Obama-themed White Sox hats?

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=17297:date=Feb 11 2009, 11:15 AM:name=HemisFear)-->QUOTE (HemisFear @ Feb 11 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17288:date=Feb 11 2009, 10:22 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Feb 11 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Hemis, I won't quote your entire point about the 80's being worse, but you are COMPLETELY missing mine. I didn't say things were worse now.

Your point would be much more reasonable if Obama was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness that things could be worse than the 80's.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

BT I was commenting directly to what President Obama was saying, not you. Of course I'm going to draw a comparison on him because my entire arguement was based off of what HE (not you) said. The conclusion is simple, he's a hypocrit who said that on his campaign over and over again how the Bush administration used fear to get their bills passed and he is doing the EXACT same thing. You aren't hearing just one party screaming alone in the woods either, we both agree that something has to be done, but both Bush and now Obama are rushing through this and ultimately it's OUR money that they are rolling the dice with!

Let's look at this from a simple point of view, while I concede that both sides agree something must be done. <b>We're essentially saying at root, that the answer to a crisis that is based on borrowing too much money, is....to borrow more & as much as we can!</b> Does that make sense to you?

Now perhaps we are in over our heads and doing nothing simply isn't a logical answer, and I'm not in the camp that thinks that we shouldn't do anything, I am however in the camp of let's do what makes sense and NOT rush through this.


<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Ok, this is the kind of "logic" that really fucking frosts my ass. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

While your counter question is sound, and could be used to support your thesis, answering a question with another question isn't a valid way to debate this. However, allow me to respond.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->After Clinton was in office for 2 months in February 1993, we were attacked by foreign invaders when the WTC was bombed by foreign terrorists. My questions:

1: How many times, under Clinton, were we attacked on domestic soil after that?
2: To reach this number (zero), did Clinton have to tap our phones illegally?
3: Did Clinton have to lock up anyone without trial?
4: Did Clinton have to torture anyone?
5: Did Clinton have to invade any countries which posed no specific threat to the United States?

If we are to assume the lack of an attack is proof that the person in charge "kept us safe", then isn't Clinton's Administration proof that it can be done without raping the constitution and involving us in a costly and unpopular war?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The size and scale of both attacks aren't even remotely on the same footing. You have a nationalized, militant group whom fully took credit and basically had a failed single attack with a couple of numbskull's who decided to try and set off a couple of bombs.

In comparison, you had a highly coordinated attack which cost us 3,000 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, and directly attacked (or tried to attack) 1. The White House 2. The Pentagon 3. Both World Trade Centers. You then had the head of the organization say that he was going to continue to attempt to end our way of life after taking full credit for the attacks.

The response that Clinton had to it however, which essentially accounted for an investigation and no reduction in aggesssor threat is where I can hold him accountable. It became public that not only did Clinton know about the serious threat that was mounting and getting stronger, he brought hardly anyone to justice over it and essentially passed this problem off to the next administration.

One could argue that Clinton's lack of taking this issue head on allowed for these terrorists to gain strength, favor, political backing and most importantly funding to come back in 2001. Compare that to Al Queda and other organizations having HOW many leaders being placed in jail and how many funds being reduced? The differential is not only judged on the actions taken by the government and it's leaders at the time of the incidents, but the reactions and RESULTS of those administrations while in power.

Not only do I think you're grossly over simplifying the question, but you flat out didn't answer it directly and decided to dodge the question and pair it with an example that isn't even remotely close to the size, scope, scale, or costs.

Now, I want to be clear on complete and utter failure of Bush in this, he failed COMPLETELY at getting Bin Laden to justice...something that he will never live down and that the American people should never forgive him for. That point I concede completely.

TAXS vs SPENDING

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That is exactly the true comparison and EXACTLY why the Republicans are wrong. This is not ideology. This is fact. I might have the numbers somewhat wrong, but according to studies done by Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are a TERRIBLE stimulus. I believe that the figures are something along the lines of the fact that a one dollar tax cut will bring about $1.02 of stimulus. One dollar of direct spending will bring about $1.73 of stimulus. These are facts, not opinions. We DO know. So if one party is advocating a policy which brings in $1.73 per dollar, and one is advocating a policy which brings in $1.02, the latter party is WRONG. Misguided. Ignorant. Whatever term you want to use. This is not my opinion. This is provable mathematics.

Lastly, what would you call McCain, if the consensus is we need spending, we need it now, we need it to stimulate the economy, and he calls for LESS spending, put it out farther in the future, and wants to use the least effective way to do it? That's BAD policy. And it would indicate to me someone who is either so blindly partisan he can't see the facts on the ground, or he is less informed than he needs to be on the subject. You pick one.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So your arguement is that you believe that government controlled spending of our tax dollars on pet projects that they control (be it at the federal or state level) rather than putting more of that money back into the hands of the rightful owners of that money at a 2:1 ratio is the right way to handle this? We're fundementally disagreed on that subject.

The number that you're looking for is relative to which area do we get the most bang for our buck in terms of stimulous and the direct answer is food stamps. I don't have a link to support this but essentially the bottom line is we get the most value in food stamps. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to a day in which I ever have to use foodstamps again (and I came from a single mother who was on wealfare for a few years of my childhood). Lastly, we aren't disagreeing that we need to have both spending and tax cuts, the arguement is relative to the age old question of:

Government spending vs Individual spending

You won't get an arguement from me that some form of spending is required, but again we are talking about scale and scope and I simply do not agree with you that the very organization that got us into this mess in the first place is somehow magically going to dig us out.

Also, the other metric that you're not dealing with here is timing. There is no quicker way to get money into people's hands than by tax cuts. This is non-debatable. If we are truly in the worst position possible since the great depression and swift action is required, than doesn't it make sense to ensure that spending happens as quickly as possible?!

You want one other final fact? Ask those SAME economist experts that were advising FDR on his stimulous plan to get us out of the great depression for "the new deal" which is nearly the same template that is being used by the Obama administration, and you will read over and over again that they feel that that it was a total failure...

There is no way to borrow your way out of a credit crisis.

Finally, thanks for engaging on an intellectual level. People whom claim a 'greater understanding' without participating in the conversation to back up their points with candid communication and factual links and have the gaul to throw stones rather than participate truly shouldn't open their mouths in the first place.

I could sit around all day going 'you're an idiot' 'this is over your head' 'you just don't understand' bla bla bla but if you aren't going to lend something to the conversation .... at minimum...be kind and just stay out of it.

Anyone who thinks they can fully understand this is lying to themselves or even worse, delusional.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should try to be more smug, really.