Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
-
O-Trap
Curious where you're getting this.Bigdogg;1262093 wrote:It has been a slow recovery, but better than another Great Depression, which is where we would of been without the current administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html -
mellaHow many people on the OC actually believe that either party, in their current state, are really in this for your best interest or the best interest of the country? It is really simple, cut spending, require that all people pay taxes, cut corporate and small business taxes.
Which candidate has a detailed plan of fixing the economic crisis? Which party is actually willing to work TOGETHER to fix things. Almost all of the current politicians have their hands in the cookie jar and none of them really wants to change the current situation. Not only do they have the proverbial "keys to the house", but they let themselves in and f*** your wife when you aren't around.
Hey Washington D.C., GFY! -
mellaHeard something interesting on the radio today. The bipartisan panel that was assemble by Obama to put forth a plan to help the debt situation came up with a plan that was:
1. rejected by Obama even though it was his bipartisan team.
2. voted against by Paul Ryan who was on the committee.
So which side wants a real solution? -
Cleveland Buck
They don't even know what the problem is let alone want a real solution.mella;1262114 wrote:Heard something interesting on the radio today. The bipartisan panel that was assemble by Obama to put forth a plan to help the debt situation came up with a plan that was:
1. rejected by Obama even though it was his bipartisan team.
2. voted against by Paul Ryan who was on the committee.
So which side wants a real solution? -
fish82
I'm significantly better off.
Still not voting for the colored guy.
I mean Boehner, of course.
-
O-Trap
A "solution" for whom? They both want solutions ... but the problems they want solved don't have to be the same as the problems the public wants solved.mella;1262114 wrote:Heard something interesting on the radio today. The bipartisan panel that was assemble by Obama to put forth a plan to help the debt situation came up with a plan that was:
1. rejected by Obama even though it was his bipartisan team.
2. voted against by Paul Ryan who was on the committee.
So which side wants a real solution? -
mella
That's why a bipartisan committee was put together. I am sure that compromises were made by members of both parties on the committee to design a plan to reduce the debt, which is a first step in righting the ship. Neither the President nor the current Vice Presidental candidate wanted the plan (which I am sure was a compromise). I am tired of the all or none mentality of those at the top.O-Trap;1262124 wrote:A "solution" for whom? They both want solutions ... but the problems they want solved don't have to be the same as the problems the public wants solved.
If neither Obama nor Ryan wanted the compromise then where is their plan? -
O-Trap
Well the whole bipartisan thing is only as effective as their differences. If they share common goals as politicians, it's not going to make an enormous difference.mella;1262140 wrote:That's why a bipartisan committee was put together. I am sure that compromises were made by members of both parties on the committee to design a plan to reduce the debt, which is a first step in righting the ship. Neither the President nor the current Vice Presidental candidate wanted the plan (which I am sure was a compromise). I am tired of the all or none mentality of those at the top.
If neither Obama nor Ryan wanted the compromise then where is their plan? -
Cleveland Buck
There is no plan. There is no bipartisanship. Both sides have the same goals, and they both need to run up massive debt to accomplish them.mella;1262140 wrote: If neither Obama nor Ryan wanted the compromise then where is their plan? -
mella
NWO?Cleveland Buck;1262184 wrote:There is no plan. There is no bipartisanship. Both sides have the same goals, and they both need to run up massive debt to accomplish them. -
gut
I'm sure this will draw protest, but take a fair look at Romney. The guy doesn't need more money, and walked away from hundred of millions more staying with Bain. Sure, it's a power and ego thing, but he's not in it to launch a career or get rich. And it really doesn't mesh with power/ego to just enrich your crony friends and not want to legitimately make the country a better place. Point being, it isn't about just being POTUS but a SUCCESSFUL POTUS.mella;1262102 wrote:How many people on the OC actually believe that either party, in their current state, are really in this for your best interest or the best interest of the country?
I think I agree with you on the career politicians in Congress. But the narcissists running for POTUS are aligned with the best interests of the country. Pelosi, Reid, etc... are arguably more powerful than the POTUS because they aren't going anywhere. Just saying, if you're really in it for yourself there are a lot more favorable paths than POTUS. -
Manhattan Buckeye
-
Cleveland Buck
Maybe, but that's not what I'm talking about. They both serve the same masters that keep them rich and in power. That means they need to continue serving the military industrial complex by keeping us in perpetual war around the globe. We certainly can't pay for that, so that means debt. It means subsidizing health care (with printed and borrowed money) while eliminating competition so the drug companies and insurance companies can keep prices high and wallow in our money. It means running massive debts so the bankers can keep collecting the interest payments, and bailing out the bankrupt banks. Since the government doesn't have any money of its own, and they can't even steal enough of our money to fund their welfare state, that means debt as far as the eye can see.mella;1262344 wrote:NWO?