Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.

It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.


And yet Herman Cain, the man aspiring to be President who is uninformed about Medicare issues...the man who wants to be leader of the free world who fears China may develop nuclear capabilities...the man who's strongest held beliefs, he has "no facts to support"....THAT man, is still rising in the GOP presidential polls.

Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.

If Cain is such a non-threat, why is this regime's loyal media trying so desperately to sink him (while actively covering up Obama's many gaffes as well as the regime's failures of the last 3 years)?

Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.

Success, jobs, prosperity, national pride. Yeah, they'll remain distant memories as long as socialists are in power.


>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

And yet Herman Cain, the man aspiring to be President who is uninformed about Medicare issues...the man who wants to be leader of the free world who fears China may develop nuclear capabilities...the man who's strongest held beliefs, he has "no facts to support"....THAT man, is still rising in the GOP presidential polls.
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.

Seriously?! LOL...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If Cain is such a non-threat, why is this regime's loyal media trying so desperately to sink him (while actively covering up Obama's many gaffes as well as the regime's failures of the last 3 years)?
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.
Success, jobs, prosperity, national pride. Yeah, they'll remain distant memories as long as socialists are in power.

>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

And yet Herman Cain, the man aspiring to be President who is uninformed about Medicare issues...the man who wants to be leader of the free world who fears China may develop nuclear capabilities...the man who's strongest held beliefs, he has "no facts to support"....THAT man, is still rising in the GOP presidential polls.
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.



because success, jobs, prosperity, and national pride did so well under a recent Republican President?
lol

now don't get me wrong, I realize alot of American's have national pride... its just too bad what they have pride in just doesn't jive with reality...

"We're #1" is only applicable to 3 things in regards to America...

military spending, national debt, and rate of transfer of wealth from poor/middle class to the rich

go unfettered capitalism!!!

@quantumushroom

QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.

Where are your standards here?

Or your consistency?

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".

The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.

Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.

We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?

You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.








>> ^RedSky:

@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

Yes, and I'm sure Reagan wouldn't have deficit spent if it wasn't for that pesky Cold War, too.

One of the biggest contributors to the deficit in terms of key policy decisions was the invasion of Iraq, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, regardless if you agree with the invasion or not. You can speculate all you want, but the truth is pretty evident - most presidents regardless of party deficit spend, sometimes because it's good to do it, sometimes because it enabled them to get the policies they want.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11.

@RedSky

True statements, all around. Canada, much like Austalia, avoided much of the bank stress by having a spoonful more government regulation on their practices.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.