American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[Rev BS]

The coins jingling from their pockets, they came from Sheldon Adelson.

Bomb makers will always leave their signatures, and Sheldon Adelson's fingerprints are all over this bomb.

[Jackson]

...Biden said the letter was beneath the dignity of the Senate, and added "In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous."

Who gives a fuck what Joe Biden has to say?

Anyway, the Senator's letter did not suggest that "Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments". What it said in plain language was that the Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments without the involvement of the US Senate, which is in fact true.

Nevertheless, the entire premise of Biden's comments is laughable, given that in the past 6 years Obama has provided the world with numerous of examples of his inability to "deliver on Americas commitments, thank you very much.

Jax

[Rev BS]

And speaking only for myself, not for any other Asian American.

Asians suffered from immigration & exclusion laws early on. So with other discriminated groups, they united to have enough power to have a voice in legislation and so they found themselves under the Democratic umbrella(a possible story GOP story here).

Asians are united in their reverence & respect for religion, family, society, elders, authority, law, education, work ethics, etc. Conservative values that have been lost by the wayside in secular America today. And because of these values, individuality is often sacrifice for the "greater good" of family & society. The result is that as a group, they tend to be better educated and therefore successful. That will tell you all about Singapore. And so they have their most talented people in government.

More happy? Not necessary but if stability in income & self esteem are bricks in the foundation of contentment, then maybe they are.

When Singapore became independent, it was under the socialist banner of the People's Action Party. A party that was closely linked to the Communist Party before Lee Kuan Yew jailed his former colleagues without trial until they agreed to abandon politics. With independence came the need to be successful and self-sufficient.And the need to draw foreign investment meant that there had to be stability in government, good infrastructure & an educated stable labor work force. Lee often talked of a"rugged society". He was afraid that with success, people would get"soft" as in America. What he meant was not just physical, but mental & emotionally as well. And that is how the People's Action Party started to trend away from it's socialist beginnings.

So there you go.

[Tiny12]

Not really want to harp on the White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized....Immigrants are still coming in everyday.

Reverend, I have a sincere question that you're eminently qualified to answer. You're Asian-American, born in a country that rose from impoverishment to become one of the most successful in the world by pursuing policies that run counter to those favored by Obama and the Democrat party. I think you'd qualify as an independent, who currently leans more toward the Democrat party but who in the past has voted for Republican candidates too. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My question is, why are Asian Americans predominantly Democrats? I may be guilty of stereotyping, but when I look at the values and work ethic of Asian Americans, they seem more Republican to me. I believe the Democrat Party favors policies more similar to those popular in Western Europe, while Tea Party Republicans (but not necessarily mainstream Republicans) favor policies that are more popular in dynamic Asian economies. I'd sincerely be interested in your thoughts.

[Esten]

While Dosruedas instantly hurt his chances at being taken seriously by using the term "Obozo", I welcome him to the discussion and have no doubt he would learn a few things here. As for Tres, a quick review of his recent posts shows him to be almost completely substance-less, oscillating between his obsessive attacks on me, and his one-line posts "Here's an article from the newspaper" along with a link to a newspaper article.

The fallout from the Iran letter has been fast and furious. As it should be. Of all the ridiculous and despicable stunts that Republicans have pulled over the years, this is one of the lowest. Writing letters directly to foreign governments to undermine a sitting president's foreign policy? Unbelievable. Never mind that their constitutional "lesson" contained a significant error, or that foreign countries are once again mocking US Republicans (seems to be a pattern), and that some Republicans are admitting it was a bad idea. Above all, it was disrespectful, divisive, and weakens the image of the US internationally. Biden said the letter was beneath the dignity of the Senate, and added "In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous." I couldn't agree more.

[Tiny12]

Esten, The title of your post, "Republican stunts distract from Wall Street class warfare", is ironic. You're taking two words out of my post, "flat tax", to distract from my point that Obama isn't going to do jack shit about tackling America's long term problems. He'll do nothing about deficits, huge medical costs, entitlements that left unreformed will bankrupt the country, and economic inefficiency caused by the tax code. In fact, he's made these problems worse. His chief concern is doing what's best for his party. Damn the country, and our children and grandchildren that will pay for his profligacy.

But I'll take the bait. Yes, institute a 25% flat tax (the level proposed by Rev BS), on individuals and corporations. Provide a generous exemption so that the poor pay no tax. As I already said, close loopholes. Greatly simplify the tax code so that people aren't collectively spending 6.6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms. Do this and in the long term the total amount of tax paid, by the wealthy and others, would go up, as the economy grows and people don't go to great lengths to avoid 40%+ tax rates. The country would be better off, except politicians who benefit from granting special favors, including the Democrat hypocrites who harp on inequality at the same time they pass handouts to their crony capitalist buddies.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.

Not true. The Democrat answer, and the answer of some Republicans as well, is to shift more and more of the pie from main street to Washington D.C. Pick the pockets of hard working Americans and funnel the money to the federal government, where a large part of our hard earned money can be wasted.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...make-you-angry

[Tres3]

The sad part of your Rant stems from a stagnant perspective.

Unfortunately Esten has been stagnant for a long time. Nothing anyone says changes his thought process or what he says. If he cannot find a "fact" to support his position, he just fabricates one. Those of us who post regularly gave up trying to argue with him long ago, because his mind is made up and arguing with him is akin to beating your head against a brick wall.

Tres3.

[Dosruedas]

Well, people who understand a flat tax in general would help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, oppose it on moral and economic grounds, not because of anything to do with party line. Some 95% of recent income gains have gone to the wealthiest 1%. Those are staggering numbers. Numbers that would have been even worse without tax provisions that Obama signed into law.

The Republican answer to this issue is don't worry, let the free market operate freely. If the rich get richer that's OK, more wealth will trickle down to everyone else. Well in fact not much trickles down anymore - shareholders want it all. And when it doesn't trickle down, Republicans say so what, it's their money.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.

Instead of a flat tax, what we need is the Buffett Rule. Warren Buffett correctly noted that the wealthy are winning the class warfare battle. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy trying to distract us by stunt after stunt in Washington. Endless Benghazi investigations, attempts to change immigration policy by holding federal employees hostage, politically motivated and divisive invitations to foreign leaders up for re-election to come make speeches, and writing letters to Iran to undermine Obama's foreign policy efforts (a move which Iran's foreign minister himself dismissed as a "propaganda ploy"). These clown circus antics from Republicans are surely effective in steering the conversation away from how Wall Street is helping the wealthy maximize their take of the pie.

Dude. You need to get focused. Your Party-Line talking points just don't get it. Fact is, Flat-Tax works better for all involved. Wealthy people buys yachts, planes, and Lamborghinis. Poor people buy barbecue, used cars, and second-hand clothing. The wealthy spends a couple of million a year. And the poor spend a few thousand. Say the tax is 7% of all purchases. And even you're smart enough to see the wealthy pays more.

Under our present tax system, which is about 20,000 pages of legal interpretation and loopholds, inequality runs rampant. The IRS's fiendish appetite is used to gobble up the weak. And its used as a political tool to punish enemies and inhibit free thought and expression. Just ask the Tea Party. Who are deserving of Non-Tax Status.

I need to ask you where you got your education. Mine comes from 67 years of the streets, a Masters Degree, homeowner, builder, and veteran talking.

Let me add some more clarity. Trickle-down economics work. (its called Jobs. Not Shareholders) Reagan brought Trickle-Down to fruition after the disastrous years of Carter's economic policy. (fact is, democratic policies I. E. Growth of government doesn't work) And in doing so led the economic recovery that carried the economy all the way through the Clinton years in the White House. At least "White-Bubba" was smart enough to fiddle with his peter rather than a functioning economy.

Look, I hate to add to your eventual sobriety. But here's some more. There is protocol in the Balance of Powers in our Federal Government. This was effectively choked-off by Obozo, Nancy Pelosi, and Hairy Reed for the last six years. The past-leader of the Senate stopped over 300 bills to enter debate. And by doing so, they stifled the political process and workable solutions for the people. This teamwork with our "Transparent-President" and his leaders in Congress left the door open to outright tyranny and ruthless violations to our Constitution. Sure, the Repubs *****. They got a right to. And if you ever get off that slow moving merry-go-round. You'll *****, too.

They say "absolute power corrupts. " And in my lifetime its never been as bad as it is today.

I got to go on. Especially with your "accumulation of wealth at the top" comment which is more of "Keep the People Down" mentality. In case you didn't know it, that mindset keeps you believing that government is the answer to financial security.

Get this. You cannot tax your way to financial security. Buffet, Gates, and tons of others began with nothing. But each believed in the risk they took. And it paid off. Ask yourself about the risk you're willing to take. Just remember, the doors on Wall Street are open to everybody. Including you.

The sad part of your Rant stems from a stagnant perspective. You are free to go where you want, create what you want, sleep where you want, invest where you want. Government will never pave your way to financial freedom. They'll throw you a bone while they sit in the luxury of power. And they'll laugh at each and every voter who put them there.

Good luck.

[Jackson]

Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the USA Lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" a subject in which he is a professor "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.

Find the whole article yourself.

Hey WT69,

Have you been reading the Islamic al jazeera website again?

Perhaps you might instead consider reading the actual US Constitution, which specifically provides that all treaties with other countries must be ratified (approved) by the US Senate.

Do you understand what that means, or are you assuming that Obama will once again ignore the Constitution and in this case make a deal with Iran without bothering to get the approval of the Senate? Perhaps he will call it something other than a "treaty", perhaps he will call it a "Memo between Countries"? Perhaps he will simply issue an executive order? I can see that getting unanimously rebuked by the Supreme Court as they did with his unconstitutional recess appointments.

Anyway, the purpose of the Senator's letter was to remind the Iranians that whatever "agreement" they make with the politically desperate Obama must go through them, and they're not the pussies that our President is.

The fact is that Obama is a complete neophyte when it comes to negotiating, which is not a surprise because he's had no executive management experience.

For one thing, as a basic tenant of negotiating, it's not a negotiation if you're not willing to walk away, and the Iranians know that Obama is so desperate to make a deal that he can be pressured into almost any concession because he clearly doesn't have the political courage to walk away.

Another thing is that Obama doesn't understand is that he holds the strongest hand: The economic sanctions and collapsing oil prices have crippled the Iranian economy, their GDP being cut by almost 30% in the past couple of years. It is in fact the mullahs who are desperate to make a deal, and now is the time to ratchet up the sanctions and force the mullahs to capitulate, which they'll do because they don't want to be ousted in another revolution.

I hope that history will record that the Senate stood strong and refused to approve a treaty with Iran that would have allowed them to develop a nuclear bomb.

Thanks,

Jax

Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior using a private, non-government email account hosted on a private server for all of her email communications while she was Secretary of State.

[WorldTravel69]

Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the USA Lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.

Find the whole article yourself.

[Esten]

First I applaud you for recognizing the deficit as a major problem, and proposing a flat tax, which presumably would also involve closing loopholes and making the tax system more efficient and easier to comply with. Unlike some of those posting here who lean to the left, you've shown yourself to be rational, and not a person who tows 100% of the Democrat party line.

Well, people who understand a flat tax in general would help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, oppose it on moral and economic grounds, not because of anything to do with party line. Some 95% of recent income gains have gone to the wealthiest 1%. Those are staggering numbers. Numbers that would have been even worse without tax provisions that Obama signed into law.

The Republican answer to this issue is don't worry, let the free market operate freely. If the rich get richer that's OK, more wealth will trickle down to everyone else. Well in fact not much trickles down anymore - shareholders want it all. And when it doesn't trickle down, Republicans say so what, it's their money.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.

Instead of a flat tax, what we need is the Buffett Rule. Warren Buffett correctly noted that the wealthy are winning the class warfare battle. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy trying to distract us by stunt after stunt in Washington. Endless Benghazi investigations, attempts to change immigration policy by holding federal employees hostage, politically motivated and divisive invitations to foreign leaders up for re-election to come make speeches, and writing letters to Iran to undermine Obama's foreign policy efforts (a move which Iran's foreign minister himself dismissed as a "propaganda ploy"). These clown circus antics from Republicans are surely effective in steering the conversation away from how Wall Street is helping the wealthy maximize their take of the pie.

[Rev BS]

Obama's legacy will be more clear in about another decade or more as America continues to re-define itself in many arenas.

Not really want to harp on the White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized. The middle class is shrinking as technology & competition has made many jobs obsolete.

There is a large pool of Americans who are too old to reinvent themselves even as they live longer and need more income. The adage of the young taking care of the old is seeing a reverse in America. Consumerism is the face of America today, that is where the banks make their money, not from your savings.

Immigrants are still coming in everyday. Their energy & skills are making up for the lethargy of the home grown.

Do we want Israel to run our foreign policy? Or Sheldon Adelson. Islam vs Christianity! Obama has been trying to avoid that headline.

But I can hear the war cries. Oh, I forgot, the blind cannot see. Pardon me.

[Tiny12]

Reverend,

Interesting posts. First I applaud you for recognizing the deficit as a major problem, and proposing a flat tax, which presumably would also involve closing loopholes and making the tax system more efficient and easier to comply with. Unlike some of those posting here who lean to the left, you've shown yourself to be rational, and not a person who tows 100% of the Democrat party line.

Second, I have no idea what the best strategy for Iran is. Maybe what Obama's doing, trying to delay the day of reckoning for 10 years, will work. Maybe by then a government more hospitable to the west will take power there. Or maybe the Republican strategy of continuing sanctions is better -- something similar kept the Iraqi's from developing WMD, although at a huge cost to the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, many of whom lacked good nutrition and adequate medical care as a result of sanctions and Saddam Hussein's intransigence. Or perhaps bombing their nuclear facilities, or letting the Israeli's do it, is the best solution. I don't believe there was anything wrong with a Republican Congress inviting Netanyahu to speak. I also don't think there was anything wrong with Obama writing Iran's Supreme Leader, trying to create a dialog. People should talk and express their opinions. When they're prevented from doing so, outcomes are often worse.

A common thread, though, is that Obama is going to kick the can down the road instead of trying to come up with solutions. He believes kicking the can is the best thing for the Democrat party. And that is more important to him than doing what's best for the USA. Contrast Obama with Clinton and Reagan. Clinton and Reagan were uniters, not dividers. They worked with Congressional leaders from across the aisle to balance the budget and institute welfare reform (Clinton), and institute a fairer, more rational tax system and bring down the Soviet empire (Reagan).

As to your thoughts about race and Obama, Obama has much more in common with your average white Democrat elitist from blue states, like Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington where he has lived, than he does with most blacks in America. He was brought up by a white mother and grandparents. Culturally he is a white leftist. While I believe Obama is the worst president during my lifetime, if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Obama, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, I'd vote for Obama. Please note that Warren and Sanders are undisputedly white. I bring up these names because Sanders and Warren are among the most frequently mentioned names for candidates for the Democrat presidential nominee for the 2016 election.

Most Republicans would vote for Ben Carson, who's black, over any white Democrat candidate for president.

[Rev BS]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...310-story.html

Whether you think it is good or bad, there is no stopping America's demographic destiny. This is the underlying reason of why we have been angrily shouting about Obama the last 6 years. For he represent the no racial majority scenario of the future. The youth of America got that already, it is just the aging dinosaurs that are in denial and opposing the rising tide.

"Over the next 15 years, the entire under-65 white population will get smaller. By 2044, whites will no longer comprise a racial majority in the United States".

It is just reality, America has given every color under the sun the opportunity to succeed. Just look at the names of your doctors, reporters, teachers, athletes, even politicians.

So will America be better, will America still be #1? You bet.

[Rev BS]

That's the rumor going on here in Lad Phrao, Bangkok. To further embarrass President Obama as a weak, indecisive leader with a leaky foreign policy, the GOP has sent overtures to the dictator, Kim Jong-Un to come to Washington. While there, Kim will suit up with the Washington Bullets to achieve one of his fantasies, to play in NBA. Scouting reports say that Kim possess a deadly two-handed 3 point shot. So far, no one in North Korea has has ever dare block his shots.

Further speculation abound about a rap song that Kim has compose that will feature him & Dennis Rodman. My Man, My Brother, Suck Me.

And the beat goes on. I mean the heat goes on. Damn hot & muggy here.