Thread: Debate II

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

They actually got a lot done. Not that you liked any of it. But the notion t hat Obama somehow didn't capitalize on control congress is a misrepresentation.

However, that doesn't mean that Dems are more likely to work across the aisle in any way other than to save their political asses.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

so with a high unemployment rate, you think a man whos biggest contribution to society is exporting jobs over seas and making the 1%ers more rich?

Care to ask a question that isn't a stupid talking point?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/attacking-bain-for-wrong-reason/

Sure do you think Romney was actually good at his job?

Originally Posted by Frozented9

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08...-wrong-reason/

Sure do you think Romney was actually good at his job?

That's some interesting information. It looks like his career there was pretty muddled, thanks for posting it!

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

They actually got a lot done. Not that you liked any of it. But the notion t hat Obama somehow didn't capitalize on control congress is a misrepresentation.

However, that doesn't mean that Dems are more likely to work across the aisle in any way other than to save their political asses.

Yeah, it's funny to watch both sides constantly betray their own talking points. The Pubs claim Obama did all these horrible things but then claim he did nothing because he wouldn't reach across. The Dems complain the Pubs never let them do anything, but then laud all the accomplishments. It's utter nonsense.

[QUOTE=SweetOne69;58942]

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, .

You obviously never knew anyone who paid for the success of Romney'd business practices, nor looked at how he made the majority of his money. The success he had at the Olympics were from the bailout by the Federal government, something Atlanta or LA needed.

[QUOTE=old nurse;59153]

Originally Posted by SweetOne69

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, .

You obviously never knew anyone who paid for the success of Romney'd business practices, nor looked at how he made the majority of his money. The success he had at the Olympics were from the bailout by the Federal government, something Atlanta or LA needed.

I think the broken quote think casts a misrepresentation on Brock here. I was shocked initially when I saw it and thought no way. Then it was clear that Brock didn't say that.

As for the point, clearly "success" is a weird term. What about moral success? Should we really define "success" simply in terms of how much money someone has made!? HA!

You are clearly right, old nurse, about Romney, though. I am alarmed at how people could ever actually decide to vote for this guy. I mean, the utter contempt he has for middle class and lower class people is astounding.

Originally Posted by SweetOne69

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

A successful Plutocrat who squashes the poor in favor of the one percenters. Agreed. If that his your definition of success, have at it, man.

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

Originally Posted by glunn

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

"Never"? That seems like a rather ridiculous statement considering it wasn't the government that devised the method, just sank money into expanding it.

The problem is that we are giving ridiculous bailouts to banks and corporations, but the true yearly budget crushers are social security, medicaid, etc. Unfortunately, both sides are winning just enough battles to screw us from both sides.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

I'm sure you don't remember how Obama dismissed and demeaned Republicans during those two years either. He didn't want their participation or support -- because he didn't need it....... THEN. And it is pretty rich to cry out in indignation over bipartisanship after the landslide 2010 elections.

Actually, I do remember how Obama treated the Republicans, which I why I said some of the blame is laid at his feet. But Obama and the Democrats did not show the outright vitriol that the Republicans have shown in the past two years. To deny that is to deny reality. The Democrats didn't like the Republicans but after the Republicans took the House, they showed outright hatred for the Democrats, Obama in particular. I thought the vitriol aimed at Bush was a new low for this country but the GOP has managed to one-up that with Obama in office. It's disgusting to anyone who doesn't buy into either party's bull****.

As for not controlling Congress, meh. The House is where most bills start and that's the branch that matters in this type of discussion.

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by biggentleben

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by biggentleben

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

There are more success stories out there than you may think. It's just that the 'Welfare Queens' stories are the ones that are repeated over and over and over again until that's all people think of welfare. Do you remember former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe? She had 3 small children when her then husband up and abandoned them all. She went on welfare, put herself through school, became a teacher, etc. People DO use welfare as it's intended and do succeed. And, as Brock said, drastic cutting without thinking does a lot of damage, especially to the children involved.

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

I will not vote till someone pledges a program to carpet bomb the country with condoms and morning after pills and Mifepristone.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

Originally Posted by glunn

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

This country could use an Ike right now.

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by glunn

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

This country could use an Ike right now.

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.

I think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.