At 1/27/13 10:58 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
TARP money was repaid with interest out of the retained earnings that those companies has started earning following the federal bailout of those banks, same with the bailout itself. And generally I would agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in industry, but given how TARP/the auto bailouts have turned out, I think it was worth the risk for the government to step in and stabilize those companies rather than letting the leak that sprung in our proverbial economic bubble become a gushing guyser.
It wouldn't have become a gyser at all. That propaganda BS. Notice how every other troubled automaker seemed to make it out okay? The problem was not the auto industry, it was ONE company who were too greedy to sell off or reformat. Same with the banks.
Now, if it were an industry wide issue, I may agree with you. But it wasn't. It was one stubborn company who was unwilling to look at alternatives. And the knew they could get it, because Obama is a union shill
To active CEO's, and many of the Obama appointees are deferring their CEO pensions while they are in office to avoid a conflict of interest, something that Bush appointees didnt even consider. Not to mention that circa 2007-8, the actions of a few CEO's gave everyone in that position a bad name.
Again, it's only okay because Obama does it a little differently? lol okay.
So taking an ideological stand is more important than funding our military while it is involved in overseas operations? With Gitmo, it is not Gitmo itself that is impractical, the process of closing it is impractical because of statutory language that House Republicans continue to pass in appropriations bills that leaves no room for the President to do anything about Gitmo and still keep tabs on the detainees there.
We wouldn't need more military funding if we weren't starting wars all over the goddamn place, and weren't using our military as police.
So, when are democrats gonna stop blaming republicans for everything?
Let's review, shall we? The Bill of Rights sets out standards for rights, talking about which ones we have, how they are administered and which ones the government shouldn't be allowed to touch.
The Bill of Rights is inalienable, and while I'm no constitutional scholar, I'm 99% sure that is is impossible to legally alter it.
That's called an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. Focusing our areas on new, unproven technologies while completely abandoning centuries of use of coal and oil overnight would be catastrophic. Until most of the country is more reliant on green technology and less reliant on traditional sources of energy, we can't just walk away from investments we've made over the last century, although we can (as in the case of deep water drilling and coal) begin to draw down our reliance on those technologies as other forms of energy become more prominent.
We agree. But he doesn't word things this way, nor did he campaign this way. I remember specific speeches where he demonized the coal industry where he said he was actually going to raise taxes on fossil fuels.
Major operations were over inside the 90-day window. After that, our involvement fell to a level that didn't meet the requirement envisioned by the WPA.
We're still bombing Yemen, which was started Nov. 7. More than 90 days ago
We're still bombing Somalia, which was started January 2012. More than 90 days ago.
The WPA is another limit placed on the executive power to control the military and how it is used. If the Executive fails to justify a major military operation to Congress within the time window established, Congress can recall American troops to prevent more military deaths in a war that failed to meet any kind of political legitimacy. How is that a bad thing?
The WPA is not a limit. It's just the opposite. It allows the president to get into quagmires that are illegal. Congress has not legally declared or authorized a war since 1942. And every war since the WPA was passed, has been longer than 90 days. Hell, the Afghan war is the LONGEST continuous conflict in US history.
The problem with your argument is that in the 21st century, with rapid globalization of the economy and the interconnectedness of all countries, there is a lot more now that constitutes a 'direct threat' to American interests than what was possible 70 years ago. A destabilizing situation in just about any given country is a threat to American interests (something Obama was wise enough to realize when he sent US forces to fill a short-term, stabilizing role in Libya). That is also why he kept our involvement small-scale and temporary, under the command of NATO forces.
Bullshit. Planes in our airspace. Subs or ships off our shores. Ok. A destabilizing situation is not threatening to the US if we actually put our military where it should be, which is protecting OUR borders, not the borders of some middle eastern dictatorship.
You're buying into Obama's pro-war propaganda.
First off, there is a difference between reacting to democratic movements underway in other countries and instigating them. In Libya, we got involved only after Libyan rebels were close to ousting Gaddafi, in the same manner that the French got involved after we showed we had the ability to win the Revolution. In Iraq, we stepped in and basically brought them democracy, without any strong movement in place already fighting for what we were bringing. Instances like Libya are how we need to promote American values abroad, rather than imposing them as we did in Iraq.
We should NEVER had gotten involved with Libya. If there was ever a point, it was in the 70's when Gaddhafi killed Americans. But now, no. It wasn't our fight, we had no business there. Just as we have no business in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran, which is or latest sabre-rattling venture.
As for "bringing democracy" overseas...yeah, that's what bites us in the ass. You remember that we installed Saddam, right? And paid Osama? And the current Iranian power structure?
We do not need to be promoting our values overseas, for two big reasons. A) They do not want it. B) We have to force it on them by killing them.
These aren't neo-con policies, you just think they are because you see only what you want to see.
No, they're neo-con policies. I know because that's what Democrats werre calling them under Bush. And that's what they were calling them when Romney ran on them.