President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

You're in the biggest recession since the 30'ies. Much of the increase in spending has come from mandatory spending, from mandatory programs. Those programs have expanded mostly because of the recession, which has prompted more people to apply for stuff like Medicaid and Social Security, as well as the growth in people hitting retirement age.

Yes, I know that. Unfunded liabilities, made up mostly of Medicaid Parts A&B and Social Security, are by some estimates, over $100 trillion.

I'm not saying he's perfect. Far from it. He's even worse than Bush on personal liberty and social policies -and that's saying something. But no one in their right mind would pick Romney before Obama.

I'm not a Romney fan and I don't think he's going to pull us out of any near-future disasters. However, I do think he could at least slow the rate of the growth in federal spending, which could give enough people enough time to get their financial s**t together to lessen the impact to some degree.

The Republican party is an embarrassment. The only thing they talk about is less taxes for the rich, abortion, bombing the middle east, Obama's an socialist/muslim/communist and that there's a war on religion.

Both major parties suck major rocks. That being said, abortion isn't much of an issue anymore and hasn't been since probably the 2000 election. As for taxes, no one's pushing for lower taxes for the rich but to keep the rates where they've been for the last 10+ years when taxes were lowered for EVERYONE. Stupid morons still calling them tax cuts when those have been the established rates for about a decade.

When was the last time you voted for a democrat candidate , just curious

In the last election in November.

Presidental candidate !

Pay attention...I said the LAST ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, meaning 2011. There hasn't been a Democratic Presidential candidate decent enough to vote for since I was first able to vote in a Presidential election in 1991.

[Behshad]

You're in the biggest recession since the 30'ies. Much of the increase in spending has come from mandatory spending, from mandatory programs. Those programs have expanded mostly because of the recession, which has prompted more people to apply for stuff like Medicaid and Social Security, as well as the growth in people hitting retirement age.

Yes, I know that. Unfunded liabilities, made up mostly of Medicaid Parts A&B and Social Security, are by some estimates, over $100 trillion.

I'm not saying he's perfect. Far from it. He's even worse than Bush on personal liberty and social policies -and that's saying something. But no one in their right mind would pick Romney before Obama.

I'm not a Romney fan and I don't think he's going to pull us out of any near-future disasters. However, I do think he could at least slow the rate of the growth in federal spending, which could give enough people enough time to get their financial s**t together to lessen the impact to some degree.

The Republican party is an embarrassment. The only thing they talk about is less taxes for the rich, abortion, bombing the middle east, Obama's an socialist/muslim/communist and that there's a war on religion.

Both major parties suck major rocks. That being said, abortion isn't much of an issue anymore and hasn't been since probably the 2000 election. As for taxes, no one's pushing for lower taxes for the rich but to keep the rates where they've been for the last 10+ years when taxes were lowered for EVERYONE. Stupid morons still calling them tax cuts when those have been the established rates for about a decade.

When was the last time you voted for a democrat candidate , just curious

In the last election in November.

Presidental candidate !

Pay attention...I said the LAST ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, meaning 2011. There hasn't been a Democratic Presidential candidate decent enough to vote for since I was first able to vote in a Presidential election in 1991.

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

[Behshad]

And of course you didnt like our great economy, low unemployment and no wars, during Clinton. Good on ya, typical (blind&brainwashed) republican

Before you completely swallow Clinton's load you might do some real research... typical (blind&brainwashed) sheeple..



Clinton economy:

Clinton administration did not face September 11th, two wars, Hurricane Katrina, a U.S. financial crisis (which was largely caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, by Clinton and a Republican Congress), or a global financial crisis.


Clinton unemployment rate:


The funny thing about the Average unemployment rate for both is:

Clinton: 5.2%
Bush: 5.3%



The difference is mainly due to the steady decline in the labor force participation rate, during the Bush presidency. The Labor Force Participation Rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the Civilian Labor Force. Therefore, the unemployment rate likely remained low under Bush because many of the unemployed simply stopped looking for jobs.






Clinton wars:

An excerpt from President Clinton's speech 8-20-1998 concerning the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.

"THE PRESIDENT:

"Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.

I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.

The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against."

Wikipedia explains: "Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."



Then there was Kosovo:

NATO's bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from aircraft, ships and submarines. All of the NATO members were involved to some degree—even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war.

Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions. The U.S. Department of Defense claimed that, up to June 2, 99.6% of the 20,000 bombs and missiles used had hit their targets.

But.... NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council, yet the NATO nations were mostly led by centre-left and moderately liberal leaders, most prominently U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema." NATO officials sought to portray it as a "clean war" using precision weapons. However, the use of technologies such as depleted uranium ammunition and cluster bombs was highly controversial, as was the bombing of oil refineries and chemical plants, which led to accusations of "environmental warfare".


"There was, however, criticism from all parts of the political spectrum for the way that NATO conducted the campaign.

Save your mumbo jumbo. If you think that our economy wasnt great during Clinton's presidency then you're the one who's brainwashed.
Of course the 2 wars hurt Bush's economy, but my whole point is , with a non-republican president in office back in 2001, we wouldnt have had the Iraq war, which is one of the main reason why our economy went downhill. We had no business to start that war, a war that we could not afford , a war that will cost us for a long time to come.
Bush had the misfortune to be in office when 9/11 happened, but he handled it poorly. He shouldve focused 100% on capturing Bin Laden and focus everything on Afghanistan. Iraq was no threat to us and Saddam was pushed back by Bush Sr professionally.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Clinton was just the president at the right place at the right time. For two primary reasons. 1) The computer boom starting in late 91'. 2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999. I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise. Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about The Battle of the Black Sea.

[Behshad]

Clinton was just the president at the right place at the right time. For two primary reasons. 1) The computer boom starting in late 91'. 2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999. I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise. Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about the operation in Somalia.

Right time and right place my ass. If its just by the luck of the draw, then why do we even vote. Lets hope whoever gets elected this November is elected for 4 years at the right place and time.
Lets see how much that operation Somalia cost us (taxpayers) total , versus Iraq & Afghanistan. I will let you find the numbers

[The Sushi Hunter]

It was the technology boom combined with the hype in regards to what was going to happen at the strike of midnight on January 1st 2000. That was in the works starting in the early 90's. Clinton was no different then any other president. The only thing that sets him apart from the rest is he was in office during one of greatest tech booms in history so far. Had nothing to do with him, had everything to do with the advancement of technology in the form of computers, hard drives, and the internet. During the Clinton years, it went from one computer per household to more computers than tv's per household. Cell phones began to boom in the mid to late 90's. During the Clinton years, CD burners and DVD were hitting the market for the very first time, along with flat screen tvs. All this....not to mention the Y2K hype on top it, had absolutely nothing to do with who the president was at that time. Technology and it's demand was advancing regardless of who the president was.

And this brings us to the exclusive reason Gore was claiming he invented the internet, he wanted to take credit for it to help him be the next president.

Clinton was just the president at the right place at the right time. For two primary reasons. 1) The computer boom starting in late 91'. 2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999. I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise. Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about the operation in Somalia.

Right time and right place my ass. If its just by the luck of the draw, then why do we even vote. Lets hope whoever gets elected this November is elected for 4 years at the right place and time.
Lets see how much that operation Somalia cost us (taxpayers) total , versus Iraq & Afghanistan. I will let you find the numbers

[Behshad]

It was the technology boom combined with the hype in regards to what was going to happen at the strike of midnight on January 1st 2000. That was in the works starting in the early 90's. Clinton was no different then any other president. The only thing that sets him apart from the rest is he was in office during one of greatest tech booms in history so far. Had nothing to do with him, had everything to do with the advancement of technology in the form of computers, hard drives, and the internet. And that's the exclusive reason Gore was claiming he invented the internet, he wanted to take credit for it to help him be the next president.

Clinton was just the president at the right place at the right time. For two primary reasons. 1) The computer boom starting in late 91'. 2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999. I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise. Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about the operation in Somalia.

Right time and right place my ass. If its just by the luck of the draw, then why do we even vote. Lets hope whoever gets elected this November is elected for 4 years at the right place and time.
Lets see how much that operation Somalia cost us (taxpayers) total , versus Iraq & Afghanistan. I will let you find the numbers

So to sum it up, with your logic :

* If a republican president has shitty term with horrible economy it's because he was elected during bad times, he was unfortunate to have wars during his times
* If a democratic president is succesful, its because he was in the office during the right time and he shouldnt get any credits for it
and
* If a democrat president is going through hardships, it has nothing to do with the 2 wars started before his term, but he is fully responsible for the shitty economy regardless of how it was before he took over.


You're basically telling Clinton : If you were a successful President , you didnt accomplish that. Isnt that what you didnt like about Obama's speech, yet you can use it ? Unreal!

[The Sushi Hunter]

Not 100% accurate. It's expected that if the man who assumes the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States takes command while the country is in the middle of a challenging situation or crisis, he would have to provide a much higher level of hard work, dedication and talent to put the country back on track vs if he took charge of the command while it was in great condition. However, it is not expected nor is it acceptable for a President to publically blame the previous administration for why they've been a lousy president, why they've not been able to come through with some or all of their campaign promises, and have not been able to accomplish the task of getting the country headed back in the right direction during their term.

Consumer spending and jobs in the form of tech jobs which included the Y2K hype is what fueled the .com boom. The .com boom fueled the awesome economy. The president didn't fuel the .com boom. That had absolutely nothing do with the president.

So if you think I'm incorrect, provide some facts on how Bill Clinton was involved with the .com boom, besides sitting in the "Oh"val office smoking on Cuban cigars, stuffing his face with pizza and having his intern suck his cock. Any president dumb enough to do this is definitely not smart enough to be responsible for the .com boom.

BTW, I have nothing against other people smoking cubans, eating pizza or having chicks suck their cock. I do however have a problem with a married president having his cock sucked by his intern while in office.

It was the technology boom combined with the hype in regards to what was going to happen at the strike of midnight on January 1st 2000. That was in the works starting in the early 90's. Clinton was no different then any other president. The only thing that sets him apart from the rest is he was in office during one of greatest tech booms in history so far. Had nothing to do with him, had everything to do with the advancement of technology in the form of computers, hard drives, and the internet. And that's the exclusive reason Gore was claiming he invented the internet, he wanted to take credit for it to help him be the next president.

Clinton was just the president at the right place at the right time. For two primary reasons. 1) The computer boom starting in late 91'. 2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999. I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise. Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about the operation in Somalia.

Right time and right place my ass. If its just by the luck of the draw, then why do we even vote. Lets hope whoever gets elected this November is elected for 4 years at the right place and time.
Lets see how much that operation Somalia cost us (taxpayers) total , versus Iraq & Afghanistan. I will let you find the numbers

So to sum it up, with your logic :

* If a republican president has shitty term with horrible economy it's because he was elected during bad times, he was unfortunate to have wars during his times
* If a democratic president is succesful, its because he was in the office during the right time and he shouldnt get any credits for it
and
* If a democrat president is going through hardships, it has nothing to do with the 2 wars started before his term, but he is fully responsible for the shitty economy regardless of how it was before he took over.


You're basically telling Clinton : If you were a successful President , you didnt accomplish that. Isnt that what you didnt like about Obama's speech, yet you can use it ? Unreal!

[conversationpc]

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

Who said I planned on voting Republican in THIS election?

[slucero]

Save your mumbo jumbo.

Funny how facts to you are "mumbo jumbo"...

If you think that our economy wasnt great during Clinton's presidency then you're the one who's brainwashed.

I never said that... oh.. wait.. you just ASSUMED that...

I simply provided you real data (facts) that reveal the facts about your assertion, quote:

And of course you didn't like our great economy, low unemployment and no wars, during Clinton...

My post was directly in response to "great economy", "low unemployment" and "wars".

Your assertion is that the economy was "great"... and the Bush economy wasn't.. well.. to which I responded: "The Clinton administration did not face September 11th, two wars, Hurricane Katrina, a U.S. financial crisis (which was largely caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, by Clinton and a Republican Congress), or a global financial crisis."

This is fact... and ALL I posted.. Nowhere did I say the economy WASN'T great...


Regarding your "unemployment" point.. I DID point out that the Average Unemployment Rate between Clinton and Bush only differed by 1/10 of a percent..

again.. a simple fact.

...but then you aren't demonstrating any real interest in facts are you?

Of course the 2 wars hurt Bush's economy, but my whole point is , with a non-republican president in office back in 2001, we wouldnt have had the Iraq war, which is one of the main reason why our economy went downhill.

Except you are wrong.. and have only given your opinion regarding the cause.. when there is REAMS of empirical evidence to the contrary...

The economy took a hit due to 9/11.. but within one month regained its pre-9/11 price levels.

The crash of 2008 was a banking credit crash that the banks brought on themselves, with the help of Clinton and Congress - via government deregulation of existing "good" banking policy (read: Glass-Steagall), unleashing the banks to fully engage in high-risk activity.. which in 9 years, blew up in their face.

Money is the "lifeblood" of an economy.. when it, (like blood) stops flowing, the economy (like a person)... dies. That movement of money is called "monetary velocity". The crash happened when banks stopped lending to each other. That "credit freezing", also means the velocity of money ends. THAT is what caused the 2008 crash...

Eventually those banks also stopped lending to individuals and businesses - THAT is what caused the economy to fail.


If you believe your point to be the case - then please provide something other than your opinion (like FACTS) to prove it, because the absence of factual support for your opinion simply makes it a "guess"... and an unsubstantiated one... which means your literacy level on the topic is nil.

We had no business to start that war, a war that we could not afford , a war that will cost us for a long time to come.
Bush had the misfortune to be in office when 9/11 happened, but he handled it poorly. He shouldve focused 100% on capturing Bin Laden and focus everything on Afghanistan. Iraq was no threat to us and Saddam was pushed back by Bush Sr professionally.

No argument from me on those points.

[Behshad]

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

Who said I planned on voting Republican in THIS election?

Well since Ralph Nader isnt running this time around ( or is he?) I figured you would vote for MittsterPoo

[conversationpc]

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

Who said I planned on voting Republican in THIS election?

Well since Ralph Nader isnt running this time around ( or is he?) I figured you would vote for MittsterPoo

I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm definitely not voting for Obama. Whether I vote for Romney or not hasn't been decided.

[Behshad]

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

Who said I planned on voting Republican in THIS election?

Well since Ralph Nader isnt running this time around ( or is he?) I figured you would vote for MittsterPoo

I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm definitely not voting for Obama. Whether I vote for Romney or not hasn't been decided.

Yes it has. You will be voting for Romney.

I feel for you , because your life, your personal financial life, has all been affected in the most negative way as the result of Obama's actions the past 3 1/2 years

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Personal liberty and small government is what the US is all about, right? Then why aren't more people voting libertarian? You're simply not going to get Keynesian principles combined with a non-intrusive government with the current Republicans (and certainly not with the democrats).

It's certainly about time the american people gets their head out of their ass, stop arguing over non-topics like gay rights, sexual prevention, narcotics/drugs and actually focus on what's important: individual liberty.

I agree with everything you say- except you seem (if I am reading your post right ) to think that combining Keynesian principles with non intrusive government is good thing. It isn't - in fact it is impossible. In fact the reason why all individual liberty is under assault in the US (and a number of other countries for that part ) is both the Republicans and Democrats are Keynesians. Why? because in order to do what Keynesian say you should do - spend money extensively - you need to have extensive revenue streams which can only be created by restricting people's economic activities - through regulating and taxing them. Once that is in place then it becomes tempting to use tax policy to achieve desirable social ends - you can pay less taxes or have a tax credit if you agree to do this or that -. That and the acceptance that it is ok to regulate peoples economic activities leads them to say its ok to force them to behave - with regard to the use of drugs, pornography, drinking 16 oz soda, eating burgers, etc etc ect. And both parties do it .

[conversationpc]

I did pay attention, thats why repeated my question clearer and got the answer I expected. I can guarantee you with your mindset, there will never be any decent democrat president during your life time , so you will vote republican with a blindfold on

Who said I planned on voting Republican in THIS election?

Well since Ralph Nader isnt running this time around ( or is he?) I figured you would vote for MittsterPoo

I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm definitely not voting for Obama. Whether I vote for Romney or not hasn't been decided.

Yes it has. You will be voting for Romney.

I feel for you , because your life, your personal financial life, has all been affected in the most negative way as the result of Obama's actions the past 3 1/2 years

Actually, my wife and I doing better because we've gotten out of debt, for the most part, not due to anything Obama's done or, better said, hasn't done.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Personal liberty and small government is what the US is all about, right? Then why aren't more people voting libertarian? You're simply not going to get Keynesian principles combined with a non-intrusive government with the current Republicans (and certainly not with the democrats).

It's certainly about time the american people gets their head out of their ass, stop arguing over non-topics like gay rights, sexual prevention, narcotics/drugs and actually focus on what's important: individual liberty.

I agree with everything you say- except you seem (if I am reading your post right ) to think that combining Keynesian principles with non intrusive government is good thing. It isn't - in fact it is impossible. In fact the reason why all individual liberty is under assault in the US (and a number of other countries for that part ) is both the Republicans and Democrats are Keynesians. Why? because in order to do what Keynesian say you should do - spend money extensively - you need to have extensive revenue streams which can only be created by restricting people's economic activities - through regulating and taxing them. Once that is in place then it becomes tempting to use tax policy to achieve desirable social ends - you can pay less taxes or have a tax credit if you agree to do this or that -. That and the acceptance that it is ok to regulate peoples economic activities leads them to say its ok to force them to behave - with regard to the use of drugs, pornography, drinking 16 oz soda, eating burgers, etc etc ect. And both parties do it .

[The Sushi Hunter]

So Beshad,

Basically what your saying about the .com boom is that Clinton is responsible for that and the businesses including but not limited to Apple, IBM, HP, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, etc. "didn't build that."

In essences, you are basically in line with what Obama is now saying. The businesses didn't build that, Clinton "Government" built that.

I'm starting to see a trend here. When the private sector is successful, the Democrats in Washington try and take full credit for it. When the private sector is unsuccessful, Democrats in Washington say it's the fault of the republicans. Perfect.

[Behshad]

So Beshad,

Basically what your saying about the .com boom is that Clinton is responsible for that and the businesses including but not limited to Apple, IBM, HP, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, etc. "didn't build that."

In essences, you are basically in line with what Obama is now saying. The businesses didn't build that, Clinton "Government" built that.

I'm starting to see a trend here. When the private sector is successful, the Democrats in Washington try and take full credit for it. When the private sector is unsuccessful, Democrats in Washington say it's the fault of the republicans. Perfect.

youre great at assuming instead of paying attention to what people say.

Not once did I say that Clinton deserves any credit for the computer industry and internet booming during his term. But you can not give all the credit to IBM etc for 2 great terms Clinton had. Of course this is so hard for you to understand cause the main think you lack is LOGIC.

I have said it before and I say it again, we have had some of the greatest presidents from both parties ( Bush Sr , Clinton ) and some of the lousiest Presidents too ( W Bush and Carter). I dont think the President should get all credits nor all the blame for success or failure of economy. What I laugh at is people like you , who are blinded by the media and all you bring to the table is what media has fed you . You think Obama said that every successful business owner owes it's success to the government, which he diddnt. Yet you turn around and say that anything good Clinton did for our country he shouldnt get credit for, cause he ate pizza and got a bj. He is not the first president to get a bj in the oval office, just the first to get caught !

By the way, even though youre a very stubborn student, I will take full credit for anything that I teach you daily here ! I give you some credit for your lack of knowledge of course

[The Sushi Hunter]

What happened in the case of Solyndra? They used the same roads, bridges, infrastructure that all the other successful businesses used plus they received an additional $500 Million in tax-free Obama "fun" money and they still failed. What happened there? Who built that?

Beshad, could you provide an accurate transcript of the "you didn't buld that" speech? I got a question about another part of that I would like to ask, but I need the actual wording before I go any further.

[Behshad]

What happened in the case of Solyndra?

It is very hard explaning things to you !

No one ever said that ANY BUSINESS THAT HAD HELP FROM GOVERNMENT ENDED UP AS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

Do you understand how logical fallices work ? I'm serious !

[The Sushi Hunter]

The "you didn't build that" speech didn't indicate it was only in regards to a select group of businesses. If you own a business and it's successful period.

What happened in the case of Solyndra?

It is very hard explaning things to you !

No one ever said that ANY BUSINESS THAT HAD HELP FROM GOVERNMENT ENDED UP AS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

Do you understand how logical fallices work ? I'm serious !

[Behshad]

That "you didn't build that" speech didn't indicate it was only in regards to a select ether. From what he said, it was across the board, any and all that are successful.

What happened in the case of Solyndra?

It is very hard explaning things to you !

No one ever said that ANY BUSINESS THAT HAD HELP FROM GOVERNMENT ENDED UP AS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

Do you understand how logical fallices work ? I'm serious !

You still dont get it. Yes it is across the boarder :

If you are successful, you have had some kind of aid, used some kind of road, bridges, workmanship, teachers who taught you.
However that doesnt EQUAl to : EVERY BUSINESS (or person) who had a teacher, used a road or bridge, etc, WOULD BE GUARANTEED A SUCCESS in their career/business.

Do you understand that ??


Here is a simple example : Every Doctor WENT to college . But doesnt mean every person who went to college became a doctor !

[The Sushi Hunter]

Again, and if this is true then wouldn't it also be true that anyone and everyone that utilizes the same resources such as the specific teacher, would all be successful then? In reality, it's individuality that determines the difference between who is successful and who is not. Thet speach claims its not the individual responsible but a higher level. That's why it's a bullshit sloppy speach that is piss poor for a president to recite.

Now he could have said "if your successful and own a business, it is because you are one of the smarter, wiser individuals who utilized the tools that you learned along the way in your life that were provided to you from a teacher, or bla bla bla." He doesn't say that though.

That "you didn't build that" speech didn't indicate it was only in regards to a select ether. From what he said, it was across the board, any and all that are successful.

What happened in the case of Solyndra?

It is very hard explaning things to you !

No one ever said that ANY BUSINESS THAT HAD HELP FROM GOVERNMENT ENDED UP AS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

Do you understand how logical fallices work ? I'm serious !

You still dont get it. Yes it is across the boarder :

If you are successful, you have had some kind of aid, used some kind of road, bridges, workmanship, teachers who taught you.
However that doesnt EQUAl to : EVERY BUSINESS (or person) who had a teacher, used a road or bridge, etc, WOULD BE GUARANTEED A SUCCESS in their career/business.

Do you understand that ??


Here is a simple example : Every Doctor WENT to college . But doesnt mean every person who went to college became a doctor !

[Behshad]

Again, and if this is true then wouldn't it also be true that anyone and everyone that utilizes the same resources such as the specific teacher, would all be successful then?

That "you didn't build that" speech didn't indicate it was only in regards to a select ether. From what he said, it was across the board, any and all that are successful.

What happened in the case of Solyndra?

It is very hard explaning things to you !

No one ever said that ANY BUSINESS THAT HAD HELP FROM GOVERNMENT ENDED UP AS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

Do you understand how logical fallices work ? I'm serious !

You still dont get it. Yes it is across the boarder :

If you are successful, you have had some kind of aid, used some kind of road, bridges, workmanship, teachers who taught you.
However that doesnt EQUAl to : EVERY BUSINESS (or person) who had a teacher, used a road or bridge, etc, WOULD BE GUARANTEED A SUCCESS in their career/business.

Do you understand that ??


Here is a simple example : Every Doctor WENT to college . But doesnt mean every person who went to college became a doctor !

wow ! You really cant be this stupid. I mean eeven after my simple example, you didn't get it! just wow.

[parfait]

Personal liberty and small government is what the US is all about, right? Then why aren't more people voting libertarian? You're simply not going to get Keynesian principles combined with a non-intrusive government with the current Republicans (and certainly not with the democrats).

It's certainly about time the american people gets their head out of their ass, stop arguing over non-topics like gay rights, sexual prevention, narcotics/drugs and actually focus on what's important: individual liberty.

I agree with everything you say- except you seem (if I am reading your post right ) to think that combining Keynesian principles with non intrusive government is good thing. It isn't - in fact it is impossible. In fact the reason why all individual liberty is under assault in the US (and a number of other countries for that part ) is both the Republicans and Democrats are Keynesians. Why? because in order to do what Keynesian say you should do - spend money extensively - you need to have extensive revenue streams which can only be created by restricting people's economic activities - through regulating and taxing them. Once that is in place then it becomes tempting to use tax policy to achieve desirable social ends - you can pay less taxes or have a tax credit if you agree to do this or that -. That and the acceptance that it is ok to regulate peoples economic activities leads them to say its ok to force them to behave - with regard to the use of drugs, pornography, drinking 16 oz soda, eating burgers, etc etc ect. And both parties do it .

Really? I've obviously mixed up Keynesian with the Austrian/Chicago school. That's retarded of me. Watching videos of Friedman on youtube, and it's like a fucking revelation. It all makes perfect sense.

I still can't comprehend how anyone could vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming election though.

[conversationpc]

I still can't comprehend how anyone could vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming election though.

You're starting to make sense to me...Is that scary?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Really? I've obviously mixed up Keynesian with the Austrian/Chicago school. That's retarded of me. Watching videos of Friedman on youtube, and it's like a fucking revelation. It all makes perfect sense.

I still can't comprehend how anyone could vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming election though.

of course probably the greatest (and most insightful) proponent of free markets and libertarianism was French- Frederic Bastiat - plenty about him on you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikgwLu_qVjI

If you are onto you tube, type in Mises Institute (really the home of Austrian economic scholarship.

this is a good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24nVarM20KQ

[The Sushi Hunter]

You see, the real deal is I don't really get into watching these presidential speeches because they really don't say anything we don't already have a pretty good idea about. The contents of these speeches seem very basic. And I've never made a comment one way or the other on any of the previous Obama speeches.

However, this speech in particular stands out because he actually said something that was unexpected. I've never heard a president tell the public: "if your successfull, you didn't build that, someone else built that" and "you think your smart.....you're not smart....let me tell you, there are a lot of smart people out there"...

I've never heard nor have I ever expected to hear the President of the United States in a public address try and take away accomplishments from hard working business owners. And I still try to understand the premise of doing so.
He says in one sentence "you think your smart....you're not smart". He then goes on to say "let me tell you, there are a lot of smart people out there".

What is he getting at here? Who's he talking to? I think what we need to do is realize that he's specifically addressing two groups of people in those two sentences.

First group is the successful business owners: "You think you're smart....you're not smart".

Second group, the individuals who pissed away everything and didn't amount to anything substantial in life: "let me tell you, there are a lot of smart people out there".

What was the purpose of saying these things? If this isn't what he meant, this then goes back to the fact that this was a piss poor speech. A well drafted and presented speech wouldn't have left us with so much guess work.

[Monker]

2) All the hype starting in the early to mid-90's about the world ending when the date changes to 2000 because all the computers and their support systems only going up to the date 1999.

What an ignorant statement.

True, there was a legitimate fuss over Y2K. Programmers and IT in general benefited from it. But, "Joe the Plumper" didn't. If you were in IT, you were sitting pretty with a LOT of job security, and big raises as Y2K approached.

I know this for a fact since I worked at companies such as IBM, HP, and a few software startups throughout the Silicon Valley during those years and complete departments, even companies were being formed and funded exclusively for the sole purpose of trying to figure out and troubleshooting what would happen when the year goes to 2000 and work related to combating any issues that may arise.

I'm sure that is true. And those same companies that are spending millions of dollars preparing for Y2K did not have that money to spend on other things...like pay raises for employees outside of IT, or further expanding their business. In many ways, Y2K can be compared to a huge tax increase for any company that has an IT department.

To say there was some kind of rolling effect into general economy is just not true.

Six months after January 1st 2000, all this started to go away because nothing at all happened like everyone was thinking it would.

And, enter W and making it easier to outsource IT jobs, or simply import cheap IT talent...that has long term affects much worse then the Y2K boom in IT ending.

If anyone else was the president during the Clinton years instead, the same thing would have happened. So make no mistake about it, those great 90's was due to the technology growth and had nothing to do with Clinton.

Even if that is true, which it isn't...he had Bush set up on the right track for the budget which in so many people's opinion is key to the economy today. But, Bush let it all slip away with unneeded tax cuts and wars, and other foolishness.

Oh and Beshad, since your posting about military operations during the Clinton years, tell us all about The Battle of the Black Sea.

So, the President IS responsible for deaths during war. Guess Obama does get credit for Bin Ladin after all. But, you won't do that any more then you will make Bush responsible for the death of all Americans in Iraq.

So much hypocrisy in this forum...and so much "let me pull this out of my ass" to put yourself there.

[Behshad]

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.”
― Milton Friedman

That speaks volumes for success in business !
It means they can sell the sand so fast that there will be a huge demand and therefore shortage of sand, it's basically like saying the government could sell ice to eskimos impressive , don't you think ?!