A question for Republicans/Conservatives

Date 03-04-2009 15:49

These comparisons are hilarious! Obama is not a rapist, I think it would have come up in the election. Nor is he about to repeat every mistake made by every government in history, this is not the democrats agenda. All and all very amusing.

By js55

Date 03-04-2009 16:54

Hogan,
Not sure how you can claim he isn't going to repeat the same mistakes made in the past when he already has. And he is after all a child of his political upbringing. And I'm not really arguing there is nothing new in his approach. Research for yourself. Its all there in the political history of the last 90 years.
For example, increasing the presence of government in business. It has been argued by left leaning supporters that legislation passed in the clinton administration intended to force banks to make what was in essence bad home loans is not primarily responsible for this economic circumstance. But it cannot be argued whether or not he did it. It is a fact. Clinton does not deny it. It was a social program intended to get people who couldn't afford homes into homes. He thought it a good thing as do many left leaners. But it is therefore, the use of social criteria to establish economic policy.
And yet, here we are using social criteria, AGAIN, to establish supposed economic policy. The biggest legislation of Obama's young tenure is not only a repeat of a failed policy of the Clinton administration, but one with a long, long history of failure, only on a much bigger scale. It ain't a right wing opinion. Its history.

By hogan

Date 03-04-2009 17:23

The mistakes of the past argument can be made of both parties. Unless radical ideas are put into action no one is doing anything new. Was bush the first to do everything that he tried?

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-04-2009 17:31

i AGREE BUSH WAS A LOOSER PRESIDENT, BUT WHEN WILL THE LEFT FEEL THAT ABOUT THIER PARTY?

By hogan

Date 03-04-2009 18:05

I am not a part of any party. I tend to evaluate situations and come to my own conclusions. But I can say that I think that they both are losers. I don't think we have had a winner of a president post 1960.

By js55

Date 03-05-2009 14:40

Hogan,
It may come as a suprise but I affiliate with no party either. I was a Dem (young and stupid) up until Peanut Jimmy killed that. And was a Reagan Rep (short lived) up until Bush 1 killed that.
I do believe that Reagan was a great president. He certainly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Empire, he led the way towards one of the greatest economic booms in the 20th century from the ashes of Carter stagflation, he got a predominance of the country to believe in him even though conservatives were at that time an extreme minority and still trying to live down Nixon, and he restored our respect and confidence in our military and position in the world after the Vietnam trauma left us stupified and helpless geopolitically. Not exactly three small things. And you would certainly be hard pressed to find a president in this century with such diverse accomplishment.
Roosevelt looms large on any historical survey of Presidents but I believe his Socialism not only extended the Great Depression, but his repressive measures domestically (who after all was responsible for the internment camps-and this ain't all)put a tarnish on his presidency in my opinion.
But nobody else even comes close to Reagan as an imposing giant of the 20th century.

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 15:54

js55,
Good old Jimmy, if anyone deserved to be impeached it was him. That man displayed a serious lack of morals. Lied at every election to get elected, I guess it worked for him. Hatred of minorities get you the state rep job in the south, equality get the national job. Maybe that is why he, after screwing up the US, worked to try to better humanity, a kind of penance.
Reagan? He was so-so at best. He only got things done because he was a good delegator period. He did do a lot toward strengthening our world image(not saying it was a bettering of our image). His old lady's "war on drugs" was a pitiful attempt, a complete drain on our government at every level. It did nothing positive. I think you know my opinion on his inability to separate church and state. All and all I would say he was a good president, as presidents go.
FDR, now this is a president! I beg to differ that his socialism extended the depression. If anything it was his failure to act quick enough that caused the depression to last as long as it did. Is not being "young and dumb", as you put it, keeping you from acknowledging a democrat? As far as internment camps go it was at the time. Remember it was a white states of America. Some states had only recently changed laws to allowed colored people to reside in there states (1925 I believe). What about FDR and his building our infrastructure? Interstate highways, hydroelectric dams, bridges allowing much needed access and shorting time to market. Lets not forget about the dust bowl. His programs not only stopped it but fed and put to work the ones who needed it most.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-05-2009 16:11

I got to agree with you hogan, I liked FDR too. I would like to see a "blue collar" army like the CCC and WPA to repair our infrastructure and build the wind farms and new nuclear power plants. I think that it could be done. That would be a true bailout that would effect millions of people and boost us rapidly into the future.

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 16:22

That's twice in one day that someone has agreed with me, and it's only 8:15am here. I must be doing something wrong. FDR was one of my favorites, but was no Lincoln. He was prez for what 12 years. That has to tell you something. I think that Obama has the potential to walk in his footsteps, but never to fill them.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-05-2009 16:39

I think if the times gets bad enough and can be repaired by Obama's programs, or whos ever programs, then they will rank right up there with FDR.

By js55

Date 03-05-2009 16:53

hogan,
FDR's domestic repression goes much deeper than just the internment camps. Disagreement with his totalitarian progessivism was met with little toleration. Lets not forget that when he took office many on the left still had great affection for Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Witness the famous Cole Porter song. Now those guys got things done with public works by golly. :)
And many on the left at the time expected Roosevelt to emulate those fellas as well. And in many ways he did. The Holoacust and the Gulag changed our perception, and our propaganda.
I would agree with you on the War on Drugs thing though.
As for delegating as an argument for his mediocrity? Thats reachin. All Presidents delegate. They have to. They're leaders. Or supposed to be. I have no doubt the delegation argument would be lost in vague detail with the scrutiny of all presidents delegatory activities, and really only exposes a preconceived opinion. Which, given our debate I am already aware of. :)
But even if the delgation argument is accepted it only leads to the admission at worst that his administration got things done.

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 19:10

js55,
Domestic repression? You just make that up? Totalitarian progressivism? are we talking about bush or FDR? Think about his wire tapping and ridicules use of executive privilege, just to name a few.
Additionally the affection was mutual.
Correction - The holocaust propaganda and Gulag changed our perception. (Why were we not outraged by 5x the "ethnic cleansing" in China?)
This was delegation to the extreme. Yes all presidents delegate, no question about that. It is one thing to say what do you think? evaluating it and making a decision vs someone in early stages of dementia who's most famous line was "I don't recall"(when being questioned about trading arms for hostages, is this what you mean by great president?).

By js55

Date 03-05-2009 19:46

hogan,
Well, the delegation argument seem spointless. He got stuff done.

Also, "Domestic repression? You just make that up?" Not hardly. Of course you don't find this stuff in your standard elementary school text book. But it is available, and becoming more so, in a recent genre of scholarship that is in the process of taking another look at those years without the rose colored glasses. The interesting thing is, the obstacles these scholars face is not unlike the obstacles faced by scholars who wish to oppose the global warming orthodoxy.

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 20:36

I do understand what domestic repression is. What I don't understand is how it applies to FDR.

By js55

Date 03-05-2009 20:47 Edited 03-05-2009 20:56

If he committed it. It applies.
If you look for the recent work on this subject you should find some of it.
Give it a few years for the genre to blossom and there will undoubtedly be more. Be rebuttals. And be rebuttals to that.
Of course he probably delegated it, and under the resourceful Reagan criteria is not therefore responsible. :)

Try this. Do a little in depth research into enforcement of the Blue Eagle symbol. Just one example.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-06-2009 19:05

HHHHHHHmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!! Are you forgetting about another President named ROOSEVELT???? With a first name; 'Theodore" Otherwise most affectionately known as: "Teddy"

Remember what he did??? Not too shabby either!!!

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 03-08-2009 18:24

Henry,
Not forgetting Teddy. I just know next to nothing about him other than the usual San Juan Hill stuff and his time in the Amazon(where from my understanding he dang near died and expressed it as one of the toughest things he had ever done and would never do it again). I'm sure from time to time I have become aware of other details that I have forgotten.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-08-2009 22:17

Do you remember what he did to the then called; "Robber Barons?"
Cuba & Panama, then a short stint into Venezuela, but not in the Amazon.

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 03-09-2009 12:23

No I don't, but I would value your informing us.

By js55

Date 03-04-2009 17:43

Hogan,
Here we find common ground. In answer to your question most certainly not. Especially the big spending part of Bush. :)
The mistake we make is not that that which works is new. Its that we know what doesn't and continue to do it over and over again because we, as the electorate, have forgotten. Or never knew it. Its no coincidence that the majority of enthusiasm for repackeged progressive crapola comes from the young who have never known, never learned, the failed policies of the past.
It is up to us to understand our history and not let our reps get away with the shell game to get re-elected.
And another point. We, we, demand sometimes they 'DO SOMETHING', even when doing nothing is the best way to go. Like letting a business cycle run its course so that we don't extend a recession with government stupidity and clumsiness. Government cannot stop the business cycle. And the harder they try the worse it gets.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-04-2009 18:05

I think what has killed the housing and mortgage markets is this: artificial inflation of house prices. I grew up on the Kansas side of the state line. My area was blue collar-democrats and no collar democrats (the downtroden). There was little construction of any retail developments in Kansas City, Kansas. They tried the dog track money maker which worked until the Missouri side got casinos. That killed the dog track and left us with a nearly empty complex. When the track was "booming" the area around the track saw mad gains in home prices. I don't know why, who would think living near a dog track would make your house more valuable. Empty tracts of land that could be developed commercial, that I understand. I could also understand why the value of the land that housing divisions are built would be more valuable. But if there is a subdivision already built up then the land value should not go up because it is already an improved property. What, you gonna tear out 100 houses to build a mall? I don't think so, although I have seen it a few times in some older yet nice neighborhoods.

Also I can understand the increased cost of building materials raising the value of homes. But there is no way in hell should a house be overvalued as they are now (or at least they were a few years ago). Things were good. People had jobs and money. It looked like things were going to continue being good. So F it, lets by a new house or a bigger house. And also because things are good and people wanted to buy, let's raise the values up a bit over what is right. And while we are at it lets give out loans to nearly anyone with a job.

But then the overtime stopped. Hours were cut back. Electric and gas prices go up. Gasoline prices went ape shyte. You lose your job altogether. Nexd thing you know the world is emploding with you the consumer-unemployed-or-underemployed is sitting holding the bag.

What needs to happen is that homes should all be revalued at an "at cost" rate, what will it cost to build this house now. Revamp the mortgages based on that figure and call it good. There are too many "reasons" why home prices get inflated. I am F ing sorry but having a house that is beside a new commercial development or a new Bass Pro Shop is not cause for elevation in home values. I know a guy who's mother bought a home in Sanibel Island Florida in the 80s. $150,000. Not bad for a vacation home. A few years ago it was valued at $600K. Come on. Maybe 1500 sq ft. and its not even on the beach. It backs up to a large gator filled pond.

I don't give a rat's arse who's fault it is, but someone needs kicked in the balls over this one and get this mess fixed.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-04-2009 18:07

Sorry for the rant. Its a personal dilemma. :-)

By hogan

Date 03-04-2009 18:13

Land ownership, the American dream. I'm sure that 90% of the population has an older generation that tells you to invest in a home. It's the best investment you can make. The value will always go up.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-04-2009 18:22

hogan, I think home ownership is one of the few things I can't knock. But with consumerism what it is, I would rather have an apartment sometimes. :-)

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-04-2009 18:13

I agree its Out of control
MDK

By js55

Date 03-04-2009 18:27

600K on Sanibel? That don't sound too bad. Take a look at what happened to Marco Island just to the south. Not sure if any old swamp rats down there became millionaires but they could have.

Though to get it fixed folks need to just quit payin it. This can be done without the gubmint comin in a scrooin it all up.

By uphill

Date 03-05-2009 12:25

Funny how the price reflects what the market will bear. We do a lot of work on new developements in Minnesota. Some smuck buys a farmers field puts in roads and sells 1 walk out lot for more than the farmer payed for the whole 40 acres. Now the problem is just starting, the new shoe boxes are valued at $400K + in a area with traditional $150K homes. Put the new residents kids in the mix which overloads the poor overworked teachers in schools so they need to build new ones.
Property Taxes goe from $1200 a year on the average home to $3000 a year to pay for roads, schools and services on houses deemed unfit for the new area. So unsightly!!

On the revaluing of homes, I have an old schoolhouse built in 1894. The value of it is under 1/3 of what it would take to replace it with a structure built with the same quality of materials. My $175K home would cost as much to rebuild as the new box, glued and stapled homes cost without the lot price added in. They pay taxes on a $600K home thats worth $250K by construction material standards. I would rather that the big dog home owners pay three times the property taxes. I pay what the state dictates. Last year the state came through and raised the property taxes on three townships by 1/3 stating we have been undervalued for years. My township gets 0 from the initial increase, go figure.

My freind has an old farmhouse the county values at $275K so he feels safe at going to the bank to borrow a little money for a biz venture. The bank sends out an apraiser who comes up with $165K for a sellable number for the property. No loan, no way. The land value went from normal to nutz and back in 2 years.

I have owned my house for over 20 years, put it on a new finished basement, added on, completely replaces the mechanical systems and done extensive landscaping. I was hoping to sell it for enough to pay cash for a modest smaller home in 2-3 years. All of the low down credit card bankrupting, lying about income on the home loan application scammers have taken care of most of that goal. Here is a thought, pay all of your taxes, dont use credit cards if you dont plan on paying them back, dont owe more than your earning power. The hard working tax paying family folk are tired of paying for everything. Stop the entitlement crap, owning a home is not in the constitution as one of the gotto haves.

Sorry I had to rant also..

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-06-2009 04:34

Bryon, there might be many reasons for the excessive escalation in home prices, but a real big one was the busting of the tech stock bubble, and the resulting market crash of 2000. People poured more money than they should have into real estate. The excess would likely have gone into the stock market had they not just gotten burned in 2000 and the folowing few years. Pouring too much money into homes drives the prices up, up over the actual value. As long as everyone believes that prices will continue to rise they are willing to pay more than a home is worth, feeling that it is the safest investment. Banks folowing lax giudelines made it easy for people to get in over their heads. Just like the tech stock bubble broke, so did the real estate bubble, as all bubbles will at some point. Even overpriced property can be a good investment over a long enough timeframe, but it might take longer than an individual can afford to wait.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-06-2009 14:13

And every time a bubble breaks it smells like a bubble in a bathtub. :-)

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-07-2009 03:55

That is why they put perfume in bubble bath.

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-04-2009 17:27

I'm not comparing obama to a rapist in that way, (besides raping tax payers) I was comparing the lack intelligence as a population in general, and the blind acceptance of their political party.
The point is this ....A man knocks on your door and try's to sell you a book, this book is a step by step guide on how to scope out a home and rob it of all valuables. When you look at the book and realize what its about what do you do?
A) Let the person in to give him a chance, cuz even though he wrote this book he might not really believe or try to follow through with what's in it.
B) Tell him to get off your property.
What would you do?
I am tired of hearing people say lets give him a chance and see what he is about, do people even attempt to read anything other than the media prescribed propaganda.
Can the Hippocrates of the left ever come to terms with, and actually admit what and who it is they support.
People are so diluted morally that one needs to put things in words and examples that even a 5 year old can understand.
please name some of the promises that he has not broken yet in his first 2 mo.
MDK
MDK

By hogan

Date 03-04-2009 18:46

Here are a few.

1) let Bush tax breaks for the richest 3% expire.
2) foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners.
3) remove troops from Iraq (although he has extended the time-line).
4) close Guantanamo Bay.
5) send more troops to Afghanistan.

By michael kniolek (***)

Date 03-05-2009 00:24

i have the proof! this is a huge scandle!
http://www.2dplay.com/election-incrimination/election-incrimination-play.htm

MDK

By Stringer (***)

Date 03-05-2009 01:59

js55, I agree that the president has been involved in somewhat liberal policies in the past, particularly working in the mayor's office in Chicago. However, 'his entire career', as you put it, really doesn't represent much of a track record. Local politics are by their nature rather liberal. And it wasn't that long ago he was taking classes at Harvard that not many of us on this forum would stand a chance of passing. I was willing to ignore W's political career prior to presidency, because it is a lot different job being gov of Texas than president, and I'm allowing President Obama the same courtesy. I think he's going to take in information honestly and try to do the best he can. That may or may not be good enough. President Carter put in long hours and gave it his best shot, but made errors that cost us and was ineffectual overall. President Reagan worked little but was highly effective. I support whoever is in office and I pray for their success and the future of our country.

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 14:14

You ask for examples and I give them to you. The best response you have is a link to a game. I guess the point has been made. HE HAS ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 1 1/2 MONTHS. You are an intelligent person, how can you think like this?

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-05-2009 15:04

Just trying to bring a litle humor into this.
MDK

By hogan

Date 03-05-2009 19:25

OK I'll add a little to lighten the mood as well.

http://www.uncoached.com/2009/03/03/10-videos-of-hot-girls-riding-mechanical-bulls/

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-05-2009 15:51

1. Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
2.Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs

3.To reduce bills rushed through Congress

4.Obama's delayed troop withdrawal is a broken promise

5. broke a campaign pledge against congressional earmarks and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects.

6.a big step back from Obama's unambiguous swipe at lobbyists in November 2007, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I don't take a dime of their money," he said, "and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."......................
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

just a quick search
mdk

By uphill

Date 03-08-2009 23:54

Very good homework, bet that was the short list though. All this "O" houpla escapes me its like he has done something. Well the american worker and people who have some sort of retirement to loose are waiting...
I have done my share of hating "O" from the start , Much Like those who will hate Pres Bush long after they are dead. Yep old "W" did some things he would do over that would be as hated as the first time, cant imagine what language we would have been talking if the worlds biggest fool climate "goard" would have been in office. Since some live in the past lets bring up un-impeached pres "thumblike" "C" or the dumbest president in the history of the USA peanut. Ever wondered why so many service people died during peacetime training under peanut? Lets cut the military budjet again and we can re-analize it first hand.
Get ready we will be paying for many more socialization prodjects that do even less for the working Americans. And that wont be easy to come up with...oops I forgot the Oval orface will be incharge of having the first fare census in our 200 year history.

Lets all hope that in 2012 life will show some promise, untill then we can become used to ??

I seen a flock of robins today, they havent found a way to lock up nature. Nice sunny march Minnesota day.
Dave

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-09-2009 16:16

i know 1 thing for sure I could've eaten Alphabits and crapped out a better bailout Bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By jrw159

Date 03-09-2009 16:36

BWAAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one! :-) Mind if I use that?

By michael kniolek (***)

Date 03-09-2009 22:36

It is the short list of questionable chioces and decisions, there are so many things that should be adressed and should have been adressed.
the most appaling things that should have been discussed b4 he got into office was mentioned and some news outlets were blasted as right wing nut jobs.........but now i see main stream news back pedeling and actualy reporting the truth about this man.

Has any1 heard about the 50 trillion dollars of wealth that has simply disapeared off the face of the earth?
if this is not allarming to some people i would be suprised.

Looks like a set em knock em down deal.
Time will tell if they care to listen.
MDK

By uphill

Date 03-10-2009 02:00

Is that missing money some of the mass cashing in of money markets that happened on Sept 17th 2008? Wife has some video link of a man talking how if it had been continued for a couple more hours it would have closed almost every bank in the USA. I believe it was on CNN but it has never surfaced again or been discredit'd. Sure seems like someone wanted desperate people right before the election.

I am sure "O" has something in his closet like every politicion, the question is how many new age politically correct people will recognize truth when it is brought out? Funny anyone can call another reporter a nut job seeing as how the perspective is very small looking out of the old spinkter. Guess thats what By-partison means?

After all if you tell someone that they are doomed and useless long enough they start to live in that mindset.