Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guys, you are missing the point. Why do you support the idiots from both parties who are dragging us down? When Bush did what Obama is doing it was the end of the world to you folks. Just because Obama faked us all out and is more Bush than Bush himself, you all forget the principles that made you vote for Obama in the first place. Face it. He's a fraud. Why do you continue to use all kinds of mental calisthenics to justify what he is doing? When Bush tortured it was bad. When Obama sanctions it by failing to prosecute the Bushies for doing it and keeping Gitmo open, that's ok? What do you think they are doing to those people there? Don't forget about the renditions we still participate in by sending our prisoners to other countries for interrogation and who knows what else. When Bush attacked Iraq, that was bad. When Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and used our military to attack Libya without a scintilla of congressional approval, that was ok? When innocents were killed in Iraq by Bush that was a war crime. When Obama orders the assassinations of American citizens without due process that all Americans are guaranteed by the Constitution, that's ok? You can't have it both ways. Either they are both right or they are both wrong.

 

I initially had a hard time coming to grips with this but I decided enough was enough. They are all the same except for the one whom they are trying their best to ignore and ridicule. If he was one of them, they would treat him like an equal. They wouldn't cut him off in interviews or lie about what he stands for. He's the most anti-establishment candidate we've had in my lifetime, as far as I can determine. You can't argue against peace and liberty. That's what you guys appear to be doing. Stop watching MSNBC, CNN, FOX (except Freedom Watch) and find information that doesn't promote the party line. You are already on the internet. Surf around and enjoy the freedom and the diversity of alternative news sources before SOPA and ACTA take them down. Escape the left right paradigm. I am not a class warfare supporting Republican. I am not a big government can save us Democrat. I am trying to see my way through the forest of bullshit that is our political system and trying to make decisions based on my principles and beliefs. If that makes me nuts to you, so be it.

 

You asked about a tax increase, I showed you there is one planned for $1.5 trillion. A tax hike is a tax hike no matter who pays it. By the way, who will most likely offer you a job, one of the 49% receiving government assistance who pay no tax or the folks who will end up paying for this increase in taxes as well as for those receiving assistance? The government is taking the money that can be used to create real jobs to give it to its' voting base. And you wonder why industry is moving to other countries. All Obama is doing is taking from one group to pay another who are dependent on government handouts to survive.

 

Don't forget about that hidden tax of inflation which is rearing its' ugly head due to the massive printing of fiat money by the Federal Reserve. It's the poor and middle class who suffer the most from this form of taxation. Those who get the money first, bankers and corporate favorites, enjoy the real value of the newly created money initially. But the flooding of the market place with currency backed by nothing will eventually hurt the little guys due to the devaluation of that very same money brought on by the expanded supply of money.

 

Read this. I don't know how you could think this is acceptable or sustainable for much longer. This can't go on forever, folks..

 

What Are We Going To Do If The Number Of American Adults That Can't Take Care Of Themselves Continues To Set New Records?

 

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government."

 

http://endoftheameri...set-new-records

 

Lou, you've got to be kidding about Santorum...

 

Read this...

 

So, you are thinking about voting for Rick Santorum?

 

http://howthehellsho...voting-for.html

 

 

For you gestapo lovers...

 

Surprise! TSA Is Searching Your Car, Subway, Ferry, Bus, AND Plane

 

http://motherjones.c...-systems-yearly

 

 

Speaking about cutting taxes and creating jobs...

 

WSJ Economist: Ron Paul's 0% Income Tax Would be World's Greatest Job Creator

 

http://www.youtube.c...v=BjCq6woC_hg#!

 

 

Restoring a Free Market In Money

 

The President has passionately argued for passage of his jobs bill. He claims that if the bill is enacted, the government will create new jobs. Basically he wants to borrow another half a trillion dollars today, and then in a few years, when he is no longer the president, have the IRS tax the rich to pay back the borrowed money.

 

There are profound problems with this. First, government spending does not produce prosperity. Prosperity--real wealth, real jobs, real growth--only comes about through real risk and real reward. Stated differently, the government cannot make us prosperous. If it could, the federal government would just have the Federal Reserve print cash for all of us and we'd all be rich. Everyone knows that won't work. We'll end up paying a thousand dollars for a loaf of bread.

 

Second, you cannot make poor people rich by making rich people poorer. The rich are the risk takers, the investors, and the employers. They create wealth, produce prosperity, and create jobs. Candidly, I laugh whenever I hear the President or even his Republican critics point a finger at each other and ask the other side what it has done to create jobs. The true answer is the government doesn't create jobs, except for the bureaucrats it hires. It doesn't produce wealth, it consumes it.

 

The answer to what the federal government should do that only a few have articulated is: Get out of the way; lower taxes; cut regulations; stop bailouts; stop picking winners and losers; stop borrowing; and bring the troops home now. Just like you and me, the Solyndras of the word should rise or fall on the skill of their work and the value of their products, not the strength of their political contacts and the easy use of your hard-earned tax dollars. If the federal government was really serious about creating jobs, it would shut down the unnecessary parts of the government, like Energy, Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior. All this would unleash the private sector with the cash that would otherwise go to the feds; and that cash when invested would create jobs. As for the President's jobs bill, the Democratic controlled Senate defeated it last week. It did so after the government's research arm, the Congressional Budget Office, revealed that the cost to the government to produce a $100,000 a year government job would be about $200,000. Need I say more?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dude. im a democrat all along. and proud of it. just because youre a republican that kinda saw the light dont put it on us. i would bet my life that if youre old enough you voted for GW Bush

 

actually i was head of the young republicans my freshman year but a couple hits of LSD and the capitol center cured that shit

 

"The Solyndras of the world"

 

Do you realize how fing dumb that is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like your either 20 or i lost my bet :)

 

so you dont see on any level that the phrase "welfare state" is a code talk?

 

you realize we have a massive corporate welfare state?

 

the budget can be balanced in a year or two with the proper small changes and we can shore up entitlements

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the budget can be balanced in a year or two with the proper small changes and we can shore up entitlements

 

your views are intriguing and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

Pie%20Charts%20-%203.9.11.png

 

All of the proposed cuts come from the category of our budget called non-security discretionary spending. But non-security discretionary spending represents a mere 14% of our budget. When you attempt to find $100 billion in savings—and when you insist on getting those savings from 14% of the budget—you have to cut deep indeed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? That plan was stated repeatedly during his original election campaign.

 

That bothered me a great deal. But like most of you, I voted for what I thought was the lesser of two evils and lost. Never again.

 

Well, you know where I stand. I've gone out of my way trying to provide you with some info to make you see things from another perspective. I'm not going to continue to go tit for tat on every little issue used to distract from the main idea that as a country we are screwed economically unless a game changer is elected. Vote for more of the same. That's your right. I'm just not doing that anymore. Back to the music...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, please don't. They are mostly opinions which matter little in the real world. In November it will be the choice between Obama or Romney or perhaps Santorum or perhaps someone selected at a brokered convention, but most likely Romney. A non-vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. Good luck in 9 months y'all.

 

(Spending alot of time on the road I listen to both the right and left talkers. To listen to all the words you would think they weren't even talking about the same people or government.)

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Obama...used our military to attack Libya without a scintilla of congressional approval, that was ok?

There is a tremendous difference in taking a military action and undertaking a war, and there is not a president in modern history that would not have done what Obama did in Libya...or more. Do you really want to live in a world where Gaddafi and his sort go unchecked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a pointless exercise, but I am trying to imagine who would be in a Ron Paul cabinet. Hmm, would it be a bunch of Republicans, many of whom are more establishment and less libertarian than him? I suspect it would. Thinking of the options, I will not have a problem voting for Obama against whatever jagoff the Republicans put up against him. I know I'm not getting Ram Dass or Deepak Chopra when I vote for Obama. I wish I had a better choice than the proverbial douche vs. the turd sandwich, but I don't. And neither will anyone else who is adult enough to accept that the 2-party system is not going away anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if, indeed.

 

If we elect Ron Paul I'm now convinced everything will change in DC. All wars will end, all wasteful spending will cease, businesses will thrive, and political cronyism will come to an end. We will have a government full of leaders with pure hearts and souls, who never tell lies, who always do what's in the best interest of the country.

 

That may be a ridiculous notion for any other single man, but we're talking about Ron freaking Paul here, folks.

 

I'm sold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rotfl

Paul won the [1996] primary with assistance from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (as honorary campaign chair and advertisement spokesman), as well as tax activist Steve Forbes[7] and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (both of whom had had presidential campaigns that year).

Wow, Pat Buchanan? The more I learn about Paul, the more I like him.

I read that if you drink enough Kool-Aid, it starts to taste like champagne.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, please don't. They are mostly opinions which matter little in the real world. In November it will be the choice between Obama or Romney or perhaps Santorum or perhaps someone selected at a brokered convention, but most likely Romney. A non-vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. Good luck in 9 months y'all.

 

(Spending alot of time on the road I listen to both the right and left talkers. To listen to all the words you would think they weren't even talking about the same people or government.)

 

LouieB

 

But Lou, I could easily get my total posts up to 1,000 on this thread alone.... :thumbup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul, ain't gonna be the nominee, just is not gonna happen. If he does run as a third party (which I doubt he will) he won't win. All of the youtube videos, impassioned postings are nice but it won't affect the outcome. Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee and he will lose to Obama.

 

Or political system is broken, beyond repair, money drives politics, there is nothing one person can do about. It is a shame. I would love a third party but the population at a whole will not stand for it. And when a third party gets in the person that actaully does win is generally far from the third party candidate themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our political system is the same as it has always been. Has it always been broken?

 

If truth be told, yes.

 

Once Hamilton/Adams squared off against Jefferson, things got partisan and ugly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me like things are getting alot better under the presidents leadership. i think hes done very well considering the opposition party in the House

 

As I sit here on a break at my second job, worrying about how I'm going to pay for my son's college, wondering when and if my daughter who just graduated college will find a GOOD PERMANENT job and move out of my house, I wonder for whom are things a LOT better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things suck economically these days. (I have two children in about the same position.) Does Obama have complete control over every aspect of the job market and the economics of this country? Absolutely not. There are forces at work here that are much more all encompassing than anything the president, wihether this president or the last or the last before that or the next one, can control. If corporations have decided to send so many jobs off-shore and close up factories and offices here, what can he really do? This is a trend that started decades ago. So then lets lay off government workers (like me) who do make decent salaries and have pensions and then we don't buy shit either and are unemployed. Its all a pretty desperate cycle really.

 

The fact is, our children are going to be less well off than our parents or we are. Blame it on whomever you want, the unions, the corporations, the bankers, Wall Street, poor people, immigrants, the government, the environmentalists, etc. etc. All of those points of blame are only a small fraction of what is really driving the economy.

 

Things might be a bit better had we not started two very expensive wars. Hell you can't even get into the armed forces anymore because there aren't positions there either. I am not trying to be too cynical, but all this rhetoric we hear from all sides is just that. Everyone wants everything yet we don't want to pay for any of it in taxes or reduced profits. So basically we are fucked. At least until we get real and do what really hurts all around.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case any one is interested. For information sake rather than to stir up trouble with anyone....

 

How much longer can this go on? Those receiving government assistance average $300 more a year in disposable income than those who work.

 

Report: Government Dependency Increases 23 Percent Under Obama

 

Written by Brian Koenig

 

American dependence on government has soared to an all-time high under the Obama administration, growing 23 percent in just two years, according to a new study by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative research group’s 2012 "Index of Dependence on Government" revealed that 67 million Americans are now banking on some federal program, including programs related to healthcare, housing, welfare, education subsidies, and other government programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

 

The one in five Americans who now rely on federal assistance cost the government $2.5 billion annually, and the average recipient collects $32,748 in benefits, about $300 more than the country’s average disposable personal income. About 70 percent of the federal budget goes to individual assistance and nearly half of the population does not pay a dime in income taxes.

 

"Americans should be concerned about this seemingly relentless upward march in Index scores," the study’s authors warned. "Dependence on the federal government for life’s many challenges strips civil society of its historical and necessary role in providing aid and renewal through the intimate relationships of family, community, and local institutions and local governments. While the Index does not measure the decay of civil society, it reflects a declining role in this most important aspect of society."

The notable increase in government dependency under Obama’s presidential tenure is the largest two-year jump since the Jimmy Carter administration, and the rise was ignited largely by the efforts of the President and Congress to increase housing subsidies, grow the food stamp program, and expand Medicaid and other welfare systems.

 

Some observers counter that the rise in government dependence under Obama is merely an aftereffect of stale economic growth. While economic stagnation does play a role, William Beach, one of the study's authors, says the analysis indicates that economic impact accounts for only one-fifth of the change in the index. Moreover, the index spiked by eight percent in 2010, a year when the economy grew by three percent.

 

Read more:

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/10817-report-government-dependency-increases-23-percent-under-obama

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case any one is interested. For information sake rather than to stir up trouble with anyone....

 

How much longer can this go on? Those receiving government assistance average $300 more a year in disposable income than those who work.

 

Report: Government Dependency Increases 23 Percent Under Obama

 

Written by Brian Koenig

 

American dependence on government has soared to an all-time high under the Obama administration, growing 23 percent in just two years, according to a new study by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative research group’s 2012 "Index of Dependence on Government" revealed that 67 million Americans are now banking on some federal program, including programs related to healthcare, housing, welfare, education subsidies, and other government programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

 

The one in five Americans who now rely on federal assistance cost the government $2.5 billion annually, and the average recipient collects $32,748 in benefits, about $300 more than the country’s average disposable personal income. About 70 percent of the federal budget goes to individual assistance and nearly half of the population does not pay a dime in income taxes.

 

"Americans should be concerned about this seemingly relentless upward march in Index scores," the study’s authors warned. "Dependence on the federal government for life’s many challenges strips civil society of its historical and necessary role in providing aid and renewal through the intimate relationships of family, community, and local institutions and local governments. While the Index does not measure the decay of civil society, it reflects a declining role in this most important aspect of society."

The notable increase in government dependency under Obama’s presidential tenure is the largest two-year jump since the Jimmy Carter administration, and the rise was ignited largely by the efforts of the President and Congress to increase housing subsidies, grow the food stamp program, and expand Medicaid and other welfare systems.

 

Some observers counter that the rise in government dependence under Obama is merely an aftereffect of stale economic growth. While economic stagnation does play a role, William Beach, one of the study's authors, says the analysis indicates that economic impact accounts for only one-fifth of the change in the index. Moreover, the index spiked by eight percent in 2010, a year when the economy grew by three percent.

 

Read more:

http://thenewamerica...ent-under-obama

 

Wow. the number of people on public assistance go up during the worst recession since the '30's? And this is Obama's fault?

 

YES, you are right. He only doing what all sane economists suggest. Without such a measure consumer spending which makes up 70% of the economy would have weakened even further ('cos get what? people spend their unemployment checks), unemployment would have increased even further and the economy would have gone into a deadly negative spiral with no bottom in sight.

 

But let's suppose Ron Paul had been in power. He would have vetoed aid for the unemployed, help for the States, denied any infrastructure spending and immediately cut the numbers of people employed by the Federal Government and by the military.. And where would unemployment be? Maybe 50 - 100% higher than it is today with no hope in sight.. And even worse from his supporters' perspective, their would be little dent in the debt as tax revenues collapsed.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that our spending has to to come down. It's unsustainable in the medium and long term. But you don't make massive cuts when the economy is on life support. You have to let the patient heal a little before attempting surgery.

 

Here's the frustrating thing for me. I think the bulk of Americans who don't show up on political blogs and watch Fox News - i.e.: the silent majority could sign up for the following phased in over time:

- cuts to Medicaid and Medicare

- changes to Social Security including changing the retirement age for people under 40 (which needs to be done anyway) and increasing the income base on which FICA taxes are levied (that support Social Security and Medicare)

- cuts to military spending especially as we spend more on our military then the next 13 biggest countries combined

- a reform and simplification of the tax code which makes it easier for businesses to locate within our border (this was a key part of the success of Ireland in the late '80's and 90's) and reform which means that most people are taxed less than hedge-fund managers and people who derive the bulk of their income from the sale of stock (like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates).

 

By the way, the first three (make up 75% of Government Spending - you can't reduce the deficit seriously without touching them).

 

Instead we are left with politicians of both parties that pander to their base. Republicans - never raise taxes on those who have benefitted disproportionately well for the last 30 years - REALLY? Democrats - keep cuts to entitlements off the table - REALLY?

 

I think there are three other issues underpinning everyone's anxiety about the economy and future of the country.

 

- Real wages for average Americans have stagnated since 1970's. Take away the increase of women in the workforce and the average family would be worse off than they were in 1975.

 

- The cost of higher education. A 4 year degree and the often inevitable Masters (needed to get a decent job) that follows now costs the same as a starter house located in the Mid-West and South.

 

-And this is is where Tea-Partiers and Occupy Wall Street agree - the growth of the corrupting influence of large corporations in decision making. Both parties have been complicit in this. Many Democratic's fav president Bill Clinton was the guy who signed into law the acts respectively that allowed Investment Banks to take too many risks (ending Glass-Stiegal) and which allowed one or 2 media companies take over the radio waves of the country. Not saying that to bash Clinton just to acknowledge the blame should be apportioned amongst all politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...