Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 450
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    My point is that they did. They just bet that other people would do the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits. We're just the street level drug dealers or prostitutes. You guys are the users/johns in your luxury cars. Why act surprised that you've wound up with a disease?
    Others doing the heavy lifting? Louisiana got the oil revenues and the jobs, right? Do you really think that everyone who drives in Louisiana only uses oil that came from Louisiana? And that there aren't any luxury cars in Louisiana? You can spin it any way you want, and bring up the fact that everyone needs to use petroleum products, but it still boils down to the fact that you are correct in half of your comment....Louisiana chose to be the prostitute, and take the risk of the disease. Those that didn't ended up getting the disease even though they didn't get a share of the pimp's revenues. There are 23 states with coastlines; four allow drilling (Texas, LA, Alabama and Mississippi). As I'm sure you know, there's plenty of oil off California but they learned their lesson a long time ago. There are other ways of getting oil; it's just that the companies have always felt it was more profitable to drill than develop new technologies for oil shale, etc. Unfortunately, we are all paying the price for that profit motive.
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Others doing the heavy lifting?
    Yep. I noticed that you're still not addressing how much of Florida's tourism industry is dependent on the petroleum industry.
    Louisiana got the oil revenues and the jobs, right?
    Louisiana has received indirect revenue from the jobs. The federal government has received the direct revenue. Lots of other places receive benefits from that labor. 33% of domestic production, and 10-12% of domestic consumption.
    Do you really think that everyone who drives in Louisiana only uses oil that came from Louisiana?
    Hardly. You really need to add at least a second dimension to your thinking. I see you're still avoiding the question of how those tourists get to Florida. Tourism was already dipping way before the spill. Why might that be?
    And that there aren't any luxury cars in Louisiana?
    C'mon davidra. I know you can't really be this dense. That might have been the best analogy you'll ever see on TreoCentral/PreCentral, and you're going to try and spin it literally and only insult one side. If Dr. H were really as non-partisan as he likes to project, he'd have to call you on it.
    You can spin it any way you want, and bring up the fact that everyone needs to use petroleum products,
    Here's another example. I don't think everyone needs to use petroleum products. However, the fact of the matter is that people use a hell of a lot of them. They enable a hell of a lot of people to drive and fly to Florida. They enable a hell of a lot of people to earn a living in Florida from commercial fishing. They enable you to practice medicine. That has to come from somewhere. You can spin 10-12% of domestic consumption as being minute, but when gasoline and transportation costs were causing people to reduce their tourism and consumption, it rings very hollow.
    but it still boils down to the fact that you are correct in half of your comment....Louisiana chose to be the prostitute, and take the risk of the disease.
    So, if an inner city kid winds up getting into drugs or prostitution because that's the only avenue that you leave them to make a living, you think it's all their fault, and you bear no responsibility for using their services?
    Those that didn't ended up getting the disease even though they didn't get a share of the pimp's revenues.
    The sad thing is that you can't even see that in this case, the pimp is the federal government, and the john still gets their rocks off. To quote Reverend Wright, your chickens are coming home to roost.
    There are 23 states with coastlines; four allow drilling (Texas, LA, Alabama and Mississippi).
    You seem to think that those four pulling the weight for over a tenth of the domestic consumption says something bad about them.
    As I'm sure you know, there's plenty of oil off California but they learned their lesson a long time ago.
    Did they? How's their state economy doing? How much petroleum and by-products do they use?
    There are other ways of getting oil; it's just that the companies have always felt it was more profitable to drill than develop new technologies for oil shale, etc. Unfortunately, we are all paying the price for that profit motive.
    Oil shale technology is far more hazardous currently, and fairly wasteful wrt water and other resources. Drilling is definitely more profitable currently, and when monitored properly has been extremely safe in the Gulf.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yep. I noticed that you're still not addressing how much of Florida's tourism industry is dependent on the petroleum industry.

    Louisiana has received indirect revenue from the jobs. The federal government has received the direct revenue. Lots of other places receive benefits from that labor. 33% of domestic production, and 10-12% of domestic consumption.

    Hardly. You really need to add at least a second dimension to your thinking. I see you're still avoiding the question of how those tourists get to Florida. Tourism was already dipping way before the spill. Why might that be?

    C'mon davidra. I know you can't really be this dense. That might have been the best analogy you'll ever see on TreoCentral/PreCentral, and you're going to try and spin it literally and only insult one side. If Dr. H were really as non-partisan as he likes to project, he'd have to call you on it.

    Here's another example. I don't think everyone needs to use petroleum products. However, the fact of the matter is that people use a hell of a lot of them. They enable a hell of a lot of people to drive and fly to Florida. They enable a hell of a lot of people to earn a living in Florida from commercial fishing. They enable you to practice medicine. That has to come from somewhere. You can spin 10-12% of domestic consumption as being minute, but when gasoline and transportation costs were causing people to reduce their tourism and consumption, it rings very hollow.

    So, if an inner city kid winds up getting into drugs or prostitution because that's the only avenue that you leave them to make a living, you think it's all their fault, and you bear no responsibility for using their services?

    The sad thing is that you can't even see that in this case, the pimp is the federal government, and the john still gets their rocks off. To quote Reverend Wright, your chickens are coming home to roost.

    You seem to think that those four pulling the weight for over a tenth of the domestic consumption says something bad about them.

    Did they? How's their state economy doing? How much petroleum and by-products do they use?

    Oil shale technology is far more hazardous currently, and fairly wasteful wrt water and other resources. Drilling is definitely more profitable currently, and when monitored properly has been extremely safe in the Gulf.
    So your saying because of the states drilling, and the resulting accident,
    Florida actually benefited from the Louisiana's drilling. Due to the fact that if they hadnt of allowed drilling Florida's tourism would have gone down even further. That because of the consumption of oil and oil based products Florida and other states gained. Is this what your saying? That the net gain of Louisiana's drilling is to the other states?
    Ok, Exxon, Canada restricts oil carriers on her coasts, there was no net gain to Canada as she had no vested interest, received no revenues from Alaska's drilling, heck most americans going to Alaska swore up and down that Canada was north of Alaska, but Canada, namely British Columbia suffered when that drunk a s s h o l e ran his ship up on that reef. The fishing industry completely collapsed. So your rational rings kinda hollow there Toby. Not to mention some of that oil made its way down to BC coastal waters. We were tapped to clean it up out of our own pocket.
    To claim economic spin off to Florida because of the drilling is at best misdirection. Ya everyone uses oil based products, but by your rational, everyone has to assume the risk to their economy's because of it... BS. i might add, as Florida is a major tourist destination, Louisiana benefited from them as well. All those fine Snowbirds who drive to Florida, stop over in that state, thus they receive (d) economic spin off from Florida. Which employs far more people then your oil drilling. You seem to be on the Drill baby Drill team, which is just perpetuating the whole oil economy. I look at other industry in the states and around the world, when allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, people tend to die...
    Last edited by xForsaken; 06/19/2010 at 05:20 AM.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yep. I noticed that you're still not addressing how much of Florida's tourism industry is dependent on the petroleum industry.

    Louisiana has received indirect revenue from the jobs. The federal government has received the direct revenue. Lots of other places receive benefits from that labor. 33% of domestic production, and 10-12% of domestic consumption.

    Hardly. You really need to add at least a second dimension to your thinking. I see you're still avoiding the question of how those tourists get to Florida. Tourism was already dipping way before the spill. Why might that be?

    C'mon davidra. I know you can't really be this dense. That might have been the best analogy you'll ever see on TreoCentral/PreCentral, and you're going to try and spin it literally and only insult one side. If Dr. H were really as non-partisan as he likes to project, he'd have to call you on it.

    Here's another example. I don't think everyone needs to use petroleum products. However, the fact of the matter is that people use a hell of a lot of them. They enable a hell of a lot of people to drive and fly to Florida. They enable a hell of a lot of people to earn a living in Florida from commercial fishing. They enable you to practice medicine. That has to come from somewhere. You can spin 10-12% of domestic consumption as being minute, but when gasoline and transportation costs were causing people to reduce their tourism and consumption, it rings very hollow.

    So, if an inner city kid winds up getting into drugs or prostitution because that's the only avenue that you leave them to make a living, you think it's all their fault, and you bear no responsibility for using their services?

    The sad thing is that you can't even see that in this case, the pimp is the federal government, and the john still gets their rocks off. To quote Reverend Wright, your chickens are coming home to roost.

    You seem to think that those four pulling the weight for over a tenth of the domestic consumption says something bad about them.
    Your argument is a nonsequitur, wrapped in a classic ipso loquitur. Correct, the entire world uses oil to do things. You can attempt to tie that to Lousiana's choice to allow drilling, but they are in fact independent. Tell me, if Louisiana had not agreed to accept the risk of drilling, what do you think would have happened lo those many years ago? Do you think the world would have stopped spinning? That people would no longer come to Florida? Maybe, just maybe, we would have been forced to go to more sustainable and safer energy options. This concept that Louisiana's choice was a selfless act to serve the rest of the world is laughable. And as far as the ipso loquitur, Louisiana made the choice that they knew was likely to cause problems. A brief history of the area:

    1979June 3, Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out, spilling an estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the open sea.
    1990June 8, off Galveston, Tex.: Mega Borg released 5.1 million gallons of oil some 60 nautical miles south-southeast of Galveston as a result of an explosion and subsequent fire in the pump room.
    2000Nov. 28, Mississippi River south of New Orleans: oil tanker Westchester lost power and ran aground near Port Sulphur, La., dumping 567,000 gallons of crude oil into lower Mississippi. Spill was largest in U.S. waters since Exxon Valdez disaster in March 1989.
    2005Aug.-Sept., New Orleans, Louisiana: The Coast Guard estimated that more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled during Hurricane Katrina from various sources, including pipelines, storage tanks and industrial plants.
    2006June 19, Calcasieu River, Louisiana: An estimated 71,000 barrels of waste oil were released from a tank at the CITGO Refinery on the Calcasieu River during a violent rain storm.
    2008July 25, New Orleans, Louisiana: A 61-foot barge, carrying 419,000 gallons of heavy fuel, collides with a 600-foot tanker ship in the Mississippi River near New Orleans. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel leak from the barge, causing a halt to all river traffic while cleanup efforts commence to limit the environmental fallout on local wildlife.
    2010Jan. 23, Port Arthur, Texas: The oil tanker Eagle Otome and a barge collide in the Sabine-Neches Waterway, causing the release of about 462,000 gallons of crude oil. Environmental damage was minimal as about 46,000 gallons were recovered and 175,000 gallons were dispersed or evaporated, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
    You can consider all that to be safe drilling and transport of oil products. I don't. Some people would consider Louisiana's decision as contributing to this spill. This is a legal argument analagous to having a dangerous dog and doing nothing about it; when someone is hurt by the dog, the owner bears some of the responsibility. I think that is a stretch, and Louisiana is certainly paying for it, but there is a rationale for such an argument.
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    So your saying because of the states drilling, and the resulting accident, Florida actually benefited from the Louisiana's drilling.
    Non sequitur. What I'm saying is that Florida definitely benefits from Louisiana's energy industry (of which state controlled drilling is a relatively small part). I'm also saying that placing blame on Louisiana for the accident is not in any way fair. Louisiana cannot choose to allow or ban drilling in federal waters. Louisiana does not monitor safety in federal waters.
    Due to the fact that if they hadnt of allowed drilling Florida's tourism would have gone down even further.
    Not necessarily. My point is that the situation is not as simple as davidra would like to make it, i.e. Louisiana chose to take a risk and Florida is paying the price through no fault of its own.
    That because of the consumption of oil and oil based products Florida and other states gained.
    There is no doubt that Florida 'gains' due to the consumption of oil and oil based products. As I said, people don't get to Florida by transporters powered by dilithium crystals.
    Is this what your saying? That the net gain of Louisiana's drilling is to the other states?
    No.
    Ok, Exxon, Canada restricts oil carriers on her coasts, there was no net gain to Canada as she had no vested interest, received no revenues from Alaska's drilling, heck most americans going to Alaska swore up and down that Canada was north of Alaska, but Canada, namely British Columbia suffered when that drunk a s s h o l e ran his ship up on that reef.
    I'm sure it did.
    The fishing industry completely collapsed. So your rational rings kinda hollow there Toby.
    I don't think you're bothering to think through my rationale.
    Not to mention some of that oil made its way down to BC coastal waters. We were tapped to clean it up out of our own pocket.
    And what leads you to believe that I think that's OK?
    To claim economic spin off to Florida because of the drilling is at best misdirection.
    It's certainly less misdirected than blaming Louisiana for an accident that it had no control over.
    Ya everyone uses oil based products, but by your rational, everyone has to assume the risk to their economy's because of it... BS.
    Why shouldn't they assume the risk? Why exactly is it BS?
    i might add, as Florida is a major tourist destination, Louisiana benefited from them as well.
    Well, there are certainly a fair number of people that I know that vacation there.
    All those fine Snowbirds who drive to Florida, stop over in that state, thus they receive (d) economic spin off from Florida.
    You do realize that no snowbirds get to Florida through Louisiana without taking some drastically out of the way routes, right? The only route to Florida which is going to bring some spin off to Louisiana is through I-10, and how many people stop off in Louisiana on their way to Florida?
    Which employs far more people then your oil drilling.
    Really, the oil drilling doesn't employ that many local people. The service industries are where the employment is.
    You seem to be on the Drill baby Drill team,
    I'm OK with drilling when it's done properly.
    which is just perpetuating the whole oil economy.
    I'm all for pursuing alternatives. However, it is naive and ignorant to dismiss how dependent we are on the oil economy at the moment.
    I look at other industry in the states and around the world, when allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, people tend to die...
    In which of my posts did I ever say, or even remotely imply that industry should be able to do pretty much whatever they want?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Your argument is a nonsequitur,
    Just because you're unwilling to follow it, doesn't mean it doesn't follow.
    wrapped in a classic ipso loquitur. Correct, the entire world uses oil to do things. You can attempt to tie that to Lousiana's choice to allow drilling, but they are in fact independent.
    You keep mentioning Louisiana's choice to allow drilling. Please, tell me what Louisiana could have done to prevent this incident from happening.
    Tell me, if Louisiana had not agreed to accept the risk of drilling, what do you think would have happened lo those many years ago?
    Seems to me that we would have had to import that oil from somewhere else. How do you think it would have arrived here?
    Do you think the world would have stopped spinning?
    Highly unlikely.
    That people would no longer come to Florida?
    Hardly, but my point was never that. It's more that, generally, producing more oil here is going to lead to less dependence on foreign sources where political instabilities (or even general orneriness) can lead to inflated prices. Prices of nearly everything at the moment are influenced by oil due to transportation and materials costs. When it's more expensive to buy everything, and you have less disposable income, you are far less likely to travel and, among other places, go to Florida. Also, people in Florida are going to either have to raise prices or cut margins for their tourism services since their costs are going up as well. This can lead to further reduced travel.
    Maybe, just maybe, we would have been forced to go to more sustainable and safer energy options.
    Sounds nice in theory.
    This concept that Louisiana's choice was a selfless act to serve the rest of the world is laughable.
    No, what's laughable is that's how you're interpreting anything I said.
    And as far as the ipso loquitur, Louisiana made the choice that they knew was likely to cause problems.
    'Res ipsa loquitur' is the phrase I believe you keep reaching for.
    You can consider all that to be safe drilling and transport of oil products.
    Straw man. I obviously don't consider those incidents safe. I'm willing to keep them in perspective, though.
    I don't. Some people would consider Louisiana's decision as contributing to this spill.
    LOL...I think anyone who tries to advance such an argument is on the same legal ground as people like Orly Taitz.
    This is a legal argument analagous to having a dangerous dog and doing nothing about it; when someone is hurt by the dog, the owner bears some of the responsibility. I think that is a stretch, and Louisiana is certainly paying for it, but there is a rationale for such an argument.
    I can only assume in your analogy that the dangerous dog is deepwater drilling. The owner in this case is the federal government. Louisiana is more like the person that the owner pays to stop by and feed and water the dog while they're on vacation.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You keep mentioning Louisiana's choice to allow drilling. Please, tell me what Louisiana could have done to prevent this incident from happening.
    In 2006 a law was passed, pushed by then house member Jindal, that lifted the offshore ban. However, a provision was included that allowed states that were opposed to drilling to maintain the moratorium. Florida has never allowed, and never would allow, drilling in state waters. A variety of federal laws provide for states to determine whether they allow offshore drilling or not. As your current governor was arguing to life a moratorium on drilling, it was clearly a state decision to continue to drill in Louisiana. You could have stopped it whenever the state legislature wanted.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    In 2006 a law was passed, pushed by then house member Jindal, that lifted the offshore ban.
    What percentage of Congress voted for it? What percentage of the US supported it?
    However, a provision was included that allowed states that were opposed to drilling to maintain the moratorium. Florida has never allowed, and never would allow, drilling in state waters.
    We're not talking about state waters. We're talking about federal waters.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #309  
    Insiders say Rahm will step down or be removed before the end of the year. Not sure if this is good or bad (certainly it's one or the other) for the Obama administration. Anyone out there consider this another "disaster"?
  10. #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Since there is no evidence of any previous "disaster" under Obama, Emanuel's leaving certainly cannot be seriously considered another ... Except by the hardcore GOP partisans like those who start threads like this.
    Some view the trillion dollar bailouts and healthcare reforms as "disasters".
  11. #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Those same convenient partisans that conveniently overlook the fact that >70% of that total investment was made under the previous administration. That doesn't make the bailouts right or wrong, but it illuminates the hypocrisy of the partisans who start threads like this one on a deceptive, false-premise.

    Investments,without which today's record-setting Recession would have been an historic Depression beyond which the US had never seen. Those critical of Obama would have railed against Obama had the Depression land on his watch. How dignified of them.

    Healthcare economics discussion by those who have no intimate knowledge of healthcare delivery is pure folly. The same are those harping about "socialism", yet have no idea what it means either.
    You make some interesting points. Where did you find the information on the ">70% of that total investment was made under the previous administration", just curious?

    Railing against the sitting president for something he cannot control is older than time. Take the .com boom of the 90s, Clinton gets the credit (and Gore for inventing the internet ) yet that eventuality would have happened regardless of who was in office. Same applies to the .com bust, the NASDAQ hitting 6,000 and then losing 80% of its value had nothing to do with the sitting president, IMO.

    "those who have no intimate knowledge of healthcare delivery" describes the vast majority of us, including the minority of Americans who were in favor of the presidents healthcare reform package. I was in healthcare management for 12 years and I certainly don't pretend to have any answers.
  12. #312  
    We've all been in a position where we don't respect or care for our boss. Even though McChrystal probably should have known better, I think he finally just couldn't stand dealing with people who really don't know how to run a war and probably knew his comments would end his command. Had to be frustrating for a military person to deal with the likes of Obama and Biden. I'll be surprised if Obama keeps him in there, but I guess we'll find out tomorrow after their meeting.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #313  
    Wow

    An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

    June 22, 2010

    Dear President Obama:

    You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy - and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

    You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientist and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals and want Israel eradicated.

    You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

    With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

    Jon Voight
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #314  
    It seems the same people who are upset about Obama spending a trillion on economic recovery forget about the close to 1 trillion spent on the Iraq war.

    I don't get it.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    It seems the same people who are upset about Obama spending a trillion on economic recovery forget about the close to 1 trillion spent on the Iraq war.

    I don't get it.
    Me neither, some of us are upset about both.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    It seems the same people who are upset about Obama spending a trillion on economic recovery forget about the close to 1 trillion spent on the Iraq war.

    I don't get it.
    economic recovery? you're joking, right?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    economic recovery? you're joking, right?
    Call it whatever you want, my point still stands.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  18. #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Are you serious? Well, in fairness, I suppose it does depend on how a person defines "bailout" as these stimulus programs have been going on since 2007. To put things into perspective, prior to the Obama administration, a total of >$1.1T had been allocated for stimulus. Under perfect silence, I might add.
    I was serious, I'd like to read a little bit about it. Like you said, it appears to have happened "under perfect silence", because I was not aware of 1.1 trillion in taxpayer money going to banks, car companies, etc. Can you point me towards your info, maybe provide a link?
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    Call it whatever you want, my point still stands.
    I guess you're refering to John Voight. You may be right. I think he supported taking out Saddam. I'm not so sure what his feelings were about what followed.

    But what's the connection? Other than both concern spending money.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Well, in fairness, I suppose it does depend on how a person defines "bailout" as these stimulus programs have been going on since 2007. To put things into perspective, prior to the Obama administration, a total of >$1.1T had been allocated for stimulus. Under perfect silence, I might add.
    You might add that, but you would be incorrect or at least misleading. First, the "stimulus" that went on earlier in the form of checks paid directly to citizens cannot be rightfully characterized as a bailout, although one could argue about the effectiveness of it. However, giving taxpayers their own money back won't be criticized by me--it is after all their money (except when it was given to those who don't pay Federal income taxes).

    As far as actual bailouts under the Former President Bush...absolutely they occurred (including Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, TARP and the beginnings of the Auto bailouts (although without the union benefits at the expense of legally more legitimate claims), but if you are referring to "perfect silence" in regards to any of that, it can only be due to your own ignorance of the often loud opposition to it amongst citizens and even a few politicians.

    You are forwarding a false notion that people of principle who oppose such things change their mind because of who is in office. That's true when many people are talking about the Patriot Act, Executive powers, killing of civilians in Afghanistan, "Transparency," how much time a President spends golfing, dealing with a disaster in the Gulf Region, etc--all of which are crimes against humanity when Bush was in office but are justified in a variety of ways when Obama is President--by any number of shills of various stripes in the media and in places like this. You of course may be innocent of that hypocrisy.

    It does not apply to people who oppose bailouts on principle (opposed them under Bush and Obama)--of which there are many--they just might not be people you'd hear or care to listen to--just a guess of course--but apparently an accurate one if you claim "perfect silence."

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 06/22/2010 at 04:04 PM. Reason: missed a word

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions