Muslims don't like dogs, I can't see Jim throwing Obama that bone.

-spence

I called Maddow a half-beast (I wouldn't call her a dog, that would be an insult to dogs, my favorite animal) after, and only after, she repeatedly referred to Tea Partiers as tea-bagging racists on the air. There is literally zero evidence to back that up (we got Martin Luther King's niece to speak at our largest gathering), but Maddow knows it's a lot easier to call me a racist than it is to show her audience (all 12 of them) that I'm wrong..

I'm the most civil person you will ever meet, at first. I offer that civility until you spit it back in my face, which you have also repeatedly done. Paul, I coach my kids t-ball team, and no one is more dedicated to making sure they have fun. Until he died 2 weeks ago, my golden retriever and I visited hospice patients every Sunday evening for 10 years. I love people, and care deeeply about them, and I bet I give more time and money to charity than most here. However, i will not sit by like a toilet with teh seat up, and let the real hate mongers crap all over me. I always play fair at first. But throw a few cheap elbows at me, and you won't like the outcome.

Spence, I have never, ever, implied Obama is a Muslim. I have said, multiple times, I wish he were. I learned a lot more about Islam when I was in Iraq than you will ever know, and let me tell you, it can be beautiful. I wish Obama were Muslim, because that would be a lot easier for me to accept than his lifelong devotion to Black Liberation Theology, which is based on hate and racism.

Spence, you can keep trying to paint me as an irrational extremist. I'm the most rational person I know, I'm a mathematician at heart, which means the foundation of my thought process is gathering irrefutable fact, and then figuring out the most likely explanation for those facts. That's how I solve every single problem I confront, every single one. Objectively and open-mindedly, with a little bit of Catholic compassion thrown in for good measure.

sorry about your dog passing.

you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.

By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2% :biglaugh:. You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off.

A most sincere thanks. His name was Scout, he was great hiking partner, a great fishing partner, and man was he incredible with hospice patients (he was a certified pert therapy dog). I've been a dog-lover since I was a kid, no one has ever seen a dog like him.

OK, so what was your point? That his debt increase was 2% more than Bush's debt increase?

If that's what your point was, it has very little validity. First, we don't repay "percentages", we repay absolute dollars. Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war. Bush, as I said, also saved 1.2 million lives in Africa (for which, in a fair world, he would have received the Nobel Peace Prize, instead he gets called a racist), and THAT'S worth going into debt for. Giving teachers insane pensions is not worth breaking the bank for, in my humble opinion.

By the end of 2012, the debt will be around $15 trillion. That's a 50% increase over what he inherited. And what do we have to show for it? Bush built an anti-terror infrastructure from scratch, saved 1.2 million Africans from AIDS (for which he gets almost zero credit), and liberated millions of Muslims worldwide, from other, monstrous, Muslims.

Obama has kept killing terrorists, I give him big-time kudos for that. But he doesn't understand high-school level economics. Obama, like most liberals, believes that poverty is caused by other people's wealth. That can only be true if wealth is finite, like a pizza. That is demonstrably false, since GDP changes over time. You help poor people by giving them the tools they need to get wealthier, not by giving them someone else's money. Obama also doesn't seem to understand that there are limits to what you can reasonably borrow.

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

I start the best threads.

Or the worst.

It will be better then you become a gun toting texas republican...

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation). That's another thing that Obama, and liberals, don't get. If you want to raise tax revenue (dollars collected), raising tax rates isn't always the answer. Tax dollars collected aren't maximized at tax rates of 100%, because people stop working before that.

"We were "Dragged" into 1 war "

Correct.

"We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?


I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

No, knowing him as Governor and the kind of guy he is.
Pretty obviious if he said it or not.

"If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

Of course it's not that simple. Cutting tax rates doesn't always increase revenue. But Obama keeps saying that if he raises tax rates by x%, we'll get X% more revenue. The goal (and it's challenging) should be to grow the economy, so that you can raise revenue by decreasing rates. I don't hear Obama suggesting that. All I ever hear from him, in terms of addressing debt, is hiking up rates on the wealthy. As you said, it's not that simple. I know it's not as simple as saying revenue changes with rates, but Obama doesn't seem to know that. Why is that?

"Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?"

Absolutely correct. One of those wars was to destroy Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The other was to remove someone who was repeatedly violating the terms of the UN resolution he signed. Very, very expensive (I bet it cost me more than it cost you). And one can make a compelling argument that it wasn't worth the cost or the blood.

"I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good."

Thank you...

"why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. Liberals, not conservatives, put pressure on banks to give mortgages to people who had zero hope of repaying them. Then those crappy mortgages were bundled and invested in ways that almost nobody understands (derivitives, credit default swaps). Lots of blame to go around on both sides for the investment side of it.

Put it this way. The economy grew like crazy, starting in Clinton's second term. What did he do to make that happen? He balanced the budget, cut taxes, cut spending. He also (very bravely in my opinion) told millions of healthy, lazy Americans on welfare to get back to work. Do you know what they did? THEY WENT BACK TO WORK. The economy grew like crazy, unemployment was so low my dog could have gotten hired at a Fortune 500 company. Quite simply, it worked.

We need to learn from past mistakes. Not just conservative mistakes, but liberal mistakes too. The liberal states in New England are in horrible shape. Here in CT, our solution was to implement the largest tax hike in the history of our state last July (and they made the increases retroactive to January 1, so we had to be double the increase for the rest of that year!), and we increased spending. Meanwhile, we continue to give public labor unions a blank check. On the federal level, liberals refuse to accept the reality (sad reality, but still reality) that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. There literally is no choice. The math shows we will never have enough tax revenue to fund promised benefits. I wish we could solve all our problems by tweaking tax rates on zillionaires. That accomplishes nothing. But to hear Obama, you'd think that was the answer to our prayers.

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

Spence, I'm not ignoring the Internet bubble or energy prices. And similarly, the economic growth during Bush's first 7 years was largely fueled by real estate values increasing (and low interest rates). I admit those all played a part. I'm not ignoring anythiing. Unlike you, I don't ignore that which doesn't serve my agenda.

YOU ARE THE ONE ignoring the reality that the Clinton and Bush tax cuts (and the increased consumer demand that is the inevitable result) also helped fuel the economy. You must ignore that fact, because for you to admit that fact would be to admit that conservatives have some good ideas, and you cannot ever bring yourself to admit that. Earth to Spence...individuals spend their own money much more effeciently than the feds.

Spence, on the issue of taxes...can you name a large economy, based on high federal taxes, that is thriving? There is only one...Norway. And Norway does it by exploiting every drop of oil they have. Obama wants Norway's tax rates, without their oil. That's what we have here in Connecticut. It's not working out so well.

"Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one."

Oh Spence? You are forgetting that the derivitives market was once sufficiently regulated to prevent what happened with subprime mortgages. The repeal of that regulation was signed by that right-wing nut Bill Clinton. If that regulation had been left in place, the subprime mortgage bust would not have been nearly so bad.

A republican congress wrote that bill, Clinton signed it. That's why I say plenty of blame for both sides. I doubt you'd ever say anything so fair. Or astute, for that matter.

You also seem to be ignoring the effect of the subprime mortgages themselves. You choose to ignore this, because you know it makes your side look stupid. If banks were allowed to enforce underwriting standards, none of this would have happened.

A couple times I have had to say, "now wait, they are attacking Jimmy now?" :rotf2:

Why didn't you mention it then?

No, I'm just appreciating the other factors. The short-term effect tax rates have on the economy is really dependent on many factors, it's not a simple up or down...that's the ideology talking. Republicans are full of all sorts of nonsense on this issue.

Australia, Brazil, Germany etc...

-spence

You sure say a lot of untrue stuff for someone who likes to ask where you are wrong all the time. Or was this quote hyperbole, too?

Yup, like most of the conservatives I know, when it comes to charity,
walk the walk, not just lip service.

Zimmy, do you deny that Obama's vison of America includes higher tax rates and less oil production? Are you going to deny that? If so, please remember to open the windows when you are painting inside.

Brazil!! You're going to hold up Brazil as a place we should emulate? Brazil, where they are putting an oil well in everyone's back yard!!! Spence, if you want to be like Brazil and exploit our natural resources in a smart way, you have my support.

Spence likes Brazil's economic model, which is based entirely on oil production!

When you have the time, google a study/book called "Who Really Cares", which is the definitive statistical study on who are the most charitable types of people.

Turns out, conservatives give more time to charity, more money to charity, and donate more blood, than liberals. Even though conservatives have, on average, less wealth than liberals do! Which makes sense, as conservatism i sstrong in the rural South, liberalism is strong among the sophisticated swells.

Liberals like to donate someone else's money to charity. not their own....

Here's a summary of the data. Sppence will tell us not to believe it, since it is presented by that right-wing media outlet, ABC.



Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

chicks are pretty hot in brazil

Wise man once told me prior to a trip to Rio De janeiro, "taking your wife to Rio is like bringing a grain of sand with you to the beach."

I don't think derivative market regulations were designed to tolerate the MASSIVE amount of sub-prime risk that was injected into the system from 2002-2006. Regulatory changes helped grease the skids, but it was the allure of high returns that was the engine behind the meltdown.

Go back and read all my old threads on the issue.

As we've beaten to death, lending influenced by the CRA made up a fraction of the problem. Banks didn't want to enforce underwriting standards because they could take a profit for originating the loan then sell the risk. Given the demand for such securities there were few with any incentive to slow down the feeding frenzy.

:deadhorse:

-spence

Why do you always say something, then change it? You said he wants the tax rates of Norway. He has never once remotely pushed for tax rates of/like Norway. Your oil thing comment is just ridiculous. Oil production under Bush steadily dropped from 5.7 million bpd at his election to about 5.2 million bpd at the end of his term. Under Obama it has steadily grown back to where it was before Bush came into office and will be at 6 million bpd by the end of this year. I don't even want to argue whether it is a good or bad thing, but your claims don't hold up to reality.

Even if Obama has never said "I want higher taxes", if he does say "I want to increase the size and scope of the federal government", that's the same thing. You cannot add $5 trillion to the debt, in 4 years, and not expect taxes to increase. So unless he suggests that the Chinese are going to tear up all the I.O.U.'s we gave them, Obama knows, and is OK with the fact, that are taxes will skyrocket.

Zimmy, on the oil front...you are going to sit there and honestly claim that Bush wasn't more pro-oil than Obama is? Bush, who is from Texas? You're going to deny my claim that Obama isn't as pro-oil as Bush was?

It doesn't matter if we produce more oil now than we did before. Even if we do, it's certainly not because Obama supported the oil industry more than Bush did. Zimmy, more black babies are born out of wedlock today than 20 years ago. Is that because Obama encourages black men to knock up their women and take off?

Jesus God Almighty. I'm debating a guy who claims that Obama is a bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush. I have never, EVER, heard that one before.

Here's an interesting perspective, I'll bet the guy even owns a few pairs of skin boots...

Obama deserves credit for strong growth in energy industry - Houston Chronicle

-spence

Thanks Spence. The author of that piece is the director of somehting called the "Clean Energy Incubator", and he wrote a piece telling us how awesome Obama is.

Spence finds it an "interesting" perspective that a guy who is devoted to greem energy, praises Obama. Yes, Spence, you've really given us all something to think about.

This guy mentions "post partisan" approaach to energy. Yes, indeed. In trying to appeal to both sides, Obama rejected the Canadian pipeline (which conservatives wanted) and he gave $500 million to Solybdra, a privately held solar company. Yes, it's quite difficult to label Obama as either a conservative or liberal on this issue, he's REALLY straddling the fence, isn't he.

Funny, the author didn't bother to include any opinions from Gulf oil workers who lost their jobs when Obama shut down additional drilling in the Gulf. I cannot imagine why this was left out, Spence, can you offer any insight as to why?

When gas hits $5 a gallon this summer, and republicans show video of Obama claiming that high oil prices would actually be good for America (he has said that), let's see what happens!

You are precious Spence...simply precious...

No, I never said that. Your's is a statement of delusion. I countered your patently false and baseless claim that "he wants to cut oil production" with actual facts about oil production levels over the past 12 years. Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

Zimmy, a little while ago, you said this (an exact, direct quote)..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Instead of dissecting every hypertechnicality of my posts, how about telling us all what you meant by that. Can you support that statement, please?

Here is some data (1st column is year, 2nd column is debt as of that year, 3rd column is annual increase to the debt)

Government Spending Chart: United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data

Year Debt Annual Debt Increase
2000 5,629
2001 5,770 141
2002 6,198 429
2003 6,760 562
2004 7,355 595
2005 7,905 551
2006 8,451 546
2007 8,951 499
2008 9,986 1,035
2009 11,876 1,890
2010 13,529 1,653
2011 14,764 1,235
2012 16,351 1,587

During Bush's first 3 years (2001-2003), he added $1.1 trillion to the debt. During Obama's first 3 years (2009-2011), he added $4.8 trillion to the debt.

During Bush's entire 8 years, he added about $4.4 trillion to the debt (less of an increase than Obama added in just 3 years). And Bush got dragged into a war on terror, forcing us to build a massive anti-terror infrastructure. And he saved the lives of 1.2 million Africans, which to me is worth just about any price.

Zimmy, once again, here is what you posted...

"..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Zimmy, please do one of 2 things...

(1) show me how Obama increased the debt by 2% more than Bush

or

(2) admit you made it up.

Good day. And checkmate.

Now wait? I ask you a direct question about one of your statements, you ignore it and write a diatribe that you want me to respond to?

When I ask you to clarify a mathematically false comment, it's a "diatribe"?

Zimmy, please tell me what question of yours I dodged. If I answer your question (and I will), is there any chance you'll answer mine? I've asked you, several times now, to support your statement, and you are also dodging.

I'm as flawed as anyone, but I am not in the habit of ignoring direct questions. Ask me a question, you'll get a direct answer. Please show me the same courtesy.

Spence, my statement, that Obama "wants to cut oil production", is not patently false, nor is it baseless. He has consistently hindered efforts to drill in the Gulf, and he won't make a decision on the Canadian pipeline until after the election (gee, I wonder why).

Oil production is less with Obama in the White House than it would be if a "drill baby drill" conservative was in the White House. Do you deny that? Really? If you deny that, then why do oil companies give so much $$ to Republicans?

I think I responded to your question. Maybe you have the integrity to respond to mine? How did Obama increase the debt by 2% more than Bush to this point?

We're all watching, and we're all waiting...

Really?

There is a difference between requiring more oversight, which is pretty apparant if corners are being cut that caused the DW Horizon accident, and constantly hindering efforts to drill.

Obama to expand drilling off Alaska, in Gulf - Yahoo! News

Obama Takes To Nevada And Colorado To Talk Energy, Expanding Drilling In The Gulf

Obama eyes more drilling in Gulf of Mexico - Business - CBC News

"Really?"

Yes, really.

RIROCKHOUND, forgive me, but I'm not going to say that Obama is oil-friendly, just because the Huffington Post says so. You cannot get more biased than the Huffington Post.

I could easily post stories from the Big Oil lobbyists talking about every drilling permit that Obama has denied, and how he has dragged his feet on the Canadian pipeline.

You need to consider both sides.

In any event, I never said Obama eliminated all production. I said he has prevented the oil companies from doing much of what they want to do, and that's true. If you want to learn if that's true, ask someone besides Ariana Huffington. If you're getting your news there, that explains quite a bit. Did you let your subscription to The Daily Worker expire?

Tragically, we cannot eliminate things like oil spills, no more than we can eliminate car accidents. Reasonable oversight is obviously necessary to prevent what is preventable. But with the pipeline, Obama has made it clear that no decision will be made until afetr November 2012. Why do YOU think he says that? Is it because the oversight takes precisely that long, or could the election have something to do with it.

I've heard many strange things on this forum. I never thought I'd hear the liberals deny that Obama is hindering oil production. If that's the case, liberals would have no valid concern for conservatives being in the pocket of big oil companies. would they? But I hear that all the time. Unlike you and Spence and Zimmy, I'm honest enough to admit that conservatives are going to produce more domestic oil than Obama would. I won't deny that reality just to make us seem different than what we are.

So, they had carte blanche under GWB? Are their numbers regarding the % percentage of denied permits under the different administation. Or are we both speaking anectodally here?

Should continue to have that status... ? If so, I would disagree completely with that mindset...

But you're not honest enough to admit that Obama is not nearly as anti-Oil as the right likes to portray him.

"So, they had carte blanche under GWB?"

Stop putting radical, crazy jibberish words in my mouth, OK? I never said Obama eliminated all production. Likewise, I never said that any conservative would let them do whatever they wanted.

And I see that you have obviously chosen to refuse to address the subject of the Canadian pipeline entirely.

What I'm saying is this...as a rule, republicans would allow for more domestic oil production than Obama would allow. I have never heard anyone deny that, anywhere, until now. If you are right (and you are not), why do oil companies give $$ to republicans. They must really be stupid I guess.

Next, you guys will tell me that Obama is a better friend to the unborn than Bush was.

What planet do you people live on, anyway?