Just What We Need, More Bureaucracy - Thanks Mr. President
- Thread starter Cruise
- Start date
You have a difficult time with 8.2%
You have yet rebut anything regarding the depression of 1920, which because of a non-interventionist approach by Harding, allowed the country to be on the road to recovery within 18 months!
The only thing about Reagan I agreed with is when he said Govt isn't the solution to our problems.
You have a difficult time with 8.2%
You have yet rebut anything regarding the depression of 1920, which because of a non-interventionist approach by Harding, allowed the country to be on the road to recovery within 18 months!
The only thing about Reagan I agreed with is when he said Govt isn't the solution to our problems.
Just because Nevada's employment sucks, that doesn't mean the other parts of the country are not recovering. Even Michigan and Ohio are doing better than when your man GW was president.
Michigan is getting killed right now.
I'm not saying Bush was better, just that the Michigan economy was better under Bush than Obama.
The Michigan economy has been shrinking for 12 years straight!
You are an embarrassment.
You contradicted yourself with each successive idea/argument. Please re-read and edit.
I'm not saying Bush was better!
Just that the Michigan economy was better under Bush than Obama.
The Michigan economy has been shrinking for 12 years straight!
If that's true, how is it possible that Michigan was better under Bush when they're economy shrank for his entire term and, going by your statement, the shrinkage started with him?
You're a funny guy but not in a
way but a 
way.You have a difficult time with 8.2%
You have yet rebut anything regarding the depression of 1920, which because of a non-interventionist approach by Harding, allowed the country to be on the road to recovery within 18 months!
The only thing about Reagan I agreed with is when he said Govt isn't the solution to our problems.
I would really like to argue this but there seems to be little reporting from any sources, conservative or otherwise, about it. Every link always goes back to the same source.
Either way, can you really compare the economy of a pre WWII US to the currrent US? We weren't even considered a real superpower in any way in 1920.
edit
One other thing about that
Let's say it's absolutely, unequivocally true and that's exactly how it happened, in the long run, that approach was a failure. Okay, the economy recovered in 18 months but by the end of the decade, we were in another full on depression. I think the idea of going through cycles of depression, not just downturns but depressions, is unacceptable. Once the government got involved, we didn't have another depression until 2008.
Last edited:
If that's true, how is it possible that Michigan was better under Bush when they're economy shrank for his entire term and, going by your statement, the shrinkage started with him?
You're a funny guy but not in a
There was more to lose under Bush... and it was lost.
There was less under Obama... but the loss hurt more.
In real terms, times are tougher under Obama than under Bush, in Michigan.
In percentage terms, the loss was probably greater under Bush, because so much of it was wasteful (big houses, big cars, eating out, taking trips, shopping sprees).
The loss under Obama hurts more because you are getting into necessities (fuel costs, food costs, utility bills, college "education", high unemployment).
All said, you do understand that under both Bush and Obama, you had and have governors who make decisions that affect what happens in your state much more than any President, don't you?
So are you saying people in Michigan don't use Federal Reserve Notes.
You do understand Michigan does not have its own currency. It does not control its own interest rates. It does not control the IRS. Nor does Michigan control the bailout banks within its borders.
You have heard of Federal spending. Does the governor control this? How about Federal regulations. Are these under control of local officials?
Now, when the governor has control of these things, when the governor and local officials can use tax dollars from every other state to bailout its private banks and businesses, then you can hold them responsible the way the President is responsible.
Last edited:
The governors and state legislatures have much more control over their state's economies than the federal government, including whether or not to take federal funding, as many turned down infrastructure spending and aid with their unemployment benefits.
Starting from the top is how you end up spinning your wheels and accomplishing nothing. The place to start is always with local government.
Are you the type of person that never asks for the manager, when you get bad service?
Or, you never complain to the CEO about a bad experience at a store?
Or, you just do whatever the low-level cop says, without filing a complaint or challenging it in court?
Start at the bottom and don't start at the top, is your advice?
That sounds weak to me.
Things get done when you go straight to the one in charge.
Obama is at the top. If he can't handle the responsibility, he will be fired. He has proven himself to be a failure in Michigan, and he will pay for it on election day (too bad the other Baby boomer, dummy is just as bad).
I ask for the manager, not the owner.
It sounds weak to you because you've proven time and again in these threads that you're not a solution oriented thinker, just a complainer.
You do understand that is how the court system works, on complaints.
You do understand that is how whites control black people, by making complaints.
It is interesting you want to dismiss complaining as ineffective, when that is how whites have black men filling up the prisons, by constantly complaining about them.
Your attitude is... "Only whites can complain. Black people should just suck it up, because black people are not good enough to complain like whites."
Spend some time in court, and you will see where complaining gets you.
But, as a typical Obama supporter, you do not understand the power of complaining. You believe the world runs on loving a half-white President that is more interested in carrying out the white supremacist agenda than helping black people.
Without complaints, there is no Civil Rights movement.
Without complaints, you would not have the comfortable life you take for granted today.
Everything you have is because someone complained, enough, for you to have it. Instead of doing your part, you want to piss on the very thing that got you what you have. That is an ingrate.
You are one of those "go-along-to-get-along" types that doesn't want to complain but are first in line, with your hand out, to get the benefits from those complaints.
The type that fights the other slaves when they try to complain on the plantation because the slave master might whip you, or would tell on slaves planning to run away because they are complainers.
And those complaints are heard by a local judge first, you don't skip straight to the Supreme Court.
You're making my points for me better than I am when you're not just making stuff up because you can't counter my argument. When you see me post about not complaining, quote it and show me. Until then, all that nonsense you posted at the end of this post ^^^ is fantasy from a deranged mind who's out of his weight class...
again.
You never responded to this well reasoned post:
Instead, you went on a binge of more contradictory and non-responsive posts, one after another, each time you got challenged on a preceding non-sensical post.
Yeah, but those complaints go up, the highest they can go for that level of complaint. You do not just sit at the same cop or same judge and say, I can't complain, I give up. You go over their head. But, in your world, Obama is not responsible for anything. No one should complain to or about Obama. Obama is just entitled to get all the benefits of being President but none of the responsibility. In your mind, Obama is the king (or the slavemaster), above complaint and criticism.
When things are not happening at the local level, you go up, all the way, to Obama, to resolve complaints (many just go straight to the top when they are dissatisfied). If they are not satisfied, bye bye Obama, and whoever else is the problem.
Obama is at the top right? So, if he is not ultimately responsible, then who is in charge in the White House?
Or, does logic suspend because it is your Obama-god?
Quoted for clarity since your memory seems awfully selective. This is what you posted. And, this is the 2nd time I have quoted it.
You do not find a solution, until you first identify the complaint. That is the whole legal profession.
Every invention ever created was a result of complaints and complainers. Things get so bad until finally someone is able to resolve (or solve) the complaint.
Your type would just sit and suffer rather than identify the problem and solve it. That is why Obama is screwing over black people, because your types always try to prevent the rest of us from getting results out of Obama. Obama has been one big wasted opportunity, because of the likes of you.
Jews get what they want. Homos get what they want. The banks get what they want.
But, oh no, when black people want something, in your mind, they are just complainers (which is actually a compliment, without you realizing it).
You never responded to this well reasoned post:
Instead, you went on a binge of more contradictory and non-responsive posts, one after another, each time you got challenged on a preceding non-sensical post.
You do understand that just because the economy was better is not the total measure of whether the President was better?
If the economy was better because the President had pulled-forward 10 years of consumption and savings to get re-elected, that President was a fool (like Bush and Obama). So, just because the economy was better under Bush, than Obama, means nothing more than that they are 2 sides of the same worthless coin.
What? So you think the smart thing to do is to complain locally and keep going up until you get the desired result?
THAT'S MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!
As expected, I ask you to post something and you post something else and take it out of context to fit your own warped argument.
So when you find a post where I'm against complaining (which is a very small word, I'm a big fan of protest), quote it.
. . . saying do you understand - does not a sound argument make; and does nothing to make otherwise ridiculous argument any less ridiculous.
You do understand that, right ???
Especially when the person using that phrase clearly doesn't understand.
Similar threads
