Republican Scott Brown wins Massachusetts.Democrats Point Fingers

[dolphantom]

You being a teabagger is all I needed to know. It makes no sense because it was all speculation and there were no facts to back anything up. There were hints of that whole "socialist" fear in there. It's not rational.  This discussion is not worth my time.

you still have not explained to me why my statement made no sense to you......why is it speculation? where are YOUR facts? it shouldnt matter what i am, or why i said it, whats your rebuttal?

[dolphantom]

The worst of the economic problems are over.  I think that while the bailouts are unpopular,

To say that the things Obama did this year are in any way responsible for where we are is a completely ludicrous statement.  The bailouts (which were under Bush, anyway) may very well be a horrible decision, but we won't see that for several years.

to say that the worst is over, when people are committing suicide over thier money problems is irresponsible, and ludicrous at best. you try tellling that to the millions out there still jobless and waiting for a rescue.
look around you dave. its all over the news. people are unhappy. and are  unhappy with the direction the country is going. its no secret , and not just my opinion. its fact. obama is not living up to the hype. if you dont see it, you are living in a hole. its all over the media.

[raptorsfan29]

if you dont see it, you are living in a hole. its all over the media.

Or maybe he is an die hard Obama supporter, and doesn't like truth.

[Dave Gray]

You're committing a logical fallacy.

I think the worst is over.  The accuracy of that statement is not judged by the amount of suicides. 

The financial markets are way up, since they bottomed out.  Banks are performing better than when they were completely seized and job numbers are no longer in free-fall.  That isn't to say that things are good, but that they are improved from what they were.

You're still not understanding me, though.  The current economic climate (good or bad) is not because of Obama.  That doesn't make sense.  This decline happened well before the bailouts (which Bush signed into law, anyway -- your facts are off) and it's just not accurate to say otherwise.  You can argue for or against the policies that Obama is doing or trying to do.  That's healthy political debate.  But you can't attribute our current situation to him or his policies.  Those things will have to be judged five or ten years down the road, when the effects are seen.  Economic recovery isn't immediate or even short term.

And bringing in health care to this argument makes even less sense, since nothing has passed.  No changes have been made in that regard.

[Buddhagirl]

you still have not explained to me why my statement made no sense to you......why is it speculation? where are YOUR facts? it shouldnt matter what i am, or why i said it, whats your rebuttal?

Because it came across as the ramblings of a mad man. I've offered up nothing as fact. I've said that I'm frustrated with him on other issues. I've also stated that I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY. I care about other issues.

More importantly I don't argue with teabaggers. It's not worth my time. The ignorance there is too deep.

[dolphantom]

^^^^^sweetie, i'm not arguing . and i certainly mean no disrespect to you or anyone on this board. nor do intend to insult anyone. so , my apologies if i did. i simply post my opinion and i say  it with the utmost respect of your, and everyone elses opinion .

 by saying you wont even entertain my point of view , you are showing your ignorance by not even considering why i , and most of the country now feel this way.is it  your way , or nothing? its like saying you're right and a million people who disagree are wrong.that goes against everything the constitution stands for. and ramblings of a madman?why? because its not what you believe? i know youre smarter than that. i simply want my country back......for all of us.

[dolphantom]

Or maybe he is an die hard Obama supporter, and doesn't like truth.

unfortunately, youre right.  democrats and liberals rarely see it any other way , but thier own. no matter the consequence.

[dolphantom]

You're committing a logical fallacy.

I think the worst is over.  The accuracy of that statement is not judged by the amount of suicides. 

The financial markets are way up, since they bottomed out.  Banks are performing better than when they were completely seized and job numbers are no longer in free-fall.  That isn't to say that things are good, but that they are improved from what they were.

You're still not understanding me, though.  The current economic climate (good or bad) is not because of Obama.  That doesn't make sense.  This decline happened well before the bailouts (which Bush signed into law, anyway -- your facts are off) and it's just not accurate to say otherwise.  You can argue for or against the policies that Obama is doing or trying to do.  That's healthy political debate.  But you can't attribute our current situation to him or his policies.  Those things will have to be judged five or ten years down the road, when the effects are seen.  Economic recovery isn't immediate or even short term.

And bringing in health care to this argument makes even less sense, since nothing has passed.  No changes have been made in that regard.

i never said obama caused it, i said he made it worse , with senseless spending. and unless you know of people who are actually hurting, like i do, its hard to imagine the other side of the coin. you say, you "think" the worst is over, but how do you speak for the mass millions who are still jobless , and fighting to keep thier homes. that , sir, is ignorant. i personally know alot of people on the brink , who if they heard you say that, would like to spit in your face. you can't simply assume, just because you are not feeling the pinch,or because the media says so, that everthing is  rosey everywhere in the country.... because i'm here to tell you its not. i see it first hand everyday. so please dont sit there and try to tell me everything is ok.  its not. and i'm offended by the assuption. and so is everyone who is crying on thier pillow tonight......

its just the overblown spending, without fear of consequence, that really bothers me. and no trace of where the money is actually going. nobody ever told me where all this bailout money actually went. i know where it was SUPPOSED  to go........

[dolphantom]

More importantly I don't argue with teabaggers. It's not worth my time. The ignorance there is too deep.

in case you failed to catch it in a previous post.......i voted for him. so you must be just as "ignorant"as me.

[Buddhagirl]

in case you failed to catch it in a previous post.......i voted for him. so you must be just as "ignorant"as me.

I caught that. ;-)

[Dave Gray]

i never said obama caused it, i said he made it worse , with senseless spending. and unless you know of people who are actually hurting, like i do, its hard to imagine the other side of the coin. you say, you "think" the worst is over, but how do you speak for the mass millions who are still jobless , and fighting to keep thier homes. that , sir, is ignorant. i personally know alot of people on the brink , who if they heard you say that, would like to spit in your face. you can't simply assume, just because you are not feeling the pinch,or because the media says so, that everthing is  rosey everywhere in the country.... because i'm here to tell you its not. i see it first hand everyday. so please dont sit there and try to tell me everything is ok.  its not. and i'm offended by the assuption. and so is everyone who is crying on thier pillow tonight......

I didn't want to get into it, but I guess I have to since I'm challenged.  I'm one of those people out of work and losing their home.  It still doesn't change the argument, and I don't really like being called ignorant for it.

You're saying that Obama is making it worse with all of the spending, but again, I'm telling you that most of this big spending (the stimulus) was done before Obama stepped foot into office.  But EVEN IF IT WAS OBAMA'S BIG SPENDING, that wouldn't be hurting us now.  Big spending doesn't cause economic problems in the same year.  If it's going to cause problems, it will be decades later when you have to pay it back.

You're also creating a classic straw-man argument.  I (nor anyone else) is saying that things are rosy or good.  I'm just saying that worst of the crisis is over.  That might not make the jobless individual person feel any better, but it's what I believe to be the fact.  The stock market is considerably higher than where it bottomed out, and jobless claims are diminishing.  It doesn't mean that we're out of the woods, but it is an indication that some form of recovery is happening.

[Dave Gray]

That's not to say that Obama is without criticism from me.  I think that Obama is responsible for selling his ideas, and he's done a poor job with some of that.  He has put too much faith in the legislative branch to figure it out on their own, rather than backing ideas and campaigning for their success.

I also think that he needs to make good on some of his social promises, as well as the openness of his administration.  The economy is important, but that doesn't mean you can't tackle more than one issue at a time.

I'm not an apologist, but I think it's only fair to scorn people for the things that they're responsible for, and not for things that they aren't.

[bsmooth]

which , in turn was a result of events that bush inherited from the clinton administration, and its failures to follow up on events that they turned a blind eye to.

housing market implosion-- a result of clinton's fair housing act, giving every poor slob with no credit a loan. and giving every wannabe big shot a 800, 000 loan for homes they cant afford

two front war---- coming from clintons blatant refusal to act on early warning signs of terrorist threats. bush wound up fighting the war clinton caused

What declared war did he inheirit?

What about the failure of a GOP controlled congres to address the housing issue before it blew up?
The banks had to approve those loans after checking to see if the buyers meant the qualifying criteria. Sub Prime loans were a creation of the banks to get more people into home loans as the pool of qualified people was shrinking.
I see you are pretty much throwing up talking points here, with nothing to back them up. Do you have coherent thoughts of your own that are not fromed from what ever talk show you got them from?

[Spider-Dan]

which , in turn was a result of events that bush inherited from the clinton administration, and its failures to follow up on events that they turned a blind eye to.

Which events were those?  The Bush administration's blatant dismissal of the militant Islamic threat prior to 9/11?  Seems like Clinton handled his terrorist problem ('93 WTC) without turning it into an excuse for an enormous power grab and an invasion of a completely unrelated nation.

housing market implosion-- a result of clinton's fair housing act, giving every poor slob with no credit a loan. and giving every wannabe big shot a 800, 000 loan for homes they cant afford

Yet another GOP talking point.  Do you seriously believe that it's the subprime housing market that caused this problem, when even prime market loans have been falling apart for years?  No, this is just another way for the Republicans to blame every problem on a) poor people or b) brown people.

The fact of the matter is that there were safeguards in place to prevent this sort of collapse from happening.  Prior to GOP financial deregulation, every single subprime loan could have defaulted and it would have been nothing more than a blip.  The collapse was caused by insurance companies participating in thinly-veiled gambling, where Party C takes out an insurance policy (otherwise known as a Credit Default Swap) on whether or not Party A will default on its loan from Party B.  Yes, you read that right: a third-party is taking out insurance on another party's loan.  This is like me taking out insurance on whether or not LeBron James gets in a car accident.

Have you ever wondered why one of the biggest part of the TARP bailout was rescuing AIG... an insurance company?  They don't make loans to homeowners, subprime or otherwise.  But they do (and did) issue out these incredibly corrupt Credit Default Swaps... and when the home loans started failing, AIG was on the hook to pay out billions of dollars that they didn't have.  That's what caused the collapse; not the homeowners (subprime or otherwise) defaulting on their mortgages, but the financial institutions that overleveraged themselves to insanity, resting on Credit Default Swaps as "backing" for their financial solvency.  Once some loans started failing and it became clear that no one had the money to pay out the CDSes, the entire operation was exposed for the Ponzi scheme that it is.

This is what previously existing regulation prevented, and what caused the financial collapse.  The Community Reinvestment Act (the oft-cited scapegoat of the right) was signed into law in 1977.  You're about 20 years too late to blame it for the housing bubble.

two front war---- coming from clintons blatant refusal to act on early warning signs of terrorist threats. bush wound up fighting the war clinton caused

That's funny, because even if one takes your statement at face value, shouldn't that only equal a one-front war (Afghanistan)?

Blaming Clinton for Iraq is beyond absurd.  You'd be better off blaming GHWB.

[Buddhagirl]

^^^^^sweetie, i'm not arguing . and i certainly mean no disrespect to you or anyone on this board. nor do intend to insult anyone. so , my apologies if i did. i simply post my opinion and i say  it with the utmost respect of your, and everyone elses opinion .

You show me disrespect by calling me sweetie. You don't know me. Don't call me sweetie. It's degrading and an insult.