Barack Obama

[jimnaseum]

The "wink wink" factor you will never hear any politician talk about is the perception that Republicans are white and Democrats are black. And Republicans want you to keep the money you earn while the Dems want you to "spread it around" to welfare mothers. The perception is your one choice is to hang with the white people, or hang with the black people. While this is partly true, the greater truth is that if you make less than $100,000/yr, you ARE a black person!!!! And unless you are one of the very small percentage of people that strike it rich, the HOUSE will always win, and you lose. The game is fixed. The Republican plan is that every cent a working man earns goes towards "goods and services" ...and, oh yeah, (wink wink) they control all the "goods and services"
A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The "wink wink" factor you will never hear any politician talk about is the perception that Republicans are white and Democrats are black. And Republicans want you to keep the money you earn while the Dems want you to "spread it around" to welfare mothers. The perception is your one choice is to hang with the white people, or hang with the black people. While this is partly true, the greater truth is that if you make less than $100,000/yr, you ARE a black person!!!! And unless you are one of the very small percentage of people that strike it rich, the HOUSE will always win, and you lose. The game is fixed. The Republican plan is that every cent a working man earns goes towards "goods and services" ...and, oh yeah, (wink wink) they control all the "goods and services"
A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

JIM:

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?


TAL

[Mel Asher]

From England I fear for Obama. I just hope he isn't given the ' bum's rush ' before he has an opportunity to show what he is capable of. We are still suffering in the U.K. from the aftermath of Flim-Flam endless-promises Tony Blair, but we hope that Obama doesn't end up being coralled down the same reformist route that Clinton did ( and I'm NOT referring to his sex life either ! )

Obama can be a great president given time and luck, that's as I see it.

[jimnaseum]

In Olde Europe, people followed leaders who were "Father Figures" and were trusted to serve them. American Leaders are civil servants. Taxes pay for goods and services: Schools, military, medicare, social security, etc. The problems arise when our leaders are not civil servants, but servants to Big Oil, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical companies, and Banks.
In the Garden of Eden, God owned the Tree of Knowledge. In the USA, the People own it. Oh, Shit!!

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

JIM:
Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Yes, and in a Court of Law, case closed. That's all the evidence you need.
Of course, Jimmy Carter kind of screwed things up. JFK took us toe to toe with WWIII. And Reagan took Moscow.
And if a quake ever hits California like it did Haiti, we're all fucked.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton,
Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43,
Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill.
Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes.
Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?

Well, if Bush left a "whopping deficit for Obama", just what is Obama leaving the next president?
Or all of us, as citizens, for that matter?
As Tracy CORRECTLY pointed out in another thread...

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with Republican congress: $339B deficit

Bush with Democratic congress: $704B deficit

Obama with Democratic congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit

I'm blaming Bush and the Republican congress for the $339B deficit.
The $704B deficit with the Democratic congress, not so much.
And I'm definitely blaming BO and the Democratic congress for the $2.7 trillion deficit.

Tell me where I am wrong?

[jimnaseum]

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster. It was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks, the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

Obama has proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget. Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office.

And even as Obama has pursued landmark health insurance reforms that will hold the insurance industry accountable and expand coverage to working Americans, he has insisted from the beginning that any reform legislation must not add to the federal deficit and must help reduce it over time. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation making its way through Congress upholds this principle. As the president has said, the federal budget is like an ocean liner, not a motor boat, and it will take time to redirect its course. But the course correction that was so badly needed after the previous administration has begun in earnest.

There's an old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

See, that's where you've already gone off the rails. But at least you used the right word to try and sneak one through.

When Bill Clinton left office, he did the exact same thing that ALL presidents are required do: namely, he submitted a 5 year PROJECTED budget report based on the economic indicators that HE (as current president) was basically GUESSING the way the economy would go, if Congress pursued his suggestions in the future.

The only problem for Clinton is that he basically guessed WRONG on pretty much everything across the board. In his 5 year projection, he stated (for example) that the boom "dot coms" that were currently blossoming at the time and making people overnight multi-millionaires would continue and grow the economy...when in fact the "dot com" bubble actually burst and NEVER lived up to Clinton's projections. Likewise Clinton predicted that energy costs would drop and thus trim the budget...except than the direct OPPOSITE happened and energy coasts literally SOARED, coupled by energy companies like Enron even going bankrupt due to financially fake book-keeping.

And before anyone on the Left tries to pull the old bullshit line about Bush being in the pocket of companies like Enron, keep it mind that it was UNDER CLINTON that Enron grew in size and doctored its books and went unchecked. Why? Because Clinton wanted to cite and incorporated their profit numbers as proof that his economic plan was working.

The crock of this being that during the 1980 presidential debates, Bush literally POINTED to the fact that far too many companies were doctoring their books...that far too many of Clinton's numbers were actually waaaaay off and misleading...which prompted an infamous historical exchange in the debates where Gore accused Bush of trying TO CREATE a recession by talking down the economy. Those on the Left love to conveniently forget that in 1980 Bush WARNED that a recession was looming, while Gore (and the running candidate) and Clinton said it was all nonsense and the economy was perfectly sound...

...At which point it turned out Bush was right, and we did enter a recession. And Bush was right again as companies like Enron went under. And for all the talk on the left how Bush was in the pocket of Enron, let the record show that it was BUSH and HIS justice department that went after Ken Lay and Enron, to throw them into jail and to expose the bookkeeping corruption that was going on.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

Which the Democrats ALSO continually voted for as well.
So your point? Or are you admitting the Dems have no clean hands as well?

As for Bush handing Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit after 8 years, given your indignation, how do you feel about Obama QUINTUPLING that amount in only ONE year?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

Nice try, but as a historical TRUTH that is actually a well-documented and proven FACT about Obama. The bottom line: in only ONE YEAR in office, Obama has now SPENT MORE THAN EVERY PRECEDING PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY COMBINED.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster.

Actually, it's NOT "widely accepted" anymore. In fact, just as many economists -- and even polls of the American people themselves -- now show that a majority of people feel Obama basically "scared" people into allowing him (and the Democrats in Congress) to break the national piggy bank and to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, by constantly labeling the crisis "the worst disaster since the Great Depression."

As many economists have noted -- including even people like Paul Krugman, noted LIBERAL economist, who of late has likewise turned on Obama -- how can you call it "the worst crisis since the great depression" when all it took was a one time cash infusion to right the system, and in only ONE YEAR the veru same banks Obama was claiming were on the verge of total collapse have not only paid their loan money back, but are now likewise posting RECORD PROFITS?

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

It was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks....

You're right. So congratulations on proving my point. Even if you DO want to call it "the worst crisis since the Great Depresssion", then the CREDIT for saving the banks and re-stabilizing the system should NOT go to Obama, but should actually belong to -- yes -- George Bush!

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

...the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

I call bullshit on that one. It's not that Obama CUT the cost by 2/3 through any stewardship. And the idea that ANYTHING Obama does can be called transparent is laughable. The reason there was a savings is because they never NEEDED to spend all the allocated money -- which dovetails right back into my point above, that the banks righted themselves to a large degree and are now even back to posting profits.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

He (Obama) has insisted from the beginning that any (health care) reform legislation must not add to the federal deficit and must help reduce it over time. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation making its way through Congress upholds this principle.

Not true at all. What the CBO report states is that it would INITIALLY save money, but that only a mere 5 years out costs start to rise -- and 10 years out the program is running a huge deficit, nearly a whopping $2 trillion.

In fact, even the CBO's assertion that there will be some initial savings were highly dubious and could only be derived through Enron-like doctoring of the books, which EVEN THE CBO ACKNOWLEDGED IN THEIR REPORT.

Basically, to pay for a $1 trillion health care plan, Obama simply CLAIMED he would come up with $500 billion of that through Medicare cuts (in other words, that's how he'd literally find HALF of the money for his progam) -- and yet to this day O-dumba (and the Democrats) still can't actually name where these so-called cuts are going to come from. Instead, they just SAID they'd magically find HALF A TRILLION in savings, and then decided to add that money -- still sight unseen -- into the pile.

Tell you what.
I can play the Democratic game of creative accounting too.
Here's how it works...

I have bills to pay... I need to save money this year... but hey, no problem!
Since I work in Hollywood, I'm SURE that I'm gonna sell a $1 MILLION screenplay this year.
I'm SURE things will break my way the best way imaginable!

What's that? You want to know if I have a $1 million offer on the table now?
Uh...no...I don't. But, hey, I'm thinking positive, and that's all that counts -- right?
So since I'm SURE it's gonna happen, I'm just gonna go ahead
and add that million bucks into my bank account, BEFORE I've even made it.

WOW! LOOK AT THAT!
Once I toss a mythical million dollars into my bank account, I have no more debt!
Wow, that sure was easy to balance my check book.
Guess I won't have to worry about any bills this year after all!

And, yes, that's EXACTLY how Obama and the Democrats did their health care reform math...

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, if Bush left a "whopping deficit for Obama", just what is Obama leaving the next president?
Or all of us, as citizens, for that matter?
As Tracy CORRECTLY pointed out in another thread...

C-MIN:

Tracy is correct and she just happens to agree with you? I'm not going to engage with you, because I don't want to read a short story.

Conse 'Pubs have the POV that any pol who isn't
a Conse 'Pub will FAIL, and a Conse 'Pub who fails isn't Conse enough. Can it be any more narrow that? Make it short or don't reply.


TAL

[jimnaseum]

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

That's so easy: TAX CUTS.

The best way to buy a vote legally.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber. You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

What else is his greatest achievement from my perspective? Initiating the Moon/Mars exploration program at Nasa. It's been 38 years since we've been beyond low Earth orbit and there's still several years to go, but we're finally on track.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber......

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber. You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

What else is his greatest achievement from my perspective? Initiating the Moon/Mars exploration program at Nasa. It's been 38 years since we've been beyond low Earth orbit and there's still several years to go, but we're finally on track.

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11!

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

1) The attack would have happened regardless of who was in office. They were already here so the finding of the terrorists would have been a job for our alphabet agencies. That shows failure of our security measures and our policies which were emplaced by Clinton who knew about the threat and brushed it aside.

2) He recognized a threat and did not casually blow it off. Could he have found the terrorists had his order been signed earlier? Probably not. Our measures are more defensive and reactive in nature. Bush actually had an offensive mindset and took the fight to them rather than bending over and taking it in the ass.

3) I guarantee you that if Gore won, he would blow off the threat of Al-Qaeda just like his predecessor and once we were attacked, he would try to engage in "peaceful dialogue" and "empathy" or "understanding" with Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile his little tip-toeing would present the country as spineless and invite even more attacks against us.

[smc]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

There's no such thing as a "middle class." You either sell your labor, or you profit off the labor of others. Where's the middle in that?

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by smc

There's no such thing as a "middle class." You either sell your labor, or you profit off the labor of others. Where's the middle in that?

The middle class are the MAJORITY of Americans who make between x-dollars and y-dollars a year. LOTS of small business owners fit in this category. The more money the middle class has, the more money goes to the poor and the rich, TRICKLE OUT. You starve the middle class like Bush did, everything goes to Hell.

[smc]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The middle class are the MAJORITY of Americans who make between x-dollars and y-dollars a year. LOTS of small business owners fit in this category. The more money the middle class has, the more money goes to the poor and the rich, TRICKLE OUT. You starve the middle class like Bush did, everything goes to Hell.

I truly believe that until Americans understand class distinctions, and understand them as a scientific concept provable by economic law, there is little hope for achieving long-term solutions to any of the problems various members of the Forum raise. Yes, we can achieve this or that incremental improvement, perhaps for a limited time, but ultimately the choice is a fundamental reshaping of society or barbarism.

[randolph]

This is the main threat to our liberty"

From: Huffington Post
Anis Shivanic

Corporatism is a dirty word in the American lexicon because of its close historical association with fascism, but we can recognize marked neofascist or authoritarian or extreme right-wing tendencies, of which someone like Sarah Palin is the leading edge. The new corporatist state as it has arisen under Bush and Obama thrives on reserve constitutional powers (unlimited executive authority) allied with a permanent state of emergency (the war on terror), both indispensable starting principles of authoritarian regimes. On the whole, the judiciary, with respect to the protection of civil liberties, came off reasonably well in the last decade; but this may have been the aftereffect of the more libertarian eighties and nineties, and the courts may begin to reflect the strong public preference for indefinite detention and torture (viz. the hue and cry over the planned Khalid Sheikh Muhammad trial in New York, and majority support for torture following the failed underwear bombing). The Department of Homeland Security can be viewed as the crystallization of all the police services under effective national command. Almost a decade after the annihilation of the Bill of Rights after 9/11, it is clear that the Bill of Rights is not going to be revived in anything resembling its previous state; this does not portend well for the future.

The Supreme Court decision makes this even stronger.

[Hedonistman]

it's a bird, it's a plane,,,,it's Obamaman,,, lol. Well it's good to see so many folks here take the time to comment on the guy. What's a shame though is how so very many believe what the mass media 'feeds' them. I could spend hours listing all Obamamans' ills, but I'll just mention 1,,,he's not even an American. Wait now,, b4 consigning me to the ranks of the wild and crazy folk, consider a few facts: he's spent 2 mil and counting fending off numerous suits to basically keep ALL his personal records 'top secret'. In his race for the Senate he tacitly admitted he was NOT born American. Those are verified facts. What's interesting though is 'why', he do that, lol. I mean all he need do is take off 1 sock and shoe, and give the American people a footprint. Case closed either way.... hardly seems so invasive a way to prove he has the right to BE the President of the USA.
Ok, let it rip, lol.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

it's a bird, it's a plane,,,,it's Obamaman,,, lol. Well it's good to see so many folks here take the time to comment on the guy. What's a shame though is how so very many believe what the mass media 'feeds' them. I could spend hours listing all Obamamans' ills, but I'll just mention 1,,,he's not even an American. Wait now,, b4 consigning me to the ranks of the wild and crazy folk, consider a few facts: he's spent 2 mil and counting fending off numerous suits to basically keep ALL his personal records 'top secret'. In his race for the Senate he tacitly admitted he was NOT born American. Those are verified facts. What's interesting though is 'why', he do that, lol. I mean all he need do is take off 1 sock and shoe, and give the American people a footprint. Case closed either way.... hardly seems so invasive a way to prove he has the right to BE the President of the USA.
Ok, let it rip, lol.

HEAD:

Yes, and Bush 43 was honest, transparent & bi-partisan to a fault.


Talking with Conse 'Pubs on this site is depressing.


TAL

[jimnaseum]

Can we PLEASE get some Republicans on this site like Pat Buchanan? I just saw him sitting next to that nauseating Fox parrotcunt Monica Crowley, admitting that the Republicans have NO platform, and don't need one. He then admitted that as soon as the new wonderboy from Massachusetts gets to DC, he's going to be sat down in a back room and EXPLAINED a few things.....
I just hope Scalia has a history of heart disease in his family. What a prick.....

[schiff]

Originally Posted by smc

There's no such thing as a "middle class." You either sell your labor, or you profit off the labor of others. Where's the middle in that?

What is labor? Is work with your brain considered labor? Cause I'll tell ya, physics & calculus are pretty laborious....

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by schiff

What is labor? Is work with your brain considered labor? Cause I'll tell ya, physics & calculus are pretty laborious....

Yes. If you are a drafter and get paid to doodle all day, all the effort you put into designing is considered labor. You are getting compensated for your effort by the way of money.

I don't think I'd ever be able to grasp calculus or physics. I was reading something on quantum physics and it was so mind boggling that I went into my Keanu Reeves mode...

"Whoa!"

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't think I'd ever be able to grasp calculus or physics. I was reading something on quantum physics and it was so mind boggling that I went into my Keanu Reeves mode...

"Whoa!"

Kinda like when you turn an electron around 360 degrees, it doesn't look the same. You have to turn it around another 360 degrees before you're back to where you were.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama is expected to call for a spending freeze for the next free years on "non-security" budget items. How convenient, now that he's finally getting around to figuring out what to do with the space program.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Kinda like when you turn an electron around 360 degrees, it doesn't look the same. You have to turn it around another 360 degrees before you're back to where you were.

I meant more like the math behind all that. I understand the basic concepts; I'm just not a whiz kid when it comes to the math part.

[smc]

Originally Posted by schiff

What is labor? Is work with your brain considered labor? Cause I'll tell ya, physics & calculus are pretty laborious....

Yes, work with your brain is labor. The point is about whether you get paid the full value of your labor, or whether someone else who does none of the labor succeeds in boosting the "price" of the labor to profit in some way.

[schiff]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, work with your brain is labor. The point is about whether you get paid the full value of your labor, or whether someone else who does none of the labor succeeds in boosting the "price" of the labor to profit in some way.

Engineers get paid pretty damn well. BAM! Solution found.

[smc]

Originally Posted by schiff

Engineers get paid pretty damn well. BAM! Solution found.

I guess if your looking for a simplistic measure, to which little thought has been given, you could say that. But if you want to grasp the complexity, you need to be a bit more scientific. One's wage level is decidedly not the criterion.

[Talvenada]

Conse 'Pubs will savage Obama's speech.

They will say this proves the people have realized Obama was a mistake.