Re: Here's the deal ...
No, I meant artificially created money by extreme money multipliers -- first in the .COM boom, then again in the housing boom. You do understand the amount of money in the economic is dynamic, correct? Now we're trying to backfill that with just direct, federal money that doesn't exist.
I'm not saying Obama is to blame. I'm just saying nothing has changed.
The so-called ".COM boom" and "housing boom" are completely different from one another and arose from different circumstances. The ".COM" circumstance was purely free market. People were investing their
own money using poor judgment void of any capital investment principles. The "housing boom"/"credit crisis" was free market to a degree. I say to a degree because supply/demand elasticity with money was all but none existent. Banks were giving away money for any and every thing...meanwhile interest rates never corresponded or went up accordingly. Housing prices did what they were supposed to do under the circumstances, go up. However, when consumer John Doe took his income verification of $60k per year into the bank to try and buy a $400K home...the bank asked, "how can we possibly get Mr. Doe into this home" not "how can Mr. Doe possibly pay for this home". The housing prices weren't phony as housing prices are based on market value not some intrinsic value.
To say things aren't changing after unprecedented economic steps by our g'ment to shore up our banking institutions, exchanges, etc.would be a poor rendering of reality. I would question whether or not you've been following the issue if you don't believe anything is changing. But as I'll get to with GiTMO you seem to think some changes happen by fiat or overnight...that's simply unrealistic in a pluralistic government.
Gitmo has not been closed! He's had to restate his policies over and over on Gitmo, the tribunals, etc... He actually brought back many of the W. policies. That's the irony. He's been withholding pictures on detainees, withholding access to them, doing the same things to the ACLU that W. did, etc... He campaigned on "transparency" and then turned around and said (essentially), "oh, the W. policy is what we should still do."
When our government decides to close something such as a base, detention facility or otherwise...what do you think has to happen?? Do you honestly believe it's a matter of snapping fingers and it's done?? Obama signed an executive order closing the facility within a year. EVEN IF there were funding for it and a plan, closing it STILL wouldn't happen overnight. Legally, as long as GiTMO exists the tribunals must exist (even if he disagrees with them) because there must be a mechanism (even if imperfect) for trying any detainee in your charge. Otherwise, you are not holding detainees but kidnapping victims. It's purely legaleez.:2 cents: With respect to the pictures....those pictures didn't happen under his watch. He has nothing to hide with them. His argument (which I understand but disagree with him on) is we already know abuses existed, these don't add anything new and their release will hamper investigations. Take that FWIW.
The pictures are my favorite. He claims they are "not as bad" as ones during the W. administration -- pictures that were obtained and released -- but won't. That's pure hypocrisy given his campaign on "transparency." Honestly, how can you explain such? You keep saying Gitmo in the same "lip service" as Obama. I'm a huge ACLU supporter, farthest you can get from "being a Republican," so answer me on that?
Again, I will re-state, do not mistake me for a Republican. Do not make your responses to me like common Republican attitudes, as I do not have them!
I never heard where he's said they were "not as bad"....But THEY'RE ALL "W administration" era photos. You seem to be suggesting these are new and have occurred under Obama and HE'S now hiding them. That's untrue. This is just more spillover from previous administration. These photos have been in litigation since the "W administration" was in office and the Pentagon only recently lost the cases to keep them concealed. It now falls in Obama's lap...since they don't add anything new he logically wants to put the issue to rest. Not have his agenda and political airspace monopolized anymore than it already has been by previous administration bullshit.
As far as Iraq, that was all decided before he entered office. We'll see when something changes that was not decided before him.
When did I ever "hope he fails?" Do not throw me in that pile of shit with the Republicans (or like Democrats on W. before Obama). I never stated such. Stop thinking I'm "against Obama" or throwing anything I say as "against Obama."
I'm glad you point out it was signed before he got into office. However, it was Obama's position long before it was the position of the person who signed the order. So that guy changed to meet Obama...not the other way around.
Sorry for lumping you in with GOPers...you just make the same misinformed arguments they make though...my bad.:o
