USA & World Economics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439037]The question isn't as much whether Americans could live under such a government, but whether politicians could provide it. There is substantial withholding from paychecks and contributions from employers (like social security / medicare in the USA) for individual accounts that can be used for retirement, medical costs, housing and education. This goes against my Libertarian instincts.[/QUOTE]American culture will never allow the state (government) to dictate their social behavior in the positive manner that Singapore does. Like housing and education. And American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits which is stimulated by the mafia financial sector in conjuction with their cohorts in Congress. Back to the drawing boards.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439046]...dictate their social behavior in the positive manner...[/QUOTE]My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439046]...American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits...[/quote]Yes, we call that "[I]freedom[/I]", as opposed to what you would advocate...

"[I]American social behavior is dictated by their [U]government's[/U] spending habits[/I]".

Think about it.

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson;439053]My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!

Yes, we call that "[I]freedom[/I]", as opposed to what you would advocate...

Think about it.Jax[/QUOTE]I did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.

May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.

WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?

The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.

It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.

I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.

We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439055]I did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.

May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.

WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?

The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.

It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.

I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.

We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.[/QUOTE]Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439058]Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Can you be more specific?

The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439063]The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]But I will submit to your correction. As stated, I reprinted the conclusion of an article I posted a link to in Post #191. As the resulting posts were responses to that post, I did not see the need to post a reference. I apologize for overlooking the obvious.

"The facts are, the stock market is basically at its all-time high, corporate profitability is at its all-time high, and corporate balance sheets have essentially never been in better shape. Financial obligations have been pushed out for a long time and the economy bottomed two months after President Obama took office and may be on an upswing until he is out of office. Now, before we start a riot from my right-wing readers and colleagues, we want to make sure people understand my point. Economies and markets rise and fall nearly independently of our Presidents. We were at a political debate / show many years ago between conservative Bill Bennett and then-comedian, now liberal Senator Al Franken. When they were discussing the success of the economy under the Clinton administration, Bennett said, "I take my dog to the beach and we watch the sunrise, I just don't give him (my dog) credit for it." That's how we feel about blaming or giving credit to Presidents for market or economic success.".

We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/bruni-america-the-shrunken.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

Remember a time when there was a thread in AP named, Will China Lead the World? I still remember the die-hards & the patriots and the abusive language they used. And just as you are about to say that the Black Messiah is leading us down the ravine.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-not-just-about-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

About Frank Bruni & Thomas Friedman, yes I know, they know shit!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439268]We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.

[/QUOTE]Too much fat in the arteries Rev! The USA is waddling around lit up on booze and crystal meth, fingering their revolver, and jerking off to pictures of Justin Bieber and V. Stiviano. The die has been cast. Better they switch to cialis from viagra and avoid "the big one".

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439111]"The facts are, the stock market is basically at its all-time high, corporate profitability is at its all-time high, and corporate balance sheets have essentially never been in better shape. Financial obligations have been pushed out for a long time and the economy bottomed two months after President Obama took office and may be on an upswing until he is out of office. Now, before we start a riot from my right-wing readers and colleagues, we want to make sure people understand my point. Economies and markets rise and fall nearly independently of our Presidents. We were at a political debate / show many years ago between conservative Bill Bennett and then-comedian, now liberal Senator Al Franken. When they were discussing the success of the economy under the Clinton administration, Bennett said, "I take my dog to the beach and we watch the sunrise, I just don't give him (my dog) credit for it." That's how we feel about blaming or giving credit to Presidents for market or economic success.".[/QUOTE]Indeed, Bill Bennett is an expert on "the odds". Maybe he should have consulted his dog before he lost millions of dollars in Vegas.

And so, after months of demonstrations, violence, judicial ingenuities, threats, counter threats, rumors, it came down to over-exceeding the authority of the Prime Minister's Office that saw Yinluck Shinwatra removed from her office along with a majority of the cabinet. The decision by the Constitutional Court was not a big surprise for those that understand the parties involve. It was a sad day, as we will no longer be able to indulge in our fantasies with Yingluck's constant presence in mass media. Aaarrh, Mrs. Robinson is gone.

There was a rumor that the US and the CIA had a role in this momentous overthrow of the government. A top CIA agent was spotted in the Four Seasons Hotel and met local representatives amidst the Erawan shrine.

I agree, K. Yingluck is hot. But then I thought Hillary was too during Clinton's first term. And would do Christina Kirchner if I were drunk on my ass.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439316]And so, after months of demonstrations, violence, judicial ingenuities, threats, counter threats, rumors, it came down to over-exceeding the authority of the Prime Minister's Office that saw Yinluck Shinwatra removed from her office along with a majority of the cabinet. The decision by the Constitutional Court was not a big surprise for those that understand the parties involve. It was a sad day, as we will no longer be able to indulge in our fantasies with Yingluck's constant presence in mass media. Aaarrh, Mrs. Robinson is gone.

There was a rumor that the US and the CIA had a role in this momentous overthrow of the government. A top CIA agent was spotted in the Four Seasons Hotel and met local representatives amidst the Erawan shrine.[/QUOTE]And my Yingluck lookalike gato got married and left the biz. A bad week. :(

This is for the fat cats enjoying their cigars and bourbon.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/09/business/student-essays-your-money.html?nav[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439318]I agree, K. Yingluck is hot. But then I thought Hillary was too during Clinton's first term. And would do Christina Kirchner if I were drunk on my ass.[/QUOTE]Tiny, tell me it ain't true about Hillary. Man, even back then, if you told her to haul ass it would take two trips.

It's getting dizzy at the peak! So much so, that I'm developing vertigo. When do I get off the mountaintop?

And here is an article that will shrink your balls, because you realize that you are but a monkey on a roller coaster ride. And whatever peanuts & bananas you managed to grab depends on you being lucky more than anything else.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html[/URL]

Reverend, IMHO, certain hedge fund managers, baseball and basketball players, and actors and actresses are paid way too much for what they do. Not to mention people who win lotteries. But so what? It's a drop in the bucket compared to a 17 trillion dollar economy. Better to let the free market work instead of capping how much money people can make, with a 90% tax rate or whatever.

This is rich:

[I]America has a long tradition of imposing high taxes on big incomes and large fortunes, designed to limit the concentration of economic power as well as raising revenue. These days, however, suggestions that we revive that tradition face angry claims that taxing the rich is destructive and immoral destructive because it discourages job creators from doing their thing, immoral because people have a right to keep what they earn.[/I]

"Revive"??? With federal rates up to 43.4% on income, state rates up to 13.3%, and then a 40% death tax, the tradition of imposing high taxes on big incomes and large fortunes is still in effect. Yes, some people employ armies of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants and take advantage of loopholes to reduce these rates. Which one of the reasons why many believe eliminating the loopholes and instituting a flatter tax system makes sense.

[url]http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/829347f8-df6c-11e3-8842-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32IJ8AJyc[/url]

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/credit-suisse-pleads-guilty-in-three-year-u-s-tax-evasion-probe.html[/url]

Laughing all the way to the urinal as usual. As usual, nobody go to jail. You are not outraged? Yeah, I know, same old story.

Somehow, I can't get any links to work. But the news is everywhere.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439513]http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/829347f8-df6c-11e3-8842-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32IJ8AJyc

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/credit-suisse-pleads-guilty-in-three-year-u-s-tax-evasion-probe.html

Laughing all the way to the urinal as usual. As usual, nobody go to jail. You are not outraged? Yeah, I know, same old story.

Somehow, I can't get any links to work. But the news is everywhere.[/QUOTE]Credit Suisse was helping wealthy Americans evade taxes, even though taxes have been near historic lows. According to reports they used sham entities to disguise undeclared accounts, failed to maintain USA Account information, destroyed records, and helped clients withdraw money from accounts by providing hand-delivered cash. Unbelievable. I am glad the DOJ cracked down on this, even if nobody went to jail. The US will get $1.8 Billion from the plea deal, and CS will provide information about other fund transfers, which may provide leads to other tax havens such as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. Good chance DOJ or IRS will be pursuing those leads.

[QUOTE=Esten;439519]Credit Suisse was helping wealthy Americans evade taxes, even though taxes have been near historic lows. According to reports they used sham entities to disguise undeclared accounts, failed to maintain USA Account information, destroyed records, and helped clients withdraw money from accounts by providing hand-delivered cash. Unbelievable. I am glad the DOJ cracked down on this, even if nobody went to jail. The US will get $1.8 Billion from the plea deal, and CS will provide information about other fund transfers, which may provide leads to other tax havens such as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. Good chance DOJ or IRS will be pursuing those leads.[/QUOTE]Gee what a surprise, the open secret of the Gnomes in Switzerland hiding money is now official.

Tell me Esten have you never heard of numbered Swiss accounts or of Switzerland's restrictive banking laws before now?

FYI, these are the same Gnomes who helped the Nazis hide the money they stole from the Jews they exterminated (gold fillings no less), and all the other countries they raped.

Doppelganger, That was an interesting observation. If people like Obama and Holder (USA Attorney General) ever take complete control of the USA, we may be wishing there were bankers whose first loyalties were to their clients instead of to foreign governments. Credit Suisse probably wasn't doing anything for its USA clients that Citibank and Bank of America aren't doing for their Venezuelan and Argentine clients.

This is a little off the subject and not directed to Doppelganger, but if you're a USA citizen and you have a bank account, in Argentina or elsewhere, that you haven't declared to the USA government, you need to see a good tax lawyer or accountant. I know someone very well who had a bank account in Canada that she didn't declare. She went into the IRS voluntary disclosure program, and ended up paying $11 in back taxes, penalties and interest. And $3500 for failure to file the disclosure forms. And she got off easy. Come forward voluntarily and you'll lose about 30% of the maximum value in your foreign bank account (s). If they catch you, they'll likely take over 100% of the maximum value of your accounts, even if the amount of tax you failed to pay was negligible. They could also put you in jail. Please note that if you live in Argentina and don't have any income in the USA, it doesn't matter. If you're a U.S. citizen and you don't file the forms declaring your bank account, you're breaking the law.

All this started by the way around 2009, when Obama became president. Obviously, it's not entirely about the taxes, or the enormous penalties would be levied for failure to pay taxes instead of failure to file forms. The government wants to know exactly where your assets are. And Holder has succeeded where the Nazis failed. While the Swiss banks hid money for Nazis, they also hid it from the Nazis on behalf of German Jews. Yes, some of their families had hell getting their hands on the assets after the Holocaust, but that's a different topic.

And so to no surprise for observers, the Military imposed martial law and took over the function of governing for the immediate future. Condemnations and ridicule from outside Thailand was the immediate response. And predictably, Secretary of State Kerry put on his cowboy hat & boots and proclaim indignation and spin the usual shit about democracy and freedom. Well, it's a ritual and all about appearances, so nothing to get agitated about. After all, the Thai military has a long history of US sponsorship. No order of evacuation of American citizens was given. I would have been first in line for a free flight to Los Angeles to get some tacos and pastrami sandwich.

In the short run, this ended the soap opera that never had an ending. What will emerge, we shall see. But for now, everything is different, but still same, same.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439557]And so to no surprise for observers, the Military imposed martial law and took over the function of governing for the immediate future. Condemnations and ridicule from outside Thailand was the immediate response. And predictably, Secretary of State Kerry put on his cowboy hat & boots and proclaim indignation and spin the usual shit about democracy and freedom. Well, it's a ritual and all about appearances, so nothing to get agitated about. After all, the Thai military has a long history of US sponsorship. No order of evacuation of American citizens was given. I would have been first in line for a free flight to Los Angeles to get some tacos and pastrami sandwich.

In the short run, this ended the soap opera that never had an ending. What will emerge, we shall see. But for now, everything is different, but still same, same.[/QUOTE]No TV, meaning no sports, but the blow job boom boom bars still open. If you're a late night boozer like I used to be you're shit out of luck.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/cohen-capitalism-eating-its-children.html?_r=0[/URL]

Thoughts that I had for a long time, but unable to articulate in a cohesive manner.

Socialism may not be the end all answer, but has capitalism run its course? Probably not. But the dinosaurs that enjoy capitalism's good run will swear on their dying beds that it does not need any tinkering. They feel that they are superior and their beliefs do not have to change. But change, there shall be. United States is a basket case right now.

This is what the Governor of the Bank of England says "Prosperity requires just not investment in economic capital but investment in social capital.".

And Roger Cohen of the NY Times adds, "globalization and technology magnify the returns of the super rich, operating in a world of low taxation and lax regulations where short term gains becomes a guiding principle. Companies are not well served by boards that are too often, in the words of one participant, male, stale, and pale."

Them's fightin' words Revren. Just kidding. Respectfully, I don't understand how Cohen's and your conclusions flow from Carney's statements. Carney mostly makes sense to me. The root cause of the problems he identifies are bad governance and crony capitalism, particularly as applied to banks and the financial industry. "Unchecked market fundamentalism" is indeed a bad thing if it allows banks to become too big to fail, and homeowners to borrow 100% of the money to buy homes that cost 10X more than their annual incomes. Please note that he defines social capital as "the links, shared values and beliefs in a society which encourage individuals not only to take responsibility for themselves and their families but also to trust each other and work collaboratively to support each other." You and Cohen believe he means we're too far towards the capitalist end of the socialist-capitalist spectrum. I believe that could have come straight out of the Tea Party manifesto.

[b]WOW[/b]
[QUOTE=RevBS;439641] Companies are not well served by boards that are too often, in the words of one participant, male, stale, and pale."[/QUOTE]Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?

[QUOTE=Punter127;439665][b]WOW[/b]
Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?[/QUOTE]None of the above. Really, I don't have the energy to hate anybody.

But I think it tick the boxes of the group that oppose Obama vehemently from day one. That is well documented. Fits the two Donald's, Trump & Sterling to just name a couple. In the end, politics and government is all about who has the power and holding on to the power, be it the USA or Thailand.

Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis. And so this leads us back to my original post and to what the Governor of the Bank of England Carney have to say. That is if you are really interested or have an open mind.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439644]You and Cohen believe he means we're too far towards the capitalist end of the socialist-capitalist spectrum. I believe that could have come straight out of the Tea Party manifesto.[/QUOTE]15 rounds, you and me for the Undisputed Champion of Nana Plaza Parking Lot.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439668]15 rounds, you and me for the Undisputed Champion of Nana Plaza Parking Lot.[/QUOTE]No way Reverend. You'd kick my ass. Underneath your calm demeanor lurks a Kung Fu master. And besides your choice of venue sucks. Unless it's her night off my ex-wife would be there to see it happen, and that would be doubly humiliating.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439667]Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis.[/QUOTE]Obama was "crippled" by his own lack of leadership skills and executive mangement experience, period.

It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439665][b]WOW[/b]
Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;439667]None of the above. Really, I don't have the energy to hate anybody.
[/QUOTE][B]Tout au contraire, it's all the above. [/B]

And the rest of your reply is nothing more than an attempt to spin and divert away from the bigotry in your original post.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439679][B]Tout au contraire, it's all the above. [/B]

And the rest of your reply is nothing more than an attempt to spin and divert away from the bigotry in your original post. [/QUOTE]I weigh in at about 1. 7, but the scale has not been calibrated for some time.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439667]Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson;439675]Obama was "crippled" by his own lack of leadership skills and executive management experience, period.

It's as simple as that. [/QUOTE]Reverend, Jackson's explanation makes more sense to me. Obama is the only President since Gerald Ford who had no experience as an executive coming into office. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent significant time running state governments. And Bush Sr. founded businesses, served as a CEO, and ran government agencies. Experience as a legislator, community activist and law professor doesn't prepare a person to run the largest government / bureaucracy in the world.

When Obama came to office in 2008 he had a Democratic House and Senate. He even had 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans couldn't filibuster. He also had good will by virtue of being the first Black American President. There's a long list of prominent Republicans who supported him in 2008. He however was dogmatic and partisan. When he lost the House, he didn't display the leadership skills of Reagan or Clinton. He didn't reach across the aisle and forge compromises with Republicans.

As to the financial crisis, Reagan faced a crisis too, a deep recession AND high inflation, which you'd think would be harder to pull out of than what we went through in 2008/2009. But thanks largely to the leadership skills of Reagan and Volcker and a willingness to do what's best for the country instead of what's politically expedient, the economy recovered nicely. Obama / Geithner, for better or worse, continued the Bush / Paulson strategy. And flubbed an $800 billion stimulus, the largest in the country's history, by allocating much of it to Democratic Party constituencies.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439704]Reverend, Jackson's explanation makes more sense to me. Obama is the only President since Gerald Ford who had no experience as an executive coming into office. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent significant time running state governments. And Bush Sr. founded businesses, served as a CEO, and ran government agencies. Experience as a legislator, community activist and law professor doesn't prepare a person to run the largest government / bureaucracy in the world.

When Obama came to office in 2008 he had a Democratic House and Senate. He even had 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans couldn't filibuster. He also had good will by virtue of being the first Black American President. There's a long list of prominent Republicans who supported him in 2008. He however was dogmatic and partisan. When he lost the House, he didn't display the leadership skills of Reagan or Clinton. He didn't reach across the aisle and forge compromises with Republicans.

As to the financial crisis, Reagan faced a crisis too, a deep recession AND high inflation, which you'd think would be harder to pull out of than what we went through in 2008/2009. But thanks largely to the leadership skills of Reagan and Volcker and a willingness to do what's best for the country instead of what's politically expedient, the economy recovered nicely. Obama / Geithner, for better or worse, continued the Bush / Paulson strategy. And flubbed an $800 billion stimulus, the largest in the country's history, by allocating much of it to Democratic Party constituencies. [/QUOTE]These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439711]These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done. [/QUOTE]BBM, first you have to live in the real world before you can reach across the isle and compromise after you no longer have control of the Congress. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans during his first two years in office, with the liberals dancing in the streets and the left wing news media predicting the death of conservatism in 2008. Since the loss of the House in 2010, Obama has bypassed Congress at every step to achieve his vision of "transforming America" via executive fiat. Had a Republican president embarked on such an imperial rule by executive fiat the liberals and left wing media would have been apoplectic.

Jackson and Tiny are correct, Obama has nothing to draw on to govern. It does provide a credible explanation for lack of economic growth, lack of job growth, lack of a foreign policy, or any other policy beyond the Cult of Obama.

While I am apposed to such actions by the chief executive, I look forward to a Republican taking the White House in 2016 and reversing all this nonsense by the same method with which it was imposed, executive fiat. I would also hope the new president speaks about Obama at the inauguration with equal or greater distain as Obama heaped upon Bush.

It appears with this latest "prisoner of war" exchange, where the father praises Allah and speaks in Pastu in the rose garden, for 5 of the worst Taliban prisoners at GTMO Obama has managed to step in it again. A lot of folks in the Army are not happy since this guy WALKED OFF from his post before he was "captured" Just in case you did not know I believe this is the only live soldier to be taken captive, every other American solider taken alive was beheaded!

Add to that little debacle Obama's new climate change initiate under the guise of the Clear Air Act by the EPA and it appears Obama intends to drag down his entire party with him this year.

Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.

Yes November 2014 will be most interesting.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439713]. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans

Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.

Yes November 2014 will be most interesting. [/QUOTE]The man obviously bug you even before he display his "emperor" characteristics. My perception is of course, different. For you, he will always be the community organizer. Yet, the rush by the rest of the world to embrace him must have surely irk and astonish you. I remember very clearly, all the demeaning, tearing down of his name and character. It was very difficult to swallow for alot of people. The POTUS being black. Remember the movie, Guess Who is Coming to Dinner?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439713]BBM, first you have to live in the real world before you can reach across the isle and compromise after you no longer have control of the Congress. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans during his first two years in office, with the liberals dancing in the streets and the left wing news media predicting the death of conservatism in 2008. Since the loss of the House in 2010, Obama has bypassed Congress at every step to achieve his vision of "transforming America" via executive fiat. Had a Republican president embarked on such an imperial rule by executive fiat the liberals and left wing media would have been apoplectic.

Jackson and Tiny are correct, Obama has nothing to draw on to govern. It does provide a credible explanation for lack of economic growth, lack of job growth, lack of a foreign policy, or any other policy beyond the Cult of Obama.

While I am apposed to such actions by the chief executive, I look forward to a Republican taking the White House in 2016 and reversing all this nonsense by the same method with which it was imposed, executive fiat. I would also hope the new president speaks about Obama at the inauguration with equal or greater distain as Obama heaped upon Bush.

It appears with this latest "prisoner of war" exchange, where the father praises Allah and speaks in Pastu in the rose garden, for 5 of the worst Taliban prisoners at GTMO Obama has managed to step in it again. A lot of folks in the Army are not happy since this guy WALKED OFF from his post before he was "captured" Just in case you did not know I believe this is the only live soldier to be taken captive, every other American solider taken alive was beheaded!

Add to that little debacle Obama's new climate change initiate under the guise of the Clear Air Act by the EPA and it appears Obama intends to drag down his entire party with him this year.

Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.

Yes November 2014 will be most interesting. [/QUOTE]Doppelganger you wrote 365 words and still did not give Obama one person to call in the Republican Party that could cut a deal which was my main point. I think Reagan had O'Neill and Clinton had Gingrich. I find Scott Walker promising.

REV BS, I don't have a problem with Obama's skin color but his arrogance, ignorance and incompetence as POTUS. You don't see anyone rushing now, more like running away or just ignoring the village idiot. The perfect example of the Obama presidency was the Nobel Peace Prize, the prize awarded to those reaching the pinnacle of their professions after a lifetime of work was awarded to this man for doing NOTHING other than being the first Black US President.

BBM, the whole point of the post which you missed because you must have been trying, Obama is not interested in reaching out to the other side. Obama has said over and over he can do it all with his phone and executive fiat, he does not need Congress.

Obama may well bring his own party to ruin due to him being a legend in his own mind. Carter must be loving it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FclhuLsYi1c

Lee Kuan Yew warns Congress that American relevance in the Far East is under seige. A few years old, but wow, very far reaching and dynamic.

If link does not work, google you tube lee kuan yew, look for If Obama gets a second tern(MM dialogue, part 2)