Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
D.R.I.V.E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 1019718" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bluehdmc;</p><p></p><p>Just a couple of quick interjections here. In the "Party of No"s blocking "everything the Clinton administration did", it gave that administration a balanced budget which Democrats now look back on and BRAG about...and it most assuredly wasn't their doing! If Congress had left things up to Clinton, he would have spent into debt as rapidly as Obama.</p><p></p><p>"Yes", the economy "floundered in the previous administration"....IF you term the "previous administration" as represented by the executive in office. However, again, it began "floundering" after a Democrat congress took over. And, of course, it REALLY went south when it became apparent that Obama was going to be elected. Would it if there HADN'T been a party change taking place? Given Bush's position on the war, probably...but one really can't say. In truth, the Democrats were in control of the financials strings at the time the crisis came about. If the Republican are to be tinted by being "the no's" now, then the Democrats have to be stained by the same allegation when THEY had the ropes.</p><p></p><p>As for Time magazines list, that would seem to be Time magazine's list. I'm not sure I understand; is my (or any other responsible person's) opinion and/or the facts supposed to be dictated by what a MAGAZINE says now?????</p><p></p><p>I'll be the first to admit that the domestic "Big Three" auto industry's troubles are of long standing. That, however, isn't the issue. The "issue", from my perspective, is that Obama (and, admittedly, others) wasted taxpayer funds in bailing the UNIONS who's workers were employed by them - or at least GM and Chrysler - out. And while the efficient car makers may be "union" in their home countries ("yes", I've read "The Reckoning" as well), the fact is that they're NOT here...and it's "here" where they're building plants, and it's the "here" where they're making a go of it that we're concerned about. In any case, it isn't who caused the bankruptcy that matters, but the fact that there WAS a bankruptcy, and that the administration chose to bail the UNION out...at the expense of the LEGITIMATE residual owners; i.e. - those who held secured debt. In that, he was acting about as "presidential" as he was in ignoring the immigration law he was sworn to uphold, or the requirements of appointment approval which were also part 'n' parcel of his taking the oath of office. </p><p></p><p>Lastly, if you can recall a similar NATIONAL downturn in real estate beyond the Great Depression before the current one - one which justify the previous poster's claim that.......</p><p></p><p>"Freddie and Fannie have created more household wealth since there inception than any other quasi-government agency in US history."</p><p></p><p>...then please point it out - and don't claim that a localized market drop in Houston, or NJ, or California or whatever constitute such a justification. (I'm not even going to get into the apparent assumption that "quasi-government" agencies have "created wealth" over the years, or whether that's their function or not)</p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">No, "the crash didn't come overnite and the recovery won't happen overnite either"....but after more than three years, I would expect at least some MOVEMENT in that direction! So far, I've seen none. And, to be honest, that's completely understandable. Why should one expect any positive movement coming from an individual like Obama? Again, while he seems like a personable individual, he lacks even the elemental talent and experience that would enable him to serve as an effective executive. What's he done? In terms of "real world" experience, virtually nothing. I'm not saying he's a "bad man"; I'm simply saying he's ineffective. Now Romney may not be any better....but at least there's a chance of improvement with him. Meanwhile, one KNOWS that Obama has failed to bring things around..so why keep beating a dead horse? Why not let him lie in peace and at least allow an opportunity for improvement?</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1019718, member: 16651"] bluehdmc; Just a couple of quick interjections here. In the "Party of No"s blocking "everything the Clinton administration did", it gave that administration a balanced budget which Democrats now look back on and BRAG about...and it most assuredly wasn't their doing! If Congress had left things up to Clinton, he would have spent into debt as rapidly as Obama. "Yes", the economy "floundered in the previous administration"....IF you term the "previous administration" as represented by the executive in office. However, again, it began "floundering" after a Democrat congress took over. And, of course, it REALLY went south when it became apparent that Obama was going to be elected. Would it if there HADN'T been a party change taking place? Given Bush's position on the war, probably...but one really can't say. In truth, the Democrats were in control of the financials strings at the time the crisis came about. If the Republican are to be tinted by being "the no's" now, then the Democrats have to be stained by the same allegation when THEY had the ropes. As for Time magazines list, that would seem to be Time magazine's list. I'm not sure I understand; is my (or any other responsible person's) opinion and/or the facts supposed to be dictated by what a MAGAZINE says now????? I'll be the first to admit that the domestic "Big Three" auto industry's troubles are of long standing. That, however, isn't the issue. The "issue", from my perspective, is that Obama (and, admittedly, others) wasted taxpayer funds in bailing the UNIONS who's workers were employed by them - or at least GM and Chrysler - out. And while the efficient car makers may be "union" in their home countries ("yes", I've read "The Reckoning" as well), the fact is that they're NOT here...and it's "here" where they're building plants, and it's the "here" where they're making a go of it that we're concerned about. In any case, it isn't who caused the bankruptcy that matters, but the fact that there WAS a bankruptcy, and that the administration chose to bail the UNION out...at the expense of the LEGITIMATE residual owners; i.e. - those who held secured debt. In that, he was acting about as "presidential" as he was in ignoring the immigration law he was sworn to uphold, or the requirements of appointment approval which were also part 'n' parcel of his taking the oath of office. Lastly, if you can recall a similar NATIONAL downturn in real estate beyond the Great Depression before the current one - one which justify the previous poster's claim that....... "Freddie and Fannie have created more household wealth since there inception than any other quasi-government agency in US history." ...then please point it out - and don't claim that a localized market drop in Houston, or NJ, or California or whatever constitute such a justification. (I'm not even going to get into the apparent assumption that "quasi-government" agencies have "created wealth" over the years, or whether that's their function or not) [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] No, "the crash didn't come overnite and the recovery won't happen overnite either"....but after more than three years, I would expect at least some MOVEMENT in that direction! So far, I've seen none. And, to be honest, that's completely understandable. Why should one expect any positive movement coming from an individual like Obama? Again, while he seems like a personable individual, he lacks even the elemental talent and experience that would enable him to serve as an effective executive. What's he done? In terms of "real world" experience, virtually nothing. I'm not saying he's a "bad man"; I'm simply saying he's ineffective. Now Romney may not be any better....but at least there's a chance of improvement with him. Meanwhile, one KNOWS that Obama has failed to bring things around..so why keep beating a dead horse? Why not let him lie in peace and at least allow an opportunity for improvement?[/COLOR] [/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
D.R.I.V.E
Top