Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:09 UTC
Legal Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is "flat, unadulterated theft".
Thread beginning with comment 438914
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

Why am I not convinced? You're blinded by your own hate.


Dunno. For instance, I really don't hate bush. When he dodged those shoes and smirked at his assailant I was proud to be an American.

For example, with every evidence of a straight face, you credited President Clinton for the fiscal situation in 2000, but blamed President Reagan for the fiscal situation in 2008. Didn't they teach you in school that President Clinton served after President Reagan?


If you read carefully you will see that I blamed Reagonomics (e.g. deregulation and regressive "trickle down"/"voodoo economics" tax policy) for '08, not Reagan himself.

Let me guess: You were kidding there, too.

You admitted that your initial swipe at Mr. Reagan was wrong.


That's a bit of a misrepresentation. I admitted that Reagan oversaw the SECOND biggest increase in debt by percentage of GDP in the modern era, behind Bush II.

At first I thought it was the largest, but turns out Bush II edges him out.

You make it sound like it detracts from my point.

Your next step is to realize that Mr. Obama's eye-popping deficits are no more in the "don't matter" category than Mr. Bush's - they are a grave danger to our country.


I can't realize that because it isn't true. This is only Obama's debt to the extent that it is also Obama's bush tax cuts, Obama's wars, Obama's TARP, Obama's bail outs, Obama's medicare part D, etc. (in other words, not at all).

Yes, Obama did bail out GM, but they have repaid that loan. Yes, Obama did push for a stimulus but that wasn't some tax-and-spend whim. It was 40% tax cuts and more importantly it was necessitated by the complete and total failure of Reaganomics (not Reagan per se), and what everyone agrees is the greatest economic disaster since the 1920s.

Yes, Obama pushed for health care reform (read: campaign promise), but you cited the CBO earlier, and we both know the CBO scores that bill in the positive, so that can't count against the debt.

Get past the "R's bad, D's good" chant from your non sequitur-laden earlier post. Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their state.

It's not too late.


Why do you assume that I hate all R's? From Lincoln to Teddy R to Eisenhower to Nixon and Bush I's foreign policy, I have a lot of good things to say about Rs.

There are even a lot of things I like about Bush II, but policy wise I'm in the 80% of Americans that give him a negative approval rating.

That hardly makes me radical.

My point is, blaming Obama for the deficit/debt might fly for a cable news audience, but it is hardly a fair assessment.

Edited 2010-09-01 12:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:38 in reply to "RE[7]: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"Why do you assume that I hate all R's?"

Because everything you said about R's up until this post was bad, and everything about D's was good? Because you responded to a critique of both R's and D's with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan, who served before you were even born? Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?

I'm happy to acknowledge the change in words in your last post, and hope that represents a different heart than your earlier words implied.

"blaming Obama for the deficit/debt"

There you go again. When did debt enter the conversation? We're talking about the deficit. It's a critical distinction - you can inherit a debt (at least in government); you can't inherit a deficit. The deficit belongs to the current president and congress alone - they voted for it and signed it into law, to their shame. They can correct it by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or both. If they won't, citizens should replace them with someone who will.

As I said elsewhere on the thread, calling it the "Obama deficit" is a convenience - bills of revenue originate in the house. It's quicker than saying "the deficit of President Obama and the 111th Congress", even though the latter is more accurate.

However, the bottom line is that the level of spending advocated by the Obama administration and passed by the 111th Congress relative to revenues is both indefensible and unsustainable. You don't need to be an R to figure THAT out. ;-)

And with that, I leave for work. That's for the chat, off-topic though we were. :-D

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Screwed again
by sorpigal on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:15 in reply to "RE[8]: Screwed again"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Because you responded to a critique of both R's and D's with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan

The so-called attack on Reagan was not off-the-wall, it was an entirely factual statement. People who are not wearing rose-colored glasses can easily see the economic harm that Reagan's policies have done, both during and after his terms.

Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?

The "Teabaggers" named themselves that, and indignantly refused to change it for quite some time. I was not the only one giggling behind my hand while they were going on about it. In addition, last I heard the tea partiers insist also that they are not a Republican group...

the bottom line is that the level of spending advocated by the Obama administration and passed by the 111th Congress relative to revenues is both indefensible and unsustainable.

It is entire defensible, as many have done and continue to do, and is known to be unsustainable. It is not suggested that deficit spending go on forever, unless your name is Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan who seemed quite happy to have a deficit.

To FuriousGeorge I must add: Dear sir, I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Don't stop posting (you're better at it than I am.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 19:15 in reply to "RE[8]: Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

"Why do you assume that I hate all R's?"

Because everything you said about R's up until this post was bad, and everything about D's was good?


That was in the context of everything in the thread to the point of my post being both critical and factually incorrect.

It would be no more fair for me to claim that everyone who posted the inaccurate statements I addressed hate all D's or economists.

Because you responded to a critique of both R's and D's with an off-the-wall attack on President Reagan, who served before you were even born?


It wasn't an attack, it's a fact which I hoped would add some context to this debate.

I assume Lincoln and Buchanan served before you were born, but that doesn't make you unqualified to have an opinion as to their administrations.

By the way, I said I was born two months before Reagans inauguration, not before his presidency.

Because you called a predominately Republican group a vulgar name?


They self-anointed themselves "teabaggers", but I won't accuse you of being hypersensitive about this. I thought I was teasing innocently, but if I offended you I apologize.

I'm happy to acknowledge the change in words in your last post, and hope that represents a different heart than your earlier words implied.


I changed my words to the extent that the subject changed from "Obama = tax and spend for the rich and wall street" to "why do you hate everything republican". Had we stayed on our first tangent you would have found the tone of my response largely unchanged.

"blaming Obama for the deficit/debt"

There you go again. When did debt enter the conversation? We're talking about the deficit. It's a critical distinction - you can inherit a debt (at least in government); you can't inherit a deficit.


You can't? The 2009 fiscal year started 7/1/08.

Let's say I'm the president in 2008, and I spend a trillion dollars in bail outs, about another trillion on a TARP program combined with two wars which are not part of the budget. I do this all after the 2008 budget and before the 2009 budget.

Let's say you become the president in 2009.

All the aforementioned spending is now on your deficit. You have inherited it.

This is common propaganda, and should be understood in context. See a more complete explanation here:

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/01/cato_dont_blame_1.h...

The deficit belongs to the current president and congress alone - they voted for it and signed it into law, to their shame. They can correct it by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or both.

You don't need to be an R to figure THAT out. ;-)


Aside from the Stimulus, please name the largest unsustainable big spending legislation that this administration/congress own. You may be surprised by what you find.

Keep in mind that the CBO, which you rightly referenced earlier for their non-partisanship, has unequivocally said that HR-Reform is not only sustainable but profitable in the long term, so that can't count.

And with that, I leave for work. That's for the chat, off-topic though we were. :-D


Good talking to you.

Edited 2010-09-01 19:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1