Huffington Post Comments, 10/16/2012

Me:

(If you meant me) I thank you for your kind comment.

However, the republicans did not, and do not, like Obama's policies, they wanted his policies to fail to become laws.

If you ask them they would say that they wanted Obama to be a successful president; they want the country to do well. They thought that the way to do that was to prevent as many of Obama's policies as possible from becoming laws.

In any case. The democrats had 2008-2010 to pass all of the laws that they wanted and they did not even pass a budget.

egdot

I see. So  it was as a result of patriotism that the GOP took this country to the brink with the debt ceiling? When Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Obama failed within about a week of his inauguration, that was his deep love for his country? They wanted certain people in the country to do well - the "1%"; "the haves and have mores" - as Bush liked to call them. It simply isn't correct that they had two years to pass anything - the Blue Dogs actually are "Conservative Dems" or Republicans.  Apart from anything - many Republicans voted against ideas they'd previously supported - to ensure Obama's failure. After the inauguration a cabal of them plotted to obstruct everything he did. It's called treason - the opposite of patriotism. 

Me:

We seem to have a difference of opinion about what is important about the federal debt.  The debt ceiling is merely an arbitrary number that is raised whenever we get close to it.

If you are concerned about the debt, then I will direct your attention to the amount of debt that has been added during Obama's presidency.

"The deficit in 2012 [for Obama's proposed budget] would equal $1.3 trillion (or 8.1 percent of gross domestic product), $82 billion more than the 2012 deficit projected in CBO's baseline." http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43083

Since Obama became president the federal deficit has tripled, or nearly tripled, the highest deficit recorded during the previous administration. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (Table 1.1)

President Bush ran a yearly deficit, so has president Obama.  Couldn't we say that Obama is continuing Bush's budget policies.  And at least President Bush signed budgets into law, unlike Obama.

My first comment was a paraphrase of Rush's comments on the subject.  (The only time that I've ever quoted or paraphrased him.) Rush said, repeatedly, he wants the country to succeed.  In order for that to happen he (and I) think that President Obama's policies need to fail.

Could you name one issue where "Republicans voted against ideas they'd previously supported"?

Rather than call people who have voted against Obama's bills "traitors" wouldn't we all be better served finding places where we can balance the budget?

***

Me:

We have 300,000 pages of laws covering every aspect of our lives. You cannot claim that, in the presence of all of these laws, that it was a lack of regulations that caused our current situation. You might argue that the regulators did not do their jobs. If so, how would adding more laws, that they won't enforce, improve anything?

Another thing to take note of: the two worst depressions in American history happened when the government tried to help more than at any other time. (See: New Deal, Stimulus)

I was not asking you to embrace CEOs. Some of them are bad. Just like some teachers, nurses, and scientists are bad. But they are not all the villains that you are claiming them to be.

I think that we can agree that all subsidies and bailouts for big businesses, or anyone else, are bad and we should encourage our politicians to oppose them in the future.

Where is the evidence that says some businesses are "forcing" their employees to vote in any way?

Nearly all union money (which comes from dues, weather or not the union member wants to belong to it) goes to democrats. Are you opposed to this as well?

Union members fined for not supporting Warren: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-unions-fining-members-who-dont-support-warren_654203.html

Taiyo

So your bottom line is: smaller government, fewer regulations, but it's okay if your boss tells you who to vote for. Brilliant.

Me:

Your first two statements of my positions are correct.

Where did you get the idea that I, or anyone else, wants an employer to tell his/her employees who to vote for?

For the record: Neither I, nor anyone that I know of, wants employers to influence their employees how to vote.

Have you a comment on the filmed evidence of Unions fining people for not supporting Elizabeth Warren?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-unions-fining-members-who-dont-support-warren_654203.html

I think that this is just as bad as what you are accusing businesses of.

***

Me:

Thanks for the compliment.

If you are interested in reading about my attempts to convince the left check out the "Debates in the Comments" section on my blog.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/search/label/Debates%20in%20the%20Comments

I find that their name calling and insults to be particularly amusing:

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/09/huffington-post-comments-review-i.html



mrovin1

cool.