Already 5 Years Into a Lost Decade

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.[/quote]

Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]
Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.[/quote]

If both parties are the same, why do so many direct all the anger at one side?

Of course, I’m partisan. We all are.

Let us be guided by science and facts instead of emotions. What are the policy differences of each party?

The bailouts/stimulus saved the economy from the abyss. They were not “good” but they were necessary to preserve our established way of life (with minimum disruption to our economic and political system).

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but that’s better than another Great Depression.

One may argue that the established system needs to be overturned, but that’s another discussion.

[quote=Shadowfax]
Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.[/quote]

If I understand your post, you seem to be saying that Obama provided continuity of the old order. On the other hand, McCain/Palin would have been destructive.

The first order of priority is to get growth and the economy to the status ante the mismanagement, wars, and debts of the Bush years.

We had financial reform and a Consumer Protection agency with Obama (which the Republicans fully opposed). Granted, the reforms didn’t go far enough. But isn’t that better than the nothing of the Republicans? We know for sure that a Consumer Protection Agency would not have been possible under a Republican dominated Congress.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]
Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.[/quote]

If both parties are the same, why do so many direct all the anger at one side?

Of course, I’m partisan. We all are.

Let us be guided by science and facts instead of emotions. What are the policy differences of each party?

The bailouts/stimulus saved the economy from the abyss. They were not “good” but they were necessary to preserve our established way of life (with minimum disruption to our economic and political system).

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but that’s better than another Great Depression.

One may argue that the established system needs to be overturned, but that’s another discussion.

[quote=Shadowfax]
Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.[/quote]

If I understand your post, you seem to be saying that Obama provided continuity of the old order. On the other hand, McCain/Palin would have been destructive.

The first order of priority is to get growth and the economy to the status ante the mismanagement, wars, and debts of the Bush years.

We had financial reform and a Consumer Protection agency with Obama (which the Republicans fully opposed). Granted, the reforms didn’t go far enough. But isn’t that better than the nothing of the Republicans? We know for sure that a Consumer Protection Agency would not have been possible under a Republican dominated Congress.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]
Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.[/quote]

If both parties are the same, why do so many direct all the anger at one side?

Of course, I’m partisan. We all are.

Let us be guided by science and facts instead of emotions. What are the policy differences of each party?

The bailouts/stimulus saved the economy from the abyss. They were not “good” but they were necessary to preserve our established way of life (with minimum disruption to our economic and political system).

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but that’s better than another Great Depression.

One may argue that the established system needs to be overturned, but that’s another discussion.

[quote=Shadowfax]
Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.[/quote]

If I understand your post, you seem to be saying that Obama provided continuity of the old order. On the other hand, McCain/Palin would have been destructive.

The first order of priority is to get growth and the economy to the status ante the mismanagement, wars, and debts of the Bush years.

We had financial reform and a Consumer Protection agency with Obama (which the Republicans fully opposed). Granted, the reforms didn’t go far enough. But isn’t that better than the nothing of the Republicans? We know for sure that a Consumer Protection Agency would not have been possible under a Republican dominated Congress.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]
Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.[/quote]

If both parties are the same, why do so many direct all the anger at one side?

Of course, I’m partisan. We all are.

Let us be guided by science and facts instead of emotions. What are the policy differences of each party?

The bailouts/stimulus saved the economy from the abyss. They were not “good” but they were necessary to preserve our established way of life (with minimum disruption to our economic and political system).

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but that’s better than another Great Depression.

One may argue that the established system needs to be overturned, but that’s another discussion.

[quote=Shadowfax]
Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.[/quote]

If I understand your post, you seem to be saying that Obama provided continuity of the old order. On the other hand, McCain/Palin would have been destructive.

The first order of priority is to get growth and the economy to the status ante the mismanagement, wars, and debts of the Bush years.

We had financial reform and a Consumer Protection agency with Obama (which the Republicans fully opposed). Granted, the reforms didn’t go far enough. But isn’t that better than the nothing of the Republicans? We know for sure that a Consumer Protection Agency would not have been possible under a Republican dominated Congress.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]
Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.[/quote]

If both parties are the same, why do so many direct all the anger at one side?

Of course, I’m partisan. We all are.

Let us be guided by science and facts instead of emotions. What are the policy differences of each party?

The bailouts/stimulus saved the economy from the abyss. They were not “good” but they were necessary to preserve our established way of life (with minimum disruption to our economic and political system).

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but that’s better than another Great Depression.

One may argue that the established system needs to be overturned, but that’s another discussion.

[quote=Shadowfax]
Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.[/quote]

If I understand your post, you seem to be saying that Obama provided continuity of the old order. On the other hand, McCain/Palin would have been destructive.

The first order of priority is to get growth and the economy to the status ante the mismanagement, wars, and debts of the Bush years.

We had financial reform and a Consumer Protection agency with Obama (which the Republicans fully opposed). Granted, the reforms didn’t go far enough. But isn’t that better than the nothing of the Republicans? We know for sure that a Consumer Protection Agency would not have been possible under a Republican dominated Congress.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.
[/quote]

That last sentence is impactful given the source… (I mean that in a good way–Rich displays a keen understanding of his own industry and isn’t afraid to call the bad participants out for what they are–crooks.)

Both sides of the aisle have given a pass to Wall Street and that shit needs to stop.

Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.
[/quote]

That last sentence is impactful given the source… (I mean that in a good way–Rich displays a keen understanding of his own industry and isn’t afraid to call the bad participants out for what they are–crooks.)

Both sides of the aisle have given a pass to Wall Street and that shit needs to stop.

Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.
[/quote]

That last sentence is impactful given the source… (I mean that in a good way–Rich displays a keen understanding of his own industry and isn’t afraid to call the bad participants out for what they are–crooks.)

Both sides of the aisle have given a pass to Wall Street and that shit needs to stop.

Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.
[/quote]

That last sentence is impactful given the source… (I mean that in a good way–Rich displays a keen understanding of his own industry and isn’t afraid to call the bad participants out for what they are–crooks.)

Both sides of the aisle have given a pass to Wall Street and that shit needs to stop.

Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.
[/quote]

That last sentence is impactful given the source… (I mean that in a good way–Rich displays a keen understanding of his own industry and isn’t afraid to call the bad participants out for what they are–crooks.)

Both sides of the aisle have given a pass to Wall Street and that shit needs to stop.

Coming to terms with the political reality of Obama’s administration has been painful for me–I really did want to drink the Kool Aid–but he’s really not done much in his two years. I am willing to give him a bit more time, but I am disappointed. And, no, Hell would have frozen over before I would have voted for McCain/Palin. Not because of their party affiliations, but because they would have been sooooo destructive for the country.

[Shadowfax]

That’s not quite what I was saying–just that, like many, I really wanted to believe that Obama was different and that he would “change” Washington status quo and would try to fix the things that were broken (I say try because there is honestly only so much one politician can do, even the president). I see some value in his efforts, but mostly he seems to be the same ol’ same ol’, party over country, etc. Will the Tea Baggers be that “change” we were seeking with Obama? Hell, no. They are like the American Taliban–take us back to the dark ages both fiscally and societally.

I have no doubt that the Republicans in power after the last presidential election would not have resulting in them doing nothing–we’d be spending more on the war, probably would have given more money to wall street with fewer strings of accountability attached, etc.

I am not sure what the CPA has to do with anything–we had one form or another of that agency for many years.

But we are still dealing with the fallout of a long stretch of republican years (the supreme court and its decision re corporate participation in campaign financing being a HUGE issue) and that is why I am willing to give O some more time–Washington is an intractible place and nothing changes overnight.

Heathcare reform was a wash, IMHO. But the bailout policy under O has given me pause over whether he is really pursuing the country’s goals or whether he is just selling out like the rest of them to the highest bidder.

ok, rant off.

[Shadowfax]

That’s not quite what I was saying–just that, like many, I really wanted to believe that Obama was different and that he would “change” Washington status quo and would try to fix the things that were broken (I say try because there is honestly only so much one politician can do, even the president). I see some value in his efforts, but mostly he seems to be the same ol’ same ol’, party over country, etc. Will the Tea Baggers be that “change” we were seeking with Obama? Hell, no. They are like the American Taliban–take us back to the dark ages both fiscally and societally.

I have no doubt that the Republicans in power after the last presidential election would not have resulting in them doing nothing–we’d be spending more on the war, probably would have given more money to wall street with fewer strings of accountability attached, etc.

I am not sure what the CPA has to do with anything–we had one form or another of that agency for many years.

But we are still dealing with the fallout of a long stretch of republican years (the supreme court and its decision re corporate participation in campaign financing being a HUGE issue) and that is why I am willing to give O some more time–Washington is an intractible place and nothing changes overnight.

Heathcare reform was a wash, IMHO. But the bailout policy under O has given me pause over whether he is really pursuing the country’s goals or whether he is just selling out like the rest of them to the highest bidder.

ok, rant off.

[Shadowfax]

That’s not quite what I was saying–just that, like many, I really wanted to believe that Obama was different and that he would “change” Washington status quo and would try to fix the things that were broken (I say try because there is honestly only so much one politician can do, even the president). I see some value in his efforts, but mostly he seems to be the same ol’ same ol’, party over country, etc. Will the Tea Baggers be that “change” we were seeking with Obama? Hell, no. They are like the American Taliban–take us back to the dark ages both fiscally and societally.

I have no doubt that the Republicans in power after the last presidential election would not have resulting in them doing nothing–we’d be spending more on the war, probably would have given more money to wall street with fewer strings of accountability attached, etc.

I am not sure what the CPA has to do with anything–we had one form or another of that agency for many years.

But we are still dealing with the fallout of a long stretch of republican years (the supreme court and its decision re corporate participation in campaign financing being a HUGE issue) and that is why I am willing to give O some more time–Washington is an intractible place and nothing changes overnight.

Heathcare reform was a wash, IMHO. But the bailout policy under O has given me pause over whether he is really pursuing the country’s goals or whether he is just selling out like the rest of them to the highest bidder.

ok, rant off.

[Shadowfax]

That’s not quite what I was saying–just that, like many, I really wanted to believe that Obama was different and that he would “change” Washington status quo and would try to fix the things that were broken (I say try because there is honestly only so much one politician can do, even the president). I see some value in his efforts, but mostly he seems to be the same ol’ same ol’, party over country, etc. Will the Tea Baggers be that “change” we were seeking with Obama? Hell, no. They are like the American Taliban–take us back to the dark ages both fiscally and societally.

I have no doubt that the Republicans in power after the last presidential election would not have resulting in them doing nothing–we’d be spending more on the war, probably would have given more money to wall street with fewer strings of accountability attached, etc.

I am not sure what the CPA has to do with anything–we had one form or another of that agency for many years.

But we are still dealing with the fallout of a long stretch of republican years (the supreme court and its decision re corporate participation in campaign financing being a HUGE issue) and that is why I am willing to give O some more time–Washington is an intractible place and nothing changes overnight.

Heathcare reform was a wash, IMHO. But the bailout policy under O has given me pause over whether he is really pursuing the country’s goals or whether he is just selling out like the rest of them to the highest bidder.

ok, rant off.

[Author]

Posts