An acquaintance of mine on Facebook, a woman in San Francisco, posted a link to this article.
I politely asked her why it was wrong for Mitt Romney to tell the truth, namely that Spain's spending is completely out of control. I also added:
While I was visiting Germany earlier this year, the Greeks were really angry at Angela Merkel because she told them that they were spending too much. They were and they are. Does that make it wrong for her to tell them the truth?As a Canadian, I will openly tell you all, my American friends, that you're spending way, way too much. Your debt has grown to astronomical levels. Every country in history that has had such high debt compared to what it produces, has suffered a terrible crash with devastating results afterwards. Does me saying this make me undiplomatic and insulting of you?
A quick question you need to ask yourself is this: If Barack Obama had said the same thing as Romney had, would you have felt the same way?
She responded thusly:
Obama hasn't gotten us into this mess, which is the worst recession since the 1930's, and based on the fact that much of the collapse revolved around lack of regulation in the housing loan business, there's no quick fix. Once people started losing their homes, it has a domino effect. George W. Bush is the one who got us into two wars, gave tax cuts, and added medicare benefits without EVER including them in his budget. Obama got the hand he was dealt. And I can tell you that the Republicans have done absolutely EVERYTHING they can to stop every effort he makes to get the economy back on track.
Just curious, how would you respond to this?
Change the subject. Reason and logic have no role in her life, but you can still be friends in the same way you can enjoy a fantasy novel.
I'd love some suggestions, as I'm in a politically-mixed marriage, and that woman's response sounded so much like my husband's that my jaw dropped.
Mostly we just agree to disagree, but sometimes we do try to have a political conversation. (Yeah, we usually end up changing the subject.)
Unfortunately, in the partisan environment we find ourselves in most of us are looking defend to party we are affiliated with rather than seek truth.
So long as someone is not open to evidence but is in full defense mode, there is no room for changing their mind.
First I would send her this chart from instapundits Glenn Reynolds http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/153017/
Then remind her that the Dems had control of Congress, the house, Senate the White House from2008- 2010.
and remind her that it is possible that people disagree with your ideas and want you stopped.
generally there is no point but if you must ask,"At what point would it be his responsiblity? What actions and decisions would he have to make and take in order to convince you that he is not competent?"
Compare/contrast these MSM reports.
...-
"Debt crisis: Spain's jobless flee to Argentina"
"Desperate Spaniards are fleeing in their thousands to set up new lives in Argentina, preferring rampant inflation to the prospect of searching for a job in a country with the highest unemployment rate in the industrialised world."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9592270/Debt-crisis-Spains-jobless-flee-to-Argentina.html
...-
"Spain traveling down the road to success"
"Though Spain may request a loan from the European bailout fund, the country is taking the steps necessary to turn around its economy, according to Walther von Plettenberg of the German Chambers of Commerce for Spain."
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16290006,00.html
I know how you fell, Chris, but I think that you need to stand up to these people.
Remind her that it was the Clinton administration that gave a carte blanche to Fanny and Freddie.
Remind her that it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to deny Presidential initiatives that it believes are a bad idea.
And ask her why her boy can't talk sensibly unless he's reading what someone else has written.
Carter started forcing banks to lend to what we came to know as NINJAs, Clinton expanded the program, Bush II tried (feebly) to rein it in, and the wheels fell off.
The Democrat-controlled House and Senate opted to spend their way out of a recession, and Bush - no slouch at spending himself, opted not to veto their budget (the Dems not being known for putting budgets forward for markep and debate these last 1260+ days since they last did, an abrogation of their duty).
Also Obama's fault are the theft of GM from its creditors, the absolute failure to run an open and transparent White house, the Fast and Furious murders cover up, the various crony deals that have fed funds back to the DNC such as the half billion dollar Solyndra fiasco, the failure of leadership during the gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and subsequent restriction of drilling permits during a time of energy source instability, the cancellation of te Keystome XL pipeline in spite of environmental approvals, the appointment of unqualified Supreme Court Justice based on her race, sex, and politics...
The list goes on. I pulled these from memory and a few minutes of internet research would expose dozens more. As a both a human being and a President, Obama pretty much defines fail: taking the looser crown from Jimmy Carter, and making people look back on the Bush years as the good ol' days, isn't easy in one term.
Sorry Robert; other than the comments above, all I can provide is what my Liberal friends do when trying to provide a reasonable answer to their statements. This is to stick your fingers in your ears and go Lalalalalalalalalal.
Cheers;
Simple response:
Stop blaming Bush. 43 Presidents and 236 years to get to $10 trillion and 1 President and less than 4 years for the next $6 trillion.
Math is hard.
She won't be happy until everyone works for the government. And if that happened we wouldn't need government as we could just stay home and I will pay you and you pay me. That's what all socialists want. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way as governments need the private sector to produce wealth so they can tax it and re-distribute it to the majority of the population working for government pushing useless paper and not producing anything.
I just came back from a month in Italy and France and it seemed that 50 or 60 % of the population worked for government and the remaining 30-40% serve coffee to each other.
They don't produce wealth they just spend what little they have left and what they can borrow. As Maggie Thatcher said Eventually Socialism runs out of other peoples money to spend.
This is all you have to show anyone with a brain.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
By the way Bush's regime killed approximately 500 people in the 8 years he was president with drones. Obama has killed over 6000 people with drones in less than 4 years.
He's been involved with more wars than Bush was, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, He'll eventually go after Syria and Iran and possibly be forced to take on the Brotherhood in Egypt if he is re-elected.
Just laugh and say, 'If Obama was to get re-elected, just imagine the mess he'd inherit this time!"
Explain to her that it was under the Democratic administrations that the pressure was put on the mortgage and lending institutions, such as Freddy and Fanny, to loan money to those who do not qualify for them. It was the fantasy that the great "American Dream of everyone owning their own home", something that all liberals and socialists would call equality, was the driver behind these ideas. Just because you can own a home, does not mean you have the ability and the wherewithal to hold that responsibility firmly in your grasp.
It was when the Government got involved and started to regulate (read: force) the loaners to lend that the greed of human nature was sparked and it turned into a firestorm of corruption and lies. The rules of the market which kept the citizens safe from greed and exploitation we thrown under the bus. Banks which tried to hold firm to the rules because they were prudent and wise lost out on the multi-billions of dollars which were being tossed around and the shareholders were bailing on them when they didn't get the ROI's that those who were participating were getting.
Fast forward to 2008 and the same mindset was already ingrained in the psyche of the populate for the election of the first African(Black)American POTUS. The vetting and hard questions of who Obama was and what the long term outcome of his ideas and training were going to do to the Nation were either ignored or suppressed, which was the role of the willing idiots whom we will call the MSM. The people did not want to hear the truth, but instead had the "feeling" that this was a really good idea and wanted to say that they had marked their "X" beside his name and made history.
Point out that Obama's spending policies and Bush's are indistinguishable and that the 'lack of regulation' she speaks of does not exist outside of her head. Taunt her and be condescending like I normally am.
The severe financial crisis was not caused by mortgages, per se, but by unregulated financial derivatives, and the implicit backing by the federal government of those financial institutions doing the trading of them.
The story begins in the Clinton Administration, not with Bush. In 1997 and 1998, Clinton's Treasury officials colluded with the Fed Chairman to prevent Ms. Brooksley Born from regulating those devivates, and fought her for two years, until she resigned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Then, Treasury Secretary Rubin helped with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing Wall Street free reign. With mission accomplished, Rubin returned to Wall Street, where he made tens of millions, while the financial system almost collapsed.
Obama completed the farce by appointing wall streeters with ties to Rubin to "solve" the financial problem. He appointed financial foxes to clean up that mess in the hen house.
Remind her of what she said: ".... Obama got the hand he was dealt. "
Everybody gets dealt the cards - when's Obama going to stop blaming the cards and start playing shrewd, pay-dirt winning cards ...? I don't think he knows how!
MM
just a few thoughts to respond with.
there was a little known lawyer during the era of the clinton administration suing large banks on behalf of unqualified applicants under the auspice of racial prejudice.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112
andrew cuomo around this time (HUB secretary under clinton) that they will start enforcing this policy. of course, this is related to cra legislation expanded by clinton. clinton administration era policies also allowed glass-steagall to be rolled back. i personally don't think that this was a cause of the collapse and was unrelated to housing so much, but many liberals like to cite is as a regulation that could have saved the financial sector had it remained in place...hogwash.
also, gateway pundit has a timeline of warnings about the gse's that were making and giving the ratings industry all sorts of excuses to give high ratings to mortgage-backed securities that were being bundled by most of the large banks. these were after all had the defacto backing of the us government, the single most reliable investment in history. it's also instructive to mention who was in charge (and making untold millions) while running the various gse's or doing business with them (countrywide), many clinton-era appointees or friends eg. harold raines and anthony mozilo.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/
it's also pretty interesting that the great saviors of the regulatory regime for the financial sector such as chris dodd are as embroiled in the incest and failure of the regulations on the books in the first place. consider that chris dodd and kent conrad were getting sweetheart loans from countrywide...nancy pelosi's kid was employed there. the democrats that took over congress in 2006 have a horrible record on housing and financial regulations. is that really where some are willing to go?
and since the congress changed hands in '06 then with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate in '08 along with the whitehouse, exactly what economic reforms have the republicans been able to thwart? it's difficult to really know since there was never a budget passed in the last four years against us law despite the democratic control of all of washington, but we do know that obama's great plan for post election implementation has been floated to be another stimulus bill. really? since the cash for clunkers, green energy debacles, and the shovel-ready projects worked out so well the first time.
meanwhile the president who is so concerned with jobs and economic fixes was so intent on creating a legacy that he spent all of his political capital on creating a new entitlement by buying off half of congress, when we can't pay for any of the existing entitlements, to say nothing of the amount of golfing and fundraising that took time away from office.
one thing we do know though is that the economic situation is not looking that good lately even considering that ridiculous 7.8% unemployment figure that completely ignores the near-historic levels of worker-participation.
Copy and paste the comment above from glacierman.
It really was Barney Frank and Bill Clinton who made the decision to put a condo in every pot.
They ordered the banks and mortgage companies to provide mortgages to people regardless of these rather important points.
1. If they could possibly make the payments.
2. Were employed or unemployed, or unemployable.
3. Wanted a mortgage.
It was race based decision making, They wanted the American Dream for every citizen, and decided that minorities participation in the housing market was not in the same percentages as white folks.
They saddled millions of people with mortgages they had no hope of, or interest in, repaying.
The collapse of this segment led to the collapse of the family home, some in the family for 100 years as the lending bubble burst.
You can blame the greedy banks and lenders who laid off the bad paper, but you have to come back and look at Barney and Bill.
Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House for the first 2 years. They could have done anything they wanted, but Obama was busy golfing.
Simply ask what exactly did Obama and the Democrats do as the housing crisis bubbled, and how was it different from Bush, keeping in mind that Democrats controlled both congressional committees that oversaw banking at the time?
The answer of course is they loved the bubble, urging Fannie and Freddie to take on ever more debt to support subprime lending.
It's scandalous that the Dems have been blue to skate away from their primary responsibility for the bubble.
Well, my suggestion to her: It involves sex, and it involves travel.....
Simply ask what exactly did Obama and the Democrats do as the housing crisis bubbled, and how was it different from Bush, keeping in mind that Democrats controlled both congressional committees that oversaw banking at the time?
The answer of course is they loved the bubble, urging Fannie and Freddie to take on ever more debt to support subprime lending.
It's scandalous that the Dems have been able to skate away from their primary responsibility for the bubble.
Kyla wins, I say:
'If Obama was to get re-elected, just imagine the mess he'd inherit this time!"
BTW this is interesting: Barry promising to do the same things in 2008 and 2012
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/obama-plagiarizes-own-debate-promises-fr?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29
If I were advising Romney (not that he needs it) I would suggest he say "But you've been president for 3 and a half years already and only now we are hearing about your great plans" in his answer to every question.
And, folks, if you want another good laugh, see what the New Yorker said about Eastwood's performance when it happened (and long before it dreamed that it would be channeling him).
For example
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/08/clint-eastwood-spoils-mitt-romneys-big-night.html
Obama is Bush, but on steroids.
Bush's wars equal just one Obama stimulus.
They both are corporatist lackies. However, Romney might actually get rid of the fascist turd Obamacare.
Obama had a Democrat congress for two years. They continued Bush's fiscal policies. Both parties believe in magical deficits that will pay for themselves. Yes, the Republicans believe "deficits don't matter" like a cult, but Democrats say they care for everyone, not just a percentage of the population, so they are bigger hypocrites.
Bush = Obama. However, Obamabots are more delusional than Bushbots.
They didn't care about providing the means to the American dream to everyone, they wanted their votes.
The big Owe did not inherit the problems/mess, whatever you may call it. He APPLIED for the job of returning the country to fiscal health and got his wish. he has been an abject failure. He does not deserve a passing grade. A failing grade would be giving him far too much credit. He failed to get the job done and needs to be replaced.
Actually, inheriting a mess isn't such a bad deal. A lot of presidents have done very little but take credit for the natural rebound of the economy. Most people are willing to give a president a chance to deliver a significant improvement; they don't expect it solved in four years.
Obozo's problem was getting side tracked with health care right away which created a vast amount of uncertainty.
And about those wars - the actual figures for those are surprisingly low.
Let her get what's coming to her - full blown socialism.
And when she's "entitled" to health care, but there are no doctors, let alone medical supplies,
she can sit and think about it for a while as she dies at the age of 54.
The Obama wasn't stuck with anything because he asked to be President. He campaigned to be President (please. please) with full Knowledge of the State of the Economy. He promised that if elected he would FIX the Economy. He has failed! Why cry how bad it was, it could have been worse...Nothing will fix Stupid
IMHO Obama & the progressives created most of the LOST confidence in the Economy/Market. The normal "Float" (money in the air) was lost and won't come back until Mitt is elected. They brought everything to a full Stop.
Obama’s Marxism is the Obama problem...
She's from San Francisco. What do you expect?
Point out to her that firemen 'inherit' messes too, but they don't pour gasoline on them!
Seriously though, she lives in San Francisco, a city with a debt of $2.6Billion, within a state with a debt of between $167 and $335Billion, within a country with a debt of $16Trillion and unfunded liabilities totalling another $100Trillion. If she doesn't understand now that too much money has been and is being borrowed, she never will.
I would respond: Immature people complain about the past, and make excuses. Mature leaders find a path to success, get opposing opinions aligned, and lead to greatness. Ask yourself, why haven't the Republicans supported Obama? Ask yourself, in which countries have Obama level spending led to greater success as a nation?
I would respond: Immature people complain about the past, and make excuses. Mature leaders find a path to success, get opposing opinions aligned, and lead to greatness. Ask yourself, why haven't the Republicans supported Obama? Ask yourself, in which countries have Obama level spending led to greater success as a nation?
Looks like we are both talking to the same person! I too have friends down in Northern California and one of them was here a few weeks back. I spent several days bringing her around to seeing things as they were. But after only a couple days back in lala land she has reverted right back where she was. Check that; she is actually worse now. She flies off the handle if I even dare raise politics now. It's sad, but I think our lefty friends are no longer capable of reason. They have checked out of the reality hotel and will not be coming back any time soon.
They could find the guts to pass a budget, rather than hiding under a bush :-)
1. No, it does not make her wrong for telling the truth.
2.No,You are not undiplomatic or insulting.
3. Yes
Notice that I answered your questions without blaming one political party. Unlike all the other responses.
I'd have a hard time remaining friends with someone incapable of a rational conversation.
It's fine to disagree, but if you can't ask a simple question and get a simple answer, then there's not much of a friendship going on.
I have plenty of friends and family who are on the other side of the spectrum. Either they avoid the subject of politics, or they allow a rational discussion when the subject comes up. If they insist on bringing up the subject but cannot allow a rational discussion when they do so, then I'm done with them. What else can you do?
The fact that Bush inherited a death spiral from Clinton is usually not brought up. At the end of the sainted Clinton administration the shit was beginning to hit the proverbial fan and then just after inauguration, along came 9/11. Not to say Bush doesn't deserve some blame, but the idea that it is all his fault is absurd. With the one and only "O", it's I did this and I did that I killed binLaden, blah blah blah but the deficit is Bushes fault.Watching him get his come uppance at the debate was beautiful to behold but now the meme is Romney Lied. About what? This is getting uglier by the day and the great uniter is dividing the entire world. Thanks God my wife agrees with me. At first she liked him but over the years, she just has a complete sense of disgust every time his visage in on the tube. She couldn't watch the debate but loved the fact he got demolished. Of course if you believe the Dems, he actually won. Can you believe it?
Robert, before responding to your friend in San Francisco, ask her if she has ever criticized a Democratic policy or politician. If (when) the answer is "No", do not bother discussing politics at all; it's a waste of time and effort.
Remember this old gem:
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
Lack of Regulation? SERIOUSLY?
This mess is a direct result of regulation, regulation by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that establish underwriting guidelines and approvals. Loans don't get approved by the banks, they get approved for purchase by Fannie and Freddie. who then sell them again as guaranteed government bonds.
THis whole clusterf-age was driven by the government and crooks like Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae
Ask her why she ignored your initial questions.
Ask her why she ignored your initial questions.
Nothing you say will change her mind.
Remember when people didn't talk about politics or religion?
Well, there was a reason: it's the best way to lose friends.
If Romney wins the election and she sees the change with her own eyes, only then will she possibly see the light.
Remember, the same people who hated Harper when he was running for office still hate him.
Right, Rahm Emanuel and Franklin Raines as CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't have anything to do with the loans they bought from the banks? You remember those two Clinton appointees who enriched themselves by goosing the number of loans they bought and sold under the guise of social justice, just to give themselves millions in bonuses. They set the rules for the banks to loan money for mortgages (which Freddie and Fannie bought) to people who were economically at the margins. They, Rahm and Franklin lied to the bond rating agencies claiming the loans they were bundling were credit worthy. Millions of investors lost billions because they were lied to by self serving Democrats who made millions for themselves in bonuses. Franklin Raines was brought to justice by being forced to repay some $14 million in bonuses, Rahm Emanuel got of Scott Free.
How easily you forget that it was Democrats who promised in the 2006 elections to bring down the price of gas just to win that election, they broke their promise. In doing so millions of economical marginal people lost their jobs and thus their ability to tread water in making mortgage payments. The very month Democrats took power of Congress in January 2007, the unemployment rate started going up, this is an undeniable fact, check for yourself the monthly unemployment stats on the BLS website. I defy you to check and prove me a liar.
When Democrats failed, George W Bush lowered the price of gas by removing the executive order on the drilling ban for the east coast so that by the time Obama took office it was $1.89 per gallon. What is the price of gas today and who continues to block domestic off shore drilling? Obama Who didn't deliver on allowing drilling off the coast? Obama Who blocked and sent away most of the Gulf of Mexico deep sea drilling rigs to Brazil? Obama Who told the Brazilians he wanted the US to be their best customer? Obama Who caused thousands of oil workers on those rigs to lose their high paying jobs? Obama
If you want to vote for a guy who caused thousands of full time net tax payers to become consumers of food stamps and unemployment checks, please by all means vote for the incompetent. By the way, virtually all of the so called 4 million jobs created under Obama's watch are part time positions NOT full time jobs paying benefits like health insurance. Way to go Obama! Give him 4 more years and even more people will be working for less. This is the wealth redistribution that Obama promised.
You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into to begin with. I don't see much benefit to continuing the conversation.
Forget about blaming Bush, or for that matter Clinton who actually started the mortgage mess with unrestricted mortgages to people with unverified income or assets.
America needs to get people back to work, off of government dependency and Food Stamps. Working people pay taxes and until people are contributing and the economy is thriving again, America will continue to be on the edge of existence.
Obama never was up to the job. Dump him now.
Facts are facts. You can't have opinions on facts!
The fact that Bush inherited a death spiral from Clinton
What?
Robert, I have known people such as your friend. I once simultaneously worked with a diehard Democrat lesbian and a diehard Republican whose wife worked for an oil company. Watching the two "talk" with one another about politics was fascinating. Sorta like watching two ping-pong balls being shaken in a large plexiglass box. Most of the time there was no interaction in the conversation; each was just projecting a diatribe into the ether. Every once in a while their monologs collided hard and violently, but mostly their rhetorical paths were non-interacting.
I finally had an insight when I thought about how each of them talked about their life-partners. I realized that loyalty was the primary value of each of them, not just in personal relationships, but also in politics. I concluded that the only way to change the views of either of them would be to get them to switch their party loyalty - a near impossibility since their loyalties had the intensity of religious fervor and such a switch would be an all-or-nothing affair.
As to your SF friend, don't discuss politics with her unless you want to get the latest pro-Obama talking points. If you have no interest in maintaining a friendship with her, suggest that she move out of SF before her brain damage becomes permanent.