No, you're talking about Jen's World again. If you've paid any attention you'll find that I have hardly ever, if at all, praised Bush. I have defended him against the bullshit that you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers spew, because I think the bullshit needs to be cleared before any real discussions can be had.

2012 will hopefully be a great year, but I'm looking forward to November 2nd, 2010. Polls are showing a growing discontent among voters, which thankfully you are not a member of, and it looks like repubs will stage a comeback. Then BO will find it hard getting anything passed. But he's taking full advantage of his rubber stamp congress while he has it.

Well there is a huge mess that has to be cleaned up.

You mean like how he predicted 9/11?

Good Stuff?
 

Well look at history. Every since the Spanish/American War we have made every effort to economically dominate the world. If we have to do it by invading a country, we do it. if we have to assassinate the leader, we do it. If we have to destroy a legitimate Democracy, we do it. It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, our economic interests come first. This is why we are the richest most powerful country on earth. No President is going to change that. It would be nice if we showed a little more humanity while doing it, however. I think Obama will do that.

Stop your America bashing and revisionist history. In the Spanish/American war we did not invade Spain. We came to the aid of Spanish colonies who wanted to break free of Spain.

We do not assassinate leaders. Which leader are you talking about? And what democracy did we destroy?

We are the richest most powerful country on earth because of freedom, capitalism, and a huge production base. The Bretton Woods system, which established the US dollar as an international reserve currency in 1944 didn't hurt either.

America!
 

Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism". It's a well documented review of how the CIA and Milton Freedman's graduate students collaborated on taking over Chile.
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" the Marine theme and Teddy Roosevelt's statement "Speak softly and carry a big stick" well state our international policy.
From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates. We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss. We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply. We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America. We have loaned money to little countries to buy our military equipment, then the military stages a coup and opens up favorable trade arrangements with us. We set up NAFTA with poor Central American countries to unload cheap subsidized agricultural commodities that put the local farmers out of business. The list goes on and on.
Now we have subjected the world to the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, all in the name of business for America.
Ah yes, "My Country tis of thee sweet land of liberty" :frown:

Let's see.... Naomi Klein... Ah, here she is. Her parents were war resisters who ran to Canada. Her mother was a feminist. Her grandparents were communists. Her husband is Avi Lewis. He is the host of the Al Jazeera English show!:lol: Ok, so what does she say that I might, in my most wildest dreams give a flying F about?

We did not invent trade. It is a practice that has been encouraged for thousands of years. And of course, pirates should be run out and were, not just by us, but other countries as well. They were a thorn in the side of all countries who participated in evil activities like trading.

You are mischaracterizing history again. On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations.
That was the sentiment of the time, and after over 100 years you can monday morning quarterback it to your own political leanings. Which you do, but at least be accurate. You should at least recognize that from the 1400s through the 1900s the western world was in an expansionist mode. The US and many other countries were participating in a land grab because, yes, having territory in strategic parts of the world, or containing valuable resources is beneficial to any nation. We were certainly not the only nation doing it. In addition... If we free a country from an oppressive government, then of course, the country is without a government. That leaves a power vacuum. A responsible nation becomes responsible for territory that it frees. If it's able to stand on its own, leave it alone. If not, adopt it until they are able to stand on their own unless joining is beneficial to both.

Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war?

In Grenada, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, a Communist hard-liner backed by the Grenadian Army, had deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule, then had Bishop killed. Then there was also the presence of Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000-foot airstrip in Grenada to allow military transport planes loaded with arms from Cuba to be transferred to Central American insurgents. Plus there were 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George's School of Medicine in Grenada. But you say forget all this. It was for economic reasons only.

In Panama, we were going after Noriega. If you have an economic case for that, go for it.

NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. All three of them promoted it. We did not force it on the Mexicans. Salinas is an adult, and was even president of Mexico. I think he's a big boy. If it worked out badly for Mexico then it's his responsibility. Some say it worked out good for Mexico because poverty rates fell.


Yes, and you've shown how your Socialist-Red colored glasses color your view of the world. You ignore the facts surrounding each and every instance you cited and substitute America's evil thirst for money. I thought I warned you about revisionist history. If America is so hungry for economic gain, I'd like to know, why, oh why, didn't Bush have the Iraqis pay for the upgrades above and way beyond repairing what was destroyed from the war, security and training? They certainly could afford it, and it was all in their best interest.

Honestly.... Naomi Klein???

I'd like to know who said NAFTA worked out? There's a reason why Mexican farmers are coming across the border in droves and it isn't because they like tex-mex.

Tracey, we fucked up democracy in Chile. Remember Allende? Secondly the shah was put in place in 1953 because the british got pissed at Mossadegh for wanting to nationalise the oil fields. Furthermore Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. I'd say we've done our fair share of messin around where we shouldn't be.

:lol:that's great:lol:

Yes, we fucked up that Marxist. That was back when we did something about Communism. Now we elect students of Communism to our highest office, and the house & senate. But anyway, I suppose you forgot about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. What did the USSR do when they found an ally in Cuba? Tried to put nukes 90 miles from the US. I know Chile is a ways off but I think the feeling was that we should keep Communism out of our hemisphere. Besides, that doesn't have much to do with the topic randolph brought up that we toppled democracies for our financial gain.

Go gripe at a Brit. I am all for severing our dependence on the mideast for oil.

Why were we trying to stop the spread of Communism? Might there be a reason?

Stopping the spread of communism and financial gain go hand in hand. We literally get freaked out when marxists take office because nationalisation fucks with our corporations. The US has no right to take out democratic leaders in the name of capitalism. When the US learns this the world will be a better place.


Oh and I dont care about Soviet imperialism. This isn about them and I'm fully aware that everybody from Lenin to Gorbachev was a piece of shit.

And btw it was the CIA who took out Mossadegh. The British cried tp us so we sent Kermit the frog over there to start a coup. In fact it was really the start of our relationship with Iran today. Without that silly coup, it's unlikely that Khomeni would be leading Iran. But god forbid somebody nationalises his oil to help his people. stopping nationalisation is far more important than being a force for democracy and accepting their peoples wishes.

Scary shit
 

The inspector general, Niel Barofsky, for the $700 billion stimulus package (TARP) says that it has expanded well beyond $700B.

He also says the total financial exposure of TARP and related programs alone could reach $3 trillion.

This kind of burden on our country defies the imagination.

Remember Tracy. It pisses people off when you tell them "You're wrong, and I can prove it!"

OK, Where's the beef ?? tHE EXPRESSION ALLUDES TO THE EVIDENCE - STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU ARE PRESENTED AS FACTS - THEY ARE NOT - SUSPICIONS, OPINIONS, SOME OTHER ADJECTIVES WITH WORDS I WON'T USE HERE - BUT NOT FACTS....

Show me the beef!!!!

The Dow is over 9000 again and housing has had the biggest growth in 7 months. Is it time to start praising BO's economic recovery plan?

No. Money from Tarp (the spendulous package) hasn't even begun flowing yet. So to all of you (I think Jen said this) who said "should we just do nothing?", yes... if nothing means let capitalism fix itself, that's what is happening now. Of course all that will be sabotaged when BO's economic recovery begins to save us with monstrous taxes. It will be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and unemployment will continue to rise and inflation will skyrocket. Add to that cap & trade and the health care fiasco and BO's buddy Bill Ayers will be left flabbergasted at how much more effective Obama has been than he was in his war against capitalism.

Bailout?
 

Come on Tracy, don't you realize who Obama is bailing out? He is bailing out your buddies the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones that fucked up the economy with their relentless greed and now we the taxpayers have to save their asses. If it was up to me, I would drag their bonus stuffed asses through the streets! Obama is on your side! :frown::censored:

That was old news. It was in their contracts to receive bonuses. The white house doesn't have the authority to change that. Although they would if they allowed the companies to declare bankruptcy. But the method preferred by Omama is to give them millions, and THEN let them go bankrupt. Anyway, the democrats considered ways to prevent them from getting their bonuses. They would do a retroactive tax at about 90%. Just for them. Only thing is that violated the constitution. You can't make a law to punish someone retroactively for something that was legal when they did it. So the white house made it clear to the companies that they would not be handing out the bonuses.

Now for the other side of the story... The asswipes that put those companies in financial trouble were long gone with their large severance pay. The companies hired new executives to clean up the mess. Those executives were payed $1. Their real salary was the bonuses that would come later. So they worked 60-80 hour weeks, restructuring the companies, and putting them back on track financially. Then it comes time for them to receive their bonuses. Their bosses tell them sorry. There will be no bonuses at the request of the president. I hope you understand.

Understand?
 

So you believe its Okay for someone to sit behind a computer on wall street, do their job, and get a multimillion dollar bonus? Millions of people are out of work so these guys can get their bonuses. It that just? Is this really a Democracy?
We have a Plutocracy, of, by and for the rich. All of the government money is going to support capitalism. You just don't seem to get it.

Someone once said "doubt is the beginning of wisdom" ;)

Capitalism often times fixes itself, this is true. What we need to figure out is whether going from crisis to crisis is healthy. Any system that requires bubbles to burst from time to time to such devestating effect on the people isn't a system I want to support.


Now we can also get into the question of whether capitalism can ever be reformed enough to where there isn't a recession every 20 years. I don't believe so. That's not to say that I don't believe in markets completely, I'm a Proudhonian syndicalist, but I don't believe that with our current structures of power we will ever reform this system or any system. In fact reform doesn't work anyways. Revolutionary action is the answer. Not violent revolution, but a complete change of thought and structures for society.

Proudhonian?
 

Never heard this term so here is a brief quote.
"What Proudhon really objected to with respect to private property was the earning of income from the labour of others through such means as rent, interest and wage labour. After paying employees their wages, the capitalist retains the remaining profit without contributing any productive labour himself. Associated together, the workers create a productive capacity greater than the sum of their individual powers, but it is the capitalist who reaps the benefit. The workers acquiesce in their own exploitation because their only alternatives are starvation and misery."
This is essentially my complaint about capitalism. The capitalists will exploit the workers any way they can (look at China). The role of government should be to control and restrain the exploitative tendencies of capitalism. Capitalists would be very happy if all there workers were slaves and they kept all the wealth created by the labor of the workers. A democratic society needs to see to it that the capitalists share the wealth with their workers.

Like I said before, other than the dollar they get, that's pretty much their only salary. And yes, it's ok for someone to get millions to benefit a company making billions. They may do their work on the computer, but that doesn't mean they don't put a hell of a lot of work into it.

Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.

No, I don't get it, since capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production are privately controlled. If capitalism is controlled by government money, it's not capitalism. Thanks to BO, you can now exclude Chrysler and GM from capitalism. And the banks too.

Capitalism is fine. Executives getting multi-million dollar bonuses is fine (as long as they are part of the solution). What is NOT fine is what happens when government and big business mix.

For example... Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, became treasury secretary. When the financial crisis comes, the first thing he does, besides prop of Fannie & Freddie is let Bear Sterns (a Goldman Sachs competitor) and Lehman Bros (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) fail. When deciding if he should let AIG fail, he had a conference with Lloyd Blankenfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. They decide, yes bail out AIG with $85 billion. Who's the biggest payout from AIG? Goldman Sachs, for $12.9 billion!

Paulson needs someone to head up TARP. Who does he pick? Neil Cashcarry from Goldman Sachs. Neil decides Goldman Sachs has to be changed into a bank holding company. Which means they now have access to money from TARP, FDIC, and other fed money. Neil is then replaced by Gary Ginsler (yes a partner at Goldman Sachs).

Becoming a bank holding company also gets the SEC off their backs. So who watches over Goldman Sachs now? Steven Friedman, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and now at the Fed. Friedman, overseer of Goldman Sachs also held a lot of stock from Goldman Sachs, and he was also on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs! Gee, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Oh, no it isn't. Timothy Geithner, current secretary of treasury, can we please have someone on the Goldman Sachs board of directors over seeing Goldman Sachs? Sure, no problem. Geithner gives Friedman a temporary 1 year waiver, which allows him to keep his Goldman Sachs stock, stay on the board, and allows him to buy an additional 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, which he makes $3 million off of.

So now Goldman Sachs has a new derivative. They have just purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange and $1 billion of carbon assets. This is the new currency under the Obama administration.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has just been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

And yes, I know Paulson was Bush's pick. I didn't favor Bush's Wall Street bailout either. But BO, as usual is taking any of Bush's shortcomings and showing how bad it can really get by allowing this Goldman Sachs crap to continue. And that's only the tip of the ice berg. Much of the spendulous money is going towards other leeches of society, like ACORN and bringing them into the government.

Just take things back to before all the bailouts, get rid of welfare programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, and we're a strong country again. Unfortunately, I think democrats and RINO republicans have damned this country.

Proudhon was indeed against that, but he came to a different conclusion than yourself. After service in the 1848 government he realised representative democracy was no better than any other system before it. So he became an anarchist. His conclusion was that the workers should control everything as a whole through purely democratic means.



with all of the words like "plutocracy" that you use, you might like anarchist thought. It should be noted that they can be quite outrageous at times and some anarchists were just as socially conservative as the christian right, but overall the writers of the 19th century were amazing.

Ownership?
 

Should workers control everything? Not necessarily, there are good examples of worker run companies like Winco and cooperatives like Tillamook the workers at GM are going to have a good stake in the new GM. Capitalists are needed to develop a credit system which enables the economic system to expand. Capitalism can work well when the workers get to participate in the expansion. Henry Ford realized that when he gave his workers five dollars a day wages, it helped build the middle class. In order to maintain a strong middle class we need a fair taxation system and a rational credit system. I am becoming very disappointed with Obama and his financial buddies, they are allowing the financial system is manipulate the funding and vastly expand our tax liabilities. It seems very little of it is going to help people who are laid off and losing their homes.

Yes I feel like an anarchist when I see how the government bends over and lets the capitalists have at it. :coupling::frown:

Stockholder
 

If the government has a stake in a stock company, I don't see why that automatically makes the company non-capitalist. It will still function in a capitalist way within the economic system. Some companies should be owned by the public like utilities and health care facilities, they provide essential services that everyone needs. Manufacturing companies that provide goods for sale work best in the competitive environment of private enterprise. ;)

Fox News?
 

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top. :lol:

I see Egypt moved and changed the shape of its borders. The big question is what happened to Iraq?

OMG LOL. Reminds me of when CNN said 18 crew members on the space station were getting ready to evacuate. There were only 3 at the time.

Politics
 

Its good to be back.
But it feels better to see the old homely atmosphere. Tracy, Randolph and Hank fighting over politics... forever.

Mind you, I didnt say US Politics, as this topic is over Obama. Thats because, whatever these Bigbosses do, their effects are seen all over the world for decades. So, I guess its international politics. Also, theres Mrs. Clinton, touring the world, sealing nuclear deals and selling weapons all over the planet.

Gov.
 

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman. ;)

:lol: Jersygirl Jen

Universal health care
 

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
:cool: Jersygirl Jen

health care
 

Boy, this topic should generate some opinions.
Mine- We need universal health care, period. The Bush tax cuts to the rich would have paid for it. SRS is a complex of diseases and should be treated by health care. Abortions? If a women doesn't want her baby, she should give it away for adoption! If she doesn't want a pregnancy she should pay for the abortion and learn how not to get pregnant.
Humm, I guess trannys could make girls pregnant, if they have the balls to do it. Although, I don't think anyone ever got pregnant through anal sex. :lol:
;)
Question? are tranny sperm gay? :eek:

So true. And exactly why the government should not take over banks, car companies or health care.

for those that deserve it.
 

Holly crap Jen! You didn't step in a puddle, you went for the whole ocean!

Anyway, that said, abortion is the taking of a life. It is similar to capital punishment. I support both, but only for those that truely deserve it.

Think about my answer a long time before responding.

BS
 

From Tracy,
Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.
Tracy,
This is total BS. Gates was incredibly lucky to get the contract to supply IBM's PC with a disk operating system. He adapted much of the PC DOS system from CPM. He made millions by being a monopoly and IBM's naive belief that the PC would be a novelty with little market potential.

Democrats believe people are incompetent?
The rich have an overwhelming advantage over the rest of us. The little guys need some help to become competitive and as a businessman my self, I can assure you, the rich will do everything in their power to stay being rich and that includes doing in the competition any way they can. :yes:

???
 

From what you say. Do you believe a fetus could deserve to be aborted? :frown:

Health care?
 

Yes, i knew you would agree with this. It is an exaggeration, obviously. The problem is, do we put up with some inefficiency of a government health care system or a private health care system that denies sick people the help they need. Actually, Medicare costs have risen significantly slower than private health care services. I presume you have health care, probably provided by your employer. What if you get laid off and you have no health care, think about it. The other problem with private health care is that even with private health care many people are going bankrupt over medical costs anyway. :frown:

Universal health care obviously should be DOA. My mom emailed me complaining about the health care package they are considering. As a sr citizen she is rightly worried that healthcare will be cut for seniors so that illegal aliens. This is insanity.

Here's what Dr. Dave Janda, keynote speaker at a congressional dinner had to say...
Suck it Obama

BO's plan also denies sick people the help they need... see above.

Then I would be screwed. Because then my status would change and I would be forced to change to the national health care plan, rather than get other private insurance coverage when I get another job.

costs?
 

A significant portion of Medicare costs are in the last six months of a persons life. Does this make sense?:no:

So any guy off the street that wants to start a business should be profitable? And if he is not, then more successful companies should be penalized? Shoo... Away with you.

Janda
 

Dr Dave Janda is a well known physician in the sports medicine field. He obviously has put a very negative spin on public health care. Is what he says really the way the system would work or is he spinning things out of context. I haven't heard such a negative view from other reviewers of the proposed system. :frown:

What!
 

I don't think what you are saying has anything to with what I said.

For many years I ran a small business. We didn't make much money but we supported about eight families. Running a business is not easy, I can assure you. I have dealt with local bureaucrats, state bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats. They all suck. The big guys get the premium treatment.
By the way, did you know that Bill Gates paid the salaries of several employees in the local building department so the department would expedite his building plans? :frown:

Can you say SCARE TACTICS, His worst nightmare is universal health care that would derail his gravey train so he's pulling out the Carl Rove play book and want's to scare everyone in to accepting the messed up health system


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Our money
 

The chart shows the tarp money loaned to the banks, the amount paid back and the amount of bonuses paid to employees. Obama doesn't seem to mind this. This really pisses me off. :censored::censored::censored:

Costs
 

A comparison of health care costs. So is private health care more efficient?

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

Switch?
 

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation. ;):lol:

Please do. I wouldn't want that commie touching me anyway. Sexy commies like Jen are ok though :yes:

No, I promise no soapbox while my cock is being sucked.:turnon:

Oh!
 

So, I guess you don't consider Obama a commie? ;):lol:

Commie... fascist... satan... who knows.

Okay
 

Usually the deal is "if you suck me Ill suck you". Since you invited Obama to suck you are you willing and able to suck Obama? Blacks have very big cocks you know. ;):lol:

And this is bad why?:p

Focus
 

Well it could be distracting if you want to focus on the sensual pleasures of a fine tranny cock. Tracy has assured us that she would refrain from right wing rhetoric while being pleasured. ;)

But it would be killing two birds with one stone. Servicing a womans cock and "political re-education" except in this case, the shot does not go through the back of the head; it goes into the mouth ;)

Political cum
 

Humm, I guess your saying that we could get politically re-educated with a load of tranny cum. An interesting idea. I guess we better be careful who we suck if we don't want to be re-educated. ;):lol:

Is someone going to suck my cock or not LOL

Suck
 

Wow, you would let LIBERAL suck it. Be careful, liberals are known for all kinds of naughty behavior and dangerous thoughts. :eek:;)

This is, as they say, a teachable moment. I am fiscally conservative, I favor a strong foreign policy, but I am also socially liberal. I have mentioned this before, but no one believes me lol.

Some more "lightsaber" training this young Jedi needs. Yes?

You know how BO said for 95% of Americans tax will not go up? Forget that. Geithner just said the middle class will have to be taxed more as well. This is Obama's "No New Taxes!" moment. Luckily for him though, he controls the media.

Taxes
 

Oh well, I seem to recall Ronney cutting taxes and then raising them and Sr Bush saying no new taxes and raising them. This is nothing new all politicians are lairs when it comes to taxes.
"Hope springs eternal" that we could have a good government that does what "needs" to be done and leaves us alone. :(

Rapid fire?
 

Quote of the Day
- By Kevin Drum | Tue August 4, 2009 9:42 AM PST

From Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), responding to Joe Sestak's decision to run against him in next year's Democratic primary:

His months of indecisiveness on his candidacy raises a real question as to his competency to handle the tough rapid-fire decisions required of a Senator.

Rapid fire? The U.S. Senate? Are we talking about the same U.S. Senate here?
:lol::rolleyes:

What a surpise, Taxes going up, Well we do have two wars to pay for and a huge national debit to pay off so of cousre taxes will be going up only a fool would start two wars and still cut taxes for the super rich


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Yeah, probably not a good time to start all those big spending programs. Oops.

Mr president
 

I think Obama will be a great President in the US

Taxes?
 

By the way, Obama denies any tax increase for the middle class. Lets hope he follows through on fucking the rich.:lol:

Also, I just watched the acclaimed video "The corporation". I would highly recommend it to anybody interested in understanding the role of corporations in our society.:respect:

That's a big shocker there, why would he admit that he lied?:lol::lol:Hey, does that include all the hollyweird people and the music industry names that backed his campaign?

You mean like what W did with the GOP congress and senate from 01 thru 06? It seems as long as it's a program from the GOP to help the rich you are all smiles but any program to help the working poor you are against. Besides you are forgetting who created this mess GEORGE W BUSH and his REAGEN trickle down ecomics which only helps those who don't need help and leaves a hugh debit to be paid by everyone else

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

The question is WHEN???

There was no financial crisis then. And what big spending programs did Bush start in addition to the wars? Wars that BO has decided to continue BTW.

I'm for programs that help both.

I don't see how you have any right to make those claims since you've made them several times over the last several months and have never provided any details on that. So cut the crap. No one's buying it.

When?
 

A lot will depend on whether Congress can stand up to the financial corporations. Things don't look very good at this point. The lobbyists are swarming into Washington with tons of money, the favorite food of our Congressmen.

If he can achieve a humane health care system, minimize our military involvements, come up with a reasonable carbon control system, convince us to save and be thrifty, invest in energy efficiency, create a transparent financial system and balance the budget, yes, even Tracy might admit he is a great president. ;)

If he achieves any kind of health care system to his liking we're fucked. Who is saying we need this health care system? Yes there are a lot of people who are unemployed now, but you don't fix that by creating a permanent national health care system. We're not going to have these unemployment numbers forever. So to fix this temporary situation he's going to screw this country from now on and force everyone to accept a more expensive health care system with worse quality of service.


LMAO!!! You want Barack Obama to show us how to save and be thrifty??! LOLOLOLOLOLOL :lol: OMG that's funny. Surely you realize how ridiculous that sounds.

As for transparency, his town hall meetings are staged, he pre-approves reporters questions, he insists on trillion dollar bills to be rushed through congress without time to read them. I see fewer signs of transparency than there were before.

If he balances the budget I will truly call him the messiah. Because that will be a miracle after what he's done to this country.

Joke
 

Yes Tracy, The chances of any of this happening is remote to say the least. That's why those comments were intended to be "tongue in cheek". :lol:

On the other hand, if Obama is so bad why is the stock market doing so well? ;)
Some of my investments have fully recovered and others are on the way. :turnon:
Answer: his priority is the financial system recovery using our money.:turnoff:
The rich guys rule and Obama knows that. :frown:

Sorry that i'm not as intrenched in a party as you are to have a excuss list and links to make W appaer to be one of the greatest presidents of all time behind Regan, Unlike you i see whats going on i get my news from the newspaper the Courier Post the main paper in South Jersey ABC local news out of South Phillie and CNN mostly Wolfe B and LOU DOBBS i don't pay attention to Rush or FOXX NEWS or search the computers bloggers so sorry i don't have these so called spin links that you love and demand. All this links you provided is mostly the same crap the goose stepping Bushies were trying to hand out in 04 and i'm sure those links have been updated since.


Now about W big spending programs rember his great drug plan for seniors? Yeah a program writen for and by the drug and insurence companies which offers little help and is only going to bankrupt medicare.
Now about Obama sticking with the wars, Obama is drawing a close to the Iraq war and he is stepping up in the Afgan war a war that was right but a war W didn't want and didn't care about as he was to busy with Iraq he let Afgan slip in to a big mess and he never did catch Bin- Laddin because i think he never wanted him captured
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

A Brit speaks up
 

From where I'm sitting, I think it's far too early for Barack to be judged or analysed through partisan eyes. He has one hell of a job in fron of him with Social Reforms, and the Senate are not likely to make that an easy ride. As far as international politics goes, the image of America ( for whatever reason ) has suffered severely in the last two decades world-wide, and this will not be changed overnight, especially in the face of sustained propaganda from America's enemies ( and, sadly, her ' allies ' too ).

What do other Brits think ? This thread is a really interesting one ! Keep posting ! !:yes:

If that's what you think I'm doing, you're not paying attention.

HEY!! Congratulations!!! You are on the verge of actually backing up one of your statements. And you may actually have one here. I haven't heard of it. Can you give more details?

No, that was Bush that was drawing a close to the Iraq war after the surge worked. He and the Iraqi government already set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. BO wanted to withdraw troops over 16 months, but it's more like Bush's plan now.

The fighting was over in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda went elsewhere to cause trouble. They have since come back. Both Bush & BO wanted to return to Afghanistan to do another clean up.

As for the hunt for bin laden. Yes we must get him. But should we focus all our efforts on only finding him? It's easy for one person to hide and never be found. Do you think the conflict will be over if Bin Laden is gone? Of course not. Bush went after Al Qaeda. Given the choice, I'd choose Bin Laden without Al Qaeda rather than Al Qaeda without Bin Laden.

I don't think it's too early. We're not just judging him. We're judging his policies. Policies that have been tried before and have failed.

Compromise?
 

From Washington Monthly
SWEET SURRENDER.... In this clever Kos item, Stroszek, responding to "cogent and potent criticisms" from the right, is prepared to offer Republican critics of health care reform a gracious compromise.

Over the past week, we have seen your passionate protests and heard your concerns about Democratic proposals for health care reform. We have considered your insightful and well reasoned arguments, and on behalf of progressives everywhere, I am here to say: OK! We give up! We are willing to compromise on the proposals that concern you. You've won! Yay!

Yes, in light of the provisions that conservative activists have demanded be removed from any and all legislation, Stroszek is willing to say, without equivocation, that under Democratic reform proposals, "We will not euthanize your grandmother." Democrats will also agree, among other things, not to let Rahm Emanuel's brother kill Sarah Palin's baby, not to nationalize hospitals, not to "provide illegal immigrants with unlimited free health care," not to eliminate private insurance, and not to establish "a super-secret-awesome health care program for ACORN employees."

With these concessions having been made, I trust that we can now move forward on health care reform with a broad, bipartisan consensus. Blue Dogs and Republicans, you can now rest easy knowing that the concerns of the town hall protesters have been met. While the progressive dream of a nation in which old people are slaughtered to pay for the abortions of ACORN-employed illegal immigrants will again have to be deferred, we are willing to settle for a bill without these measures in the name of bipartisanship. Congratulations, Republicans. You've won this round.

The right sure knows how to drive a hard bargain, but I can live with these painful concessions, giving up these long-held liberal goals.

Compromise is all about give and take, and Democrats, no matter how much they want to euthanize grandmothers or reward ACORN employees, should be prepared to accept these concessions. Republicans, who seem to take these concerns very seriously, should be thrilled.

Can we pass reform now? ;):lol:

The fighting in Afghanistan was never over. Al Qaida was driven and so was the Taliban. The Taliban have been waging an insurgency ever since 2002. It has been stronger at some times than at other times, but it has never died out.

That's true, it's interesting to note that Afganistan has never actually been conquered by an outside force.

It has been. Alexander the Great conquered the area and about 16 centuries after him the Mongols did also. Of course the country of Afghanistan didn't exist then. The various areas were under tribal control.

What I ment, was the people of that region have never been subdued. Their lands may have been occupied, but they themselves have never been beaten.

America is waking up!
 

The reality of Obama's policies are finally starting to dawn on the majority of Americans. 47% approve, 52% disapprove

Polls?
 

Your graph is from Rassmussen. This one is from Gallup. Who shall be believe?

Ok, the average approval rating between the polls is 50%. It won't be long.

Pharma
 

If Obama caves in to big Pharma I will be very discouraged. :frown::censored:

Republican BS
 

From the Washington Monthly

THEY'VE BEEN WRONG FOR A VERY LONG TIME.... The benefits of hindsight can make opponents of popular measures look quite silly years later. Republican arguments against Medicare seem ridiculous now, but were intense at the time. Republican arguments against Clinton's economic policies are almost laughable now, but were widely believed at the time.

And Republican arguments against Social Security, as Nancy Altman explained today, seem awfully familiar 74 years later.

Though no one was talking about "death panels" back then, opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control. A Republican congressman from New York, for example, charged: "The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test."

Another New York congressman put it this way: "The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants." A Republican senator from Delaware claimed that Social Security would "end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European."

Today, opponents of a public health insurance option claim that it would drive private health insurance out of business and put a bureaucrat between doctors and patients. Back then, opponents of Social Security warned that it would "establish a bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition with private business" that would "destroy" private pensions.

Then as now, opponents played the socialism card.

It wasn't just Social Security. When FDR tackled health care reform, the right condemned "the socialization of medicine," and the AMA said Roosevelt's plans were "un-American."

The difference, of course, is that most Americans rejected the nonsense, and welcomed FDR's reforms. Republicans of that era, similar to the Republicans of the current era, had failed so spectacularly at governing, their ideas had been thoroughly discredited. The conservative activists of the time struggled to convince the public to reject Roosevelt's agenda.

Altman recommends that Obama follow FDR's example. The problem is, Obama already has. Roosevelt anticipated Republican attacks, and told Americans the truth is speeches and fire-side chats. Obama has done the same thing. The difference is, FDR didn't have to overcome a Republican Propaganda Machine. :(

Personally, I think that the American right wing barracking of Obama (excuse the pun) so early into his Presidency, and in light of the enormous challenges he faces (thanks in part to his inept Republican predecessor), borders on the shameful.

The right wing and general public's response to Obama's proposed healthcare reforms has been an outright disgrace, even dragging the name of America's closest ally through the mire, just to try and further discredit Obama... I find it astonishing that dumb and not-so-dumb Americans alike are jumping on the bandwagon to criticise a healthcare system that they have absolutely no experience of, and know very little about... as far as I'm concerned, the NHS is one of the crowning achievements of Western society. It may not be perfect, but at least it is based on the principle of EQUALITY (not Socialism), something that the Amercian right wing seems desperate to avoid in their country. For that reason alone, I say thank God I'm not American. I find myself thinking: "can't Americans see the overwhelming need for this sort of reform in their country, to improve the lot of the tens of millions of poor and disadvantaged when it comes to healthcare?"

I'm not saying that Obama is and will always be right, but given the unique set of circumstances he currently faces, he can't be judged for another year or two at least, and I think the majority of Americans should be applauding his intentions, especially after the Bush years. And this whole business about Americans slagging off the NHS really has annoyed me, especially given the fact that us Brits actually have a slightly higher life expectancy across the board compared to our US counterparts. There, that's my two cents lol.

Social security basically has the current working population paying for the current retired's retirement. But the thing about populations, that anyone with a brain knows (i.e. not a politician) is that populations grow exponentially.

dN
-- = r N
dt

where r is the rate of natural increase (about .6% for the US), t is time, N is the number of people in a population at a given instant. N = N0 * Exp(rt)

The rate that a population increases depends on r, but it is exponential. Which, when applied to social security means that the working population will have to pay exponentially more tax to support the retired population. Meaning the rate will start off manageable at first. It will raise a bit later. And eventually will start to sky rocket. It will become impossible to sustain.

Something like this...

Data
 

This data needs to be compared to the gross national product to be meaningful. The country has also grown dramatically (exponentially?) over the years.

Social Security is a scam. Who the hell would want the federal government AKA:"clusterfuck" to tell you how to save money?

Baffled
 

From Washington Monthly.
THE PENANCE HAS NOT BEEN PAID.... Following up on this item from yesterday, I had an interesting conversation via email yesterday with Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations. Bruce made a point that really resonated with me, and he was gracious enough to allow me to republish it here.

I believe that political parties should do penance for their mistakes and just losing power is not enough. Part of that involves understanding why those mistakes were made and how to prevent them from happening again. Republicans, however, have done no penance. They just pretend that they did nothing wrong. But until they do penance they don't deserve any credibility and should be ignored until they do. That's what my attacks on Bush are all about. I want Republicans to admit they were wrong about him, accept blame for his mistakes, and take some meaningful action to keep them from happening again. Bush should be treated as a pariah, as Richard Nixon was for many years until he rebuilt his credibility by more or less coming clean about Watergate with David Frost and writing a number of thoughtful books.

One reason this isn't happening is because the media don't treat Republicans as if they are discredited. On the contrary, they often seem to be treated as if they have more credibility than the administration. Just look at the silly issue of death panels. The media should have laughed it out the window, ridiculed it or at least ignored it once it was determined that there was no basis to the charge. Instead, those making the most outlandish charges are treated with deference and respect, while those that actually have credibility on the subject are treated as equals at best and often with deep skepticism, as if they are the ones with an ax to grind.

I am truly baffled by this situation, as I'm sure you are.

As regular readers may imagine, I find this overwhelmingly persuasive. Bush/Cheney policies failed so spectacularly, Republican candidates and officeholders are generally reluctant to associate themselves with the tarnished name of the previous administration. But Bush/Cheney policies are still those of the contemporary Republican Party. Nothing has changed. Failure and defeat haven't chastened the GOP at all, and if given a chance to govern again, Republican leaders are quite anxious to return to the exact same agenda they embraced when they were in the majority. :frown::censored:

And Dick Morris from Clinton's administration places blame squarely on the democrats.... shrug

Obama can really pick em
 

Let's give a warm welcome to John Holdren - Science Czar and director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr Holden, can you please tell us some of your ideas?

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," Holdren wrote in "Human Ecology," a 1973 textbook he co-authored with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren heralded a "tightly reasoned essay" by law professor Christopher Stone, who said, "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment -- indeed, to the natural environment as a whole." Holdren, writing in 1977's "Ecoscience," which was also co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich

In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote.

Another "coercive fertility control" program floated by Holdren involved "the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired ... The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Holdren wrote in "Ecoscience."

To help achieve their goals, Holdren and the Ehrlichs formulated a "world government scheme" they called the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth. They also discussed the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

Populations
 

Nature has a very simple way of controlling populations, its called STARVATION. If humans aren't willing or able to control their population, then nature will eventually do it for us. We are still totally dependent on agriculture for food and our ability to produce it is limited. :frown:

Warren Buffett (an Obama supporter and indirect beneficiary of the stimulus packages) wrote this in the NY Times:

[quote = "Warren Buffett"]The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country's "net debt" (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.

...

Even with these heroic assumptions [on the part of other countries buying our debt and Amercan people actually donating their savings to the treasury], the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington's printing presses will need to work overtime.

Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can't come close to bridging that sort of gap.

Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."[/quote]

So get ready for inflation high enough to move over a $trillion from the American public (I know he says $900 billion, but I don't think anyone seriously believes the American public will fork over their savings to the treasury).

You make me swoon....
 

...with words like that. My goodness, I would suck you on the soapbox, in the soapbox, next to the soapbox, with the soapbox in the other room staring at me with its angry, sullen eyes, with the soapbox hanging over my head like the national debt hanging over our grandchildren's heads, with the.....ok, ok, I am digressing, but I think you get the point.

You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world.

"You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world."

Awwww shucks :turnon: