Obamanomics: Bad for the economy...

[plain 12]

plain: "That's why I questioned BJean's assertation that he has been the most effective of any president in her lifetime."

You very conveniently left out that I said "so far". There has never been a president who has been as proactive and consumed with righting all the wrongs that came before him than Obama did so quickly after taking office.

Ok, my bad...."so far". But you still haven't told me what he's done to make him the most effective so far. And I mean some concrete things....not just "he's righting the wrongs" and "he's proactive"

As for Jeb Bush, that is laughable. Of course I would have said the same thing about Geroge W., except for the fact that I didn't account for their ability to corrupt the voting system in the United States. So Jeb it may be.

Did you even read (really read) what I wrote? Jeb is not the point. I used that name because I figured that would be the most vile to you. I could have easily said "Palin". My point was that any power moves Obama and the congress pull off will eventually wind up in the hands of the opposing party!!

Congress didn't get a chance to vote on the initial bombing of Iraq. Dubya got them to give him the ability and discretion to shock and awe whenever and wherever he wanted to. It was a Republican dominated Congress and even the Democrats voted to give him that power. Freaking idiots.

But those are a mess of conflicting statements! Did congress not get the chance to vote, or did they vote to give him the ability and discretion to bomb? Which?

That rule was put into place for the very reason that wound up happening. But when you said "...unless congress abdicated all their powers..." it was simply a diversion from the truth. They didn't abdicate ALL their powers and I certainly never said they did.

Didn't you? You said Bush was a fascist. Not many fascists care to share their power with congress. And anyway.....splitting hairs is the last desperate grasp of a debate. How Clinton-esque! I'll ask it this way: What powers specifically did congress give up to Bush?

You ask what was the name of the group that worked behind the scenes in the White House - are you kidding? Yeah, they had a name that people used when referring to them, but it wasn't a formal name.

Yep. That's what I asked. And I notice that you didn't, or couldn't answer.

I can't believe that you think that there would be a formal name for a surreptitious group of power-wielding, greed-driven politicos running things in this country. Have you really stuck your head in the sand plain, or just trying to forget what went on in Washington?

Unbelievable. What if I told you that a small group of jews secretly ran the affais of the whole world? Would you believe it, or would you ask me some questions (what's the name of this group? What is their agenda? How did you find this out?) about that group? And would you be satisfied with the answer "well, there's not a formal name. Have you stuck your head in the sand? Open your eyes! Jews run the world"? Because that's basically all you've given me.

Well I can tell you that a teeny tiny bit of Fox is enough to make your head spin. I watch it to know what the crazies are spouting this week and they never cease to amaze me.

Wow, that's amazingly open-minded of you. Didn't you kind of "scold" me a few posts back for not watching a balanced diet of news? Ah well, go on back and get your hard news from The Huffington Post or Media matters. They're much more fair.

[BethFromVA 5]

BJean, quick question (I'm packing to go visit the folks at oh-dark-thirty in the morning)...

You keep talking about the powers that Bush took from us. Okay, no doubt there. However, can you please show me WHERE in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or ANY OTHER DOCUMENT that the government has the right to steal businesses away from people and dictate who gets paid and how much? I'll check back later for your answer.

[criticalcare4me 0]

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

[BethFromVA 5]

"That's why I questioned BJean's assertation that he has been the most effective of any president in her lifetime."

Ok, my bad...."so far". But you still haven't told me what he's done to make him the most effective so far. And I mean some concrete things....not just "he's righting the wrongs" and "he's proactive"

Did you even read (really read) what I wrote? Jeb is not the point. I used that name because I figured that would be the most vile to you. I could have easily said "Palin". My point was that any power moves Obama and the congress pull off will eventually wind up in the hands of the opposing party!!

But those are a mess of conflicting statements! Did congress not get the chance to vote, or did they vote to give him the ability and discretion to bomb? Which?

Didn't you? You said Bush was a fascist. Not many fascists care to share their power with congress. And anyway.....splitting hairs is the last desperate grasp of a debate. How Clinton-esque! I'll ask it this way: What powers specifically did congress give up to Bush?

Yep. That's what I asked. And I notice that you didn't, or couldn't answer.

Unbelievable. What if I told you that a small group of jews secretly ran the affais of the whole world? Would you believe it, or would you ask me some questions (what's the name of this group? What is their agenda? How did you find this out?) about that group? And would you be satisfied with the answer "well, there's not a formal name. Have you stuck your head in the sand? Open your eyes! Jews run the world"? Because that's basically all you've given me.

Wow, that's amazingly open-minded of you. Didn't you kind of "scold" me a few posts back for not watching a balanced diet of news? Ah well, go on back and get your hard news from The Huffington Post or Media matters. They're much more fair.

Have ANY of these or your previous questions to her been answered?? Or are we getting the typical, left-wing dodge-and-spin reel? :wink:

Never mind, I already know my answer. :confused:

[BethFromVA 5]

Beth, I must say that I am not a big fan of yours usually, but on this issue I am in TOTAL agreement. I've just read through all of this forum and can't believe that we are on the same page with this.

I can pretty much believe it, based on some of the other political threads we've been involved in.

And I will spend the next four years doing all I can to knock this goober out of office. He sure as hell didn't earn the spot, and he's proving it.

[BethFromVA 5]

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

So let me ask you: If a conservative, ANY conservative, did what this loser is doing, would you stand staunchly behind it? Hell, would BJean?? I doubt it... :wink:

[plain 12]

I understand why you are opposed to a group like ACORN, but they are not a fraudulent group. They aren't perfect, but they did not corrupt the voting system or the election process in America. The only place that accused ACORN of being an illegal group that I know of is Fox.

Er, well.....Fox and the democratic (and very liberal) chairman of the congressional judiciary committee:

Washington Times - Conyers weighing probe of ACORN

[pattygreen 5]

Wow! I don't think I've seen a thread spewing this much crap and senseless propaganda since I joined this site. I can feel the hate seaping through some of these posts. I'm proud to be an American.

My thoughts are simple. Give the man a chance. Some of you can't do that though. He just doesn't seem to dance to your demented tune, and it infuriates you to no end. Maybe his method is a little different from what we've seen for a while. I know he's an elective servant, but just as harshly as you judge him, so shall you be judged.

His method of socialism isn't any different than in other countries and it has failed to bring freedom to the people. When government takes control of enterprise and gets too big and interferes with mans ability to care for themselves and spends the peoples money like it's Water and puts the next generations to come into horrible debt, when politicians make millions and have the best benefits and medical care and no term limits, where is that halping and caring for the common people? That's a move towards dictatorship.

[BethFromVA 5]

I understand why you are opposed to a group like ACORN, but they are not a fraudulent group. They aren't perfect, but they did not corrupt the voting system or the election process in America. The only place that accused ACORN of being an illegal group that I know of is Fox. Everyone else did their research and interviewed the people in the group and learned the truth about the accusations that Fox leveled against ACORN.

Uh-huh, yeah. And I have this bridge to sell you...

I see you haven't answered the hard questions yet. Interesting.

[BethFromVA 5]

By the way, for those who apparently don't know the definitions:

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

fas⋅cism   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.2.(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.3.(initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

BJean is almost right. We are skimming past the socialism part and heading straight for the fascism arena. This guy thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants. If that isn't a dictator and/or tyrant, I don't know what is.

And never forget, people loved Mussolini, too, until... :smile2:

[BJean 16]

You people are lunatics.

I asked you questions that you never answered. You have done nothing to prove any of your points. You have only spouted the same propaganda that Rush Limbaugh spews. Are you on Oxy?

And yet you belittle me because I haven't answered questions - to your liking.

Go suck an egg.

[volcano lady 0]

Calm down, we are NOT entirely Socialist. I say entirely, not because of a new government but because of an ongoing one.

I believe we are a Capitalist society with a Socialist twist, and we have been for a long time. This is a good thing!

Our taxes go to pay for "benefits" not only for all citizens, but also for underprivileged ones. Our poor and disabled citizens are examples of benefactors to this form of "Socialism". We could do what less generous societies do and have them fend for themselves (survival of the fittest), but we try to keep our citizens out of the gutters.

Is there abuse to this system? Yes, but most recipients are truly in need of help. I don't mind sharing my wealth with them because who knows, I may be there myself.

In earlier posts, I read a lot of anger and spite about people on the "dole". Since this economic crisis (let's just say the last year), there are millions more people standing in the welfare or unemployment line, unable to find jobs. Are we, as the American tax paying citizens that still are fortunate to have a job, going to tell these people to fend for themselves? Or are we going to lend a hand? This would be sharing the wealth.

P.S. When certain companies have been offered bailouts to keep them afloat and they take some of this money to stuff excess $ in the pockets of those who are used to living high on the hog, you have an example of the worst reason to support "Capitalism".

[pattygreen 5]

You are right in a sense. I don't have a problem with our tax money helping those who are in dire straits, but there is far too much waste and greed and abuse of the tax dollar. There needs to be a balance. There needs to be oversight on those who are using the tax dollar. Some accountability. We have far too many programs, and with programs there are more and more gov. employees who get a far above average Joe paycheck that comes with extremely nice benefits, retirement and health ins. It's one thing to help the poor, it's quite another to bilk the hard working U.S. citizen from too much of their money.

Here's an example in my own life. I am a landlord. We own 2 multifamily homes. The woman on the 2nd floor collects SS disability and is on a gov. funded program that pays a large portion of her rent. She pays only $80. The rental fee is very reasonable for my area. We got notice with the housing Dept. when the monthly check came yesterday saying that they would not allow any rent increases this year, and that even those who receive rent payments will be reduced. I don't understand why she can't get a job and support herself. I see her walking around town, smoking, playing with her dog. She's been living here about 5 years, and I've gotten to know her some. She collects SS benefits and gets free medical care from the state and get's free housing, but should she? She even worked part time under the table in her past. Now I'm not saying everybody does that, but alot of people take it if they can get it. Once a friend of mine was wondering if it were better for her to go to work, or accept the medical benefits from the state and the foodstamps. After weighing it up, she decided to stay with the benefits, cause she would only make a little bit more money if she worked. The problem with gov. supporting people who don't work is that they WONT work if they don't have to.

[BethFromVA 5]

You people are lunatics.

I asked you questions that you never answered. You have done nothing to prove any of your points. You have only spouted the same propaganda that Rush Limbaugh spews. Are you on Oxy?

And yet you belittle me because I haven't answered questions - to your liking.

Go suck an egg.

What a liberal. You spin and spew and don't listen to logic OR facts, nor do you answer questions because you know that you have no defense to what you believe. It's the easiest way to totally unhinge you people. And I see it worked again. Y'all never disappoint, that's for sure. :confused:

[BethFromVA 5]

You are right in a sense. I don't have a problem with our tax money helping those who are in dire straits, but there is far too much waste and greed and abuse of the tax dollar. There needs to be a balance. There needs to be oversight on those who are using the tax dollar. Some accountability. We have far too many programs, and with programs there are more and more gov. employees who get a far above average Joe paycheck that comes with extremely nice benefits, retirement and health ins. It's one thing to help the poor, it's quite another to bilk the hard working U.S. citizen from too much of their money.

Here's an example in my own life. I am a landlord. We own 2 multifamily homes. The woman on the 2nd floor collects SS disability and is on a gov. funded program that pays a large portion of her rent. She pays only $80. The rental fee is very reasonable for my area. We got notice with the housing Dept. when the monthly check came yesterday saying that they would not allow any rent increases this year, and that even those who receive rent payments will be reduced. I don't understand why she can't get a job and support herself. I see her walking around town, smoking, playing with her dog. She's been living here about 5 years, and I've gotten to know her some. She collects SS benefits and gets free medical care from the state and get's free housing, but should she? She even worked part time under the table in her past. Now I'm not saying everybody does that, but alot of people take it if they can get it. Once a friend of mine was wondering if it were better for her to go to work, or accept the medical benefits from the state and the foodstamps. After weighing it up, she decided to stay with the benefits, cause she would only make a little bit more money if she worked. The problem with gov. supporting people who don't work is that they WONT work if they don't have to.

EXACTLY!!

So, if I get this right, YOU as a property owner are being dictated to by the government that you are not allowed to raise your rents on her because SHE receives assistance. Did I get that right? So not only is she being owned by the government, so are you -- and you are just an unwilling participant.

There is a difference between a handout and a hand up. When you have generations of people living on the dole, what is the government doing FOR them? They are making them totally reliant on the government rather than them being reliant on themselves. WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING?? I see absolutely NO benefit in this!

I'll tell you, the liberals want -- NEED -- the poor. Hell, they have helped CREATE the poor. If they didn't have the poor, they would lose a large chunk of their voter base.

When liberalism was the primary ruling party for about 40 years, did we end up with fewer poor? Did things get better in primarily poor and/or minority areas? Did their situations improve AT ALL?? No, it didn't. Why is that, if liberalism "works"?

The fact is, it doesn't. Liberalism creates a whole class of people that are kept down by the chains of government under the guise of helping them out. I say if you start feeding a wild animal, that animal loses the ability and desire to go out and hunt for its own food. Have you improved the animal's situation by doing this?? What happens if the person feeding this animal dies or moves away or is no longer able to afford feeding it? At this point, you have created an animal who has lost the instinct to hunt or forage, and no doubt its offspring have now been affected by this problem as well.

Since when is it evil and wrong to make people accountable to themselves and their families, encourage them to do things for themselves, and empower them to take charge of their OWN lives rather than enable them? This is what I don't understand about die-hard leftist liberals.

What is wrong with self-reliance? What is wrong with less government intrusion into our lives and a smaller government, more personal accountability and responsibility, fewer taxes, the ability to build a better mouse trap and reap the rewards from doing so, and securing our borders? If anybody can tell me why those basic tenets of conservativism are wrong and evil, I'd love to hear it.

So long as one side wants to enable people and reward bad behavior, you will have no problem finding people who will line up for it. Y'all have created a sense of entitlement in many people who have no conscience over stealing the hard-earned money of others. I choose NOT to share my wealth, and I feel no guilt in saying that. If I choose to share it with my family, that is MY choice; but I am tired of having the hard-working in this country be punished for doing everything RIGHT, while those who don't get rewarded. That is some effin' skewed thinking there. And unfortunately, I can't help but think less of those who support this type of thing.