Sorry fella I really dont think you know what you are talking about.
You do know that Clinton started in a recession? I think you have some rose coloured glasses cause your facts reak of republican talking points.
Clinton started at the end of a recession. Things were far better when Reagan left office than when he inherited Carter's mess. Interest rates were down, the economy was growing, and the military had been build back up from the low point Carter had left it.
Clinton was very much like Obama but, without the massive majorities in both houses. He pushed through very little of his agenda(see health care) and did nothing at all to enhance the economy. The Republican's infamous "Parnership with America" which basically demanded balanced budgets ham-strung Clinton. If it wasn't for politicians on both side of the isle becoming addicted to pork barrel spending America would be a lot richer today.
What do you think Clinton did that improved the economy?
I wonder how many interviews the Editors went through before he settled on these.
Do you think Sharpton's supporters across town would have faired any better that these guys? Has anybody heard a figure for how many attended Sharpton's rally?
I have wondered if anybody on the left had remembered the treatment the NRA recieved for holding their convention there shortly after the murders.
The difference between the NRA and the builders of this mosque is that the NRA was stuck. They had everything booked and simple couldn't have changed location that late without it costing a fortune. The logistics would have been impossible. Just canceling wasn't an option either due to the organization's constitution.
You should go to the comedy network's website and watch the video, he showed the clip of Heston's speech. Heston didn't say "we couldn't cancel, sorry it was booked". He gave a long speech about the consitution etc.. to which Stewart effectively said "you were right and I was wrong".
You should go to the comedy network's website and watch the video, he showed the clip of Heston's speech. Heston didn't say "we couldn't cancel, sorry it was booked". He gave a long speech about the consitution etc.. to which Stewart effectively said "you were right and I was wrong".
That is a problem with clips. It doesn't tell the whole story and often an inaccurate one. Heston probably didn't mention it his speech anyways. It was part of the decision making process leading up to the convention. The membership would have already been informed about the issue before attending. They would have been warned on how to deal with the media coverage given the situation.
Reagan had a policy to willfully create deficits. He was basically a puppet for big business and did their bidding. Tying business and government even farther. Because of Regean the top 1% of the country started to attain more wealth at the expense of the middle class. Obviously, he was a more effective President than Carter, but his policies were terrible. I think he will come to be known as where it all started to go very wrong for the United States.
It's funny how Clinton is championed by progressives as a great liberal President. He is a reasonable politician, a rarity nowadays, but he wasn't very progressive and a lot of his policy decisions reinforced Regean's mistakes and led to the mess we are in today.
As for Obama, you are underestimating him. He is already a more effective President than Carter, dealing with a much worse state of affairs. He, unlike Carter, is also a master politician and campaigner. He is the best President at image control we have seen since Reagan. The only reason he is struggling right now is an economy that was handed to him in absolute shambles and has faltered since then. Economic recovery wouldn't have been attained no matter who was President.
Now, I don't think he's a particularly progressive or helpful President, but he's in the toughest spot since FDR. Any President of the last 40 years would have struggled mightily in this current economic and political climate.
WEAK. I guess I should've voted for McCain then.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The only reason he is struggling right now is an economy that was handed to him in absolute shambles and has faltered since then. Economic recovery wouldn't have been attained no matter who was President.
I find this position mind-boggling considering a lot of other countries are showing moderate to great signs of recovery.
How long are people going to keep saying Obama isn't at fault while the rest of the world starts moving forwards towards a better recovery?
When the only reason your unemployment numbers aren't even worse than they are right now is because of census workers and other public jobs being created, and the private side of the economy is faltering, me thinks some fault does lie in the direction the government is taking.
I have wondered if anybody on the left had remembered the treatment the NRA recieved for holding their convention there shortly after the murders.
The difference between the NRA and the builders of this mosque is that the NRA was stuck. They had everything booked and simple couldn't have changed location that late without it costing a fortune. The logistics would have been impossible. Just canceling wasn't an option either due to the organization's constitution.
The property these guys have already bought has cost them ~$5 million. I'm not sure if the sale of second piece of property next door has actually gone though yet. If it has, add another 10-20 million to that.
Add to that all the planning, discussions, architecture, etc, etc that's gone into it and you're much much higher.
Dropping their plans now cause a talking head on TV told some pissed off rednecks that freedom of religion isn't universal would cost them a lot of money. Since it's apparently much, much more expensive than this, how much does an NRA rally cost to relocate or postpone?
Maybe you should have voted for McCain, I don't know. I'm certainly not as enthusiastic about Obama as I was on election day. I don't know why you would though. On the hope that his extremely right wing platform was a just a ploy to get elected? A platform he has continued as he fights for his Senatorial life in Arizona.
The economy wasn't just in a bit of a recession when Obama took office, it was in shambles. The CBO just came out and stated the stimulus worked, creating 3.3 million jobs. But the economy is still faltering. That should give you some indication of the magnitude of the financial collapse. Nobody was going to step in and right the ship by mid term elections. I don't think it's fair to put the blame on Obama for the economy. For half-assed financial and healthcare reform he should be blamed, but this economy wasn't going to come back from the worst crisis since 1929 that quickly.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
Maybe you should have voted for McCain, I don't know. I'm certainly not as enthusiastic about Obama as I was on election day. I don't know why you would though. On the hope that his extremely right wing platform was a just a ploy to get elected? A platform he has continued as he fights for his Senatorial life in Arizona.
The economy wasn't just in a bit of a recession when Obama took office, it was in shambles. The CBO just came out and stated the stimulus worked, creating 3.3 million jobs. But the economy is still faltering. That should give you some indication of the magnitude of the financial collapse. Nobody was going to step in and right the ship by mid term elections. I don't think it's fair to put the blame on Obama for the economy. For half-assed financial and healthcare reform he should be blamed, but this economy wasn't going to come back from the worst crisis since 1929 that quickly.
I just think it's a bit too easy to give him that built in excuse.
There hasn't been enough done, and what has been done has not been smart, to turn the economy around. Whether anyone could have turned it around by now is really irrelevant. President Obama has done a horrible job of trying.
The McCain thing was tongue in cheek obviously. McCain was blasted on the economy during the campaign and Obama was lauded as a much better choice in that regard. It's too convenient to give him a pass.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
I find this position mind-boggling considering a lot of other countries are showing moderate to great signs of recovery.
How long are people going to keep saying Obama isn't at fault while the rest of the world starts moving forwards towards a better recovery?
When the only reason your unemployment numbers aren't even worse than they are right now is because of census workers and other public jobs being created, and the private side of the economy is faltering, me thinks some fault does lie in the direction the government is taking.
The United States was the focal point of the financial crisis. Other countries had tighter regulations on the banks in place, the US had been going hog wild for while before the crisis.
Other countries also have the ability to act faster to make changes to the law necessary in order to stabilize the economy. In the United States, it doesn't work that way, it's a slow system by design that's been made much slower by a corrupt relationship between big business and State. As seen by the bail outs.
I guess I need to outline a distinction I've made in my mind but hasn't been clear in my posts. I don't think Obama has done well for the long term health of the economy. I think he has failed his supporters in that regard. He has maintained the cozy relationship with big business. He has terrible financial cabinet, giving him pro establishment advice that isn't fixing anything.
However, the economy in the short term isn't his fault and to blame him for it is ridiculous. He can hardly be at fault for the United States falling behind in its recovery, when the United States government is slow as molasses by design and the country most affected by the collapse. His bad long term policies will affect the United States down the road, but they won't have much of an effect on this economy. Short term, he's doing all he can: funnel money back into the economy.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The property these guys have already bought has cost them ~$5 million. I'm not sure if the sale of second piece of property next door has actually gone though yet. If it has, add another 10-20 million to that.
Add to that all the planning, discussions, architecture, etc, etc that's gone into it and you're much much higher.
Dropping their plans now cause a talking head on TV told some pissed off rednecks that freedom of religion isn't universal would cost them a lot of money. Since it's apparently much, much more expensive than this, how much does an NRA rally cost to relocate or postpone?
They have 5 million invested in a building and $19 000.00 in the bank. Their project is going to cost 100 million. The governor of New York has offered to trade them property. They are hardly stuck on this course of action.
Also, don't those pissed off rednecks represent about 70% of America?
By a 54 - 40 percent majority, voters agree "that because of American freedom of religion, Muslims have the right to build the mosque near Ground Zero," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Another 7 percent are undecided.
The United States was the focal point of the financial crisis. Other countries had tighter regulations on the banks in place, the US had been going hog wild for while before the crisis.
Other countries also have the ability to act faster to make changes to the law necessary in order to stabilize the economy. In the United States, it doesn't work that way, it's a slow system by design that's been made much slower by a corrupt relationship between big business and State. As seen by the bail outs.
I guess I need to outline a distinction I've made in my mind but hasn't been clear in my posts. I don't think Obama has done well for the long term health of the economy. I think he has failed his supporters in that regard. He has maintained the cozy relationship with big business. He has terrible financial cabinet, giving him pro establishment advice that isn't fixing anything.
However, the economy in the short term isn't his fault and to blame him for it is ridiculous. He can hardly be at fault for the United States falling behind in its recovery, when the United States government is slow as molasses by design and the country most affected by the collapse. His bad long term policies will affect the United States down the road, but they won't have much of an effect on this economy. Short term, he's doing all he can: funnel money back into the economy.
Then Obama lied. He told tax payers that if he could borrow a trillion dollars in their name he would turn things around. He didn't.
I just think it's a bit too easy to give him that built in excuse.
There hasn't been enough done, and what has been done has not been smart, to turn the economy around. Whether anyone could have turned it around by now is really irrelevant. President Obama has done a horrible job of trying.
The McCain thing was tongue in cheek obviously. McCain was blasted on the economy during the campaign and Obama was lauded as a much better choice in that regard. It's too convenient to give him a pass.
Agreed, he isn't doing a great job. What I'm saying is, you can't use the poor economy as proof Obama's policies are bad. As his policies either haven't been implemented or only affect the very long term. However, if he appoints Elizabeth Warren to the head of the new consumer protection agency, he will have done something right to solidify the economy long term.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
But the problem is with the question. Very few question the right for someone to build a mosque there. I'm sure if that same Fox survey inserted the word "constitutional" before the word "right" they would have gotten even a higher percentage in favour.
The CNN poll asked Americans if they thought it should be built and the majority said: No. Of that 68% who said "no" some would have considered it just inappropriate while others offensive.
I personally think it shouldn't be built that close to ground zero. The building itself was damaged in the attack. How much closer can you get than that? Also the argument that "Only peaceful Muslims will worship there" seems false. Radical Muslims worship right beside those who claim to embrace peace evrywhere else. Certainly the radicals would attach their own meaning to the location and be attracted to it.
But the problem is with the question. Very few question the right for someone to build a mosque there.
A disturbing amount do though and that's to whom I was referring.
Anyway... The people who don't think they have the right to build it and the very very vocal critics who want to take away the right or want the government to step in to stop it despite the group having the right to build (not quite sure how that works but....) are much different than the more moderate group saying along the lines of "Well... I kinda wish they'd pick a different site but they have a right to do it so.. oh well. It doesn't really effect me anyway". However, that entire spectrum of views would get lumped together in that 68% you cite making it misleading depending on how one tries to use that poll to prove their point.
