TheRealMafoo said:
So if Bush had done this 6 months ago, Akuma would be praising him for it? I think not. I have no problems with the troops being send there, but Obama's campaign promise was to reduce the troops in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan. He has shown no signs of reducing troops in Iraq. Also, as far as campaign promises. He said he wants to give congress 5 days on every bill, so they could properly read it. The biggest spending package in US history come up, and people are given 12 hours. Trillion of dollars are pouring out of government, and they are broke. Trillions more are going to. How come I am the only one who sees this as a bad thing? Oh, and just for fun, here is a good way to visualize a trillion dollars. If you took a trillion 1 dollar bills, and stacked them up. The would reach a third of the way to the moon. Before it's over, Obama will give away (yes, just give away) enough to reach the moon. The government doesn't make money. The only way the can give money, is to take it from someone. If Obama really wanted to simulate the economy, he would not have to give me $20,000. Just stop taking it away from me to give $20,000 to someone else. I have my own mortgage to pay. Looks like I am going to have other peoples to pay as well. |
I cannot speak for Akuma, but I have no problem giving credit where credit is due.
I sing praises for Bush when he came out with the "donotcall.gov" site where you can put yourself on the do-not-call lists of telemarketers.
Also, I was glad that he forced the cell companies to give up their cell numbers (meaning that say, you can keep your cell number if you switched from ATT to Verizon, for example).
So if he did something I agreed with, I am not so petty that I will ignore the good things he did.
As for the 5 day signing thing, yes, Obama did already break that promise when he first came into office. It was a couple small things that he signed during the first day; according to his campaign, he would have had to wait until his 5th day before he actually signed anything to allow the PUBLIC to comment on it.
The stimulus bill had weeks upon weeks for congress to look over it and debate it. It wasn't like Obama dropped a 1200 page bill on their desks the night before and forced them to sign it.
Additionally, his promise was to allow the PUBLIC to look it over and comment on it before he signed it. I'm not sure when the bill was voted on, but I think it was a Thursday Night/Friday Morning and Obama didn't sign it until Tuesday (since it was president's day weekend). So there WAS a 4 or 5 day waiting period.
As for the mortgage thing, Obama is using money from last stimulus package (signed by your boy Bush). Half of it has already been spent, bailing out the banks, and apparently lining the pockets of the CEOs. Personally, I'd prefer that congress just cancel the first stimulus package and not spend the rest of the 700 billion that's been earmarked. However, given the choice between having the money being funneled to the CEOs without it being tracked, and having it being super transparent so we can see exactly which homes are being saved, I'd choose the latter any day of the week.
Also remember that like 40% of the stimulus bill that was just signed is tax cuts to help the middle class and the poor. I don't get why Republicans don't mention this so much. Probably because there weren't any tax cuts for the rich ^_^
I don't get why its "socialism" when we give tax cuts to the poor, whereas its a "supply side economy" when we give tax cuts to the rich.
