEW Deal, not New Deal. This:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347161185&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+new+deal

 

It explains what exactly the stimulus did for the economy, government, and American people. Very good read for understanding the stimulus legislation and its effects.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[War Eagle714 16]

Still want to vote Romney? The guy is a fucking SNAKE.

lol, you really need to read the fine print my friend:

These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates.

So if I work for Goldman Sachs and my rich uncle supports Romney's PAC, then this website misrepresents Goldman Sachs as a supporter.

 

It's well known that Opensecrets.org is a George Soros project, designed to convince Americans that something isn't right with the Romney campaign. It's not factual, it's a campaign tactic on behalf of the political left. The "Responsible Politics" that this website claims is being done-so as a faux campaign finance coalition.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ah fuck it. I can't word this post right.

 

*throws in the towel

Edited September 9, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[seanbrock 1,684]

lol, you really need to read the fine print my friend:

 

So if I work for Goldman Sachs and my rich uncle supports Romney's PAC, then this website misrepresents Goldman Sachs as a supporter.

 

It's well known that Opensecrets.org is a George Soros project, designed to convince Americans that something isn't right with the Romney campaign. It's not factual, it's a campaign tactic on behalf of the political left. The "Responsible Politics" that this website claims is being done-so as a faux campaign finance coalition.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

 

Obama's contributors from the same site and it's not much better if at all.

 

Why would those guys give so much money to Romney? Even if they're just employees?

[War Eagle714 16]

I know what affirmative action is, but it has nothing to do with getting the poor into homes.

I mean, there's no conspiracy here....Clinton's extensions of Affirmative Action Policy lead to the massive number of dead-beat mortgages. Affirmative Action has everything to do with it.

 

Take away the subprime mortgage market and there still would have been something there in its place.

The entire world uses our currency and it faced a serious devaluation during the crisis, leading to massive trade imbalances among other things. Our financial institutions also sold hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of their failed securities to firms and governments abroad (Iceland is a good example). So yeah, our financial collapse triggered a global collapse. We're not the only ones in a recession. You know that right?

I realize our financial collapse triggered problems around the globe but aside from Western Europe, I don't think "global collapse" is the best way to describe it. Either way, we are no longer in a recession and thank God the Euro didn't/hasn't become the World's trade currency.

 

Religion has no place in government or politics. I don't give a damn if its against his "Christian values." Said values shouldn't be pushed on an entire population where not everyone practices Christianity.

Religion has no place in politics but science does? What kind of mentality is that? If we're omitting all belief systems from government then those who believe in creating test tube babies are shit out of luck too then...right? I mean it's only fair that it works both ways.

 

They passed the stimulus and health care reform. Other than that, yeah, they dropped the ball. Of course it annoys me, but I won't vote for the alternative because their policies are contrary to my ideals.

They voted for a stimulus that didn't work and a health care reform that the CBO estimates will add another $4 billion to the national deficit in a period of 20 years.

 

That being said, he passed health care reform and that Republicans want to repeal every provision or block funding for it is why I'll never vote Republican as long as that's part of their platform.

Don't act like the Dems don't do the same. Enough of the political left went along with all of Bush's mistakes and now he's suddenly the worst president ever, according to the same people

 

I said NEW NEW Deal, not New Deal. This:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347161185&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+new+deal

 

It explains what exactly the stimulus did for the economy, government, and American people. Very good read for understanding the stimulus legislation and its effects.

Again with the Liberal media. What's next...are you suggest I "educate" myself to the "truth" by watching a Michael Moore flick?

[War Eagle714 16]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

 

Obama's contributors from the same site and it's not much better if at all.

 

Why would those guys give so much money to Romney? Even if they're just employees?

First of all, campaign contributions are a matter of public record...so if you really want to know, go research it. The gist of websites like OpenSecrets.org is a scare tactic on the Romney campaign, brought to you by Liberals. It lists Romney's major campaign contributors as all the evil banks that stole your tax money and put us into a recession...meanwhile, Obama's campaign is primarily funded by universities and respected research foundations. Please....if you cannot see the obvious here...

[JetsFan4Life 542]

 

 

Religion has no place in politics but science does? What kind of mentality is that? If we're omitting all belief systems from government then those who believe in creating test tube babies are shit out of luck too then...right? I mean it's only fair that it works both ways.

 

 

Had to jump in on this.

 

Science = Fact. Religion = Opinion (faith)

 

So yes religion has NO PLACE in politics but science, or facts, do for sure. Just because religion and science are always compared they are by far not the same thing.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I mean, there's no conspiracy here....Clinton's extensions of Affirmative Action Policy lead to the massive number of dead-beat mortgages. Affirmative Action has everything to do with it.

 

Again, getting the poor into homes has been a political mainstay since the end of WW2. And subprime mortgages began taking off a few years before Clinton signed the legislation giving more access to mortgages by the poor.

 

 

I realize our financial collapse triggered problems around the globe but aside from Western Europe, I don't think "global collapse" is the best way to describe it. Either way, we are no longer in a recession and thank God the Euro didn't/hasn't become the World's trade currency.

 

It was a global collapse though. At least by developed countries. Emerging countries don't hold a lot of debt and third world countries weren't hit for obvious reasons.

 

 

Religion has no place in politics but science does? What kind of mentality is that? If we're omitting all belief systems from government then those who believe in creating test tube babies are shit out of luck too then...right? I mean it's only fair that it works both ways.

 

Seriously? I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

 

They voted for a stimulus that didn't work and a health care reform that the CBO estimates will add another $4 billion to the national deficit in a period of 20 years.

 

Still denying facts. Cool.

 

Don't act like the Dems don't do the same. Enough of the political left went along with all of Bush's mistakes and now he's suddenly the worst president ever, according to the same people

 

The Dems didn't sign a pact prior to either Bush term saying they would not compromise with him on any issue and would actively seek to remove him from office rather than try to fix the country's problems. Yes, that actually happened with Republicans in 2010.

 

 

Again with the Liberal media. What's next...are you suggest I "educate" myself to the "truth" by watching a Michael Moore flick?

 

 

No, you should watch Fox News instead. I hear they're fair and balanced there.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Science = Religion now? LOL. Idiocy abounds.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Wait wait wait...someone said religion belongs in politics?

 

LOLfuckingL.

 

Just try, I mean try, to justify that, War Eagle.

 

You have the right to oppose whatever you want based on your religion, but you have no right to support something that violates our Constitution in any way.

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

 

Obama hasn't really lived up to a majority of his promises. Last I checked he had a 57% rate of following through on his 2008 campaign promises but the 43% he hadn't followed through with are the big ticket economic issues.

 

And you're wrong about the deficit spending. Obama agreed that deficit spending needed to end during his 2008 campaign but then he comes into office and outspends any other President in the history of this country, in record time, and while financing 1 less war. There's no secret vault the US owns, that is full of money. People need to stop acting like there's no long term repercussions to spending trillions and trillions into the red.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ < His promises. A lot of them are simply stalled by the retarded Congress.

 

Also, the repercussions for sitting back and not deficit spending are far, far worse than the repercussions for spending on deficit. People aren't spending, so the government is obligated to step in and attempt to get the economy moving again.

 

 

I would agree that Romney and Obama, in a lot of ways, are the same person but I believe the economic downfall sits better in the hands of a businessman that has Romney's record of turning rags into riches. I already mentioned what Romney did as the Governor of Massachusetts and I want to see him get the same opportunity with the entire country.

 

Romney and Obama aren't the same at all. You can tell this just from reading up on their histories. Hell, you can tell just by looking at the campaign so far. Romney is repeatedly a blatant asshole. Obama? Not so much.

 

Also, Romney has no record of turning "rags into riches". He's mostly always been rich. His father, George, worked hard and was actually a pretty good governor if my memory serves me correctly. However, Mitt Romney is an idiot. Seriously, putting our nation into the hands of a modern Republican is more idiotic than putting our nation into the hands of a modern Democrat, especially during a time like this. Also, he has, as far as I know, denounced his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, because he didn't do that great of a job. I will attempt to source all of this, but that will come later. *nod*

 

What good does agreeing with Obama's economic policy if he's already proven to not follow through with it? And if Romney's policies seem to mimic much of Obama's because just about every politician can acknowledge was is wrong and what needs to be done in order the fix. What [should] makes the difference is which candidate is more likely to execute. You know, make shit happen...something Obama hasn't/isn't doing.

 

He has proven to follow through with it. Hence, the Dodd-Frank Act that restored financial regulation and the Stimulus Package. I don't think I need to explain anymore that the Stimulus and bailouts staved off total economic collapse. Also, Obama can't execute because he has an extremely hostile and idiotic Congress. Did you not read anything about the possible default last August? You can argue that it got that close because the Republicans were too stubborn to even negotiate. I'm not saying the Democrats are good, but I do believe that the modern Republican Party is detrimental to the economic recovery.

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

The Democrats had the White House and control of Congress for 2 years...and they didn't do shit. Does this mean Congress really has no power too?

 

One Congressman can enact a filibuster, and that's exactly what the Republicans have been threatening/doing.

[OSUViking 505]

 

No bailouts, no stimulus, shorter downturns, healthier economies, Austrian Economics.

 

Because Austrian Economics totally has the track record that Keynesian Economics has.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't really think the comment is as big or astounding as some are making it out to be. If science had any real role in government, the FDA wouldn't exist. The government and science in general is usually 10 years ahead of whatever the public knows about.

 

The Feds don't care about science, and the policies reflect that.

[OSUViking 505]

I don't really think the comment is as big or astounding as some are making it out to be. If science had any real role in government, the FDA wouldn't exist. The government and science in general is usually 10 years ahead of whatever the public knows about.

 

The FDA's existence doesn't have much relation with the "Science vs. Religion" debate, if any relation at all. The FDA was created during the Progressive Era because Sinclair revealed how shitty and dirty the meat and food being distributed was.

 

EDIT: Also, fuck Christianity's role in government. Catholic teaching from Vatican II openly states that all people deserve religious freedom, and yet people in this country cry foul when Catholic morals are not applied to the government (that's just an example, and I'm not just pinpointing this on Catholicism). Morality is 100% subjective, and frankly I don't give two shits what anyone has to say about religion's place in government. Religion needs to GTFO of politics.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Vikingfan465