What grade would you give?

[cheri1122]

Cheri I am glad you accept my apology. I was not trying to be demeaning or anything else but just could tell from your posts that you are adimit about this.

But as far as your PT Barnum comment you should look in the mirror before casting any stones.

Sounds like you have bit hook, line, and sinker.

"Bit" what, exactly? If you mean the Obama as Messiah notion: not hardly, I haven't. Just don't see how he could be much worse than the past administrations have been - America is in truly sad shape, you know? And I'm willing to wait until he proves himself one way or another, to make judgment of his Presidency.
PS That last line: "the weak take from the Government"? Pretty funny, considering who's been given subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, and let's don't forget BAILOUTS

 

[flattop40]

Obama is weak. Weakness invites attack. Attack insure retaliation and the downward spiral.

VERY WELL PUT!!!!!

You don't mess with the big dog on the block. Kinda like you don't whiss in someones Cheerio's that can kick your arse.

If you cut the bull's horns off theres no fear in messing with the bull.

So I again go back to my opening post. National security he gets an A but as far as this financial mess we are in I gave him an F only because he didn't have the guts to change the lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had been loosened during the Clinton Era.

Prior to my Expiditing business I was the sales manager for the largest residential building company in NE Michigan. I saw it on a daily basis of people getting loans for homes that should not have been getting them. The biggest culprit of all were the lenders like Lending Tree, and Green Tree and so on. These people would have given the devil himself their soul for a loan. They were blatantly open about "cooking the books". Just a do anything mentality. They would give a 125% equity loan and if the people defaulted the lender would lose money. So what they did to combat that is they got the Appraisers to start inflating the value of homes so they could get more financing. You see Appraisers don't make money unless people apply for loans. And this took place all over the country. Which in turn brought on a new wave of "flipping" houses. Now with the inflating values people were buying houses they could not afford with the thought of selling in 2 years and pocketing a nice chunk of change.

Well it all had to crash soon or later as we all know it did and all this actually started back in the 90's. However, Bush did not have the guts to stand up and right the ship when he could have and for that I gave him an F in the last 2 years when actually it should have been in his second half of his first term but like all politions he didn't want to lose votes.

And the ironic thing is everyone is again screaming for the banks to loosen up and thats what got us into this mess to begin with.

 

[layoutshooter]

Thanks Flattop. I thought Bush did make a speech about the poor health of Fannie and Fredie back in 2001. The Dumbecrats, like Sir (I like little boys) Barney Frank shot the idea down. I only give him a c- on defense. I think I would have prosecuted the Iraq theater of operation a bit different. I would have attacked, but about a year or two later. AFTER I had a chance to re-build my active duty forces to AT LEAST WW2 levels. All services. I would have had a hugh stockpile of munitions and hit Iran and Syria at the same time. No use cutting off the tail of the snake if you don't kill the head. My first move would have been to occuppy Lebenon and seal the border between them and Syria. I would then give Syria the chance to play with us if they want to get out from under the thumb of Iran, if not, poof! The fact is, thanks to Carter Iran is now a world power. We are going to have to deal with them sooner or later. Sooner is always better. Every day they gian strength and influance while every day under Obama we will become weaker and more impotent. Layoutshooter

 

[flattop40]

"Bit" what, exactly? If you mean the Obama as Messiah notion: not hardly, I haven't. Just don't see how he could be much worse than the past administrations have been - America is in truly sad shape, you know? And I'm willing to wait until he proves himself one way or another, to make judgment of his Presidency.
PS That last line: "the weak take from the Government"? Pretty funny, considering who's been given subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, and let's don't forget BAILOUTS

The weak do take from the government. Yeah with all the bull**** bailouts thats been going on I see your point but all that is is the government greasing the palms of their buddies. And WHO has been incharge of both the house and the senate during these bailouts?

Thanks for bringing that up. The ONLY bailout that I half agree with was for the auto makers. Do you realize what kind of mess we would be in if they went under. Now that WOULD send us into a depression. They are quick to say we are in a depression but I dissagree. We do not have 20+% unemployment. The last I checked it was just a touch over 6%. NOT saving the auto makers would put us at 20+ for sure. Intrest rates are at an alltime low not the 15-20% like then or in the late 70's early 80's and inflation has been at or around 3-4% for years now and that is a good thing believe it or not. During the great depression we had a deinflation of almost double digits.

We have gotten so soft. We have taken for granted that our 401k's should make at least 10%/year and anything else we think the world is coming to an end. We have become a nation Chicken Littles.

And to answer the question as for the "bit" refrence, I was referring to your Bush hatred that is pushed so hard from the left.

 

[flattop40]

Facts about the depression found on Wikipedia:

13 million people became unemployed.
Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932.
Home-building dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.
From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business.
By 1933, 11,000 of the US' 25,000 banks had failed.
In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.
Between 1929 and 1932 the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%.

So I ask you this? Are we this bad off?

 

[layoutshooter]

We have become soft, a nation of whinny "gimmie mine" people. We might need a depressioin or some other really really bad thing to weed out the weak. You don't make the weak strong by propping up thier weakness. All get do when you do that is encourage weakness. You make the weak strong by taking away the crutches and making them walk on thier own. Layoutshooter

 

[cheri1122]

Yes, not bailing the automakers would leave us in a jam - but it'd still be the right thing to do, if we really believe in free market capitalism. The automakers were stupid, shortsighted, and greedy, and they deserve to fail. As do the banks, and everyone else who put profit ahead of common sense & ethics.
How come it's only welfare you don't like when it's given to poor people? Why is it better to give tax money to the already wealthy, in the form of bailouts, incentives, subsidies, etc? Seems to me that those who already have a great deal of money can hire efficient help in financial planning (and they do), so why do you expect poor folks to accomplish even more, with no resources? And as the poor includes babies, children, disabled folks, and the elderly, what exactly would you suggest they do to earn their own way?
Labeling me a "Bush hater" is typical of those who dismiss criticism, instead of responding to it. Along with deflecting the blame......
Bush failed to maintain, much less improve, the budget surplus he began with. He failed to find BinLaden, making America look totally incompetent. He declared war on an admittedly bad dictator, but there's plenty of those in the world - why was this one suddenly OUR problem? He crafted the ridiculous "No child left behind" program (real big on high sounding terminology, but real small in actual accomplishments). He championed "faith based initiatives" in an effort to shift much of the governments responsibility for providing for the needy to charity. He crafted a Medicare reform so complex, even the experts didn't understand it, much less the senior citizens forced to choose a plan, under an irrevocable deadline - and he didn't even use the buying power of the government to obtain discounted prices from the big pharmaceutical giants, either. (But he was perfectly willing to prosecute the folks who went to Canada to fill their prescriptions, so they could afford to eat, too). He promoted marriage as a solution for poverty - how much stupider can one guy be, for cryin out loud?! Well, stupid enough to tell Congress that the banks and the whole economy would fail if they didn't immediately give them 700 billion tax dollars - with NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER.
I could go on, if you like - there's more. Lots more.
Don't get me started on his "Patriot Act" either!

 

[layoutshooter]

The economic crisis was started by the Dumbecrats during the Carter era. I was totally opposed to the first bailout. The problem with the auto companies are a bit more complex. It was not just greed on the part of the automakers. The unions were also at fault. The government and thier millions in unfunded mandated technical changes, most to combat the so-called "Global Warming" an idea based on VERY shakey science. The auto companies are also being handcuffed by the extreme left wing in the congress. They could very quickly and easilly get thier fleets into the range that is mandated but the fuel tax structure forbids them from doing it. The European version of the Chevy Cobalt get close to 60mpg compared to the 30 it gets here. Why?" In Europe it is a diesel. The left knows this and taxes diesel at a higher rate to prevent the sale of that product. Why? They want to get rid of our ability to produce heavy items. That is because that will prevent us from building arms, tanks and munitions and will weaken us to the point that we are no longer a world power. The goal of the left and Obama. A whimp nation. That is one of thier two main goals over the next 4 years, weaken us to the point where we are impotent in the world, the second, totally control the people. Your freedom is a threat to thier power. That is the only thing they are after, power, not your health safey or well being. Layoutshooter

 

[cheri1122]

I'm not even going to try to respond to that kind of wild conjecture (The left wants us to fail"?!) except to point out that the unions had zero power except that granted by management - if the UAW took advantage of mgmt's lavish renumeration for themselves, can you blame them? I can't, but I don't want to have to bail their stupid & selfish butts out of their own mess, either.

 

[layoutshooter]

Not even true about the Unions, and yes, if you study the left, as I had too to do my job, you would see what I mean. The left sounds good on the surface but the left is a lie. I won't argue with you on this, we have no frame of reference to discuss thing on. Layoutshooter

 

[highway star]

Hmmmmm I make a joke and I get 2 responses lambasting me and a warning from a moderator. Yet you can go thru other threads and people joke and make little harmless digs at one another and nothing is said. Did I miss the memo that says you can't make a joke in the "soap box" threads?

Sounds like typical liberals to me. Do as I say but not as I do. Whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.

I think Cheri knew I was joking. I even put a little wink sign for those of you who are a little slow.

Yeah I changed my sig. Glad to see people take notice of those things.

"He kept us safe AFTER 9/11. Well, isn't that what the Pres is supposed to do?" So you are saying he DID his job and did it well? We had NO attacks afterwards. Not against ships in the Med. No attacks against other buildings like the original trade center attacks. DID you even read my original post in this thread?

Cheri if I offended you I am truly sorry and I am glad to see you have people who will come to defense.

To the rest of you, as someones signiture says, STOP TRYING SO HARD TO BE OFFENDED!

I knew Cheri would have no problem dealing with the tackiness aspect of it, I addressed how completely unfunny it was. If it was funny, that would have countered the tackiness a bit. The 'present day comedian' thing caught my eye because I couldn't remember ever seeing you be funny.

I'm not a lib. I voted for W twice, and as disappointed as I am with his presidency, I still think he was better than the alternatives. But, c'mon... He wasn't impeached? He kept us safe after 9/11? Have you ever heard the Chris Rock bit where he talks about people that brag about doing things they should do? "I take care'a MY kids!" "I never been in jail!" As an expediter, if you take a load 300 miles in beautiful weather with 10 hours to get there, are you going to do an end zone dance when you deliver on time? That's what I'm talking about. The W spinmeisters want to make doing the basics look like a huge accomplishment.

So, I did read your original post and I think we're basically on the same page. Maybe you just need to leave the comedy to the grownups.

 

[flattop40]

Cheri, YOU ARE A BUSH HATER.

"Yes, not bailing the automakers would leave us in a jam - but it'd still be the right thing to do, if we really believe in free market capitalism. The automakers were stupid, shortsighted, and greedy, and they deserve to fail. As do the banks, and everyone else who put profit ahead of common sense & ethics"

"stupid enough to tell Congress that the banks and the whole economy would fail if they didn't immediately give them 700 billion tax dollars - with NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER."

You bring up the 700billion. That was NOT his idea. He did go along with it but it was Frank and Dodd who said we had to do this or all hell would break loose. The republicans stopped the first vote in the house but then they added 150 billion more to please the soft senate republicans.

Who voted against the auto bailout? The republicans. All these bailouts are done by the dems yet you think its the republicans that are causing all this.

Who just demanded that the rest of the 350billion be released?

So when you talk bailouts get the facts straight.

 

[flattop40]

Maybe you just need to leave the comedy to the grownups.

You see you missed the whole point of my past sig.

It said and I quote:

Future fleet owner

Furture millionaire

Present day comedian


THAT WAS THE JOKE......... GET IT? some how jokes just aren't as funny when you have to explain them.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

So your supposed to have a government...for the people , by the people and when the "people" WANT government involvement...just look at the voters?

So you have a government that would IGNORE the peoples wants and rule by the Constitution only? A document written so long ago in a different time, a different way off life that in some ways its obsolete.

Your country has a queen, and WE'RE obsolete?

It's not about what the ppl want; it's about what the Constitution SAYS. If the Constitution were followed throughout our history, we wouldn't have the problems we do today. Every president after Woodrow Wilson (with the exception of Coolidge) has whittled away at the rights the Constitution guaranteed.

It is set up so that if the majority of ppl want it changed, it can be, by amending it. However, those in power CHOOSE to circumnavigate those failsafes, and do what they please. If a country has rules, and the government chooses to ignore said rules, why should there be rules? That, my friend, is called TYRANNY! Those who want, regardless of the price, deserve such a government. But we who don't want that are destined to suffer among them.

 

[highway star]

No explanation was needed flattop, I did get it.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Y'all keep insisting (as does Bush himself) that he kept us from being attacked again - if you believe that, with no evidence except the fact that we haven't been attacked (again), then have I got a deal for you: an anti-lightning suit of my own invention, which I can prove is effective, as I've never been struck.

Isn't the fact that we weren't attacked good enough for you?

Bush failed miserably - to find the real villain (Bin Laden), to persuade most of our allies that Iraq presented a convincing threat to us, to prevent the financial meltdown we're now trying to avoid, to improve education (his No Child Left Behind was a total failure at anything but improving test scores, which are NOT a reliable indication of anything except the ability to pass a test - this time) (You mean Kennedy's No Child Left Behind, don't you), to improve the situation for anyone in the country except the already wealthy (tax breaks, reduction of capital gains rates, lax oversight of the agencies charged with keeping the 'market' on the up & up, etc, ad nauseum)

Capital gains also affect us peons who have a 401k. Lack of oversight on the FF twins... well... we know who didn't do anything about them, right? As far as improving ANYONE'S situation... that should be up to the individual. And by the way, those tax breaks you refer to, aren't a gift from the government. The government simply takes less of OUR money from us. Oh... actually, they are a gift to those who don't pay taxes. Ever wonder that? How can someone who doesn't pay taxes get a tax cut?

He "wasn't impeached" - glory be, what an accolade! He "didn't do anything improper with a cigar" - that we know of, anyhow, and again: what an accolade that is, eh?
Bush was (so far) the worst president ever, IMO, leaving America in much worse shape than he found it. The recovery will not be easy, and I only hope Obama can get a good start on rebuilding the trust that Bush has lost, both at home and abroad. On that score, only time will tell.

Yes... everybody lost their job, died, or became French on Bush's watch. Be careful what you wish for, Cheri. Maybe Obama will give you a government job after he destroys the free market system the rest of the way. No one will need expediting then, as the government moves at its own speed.

I hope that government "of, by, and FOR the people" hasn't already perished from the Earth, entirely, because it hasn't been seen here for a long time.

For the people? You mean welfare and cheese for all? Don't make me laugh!

............

 

[RLENT]

What's in the drinking water in Ohio?

I dunno ..... but considering that Kentucky's downstream, whatever the effluent is ..... it will probably make it's way down there eventually .......

These diatribes go a long way toward explaining why business and manufacturing are fleeing the Buckeye state.

Really .... ? Yup ... real surprising to come on The Soapbox and find strong opinions and passion over issues.

BTW, I'm not at all hostile to business - far from it.

I wouldn't expect to ever see another automotive plant or any viable manufacturer to build north of the Ohio River.

Got news for ya - Honda just recently opened a $500M plant in Indiana .... and I believe the two states that were in contention for it were Indiana .... and Ohio .... imagine that ....

Why would any new venture want to relocate in hostile territory?

Exactly ...... now ask yourself again ...... why is it that companies are relocating overseas ?

It's not so much the hostility of the populace generally, as much as it is the hostility of government towards business - many of those in power (politically speaking) have used this to fan the flames of greed and envy in the general populace to gain support for policies (laws, etc.) which are anti-business and ultimately not in the national interest.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Thats exactly the words I was trying to describe..THANK YOU RANDY!!

The gang in here don't understand what I see as an outsider...because they are American and most ex-military...and have this inherent belief in AMERICAN defined FREEDOM...and IF it isn't an AMERICAN type of FREEDOM it isn't good enough....
And to go around the world and preach AMERICAN freedom is hypocritical. Whose freedom do you suggest we preach? France's? Angola's? Iran's? China's?

To the common AMERICAN you have YOUR freedom as defined by you and others like you...

Every group has their idea of freedom; just as every Christian denomination has it's own interpretation of the Bible. I think the Constitution is very straight forward on what freedoms we are guaranteed.

Using Canada as an example...They have their version of FREEDOM not like yours but they are FREE to come an go as they please. They elect the Government a FREE peoples.

Yet Canadians were only recently permitted to have Fox News in their homes. They're coming a long way, OVM!

Canadians for the most part are happy...they have Canadian style FREEDOM....they can do what they want..start businesses..be an emtrepeneur...chose there life profession, go to the university of their own chosing. they are FREE to succeed or chose failure....It is CANADIAN FREEDOM..Sure theres a lot of government programs that are ACCEPTED by the people!

Canadian freedom has long since been an offshoot of European freedom... Not quite an hierarchy, yet you have the overwhelming tax and social programs. Not saying the Canadian system is bad... just not for me.

YOU have NO justification to say the Canadian FREEDOM is no good...thats hypocritical.

Why not? From the 40s to the 80s, the free world proclaimed Soviet freedom is no good. The rest of the world says American freedom is no good... we need to be more like THEM! Same countries that elect Cuba and China on the Human Rights council of the UN. Frankly, if it weren't for the US, I don't think there'd be another war. The Europeans would just surrender to every country that threatens them.

They are NO longer ruled by the Crown and have thier own constituton...which is modeled quite simular to the American version..Thank YOU for that...

I know Canada is no longer ruled by the crown. I was poking fun at the fact that Elizabeth is still considered the Queen of Canada to our friends up north.

Don't get me wrong, OVM... I love Canada. But hypocrisy goes both ways in the political world. It's full of imperfect countries telling other imperfect countries how to be perfect; whether it's the US telling Iraq, or Europe telling the US. Frankly, I think they're all full of Shiites.

 

[Scott101]

It was not just greed on the part of the automakers. The unions were also at fault. The government and thier millions in unfunded mandated technical changes, most to combat the so-called "Global Warming" an idea based on VERY shakey science.

I agree. I have read that GM overseas was actually doing well. That points to the government and unions for their Stateside problems. The proverbial "rock and a hard place" --Not to talk down on unions but instead it's basically like the way social security is going... Too few workers to pay the retirement bennies to too many retirees.

He failed to find BinLaden, making America look totally incompetent. He declared war on an admittedly bad dictator, but there's plenty of those in the world - why was this one suddenly OUR problem?

Just trying to get this right; The stuff that didn't workout right is Bush's fault (didn't get binladen) But stuff that did workout is no thanks to Bush (no attacks since 9/11) Am I catching on?

And who is saying we are incompetent? If you are determined not to get caught and willing to live for years with zero amenities hopping from cave to cave it is not far fetched to imagine not being caught yet.

I would prefer we catch him, but the longer he is on the run the more he is shown to be insignificant. If we had got him early on he would probably still be a huge martyr. Instead he's hiding like a coward and once in a while releases an audio tape that no longer has impact. -Really is a fate worse then death for a guy like that in the eyes of his followers I would imagine.

Iraq isn't "suddenly" our problem. We had been at war with the guy for 12 years prior. We declared a war on terror after 9/11 and Iraq was a State sponsor of terror. It was time to put the Iraq war to a finish one way or another (sadam could have easily prevented the 03 conflict by simply abiding by the UN mandates). It was good to go to Afganistan and get those thugs. But I didn't see al qaeda sending their top global leaders to Afganistan to fight like they did in Iraq. I can't recall the names but many al qaeda leaders from countries around the world went to Iraq to fight, but died. Sounds like a brilliant strategy on our part as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cheri1122]

Hawk: no, I didn't mean "Kennedy's NCLB law" - although Sen Kennedy cowrote the law, it was "originally proposed by Bush immediately after taking office in 2001" (Wikipedia).
And no, "not being attacked again" isn't good enough, IMO. I'd like to think the bar should be much higher than that.
Why does everyone keep insinuating that Obama plans to expand welfare (for the poor, not the bigger giveaway for the already wealthy that no one mentions)? Please show me when he said anything to indicate such intentions? Cause I sure haven't seen it, and I've been watching like a - well, like a hawk, lol.