Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 12, 2008 at 9:23 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286632October 12, 2008 at 9:23 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286634
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=jficquette]
Why when presented with evidence supporting claims that this mess started with Clinton you come up with nation debt issues?
[/quote]
Well a lot of this discussion, by which I mean the national dialogue of turmoil and bailout (not specifically this thread) seems to focus on issues of cost to taxpayers.[quote=jficquette]
Why can’t democrats stick to issues and facts rather then try to cloud them?
[/quote]
I am a liberal. My party affiliation is incidental (and could change). There have been several occasions where republicans were closer to my line of thinking. So I really cannot speak to your anecdotes regarding democrats. Based on your descriptions, you would think that a maverick and bipartisan Republican (which is a fair description of McCain) would be more successful. However, democracy does not favor you.[quote=jficquette]
Urban do you think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid led country will actually balance the budget as he claims?
[/quote]
I don’t know.
But a white trash, Bible-thumping, southern liberal did it. It is true, he was a Rhodes scholar, but its not like he was a some ivory tower intellectual. He was just good at figuring stuff out and acknowledging his weak points and listening to adverse opinions.On that same topic I don’t think it is reasonable to hold a chief executive as innocent and absent from the performance of the nation. Clinton was not along for the ride any more than the Bush administration was.
[quote=jficquette]
Do you really even care that the budget is balanced?
[/quote]
As an abstract concept? No,not at all.
What I care is that the burden of debt service not become so cumbersome that we have to print our way out. I think it unlikely that we will ever need to monetize our debt (ala Latin America in the ’80s or Zimbabwe now) but I do fear that we will see damaging inflation or increase in the cost of borrowing as a result of being over-leveraged or reduced ability to use fiscal policy as a result of enforced fiscal conservatism.I think that these are reasonable concerns.
Best example: Japan during the 90’s.
[quote=jficquette]October 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286268Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as thanking Bill, you chaps ought to thank Dick Morris who told Hillary and staff to get the fvck out of the room so that Bill could “triangulate”. [/quote]
As much as I hate the dude, you are probably right on this.
Dicky was a tool but his political acumen is impressive.
He is sort of the slightly less evil version of Karl Rove.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, he was a director in the 2000 Fox campaign in Mexico. James Carville held the same position on the opposing ticket for Labastida. Fox won pretty decisively. Not bad for a prick advising a midwesterner from Guanajuato.
October 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286562Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as thanking Bill, you chaps ought to thank Dick Morris who told Hillary and staff to get the fvck out of the room so that Bill could “triangulate”. [/quote]
As much as I hate the dude, you are probably right on this.
Dicky was a tool but his political acumen is impressive.
He is sort of the slightly less evil version of Karl Rove.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, he was a director in the 2000 Fox campaign in Mexico. James Carville held the same position on the opposing ticket for Labastida. Fox won pretty decisively. Not bad for a prick advising a midwesterner from Guanajuato.
October 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286579Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as thanking Bill, you chaps ought to thank Dick Morris who told Hillary and staff to get the fvck out of the room so that Bill could “triangulate”. [/quote]
As much as I hate the dude, you are probably right on this.
Dicky was a tool but his political acumen is impressive.
He is sort of the slightly less evil version of Karl Rove.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, he was a director in the 2000 Fox campaign in Mexico. James Carville held the same position on the opposing ticket for Labastida. Fox won pretty decisively. Not bad for a prick advising a midwesterner from Guanajuato.
October 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286606Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as thanking Bill, you chaps ought to thank Dick Morris who told Hillary and staff to get the fvck out of the room so that Bill could “triangulate”. [/quote]
As much as I hate the dude, you are probably right on this.
Dicky was a tool but his political acumen is impressive.
He is sort of the slightly less evil version of Karl Rove.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, he was a director in the 2000 Fox campaign in Mexico. James Carville held the same position on the opposing ticket for Labastida. Fox won pretty decisively. Not bad for a prick advising a midwesterner from Guanajuato.
October 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286609Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]
As far as thanking Bill, you chaps ought to thank Dick Morris who told Hillary and staff to get the fvck out of the room so that Bill could “triangulate”. [/quote]
As much as I hate the dude, you are probably right on this.
Dicky was a tool but his political acumen is impressive.
He is sort of the slightly less evil version of Karl Rove.
If you want an apples to apples comparison, he was a director in the 2000 Fox campaign in Mexico. James Carville held the same position on the opposing ticket for Labastida. Fox won pretty decisively. Not bad for a prick advising a midwesterner from Guanajuato.
October 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286258Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]And for the past 8 years the Bush administration turned a blind eye.[/quote]
Does that mean you disagree with the 1999 legislation?[/quote]
The issue with legislation is that its execution is as important (sometimes more) than its passage.
I think you guys are really arguing past each other and not at each other.Would you disagree John?
Also a fun article for fiscal conservatives.
Check the graph at the top.
Notice the years.October 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286552Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]And for the past 8 years the Bush administration turned a blind eye.[/quote]
Does that mean you disagree with the 1999 legislation?[/quote]
The issue with legislation is that its execution is as important (sometimes more) than its passage.
I think you guys are really arguing past each other and not at each other.Would you disagree John?
Also a fun article for fiscal conservatives.
Check the graph at the top.
Notice the years.October 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286569Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]And for the past 8 years the Bush administration turned a blind eye.[/quote]
Does that mean you disagree with the 1999 legislation?[/quote]
The issue with legislation is that its execution is as important (sometimes more) than its passage.
I think you guys are really arguing past each other and not at each other.Would you disagree John?
Also a fun article for fiscal conservatives.
Check the graph at the top.
Notice the years.October 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286597Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]And for the past 8 years the Bush administration turned a blind eye.[/quote]
Does that mean you disagree with the 1999 legislation?[/quote]
The issue with legislation is that its execution is as important (sometimes more) than its passage.
I think you guys are really arguing past each other and not at each other.Would you disagree John?
Also a fun article for fiscal conservatives.
Check the graph at the top.
Notice the years.October 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM in reply to: Thank you Clinton for the Sub-Prime Boom! 1999 NYT Article #286601Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]And for the past 8 years the Bush administration turned a blind eye.[/quote]
Does that mean you disagree with the 1999 legislation?[/quote]
The issue with legislation is that its execution is as important (sometimes more) than its passage.
I think you guys are really arguing past each other and not at each other.Would you disagree John?
Also a fun article for fiscal conservatives.
Check the graph at the top.
Notice the years.ParticipantSince I see it leading to a six page debate I will refrain from sharing my socio-political views. You’re welcome.
On the topic of booze, I would like to draw everyones attention to TJ’ six dollar vodka.
On a dollar per drunk basis, it kills two buck chuck.And its pretty damn good,
ParticipantSince I see it leading to a six page debate I will refrain from sharing my socio-political views. You’re welcome.
On the topic of booze, I would like to draw everyones attention to TJ’ six dollar vodka.
On a dollar per drunk basis, it kills two buck chuck.And its pretty damn good,
ParticipantSince I see it leading to a six page debate I will refrain from sharing my socio-political views. You’re welcome.
On the topic of booze, I would like to draw everyones attention to TJ’ six dollar vodka.
On a dollar per drunk basis, it kills two buck chuck.And its pretty damn good,
-
AuthorPosts
