so you obama people

[RA]

lol...bush huh?

While I do agree that Bush was far too liberal..ie the farm bill/the education bill(and is education better because we threw more money at it?) bill after bill he didnt veto BUT

He kept calling for regulation of fanny and freddie but it was the Dems who blocked it every time..specifically Barney Frank. The legislation that took us under started under carter..strengthend by clinton..protected by frank who said "These companies are viable and if anything should be lending MORE money" Bush is not responsible at all for the housing crisis...

I know you like to blame reps for everything tock but the facts dont support your argument. Right now we need very fiscally conservative reps elected to the legislature...otherwise were going in the socialism toilet.

Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't.

Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
O'Bama includes everything.

Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers.

On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt.

----

Even after all that, the American people still don't have a clue about how to vote.

[SMCengineer]

The only way we can stem the tide now is to elect as many rep's as possible in 2 years. Not panty waist rinos but real fiscally conservative republicans. The reason is most of his spending does not begin until after that and they could put a stop to it.

Right, cause republicans didn't control the congress for 12 years, and both the legislative and executive for 6. They had their chance and they failed miserably. I'm not sure what's worse, having republicans who campaign as libertarians and govern as dems or having dems who campaign as liberals and follow through on their word. Sure, republican rhetoric is terrific now, but they always sound better when they're not in power cause they have less to risk.

This sums it up!





Obama

Best picture ever.

So no responses from our Democrat bros? I do hope this teaches everyone a lesson about actually looking at someones agenda and background rather than voting for him because he can deliver a good speech....(so could hitler)

On major policies, Mccain was no different than Obama nor were his supporters.

Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't.

They actually campaigned as "compasionate converservatives," which is simply a euphemism for neoconservative. Of course, it isn't nearly as pleasant sounding.

lol...bush huh?

While I do agree that Bush was far too liberal..ie the farm bill/the education bill(and is education better because we threw more money at it?) bill after bill he didnt veto BUT

He kept calling for regulation of fanny and freddie but it was the Dems who blocked it every time..specifically Barney Frank. The legislation that took us under started under carter..strengthend by clinton..protected by frank who said "These companies a viable and if anything should be lending MORE money" Bush is not responsible at all for the housing crisis...

I know you like to blame reps for everything tock but the facts dont support your argument. Right now we need very fiscally conservative reps elected to the legislature...otherwise were going in the socialism toilet.

I'm pretty sure it was under Bushs watch that interest rates dropped to their lowest levels in history (prior to today) and every fire needs fuel. Although those horrible policies were enacted, the catalyst was the interest rates. Everything else was just symptoms. Republicans and democrats alike are to blame not solely because of the policies they enacted, but because there's not a damn difference between the two.

[RA]

Right, cause republicans didn't control the congress for 12 years, and both the legislative and executive for 6. They had their chance and they failed miserably. I'm not sure what's worse, having republicans who campaign as libertarians and govern as dems or having dems who campaign as liberals and follow through on their word. Sure, republican rhetoric is terrific now, but they always sound better when they're not in power cause they have less to risk.



Best picture ever.


On major policies, Mccain was no different than Obama nor were his supporters.

They actually campaigned as "compasionate converservatives," which is simply a euphemism for neoconservative. Of course, it isn't nearly as pleasant sounding.



I'm pretty sure it was under Bushs watch that interest rates dropped to their lowest levels in history (prior to today) and every fire needs fuel. Although those horrible policies were enacted, the catalyst was the interest rates. Everything else was just symptoms. Republicans and democrats alike are to blame not solely because of the policies they enacted, but because there's not a damn difference between the two.

Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him.

McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary.

The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted.

Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.

[SMCengineer]

Like I said no rino Republicans. Someone like Bobby Jindal for example would be a good one. I think part of the problem was Bush wasnt a true conservative. He cut taxes but he wouldnt veto any spending bill...and the wimps in the legislature were too weak to stand up to him.

Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive.
Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.

McCain is also liberal but far far less than Obama. Im not sure how you can draw a comparison between the two. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the senate...left of Hilary.

On major policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc.

The Carter plan was to give money to people to buy homes. Like I said it didnt have much traction until Clinton forced banks to loan money to people who couldnt pay it back. Thats the backbone. Low interest rates didnt help but we wouldnt be in this mess if that legislation was never enacted.

Like I said several times Bush called for regulation and it was always blocked. Bawney Fwank is hugely responsible as well.

No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

[RA]

Bobby Jindal is just like all the other so called republicans trying to take the mantle of conservatism. He's the same as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Deminth, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence and all the other hacks. They're all horrible. I have no idea how the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes. Jindal's voting record is horrendous (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...?can_id=35481#). Take a look at all the Yes votes for appropriations and fiscal bills. That's fiscal conservatism? Not to mention he has no regard for the constitution. He voted Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on a constitutional amendmet banning flag burning and Yes on the Real ID Act! All unconstitutional, socialistic, liberal and expansive to the executive.
Just because he vetoed some earmarks in the state budget and opposed the stimulus money that makes him a fiscal conservative? No, that makes him a political grandstander and inconsistent.
The only governor who has any credibility is Mark Sandford and after his interview on Fox where he agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should take preemptive action against North Korea, I'm rethinking that.


On major policies, they are identical. Foreign policy, Monetary Policy, War on Drugs, Federal Reserve, Bailouts, etc.



No, that's not the backbone. You have to understand the business cycle to understand how and when bubbles are formed. Bubbles (malinvestments) are always caused by expansion of the monetary supply. All the piss poor legislation in the world couldn't bring about the ridiculous investments that were made in the last 10 years without the existence of easy credit. Yes, the reduction of risk provided by the government greatly contributed to the mess, but without the fed and subsequently Bushs/Greenspans low interest rate policy the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??

McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.

Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.

[SMCengineer]

You mentioned some good Republicans in there. Maybe not as conservative as I would like but light years ahead of whats currently in there. Im not sure what exactly you expect??

Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI.

McCain is not in agreement with Obama on bailouts, foreign policy, and the fed..maybe war on drugs but they arent that similar.

Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?

Of course it was the backbone. The banks were forced( by the govt ) to give millions of loans to people who shouldnt have them. Im not sure where your missing the boat on that one.

Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?

[RA]

Principled conservatives. None of which I mentioned. Particularly Mitt Romney who literally tried to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI.


Check their voting records. They're identical. On bailouts they're different? That's odd cause I could've sworn Mccain voted for the Tarp and every other bailout pre-Obama. There's a slight, and I mean slight difference, on foreign policy, but the only difference is that Obama wants to draw down the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. By draw down, that means leave several tousand troops in Iraq and claim that he ended the war, which he won't. However, the basis is an interventionist foreign policy, which doesn't change from one administration to the next. Where do they differ on the Fed? When do they even talk about the Fed?


Missing the boat? How can loans be made without credit?

I totally agree. I would like principled conservative leaders. Do you hold the liberal leaders in Washington to the same standard? Because every single one would fail if thats the case.

McCain would not be going after Wall Street like obama has...McCain would not be talking universal health care..McCain would stay as long as we needed to in Iraq and not set some arbitrary deadline. McCain would not be going around the world apologizing to everyone and calling us arrogant. McCain would not be trying to take over all the banks and wanting to set the salaries of ceos that didnt even take tarp money...huge differences

Interest rates are an issue but if your loaning the money to people who can pay it back then there isnt a problem.