DescentBB

....good thing we didn't elect the person who gave speeches to Wall Street bankers:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/t ... hin-232038

Welp, isn't that wonderful. Now we have the historically richest of all government swamps now FULL of out of touch billionaires, the very people who brought down the economy in 2007. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. Can someone explain to me how they're going to do things that will be the best interests of the average plebeian American?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-history/

Oh, and can someone also explain to me how an idiot and non-veteran Sara Palin would be good at running Veterans Affairs? Make one wonder what John McCain is thinking right now.

oh, let Palin get the job. The GOP will still underfund the VA by 30% like they have for a decade and a half. Palin will crash, burn and likely be funny as hell doing so. The Vets probably will get no worse care than at present, or over the last decades. Sometime, some group of folks will decide we have the moral obligation to spend what is needed on the returning men and women if we're going to justify ever spending on war itself. I see no hopeful signs, and was disappointed as hell by one Obama appointment for the job who I had high expectations for(Shinseki, sp?)

and, in the interest of good, clean fun!

I'd like to hear why the greatest administration in world history (according to slick) failed our military veterans in the VA system in the first place.

Where was Obama for 6 or 7 years while our military veterans were neglected, ignored and sometimes left to die?

Nightshade wrote:I'd like to hear why the greatest administration in world history (according to slick) failed our military veterans in the VA system in the first place.

I stated it rather plainly. Congress has underbudgeted the agency for nearly 20 years. Especially so since the Bush tax cuts. ANYONE would fail to deliver under those circumstances. I believe Obama requested funds on 12 instances, and Congress rejected ALL of them. As always, the haters then point fingers at Obama and whine, when the real issue was elsewhere.

Where was Obama for 6 or 7 years while our military veterans were neglected, ignored and sometimes left to die?

they were VERY active in trying to address the matter, but when you have a 20 billion dollar issue and are given 10 billion to address it, guess what happens? If folks ever get past the reality that Congressional Republicans focused for 8 years on making Obama fail, and wonder why THEY aren't seen as traitors to the nation, we're screwed.

The real problems in the VA were caused by the culture, not the budget.

Spidey wrote:The real problems in the VA were caused by the culture, not the budget.

chicken/egg, Spidey. Chronically understaffed and underfunded organizations develop a jaded, uncaring culture. Happens in private enterprise all the time, not solely some bureaucratic thing.

tunnelcat wrote:Welp, isn't that wonderful. Now we have the historically richest of all government swamps now FULL of out of touch billionaires, the very people who brought down the economy in 2007. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. Can someone explain to me how they're going to do things that will be the best interests of the average plebeian American?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-history/

So you prefer people who were successful at nothing other than sucking up to the right people to people who went out and created success? We just saw the failure of the former type people, lets give the people who know how to be a success a chance.

Oh, and can someone also explain to me how an idiot and non-veteran Sara Palin would be good at running Veterans Affairs? Make one wonder what John McCain is thinking right now. [/quote]

Well lets see, shall we look at some of the people Obama chose for cabinet jobs that had no experience? And before you use the Dem created meme that Palin is a idiot, remember Pail had a 80% approval rate when she was gov. As to running the VA I have to remind you she will have a great adviser right in her family...son in law is a medal of honor recipient:



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/ ... 997874.jpg

one snowflake melts:
https://apnews.com/0f1305c8742547df9bcf ... P_Politics

Oopsie. Palin just burned that bridge. Too bad woodchip.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/s ... ism-232139

burned the bridge? Sounds more like somebody didn't get a job she thought she was owed. Clinton handled that with more class.

tunnelcat wrote:Oopsie. Palin just burned that bridge. Too bad woodchip.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/s ... ism-232139

Saw that earlier and was my thought exactly.

callmeslick wrote:burned the bridge? Sounds more like somebody didn't get a job she thought she was owed. Clinton handled that with more class.

Or she has a sense of integrity...something the left seems to be in short supply.

Yea, Clinton was handed an olive branch after the election, but then decided to join the recount bandwagon…real classy.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:burned the bridge? Sounds more like somebody didn't get a job she thought she was owed. Clinton handled that with more class.

Or she has a sense of integrity...something the left seems to be in short supply.

You know what? She has more integrity than either Pence or Trump. I'll have to hand it to her, at least she's consistently kept to her principles.

Spidey wrote:Yea, Clinton was handed an olive branch after the election, but then decided to join the recount bandwagon…real classy.

Uh huh. How's Trump handling it? Trump proceeded to go out on a several state "victory tour" last week, just to rub his "win" in everyone's face like the prick braggart he is and has been taking to twitter to throw temper tantrums like a 4th grader. All Clinton did was belatedly join a third party recount request. She didn't initiate it, at least that we know of. It doesn't matter anyway. I'll bet you your bottom dollar that Trump would have forced a full country recount if he'd lost by the margin Clinton lost by. He would've been calling for the elimination of the electoral college and demanded a re-vote too. He wouldn't have conceded for weeks or months either. Waaaaaaa! In fact, Trump and crew positively sounded like a bunch sore winners this morning on all the news shows because they just can't seem to get past the fact that Clinton won the popular vote and that Trump didn't get a mandate with the electoral vote.

So far, the Trump sycophant spin-of-the-day today was that most of Trump's campaign "truths", many of which are now turning out to be a hot load of "lies" were, surprise, put forth just to win. But the reason Trump's crew gave for this "inconsistency" is because most of those statements he made were just his "opinions" and opinions aren't fact, or the truth. What a pretzel fest for Pence. I'm wondering when most of his supporters will eventually get buyers remorse? In fact, according to one of this morning's news shows, the exit polling suggested that 25 percent of people who voted for Trump didn't believe he was fit to be president. They only voted for him as a protest vote against Hillary, never once imagining that he'd actually win. Good God.

it's not just the wealth of those he's hiring it's how they GOT their wealth. Foreclosing on grandmothers? Running pyramid scheme 'Universities'? Hose the little guy and make America GREAT!!!!!

I guess the meaning of draining the swamp eludes you. Try the phrase washington insiders in place of wealth. Oh and I see Trump chose Ben Carson for HUD secretary.

these ARE Washington insiders, Woody. Try again. Oh, and while you're at it: remember how the right used to bleat about 'picking winners and losers with taxpayer money". Now, get back to me about what the Carrier 'deal' consists of, again.

Why don't you ask the carrier employees who won't lose their jobs what it means.

woodchip wrote:Why don't you ask the carrier employees who won't lose their jobs what it means.

800 of them. Did I see you dashing about and asking the 2.1 MILLION people who retained their jobs thanks to Obama completing the Auto bailout, that Bush initiated before the end of the term? No, I recall you whining about government picking winners and losers. Yet, that use of taxpayer money was repaid, with interest. No, this was a PR gift to a company Trump owns stock in, paid for by Indiana taxpayers saving 800 jobs without any long-term guarantee, still moving into Mexican production. Why don't you come to grips with the fact your boy is just picking winners and losers, the only difference being enriching himself along the way at taxpayer expense. Or, better still, at the cost of massive deficits, because he's going to cut taxes. Whee!

woodchip wrote:Why don't you ask the carrier employees who won't lose their jobs what it means.

You might want to ask the other 1200 workers, who STILL lost their jobs to Mexico despite Trump's chest thumping BS, on how that Trump deal is working for them? Woody, if you also think that having a bunch of Wall Street insiders running things is different than Washington insiders running things, you're in for a YUGE disappointment, because they are THE SAME animal. In fact, I think they're worse, because they'll run things in favor of greasing their own skids.

while you're on your question and answer tour, Woody, ask the young people trying to buy a new home, or maybe older folks trying to move out and retire, or refinance.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta ... li=BBnbfcN

I'd also love to know just how many of those 800 jobs are going to exist in 15-20 years once automation kicks in even harder.

think more like 2-5 years.