American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Call you an extreme idiolog with impulse control who makes jackson's politics look more like teddy kennedy's politics than yours. But since you're a great guy, I won't say that.

From a guy who knows what marx wrote about and knows that there is not one marxist in the democratic party[unless they might be undercover] and the bushies took the original neo-conservative ideas and put them into practice in a way that would make most of the original neocon' shudder in horror. Ask Jackson, he studied politcal.

Theory at a top school and understands the difference between Marx, Stalin and Trotsky. Being a politcal moderate or slightly left of center may be offensive to some, but even the Nazi party enjoys the protections of free speach.

Waiting to be flamed. I'm buying the first round on Friday guy!

[QUOTE=Miami Bob]. Waiting to be flamed. I'm buying the first round on Friday guy![/QUOTE]You know there is no way I can flame you, to whom I owe a debt of honor. It is I that will by the first drink.

Funny coincidence, I am a moderate too!

My conservatism is not neo-conservatism (whatever that term has come to represent) it is based on the same fundamentals as Reagan's: smaller government (focused on national security and the few things that govt can do better than the private sector) personal responsibility and freedom. Nothing more, nothing less.

I love everyone (especially if you have big titties, a tight cooch and no dick)

Fire up the Pisco Sours and Frenet.

"Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’.

Obama’s plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. Has "already failed.”

I’m sure some of you can put a good spin on this, but here's the link.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s[/url]

BTW Is it true that "GM" now stands for "Government Motors"?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]"Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama's 'Already Failed'.

Obama's plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. Has "already failed."

I'm sure some of you can put a good spin on this, but here's the link.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090609/pl_bloomberg/affk5skijh5s[/url]

BTW Is it true that "GM" now stands for "Government Motors"?[/QUOTE]GM also stands for "Gimme More".

[QUOTE=SteveC]So, I'm still not convinced you have an idea what a Marxist is. Maybe you could give us another definition other than "Black Democratic US President"? I'm only asking again because I've got a pretty good idea of what a Marxist is, and I get sick and tired of a bunch of Republicans banding around the word as an insult when they don't have a clue what a Marxist is. IMHO. If you could convince me that he is I'd be delighted to revise my opinion. Always eager to learn.

And yes, a nice ride indeed.[/QUOTE]I can't find a place in the recent posts where any of the esteemed posters on either side of the Aisle, especially WW, used the term "Black Democratic US President" in their argument. So congratulations, you get the Sharpton / Jackson / Farrakhan Race Card award! Nice play, SteveC!

Regarding your assertion that my good friend the Wild Fish, (Actually we have not met yet) has no idea what a Marxist is, let me help with a definition from the esteemed, unassailable, 100% accurate, definitive source of the internet, Answers. Com:

Marx-ism: (n) The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Class struggle? Redistribution of wealth? Bourgeois oppression? Classless society?

Wild Walleye does know what he is talking about. He is the smartest man in the whole wide world.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]Wild Walleye does know what he is talking about. He is the smartest man in the whole wide world.[/QUOTE]Thank you Quak, although I prefer the moniker of "most interesting man in the world."

Hey Lib, you got me, you can see right through to my thinly-veiled redneck and have exposed the burning crosses and lynch mobs lurking in my heart. Damn, I wish I wasn't so transparent.

Here comes another brainless liberal who is calling me a racist because I disagree with a man narrowly (yes I said narrowly) elected, last fall. It isn't racism when liberals call Colin Powell and Condi Rice Uncle Toms but, if someone dares to criticize the Chosen One, it has to be racism and not the fact that I disagree with his policies and actions.

Of course, I can't possibly take issue with a president who has, in his first four months in office, created a deficit that will be larger than those of all prior US presidents combined and who has suspended the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (Ruth Ginsberg seems to agree with me on this one) and has proposed his own version of suspending habeas corpus (not for detaining Al-Qieda but for people like me who disagree with his policies) Not to mention using good ole fashion Chicago thuggishness in threatening to defame the Chrysler bond holders if they didn't eat the unconstitutional shit sandwich he decided to cram down their throats.

I don't like Sotomayor either (must be anti-latina) can't stand Shumer (must be antisemitic) I respect Colin Powell's service to the country but I think his policy stances suck (racist once again) I think Newhouse is a joke (anti-gay) and I think Gore is a snake-oil salesman (anti-fat white guy and anti-southern-former-bigots) and I think Hillary is horrible (anti-white-dyke)

I am such a hate-filled "bitter clinger" that I just realized I hate myself too.

You clearly don't know me or anything about me. You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue.

What was your creative process to come up with that response? Did it go like this: "Duh, I don't know what he said. Duh, I am confused. Wait, I know, you're a racists."

What do you expect him to say. He is preparing for the 2010 elections. At least it appears that we are not headed towards a 1930's depression unless China and India refuse to buy our debt.

I don't personally endorse everything in that stimulus package and GM is a very sticky and impossible situation, unless you just accept the consequences: all gm people out of work and many of their suppliers die. That is another possible path to a 1930's depression.

The specifics of how they are dealing with gm are not perfect and none of the choices are great, but it a whole better than just closing the door at gm, who is unlikely to get the loans that they need to stay in business from a non-governmental source. Or maybe tata motors from india could get gm's assets, then what do we do without an usa auto industry? If that really a good choice? War? I'm sure that china would love to own a strategic asset--like our auto and track manufacturing capacity.

That clearly scares the you know what out of me. This is what the invisible hand of the market would lead to happening---better or worse than O's flawed plan? It is easy to criticize, but all the choices are not great.

Over a generation GM has become non-competitive for more reason's than labor costs. REad comsumer reports reliability surveys--generally gm sells products that fall apart compare to the japanese producers. This has been a long time coming. Labor costs don't help and are definately a part of the problem, but GM has been poorly managed for some time in many ways.

When it comes to chicas--this man knows more than a thing or two.

Walley, I suggest that there is a very easy solution for our disaagreement about Friday night: We can order two rounds at the same time and split them, that way we are both buying the first round. Couldn't all of life be so simple.

After two rounds we can started to figure solutions to all the other impossible problems or get so loaded that we won't care. Either solution is fine by me.

Your internet friend who respects your right to disagree and thinks that the usa is a better place for it--all sorts of points of view getting slowly stirred, not shaken, and then being poured out of congress into a large martini glass with two olives,

Bob

Well guys, I sincrely apologise if you think I was calling you racists. The thought never entered my head. I only used the word 'black'in the phrase "Black Democratic US President" to indicate I was referring to Obama. I wouldn't use the term term racist lightly.

QuakHunter, you must have telepathic powers to describe me so accurately. "You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue".

There must be a new republican policy "Let's make sure our kids stay unenlightened". Your quote from Answers. Com is pretty succinct, but I still can't see Wild Willeye articulating his thought that the president is a Marxist.

In fact, thanks for the praise, I'd be proud to be considered enlightened, as in (from dictionary. Com)

1. To give intellectual or spiritual light to; instruct; impart knowledge to: We hope the results of our research will enlighten our colleagues.

2. Archaic. To shed light upon.

Is it only republicans who denigrate íntellectuals (which I am definitely not) and enlightenment? Maybe it endangers their fundamental evangelicism? But let's not get into that.

Anyway, whether he won in a landslide or narrowly is irrelevant. He still won!

[QUOTE=SteveC]Well guys, I sincrely apologise if you think I was calling you racists. The thought never entered my head. I only used the word 'black'in the phrase "Black Democratic US President" to indicate I was referring to Obama. I wouldn't use the term term racist lightly.[/QUOTE]Nice back pedal but that won't cut it. Your statement is clear. Your hit and then run away from your statements is typical of your ilk.

[QUOTE=SteveC]QuakHunter, you must have telepathic powers to describe me so accurately. "You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue".[/QUOTE]No, it was I that made that made your head spin with that pithy juxtaposition of antonymous concepts.

[QUOTE=SteveC]There must be a new republican policy "Let's make sure our kids stay unenlightened". Your quote from Answers. Com is pretty succinct, but I still can't see Wild Willeye articulating his thought that the president is a Marxist. [/QUOTE]"Enlightened" means just the opposite. However, since you are "enlightened" you can't understand that. Don't worry, there is a cure.

Enlightened does not equal educated.

[QUOTE=SteveC]Is it only republicans who denigrate íntellectuals (which I am definitely not) and enlightenment? Maybe it endangers their fundamental evangelicism? But let's not get into that.[/QUOTE]Who's denigrating intellectuals? I'm denigrating dim wits.

How's that song go? "Don't know much 'bout history."

[QUOTE=SteveC]Anyway, whether he won in a landslide or narrowly is irrelevant. He still won![/QUOTE]Bet you weren't saying that 2000-2009.

I was not suggesting that the electoral college be ignored or dismantled (as you and your unhinged brethren have done in the past) rather, I was pointing out flash point of the coming conflagration (which you won't notice for years) whereby the nearly half of the American voting populace that voted against BHO will be joined by a large number of those who actually voted for him (whether duped by the state-run media and just susceptible to monotony) in opposing the wholesale dismantling of a country that has done OK for the past couple hundred years.

Please don't take any of this personally, as you should know by now, you more than likely fall into an ethnic group that I despise thus joining good company.

Bob - I am in on starting double-fisted

From USA Today:

One of every six dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher.

Benefits, such as Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance and health care, accounted for 16.2% of personal income in the first quarter of 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That's the highest percentage since the government began compiling records in 1929.

Food stamps. Enrollment hit a record 33.2 million people in March, up 5.2 million from last year. The stimulus law boosted the size of the benefit. Average March benefit: $114 per person.

Social Security. The bad economy has prompted a 10%-15% jump in early retirements, the program's actuary says. A 5.8% increase took effect January 1. Bottom line: $55 billion in new costs.

In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 — an average of $17,000 provided to each U. S. Household, federal data show. Benefits rose at a 19% annual rate in the first quarter compared to the last three months of 2008.

Things are not good, 10% of the population on food stamps, schools closing, one in eight residential motgages underwater. WTF gentlemen. Do we just say the hell with everyone else, "I got mine, fuck them?" It is one hell of a statement about what and who we are.

Anyone interested in how we got here?

[url]http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023[/url]

Hey Wild Willeye,

Still waiting for you to justify calling Obama a Marxist. Its an easy slur to make but its a bit like calling Bush / Cheney a pair of fascists, equally wrong. I guess it'll never come so what the hell, let's forget it.

Anyway, my apology is "typical of my ilk"? That made me laugh, for someone concerned with being taken for something he's not, you've made assumptions about me that have been wrong just about every time. And on reflection, I think you must be pretty thin skinned to feel I was calling you a rasict.

I said I wasn't an intellectual, but maybe you are, (and there's nothing to be ashamed about it) using phrases like "pithy juxtaposition of antonymous concepts." Very nice! So, can you help me out with this paragraph you wrote?

" "Enlightened" means just the opposite. However, since you are "enlightened" you can't understand that. Don't worry, there is a cure."

WTF does this mean? Enlightened means just the opposite?

"Enlightened does not equal educated." I know this, I even gave you a good definition of the first word. I just assumed you would know the meaning of educated.

"Denigrating intellectuals?" I wasn't accusing you of that, I was referring to comment in an earlier post in this thread about Cheney, who does denigrate intellectuals. At least european ones.

BTW, remember what proportion of the popular vote Bush / Cheney got in 2000 before running the country? I presume you were equally pissed off then, or was that alright because they were republicans?

[QUOTE=SteveC]Well guys, I sincrely apologise if you think I was calling you racists.[/QUOTE]Mr. Enlightened one. Take the time and spell correctly. It is "sincerely" and "apologize". If you can spell correctly, which I am sure you can, please take the time to check the post before sending. There is this cool little "preview" button where you can review your post.

[QUOTE=SteveC]QuakHunter, you must have telepathic powers to describe me so accurately. "You are just another 'enlightened' liberal who has been 'uneducated' to a point where you can't even articulate your side of an issue".[/QUOTE]Take the time to read the prior posts to attribute comments to the proper author. And BTW, I do have telepathic powers. As a matter of fact, I have telekenesis as an additional gift. Just like in Stephen King's Book Carrie and teh movie of the same name. Is your head getting hotter? That's just me.

[QUOTE=SteveC]There must be a new republican policy "Let's make sure our kids stay unenlightened". Your quote from Answers. Com is pretty succinct, but I still can't see Wild Willeye articulating his thought that the president is a Marxist.[/QUOTE]Again, it's "Walleye", even though he uses his "Willeye" in Bs. Aires. And regarding his assertion on Obama's intentions:

Marx-ism: (n) The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Whether it's healthcare, education, free cheese it still fits the definition. And Robin Hood did not hide his intentions.

[QUOTE=SteveC]In fact, thanks for the praise, I'd be proud to be considered enlightened, as in (from dictionary. Com)

1. To give intellectual or spiritual light to; instruct; impart knowledge to: We hope the results of our research will enlighten our colleagues.

2. Archaic. To shed light upon.

Is it only republicans who denigrate íntellectuals (which I am definitely not) and enlightenment? Maybe it endangers their fundamental evangelicism? But let's not get into that.[/QUOTE]Mr. Enlightenment, I hope I don't hurt your feelings with my opinion that you are not a spiritual or intellectual source of light. (And the fact that I do not believe anyone is praising you)

[QUOTE=SteveC]Anyway, whether he won in a landslide or narrowly is irrelevant. He still won![/QUOTE]True. 52% for Obama in 2008; 51% for Bush in 2004.

And he was attacked by your "ilk" for eight years. What is different now?

In the Immortal words of the great chicken philosopher, Foghorn Leghorn; "Put them books down Boy, we're going Fishin'"

Well Mr Confused One,

Confused is an antonym to enlightened, as I'm sure you know. I would think that would be apt for someone of "your ilk" who apparently hates the concept of enlightenment.

You certainly caught me out. I spelt sincerely wrong. On the other hand, where I come from apologise is the correct spelling. And if I wanted to be pedantic, I could recommend that, in your own words, you.

" take the time to check the post before sending. There is this cool little "preview" button where you can review your post."

If you'd done that you would have discovered that your spelling of "teh movie" is actually spelt "the movie". But thanks for the pointer, if I post again I'll use that function.

If you don't think that I'm " a spiritual or intellectual source of light", then stop describing me as such, or are you truly confused? Someone could get the impression that you do think I'm enlightened if you describe me that way so often.

Finally, I suspect that you don't genuinely think that Obama is a Marxist; that half-assed explanation you gave, in the words of your buddy Wild Walleye, just won't cut it.

I'm leaving tomorrow for a couple of weeks camping in Barriloche before things get much colder, so I'll be out of touch. If you've any more comments, afraid you'll have to wait until I get back for a response.

[QUOTE=SteveC] Finally, I suspect that you don't genuinely think that Obama is a Marxist; that half-assed explanation you gave, in the words of your buddy Wild Walleye, just won't cut it. [/quote]I can only speak for myself and I do believe it.

I am not interested in converting you (read some of my other spot-on, big-tent, mind-expanding, self-loathing posts) If you do not think that any of the examples of BHO's behavior and statements, cited herein, constitute a Marxist philosophy then it isn't worth the effort. Again, you are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to disagree with them (for now at least)

[QUOTE=SteveC]I'm leaving tomorrow for a couple of weeks camping in Barriloche before things get much colder, so I'll be out of touch. If you've any more comments, afraid you'll have to wait until I get back for a response.[/QUOTE]Enjoy, that's God's country. Wait, I mean that is an area created by purely natural forces that we do not understand. I hope you have a great trip. Try posting about some mongering experiences when you get back, if you don't freeze your dick off whilst camping.

Please note:

The antonym of enlightened is "enlightened." If need be, I can explain it when you buy Bob (referee) and me a drink.

I am neither an intellectual nor "enlightened" which I proudly prove on a daily basis.

I am the reflection of many experiences both in and out of class rooms (emphasis on out, despite my degrees). I am the wildcat well digger who can read and turn a phrase. I am generous when times are good and able to find and share inspiration, when I hit a dry well. I have been around and seen many things. I also realize, that I haven't even scratched the surface of what I have yet to experience.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Again, you are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to disagree with them (for now at least)[/QUOTE]Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.

The name of the thread is: "America Politics During the Obama Administration". That is why I am talking about "America Politics During the Obama Administration".

The threads about women are more fun and entertaining. But political discourse is fun and entertaining and I get to make people mad.

I am actually a semi-principled monger first, and I kind of like getting my underwear bunched up. I'll post that experience in the new thread "Bunched up underwear is the only thing coming near my ass".

[QUOTE=Sinistra]Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sinistra]Seriously, I'm not really sure why people engage in these threads. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything and everyone just ends up getting mad. Maybe some guys really like working their underwear up into a bunch. Personally, I find it unpleasant and uncomfortable, and no reason to ruin my mood. I wonder how Rule 34 applies to bunched up underwear.[/QUOTE]Because sometimes it's interesting to read other people's opinions.

At the beginning of the Obama Administration we were told that if we immediately enacted the Obama stimulus program unemployment would peak at between 8% and 9%. If the Obama economic stimulus program was not enacted we were told that unemployment would go through the roof.

We enacted the Obama economic stimulus program and are now being told by Obama himself that unemployment will reach 10% this year and may rise from there.

Some member on this board, much to their credit, stated back in February that Obama's so-called stimulus program was only a method to increase the size, power and influence of government. The economy and, specifically, unemployemt levels were not going to be positively affected by the Obama 'lets have big government' stimulus plan.

The simple fact is that the government cannot competively manufacture a single pencil, a single mousetrap or a single piece of candy. All money that goes to government programs is money down a rathole.

What would have worked? What would have worked is what Reagon did. Lower taxes on businesses so that businesses are not forced to lay off workers. Lower taxes on working people so working people have more disposible income.

The Obama stimulus program has put future generations of Americans into an unsustainable debt position without creating a single new job. The millions of new paperpushers that Obama is funding are worth less than a warm bowl of piss.

But what do you expect from somebody who has never had a real job in his lifetime?

The fact is that government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.

P.S. I shutter to think what would happen to todays economy if we had over 10% unemployment, over 10% inflation and 20% interest rates (for those with a short memory, this is what Reagon had and Reagon never whined and complained about the hand he was dealt)

El Alamo your points are well made, I recently reviewed some remarks by Charles Krauthammer that in many ways echo and expand your comments.

However I personally think Obama is much worse than either of you has made him out to be, and that's scary as hell!

[quote]Subj: Charles Krauthammer Speech / Comments on the ‘New Economy ’ and Barack Obama.

To my friends & associates:

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even two Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid ’, feel free.

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer ’ who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's ‘behind the mask ’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit t hem. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can ’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to ‘level the playing field ’ with income redistribution and punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He ’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever run even a candy store. But they ’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can ’t work in the long run. Obama ’s not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the USA, more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalence in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He ’s now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not ‘come due ’ until after he ’s reelected in 2012. He ’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We are ‘pining ’ for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in Feb. Are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and information if she ’s to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states ’ rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible & outrageous. We ’re spending trillions that we don ’t have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus pkg. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman Brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of ‘change ’ caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There ’s a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we are right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's too late. [/quote]I’m sure someone will come up with a reason to disregard Mr. Krauthammer remarks, but I don ’t think you can label him a "Republican activist", and I don ’t think he ’s "preparing for the 2010 elections" perhaps he ’s just a concerned American.

Oh but wait; he's been on Fox news, maybe you left wing nuts can hang your hat on that.

[QUOTE=Sidney]yada yada yada[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Punter 127]blah blah blah[/QUOTE][QUOTE=El Alamo]whine whine whine[/QUOTE]What you guys are overlooking are several key points:

1. Obama is where he is because the Republican Party so thoroughly screwed the pooch during previous eight years.

2. Many people (like me) might -- just might -- have given the Republican Party another chance under the leadership of John McCain, had McCain not chosen the clueless airhead he chose to be his VP nominee.

3. Since Obama's election, literally no one in the Republican Party has said one word -- not even a syllable -- indicating an iota of potential for leading the nation in a better manner or direction than Obama is doing.

If you want to make policy and lead the nation, you have to win elections. And if you want to win elections, you have to do a whole hell of a lot better than the Republicans have done or are doing.

My own view is that the Republican Party is where the Democratic Party was in 1968. It's pretty intellectually and morally bankrupt, and it's going to take more than just some charismatic individual to turn the tide. It needs an entire retooling from the ground up. That's going to take some serious time and effort, and no one I see appears willing to admit it.

[QUOTE=StrayLight]3. Since Obama's election, literally no one in the Republican Party has said one word -- not even a syllable -- indicating an iota of potential for leading the nation in a better manner or direction than Obama is doing.[/QUOTE]Hi SL,

I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said, but tonight I'm only going to address just this one of your fables.

Since the election I've read and watched countless Republication politicians, Republication strategists, editorial columnists, news analysts and other pundits offer up a steady stream of advice for the direction of the country.

These ideas have included:

- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.

- Keeping the fully functioning terrorist containment facility at Guantanamo Bay that is protecting our country.

- Shooting down every North Korean test missile as it lifts off the pad.

- Standing up to the unions by not spending $500,000 dollars each to save UAW jobs.

- Showing strength and resolve by standing tall and not apologizing to countries to whom we owe no apology.

- Living within our financial limitations by not authorizing the expenditure of huge amounts of money that we just don't have.

The problem that the American media, in their slobbering adoration of the Messiah, simply isn't letting these opinions be heard. For example, author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.

Thanks,

Jackson

Mongers,

Everybody on this forum knows that I am a far-left wing Obama supporter who is the anti-Jackson. However, the bottom line with the stimulus is that it is complete shit. All it is doing is further bankrupting a bankrupt US Treasury and further expanding a useless US federal government. The bottom line is that if the government cannot at least break even on its finances, it needs to downsize. Neither political party is willing to accept this reality when they can simply delay the inevitable by printing money and devaluing the earnings and savings of the US populace. There may have been a day when the Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, but that day passed many moons ago (certainly more than 20 years ago) and it is the Republican neo-con scumbags who took a Clinton-era SURPLUS and turned it into a massive budget deficit. I am a believer in a universal free healthcare system but the money to pay for it has to come by eliminating existing government programs / agencies. Eliminate the Federal Department of Labor; every state has its own department of labor. The same goes with the Department of Education and the National Park Service; let the state agencies deal with education and caring for the parks. Literally, billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are wasted on a yearly basis on government agencies that serve almost no purpose and are a complete waste of money and energy. The DEA is another example of a useless government agency. Billions of dollars are spent to take 1% of the drugs coming into the US off the streets. The government should legalize, regulate, and tax the drugs which would raise revenue while at the same time eliminate billions in wasteful spending.

The bottom line is that the US federal government is a disgustingly inefficient and oversized behemoth that, much like the windows operating system, is collapsing in on itself. No US politician has any fucking balls; if they did they would tell the people the truth, which is that the government doesn't need more money, it needs to simply cut the size of itself in half and stop wasting the taxpayer's dollar.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Pick up any of his books (except the one about the dog) and learn a little something about the US, the Constitution and politics from one of the very best.

RH-you hit the nail on the head. Decrease the size and reach of the govt. Don't increase it!

A good place to start would be to stop the TARP and other BS phony stimulus now, cancel all unnecessary open and yet to be started programs. Cut as many federal agencies as possible and mandate that each cabinet post eliminate 20% of its budget. Put PRIVATE SECTOR performance and accountability into the government. Perform and / or produce or hit the unemployment line. Reward those that do more with less.

Cut taxes, spur growth, hold money supply constant, reduce the deficit and national debt to sustainable levels.

Get the national 'brain' focused on the fact that it is not the government's money, it is ours.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

Everybody on this forum knows that I am a far-left wing Obama supporter who is the anti-Jackson. However, the bottom line with the stimulus is that it is complete shit. All it is doing is further bankrupting a bankrupt US Treasury and further expanding a useless US federal government. The bottom line is that if the government cannot at least break even on its finances, it needs to downsize. Neither political party is willing to accept this reality when they can simply delay the inevitable by printing money and devaluing the earnings and savings of the US populace. There may have been a day when the Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, but that day passed many moons ago (certainly more than 20 years ago) and it is the Republican neo-con scumbags who took a Clinton-era SURPLUS and turned it into a massive budget deficit. I am a believer in a universal free healthcare system but the money to pay for it has to come by eliminating existing government programs / agencies. Eliminate the Federal Department of Labor; every state has its own department of labor. The same goes with the Department of Education and the National Park Service; let the state agencies deal with education and caring for the parks. Literally, billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are wasted on a yearly basis on government agencies that serve almost no purpose and are a complete waste of money and energy. The DEA is another example of a useless government agency. Billions of dollars are spent to take 1% of the drugs coming into the US off the streets. The government should legalize, regulate, and tax the drugs which would raise revenue while at the same time eliminate billions in wasteful spending.

The bottom line is that the US federal government is a disgustingly inefficient and oversized behemoth that, much like the windows operating system, is collapsing in on itself. No US politician has any fucking balls; if they did they would tell the people the truth, which is that the government doesn't need more money, it needs to simply cut the size of itself in half and stop wasting the taxpayer's dollar.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]

Rock Harders, Your last post makes a lot of sense. I owe you an apology for ragging on you every time I had the chance.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi SL,

I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said, but tonight I'm only going to address just this one of your fables.

Since the election I've read and watched countless Republication politicians, Republication strategists, editorial columnists, news analysts and other pundits offer up a steady stream of advice for the direction of the country.

These ideas have included:

- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.

- Keeping the fully functioning terrorist containment facility at Guantanamo Bay that is protecting our country.

- Shooting down every North Korean test missile as it lifts off the pad.

- Standing up to the unions by not spending $500,000 dollars each to save UAW jobs.

- Showing strength and resolve by standing tall and not apologizing to countries to whom we owe no apology.

- Living within our financial limitations by not authorizing the expenditure of huge amounts of money that we just don't have.

The problem that the American media, in their slobbering adoration of the Messiah, simply isn't letting these opinions be heard. For example, author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Hi Jackson,

When I read a statement like this, I wonder how it is that you've been able to find crack to smoke down here while I haven't:

[QUOTE]- An income tax cut that actually would stimulate the economy starting with the next payday.[/QUOTE]Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point. The reason Obama is in office and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters is because most Americans understand a bit about reality (which most Republicans obviously don't).

That particular statement of yours is simply garbage that ranks up there with the equally ridiculous notion you used to espouse that our invasion of Iraq was George Bush's brilliant strategy to draw Al Queda into a place where we could kill them all. And the really sad part is....that particular statement was actually the best of the six you wrote. LOL!

[QUOTE]...author Mark Levin's book titled "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has been #1 on the New York Time's best seller list for 12 weeks, yet this author has NEVER been interviewed about his book by any liberal newspapers or television networks in the entire country.[/QUOTE]

Mark Levin simply needs a new publicist. (Or does he think he "entitled" to be interviewed just because his book is a current best seller?)

Again, there's lots about Obama and his policies that I and many like me don't particularly support. It's just that he beats the living piss out of what we've had for the past eight years, and what the Republicans seem to be able to muster as counterpoints.

You're welcome,

Straylight

[QUOTE=StrayLight]Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point.[/quote]SL,

We had 7+ years of unprecented economic growth during the Bush Presidency and those tax cuts, growth that might still be happening if it hadn't been for Democrat's bomb in the form of policies requiring banks to lower borrowing standards for home buyers.

[QUOTE=StrayLight]and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters. [/QUOTE]That kind of language is not necessary or welcome.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=StrayLight]Dude, we just finished eight years of the lowest income taxes in living history. If income tax cuts were a panacea and the key to stimulating the economy, we'd be buying and selling the cities of China at this point. The reason Obama is in office and Republicans are licking dog shit out of the gutters is because most Americans understand a bit about reality (which most Republicans obviously don't)[/QUOTE]You've got that backwards. China is kicking ass, among other reasons, because (a) their maximum marginal income tax rate on businesses is 25% , versus 35% to 48% in the U. S. and (b) The Chinese government is run by engineers while the U. S. Government is run by lawyers like Obama.

I agree that you can't say that good economic performance immediately and directly follows from tax cuts. But it is fair to say that the tax cuts passed during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush administrations have improved the economy. Our economy over decades past has grown faster than Europe's, unemployment is lower here, and with a couple of exceptions, being Norway and Luxembourg, per capita GDP is higher here after adjusting for purchasing power. I believe that resulted directly from lower taxes.

Jackson's point about lowering taxes to get us through a recession was spot on. The government has two levers of fiscal policy, lowering taxes and increasing spending. If taxes are lowered, it leaves money with individuals and businesses, who are going to spend it more efficiently than government. Obama and Congress increased spending, but from what I understand (and I haven't been following this closely) it's mostly for pork and won't be spent until 2010 and 2011, that is, until we'll probably be out of the recession! How much sense does that make?

[QUOTE=Tiny12]You've got that backwards. China is kicking ass, among other reasons, because (a) their maximum marginal income tax rate on businesses is 25% , versus 35% to 48% in the U. S. And (be) The Chinese government is run by engineers while the U. S. Government is run by lawyers like Obama.[/QUOTE]As one who currently lives in China, I can attest that you left out all of the salient factors, apparently in order to push your personal political agenda:

1. Most Chinese companies are complete monopolies and pay close to slave wages. Thus, at the sole expense of the billion workers, their cost of production is virtually irrelevant.

2. China is not a free country. When the government wants to assist a business they just hand over billions, or bulldoze a community away. They push all other interests aside with no concern for whatever the cost or disruption is to the general population.

3. The government and businesses in China have absolutely no regard for protecting the health and safety of the workers.

4. Product safety is non-existent. Consider baby formula tainted with melamine to increase its readings for "protein" content; lead paint used on children's toys, which leads to mental retardation; poisonous dogfood, etc.

5. China has no concern whatsoever for the environment. The cities have some of the worst air polluton in the world, and both raw industrial sewage and human and animal waste are dumped daily into its rivers, lakes, and the sea. We receive regular warnings never to eat the local seafood nor venture into the beaches of the South China Sea.

Even the local bottled water has been found to be contaminated, so I will only drink imported bottled water.

6. Religious freedom and political dissent remain extremely oppressed in order to eliminate or at least control the possibility of the people being able to communicate and organize to advance their own interests. If all else fails, we have seen that the government will unleash its tanks on the people.

In fact, the government has now mandated that all computers sold after July 1 must have the spy program "Green Dam" installed so that it can monitor everyone's web activity and email. It is expected that a similar program for mobile phones is soon to follow. This kind of reminds me of the wiretapping program in the U. S. that intercepted every phone call and text message under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

For those of you who despise the ACLU and wish to crush all civil liberties, you should come check out the results. You just might like it here.


No serious, informed person would deny any of the above items.

So please get real.

It is sheer nonsense to assert that the growth of of the economy in China has anything to do with the "marginal tax rate." Don't take it personal, but that has to be one of the most ignorant political statements ever uttered!

Rather, it has everything to do with a total disregard of the Communist system for anything resembling the concept of freedom, nor of any concern for the quality of the peoples' lives - all in a single-minded pursuit of enormous profits and power.

Hmmmm.

This totalitarian Communist society, with its low "marginal income tax rate on business," sounds exactly like a wet dream come true for the extremist laissez faire capitalists of America!

DB

I am too busy stashing away fractional gold maple leafs to give a shit about that asscrack Obama or any Americano for that matter. I am silently waiting (ok - not silent here) for the roof to cave in on the USA. It can't happen soon enough.:) I will then march into Florida (or roll in in a Chevy 3500 diesel dually 4x4) and buy a nice place on the chain of lakes near Orlando. Maybe I'll hire some americano's to clean my pool and sweep my sidewalks and - oh - perhaps use Americano's to "bait swim" in the lake so the gators leave my precious doggies alone when they chose to wet their little paws:)

Remeber - the whole world knows - you can't treat an Americano too lightly or they will take advantage of you and try to tell you how to run yo' life. Best to beat them at EVERY opportunity to remind them of who de boss! Dat way dey keeps in line. Can't nevah beat yo' americano to much. Besides - dey LIKES it. Dats Right - dey do!

"An american, you wife and an old oak tree - the more you beats dem de better dey be"

[QUOTE=Tmontana]I am too busy stashing away fractional gold maple leafs to give a shit about that asscrack obama or any Americano for that matter. I am silently waiting (ok - not silent here) for the roof to cave in on the USA. It can't happen soon enough.:) I will then march into Florida (or roll in in a Chevy 3500 diesel dually 4x4) and buy a nice place on the chain of lakes near orlando. Maybe I'll hire some americano's to clean my pool and sweep my sidewalks and - oh - perhaps use Americano's to "bait swim" in the lake so the gators leave my precious doggies alone when they chose to wet their little paws:)

Remeber - the whole world knows - you can't treat an Americano too lightly or they will take advantage of you and try to tell you how to run yo' life. Best to beat them at EVERY opportunity to remind them of who de boss! Dat way dey keeps in line. Can't nevah beat yo' americano to much. Besides - dey LIKES it. Dats Right - dey do!

"An american, you wife and an old oak tree - the more you beats dem de better dey be"[/QUOTE]LOL. I'm not quite sure what your point is other than turning the tables, but I got a good laugh.

I'm not sure what this has to do with tax cuts and the American economy, but if you want to argue, I'll argue.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]As one who currently lives in China, I can attest that you left out all of the salient factors, apparently in order to push your personal political agenda:

1. Most Chinese companies are complete monopolies and pay close to slave wages. Thus, at the sole expense of the billion workers, their cost of production is virtually irrelevant. DB[/QUOTE]I don't live in China but have looked at Chinese companies. Your first sentence is absolutely not true. There's lots and lots of competition in China, it's cut-throat and margins in many instances are low. About slave wages, look at the worker wages and conditions in China versus, say, India. While by your standards, those of a rich American, they may be slave wages, they're not compared to any other country that 30 years ago was at the same level of economic development as China was 30 year ago. Your comment about "slave wages" is something used by the American left to justify catering to their labor union masters. The union leaders would prefer that people in 3rd world countries remain unemployed so their members in the U S can keep their low paying jobs, instead of moving onto more productive work.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]3. The government and businesses in China have absolutely no regard for protecting the health and safety of the workers.

4. Product safety is non-existent.

5. China has no concern whatsoever for the environment. DB[/QUOTE]3, 4 and 5 are all true. Like lower taxes on business, all these cause the cost of business to be lower in China than in many other places. Lower costs mean more more money to re-invest and grow business, a higher economic growth rate, more employment, and higher wages. So I agree, along with lower taxes they contribute to economic growth.

In my post, I said AMONG OTHER REASONS, China is kicking ass because of lower tax rates and BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY ENGINEERS. I'd guess that these conditions you describe exist in part because the country is run by engineers, unfortunately with no checks and balances.

I agree with you there should be checks and balances on the environment, safety, etc. However, like me, you view the world based on your own experiences. If you're a farmer in rural China struggling to survive, a salary of $3,000 (or about $12,000 adjusted for purchasing power) working 6 days a week in a polluted city might be a very good option.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]6. Religious freedom and political dissent remain extremely oppressed in order to eliminate or at least control the possibility of the people being able to communicate and organize to advance their own interests. If all else fails, we have seen that the government will unleash its tanks on the people.

In fact, the government has now mandated that all computers sold after July 1 must have the spy program "Green Dam" installed so that it can monitor everyone's web activity and email. It is expected that a similar program for mobile phones is soon to follow. This kind of reminds me of the wiretapping program in the U. S. That intercepted every phone call and text message under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

For those of you who despise the ACLU and wish to crush all civil liberties, you should come check out the results. You just might like it here.

DB[/QUOTE]You assume anyone who espouses liberal economic policies, like me, is automatically someone who's anti civil liberties. That's not true. You couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore that applies to just about every Republican or Libertarian on this board -- we're mongers, and we don't appreciate the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. If you're saying spying on the citizenry and supressing religious freedom and political dissent produces faster economic growth, you're wrong about that too.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]It is sheer nonsense to assert that the growth of of the economy in China has anything to do with the "marginal tax rate." Don't take it personal, but that has to be one of the most ignorant political statements ever uttered! DB[/QUOTE]O. K. Don't take it personally, but your statement above sounds ignorant to me. As does what you say later about Communist China being a capitalist's wet dream. If you think China could tax business at the same rates as, say, the U. S. and still grow at 8% to 10% a year, well, that's not right. As you point out with your statements about the environment, health and safety, etc., it's all about the cost of doing business. And higher taxes, like other costs, reduce the amount of money that businesses can re-invest in growth. I never said China was a Utopia, I never said I'd rather live there than the U. S. I said it's kicking ass (economically) And, AMONG OTHER REASONS, it's because of lower taxes on business.

By the way, neither you or I even touched on the one or two most important reasons why economic growth in China is faster than the U.S.

If I saw street bums in BsAs each with their own copy of Atlas Shrugged I'd be encouraged. If I saw even one US street bum reading a copy I'd running screaming happy thoughts in the street.

Trouble is it will always be easier for people to take from others what they need rather than expend the time, labor and resources to produce something. Humans are lazy. Government s are worse and ALL descend into tyranny over time.

That being said, it is true the Chinese economy is run my technocrats while the USA is run by bureaucrats. Economics is not an exact science.

It is also true that the Chinese economy has little taxation of it from a US perspective. While you could argue the US experience has more past positives than the chinese experience there can be no argument that the Chinese have the resources to change their social welfare for the better while the USA can not afford the social welfare it has.

Guns and Ammo, Gold and Silver, Liberty over Monopolistic Power, Right not wrong.

[url]http://en.sevenload.com/videos/c3kZgM8-The-Four-Stages-of-Revolution-Part-1-of-2[/url]

Sidney,

Don't you lose respect for yourself when you post this garbage?

Seriously man.

You wanna post links to reputable websites, please go ahead.

You wanna give your overly biased opinions, please go ahead.

But posting spam emails that are complete bullshit is beneath you.

[url]http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp[/url]

Please provide the direct link to ASSOCIATED PRESS or STFU.

Regards,

BM