Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55
  1. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #21  
    You know what's going to have to happen; somebody is going to have to be President, veto every bill, fire over half the federal government, and stop the spending. This person will be hated by everybody, and will likely be a one-termer, but he/she will get the budget back on track, revitalize the dollar, and hopefully reign in the fed or get rid of it all together. It's going to happen. Either that, or another depression/world war. This debt is getting ridiculous. You can have your tunnel vision and blame Bush/Obama, but there's been soooo many collaborators on this for so many years...
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Effectively all serious stem research ended here and went overseas.
    Could you please provide us with data (not from opinion polls/blogs/talkingheads) that supports this migration of all serious stem research to foriegn realms?

    And, just a fact to throw in the debate; what the Bush administration opposed wasn't simply stem cell research - it was federally funding research using baby embryos. Much like being against federally funded abortions; you can choose to get one, but don't use my tax dollars please.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    You know what's going to have to happen; somebody is going to have to be President, veto every bill, fire over half the federal government, and stop the spending. This person will be hated by everybody, and will likely be a one-termer, but he/she will get the budget back on track, revitalize the dollar, and hopefully reign in the fed or get rid of it all together. It's going to happen. Either that, or another depression/world war. This debt is getting ridiculous. You can have your tunnel vision and blame Bush/Obama, but there's been soooo many collaborators on this for so many years...
    unfortunately though simplistic slogan like "solutions" like that may sound great to mobs of tea baggers and Palinistas, they lead to catastrophe like were trying to recover from now.

    Clinton produced a balanced budget and a roaring economy, while gently raising the tax burden of the wealthy -- I'm guessing you did'nt think much of him and his policies (try not to include Monica in your response)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I don't want to get into the weeds in regard to stem cell research -- but the overwhelming scientific consensus (even by Nancy raegun) was that junior effectively ended serious american research into stem cell with his brain dead ban on ANY federal funding. To do any real research on fresh stem cell lines, labs could have no part of the lab connected with any federal support.
    Yes, getting into the "Weeds" is very troublesome for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

    "Brain Dead Ban on ANY Federal Funding." Yes, apparently you are not only badly misinformed, but have a reading comprehension issue as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    As to the economy -- anyone with even a vague understanding of how cataclysmic the world's and america's situation was a year ago, is stunned that we have at least stabilized and possibly begun to turn around. We were on the precipice of the abyss -- a new Dark Ages, which is where junior was leading us
    Really? Exactly what "junior" action led us to the "abyss." Specifically--what policies are you talking about, and what direct effect did they have on the economy? Apparently a "vague" understanding is what you've got if you think that the President has such control over the global economy.

    KAM
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Could you please provide us with data (not from opinion polls/blogs/talkingheads) that supports this migration of all serious stem research to foriegn realms?

    And, just a fact to throw in the debate; what the Bush administration opposed wasn't simply stem cell research - it was federally funding research using baby embryos. Much like being against federally funded abortions; you can choose to get one, but don't use my tax dollars please.
    have I EVER done this: "from opinion polls/blogs/talkingheads" ???

    What I wrote is accurate -- but I cannot get into the weeds on it now
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    unfortunately though simplistic slogan like "solutions" like that may sound great to mobs of tea baggers and Palinistas, they lead to catastrophe like were trying to recover from now.
    Yes, it doesn't have the moron-inspiring power of "hope and change."

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Clinton produced a balanced budget and a roaring economy, while gently raising the tax burden of the wealthy.
    Well, actually Clinton and a Republican Congress produced a balanced budget. I'm not expecting someone of your fantasy view of the President's role in the economy to understand that, but it remains factual.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And, just a fact to throw in the debate; what the Bush administration opposed wasn't simply stem cell research - it was federally funding research using baby embryos. Much like being against federally funded abortions; you can choose to get one, but don't use my tax dollars please.
    Michel--you stop that. This doesn't work with claims such as "8 year war on science." You let them keep pushing their talking points!

    KAM
  8. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    unfortunately though simplistic slogan like "solutions" like that may sound great to mobs of tea baggers and Palinistas, they lead to catastrophe like were trying to recover from now.

    Clinton produced a balanced budget and a roaring economy, while gently raising the tax burden of the wealthy -- I'm guessing you did'nt think much of him and his policies (try not to include Monica in your response)
    You call what's happening now a recovery? I'd call it the calm before the storm! Apparently you're just as partisan and blinded by your love for your party as those you denounce.

    And to your point on Clinton; he's a HERO for balancing the budget! I wish EVERY politician took office with a balanced budget as their MAIN objective! They're going to have to, because the current path is not sustainable...
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    have I EVER done this: "from opinion polls/blogs/talkingheads" ???

    What I wrote is accurate -- but I cannot get into the weeds on it now
    I understand. And I never have actually seen you post from opinion polls, etc, so please accept my apologies, if that's what was inferred. I'm so used to people responding to requests for supporting information with a Keith Olbermann diatribe, or some similar opinion rant.

    That said, without some sort of substantive data, it's your opinion, and may or may not be accurate.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #30  
    Hello Everyone,

    Let's look at this claim for a moment: That President Bush's funding of limited Stem Cell lines destroyed the potential to research this in the US.

    First, what were the results from the rest of the world? We've been told there is nothing exceptional about the USA, so what's the problem with other people developing these great cures. How's that going so far?

    Second, if Embryonic Stem Cell research is so promising and so beneficial, and private organizations are unrestricted, then why have they not pursued it? Are you expecting me to believe that such a beneficial line of research is simply being passed up? That there is NO ONE willing to make an investment in this (which would undoubtedly lead to massive profits) promising area of science? We need government funding--in an era where Money was at an historical low (in terms of borrowing)?

    Also...no need to be "in the weeds" if you can't get the basic facts of your claim right.

    KAM
  11. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #31  
    man i love a good debate! oh and by the way kam is killing it, everyone else is losing in my opinion.
    Last edited by jwinn35; 12/14/2009 at 12:12 PM.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    And to your point on Clinton; he's a HERO for balancing the budget!
    I'm so sick of hearing this. Clinton rode the wave of a growing economy, taxes that were raised by Bush, Sr., and a shrinking military. He couldn't balance his way out of bed.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That said, without some sort of substantive data, it's your opinion, and may or may not be accurate.
    Actually, the claims regarding President Bush's actual actions are false, period. It is important that these sorts of lies be pointed out. As we see here--there is no admission of lying or exaggerating--just an immediate change in story.

    The subsequent claims, which fail to acknowledge the lies are just a pivot--whether or not the subsequent claims have any validity. They are very likely subjective claims, and not directly attributable to President Bush. If a private company wanted to pursue this, they could have--there was no ban, so claiming it was an "effective ban" is subjective.

    Considering President Obama's reversal of the policy, and then subsequent support of the practice in the Omnibus bill resulted in a fairly minor policy shift overall--from something that was overblown in importance to begin with (the so-called "ban.")

    KAM
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    ...Really? Exactly what "junior" action led us to the "abyss." Specifically--what policies are you talking about, and what direct effect did they have on the economy? Apparently a "vague" understanding is what you've got if you think that the President has such control over the global economy.

    KAM
    in brief what junior did was a combination of raw defacto deregulation of basic protections in the economy and the environment, with slashing taxes on the wealthy while spending wildly at home, and inventing a trillion dollar war in iraq -- a war paid for with money borrowed from the Chinese.

    please read what I've written in the current "Leave it Alone" thread, or better still what I wrote in the "Mortgages, Securitization, and the end of the American dream" thread for more.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #35  
    wow come on you guys I'm down to 44% battery already on my pre because of posting and reading and its only 11 15. I've given my two cents but obvioulsy you all have more knowledge on the subject.
  16. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm so sick of hearing this. Clinton rode the wave of a growing economy, taxes that were raised by Bush, Sr., and a shrinking military. He couldn't balance his way out of bed.
    Be sick all you like; it happened under his watch, so credit goes where it is due. Of course, he also gets credit for creating the means to the housing disaster via forcing lenders to give out subprime mortgages. There's plenty of credit to go around!
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    in brief what junior did was a combination of raw defacto deregulation of basic protections in the economy and the environment, with slashing taxes on the wealthy while spending wildly at home, and inventing a trillion dollar war in iraq -- a war paid for with money borrowed from the Chinese.
    I believe that lack of proper use of Regulations rather than "deregulation" during the Bush administration is likely the problem. Let's not forget the enabling power behind much of this--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the Bush administration specifically and on several occasions looked to reform. Let's not forget that the Democratic Congress took no action to address these issues, and presided over this economic collapse just as President Bush did. One cannot rightfully single out a President and blame him for a bad economy. At a minimum the Congress has an equally significant role, and my view is that Government (as a whole) can certainly harm the economy, but they can't really make it work. The economy, outside of Government influence tanked for many reasons as well.

    In short--pointing to President Bush to blame for this is very inaccurate, although I will not attempt to remove him from his portion of blame.

    Slashing Taxes on the wealthy. Well, if you look, you will find that the wealthy actually continued to pay more and more, and in fact, our government revenues increased as a result of the Tax cut package. Government intake is what matters--not tax rates in terms of deficits. Cutting Taxes in a Recession is a pretty good step--even on the wealthy. If we had done that again, instead of spending billions on pet projects in the stimulus package, we might be seeing an actually recovery going on now. Instead we've got businesses terrified about what will happen next, and unwilling to take any risk, because the government hammer is hanging over them.

    Spending a Trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan...that's pretty much true. Borrowed from the Chinese...mostly true. Let's not forget Medicare Part D either--that's another massive entitlement program with no funding.

    How does that Bush era spending that differ from the 787 billion Dollar stimulus package, and other spending increases that occurred almost immediately in the Obama Administration? How about the 12% or so increase across the board in Federal spending strike you in terms of responsible spending? How does this differ from the other pending spending increases? Is it a problem to spend wildly or not? It is a problem to borrow from the Chinese or not?

    President Obama--your agent of change, ironically is continuing or expanding the most damaging economic practices of the Bush Administration. The massive expansion of spending in the Obama administration outstrips the Bush administration by far.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/14/2009 at 12:31 PM.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    Be sick all you like; it happened under his watch, so credit goes where it is due.
    Ummm, much as you'd like, that's not how it works. He has to have actually "done" something to deserve the credit, in my book at least. Call me crazy....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I understand. And I never have actually seen you post from opinion polls, etc, so please accept my apologies, if that's what was inferred. I'm so used to people responding to requests for supporting information with a Keith Olbermann diatribe, or some similar opinion rant.

    That said, without some sort of substantive data, it's your opinion, and may or may not be accurate.
    If that's your position, why didn't you admit your error in the thread about Obama's Nobel acceptance speech, in which you called him a liar for saying that Regan had supported perestroika when he was president?

    Edit: Since you are listed as a *moderator* of this forum, that would only seem reasonable. We ordinary users are expected to use language like "I stand corrected" once in a while.

    If you recall, I posted a a news story from the 1980s about a speech Reagan gave in Moscow in which he clearly supported perestroika, using that very word (and I could post 20 more without a lot of work). However, instead of retracting the accusation that you made about Obama, and apologizing for all the snark you had hurled my way, you instead completely ignored my post.

    Count me as skeptical that "substantive data" would cause you to reassess your position on an issue until you admit your error in that thread and retract your charge that Obama was lying in his speech.
    Last edited by grappler; 12/14/2009 at 01:23 PM.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ummm, much as you'd like, that's not how it works. He has to have actually "done" something to deserve the credit, in my book at least. Call me crazy....
    I think President Clinton did do something...the thing he is best at--he read the political climate and did what was best for him. He tried the big government plan, and they got spanked (failing at healthcare, but succeeding at large tax increases, and gun control). His party lost the Congress, and he saw the writing on the wall in many ways.

    My personal view is that Clinton feared being a stalemated President, and so he came to the table on things like Welfare Reform, and Balanced Budgets. Now, of course, all the while Democrats in Congress attacked Republicans for "starving children" and "cutting medicare," which is hilarious because I think they were proposing something about 15 times less than the Democrats are today proposing in terms of medicare cuts, but Clinton gave in on a lot of things.

    Now, Clinton is often praised for "the biggest economic boom..." Ever notice the tendency towards hyperbole. "Greatest since worst since, etc." Anyway, we had a bit of a unique situation. Clinton and the Democrat Congress (before the 94 elections) slipped through this tax hike (literally by the smallest margin possible), and while many times that would have led to an economic decline, we had the internet boom at that same time. We had this gang-busters "new thing" that rocketed the economy (and stock market) ahead. The result--a very fortunate one for the government--higher taxes and robust growth--which led to a big increase in government intake.

    This made balancing the budget easier, and led to "surplus" funds. Ok, fine--they did it, fair enough. However, that boom led to a bust and a minor recession at the end of Clinton's term in office. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those surplus numbers disappeared pretty quickly.

    Of course all of this is conveniently forgotten, and blamed on President Bush (43). Let's not also forget the economic impact of 9/11. If one were to take the playbook of the Obama administration--that would all have been "inherited" and thus all spending that took place afterwards is the fault of Bill Clinton, who single handedly ruined our economy, and is responsible for 9/11.
    Of course, I don't hold that idiotic view--I'm merely pointing out the childishness of the Obama supporters "inherited" claims--even now. Yes, you fools--every President Inherits everything from all those before him. Other Presidents just don't whine about it as much.

    Anyway. I think that President Clinton in fact did SOMETHING--he played ball and low and behold--America Benefited (to some degree--not as much as many claim).

    If President Obama doesn't want to become Jimmy Carter, he might realize this is a smart play--should the Republicans make significant gains in Congress in 2010...or even retake either the house or Senate. In fact--even gaining 3-4 seats in the Senate would be a significant power swing for the Republicans.

    The lesson I think we should learn--it isn't wise to put such complete control into the hands of one political party. It does not benefit the citizens.

    KAM
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions