Home Non Cigar Related

Hypocrite

KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
So Obama signs the Omnibus spending bill today with 9,000 earmarks in it, then lectures us on how there needs to be earmark reform? Give me a freaking break, can you say hypocrite?
«13

Comments

  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    We can say Hypocrite. Problem is the media nor his underlings can say it to him.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    do as he says not as he does.

    we have to remember to judge him by his good intentions not his successes or failures. We have to like him because he cares.


    ...so much for change.
    I hope i have change in my pocket when he is done with me.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Krieg:
    So Obama signs the Omnibus spending bill today with 9,000 earmarks in it, then lectures us on how there needs to be earmark reform? Give me a freaking break, can you say hypocrite?
    We have been discussing the same thing over on the Stimulus Package thread. It's a disgrace that so many people bought into his middle of the road attitude during the campaign because now we are going to be paying for it for years! Our great grandchildren will be paying for his legislation.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    kuzi16:
    do as he says not as he does.

    we have to remember to judge him by his good intentions not his successes or failures. We have to like him because he cares.


    ...so much for change.
    I hope i have change in my pocket when he is done with me.
    I get his brand of "Change" everyday when I change my son's diapers... It smells about the same!
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    irresponsible spending and borrowing got us into this mess. more of the same wont help.

    it wouldnt be a good idea to pay off your credit cards with other credit cards. you dont get anywhere, you dont create wealth. you always lose in that situation. If that strategy worked, why dont we spend a trillion a day? that way we will get back one and a half trillion.

    we are spending so much money right now its scary.
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    I just heard last week that because he is spending so much that the FDIC will become insolvent within a year. If this happens, I can see people rushing to the banks and pulling out all thier money. Which is what happened in the Great Depression. Obama is spending our country into oblivion.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    Krieg:
    I just heard last week that because he is spending so much that the FDIC will become insolvent within a year. If this happens, I can see people rushing to the banks and pulling out all thier money. Which is what happened in the Great Depression. Obama is spending our country into oblivion.
    of course, when Reagan was doing his spending (now where near as much) he was a horrible president.

    but he lowered taxes and raised revenue... but dont tell that to a liberal, it doesnt FEEL GOOD to lower taxes on everyone including the rich.

    typical class envy
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    Krieg:
    I just heard last week that because he is spending so much that the FDIC will become insolvent within a year. If this happens, I can see people rushing to the banks and pulling out all thier money. Which is what happened in the Great Depression. Obama is spending our country into oblivion.
    of course, when Reagan was doing his spending (now where near as much) he was a horrible president.

    but he lowered taxes and raised revenue... but dont tell that to a liberal, it doesnt FEEL GOOD to lower taxes on everyone including the rich.

    typical class envy
    yup. How hard is to figure out that lower taxes on "rich" people would actually help the economny. don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor person.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    Krieg:
    don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor person.
    FANTASTIC!
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    Krieg:
    don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor person.
    FANTASTIC!
    and remarkably short-sighted
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    Krieg:
    don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor person.
    FANTASTIC!
    and remarkably short-sighted
    Why do you say that is so short sighted? Because it is a realistic statement and not a DNC talking point?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    Krieg:
    don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor person.
    FANTASTIC!
    and remarkably short-sighted
    have YOU ever got a job from a poor person?
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Most of us have. You certainly have.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    dutyje:
    Most of us have. You certainly have.
    Ok, you are really going to need to elaborate on that one cause that made no sense. I've never gotten a job from a "poor person."
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    poor compared to who?

    not to me. everyone i have ever worked for has had more money than i have. thats how i could get paid. they took their money and, in exchange for a service that i provided, gave it to me. they had money. they gave it to me. if they did not have that money they could not give it to me.

    the government does not have that money. they have to TAKE IT from me, or print it. both of those options are poor.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    PuroFreak:
    dutyje:
    Most of us have. You certainly have.
    Ok, you are really going to need to elaborate on that one cause that made no sense. I've never gotten a job from a "poor person."
    Your failure to understand this is symptomatic of the mentality that drove trickle-down economics. Your saying that you've never gotten a job from a "poor person" is like a government employee saying he's never gotten a job from a citizen.

    Citizens, obviously, do not directly hire government employees. Poor people do not directly hire anybody. It is the remarkable efficiency with which a poor person circulates money that creates jobs for masses of people.

    Of course, if you stick to micro-economic principles, and track the lifespan of a dollar not more than a few steps from its acquisition, you'll never be able to understand why this is the case. You'll also continue to be baffled by the fact that the majority of professional economists are registered Democrats.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Of course, if you stick to micro-economic principles, and track the lifespan of a dollar not more than a few steps from its acquisition, you'll never be able to understand why this is the case. .
    I do see what you are saying, but you have to know that there is more to econ than macro economics. thatts why there is a such thing as micro.

    within the lifespan of that dollar, it goes from hand to hand, poor to rich and back again. one feeds off of the ohter. they are connected. some people just make better decisions with their money. If a poor person doesnt just go out and buy booze then all of a sudden he is saving and is worth a bit more. if that trend continues, he will improve his life.
    dutyje:
    You'll also continue to be baffled by the fact that the majority of professional economists are registered Democrats.
    prove that statement. please.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    Of course, if you stick to micro-economic principles, and track the lifespan of a dollar not more than a few steps from its acquisition, you'll never be able to understand why this is the case. .
    I do see what you are saying, but you have to know that there is more to econ than macro economics. thatts why there is a such thing as micro.
    dutyje:
    You'll also continue to be baffled by the fact that the majority of professional economists are registered Democrats.
    prove that statement. please.
    I'm not saying micro-econ is unimportant. I'm saying that we're applying those principles to a macro-economic situation. Micro-economics is the most important thing to know and understand for your own personal finances, and for the operation of your own business, and for your decision to invest in other businesses. Without a good grasp of these concepts, you will go bankrupt.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html

    48 percent -- Democrats

    17 percent -- Republicans

    27 percent -- Independents

    3 percent -- Libertarian

    5 percent -- Other or not registered
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    48 percent -- Democrats

    17 percent -- Republicans

    27 percent -- Independents

    3 percent -- Libertarian

    5 percent -- Other or not registered
    that means that 52% are NOT democrats. thats a minority. less than half are democrats. i know what you are trying to say. but saying that "most are democrats" is false. only 48% are.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    OK.. based on the review, let me revise my top-of-the-head statistic to be a more accurate "nearly 3 times as many professional economists are Democrats than are Republicans"

    Seems pretty overwhelming to me
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    kuzi16:
    dutyje:
    48 percent -- Democrats

    17 percent -- Republicans

    27 percent -- Independents

    3 percent -- Libertarian

    5 percent -- Other or not registered
    that means that 52% are NOT democrats. thats a minority. less than half are democrats. i know what you are trying to say. but saying that "most are democrats" is false. only 48% are.
    Haha Damn, you beat me to it! I was about to say the same thing. And if we need to learn Macro economics, then you need to go back to elementry school and learn some "persentages" duty! ;)~ haha
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    OK.. based on the review, let me revise my top-of-the-head statistic to be a more accurate "nearly 3 times as many professional economists are Democrats than are Republicans"

    Seems pretty overwhelming to me
    worse yet, 65% are republicans OR democrats
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    You know, when I went hunting for the article, and saw the percentages, I rolled my eyes at the 48%. Would either of you argue that the proportions are statistically insignificant? There were more registered Democrats than Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians combined.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    dutyje:
    OK.. based on the review, let me revise my top-of-the-head statistic to be a more accurate "nearly 3 times as many professional economists are Democrats than are Republicans"

    Seems pretty overwhelming to me
    Except that most Libertatians beleive in Conservative economic policy, and say that the independants are sllit 50/50 on which way they believe. That puts it at approx 2/3 of them are republicans. Still not all democrats are hardcore leftist economists.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    OK, if you want to count Libertarians as Republicans, go ahead. Now let's look at the Independents, and where they stand on economic policy. For that, you will have to read the survey. There, you will find an even more striking conclusion, in that the majority of registered Independents believed that Obama's (Democratic) economic policy was superior.

    So go ahead and (incorrectly) take all the Libertarians.. and (incorrectly) half the Independents.. then also (incorrectly) take all the unregistered / other... and tell me if the difference is still statistically significant.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    i mean, time will tell.

    but, so far the markets have zero confidence in the Obama plan. since elected the market has dropped 30% and since hes taken office its dropped 20%. now, i know not all of that was caused by him, but the markets are run off of company futures. every time Obama comes out with a new part of his plan, the market goes down because they are scared of the taxes and regulation that could hurt business.

    only time will tell. we, as a nation, elected him. now we have to live with it.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    dutyje:
    OK, if you want to count Libertarians as Republicans, go ahead. Now let's look at the Independents, and where they stand on economic policy. For that, you will have to read the survey. There, you will find an even more striking conclusion, in that the majority of registered Independents believed that Obama's (Democratic) economic policy was superior.

    So go ahead and (incorrectly) take all the Libertarians.. and (incorrectly) half the Independents.. then also (incorrectly) take all the unregistered / other... and tell me if the difference is still statistically significant.
    No, thats not what I said because I do not support strictly Republicans. What I said was that most Libertatians have a conservative outlook on economic policly. I did not say they are Republicans so please don't misquote.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,634 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    So go ahead and (incorrectly) take all the Libertarians..
    go ahead and (incorrectly) assume you understand the libertarian movement.

    libertarians are for the individual freedom of people. they are for less government in all situations. this includes less taxes, and less government spending.

  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    I'll do my part. I love consuming! I think I'm having Texas beef brisket tonight! With Some Idaho potatoes.
Sign In or Register to comment.