Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Boehner says "FUBO"Follow

#1 Aug 31 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Who knew he had a hairy pair o' testes?

Boehner says no thank you to the President.

I think he should have done it sooner, and more forcefully. How about the rest of you?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#2 Aug 31 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Well, he wrote a letter. Still more than I'd expect.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Aug 31 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Yeah. I was expecting something like that. Pretty dickish move by the President scheduling it on that particular evening in the first place. I half expected Boehner to just tell him to have fun, but we wont be there, but I suppose this is a bit better in terms of face-saving.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Aug 31 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
"Hey, can we reschedule this" is a major issue?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#5 Aug 31 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
"Hey, can we reschedule this" is a major issue?


Did you miss the part where the President scheduled his big address to be on the same night as the GOP presidential debate? And yeah, it is kind of a big deal for Congress to tell the president to show up on a different day than he asked for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Aug 31 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
Moving the address to Thursday night would interfere with the NFL Opening Game (which, by the way, is between the last two Super Bowl champs).

F'uck the debate.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#7 Aug 31 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Demea wrote:
Moving the address to Thursday night would interfere with the NFL Opening Game (which, by the way, is between the last two Super Bowl champs).

F'uck the debate.

This.
#8 Aug 31 2011 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
What I'm still unsure of; is his name supposed to be pronounced "boner" or "bayner"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#9 Aug 31 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I love Boehner's excuse that jobs are so important to the GOP that they won't have enough time after their month long vacation to get Congress ready for Obama's jobs speech Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10ThiefX, Posted: Aug 31 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And I love that fact so many of you dumb-asses think for a job to be created all Barry has to do is give a speech about jobs and POOF jobs are created.
#11 Aug 31 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
I love Boehner's excuse that jobs are so important to the GOP that they won't have enough time after their month long vacation to get Congress ready for Obama's jobs speech Smiley: laugh


And I love that fact so many of you dumb-asses think for a job to be created all Barry has to do is give a speech about jobs and POOF jobs are created.

I love how so many morons like you think the opposite is true.

You know, when jobs don't POOF out of thin air it's all down to one person.

Edited, Aug 31st 2011 9:20pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#12 Aug 31 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I love Boehner's excuse that jobs are so important to the GOP that they won't have enough time after their month long vacation to get Congress ready for Obama's jobs speech Smiley: laugh


And? He's providing Obama a face saving way to change the date. The alternative would have been "You're a partisan A-hole for deliberately scheduling this to conflict with my own party's pre-existing political event, and if you don't change it, you'll be talking to a half empty room you twit". But that might just have pushed Obama against a wall, don't you think?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Aug 31 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
ThiefX wrote:
And I love that fact so many of you dumb-asses think for a job to be created all Barry has to do is give a speech about jobs and POOF jobs are created.
How does it feel to be a watered down version of an already generic pseudo personality that is varus?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Aug 31 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Talking to a half-empty room would be a great way to illustrate where the GOP priorities are: crying at a debate about mean ole Obama and trying to out-far Right one another.

I say we go for it!

Although the "and?" was merely to laugh at Boehner's excuse that revolves around "Gee, we're just getting back from our 30 day vacation then... We'll be far too busy starting up at 6:30pm to talk about jobs!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Aug 31 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Talking to a half-empty room would be a great way to illustrate where the GOP priorities are: crying at a debate about mean ole Obama and trying to out-far Right one another.

I say we go for it!


Ah... Good to see you're all about compromise and trying to reach across the aisle! Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
Although the "and?" was merely to laugh at Boehner's excuse that revolves around "Gee, we're just getting back from our 30 day vacation then... We'll be far too busy starting up at 6:30pm to talk about jobs!"


An excuse he created for Obama's benefit. We all know the real reasons Boehner's asking the president to change the date, right? So we can say that Obama is being crudely partisan and Boehner is acting like a statesman and rising above it. And you're criticizing Boehner?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 31 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Haha... Even better to see that a single comment gets your panties all twisted about me not being "compromising" enough. Shouldn't you be engaged in some screed about how no one should compromise or how allowing the other guys to breath is really a compromise or something? Smiley: laugh

Anyway, the White House graciously accepted the Thursday date after Boehner threw his "statesman" **** fit that he was too tired from his 30 day vacation to talk about jobs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Aug 31 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Kind of funny, a Republican whining about people not being willing to compromise. Isn't it kind of their fault you guys got dowgraded from AAA? You know, by not being willing to compromise, at all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#18 Aug 31 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But... but... they allowed the debt ceiling to be raised at all so it was a HUGE compromise!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Aug 31 2011 at 9:17 PM Rating: Default
**
738 posts
Quote:
I love Boehner's excuse that jobs are so important to the GOP that they won't have enough time after their month long vacation to get Congress ready for Obama's jobs speech Smiley: laugh


You keep talking about those lazy Republicans and their month long vacation, wasn't the other side of the aisle on the same month long vacation?

Didn't Barry just get back from Martha Vineyard? Oh that's right he is gonna say the word "job" on Thursday so that means he cares more...........

Quote:
Kind of funny, a Republican whining about people not being willing to compromise. Isn't it kind of their fault you guys got dowgraded from AAA? You know, by not being willing to compromise, at all.


No the downgrade was a result of decades of failed liberal policies that have raise an entire generation of people who think it's the government's job to take care of them and somebody else pay for it.

Understand now or do you want me to use smaller words?
#20 Aug 31 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
Nobody's answered my question yet.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21 Aug 31 2011 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
You keep talking about those lazy Republicans and their month long vacation, wasn't the other side of the aisle on the same month long vacation?

I see you never took remedial civics. If you had, you'd know that the Congressional adjournment schedule is handled by the Speaker's office. But since you obviously never bothered to learn these minor details, I guess we can forgive you for just babbling randomly.

Quote:
Barry just get back from Martha Vineyard?

You mean the week long vacation Republicans cried and moaned about while on their 30 day break? Of course, as everyone was constantly reminded before, there's no real vacations for the president since he's constantly being briefed, etc.

The GOP Congresscritters, on the other hand, were too scared (or maybe just too tired?) to even hold the traditional town halls.

But, yeah... Got me there!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Aug 31 2011 at 10:49 PM Rating: Default
**
738 posts
Quote:
I see you never took remedial civics. If you had, you'd know that the Congressional adjournment schedule is handled by the Speaker's office. But since you obviously never bothered to learn these minor details, I guess we can forgive you for just babbling randomly.


So you're saying Democrats didn't want to take a vacation the mean Republicans made them? Seriously Joph?
#23 Aug 31 2011 at 11:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Cant he jut get biden to do it, at the same time as the debate. Oh wait can't just do it anyway. Football > debate. Reschedule the debate. Obama got Osama. He's golden.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#24 Aug 31 2011 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
So you're saying Democrats didn't want to take a vacation the mean Republicans made them? Seriously Joph?

I'm saying it wasn't in their power to decide one way or the other.

Did you want to maybe get a short primer on how Congress works and then come back to the conversation or where you set on making yourself look stupid?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Sep 01 2011 at 12:31 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
One of the best comments I read today was that BO should thank Boehner and scrap it altogether, since every time the President speaks the economy goes a little further in the sh:tter.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#26 Sep 01 2011 at 2:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,412 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Who knew he had a hairy pair o' testes?

Boehner says no thank you to the President.

I think he should have done it sooner, and more forcefully. How about the rest of you?


I kinda agree with a comment I read on a related thread over there. At least part of it.

To win this round, Speaker Boehner only had to say "Mr. President, job creation is the most critical issue facing our nation, and we cannot wait another day. We invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 6, 2011."
Perhaps he could have even added in a note about pre-existing commitments if he wanted in order to score points with the base for rebuking the president while scoring points overall for making jobs a high priority.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#27 Sep 01 2011 at 5:48 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
BO

What up, Varus?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Sep 01 2011 at 5:54 AM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
ThiefX wrote:
And I love that fact so many of you dumb-asses think for a job to be created all Barry has to do is give a speech about jobs and POOF jobs are created.
How does it feel to be a watered down version of an already generic pseudo personality that is varus?
Post of the year nominee.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#29 Sep 01 2011 at 6:28 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
Kind of funny, a Republican whining about people not being willing to compromise. Isn't it kind of their fault you guys got dowgraded from AAA? You know, by not being willing to compromise, at all.


No the downgrade was a result of decades of failed liberal policies that have raise an entire generation of people who think it's the government's job to take care of them and somebody else pay for it.

Understand now or do you want me to use smaller words?

Funny, I thought it was the fault of a global recession caused by the rich taking advantage of the poor. You know, banks and all that.

I'm sure you're right though, it's the fault of those guys who live on the other side of town who can't afford to eat every day. Smiley: thumbsup


ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
I see you never took remedial civics. If you had, you'd know that the Congressional adjournment schedule is handled by the Speaker's office. But since you obviously never bothered to learn these minor details, I guess we can forgive you for just babbling randomly.


So you're saying Democrats didn't want to take a vacation the mean Republicans made them? Seriously Joph?

Can't have a government if only one half shows up. Smiley: schooled

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 8:29am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#30 Sep 01 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,818 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I was expecting something like that. Pretty dickish move by the President scheduling it on that particular evening in the first place. I half expected Boehner to just tell him to have fun, but we wont be there, but I suppose this is a bit better in terms of face-saving.

I'd say the president was pretty gracious to move it to Thursday (during the football game no less). Guess it's all a matter of perspective...which in this case is blown way out of proportion all the way around for a mere conflict in scheduling.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#31 Sep 01 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Default
**
738 posts
Quote:
ThiefX wrote:
So you're saying Democrats didn't want to take a vacation the mean Republicans made them? Seriously Joph?

I'm saying it wasn't in their power to decide one way or the other.

Did you want to maybe get a short primer on how Congress works and then come back to the conversation or where you set on making yourself look stupid?


Says the guy who just tried to ignorantly argue that Republicans don't care about jobs because they have virtually the same recess schedule every congress has every year.

**** that evil "Republican" Nancy Pelosi for making Democrats take the same vacation in 2009. 2009 Schedule

But that was 2009 though back when Barry had the economy booming right Joph? So it was OK for Democrats to take the same vacation because if it wasn't then that would make you a hypocrite wouldn't it Joph?

#32 Sep 01 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
Says the guy who just tried to ignorantly argue that Republicans don't care about jobs because they have virtually the same recess schedule every congress has every year.

So are you agreeing with me or denying that Boehner's office controls the adjournment schedule for Congress and is the only person with the power to decide if they take a 30 day vacation or not? In fact, since the House is keeping a token member around to strike the gavel and prevent recess appointments, Boehner could reconvene the full Congress at any second. He could even have everyone come back a day or two early if he thought something was actually more important than that last minute trip to the beach or BBQ.

To my recollection, Ms. Pelosi never said "We can't come to a speech on jobs because we'll be too busy coming back from our month long vacation" but if crying about her was the best defense you had, you should have just said "You're absolutely right, Joph." Come to think of it, weren't the House members actually having their town halls then? The ones that the GOP is too scared to have this year, thus negating even the thin excuse as to why they need a 30 day break?

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 8:30am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Sep 01 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I was expecting something like that. Pretty dickish move by the President scheduling it on that particular evening in the first place. I half expected Boehner to just tell him to have fun, but we wont be there, but I suppose this is a bit better in terms of face-saving.

I'd say the president was pretty gracious to move it to Thursday (during the football game no less). Guess it's all a matter of perspective...which in this case is blown way out of proportion all the way around for a mere conflict in scheduling.

I'd say it was a relatively tame non-issue until the 24-hour news media got wind of it and started portraying it as a partisan slap-fight. I didn't find anything particularly petulant or politick about Obama's scheduling or Boehner's request to move it.

Also, who amongst the viewership of the GOP debate or the NFL opening game really cares about another speech by Obama? The 24-hour news media will give us the Cliff's Notes the day after either way.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#34 Sep 01 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Also, who amongst the viewership of the GOP debate or the NFL opening game really cares about another speech by Obama?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#35 Sep 01 2011 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,306 posts
It was interesting to see the super-lefty take on this little theater. The meme among the FDL liberals is "Obama CAVED on yet another thing!!!11!!!"

I think they're more upset than the Tea Party about it being rescheduled.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#36 Sep 01 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:

I kinda agree with a comment I read on a related thread over there. At least part of it.

To win this round, Speaker Boehner only had to say "Mr. President, job creation is the most critical issue facing our nation, and we cannot wait another day. We invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 6, 2011."
Perhaps he could have even added in a note about pre-existing commitments if he wanted in order to score points with the base for rebuking the president while scoring points overall for making jobs a high priority.


Honestly, I find it a bit disingenuous for the author to claim that people are "tired of these games" and "just want to hear a plan to create jobs" right after talking at length about how each side could have played word games to their advantage. Dunno, it just kinda seemed like he stepped on his own point there a bit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 01 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,270 posts
Theifx wrote:
You keep talking about those lazy Republicans and their month long vacation, wasn't the other side of the aisle on the same month long vacation?

Didn't Barry just get back from Martha Vineyard? Oh that's right he is gonna say the word "job" on Thursday so that means he cares more...........


Your hypocrisy is disappointing. Both Reagan and George W. Bush spent more time on vacation at this point in their terms than Barack Obama has. Your point on that topic is null and void as it is based purely on some sort of **** up partisan fantasy you've created in your head after watching Bill O'Reilly too much.

Theifx wrote:
No the downgrade was a result of decades of failed liberal policies that have raise an entire generation of people who think it's the government's job to take care of them and somebody else pay for it.


During the last 30 years you have had 20 years of Republican Presidents, 16 of Republican controlled Senates, 13 of Republican Congress. What was that about 30 years of "liberal" policies? Do some basic research, sir. The current economy is the result of things done by both Republican and Democratic government over the last 20-25 years or so, and I think it's messed up that the blame gets tossed on whoever is in power at the time, and the past mistakes of other governments(left and right) are completely ignored.

Also, I hear you and the other neo-cons here(and on tv, in newspapers, etc.) talk about all the things Barack Obama isn't doing, why don't you explain what he should be doing? In detail, not just what he should be doing, but how he should be going about doing it, what process will create jobs and fix the economy in the unrealistic timeframe that you people seem to expect?

But you won't. It's becoming very clear that you(and Varus, Gbaji(though not all the time), and all the neo-con figureheads and pundits) never have any idea what you're talking about. You complain and criticise, but won't provide other options. You'll never provide a viable option, because you're talking out your ass, sticking to the party line regardless of what happens, or how absolutely ridiculous the constant hypocrisy makes you look.

But still, I ask again, if Barack Obama is doing the wrong things to fix the economy, what would be the correct way of doing it, and seeing the near-instant results you've been wanting?
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#38 Sep 01 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Theifx wrote:
No the downgrade was a result of decades of failed liberal policies that have raise an entire generation of people who think it's the government's job to take care of them and somebody else pay for it.


During the last 30 years you have had 20 years of Republican Presidents, 16 of Republican controlled Senates, 13 of Republican Congress. What was that about 30 years of "liberal" policies? Do some basic research, sir.


That's a pretty skewed way of looking at it though (and some numbers are just slightly off I think) and makes things look very different than they have historically. We're talking about generational effects, not just the last decade and a half. From 1955 to 1994 (that's forty years!) the Dems held the House. During three of those years the GOP gained control of the Senate, but only because of a tie and holding the White House (very very slim majority). The GOP held the house and senate for just 12 years (1995 to 2006). Then they gained the house in 2011. So the only people who've "grown up" under GOP policies are not yet old enough to vote.

Most people 25 and older grew up with Democrats having controlled congress for most of their childhood, and most of their parents lives. That's what Thief was talking about. That's "decades of failed liberal policies".

Quote:
The current economy is the result of things done by both Republican and Democratic government over the last 20-25 years or so, and I think it's messed up that the blame gets tossed on whoever is in power at the time, and the past mistakes of other governments(left and right) are completely ignored.


The current economy is the result of some poor choices about 10 years ago (made by both parties but primarily the Democrats) which was made worse by even worse choices made by the Democrats in 2009 and 2010. Honestly, that has very little to do with the decades of failed policies bit, but it certainly didn't hinder the foolishness that lead people to support the silly idea that somehow by spending a boatload of money we could fix an economic problem that ultimately had to do with not having enough money.

Quote:
Also, I hear you and the other neo-cons here(and on tv, in newspapers, etc.) talk about all the things Barack Obama isn't doing, why don't you explain what he should be doing? In detail, not just what he should be doing, but how he should be going about doing it, what process will create jobs and fix the economy in the unrealistic timeframe that you people seem to expect?


I can't speak for Thief, but I've done this many times on this forum. Maybe you haven't paid attention. It's really simple:

1. Immediately call for the repeal of Obamacare.

2. Immediately repeal any and all economic focused spending increases passed over the last 3 years. This includes the approximately 40% of the recovery act which hasn't yet been spent (plus any that has been allocated but not yet spent as well).

3. Make a pledge to the American people that he will oppose any tax rate increases for as long as he holds office.

4. Ask his party's members in Congress to make the same pledge.


If he were to do these four things, the economy would recover in less than 6 months.

Quote:
But you won't.


Really? It's not that we wont, but that you don't like the answers we give. It just can't occur to you that "not spending" and "not raising taxes" is actually a viable solution to an economic problem. Shocking, I know!


Quote:
But still, I ask again, if Barack Obama is doing the wrong things to fix the economy, what would be the correct way of doing it, and seeing the near-instant results you've been wanting?


Hopefully I've answered your question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 01 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
Yeah, you have. "Do nothing" and "wait and see". Inspiring.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Sep 01 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If he were to do these four things, the economy would recover in less than 6 months.

If not, you'll agree to support single-payer universal health care, a 70% tax rate on the rich and an extra trillion dollars a year for government spending programs after the six month mark, right? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Sep 01 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
****
9,270 posts
everything in this post is Gbaji quotes wrote:
The current economy is the result of some poor choices about 10 years ago (made by both parties but primarily the Democrats) which was made worse by even worse choices made by the Democrats in 2009 and 2010. Honestly, that has very little to do with the decades of failed policies bit, but it certainly didn't hinder the foolishness that lead people to support the silly idea that somehow by spending a boatload of money we could fix an economic problem that ultimately had to do with not having enough money.


Firstly, the deregulation of Wall Street that started in the 80s and still continues now is one factor that can be blamed. Secondly, the massive, and often unnecessary deficit spending(NEVER pay for war with deficit spending, it can lead to nothing but economic instability, and yet you have, twice in the last 10 years, I think you still are actually) has kind of **** you over pretty badly. You didn't have enough money, because you spent it all in the **** desert.

Quote:
1. Immediately call for the repeal of Obamacare. I agree completely. Affordable, or even free, universal health care is a great thing, but it is a huge mistake to introduce that sort of expensive thing, right in the middle of an economic downturn. Gigantic blunder.

2. Immediately repeal any and all economic focused spending increases passed over the last 3 years. This includes the approximately 40% of the recovery act which hasn't yet been spent (plus any that has been allocated but not yet spent as well). Somewhat viable, I suppose. Perhaps instead the recovery money should be just spent on what's needed. I'm assuming that you mean the money handed out by the stimulus. I;ve read a lot about a lot of that money being pocketed by businessmen and politicians, spent on pet projects, or wasted in some other way. Perhaps instead it should be tightly controlled by the government and directed to where it would be most useful directly from there

3. Make a pledge to the American people that he will oppose any tax rate increases for as long as he holds office. No. Force those who pay no tax to pay tax, small tax cut to small businesses, small tax increase on the wealthiest individuals(notice, I'm leaving out large companies here, it would prove your system to be completely flawed if a huge corporation stops hiring and starts outsourcing because its Billionare CEO got taxed a touch more.), enormous fines and moderate jail sentences for individuals who are caught trying to get out of paying taxes whether it be by purposefully lying at tax time, or sending piles of their money to offshore accounts.

4. Ask his party's members in Congress to make the same pledge. Not the way your political system, terribly flawed as it is, works.



Perhaps cutting military spending and pursuing a policy of military isolationism would be very helpful as well, save billions not sending men off to die in wars they shouldn't be fighting in in the first place.

Change then nature of the war on drugs, continue to fight against proven killers such as Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, etc., legalize marijuana, treat it like alcohol or tobacco, the revenue would be great. I don't say this as a user(2 months sober actually), I say this having learned how much money goes into fighting marijuana, and how much money could be made by selling it like, as earlier stated, alcohol and tobacco, both save and make money.

Regulate Wall Street. A company that purposefully misinforms its customers and investors and proceeds to bet against itself and proceeds to become part of the cause of a recession as a result, should not be able to do so, but thanks to deregulation, it can. I'm a capitalist, but there is a line where it stops being the pursuit of that "American dream", and becomes absolute greed.

Pay cuts for President, his staff(Sec. of state, etc.), Senators, Congressmen, and all other major government positions. Not only would this save some money, but you'd find that the quality of politicians would go up because less would be thinking about the money they make, and more about, you know, actually doing their jobs.

Stop preventing trade with countries with different ideologies, if another country might even remotely be willing to pay for American things, why prevent them from doing so because they're communists? or fascists? or muslims? Did you know that Cuba originally turned towards the USA when Castro took over? Could have worked out really well, but because his regime seemed somewhat leftist, the USA refused to do anything to help, and this was before Castro had even declared a political leaning for the new Cuba, and before he had even spoken to anyone from the Soviet Union. Your ideological **** is costing you money, and has been for over 50 years.

By the way, I highly doubt that anything could have the economy fixed within 6 months. This is a worldwide issue now, and it's not just about you. But if you can fix yours internally, it can be a start to fixing a much, much larger economic ****

Quote:
Really? It's not that we wont, but that you don't like the answers we give. It just can't occur to you that "not spending" and "not raising taxes" is actually a viable solution to an economic problem. Shocking, I know!


It seems to occur to you that not spending is a viable solution, doesn't seem to have ever occurred to any politician with any amount of power for the last 11 years. Because guess what, your government is still throwing money at unnecessary things.

Quote:
Hopefully I've answered your question.


In a way. Usually I never get a serious response to my requests for someone to throw some ideas and stuff out there. While I disagree with a lot of what you said, at least you actually gave an answer to the question.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#42 Sep 02 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
1. Immediately call for the repeal of Obamacare.
Why Canada has Universal Healthcare, its economy is doing pretty freaking good right now. Maybe you should find somewhere else to get the money, like say the defense budget.

2. Immediately repeal any and all economic focused spending increases passed over the last 3 years. This includes the approximately 40% of the recovery act which hasn't yet been spent (plus any that has been allocated but not yet spent as well).
They should, they should also work on repealing those Bush Tax Cuts.

3. Make a pledge to the American people that he will oppose any tax rate increases for as long as he holds office.Why, you need to increase revenue, and decrease spending that is the only way to fix your debt/deficit issues.





Edited, Sep 2nd 2011 11:41am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#43 Sep 02 2011 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
1.Canada has Universal Healthcare, its economy is doing pretty freaking good right now. Maybe you should find somewhere else to get the money, like say the defense budget.

2. they should also work on repealing those Bush Tax Cuts.

3. Why, you need to increase revenue, and decrease spending that is the only way to fix your debt/deficit issues.

1) Canada doesn't need a defense force because no one would dare to attack Canada with a big f'ucking stick sitting on its southern border.
2) The Bush tax cuts expired. The Obama tax cuts are still not low enough.
3) We need normalized revenue through tax reform and significantly decreased spending. That's the only way to fix out debt/deficit issue.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#44 Sep 02 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll await the accolades Obama should receive from the Right any moment now for his tax cuts. Lord knows they lauded Bush for his Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Sep 02 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, you have. "Do nothing" and "wait and see". Inspiring.


*cough*

gbaji wrote:
It just can't occur to you that "not spending" and "not raising taxes" is actually a viable solution to an economic problem.



The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Sep 02 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, you have. "Do nothing" and "wait and see". Inspiring.


*cough*

gbaji wrote:
It just can't occur to you that "not spending" and "not raising taxes" is actually a viable solution to an economic problem.



The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.


Hahahahahaaahaahah. The reasons that people aren't hiring are largely:
- Lack of consumer demand. Giving a few rich people more money will NOT increase consumer demand.
- Companies have decided to keep payroll low, and force their current employees to do more work.

But hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#47 Sep 02 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, you have. "Do nothing" and "wait and see". Inspiring.


*cough*

gbaji wrote:
It just can't occur to you that "not spending" and "not raising taxes" is actually a viable solution to an economic problem.



The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.


Hahahahahaaahaahah. The reasons that people aren't hiring are largely:
- Lack of consumer demand. Giving a few rich people more money will NOT increase consumer demand.
- Companies have decided to keep payroll low, and force their current employees to do more work.

But hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.


Well at least you both agree that unemployment is high. That's a start. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#48 Sep 02 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.


Hahahahahaaahaahah. The reasons that people aren't hiring are largely:
- Lack of consumer demand. Giving a few rich people more money will NOT increase consumer demand.


Aggregate consumer demand is most affected by employment (and the resulting income). If you want to increase aggregate demand, you need to employ more people. And we're not "giving" money to rich people, we're "not taking it away" (how many times do I have to keep pointing out that these are different?).

Quote:
- Companies have decided to keep payroll low, and force their current employees to do more work.


Yes! Why do you suppose they made that decision? Don't you think that maybe a political party threatening to raise taxes on you and your business might have something to do with this? Everything else being equal, it's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:
But hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.


Compared to what you said? You do realize you didn't actually tell me anything at all. Consumer demand is down? That's great. Why? And what should we do about it? I'm pointing at factors in the economy, identifying which ones are contributing to our current problems, and proposing solutions to those problems.

In response you just repeated a phrase you heard somewhere. No context. No explanation. No solution.


Kinda like Obama now that I think about it! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Sep 02 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Oh. Point I wanted to make, but forgot.

You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do. That's why rising debt and the threat of higher taxes will affect employment and why trying to artificially increase demand via wealth transfers is not the solution.

The idea that demand drives industry is a myth that the Left has perpetuated for decades now. It has never shown to be true and whenever we follow the assumptions it leads to economically we nearly always end out **** ourselves. How about we *not* make this mistake again?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 02 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.


Hahahahahaaahaahah. The reasons that people aren't hiring are largely:
- Lack of consumer demand. Giving a few rich people more money will NOT increase consumer demand.


Aggregate consumer demand is most affected by employment (and the resulting income). If you want to increase aggregate demand, you need to employ more people. And we're not "giving" money to rich people, we're "not taking it away" (how many times do I have to keep pointing out that these are different?).

Quote:
- Companies have decided to keep payroll low, and force their current employees to do more work.


Yes! Why do you suppose they made that decision? Don't you think that maybe a political party threatening to raise taxes on you and your business might have something to do with this? Everything else being equal, it's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:
But hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.


Compared to what you said? You do realize you didn't actually tell me anything at all. Consumer demand is down? That's great. Why? And what should we do about it? I'm pointing at factors in the economy, identifying which ones are contributing to our current problems, and proposing solutions to those problems.

In response you just repeated a phrase you heard somewhere. No context. No explanation. No solution.


Kinda like Obama now that I think about it! Smiley: laugh


You really expect they will hire people without the demand being up? Really? naïveté, they name is Gbaji.
Of course, that leads to the whole horse/cart argument, but I'm not going there.

And as to why they are working their people harder and not hiring? Duh, it's more profitable. You think this trend started when the health care bill was passed? It was going strong long before Obama was even elected. Companies exist only to make a profit. They have decided that keeping unemployment high is a great way to do so.

You're a funny guy.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#51 Sep 02 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Technogeek wrote:
You really expect they will hire people without the demand being up?


Yes.

Quote:
Really?


Yes, really!

We're talking about "aggregate demand", meaning the total amount of dollars chasing all goods in the whole economy. This does not affect the decision of a company to invest in making a better flat screen TV, or a new flavor of soda. No single business ever deals with the whole aggregate demand of an economy, or even a tiny fraction of the whole. They always think in terms of competing with dollars for other products and getting them to buy their product instead.

As long as there are any dollars out there to buy my products, I'm going to compete for them. Hiring decisions are going to be based on whether hiring more people will allow me to compete better for those dollars. Cost analysis weights that decision. Total consumption dollars in the whole economy really doesn't.

Each business is looking at their own tiny corner of the economy, not at the whole.

Quote:
And as to why they are working their people harder and not hiring? Duh, it's more profitable.


Why is it more profitable today than it was 5 years ago though? Think it through.

Quote:
You think this trend started when the health care bill was passed? It was going strong long before Obama was even elected. Companies exist only to make a profit. They have decided that keeping unemployment high is a great way to do so.


Why didn't they make that decision before though? As you say, they exist to make a profit. So if unemployment is higher today than it was 4-5 years ago, then that means that something must have changed to make lower employment more profitable today than back then. Or, something has changed to make hiring people less profitable. Gee. I wonder what that could be?


How hard is it to look at a health care bill which mandates higher coverage levels and will increase the cost per employee and conclude that this might just be a factor? How hard is it to look at potentially higher tax rates coming down the line and conclude that those might be a factor as well? Anything that affects the bottom line profits gained by X amount of effort/expense is going to affect that decision. If you make employment more expensive that increases the "cost" side of the profit equation. If you raise taxes, that directly reduces the resulting profit.

Obama and the Democrats are doing both. Drop the partisanship and look at the facts. This isn't even complicated reasoning.

Edited, Sep 2nd 2011 5:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Elinda, Samira, Smasharoo, Anonymous Guests (39)