Barack Obama

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by sesame

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?

Quote:However, the technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term. Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency.

Sesame, I think you might be missing the point of the article relative to Tracy's post.

The REASON that China -- as well as Russia and other now-vocal countries like Brazil among others -- are calling for an all-new "global currency" (as Tracy pointed out) is BECAUSE they are "holding more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets dominated in any other individual foreign currency" (to re-quote the article). They want to GET RID of all those dollar-based securities they're currently holding in their own banks. They want to DUMP them and no longer be tied to U.S. economics or market fluctuations. The problem is they can't do it now because of the crisis and the fact that so much of the world economy...including their own...is centered ON the dollar. Hence, they want to break FROM the dollar as soon as possible and create an all-new currency that they CAN control on their own terms.

The result being that Tracy's post is completely accurate in terms of the point she was trying to make. Things ARE going to get A LOT rougher in the days and years ahead as these countries do whatever they can to start dumping their dollars and dollar-based securities. And things will get A LOT rougher for America as these same countries likewise refuse to buy up our outstanding debt loads -- which again, is the cornerstone of our own system and it's what Obama desperately needs and is literally PRAYING will happen (ie. countries buying OUR debt) in order to keep our own economy afloat.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TGirl lover

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.

Democrats should have picked Hilary as their candidate. Right now, I would love to have her as president. And she's not even on my top 500 list.

[sesame]

Ok, Creativemind, lets assume for a moment that America's economy is shaking right now;and lets also assume that this group of other countries including China buys US debt!! And then in one strategic sweep they cause a controlled meltdown of US economy, just like what happened to USSR! Is that possible? China is very ambitious now and its not a friend of America. If US falls as a superpower, guess who will be the next Big Boss? Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? Ridiculous, or should I say, Riddiqulous? :D

Are the American politicians playing nine pins with the fate of their own country? Have the Democrats gone mad overnight with Obama on the lead? And are the "sharp witted & patriotic" Republicans watching everything sucking thumbs? Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush? Is the media trying to frame him by making the public misunderstand his plan with distorted facts and figures?

[franalexes]

the answers are within.

Originally Posted by sesame

Are the American politicians playing nine pins with the fate of their own country? YESHave the Democrats gone mad overnight with Obama on the lead? YESAnd are the "sharp witted & patriotic" Republicans watching everything sucking thumbs? Being out numbered they are not much helpIs Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? No, but his policies AREOr Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush? START WITH BARNEY homophobeless FRANKIs the media trying to frame him and making the public misunderstand with distorted facts and figures? The public is already aware of how the figures are distorted. AND THEY ARE RIGHTFULLY CAUTIOUS>

[sesame]

Ok, lets watch the NY house race and see who can draw the ball in his court!

Democrat Scott Murphy strongly supports Obama and the stimulus plan that would funnel $24.6 billion into New York to fund construction projects and help fill gaps in state education costs, among other things.

Recent Siena College poll found the Democratic president had a 65 percent approval rating in the traditionally Republican district. It was even higher ie, 72 % in Warren, Washington and Essex counties, which are strongly Republican.

Risk factors:

The district has more than 196,000 registered Republicans compared to about 125,000 registered Democrats. There are more than 118,000 voters who aren't affiliated with either party.

Also, Republican Jim Tedisco, says the stimulus plan has a serious flaw _ the protection of bonuses to executives of bailed out companies like American International Group. That means sticking taxpayers with $165 million in lavish bonuses for failed executives at AIG! Well, thats what Jim Tedisco is bickering about.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by sesame

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?

China and other countries who hold our debt would certainly rather they did not have to abandon the dollar because they have so much of their wealth tied into the dollar. The fact remains though, the US will never be able to pay down its debt. Politicians have convinced the American people that they are entitled to so much from the government that we won't be able to decrease the amount we spend. Obama's administration now tells us we are entitled to succeed. Otherwise we'll get a bailout.

So while China and other countries would dearly love for us to pay back our debt, they will come to the realization that we will not. Maybe they have already come to this realization. It will certainly be painful for them to switch currencies, but more and more their economy, and the world's economy is based on trading US IOUs that they will realize is worthless. That cannot continue forever. Because of our recession and decreased demand for products from China, they are laying off millions. Meanwhile, the international community is wanting them to put environmental regulations in place while they produce for us. They have said they want us to foot that bill since we're the ones benefiting from it. So in the future, whether or not they decouple their economy from the dollar, they will agree to take on less and less of our debt.

Originally Posted by sesame

Tracycoxx: "we're a nation of consumers rather than producers"

Prove, sister, prove! Please provide logic and facts to back up your statements. It sounds interesting though! Does the US produce nothing? Does it not add anything to the world economy, but only consume? Thats ridiculous!

If we add to the world economy, why is our debt increasing? If we can't produce tangible products, we're not going to lower our debt. We used to have a huge manufacturing base. Bit by bit companies have called on international companies to produce those products for tax reasons, fewer regulations, cheaper labor, etc. Just about everything you own has "Made in China" or somewhere stamped on it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by sesame

Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush?

Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explain enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

[sesame]

I know something that the US is expert in producing in huge quantities; but I am sure they would'nt like to share this kind of technology with other rivals. Can you guess?

Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear technology (I dont know where the raw materials come from) and stealth aircrafts. :D Yeah, the Nighthawks! Not many countries have such hi-tech toys. Frisbees, Wobblin Goblins, otherwise known as F117A! They have retired this model last year.

[cumfucius1]

Originally Posted by sesame

According to conspiracy theorists, JF Kennedy was assassinated not by Lee Harvey Oswald but a well-coordinated group of people connected to the US Govt. Kennedy was an obstruction to the interests of war-loving military officials and politicians and businessmen. Poor disturbed oswald couldnt have pulled it or shoot him from multiple angles alone. Also, his autopsy was very poorly done and the report was edited.

The idea made for a pretty good Oliver Stone movie but I am sorry there was no conspiracy. Oswald was a loner with a twisted need to belong to something or anything to feel important. Unfortunately trained as a marine to be an expert with a rifle.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explain enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

Sesame?? Are you there?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by randolph

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!
Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.

Yup! Todays' Reps are NOT our friends :-) They are a bunch of dinosaurs who feel so deeply hateful to a democratic world with an IQ above 5... to the neocon Reps this is all about two sides: either we're a bunch of socialist, marxist, muslim, gay, transsexual, anti-american terrorists or a good group of "God"-fearing, corrupt, totally-"patriotic", double-standard, laissez-faire capitalist fascists who weep like sheep when we hear a national anthem, put our devious hands over our devious hearts and pour our blood...... nothing in between... :-)

But good for the world that they had their kicks... and now are out of here... bloody undemocratic, hateful nazis...

Well, Reagan was different, but that's another talk. He was the last truly democratic Republican. He fucked up American economy, but he did end the cold war. That's his claim to fame - and a good one!

H

[Babapranja]

Obama Rulez

[TracyCoxx]

With BO's international tour and recent international events, we've found out something else he sucks at. Foreign policy. Why threaten to shoot down North Korea's missile if he's not prepared to actually do it? He looks like a fool now. Not that I really wanted him to shoot down North Korea's missile, but don't make the threat unless you can back it up.

Now he's discovering how useless the UN is.

Doesn't he have anyone who has a clue about international protocols that can advise him? When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit BO, he brought:
- a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's authorized biography of Churchill, all seven volumes of it.

- a framed commissioning paper for HMS Resolute, rescued by an American whaler in 1856 (part of HMS Resolute was later made into the desk presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, and used by American presidents to this day).

- a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a sister ship of the Resolute that also served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa (if it weren't for this ship, Obama's ancestors from Kenya would likely have been made to be slaves in Arabia).

Obama's gifts to Brown?
- a special collector's box of DVDs containing 25 American movies
- toy helicopters modeled after Marine One from the Whitehouse giftshop for the PM's sons.

Michelle Obama then made the horrific mistake of touching the Queen. I don't see the big deal, but if that's against protocol, she should have been briefed (or perhaps she was).

Then after meeting the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United States prostrates himself and kisses the ring upon his hand.

Headlines from abroad:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
Obama presented himself as a 'new kid on the block'... as a newbie who still had a lot to learn.

Suddeutsche Zeitung:
Obama's words have a certain degree of humility to them and sometimes even a slight meekness. Obama is not trying to make himself look like an important global leader, but instead is taking pains to speek in a clear and direct manner so as to avoid problems.

London Telegraph:
Isn't it time for him to go home yet?... His long stay means that we are hearing rather a lot from him, way too much in fact... I'll wager that within a year or so he'll be marked down as a wind-bag.

Frankly, I hope he makes his international tour permanent.

[sesame]

Ah, gifts and presents from the US diplomats... Hmmm, it brings up the memory of the recent Clinton stupidity. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, she presented him with a big red & yellow ugly looking Reset button. On that button was engraved "peregruzka" in Russian.

Mrs Clinton said, "We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together. We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it correct?" she asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said." Both diplomats laughed. "It should be "perezagruzka" (the Russian word for reset,) Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"

[sesame]

Cowboy capitalism
always depended on subsidies to businesses
such as corporate farming, suburban development,
pharmaceuticals, energy and aerospace. George W. Bush
and the Republican majorities of the early 2000s simply
drove this essential hypocrisy to a disastrous extreme
by increasing deficits and allowing deregulated
financial markets to run wild. In the process,
they ruined the world economy
and pushed it off the edge.

[TracyCoxx]

Sesame, you're already skating on thin ice since you've made claims about Bush somehow being the sole cause of the financial crisis without backing any of it up with facts. Now what are you ranting about?

I looked up the first thing you wrote:

Originally Posted by sesame

Cowboy capitalism always depended on subsidies to businesses such as corporate farming...

The facts don't seem to be on your side...

Originally Posted by Reuters

President George W. Bush vetoed the $289 billion U.S. farm bill despite the likelihood of a congressional (democratic congress) override, saying the bill subsidizes multimillionaire farmers while Americans face higher grocery prices.

So who is practicing "Cowboy capitalism"? The democrats in congress? I won't waste my time with the rest of your rant since you'll probably want to rethink it, assuming you've thought about it at least once.

But let's get back to this:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explained enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

[Vanillas]

I voted for Obama and have no regrets. He is, excuse the cliche', the man for the times. He is one of the few - though certainly not the first - US President who could be described as such. American politics are dialectical and the history of the country is largely the history of the tensions and counter-tensions that comprise this process. While the majority of presidents have been centrists (Bill Clinton is a good example) there have been a small number who have pushed the country and the body politic too far from center. This has also happened as the result of the collective policies of a series of presidents (Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, for example). But whether one or several, the necessary corrective is always the same: A presidential successor who creates a counter-tension that begins re-establishing the center (although not QUITE the same center as before but, ideally, a more democratic one).

The above could be described in Hegelian terms as Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. A historical example may help to illustrate this. John Adams (thesis) served the last four years of the Federal period, a time of centralized power in the Executive Branch. The exceedingly close election of 1800 (recall that it was decided in the House of Representatives and by a single vote) went to Republican (aka Anti-Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (antithesis). His election ushered in a period of States' Rights and a decidedly weaker national government. This in turn resulted in many years of centrist presidents and relatively calm politics (synthesis). Another such president was Andrew Jackson who successfully defeated Nicholas Biddle and vetoed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, a bank that, had it gone on unchecked, could have conceivably owned the country. Other examples include Abraham Lincoln following the feckless presidencies of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan; The rigorously honest Rutherford B. Hayes following the corruption and cronyism of Ulysses S. Grant; Theodore Roosevelt fighting the entrenched second generation robber barons; And, in the memory of many people alive today, FDR following the ideologically bound Herbert Hoover. Thus each of these presidents served when policies or conditions had shifted so far from center as to make them untenable. The times called for a president who was sufficiently courageous and visionary to take the country in a decidedly different direction, toward real progress that can only come from synthesis.

Finally, it is my contention that Barak Obama is, or certainly has the potential to be, such a president. Following the economic excesses of deregulation and the cowboy xenophobia of George W. Bush, he is certainly off to a good start.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Vanillas

I voted for Obama and have no regrets. He is, excuse the cliche', the man for the times. He is one of the few - though certainly not the first - US President who could be described as such...

The times called for a president who was sufficiently courageous and visionary to take the country in a decidedly different direction, toward real progress that can only come from synthesis.

Finally, it is my contention that Barak Obama is, or certainly has the potential to be, such a president. Following the economic excesses of deregulation and the cowboy xenophobia of George W. Bush, he is certainly off to a good start.

I don't know if I'd say he was off to THAT good a start. In the time he's been in office, Wall Street has actually gotten WORSE than it was under Bush, and so far -- despite committing the United States to a possible $3 TRILLION deficit for the coming fiscal year AND committing us to deficits of up to $1 Trillion per year for the next 10 years as well (all of which FAR EXCEEDS any spending excess that Bush was responsible for) -- the economy STILL hasn't stabilized. In short, for all that money spent, to date you got boopkiss. Nada. The big donut hole.

Look, Obama's our President so on a purely American level, I will root for the guy and hope he does a good job -- for ALL our sakes. I think that's a natural inclination most people have, to HOPE that their latest President won't turn out to be a total schlub. But so far his economic plans stink... some of his cabinet appointees are dubious at best, if not outright appalling... his foreign policy views are 180 degrees opposite from mine, so he's not gonna gain any points there... and now we have this whole brouhaha over the "torture memos", which is actually threatening to divide the country again and only polarize us even MORE.

But I have to hand it to the Left-leaning press yet again. I laughably love how they tilt every headline or byline to lean Obama's way to help the guy out...well, that is until you ACTUALLY read a news story with a discerning eye and take into account the ACTUAL facts.

Latest laughable example: yesterday the AP wire issued an article with the headline: Americans High On Obama; Direction of the US. The first two paragraphs of the article then stated: For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future. Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

The only problem is, that was an INCREDIBLE parsing of words. If you ACTUALLY read the REST of the article, buried down in paragraph NINE it then stated: And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track. Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

Huh? Excuse me? Let me get this straight. The HEADLINE states "Americans High on Obama and Direction of the US" and yet THEN you're telling me...almost as if purposefully trying to bury it in the article...that only 48% of the people actually feel that way. Which means that LESS THAN HALF of the country actually feels that Obama is doing okay. I mean, last I recall my high school math, 48 was still less than 50.

Not to mention, you're talking about a 48 to 44 split -- with 44% of the American people definitely feeling he's NOT doing a good job and the country is NOT headed in the right direction. That's nearly a tie right there. So why doesn't the headline more ACCURATELY say "100 days into Obama, Americans still evenly divided on direction of country." Oh, that's right -- because if you said THAT and actually told the TRUTH, then people wouldn't instantly be able to see a pro-Obama headline, which is what you want MOST in journalism to create a subliminal impression upon those who only skim headlines or the first two paragraphs of a news article.

And even MORE laughable is the fact that, as with any poll, the final line of the AP article also states -- again as if mumbling under their breath so you don't pay attention -- The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved telephone interviews on landline and cell phones with 1,000 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Excuse me? A 3% margin of error? Gee, that means the split could actually be 45-44, meaning Obama still has LESS THAN HALF of the country supporting him and in fact its only a ONE POINT DIFFERENCE between the two opposing sides.

But hey, why quibble about the truth when it makes SUCH a better banner headline and reveals SUCH a more obvious bias to declare "Americans high on Obama; Direction of US" as opposed to being RESPONSIBLE journalists and more ACCURATELY saying (for example): "Confidence in US up; But still less than half revealing a bitter divide" or some such headline like that? Which would be the truth and would be FAR more reflective of the actual facts that the article itself put forth.

Either way, we're only 100 days in with over 1,000 left to go. And in that time, as I noted, the economy stinks... unemployment continues to worsen... news reports today indicate a new wave of credit card defaults are heading our way like a tsunami which could result in yet another massive bailout... home mortgage defaults and foreclosures are also up again... oh, yeah, and for all the smiling that Obama did overseas while saying "America was wrong in the past and I apologize for everything we've ever done", Europe STILL gave him the finger about helping to fight terrorism, and Iran is still that much closer to having an atomic bomb, which will surely destabilize the Middle East.

But hey, on the positive side, at least soon people will be able to PayPal money to someone they know in Cuba or maybe buy some cigars.

So, added together, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama the savior of our country quite yet OR even say how good (or bad) a President history will ultimately judge him to be. On the other hand, given the way he's going with his policies, I might need to make a sign soon, so I can get out there and participate in the big Fourth of July Tea Parties that will be coming up next. Simply because I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop on the Obama tax and spend strategy -- ie. "Hey, guess what? Your taxes ARE gonna go up! BIG TIME! But hey, I smile nice and make you feel good, so I'm sure you won't mind me and Congress pilfering your wallets and bank accounts some more!"

[TracyCoxx]

The first 100 days is always a significant milestone in a president's term. Obama's 100th day in office comes with him breaking a record.

Drum roll please....
The earliest recorded 'Debt Day'! Four days before BO's 100th day the bank will run dry. Let the borrowing begin. Nice one.

[franalexes]

OBAMA

One
BIG
ASS
MISTAKE
America

[nyguy35]

Obama is terrible, easily the worst president in my lifetime. The way that he has embarrassed and shamed the USA on the world stage is nothing short of disgusting.

[The Conquistador]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obama...009-04-21.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9124802970.htm

The government couldn't find their ass with both hands behind their back. Hope you'll like the government run economy

State run newspapers aren't so bad, right?
Right?

Riiiiiiiight?

[tslust]

I find it amazing. Before the election and the inauguration, I couldn't go anywhere without running into an Obama supporter. Now everyone I talk to says "I didn't vote for him." Where did all of Obama's loyal masses go?

[The Conquistador]

A graphic representation.

[CreativeMind]

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!

NOT.

Obama Budget Chief on Hill: Dems Plan to Scrap Middle Class Tax Cut
ABC News.com
March 25, 2009 4:45 PM

President Obama's budget chief hinted that the president's signature campaign issue - a middle class tax cut - will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

On a conference call with reporters in advance of the President's trip to the hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, OMB Director Peter Orszag indicated that while 98% of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...budget-ch.html

[transjen]

GEE sounds like everybody misses W, If so you can all suport the female verson of W named Sarah or you can all back another Bush named Jeb granted he's a little smarter then W but rest assured he is just as sneaky and as dishonest as his brother and just as quick to point his finger at someone else and say not my fault Jennifer

[transjen]

Now for a little shot of reality, To start with he inherated a big mess that was not his doing, Where he ran into trouble started with him promising everyone the sun and the moon and had no idea how to keep them promises and worst of all he inherated a house and senate that will never put party aside to help the country the GOP refuse to accept any blame and keep yelling trickle down will fix everything and the dems just want to tax the rich which equals nothing but a big mess

[The Conquistador]

Here is an insightful look into the economic collapse and our part in it.
http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_economy.shtml

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

GEE sounds like everybody misses W, If so you can all suport the female verson of W named Sarah or you can all back another Bush named Jeb granted he's a little smarter then W but rest assured he is just as sneaky and as dishonest as his brother and just as quick to point his finger at someone else and say not my fault Jennifer

Just for the record, Jen, as I stated in a post above, I think most Americans DO want to root on their new President...as I said before, most Americans DON'T want their newest President to turn out to be a total schlub...so I have no problem giving Obama a chance. As you noted in your other post here, there's no question that Obama certain inherited a lot of problems.

That said, the same is true of ALL Presidents inheriting things from their predecessor. We're talking about the most powerful nation in the world, the economic engine that likewise drives the world economy. So saying Obama inherited a lot of problems was certainly true of Bush, TOO. Lest we all forget out history, GW inherited a recession from Clinton that we likewise had to pull ourselves out of. Not to mention the Clinton years were the time when Al Qaeda first tried to topple the World Trade Center using a van bomb, after which they regrouped, they acquired their funding, they entered the country illegally, they took their flight school training (all of which happened under the radar screen of Clinton) and then once Bush was in office only 8 or so months...when he was the new guy on the job...he was faced with the consequences of the 9/11 attacks.

So, I can appreciate the magnitude of what Obama is facing AS President of the United States. The weight on his shoulders is more incredible than most could ever bear, and there's a definite reason every President -- even if they only serve one term -- goes in looking vigorous and full of life, and then comes out looking haggard with stress lines all over their face, their hair now completely gray.

For the record, my personal gripe with Obama is that I just felt the Left...and certainly the Left-leaning media...did SUCH a pile-on whenever it came to Bush, which started from the day he did win Florida and he did legitimately beat Gore (and yes, for those on the Left, regardless of the Supreme Court hearings, they ultimately DID go back and recount ALL of the Florida ballots, which only served to prove that Bush DID win the state. In fact, once the full recount was done, Bush's margin of victory actually TRIPLED over Gore. Don't believe me? Feel free to Google it.) So, to my mind, that's where much of this animosity began. It began in an election where the Left was SO angry that Gore lost, and they only became even MORE embittered when Bush beat Kerry -- and let the record show that Bush won BOTH the electoral college AND the popular vote there, so there was NO disputing that he had fairly won.

My problem with Obama goes to a phrase that I believe Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger, gets credit for creating. Namely, the Obama years are now about a "Savior based economy", where somehow Obama is going to "save us" from ourselves -- which frankly, is a presumptuous and arrogant attitude that I wouldn't tolerate from ANY politician or ANY party. There's nothing I hate more than any politician who feels they know what's better for you than you do, or that they know how to spend your money better than you do. Which is why you see so many of us groaning about Obama because these attitudes were the CORE of his campaign while running, which many bought into. Hell, they obviously bought into the sales pitch -- that's how he got the votes and won. And frankly THAT'S what actually TERRIFIES me about Obama. An elected politician is just that -- he's an elected person. He'll run the clock and then be out of office. But the bottom line is that he's just a MAN, not a sainted "savior". And the fact that Obama labeled himself "The One" makes me raise an eyebrow about an ego run amuck.

And here's another reason you'll see many of us bitching. As it's been often noted in this thread, currently HALF of the country does NOT pay taxes AT ALL. Seriously, stop and think about that -- for all the griping that people always do about their taxes and whatnot, you literally have a 50-50 shot -- the next time someone bitches to you about their taxes -- of turning to them and saying, "Wait a minute. Did you actually PAY anything?" and havign them turn to you and answer, "Uh...no, actually I didn't have to pay anything at all."

So what we're REALLY seeing at work here...what's FINALLY being played out on a national level and ripping us (as a country) even further apart...is a true class warfare battle. Those on the Left like to label it a war of "The haves versus the have-nots" to make it sound more humanistic. Meanwhile, those on the Right like to label it "Those who work hard versus those who are expecting a free hand out."

So, its not that people necessarily wish that W was back in power. For crying out loud, he DID piss off many of us on the Right for how much he DID spend himself. And THAT'S why you're seeing so many of us bitching even LOUDER now. Because it's all about the money we're spending and where it's going. When it comes down to that, I almost do wish Bush was back in office simply because W creating a $900 Billion deficit isn't even in the same league as Obama creating a $3 TRILLION deficit for this year alone -- not to mention he and the Democrats in Congress have ALSO committed us to deficits projected to be $1-1.5 TRILLION for each of the next 10 years TOO. And let me repeat that: that's what they project them to be, which given the way our government usually fouls things up and the way they can never add up a column of numbers doing basic math, that means the deficits will likely be MUCH HIGHER.

So again, it's not that I want Bush back, but for crying out loud given the choice between a guy who had a cowboy way of walking and talking and who served up $900 Billion in debt VERSUS a slick talking Harvard lawyer who now is trying to mandate how everyone will have to live their lives, who in comparison is serving up a $13 TRILLION debt (or more) all to accomplish his personal visions about social engineering -- gee, this one really isn't TOO hard for me to pick between.

[transjen]

This is an argument neither of us can win so i'm won't even try. But to clear a little about myself first i'm not a dem or rep i'm a independent and have been since i was old enough to vote, What party a canadate belongs to makes no nevermind to me i vote on what the person will do and what they stand for, I never liked W mainly because in 2000 he struck me as an idiot and in 08 i didn't care for Obama because i found him lacking he gave great speeches but he always lacked what he would do and how he gave promises but no clear answer to how he would do it .But as he has only be in office for under a 100 days i'm still ready to wait and see. Regaurdless on which side you are on it took awhile to get into this mess and it will take awhile to get out

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!

I see you got it wrong too.
That's "CHAINS you can believe in."

[The Conquistador]

[quote=franalexes;79451]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!
I see you got it wrong too.
That's "CHAINS you can believe in."

No he's right. President Zero said he'd bring change; he just never specified if it was change for better or for worse.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

GEE sounds like everybody misses W, If so you can all suport the female verson of W named Sarah or you can all back another Bush named Jeb granted he's a little smarter then W but rest assured he is just as sneaky and as dishonest as his brother and just as quick to point his finger at someone else and say not my fault Jennifer

There's that common claim that is very rarely backed up. That W is dishonest. He may not be the brightest bulb of the bunch, but I haven't seen evidence of dishonesty. No, I wouldn't want Palin. Too green (not as green as Obama though), and way too religious. Forget all that. I want someone who is experienced, who is a fiscal conservative, who is pro-science, has a strong foreign policy, has a diverse energy policy and is not a bible thumper. Someone who is not likely to require me to pay someone elses mortgage. Someone who does not spend us into oblivion and threaten the stability of the dollar. No, this does not describe a republican (unfortunately), but they are the closest to what I'm looking for.

This whole spending your way out of debt thing is insane. NO ONE would try this themselves. If you had all your credit cards maxed out, can you seriously tell me that you would spend more to solve your problem? Of course not. Yes Obama inherited a recession. My problem with him is that what he's doing will turn it into a depression, and worse, might even cause the dollar to collapse.

Obama and the democrats are on a mission to change what this country is. They have twice already threatened to retroactively punish people for laws they are just now pulling out of their ass, which is a violation of the constitution, and they are also violating the 10th amendment by making demands on state legislatures. They also want to move control of the census to the Whitehouse under the control of their campain strategist, and enlist ACORN (already being charged for voter fraud) to work with the census. Why would they do this? Because this is one step below a hostile government take over. The hostile take over may come later with the voluntary mantetory corps that Obama wants to start. See story here. This is VERY scary stuff.

I'm already having trouble recognizing this government anymore. Who are being financially punished? Corporations who are driving this economy. Who is on their terror watch list? US veterans, our country's finest, coming back from putting their lives on the line for this country. Who does Obama extend a hand to, or kiss the hand of? Saudi Royalty, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. And of course Bill Ayers & Reverend Wright.

Originally Posted by transjen

Now for a little shot of reality, To start with he inherated a big mess that was not his doing

True, he inherited the financial problems. He inherited it from Carter, who started the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and from Clinton who strengthened it at the strong urging of ACORN - the group who comes from the same Chicago cesspool that Obama, Bill Ayers & Rev. Wright came from. ACORN used the CRA to force banks to]make loans to people who could not afford them. Clinton required banks to do this. And yes, Alan Greenspan is also to blame for artificially inflating the housing bubble. Democrats have been telling us all along how secure Freddie Mac and Fannie May are while Republicans have been warning us of the problems (and calling for regulations). Don't believe me? See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

Originally Posted by transjen

Where he ran into trouble started with him promising everyone the sun and the moon and had no idea how to keep them promises

There's a word for that: Dishonest.

Originally Posted by transjen

and worst of all he inherated a house and senate that will never put party aside to help the country the GOP refuse to accept any blame and keep yelling trickle down will fix everything and the dems just want to tax the rich which equals nothing but a big mess

The house and senate are firmly democrat. Perhaps the GOP refuse to accept the blame because it was Carter & Clinton who created the problem. Perhaps the GOP favors the trickle down strategy because it worked under Reagan, after Carter nearly financially ruined the country using policies that were less ambitious than what Obama wants to do.

[TracyCoxx]

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion and the plane stunt was not his doing someone thought they needed new photo's of airforce 1 and yes it was stupid but not his doing

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

[randolph]

Finally a wised up Republican, Arlen Specter

from Yahoo News
Deep red. But keeping the government in deficit is exactly what Reagan did. Despite his years of lip service to balancing the budget, total discretionary spending had climbed almost 16 percent by the time he left office, dwarfing the Carter budgets he had once criticized. Revenues, limited by Reagan's tax cuts, were never able to keep pace. The result was a spiraling national debt that nearly tripled during his two terms, hitting $2.7 trillion.

Some of Reagan's aides, including William Niskanen, the former chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisers, believe there is a simple explanation for these growing deficits: Reagan's tax cuts simply did not do what supply-side economists said they would do. Because the cuts didn't substantively increase tax revenues, they didn't allow Reagan to shrink the deficit. They also didn't decrease the size of government by choking off spending. "The 'starving the beast' hypothesis is understandably popular among politicians--that you can have tax cuts without a deficit increase--but it's just empirically wrong," says Niskanen, now chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute. "That idea has destroyed for several decades the traditional Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility."

This, many historians believe, may be Reagan's real legacy. "The combination of military spending, tax cuts, and ultimately a failure to control most domestic spending led to a fiscal straitjacket by the end of the decade," says Zelizer. In 1991, Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, was forced to increase taxes to close huge gaps in the budget, but government debt still climbed past $4 trillion on his watch. When George W. Bush adopted a Reaganesque economic policy, with Dick Cheney, early in his first term, famously saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," more tax cuts and more spending led to even more debt. By the time Obama took office, the federal government was more than $11 trillion in the red.

The lesson of Reaganomics, in other words, may be a simple one. In times of economic crisis, all roads seem to lead to the same place: deficits. The real test of a president and his economic policy, historians say, is what happens to those deficits when the economy recovers. For all of his many successes--and for all the support his ideas still enjoy on Capitol Hill--that is a test Reagan seems to have failed.

[Vanillas]

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Vanillas

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

I agree, a viable two party system is essential for our democratic system. The Republicans from Regan on have tried to destroy the two party system (aka Carl Rove). Compromise and reconciliation kept this country going since its inception. If the GOP can't free itself from Limbaugh (et all) then another party needs to be created to replace it. The Grand Old Party has become a white elephant. How about the LBR party (lets be reasonable).

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

The GOP being the pro life party is the biggest sham ever pulled second only to they don't want tax money. Just think if the GOP ever really baned it then they'll lose there biggest get the troops to the poles and they would loose the biggest non issue to talk about you had the sawed off runt W you had the senate and the house and you have the unsupreme court 5/4 and yet W didn't ban it for Rev Farrwell that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

STEELE TAKES GOP TALKING POINTS OFF THE TABLE.... One of the more common concerns voiced by conservatives, especially at the recent "Tea Parties," relates to bailouts. Republicans on the Hill have tried to pick up on this, and distance the party from the practice.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decided to step on his party's message quite a bit this morning.

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

"Look, we can't go back out and start pointing fingers at Democrats and saying, 'Look how bad they're performing, look at what they're doing with the economy,' when we jumpstarted this thing," Steele said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "We were the ones that put the $700 billion on the table and said, 'All right, let's start nationalizing the banking system.'"

Added Steele, "So now, for us to stand back and go, 'Oh, that's a bad thing to do' is disingenuous."

I suppose this is intended to be candor. To hear Steele tell it, Republicans are owning up to the moments where its actions were inconsistent with its principles. Perhaps there's some value in that.

But the Republican goal of late is to connect the majority to the unpopular bailouts, and blame Democrats for poor management of the economy. The RNC chairman just went on national television to say those criticisms against Democrats just aren't fair and aren't even accurate.

Maybe Steele is a DNC plant?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

...that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

Well, keep in mind that the pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. I mean, they CERTAINLY can't go to the Democratic party -- after all, part of the Democratic platform that gets ratified at each and every convention is a formal legal statement that the party will absolutely, positively stand behind pro-choice stances, including even expanding abortion rights.

So, the pro-choicers are sort of between a rock and a hard place. To them, abortion is an issue nearest and dearest to their heart, but unfortunately they're swimming against a strong tide. The problem they have is that while every poll shows that most Americans are actually AGAINST abortion -- that is, the larger number of Americans would obviously like to see the number of abortions that get performed each year drastically reduced -- all the same, most people ALSO tend to think it should still be a personal decision that gets left up to a person/couple.

I mean, it's just one of those classic political quandaries. Do you like Obama? Right now, the polls show that a majority of people DO. Do you like Obama's policies and the direction of the country? The same polls show that people DON'T. At which point you're left scratching your head and saying, "Huh? How can you have both?" Abortion is the same -- ask people if they are against abortion, the majority say "Yes." Ask them if you think it should therefore be outlawed to support that viewpoint, then they suddenly say "No."

[transjen]

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby? FYI i'm not in favor of abortion and i not in favor of an out right ban mainly because every case is differnt and sadly at times it's the best for those involved talking about medical reasons Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

Not all republicans were for the bailout. They could have changed the accounting system to one that makes more sense, and that would have instantly erased a lot of the money problems.

There was also pork in those bills but not like the obama stimulus packages. That supported every pet democrat project ever thought up plus gave a reward to everyone who supported BO.

Originally Posted by transjen

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby?

I agree with you there. If the GOP favors small government, then they shouldn't be trying to dictate social issues like that and religion. I don't think they have a consistent philosophy driving all their policies.

[randolph]

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

My grand parents were republicans, my parents were republicans and I voted for Eisenhower. Since then the grand old party has lost its true conservatism. Then conservatism meant fiscal and social responsibility. Now it means cut taxes and spend more money (irresponsible Reaganomics), pander to right wing extremists and sell out to corporate interests. Obama extended a hand to the republicans and they refused it now they are marginalized. The democrats are free to trillionize the budget. Oops, did I say budget? There ain't no budget! All we can do is hang on to the handle bars because the brakes are gone and there are blind curves ahead. We might as well enjoy the ride because we cant turn around and we cant get off. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[transjen]

Look for things to really get ugly, The first of the unserprem court has handed in his letter now the fur will be flying i can hear RUSH'S ditto heads screaming there goes our country Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

You don't think that those 79% that don't identify themselves as republican think like you do, or like BO does do you? I would be one of the 79% who does not consider myself a republican.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

My grand parents were republicans, my parents were republicans and I voted for Eisenhower. Since then the grand old party has lost its true conservatism. Then conservatism meant fiscal and social responsibility. Now it means cut taxes and spend more money (irresponsible Reaganomics), pander to right wing extremists and sell out to corporate interests...

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You don't think that those 79% that don't identify themselves as republican think like you do, or like BO does do you?
I would be one of the 79% who does not consider myself a republican.

Well, it's sort of interesting that you would call it "irresponsible Reaganomics" given that the Reagan years DID account for some of the most robust economic growth in all of American history, not to mention Reaganomics DID pull us out of the utter financial catastrophe that was named Jimmy Carter.

And I wouldn't be so worried about that 21% identification number. In politics, it all changes on the stop of a dime. In fact, here's a historical footnote to consider: that's the SAME percentage that existed back when Nixon left office due to Watergate, which ironically set the stage for Carter's election. And yet it only took 4 simple years of Carter being the total fuck-up that he was for him to turn the country against him, at which point Reagan rode into office on a vote that now saw the country completely flip-flopping once again and becoming anti-Democrat. And of course, four years after that Reagan won reelection in a 49 state landslide that saw a return of sky Republican "voter identification" percentages.

Oh, and one more thing for the record. While the news media (in particular the New York Times) is so "enchanted" with Obama's first 100 days in office, right now he actually has LESS of an approval rating than Jimmy Carter did at his 100 day mark. And again, we all know how well things worked out there!

[transjen]

Oh here we go agian let slam Carter and maybe they'll let up on slaming Bush, I got news for you the lousy 70 ecomy started in the early 70s under Nixon and Ford so Carter inherted the problems and trurt be told Jimmy Carter on his worst day was a 1000 times better then George W Bush, And you want to know why the NY Times is overjoyed with Obama's first 100 days? It easy to see after 8 years of disater named George W Bush the most hated and worst US president of all time who should have been impeached. Jennifer