reply to post by mishigas
First off, sorry for taking so long to catch back to this...
The Bush effect is well past. ASk yourself - are you better off than you were 3 years ago?
If Bush was so terrible, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?
The main issue that caused our current condition was, and continues to be, the collapse of the housing market. And that was the love child of Barney
Frank, Chris Dodd, and their cronies.
In order of asking: No; because he offered no chance (I will by no means defend Obama, just so we're clear - just saying Bush or most others recently
haven't honestly been better or offered any change); and that's a myopic understanding. You have to look at what CAUSED the housing crisis, and it
was a conflux of events including bad legislation aimed at getting homes into the hands of unqualified buyers, bad monetary policy implying a demand
and sustainability for a market that wasn't actually there, and risky ventures as a result of fractional reserve banking and the availability of a
lender of last resort - most of this falls at the feet of the Fed, but Congress certainly didn't help.
Ending subsidies for big energy is sure to get the emotions pumping, but it is nothing more than a panacea, or worse yet, a placebo. The oilcos
are not responsible for high gas prices; Obama is.
His other "solutions" are common sense ideas that everyone endorses - nothing original from RP here.
I'm not just talking about high gas prices though, and would additionally like to know how exactly you can blame Obama for them? What did he do or
not do here that anyone else realistically did any better?
Regardless, as to subsidies, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. You artificially alter the market structure by affecting where people
will focus their efforts, in addition to unbalancing the playing field and giving some an unfair advantage at the detriment of others.
And I'd like to know who else in government, currently running for president, has been saying such things of so little originality? Who else is in a
position such as this to be able to either directly address these issues or to continue educating people on them and enacting change via the bully
pulpit the presidency allows?
Let's be honest here - the privatization of SS was promoted by Bush. And it was sold by the Dem's as a bad idea. The original plan was to make
it voluntary and only applicable to a portion of your contribution; iow, you couldn't invest your entire contribution.
But guess who was the strongest opponent? The Dems. Why? They are "smarter" than us, and besides, they need your contributions to fund their slush
There is over $1 trillion in US corp. money being held out of the country, to escape US taxes. We need to create the environment that would coax that
money back home.
I'll be the first to admit that a bad person can have good ideas, and that Bush didn't necessarily only do bad things - same with anyone (hopefully
there aren't COMPLETELY rotten ones out there...). Again as to what I said about Obama, I won't defend the democrats, either. More or less ALL of
Washington has been off-track for awhile now.
As far as coaxing corporations and money back into the US - well, you're starting to sound a little like Ron Paul there.
It's his general philosophy. He is against things like E-Verify, because he doesn't think private employers should be helping to enforce the
From what little I've heard - not enough, admittedly - E-Verify has some warts and issues to work out. But you neglected to address any of the other
points I mentioned, and attack what's effectively a strawman. You take away their driving factors for coming here, stop subsidizing it, and you will
have to worry less about enforcement in the first place. I won't bother getting into an involved discussion about the possible pros or cons of the
illegals as I've seen conflicting articles both one way or the other - fix the problem, secure the borders, and then deal with the after-effects - and
Ron Paul has offered his solutions here.
It scares me - he is for isolationism. He may label it as 'non-interventionism', but he's not fooling anyone. And to be an isolationist in this
day and age is suicide.
And we haven't even touched unemployment or the anemic growth rate.
Oh gumdrops - can you please explain to me how trading with other nations, engaging in diplomacy, and building positive relationships with them while
staying OUT of meddling in their internal affairs or violating their sovereignty unless there's a clear and present danger to the US (that actually
exists, unlike what we've dealt with recently...) is isolationist? Pissing everyone off and alienating ourselves is isolationist, it breeds contempt
and hostility, and prompts retaliation.
It's simply common sense AND one of the founding doctrines of our nation, and is not a recipe for suicide. Continually kicking the hornet's nest,
however, IS - especially when we can no longer realistically afford to do so, have porous borders, and a diluted and worn-out military.
As far as unemployment and growth rates, we've danced around the edges a bit. We have to lure the corporate jobs back. We have to stop choking small
business (regulations that only big business can comply with, and can afford to ignore or buy their way out of anyway) and stop centralizing power in
big business (subsidies). We have to get out of these idiotic "free trade" agreements which are anything but - Ross Perot warned us, and he was right
about what would happen. We have to shrink government and let people keep more of their own money to invest in themselves and the economy. Hell,
let's get rid of some government jobs and put those people to work in an honest living rebuilding out collapsing infrastructure - instead of leeching
off society, they can start fixing it for us. We can also end the lunatic and unsuccessful war on drugs (or at least the war on cannabis, and simply
decriminalize the rest to end the power of the cartels and treat it as the public health issue it is instead of the criminal issue it ain't) and build
up a thriving hemp industry to help out farmers, alleviate our dependence on a whole host of harmful substances/products to help the environment,
address hunger issues, and stimulate a whole host of decentralized jobs and production services.
What we've got isn't working, and most of it is more of the same as before. Obama certainly hasn't helped much (if at all), but you can't take the
blame away from others it also lies with - Bush led us into fruitless and unnecessary wars (a policy Obama continues). Bush and his ilk pushed for
the first bailouts and corporate protection while leaving the rest of us hanging (a policy Obama continues). In this argument and blame game, there
really is nothing new under the sun. Obama is effectively a failed continuation of Bush-era and former doctrines.
edit on 7/9/2011 by
Praetorius because: (no reason given)