[Paradigm]

I completely agree with you. The Problem is that the Obama Administration doesn't want the bailouts repayed, because if they were, the President would have to give up the control he now has over the banking industry. He's being very selective in which banks and investment firms he's letting pay back the bailouts and which ones he wants to keep control over.

Why would it matter whether or not he controls the banks when the banks control him?

[DanDaMan]

Why would it matter whether or not he controls the banks when the banks control him?

Just on that statements face... I'd take a working banker over a community organizer any day!

[PBVBROOK]

Do not fool yourself about Obama's community organizer days. He is, after all, a Harvard Lawyer and Chicago Politician.

[DanDaMan]

Do not fool yourself about Obama's community organizer days. He is, after all, a Harvard Lawyer and Chicago Politician.

Then I would take a governor/mayor that's worked for a living and has experience being in charge of state operations, national guard and state employees.
Balancing a budget and so forth.

And Chicago politics is a black mark.... not exactly a positive.

[PBVBROOK]

And Chicago politics is a black mark.... not exactly a positive.

I agree.

[Zerogouki]

You mean like carpet bombing their cities and going to war with China?

I doubt that carpet-bombing their cities would have brought the war to an end more quickly, and going to war with China definitely would have prolonged it. Double fail.

You are another of those annoying and shallow libertarians who believe everything would be better if the government got out of everything.

Oooh, ad hominem time... with strawmen! Fun.

No, I do not believe that "everything would be better if the government got out of everything". I believe that most things would be better if the Federal government stuck to its Constitutionally enumerated powers and left everything else to state and local governments.

It is useless in any practical sense and won't happen. Or to put it very simply. This is a done deal. The government does this stuff and likely always will. Get out of the way or be run down by history.

I could say the same to you. Stop complaining about preemptive wars and corporate bailouts, government does this stuff and likely always will!

Do you see what little that contributes to the discussion?

You want to talk about batshit insane? Look to yourself sonny.

You're absolutely right. Having a solid knowledge of history, believing that the US government should adhere to the principles on which it was founded, and supporting policies that are proven to work... I must be batshit insane.

You do not even understand the term liberal.

We already had that discussion in another thread, and you lost.

Maybe you should listen to some more Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. They are the political philosophers in your world view.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are neolibertarians?

[PBVBROOK]

^^^

Sigh.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

Obama no more has us on the road to socialism than Bush had us on the road to fascism. Despite the fact that Bush may have borrowed a few tactics from Mussolini, he never put the fascist puzzle together into anything discernible. Obama may do a few things similar to what a bona fide socialist would do in office, but the end result is not going to be a planned economy.

I find it frustrating that in the wake of the Bush legacy and what is supposed to have been the "death of Reaganomics," laissez-faire economic ideology is becoming a fad all over again. It's kind of like the communists: "our idea didn't fail, it just was never given the proper chance to be tried the way it was intended!" Yeah right...

[Nandi]

Stating Obama is verging on socialism is so ridiculously absurd that only a paranoid American could come up with that shit.

Any European knows better.

[Dr House]

I find it frustrating that in the wake of the Bush legacy and what is supposed to have been the "death of Reaganomics," laissez-faire economic ideology is becoming a fad all over again. It's kind of like the communists: "our idea didn't fail, it just was never given the proper chance to be tried the way it was intended!" Yeah right...

I'm not a free marketer, but nothing close to laissez-faire has existed since 1890, and actual laissez-faire itself has not existed since the early 19th century. Bush did not even bring the country close to laissez-faire, and in fact moved it in the other direction. Bush presided over a large number of new regulations added to the books, and presided over the largest growth in peacetime government spending in American history.

[cmikes]

Bush presided over a large number of new regulations added to the books, and presided over the largest growth in peacetime government spending in American history.

A good example of this, and a refutation of the old canard that all Republicans are against government regulation is that several Bush Administration officials testified before Congress on the necessity of tighter regulations on Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, the nationalized mortgage companies which led to the housing market collapse. These regulations were blocked by Barney Frank on the the House Banking Committee, and Chris Dodd, on the Senate Banking Committee, among others. Senator Dodd has now been implicated in getting sweetheart deals from the CountryWide company, which might explain why he was against new mortgage regulations.Washington Post

Although how could President Bush preside over the largest growth in peacetime government spending in the midst of the War on Terror, with two major fronts? Even so, President Obama has blown the former President out of the water on this one, proposing to spend more money in his first major bill than has been spent by every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

[Kylie]

I haven't read a SINGLE post before posting mine, but the thread title alone amuses me, because people think Obama is a socialist. This recent healthcare debate alone, no public option, public option, it's essential, it's not the only consideration, is a true example of a 'people pleaser'. I feel like it's 6 years ago, only it's the Republicans are shouting, and it's over different things. Bush did things where the government 'controlled' things *cough* Patriot Act *cough*, *cough* fast tracking legislation IMMEDIATELY after 9-11 *cough*.

It's all a matter of a. how much do you want the government in your life, and what you feel comfortable with the government controlling and what you feel comfortable controlling.

The recession started well before Obama's term in office started, but he'll be the one solely blamed for it. I don't solely blame Bush for it either, because the bubble we had been living in, in terms of this recession, was going to burst eventually, and it started WELL before Bush was president.

[DanDaMan]

The recession started well before Obama's term in office started, but he'll be the one solely blamed for it.

If it gets worse he will since he didn't cut spending or taxes. Both of which are proven methods for growth.

This of course is why us teabaggers are slamming the politicians today. They are only spending more and taxing more.

[Kylie]

You know, members of the tea party coalition don't appreciate being referred to as 'teabaggers'. I think it's crass and disrespectful to use that for yourself, even if I missed the sarcasm and you're using it that way. He has four years, and he never promised to cut taxes for everyone. Don't you remember the 250,000 dollar clause in that 'cutting taxes' thing?

Yeah...