Jump to content

The one and only TBD Political Thread


Simon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And Ryan Fitzpatric was an attempt at a Franchise QB :thumbdown:

 

What I dont get is, Bush tried a homebuyers credit, it didn't work, so Obama tried one too. The same could be said for the Bank Bailouts and Auto Bailouts etc.

 

Yet some people hate Bush and love Obama. What gives? They are basically the same guy. Then, the liberal media keeps trying to tell me that Romney is going to use the same policies as Bush - that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

:w00t::doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:w00t::doh:

 

What differences do you see between them?

 

Under Clinton, federal spending was 17% of GDP. Under Bush, that increased to 19%, in what Bush's critics correctly referred to as "spending money like a drunken sailor." Under Obama, federal spending has risen to 26% of GDP.

 

Neither president did much of anything to rein in spending. Both increased spending with respect to healthcare entitlements: Bush with his prescription drug program, Obama with Obamacare. Both racked up very large deficits. Deficits averaged about 2% of GDP under Bush, and about 10% of GDP under Obama.

 

Bush strongly supported the Patriot Act; which Obama has not repealed. Obama's vice president favors more government spying on its own citizens, and more rights for record companies and movie studios in their quest to reshape the Internet according to their liking.

 

Both Bush and Obama signed massive bailouts for the financial sector, resulting in hundreds of billions of government spending.

 

I'll agree that Bush and Obama were different in terms of foreign policy. But I don't see a huge difference on the domestic side, except that Obama has shown even more willingness to borrow and spend/buy votes than Bush had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point with the Patriot Act. I have noticed Gitmo remains open and operating as well (althought I am OK with that).

 

However, Obama IMO could and should be Impeached and charged with murder and a slew of other charges for ordering the assasination of a US citizin who was never charged with a crime or convicted of any crime. Obama - in his sole and absolute discretion - determined this man was a terrorist and had him assasinated. Obama further state after the fact on his order A US citizin could be indefinately detained without charge, even if it was on US soil. Needless to say that is blatently UnConstituional.

 

No one man should ever - ever - hold that type of power.

Edited by peterpan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Marack Oromney, this will ultimatley delay the final result, as they try to figure who this deciding ballot was cast for.

It is going to be worse then the hanging chad fiasco.

You should pack your bags and head to another country so there is an international man hunt for you. Keep posting though in your travels and if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Edited by The Wiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because they have some overlapping ideology they're "basically the same guy"?

 

You have been fooled by the media. 'some overlapping ideology' - I just covered about 50% of their job description. The other 50% is being the Commander in Chief, the rest is filled with fotter like gay marraige and abortion arguments, of which I am convinced there is no right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should pack your bags and head to another country so there is an international man hunt for you. Keep posting though in your travels and if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Shoot, we might not have a decision until were ready for the next election. Just one question "a two man sack race to be held on

consecutive sundays", does that mean one guy races on sunday, and then the other the following sunday?

btw, love your 'tar, is that the most interesting quarterback on the planet?

Edited by Tu-Toned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot, we might not have a decision until were ready for the next election. Just one question "a two man sack race to be held on

consecutive sundays", does that mean one guy races on sunday, and then the other the following sunday?

btw, love your 'tar, is that the most interesting quarterback on the planet?

Yes he is, and the two-man sack race is a quote from baseketball that I always remember for some reason. Could have Pres run and then VP run in the following Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama wins, it will be four more years of the Bills using first round picks on first-contract-and-out DBs, or RBs who get replaced every 3.5 years. It will be four more years of no real quarterback, no real defensive coordinator, and an inept owner.

 

If Romney wins, the Bills will obtain a franchise QB and a top tier coaching staff. Mario's wrist will heal, and he will become the player we'd all hoped for.

 

You must work for the Romney campaign! All he does is tell LIES!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I would like about a Romney election: He's a Mormon. Electing someone from a somewhat kooky religion brings us a little further from the evangelical nonsense and shows a continued growth of tolerance from the electorate. First a minority. Then a Mormon. What's next....a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one will end their term with $20 TRILLION in debt (Obama), the other with $19 TRILLION in debt (Romney).

 

neither party is capable of governing.

In all honestly though, what's the difference between 20 and 19 trillion dollars. Not mathematically but in terms of economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing our fiat currency to other countries who are also devaluing their fiat currencies is futile to say the least.

 

Gold per ounce

2000 = $280

2012 = $1790

 

Silver per Ounce

2000 = $5

2012 = $30

 

Crude Oil per Barrel

2000 = $27

2012 = $93

 

Gasoline per Gallon

2000 = $1.60

2012 = $4.00

 

Whole Milk per Gallon

2000 = $2.80

2012 = $3.65

I get what your saying. It's oversimplifying it somewhat to lay it all at the feet of inflation. Global supply and demand plays a role as well.

 

The US is exporting roughly 3 times as much gasoline as it was in 2000 and the domestic price has gone up about 150% (it's only 3.40 here today). If the gas were being brought to market here like it was in 2000 the price would be much lower but it's more profitable to flip it to Latin America.

 

Milk is tied cows which are tied to corn which is tied to oil. In 2000 we used less than 10% of the corn crop for ethanol, now it's 40%. That by necessity drives up the cost of livestock feed and thus livestock. Throw into that mix oil consumption being up globally, gasoline consumption up globally along with some funky weather and the 1 billion additional people that have been added to the population between 2000 and 2010 and you get what we have.

 

Inflation certainly plays a role but I believe you're putting the US into too much of a vacuum. There are other forces that drive the cost of goods other than our monetary policy. Devaluing the currency isn't good policy for anyone and the country needs to stop stockpiling debt but going back to the gold or silver standard isn't going to happen and honestly each would come with its own set of issues if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...