Just thought I'd post this about Barack Obama's vistory. Election night was so emotional for some of everybody. Tears of joy for this man ran throught the world. Please to tell me what you were doing when the victory was announced and how did you feel about the results.
I fell asleep in front of the TV. So, I was probably snoring.
How do I feel about the results? ... sad ... I agree with AEvans that skin color should have nothing to do with who's president, and I feel like it did in this case. Can't prove it, it's just a feeling (and that's what you asked for.) I don't think he's qualified. John McCain was tortured for our freedom. John McCain risked his life for us. John McCain earned my vote, because while I was only eight, the enemies of our country were trying to break him, and he didn't break. He earned the right to win. So, I'm sad that a very brave and honorable man did not recieve the respect and honor I feel he deserved.
As for Obama ... well, we'll see. He didn't risk his life for us, but he's going to be president, and the office deserves my loyalty and my respect. He is polite and well spoken and gracious. He clearly seems to love his wife and children, and I think that also deserves respect.
I came home from work, checked the Internet, and was so happy to hear Obama had won. I wished I had still been at work still because everyone cheered together and was very excited about the event. I wrote a hub about it that night because I was so excited.
I was so happy. The night before, I went to all the neighbors in my are and handed out flyers to remind them to vote. I wish I had a place to celebrate with others. I sat at home on my loveseat and cried like a baby when he was announced president-elect. I was so happy. I couldn't believe it.
I'm afraid the expectations for Obama and what he can do are so high that most people will surely be disappointed. I think much of what he promised, he won't be able to deliver on and I think that's good! It's great that America elected a black man as president, but, unfortunately, I think this was the wrong man for the job. I would have preferred to see Condoleezza Rice run, unfortunately she had other aspirations. Hopefully the United States will get through these times of difficulty and be stronger for having done so.
What exactly about his past makes you believe that he won't be able to deliver? He ran a tremendously successful campaign, with an exceptionally well-managed ground campaign and funding strategy, and was remarkably consistent about his message and what he planned to do. In general, his campaign rhetoric has been free of spin and hyperbole, at least compared to everyone else he's run against. You might not like his high-minded "preaching" - I'm not a huge fan myself - but I fail to see how that could in any way negatively impact his agenda.
In fact, he got to work straight away after the election and by all indications has been mounting a very aggressive agenda. He is not resting on his laurels.
In contrast, Rice was an incompetent National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The fact that she was less incompetent than other cabinet members like Rumsfeld does not make her, in any way, capable of leading our country responsibly.
Well let's see, Obama has no experience to speak of, and no record of accomplishments what so ever. His campaign message was nothing more than the vague concepts of "hope" and "change". He won by selling the public on his promises to provide economic relief to the middle class by taking from the rich and from corporate profits. Everyone knows, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do and who are their customers? The middle class! Why anyone should think that they should send their money to the government just so the government can redistribute it back less an administration fee is beyond comprehension as far as I'm concerned! McCain certainly was not the best candidate for the job either. Personally, I would have liked to see Huckabee win, even though his social views are to the right of my own. But Obama? What does he have to offer besides his Harvard education? Nothing in my view.
it is nice to have a black man as a president of the world which is indicating to humans equality but do presidents are the actual ruleres?
who is the leader in the shadow?
I don't know but I know ithat all U.S presidents who tried to do something different from these leaders will were suppressed away.
Being President should have nothing to do with the color of one's skin, he should be judged on his character,morals and performance I am happy about the decision as I believe that the country made the right decision and I am proud to live in a country that is ready for change.
I am happy to see history and I wish him all of the best, as how many of us in this country could really do the job? Raise your hands
EngM and Pappa Blues comments are correct. No one in power came out with satisfaction. It is better that the ceiling of "2 times only" condition be removed from US constitution. No one need feel happy for change. It is the privilege and wish of rulers to continue the legacy. As the people themselves opt for changes, their fate is also going in for change... for better or worse.
I was scared, I had been preparing for him to win by moving all my business operations overseas and setting up offshore accounts. I felt like I was preparing for the repo man to come to my house and take everything. When they finally announced he had won I was crestfallen. For the first time in American Hisroty we had voted in a man who stood for outright socialism. Others before him, including Bush, all stood for socialism by consolidating power into the white house, but never as boldly as Obama. I was first ashamed in America that people were celebrating the color of skin ratehr than the man he was. I was ashamed that America was more focused on that fact that he was half black but his that his skin pigmentation appeared as fully black so there fore we call him black based on the color of his skin. America reinforced the idea that the color of skin did matter. I was saddened that we had not gotten past this and because of it, we voted in a man who intends to finx all our problems!! They are my fucking problems to fix, not his!! I want the freedom to choose the solutions to my problems, I dont want to forfit my freedom to a man I have never met so he can "change" everything and attempt to fix my problems. Needless to say both canidates were pretty crappy but I was sad to see we chose the greater evil.
Were you alarmed about Obama's supposed socialism before McCain and Palin invented it as a charge in the final couple of weeks of the campaign?
i do not support mccain, nor have I ever. I am opposed to socialism because I support that document that obama calls "A negative charter" whats that called again? oh yeah the constitution. please tell me how he is not socialist? Mccain is a socialist too!! just not as bad or as much as obama. Why do you say he is not socialist? do you know what socialism is?
Hi Herman is my dog, I understand your fear and I wish I could reassure you that all will be fine however I believe all will be fine as we have clearly forgotten who raised him although his parents were not to be desired. We cannot fault the man for who is parents were, as he did not choose them. Something tells me he has a major clean up to do, and I sincerely hope he can get the economy back on track and bring jobs back to the americans. Many of us could not be the President and I have and always will swing vote however the country made the right choice, as they put his parents behind them and that is what needs to be done. I wish we could have the freedom to fix our problems but look at the mess that our country is in and unfortunately that is because we as Americans did not have a choice. He isn;t the greater evil and I believe we will see that in the coming years. When my brother in law voted for Bush on his second term I told him the blood shed from americans will be on his hands and not mine. Well low and behold we have had so many military not come home as he only wanted to complete what his father did not do. I am proud of our soldiers for going over there and proud that they stand and protect our freedom. But moving everything to other countries for fear also takes away from the americans and allows other countries to control the U.S. I will keep my money right where it is , in the U.S. as my money is more protected here then in some of the other countries as you should be watching the stock market as your fear unfortunately may have caused you to make an irritaonal descision.
I am not fearful, I am a producer and I prepare. Our country is in the mess it is, because we keep electing men like george bush and barack obama who say they will fix it. it is not thiers to fix!!!! dont you get that? we give all power to one man and tell him to fix it and then get mad at him when he cannot. I dont like obama because he wants to take from everyone and give to everyone. he is not jesus christ he is just a man who will make mistakes and he will not be america's savior. only we can save ourselves from this mess. we need to stop putting trust in men who want to be our masters like bush, like obama. Dont you get it? The consitution was made to free us, not obligate us to give our money and trust to one man to take care of everyone. That my friend is socialism. My money has nothing to do with the stock market. I moved because in February our dollar is going to completely crash. I know this because of my line of work. When it does crash barack obama will take so much control that it will almost be like having a king. I put my money in strong foreign currency cause america is putting their trust in one man save us all and that is just plain stupid..
mmmmm.... For someone who moves money , one would think that you are educated however based upon on how this is written, apparently you are intoxicated or not to bright. This is what I believe , you are not wealthy and you are young , you simply want someone to argue with but you do not have any idea what you are talking about. Bless your heart for trying /
Everyone can become brighter by refining their daily customs. Using soaps, cleaning aids, etc. The whole of Africa can become brighter, if all the sophistications available in America reach those poor people. That is why Mr.Obama would have said "spreading of wealth is my priority".
THere will be no wealth to spread. I myself am rich and will not allow my wealth to be spread, I have moved all my money into foriegn currency as have all my associates. The burden will be left on the middle to lower income. Socialism promotes the sharing of miseries to all.
Herman, For some one as educated as yourself common sense would tell you not to move your funds to foreign countries and into foreign currency is ludicrous. I am wealthy myself and would choose to help others as I am not greedy nor a whoremonger. There is nothing wrong with the middle class nor the poor as when I was 18 I certainly wasn't wealthy , I was a starving student but apparently some of us have forgotten where we were then. As for my family( wealthy) and I did not beg off of them and certainly my parents to all of us well , so my success is based on knowledge, being ,humble and not greed. It amazes me that such an educated person believes that our country is becoming socialistic due to OBAMA becoming President. I detect a little racism in you and it has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with the color of one's skin. I have and always will help the middle class and poor and in turn I have been blessed by watching others grow to new heights and seeing them not struggle. I believe since you moved all, maybe you should pack and run as what is your purpose here in the U.S if you are that uncomfortable. Denounce the U.S. and become a citizen in another country see how your life would be then, you may think it would be glorified but I have many friends from other countries and they have become U.S. Citizens or they have a dual citizenship. I am not trying to be harsh, I am simply trying to say that you have forgotten about what the U.S. stands for and we have to get it back on track.
Come on son, Shame on you for being so judgemental and ignorant as I am quite postive I have given more to the poor than anyone you know, but unlike you, I did it myself. I did not need a President to tell me to do it, I did not need a large tax burden to take away money I earned to give to those of their choosing. The governemnt will spend my money a lot more loosely than I would. I just want the government to get the hell out of the AMericans everyday life as our fore fathers intended. I pulled my money from AMerica because I cannot support socialism. I will still bring money in at my choosing and I will still give to the poor, but I will do it on my terms.
as for socialism If you read my comment, I said we have been on our way to socialism for some time. Really since the great depression, with the exception of reagan every president has lead us down a socialist path, but I am sure I am more educated on our nations financial path than you are therefore you probably have not seen this path as evidently because you have been spoon fed the lies that get fed to most americans.
AS for racist I certianly am not, for i dont call barack obama a "black man", that would mean I was judging him strictly based on the pigment of his skin, that is the very root of racism my friend. He is not black, have you seen his parents? Lets stop focusing on the pigment of his skin and start discussing issues.
Mark my words the american dollar will crash hard in about february give or take a few months and at that time barack obama will make moves to give the government more power than ever before.
Herman: 1. I am not your son and I am certainly not male look at the avatar:)
2.You do not make any sense " Unlike me, you do it yourself? mmm since I always give myself who else would do it? Funny I don't know the President/Presidents directly so they certainly did not give me a call and say hey,Julianna can you give some money this week? How ridiculous!!
3. I do not honestly believe you have money and if the market does crash again you would be one of the corrupt individuals that resides in our country that we really do not need.
4. Moving money offshore ? If you were wealthy you certainly would not be sharing the information on the internet.
5. As a responsible American I am ready to give back to my country and I am not afraid of loosing any tax-shelters as if I can help my fellow americans, damn straight I will!!
6. Stock market crashing? Do you have a Genie in the bottle? or maybe a crystal ball? You are not basing it on anything but your own narrow-minded perception .
7. Herman educate yourself and then comeback and discuss this when you can make more sense. I value your opinion but it certainly is not well researched.
okay sweetie let this young rich man educate you. The American dollar has no base and china has purchased all of our debt. That gives us no stability and makes us reliant. The American dollar is just pieces of paper. Then brilliant men like mccain and obama go and push for bailouts upon bailouts and make our dollar even weaker while at the same giving the government more power. Our dollar is worthless because of the slow introduction of socialism into America. Capitalism is no longer king here in America. Now take the Swiss currency for instance it is backed by gold, it has a lot more stability than the dollar, in fact in it's history it has almost never waivered. The pound is in the strongest financial hold in the World. These currencies hold their value a lot longer than the dollar ever will. The dollar is on it's way to a crash. The Capitalist in me, or rather the American in me excercised his constitutional right to move my money to a safer haven. I can talk about where my money is all I want online, on teh phone with the Fed, face to face with the IRS because I have done nothing illegal, I have nothing to hide. Moving my money is perfectly within my right to do if done properly. The average American has been fooled into accepting Socialism but I assure you it will be our fall. Come mid next year my words will ring true. As for me being rich, sure I could be lying, I imagine you probably are too. There is really no way of telling. But most wealthy people oppose socialism and abhor it, unless they can benefit from it which is possible, jp morgan chase is doing it. I never specifically said the stock would crash, our monetary system will crash. Trust me it definitely will. and as for being "a responsible american" giving freely to those who have not earned only cripples them. Letting job producing wealthy business owners operate in a free enterprise system unhindered by rules and regulations put upon them by the government and who are allowed to be regulated through the free market is what a responsible American should do. When the country loses the principles it was founded on, as ours has, It is the job of responsible Americans to get it back on track. If that means taking our money out the economic system to let the socialistic practices america has endorsed, fall on it's face so that capitalism may introduced back in, then so be it, and I will be glad I could help capitalism back into america. AMerica was founded so that I have the right to choose. We have adopted social security, well fare, income tax, soon to be socialized health care and education, these programs are unconstitutional and legal plunder.I hope by casting my economic net elsewhere I can stop supporting the plague that infects our country. America was the greatest country ever founded I believe it will be again when AMerica is sick of men like barack and bush controlling them. our constitution is flawless. I wish we could just use it. That "negative charter" made this country great when men had the integrity to live by it.
If our nation is becoming socialist (and I don't grant that it is, but IF it is) then electing socialistic politicians is a symptom not a cause.
Everyone who voted for Obama heard his "spread the wealth" comment. And they chose to vote for him, anyway. Which means one of two things. Either they dont' think that's a socialist comment, or they want socialism.
Obama cannot make the nation socialist, but if the hearts and minds of the people are becoming socialist, then we will elect people who will "act" socialist.
If the poiticians in congress and the white house are "too socialist" for the nation, in two years, we'll get a new batch.
It doesn't have to mean one of two things, and I would argue that in all likelihood it means that you fell victim to a media soundbite and an awkward comment he made that was spun into something outside of context.
That would be like me saying that John McCain represents a corporate oligarchy because he said in a soundbite that "The fundamentals of our economy are sound" and thus somehow supports our economic meltdown and the right of companies to continue screwing us. He said that-the fundamentals of our economy are sound-and then the Obama camp took that out of context to mean that he really was saying that the fundamentals of our economy were sound when what he was trying to say (and this came out later), was that the AMERICAN WORKER constitutes the fundamentals of our economy and that the hard working American is "sound" and won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
So you basically like to take a soundbite from Obama (instead of McCain), and turn it into a strawman and try to legitimate your preconceived agenda which is poorly hidden might I add . Also, I think there are a few other things about you that are poorly concealed as well..
Nice try, but no cigar.
Sorry, I disagree. You don't think it's a socialist comment. (ie. it was just a sound bite, taken out of context.)
I apologize if you think my agenda is hidden. I am unapologetically a conservative Christian. I don't like a lot of Obama's policies. I didn't vote for him and I wish other people didn't either. I hope he is defeated next election. I think he probably is socialistic. I just don't worry too much about it. I do feel that I should speak with as much respect as possible about the president elect. I may not agree with him, but I do respect the office.
My unhidden agenda is to see him defeated in four years. But, not because of fear, or demonization of his character. But because I believe his record does not match my personal best interest or the things I value. I do not believe he is qualified to be president. Many of my fellow Americans disagree. I choose to accept my defeat as graciously as possible.
Have I missed anything?
Oh, yeah, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our elections. They get to vote for their parliaments or whatever, we get to vote for ours. Their diplomats and armies should represent their interests to the world. Our diplomats and armies represent ours. I respect their rights to have opinions but it certainly doesn't effect the way I vote.
Again, I'm sorry you mis-took my attempt at politeness as an attempt to hide an agenda.
I think you really might consider making caring about what the "rest of the world thinks" an ought, whether you are a conservative christian or not. The world is now far more globalized than it was twenty years ago, even if you don't want more "globalization" and I think it is irresponsible for Americans to not consider the impact a President could have as perceived by the rest of the world's inhabitants and their own concerns on an economic and military level, because any impact we now have in many areas automatically and quite quickly affects the lives of other world citizen's because we are the sole superpower at the moment and we pull the strings.
You can argue otherwise, for sure, but one has to take into context the "big picture" that is present now that wasn't present twenty years ago during the Reagan years. Even if the big picture is something you don't want to be part of your decision making as far as who you vote for the office of President, it is still there. It's there along with abortion, and everything else.
Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinions, You know nothing about why my opinions are what they are, what my experiences are. Or anything else. The original question was "how do I feel" I chose to answer. Your choice to try to change my feelings by being critical, simply amuses me. It appears that you think you, who know nothing about me, and can simply speak "inevitability" and get me to change my vote to what you want it to be. That is absolutely hilarious. Honestly, you've given me no reason to take you seriously. But, thanks for the laugh! (Please don't be offended, it's not my intent. It just made me laugh.)
What the matter? Are you afraid that socialist wont benifit you in the long run? Sh*t may trickle down but you know it goes right back up into the communist pocket.
Either choice when it comes to the economy would only achieve the same result, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but with Obama, it will just take a little more time to make the poor a little less poor so that the money flows back into the rich mans hands once again.
herman is my dog: Take it you are giving up using the roads, the fire and police, maybe water, maybe power and no social security for you. Hope you don't play the stock market cause that is socialist as well.
AEvans - thanks for your advice to herman is my dog. That is real patriotism. But how much can you as a single person help others...? only to become poor again.? It is the duty of the Government to uplift the living conditions of its citizens. Escapism is also a bad thing. Everyone should stay where they are, do business as before and pay taxes to Govt., which will look after the poor. One trying to hide money overseas and other trying to help others....!
I am patriotic and choose not to hide and on the other hand I don't give all of my money away, however I am a person that helps and does not sit up on a pedestal looking down on others. Throughout the year I am working in the soup kitchens and helping the poor and on the holidays when others are opening presents, we have bought blankets , food for the poor and we spend it handing those things out. We as a family do not recieve we give, as it is nice to get presents but the joy of giving cannot be explained.
May I ask you as well where your article is as I noticed that you have been here but haven't published anything.
herman, you're right that the US has some "socialist" policies, one of which is a progressive tax regime. All developed economies employ one because a market economy (also used in all developed economies, including the US) will tend to accumulate wealth among the wealthy and exacerbate wealth gaps until they become untenable. Unless you like living in a heavily-guarded gated community, it would seem, no matter how selfish you are, you would want to prevent civil conflict in your own backyard. And who's to say the guards won't turn on you, too?
That said, if you are more concerned with maintaining as high a level of your wealth as possible, at the expense of living in a new land, without your family, friends or culture, and know of a country that would accept you, then more power to you. (There are popular tax havens like the Grand Caymans, Andorra, Monaco, etc that are popular among the ultrarich precisely for this reason). It's not something I would choose to do personally, but I'm also not haunted with socialist nightmares either.
You are not understanding what I am saying. Moving my money has nothing to do with greed. Maintaining a high level of wealth is not my primary concern, although it is my right. Your self righteous attitude of which you share with that are other chick on here, is reprehensible. You assume I am not a giving person. What I am saying is my money in my hands is much more helpful to everyone, than money in barack obama's hands. The fore fathers were called unpatriotic as well when they wanted to seperate from england due to their tyrannical policies and high taxes. There are a few, and they are few, who will not stand for it anymore. I am one of those few. If we keep feeding the monster it will only grow. Sometimes Civil conflict is inevidable when fighting for our rights, it happened in the revolutionary war. I am not scared of losing my money as much as I am losing my freedom, and the more I let the governemnt take of my money the less freedom I have. I am not afraid of Civil conflict, it will happen eventually and although it may be hard, through every war that has happened on american soil, good has come of it.
Please don't attribute things I never said to me. Anyone with a mouse can scroll up and read that I never said any such thing.
Ironic that I said "more power to you" and your retort is that my "self-righteous attitude is reprehensible."
Taxes have generally come down since WW2. I find it striking that you're champing at the bit about civil conflict to defend your "freedom" (from taxes) when you don't have your facts straight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax … _top_rates
Oh, and the founding fathers rebelled against taxation without representation, not "high taxes." Please, make Wikipedia your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxatio … esentation
LiveLonger, Iam certainly glad you pointed that out that is why I believe his whole discussion to me has been a complete facid.
I will just let our fore fathers words ring true and cry against you. I suggest making the constitution your friend dumb ass.
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." John Adams (1814)
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; "all powers not delegated to the united states, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States of to the people." to take a single step beyond the boundries thus specifically drawn around the powers of congress, is to take possesion of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. – Thomas Jefferson (1781)
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." – Thomas Jefferson
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills. – Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. – Noah Webster
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster (1834)
Lets see what BArack has to say:
"the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.
It [the Constitution] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."-Barack Obama
I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage. McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits. So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer, and if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you've got to go out on the open market and try to buy it. It is not a good deal for the American people. -barack obama
"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens." Barack obama
It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. "
1.The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. – Thomas Jefferson
Look I understand you guys dont believe in the constitution, but i still do. and as Daniel WEbster said,
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster (1834)
I am ready to defend it, not embrace its counterpart as you are all doing. Bring on a new revolution.
Look I understand you guys dont believe in the constitution, but i still do. and as Daniel WEbster said,
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster (1834)
I am ready to defend it, not embrace its counterpart as you are all doing. Bring on a new revolution.
My Dear , You need to review and re-read the comments and your answers as you are stumbling all over yourself. Moving money (you do not have ) based on your orginal written article before revised is not defending your country, it of course would would take care of you. You who be one of the few who who evade taxes as Obama would not be offering the same tax shelters. I continue to pay my taxes and am not fearful of my own country, therefore who embraces our country and who does not? It certainly isn't me. You certainly don't love your country or you wouldn't be running from it, and you are certainly not guarding it or defending it.
If you were protecting it , you would standing by it!! "GOD BLESS AMERICA , LAND THAT I LOVE, STAND BESIDE HER AND GUIDE HER THROUGH THE NIGHT WITH THE LIGHT FROM ABOVE,FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE PRAIRIES, TO THE OCEANS WHITE WITH FOAM, GOD BLESS AMERICA, MY HOME SWEET HOME.
What the Social Democrats in Europe retreated to was the interventionist-welfare state. To have social justice, they argued, it was not necessary for the government to fully nationalize industry and all other economic activity. It is sufficient for the government to “tame” capitalism through a spider’s web of controls, regulations, and commands; and to use the tax system to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and the deserving middle class, and to establish a network of social safety nets such as social security, national health care, public housing, and state subsidization of all education.
This is basically the ideal that Barack Obama, from all his public statements, clearly believes in and wants to see expanded beyond the extent to which they are already practiced in America. Thus, he wants to use the tax system to “spread the wealth” and apply the regulatory powers of the government to more forcefully manage and direct the economic affairs of the citizenry – all for a particular interpretation of the “common good,” of course.
His criticism of the Supreme Court goes back to the fact that the Constitution of the United States was designed to secure people in their individual rights to life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. It was not designed to micromanage the population’s personal, social, and economic affairs, and redistribute wealth from some who are designated “the rich” to others labeled “the poor.”
So is Barack Obama a “socialist”? Only he knows the answer to that in terms of a self-identifying label. But what his ideas do represent is a traditional socialist critique of capitalist society, and the belief that it is the duty of government to use its police powers to redistribute wealth in the name of the mirage of social justice.
written by Dr, Richard Eberling Oct.2008
So Mr. Herman seems to me that you are not defending our country and you certainly do not want any of your supposed wealth to be given to anyone as your fear is being middle class.I am certainly not self righteous and look who is busy calling the kettle black.::::::::::::::::
oh dear sweet heart, you spew words out of your mouth like vomit, each word stinking more than that last. I believe in the words of our fore fathers, unlike yours their words actually promoted freedom. appearantly you did not read them. here they are again. do you disagree with them?
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
You are ignorant. Moving my money helps expose a horrible system. If I leave my money in a corrupted system I don't help the problem. I am the one who is doing the best thing for my country. You are only perpetuating the problem by supporting a broken system. I believe in what this country was founded on and Barack Obama does not stand for the America our fore fathers stood for. As far as money goes you have as much credibility as I do sweet cheeks. my dear sweet stupid girl, bless your heart for trying to be the big smart girl, but you are just wrong here. Thomas jefferson wouldnt like you much. observe the words from his mouth
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." – Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
Benjiman Franklin would say to you:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
GO READ THE CONSTITUTION PLEASE!!! IT MAKES ME SICK HOW MUCH YOU STEP ALL OVER IT.
You shouldn't be moving money and running from tax shelters and I wouldn't have a problem with it.Perpetrating what, that I am american and stand next to it? You are asking me to read the constitution are you speaking about the original or the amended? I beleive you should be speaking about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights however I think you are afraid of yourself and angry as I believe in the Constitution , Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and it does not say move your money , it says "When a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under Depotism,it is their right, their duty,to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Last line : we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortune and our sacred honor" you are not doing any of the sort. So before you blast me with the Constitution and keep trying to defend what you are doing , step back , read and be diplomatic as you are not protecting or defending , you are in what you are doing for your own self -worth as you cannot sell me on the fact that you are protecting our country, you are protecting yourself. If you can breakdown to me without arguing, yelling or using , profanity why you believe you are protecting our government do it. Back up your words with clear facts not something that was pulled from the air , I certainly will listen but until then I bid you adue.
American citizens have to take care of themselves. President elect Obama has not left with much options.
The whole economy is in a dole drum. It will take decades to return it back to its own pace. Sooner the Americans understandbetter for them.
Me thinks you a have a case of Hemanitis - kind of like rabies, but an infection of the manners. You have none.
"oh dear sweet heart, you spew words out of your mouth like vomit, each word stinking more than that last." "as I do sweet cheeks. my dear sweet stupid girl, bless your heart for trying to be the big smart girl," Is that a civil war or a civil tongue you wish to manifest, or prob they are forever mutually exclusive.
Yiipeee!!! I hope that puts him in his place or he may come back like the Anti-Christ that he is acting like.
Yeah, I gave up conversing with him, too, after he included an insult in every reply back to me. Some people are incapable of civil discourse.
my dear sweet socialists I apologize for the insults. I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the words of thomas Jefferson. I will leave you with more. I have concluded that you both must be in a lower to middle class and thus have concluded that obama will help you out. You will soon learn that punishing the upper class by robbing their pockets only hurts you. It is not the governments job to tell me whom I should take care of and whom i shouldn't. Again I direct you to any document that was constructed by our forefathers when setting up our nation. Again i leave you with the words of our forefathers that you still have yet to refute and that make you all look so anti american.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." – Thomas Jefferson
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for. – Thomas Jefferson
I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon an article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson
I assure you income tax violates my rights.
When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself public property. – Thomas Jefferson
Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to F. W. Gilmer, 1816
It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part. – Benjamin Franklin
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787
Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world? – Thomas Paine
The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. –Benjamin Franklin might I add not extort it from the rich!!!
oh i could go on and on. These men make you two just look silly. Oh how much wiser are they than you. These men would be my friends And most certianly not like you at least politically. Now please stop refuting me and just refute these wise men who set our country up so perfectly. As for me boycotting the American economy? It is like pulling drugs away from the user. please do you disagree with what these wise inspired men have said?
For me too Zarm? Ah, anyway, I quit smoking
I too think Obama's agenda is socialist, and highly likely leads to some form of communism winning this country over
Not to say McCain's agenda was any better though
"Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinions, You know nothing about why my opinions are what they are, what my experiences are. Or anything else."
What are you the Invisible Man?
"It appears that you think you, who know nothing about me, and can simply speak "inevitability" and get me to change my vote to what you want it to be"
What is this shadow boxing? Say what you want, but I can say naught.
No I think he's Sarah Palin.
I mean, from the socialism charge, the "unapologetically Christian conservative" (when have you known a single Christian conservative to apologize for being that?), to the fact that he "respects the office of the presidency", BDazzler's entire perspective seems to be shaped by what Queen Palin says.
And, when, inevitably, Queen Palin sounds the alarm in 2 years' time, saying "we had such high hopes for Obama, but he's disappointed us," you can be sure BDazzler and the rest of the flock to parrot those exact words as if he had come up with them as his own.
Well, my sweet, sweet herman dog.
I am not sure exactly where you think you are going to hide your vast fortune, but I would have thought you would have done so long before this as Mr. Bush's policies seem to have been pretty darn socialist.
So if it has taken you 8 years to work it out....
But, dear sweet, darling tax-avoider that you are - where exactly have you hidden this huge fortune you claim?
I am not aware of one single currency that has not been sucked into "solving the financial crisis." The Great British Pound you so endearingly referenced is in at least as much trouble as the US dollar. Perhaps worse.....
Even poor old Credit Suisse is laying off staff left and right and scrambling to hide their losses.
mark mark mark, you are old and so is your mind. I would be happy to give you a fresh perspective. I never called my money a "vast fortune" my ignorant friend. I never used any adjective to describe my money. While I have my money in foreign accounts spread throughout several currencies I assure you that almost are are safer than the dollar. I have my money in oil, land, gold, farms with water rights, and other such valuable things. Because the way i see it all currency will crash in the near future and those things hold thier value. However those currencies that I mentioned will not crash as fast as the dollar will. Meanwhile I buy up businesses, gold, land, etc. and other things that will hold their value. Now if you are a socialist as well I ask you to please review my posts on here about things that our forefathers have said. now bottletops? come on gramps those aren't worth anything you silly old man. did you know that gold is valuable? land is always valuable, oil is valuable, but not bottletops. Trust me if you think bottletops are valuable i urge you to rethink. I can show a number of other ways to invest your money other than botteltops you silly geriatric!!
Well, I would think you need to get your story straight my lying friend, because this is what you originally said:
I see no mention of oil and gold and land, I see "I have moved all my money into foreign currency."
All I was doing was pointing out that all these foreign currencies are in the same boat and was asking just exactly which foreign currency you appear to have faith in over the US dollar.
Care to answer this simple question?
Oh, and the bottletops was a joke. You know - funny.....
not very funny, stupid. Yes it is in foreign currency, I never denied this. It is in foreign currency, so did I lie? No!! I have my money spread into every valuable commodity I can get my hands on. But meanwhile I keep money in places where it won't be wrongfuly stolen from me and I use that money when advantageous to buy up gold, land, oil, etc. My moving to a foreign currency is a boycott on socialism in AMerica.
Sorry VD - I Missed this. I didn't realize that "foreign currency" means "commodity."
Still didn't answer the question though. Seeing as the dollar has now strengthened against all other currencies, which one did you have faith in?
the dollar will fail hard and fast, I have more faith in the peso than in the american dollar. Just wait. ill write you next summer and we will see who is right and who is wrong. THe dollar will crash, mark my words.
Aggressive little so and so aren't you?
I have no doubt the dollar will fall in value. None whatsoever. The events of the last few months have just nailed the coffin shut. I am not so sure it will be against other currencies though, because, although you seem to think this is all about the US, many other governments have followed suit and printed money they do not have. Including the euro, ruble, dirham, yen, yuan and pound.
You pick pesos, I pick bottle tops
"You will soon learn that punishing the upper class by robbing their pockets only hurts you."
Twice no less.
Tell me you're one the Lemming-annual-Plymouth-Rock kissers.
I know huh...being robbed of their pocket change that is used to buy things that they throw out when it goes out of style and then still refuse to help those less fortunate.
Oh for everytime I have seen a person disgrace the less fortunate by tossing lose change on the ground for them to scramble and pick up so they can get their kicks of their high and mightyness.
see I dont get how everyone doesnt get what you just said. Robbing from the rich no matter how rude, prideful, and uncharitable they are, is wrong and wont get anybody anywhere. it is violating their rights.
Robbing from the rich? You've got it backwards. They got rich robbing from the poor. Steal a little from enough people and, after a while it adds up to real money as in the credit card companies, the bankers, the Wall Street brokers, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the hedge fund operators, the crooked mutual fund companies who allowed after market trading for favored customers and front running for insiders and who charge exorbitant fees, etc., ad nauseum.
resorting to unsubstantiated accusations does not make your claim any more valid. Everyman should be allowed to do whatever he wants to do as long as it does not physically harm others. let the free market regulate him, not the government. cmon do we really want to subscribe to a hitleresque way of thinking?
If you read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times you would know that all of my "accusations" have been substantiated many times over in the past eitht years or so.
So you say its--Hitleresque to make it a crime for corporation CEOs to cook the books to enhance their bonuses and defraud their stockholders? Hitleresque for the FDA to require testing to of the efficacy and safety of drugs before they are sold? Hitleresque for the FDIC to insure bank deposits? Hitleresque to require credit card companies not to charge fees for fictitious alleged costs? Hitleresque to require companies to fulfill the warranties on their products? Hitleresque to prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex or national origin? Hitleresque to prohibit crooked mutual fund companies from allowing after-market trading by favored customers or "front running" from fund insiders? You gotta be kidding! I wonder what attracts right wing whack jobs to forums like this???
THose harm others. Just as I mentioned before, the government is supposed to protect us from each hurting and wronging each other. if someone is harming others through their actions then let the law punish them accordingly. A compnay should be able to price gouge, hire whom they choose, push out small businesses due to their demand, the free market should punish these people through their economic votes via the dollar spent. But punishing them for their success through taxes is hitleresque, Hitleresque is affirmitave action, spreading of wealth, making those who have been successful have to give to those who did not earn it. that my friend is hitleresque. Please respond in context.
Unite... for what? Only to rob the rich and spread wealth among lazy people? Let communism rechart their policies.. let them encourage people for hard work and earn money; let them save and become rich! The present rich people did not attain their status overnight. They would have toiled hard for days and nights. If an uprising of empty pocketed communists create flutter in a society, please imagine what will happen if the rich people rise up! Communists... please reshape your policies of creating trouble in peaceful societies, work hard, accumulate wealth and drop communism in the dustbin.... because it will be of no use after becoming rich.
This discussion topic was supposed to be about Obama's glorious victory. He is not a communist nor a socialist and there are very few Communists in the United States--none holding national or state elective office to my knowledge. The only Communists are in the Russian embassy in Washington. And Russia is more of an undemocratic oligarchy than a Communist state. Communism is a bankrupt concept, and so is Socialism pretty much outside of Cuba and Venezuela.
but it sounds like you are communist because you are saying that if the rich were moved to "fight back or whatever" then no one can do anything because you have all the money.
So basically you are saying because the dollar is wortheless and you will continue to buy up businesses, oil, land, property etc. and then when the dollar becomes obsolete, the things you have will still maintain their value therefor you will be in charge of who gets what and it is your say because it is yours.
Then for any of the "lazy" folks to have access to you property they will have to work for it day and night...so now you are planning on either becoming a slave driver or a dictator, dictating who can have access to you land, oil etc...
you are a communist and communism is not dead but maybe you would prefer the title, dictator.
and also, it doesn't sound like you, yourself worked hard day and night to achieve your fortune. Sound like other people may have, but you, yourself did not. Maybe your hard work was in "negotations" to benifit you or ripp of people with less money.
Sure I can see how this could make you tired and you may feel like you worked really hard for it but you could care less about the people who actually do hard labor for pennies to feed your fat cat face and you never give any thanks to those people.
If I were a farmer I would ban feeing fat cats and let you do it for yourself. my money says you would starve to death.
Madam Sandra Rinck, there should be some limitations to your imaginations. Because communism did not work positively, I use to hate it. There are more committed ideologies in my country that worked well for several centuries; then why communism, chartered by a European writer? ... that too only in the 19th century? Please do not go on extending your imaginations.
where do you come up with this bologna? when did I say communism was possitive? Whateva!
You have accused me as "communist" "dictator" "will starve to death". Only communists will use such rhetoric. I though you as communist because of your accusations.
People will understand you better when you improve your English a bit. Meanwhile be prepared to explain yourself in different words over and over again, until you make sure people understood you correctly
Venu, I have a question , I realzie you love the forums but when are you going to publish an article on your experiences? You appear to be very talented? ::::::::::::::::
Ms.AEvans, specially for you, I come out in detail. I am aged 60. From the tender age of 10, I began to develop flair for history and current events. The first event which affected me was the "invasion of Tibet", when peaceloving Budhist monks were tortured to death and Dalai Lama had to flee to India at his 14. Then I did my schooling in South India; started higher education; but got employment before completing it. Throughout my school days, there were talk of war with either China or Pakistan. The fear of war ended with the complete rout of Pakistan's complete defeat and creation of Pakistan. Through other sources, (evening colleges and distance education), I completed PG in Commerce. My employment in Government ended 2 years before as a district level officer. Now, I spend my pastime with my children, all educated well.
I noticed you never responded to the quotes of our forefathers I gave you.
Do you mean Thomas Jefferson, James Maddison, and Benjamin Franklin...? I read it. And found it very much suitable for all democratic nations.... My India is a democracy. Our former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used to quote the quotes of Thomas Jefferson and others in her speeches whenever she talked about international relations. Their quotes are highly valuable... to democratic societies. I would have liked more of it from you.
You are hijacking the forum somewhere.... . If you cant understand English, please leave it.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - isn't this the ultimate goal of Obama's supporters?
Misha, I'm afraid you don't have a good grip on reality. I suspect you need to broade your apparently limited sources of information. Or perhaps you are just being a provocateur. I hope the latter is the case! :-)
I guess we can start discussion on what reality actually is - but this is gonna be a serious off-top
But you did not answer the question though
So, are you saying people should not give to community/country what they can, and their needs like shelter, food, health care, etc. should not be covered? Did I understand you correctly?
People for whom English is not native language often are misunderstood by native speakers, and have to make extra effort to make sure they got their message across
I've been following all this. Don't you think you should wait and see what Obama is definitely going to do before you condemn it?
No. He is going to continue with the same policies of his predecessor and has made that perfectly clear.
Unless he actually made a "change"
Which is unlikely.....
I am yet to see Americans to agree on what exactly "change" they need - and until then all talks about it are just that - talks...
It's even not funny how similar it is to the late 80s in Soviet Union - the most popular song was called "We demand the Change!"
Yeah we've seen Russia move a bit to the center from it's far left extremes.
And we've witness that unfettered free market societies of the extreme far right do not work either.
The world is fed up with both ideologies.
Obama would be wise to pick a center of the road approach which it looks like he is doing. Who cares if large corporations and the filthy rich can't double their money in a month? Not me.
What exactly do you expect him to keep the same, and what do you think is in the scope of his power to change? Every president changes something - maybe it's just the changes are not revolutionary enough for you to classify them as changes.
He is the President of the Unites States. The "most powerful man in the world."
According to the ads, it is within his power to change US government policies.
What exactly do I expect him to keep the same?
1. The number of US troops in foreign countries
2. The percentage of federal tax dollars spent on the military
3. A continuation of the "bail out" policies for big businesses in trouble
4. Continual "investment" in carbon-based energy production
5. Lack of investment into the education system
6. Continued support of the current health care model to favor the pharmaceutical companies
I could go on......
What exactly do you expect him to change?
You may refer the President as the "most powerful man in America", not "world". He can change the policies of US govt.. but cannot change other governments' policies. If he can, the world will change to democracy.. Each one tend to be the "most powerful man in the world". That is the cause for the present situation.
Keep in mind that for :
#1 and #2, Clinton did do this, drastically. (In fact, if you look at the Clinton vs Bush presidencies, you can see that they are obviously not the same)
#3 I don't expect to change. (It happens all around the world).
#4 I don't expect to change (ditto), but investment in green technology will increase.
#5 is almost all done at the state level, not the federal level, in the US, so a president's impact is usually minimal (despite making a whole lot of noise about it)
#6, if you frame it that way, it won't change, but he is expected to have a program that can cover everyone, including the 47 million that don't have coverage. The health insurance industry is a bigger, more non-productive part of the healthcare problem in this country than big pharma.
I do expect Obama to:
- shut down Guantanamo
- enforce the torture ban
- pass civil union recognition at the federal level
- not start another pointless and expensive war
Not a very ambitious range of "changes," for all the hype and hooha.
And the war in Iraq is only pointless and expensive from a certain perspective. I imagine AM General Motors are quite happy with the current state of affairs and many more like them.
None of these are really going to make a great deal of difference to more than a tiny minority. No, offense, (and I am sure you know which side of the fence I am on) but making gay civil unions legal at a federal level will not make a great deal of difference to many people, regardless of the bitching and complaining by the fascists, oh I'm sorry, loving christians.
As President of the USA, he is in a position to make some solid changes. But, this would mean going against the on-going process of nationalizing everything and supporting big business over the needs of the man in the street. And this is not just a US problem, it is all over the world.
A lot of people got very excited in countries outside the US when he was elected. But as far as I can tell, it is because he is not a rich white lawyer/banker, and they expect him to do something different.
What do you mean? What did Obama promise that you don't think he can deliver?
The point is that he won't start another expensive and pointless war. The fact that some idiots or people who are heavily invested in the war industry wouldn't see it that way is besides the point.
# of gay people in the country - about 10 million
# of uninsured in the country - about 47 million
That's a lot.
We all stand to gain from having green energy technology investments (down the road), and an end to Guantanamo & torture. Maybe nothing immediate and concrete, but liberty is an ideal that we are supposed to hold dear.
Mark, you still haven't shared, specifically, what you think Obama should do. What would be the sort of fundamental change that you think he's unwilling or unable to do?
The reason people got excited, inside the country and out, is that we remember the differences between Clinton and Bush, and feel they were significant. Obama will be like Clinton, except minus the sex scandals.
Oh, well if you think that is enough to constitute "change," I stand corrected. If you are happy with this as the total commitment Obama has made to change things, then all power to you.
As I recall, we had a similar discussion pre-election victory when I said this was not the sort of changes that made any sort of change.
Maybe he won't start another pointless and expensive war. But he has inherited 2 that he could choose to do something about. Do you honestly think the United States has the resources to start a third?
And these idiots are making more money than you or I out of the current 2.
I will get to the uninsured. But that is what I was saying.
Number of people in the USA - 300 million+
Number of gay people - 10 million
Not a lot.
No argument. If I see him dropping $100 billion into green technology development, I will happily change my tune. At the moment, he seems to have decided that $50 billion to the big 3 car makers is s good idea, despite the fact that pretty much every one agrees this is a very very short term measure.
An end to Guantanamo and torture. I agree, I would like to see that also, but I don't see that as a big change. More like back stepping a step.
I wish you well on the sex scandal thing
But, I am sure you would agree that Clinton did not make any fundamental changes. They were easily overturned by the following administration without so much as a by your leave.
Obama was elected on the promise of change. And I don't mean the fact that he is half black. Fundamental changes. The type of changes that are not quickly and easily reversed by the next guy in office.
What do I think he should do to make some fundamental changes?
I guess I would put environmental and military issues at the top of my list, and here are a few fundamental changes that would not be easily over-turned in five minutes.
1. A 75% reduction in military spending and an immediate withdrawal from most countries the US has troops in, including Iraq and Afghanistan
2. A commitment to developing replaceable energy to the tune of minimum $100 billion.
3. A commitment to mass transit where practicable and leave the big 3 to sort it out themselves.
4. A commitment to health care that involved taxing the crap out of insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to pay for the uninsured.
5. A "windfall tax" on big energy producers that would be spent on developing "green" energy.
That would do for a start
LOL The day of surprises - now I find myself in complete disagreement with Mark
That is just because you like cars
As do I......
Could be. One can possibly tie that to ## 2, 3, and 5
But you have to come up with a better explanation for the number 4
It seems to me that one of the basic purposes of a democratic government Is to make sure that the long term common good is not ignored in such matters as preserving the environment, making sure that the ocean fisheries aren't depleted,
that educational opportunities are available to all children regardless of race or means, that attention is paid to international relationships and institutions so that solutions may be found for the growing number of problems that require cooperation among nations--disease, global climate change, energy, immigration, terrorism, etc. Tax revenues must be sufficient for the government to perform these functions and provide the services and infrastructure that are enjoyed by everyone. Taxes are the price of a civil society as Oliver Wendell Holmes observed. They are a fact of life in every civilized country. They have nothing to do with Facisim, Socialism, Communism or spreading the wealth. Moreover, experience clearly shows that individual self interest and the market alone cannot be relied on to serve the common good. Over-reliance on market forces has resulted in clear-cutting the forests in the interest of short term profits, pollution of the environment by mining companies and coal-fired electric plants, rampant race and religious discrimination, not to mention sexual orientation, depletion of precious fisheries, e.g. the North Atlantic cod fishery just to name a few.
I agree. But it seems that most taxes nowadays go to supporting the government in it's existing format and ensuring the survival of big business......
If I'm not mistaken the biggest share of taxes goes to the military. Big business has co-opted most of the departments that are supposed to regulate it. Business is okay so long as it is operating honestly and producing useful products, not polluting or discriminating, etc. Unfortunately the market alone will not assure this. And the government hasn't done this job very effectively either.
53% of federal taxes I think.
Unless you count the 5 trillion in bailouts
Suffice it to say, you and I have very different perspectives on change. The US is, due to diversity of its peoples and backgrounds, one that makes incremental change. I think Bush's changes (for the worse) were the most drastic in our recent history.
I can understand your cynicism, but your definition of meaningful change is odd to me. How many million people does any of his work have to affect in order for it to mean anything to you? A majority? I don't want to suggest that the 4 things I mention will be what he will spend 4 years working on alone. I meant they will be meaningful departures from the previous administration.
Agreed. But there are things that the government does to ensure stability (very much a psychological phenomenon) that I don't agree with but can understand. The devil's in the details, so let's see what any proposed bailout means.
Re: torture, stepping back to a place of normality and reason would effectively be a step forward. Remember how the definition of torture got twisted here during the Bush era; even McCain, a torture victim himself, was willing to betray our values for political points.
Changes aren't meant to be permanent...and I'm glad they aren't set up to be that way. The government has a system of checks and balances that prevents any government from making indelible changes to laws. Again, a good thing.
I'm curious how you came up with the numbers in #1 & #2 above. They seem to be above what Obama's proposing. Just high enough for you to express disappointment with him?
In general, though, I agree on your points: bold bets on military reduction, energy, transportation, healthcare would be welcome. We'll see what Obama & the Democratic Congress will be able to do (the latter is more beholden to lobbyists than Obama). It's good to keep the pressure on, though.
Fundamental and permanent are not the same thing
1. The simple fact is that the money to spend on green energy has to come from somewhere, and the US has been increasing military spending at an alarming rate. A 60% increase since 2001. The government has even done quite a good job of disguising the actual amount. This is a good essay on the subject.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/081001fost … hesney.php
A 75% reduction is what I estimate is enough to provide an extremely good defense force that would be able to "protect," America and still have enough left over to mess around with a few other little countries
There is even a good argument that the current economic crisis is entangled with an ever increasing military expenditure.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publicati … -spending/
Plus, the money for healthcare, green technology development, education etc, has to come from some where.
2. This is an arbitrary figure based on what I think the gov will throw at GM, Ford and Chrysler. Throw it at green technologies instead. My personal thinking is that we will have minimal progress in this area until it becomes profitable for people to get involved.
Obama had already stated that he intends to increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan, so we shall see where he goes.
You seem to think he is not beholden to any pressure groups, and I certainly hope that is the case.
Never said they were!
Didn't say that. Read more carefully. It's just one post above yours.
No, but I called for "fundamental" changes, and you replied.
Which I took to mean that you thought I was saying "permanent," when I said "fundamental."
I did - and this is what you said :
Either way, I think we agree on the basics. I just feel that if Obama is genuinely interested in making changes, they cannot be wishy-washy changes. The mood of the people is clear that they expect some BIG changes and I for one, would like to see it.
As you know, I do not believe they will happen, but we shall see......
My wife is just happy that she is able to watch Presidential speeches without cringing
Which I guess is better than nothing.
"He can change the policies of US govt.. but cannot change other governments' policies." So US military in oh - over 160 countries around the world is just for what tennis courts and golf.
Mr.Barack Obama, president in waiting, today (18-11-2008) declared that the US troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq and Afganistan until the capture of Osama and liquidation of Al Qaeda. Now, he is on his track. Goodluck to Obama and good luck to USA. If he succeeds in his mission, all the free world will praise him.
Let him also catch the terrorists in Iraq, who cut the heads of foreigners (US, England, Korea, etc) in front of the tv camera and showed it on tv.
Guess they have right wing, war-mongers in India too
Just as a matter of interest, I have a question -
The US/UK have been occupying Afghanistan for 7 years, Iraq for 5 and have spent billions of dollars/pounds on this "war on terror."
The only things we have to show for it is access to Iraqi oil, and a gas pipeline being built through Afghanistan against the wishes of the people of that country.
I know that you Indians are desperate for this gas so you can "grow your economy," but -
Do you really believe this war is about "terror," or are you just ignorant of these facts?
Afganistan and Iraq are nearer to Indians. We know better about them. Oil problem is better known. You westerners always think we are "ignorant". How ignorant are you! Our society and culture are based on wisdom only... not to harm others' sentiments. Try to know something about a billion people. The things (oil, pipeline, etc) you mention does not come from your pockets. They are well known. Robbing other countries' wealth is the only aim to send such a large contingent of navy to a far away country. But we do not approve terrorism by the affected country. That country Iraq should have fought with the invaders.. but they welcomed Americans and celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussain.
Know more about Afganistan also. It is a landlocked country with opium as the major cultivation. No change of power has taken place there without bloodshed. US is playing in troubled waters and a section of Afgans play tunes to them. But Osama bin laden has no business there. He must be caught.... as he has no constructive assignment there. There is no need for America to send oil through Afganistan as Iraq itself is on the shores of Arabian sea.... or you may call it Gulf.
Your society and culture are rapidly disappearing in an effort to replicate America's culture
I have visited your country and I did not find wisdom, I found grinding poverty and an inequality of wealth not seen in the West since Victorian times.
You should not believe everything you see on the TV propaganda broadcasts.
I say ignorant because any fool can see that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about money - not fighting bin laden.
There is not even any proof that he is in Afghanistan and the US military admit they have not heard or seen of him for a long time.
And I never said oil, I said gas. Can you not read English? Are you ignorant of the enormous natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan to your country?
Mr.Mark, We have gas pipeline through Afganistan.. it need not bother you.. we are purchasing them.. not robbing them like you do in Afganistan.
Mr.Mark, next time you visit India, go to churches, temples, universities, monuments, etc. Dont roam in the streets and say India is in grinding poverty. Inequality of wealth remains in America too. Wealth is earned.. not "distributed".
Wealth is taken not "earned," as you have just pointed out to me.
Make your mind up.
"Taken wealth" is liable to be confiscated. Takers are bound to be punished.
Mark, come out of colonial attitude.
Boy, you are really earning your title of "ignorant."
You were the one complaining of all the taking that was going on, now you are saying that you are war-mongering so that you can be freed from it and you are accusing me of having a colonial attitude, whilst shouting about how happy you are that Afghanistan is being attacked by the US.
Mr.Mark, There are warmongers in India too. What can we do when war is thrust on us? Look at the world map... (not published in 1945) India is stategically placed among hostile nations.... each telling their own version of history. India is the only country which has not experienced peace for a full 50 years. Those war mongers are of defensive nature only. We were attacked by everyone.. neighbours or foreigners..... only to rob the wealth of India. Previously, some centuries back, power existed only with the local rulers and they were defeated easily. But when the English people came here, they robbed wealth and also educated Indians that our potential is more than any one else'. We owe very much to the English people ... but not to be called ignorant again.
VS - You are the war-monger. You are the one calling for the war in Afghanistan to continue. You are the one congratulating Mr. Obama on his decision to increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan. You are the one saying how happy you are that the US will continue to fight in Iraq.
I don't deny that India has been robbed in the past, particularly aggressively by my own country, for which I feel nothing but shame, even though it was before I was born. But now you want to behave in the same way? Where is the "wisdom," in that?
Mark, I am ordinary man... may be older than you. How can I be a war monger? Nothing is going to happen based on our discussions. I was happy that US will continue fight in Iraq and increase troops in Afganistan just to reduce the heat experienced by India from these countries.
Sounds like this is the kind of 'Hitleresque affirmitave action' you can appreciate.
Fascinating. I remember during one of the debates, McCain said US corporate taxes were far too high and they were strangling businesses in the US, and Obama responded that we have one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates due to loopholes. I guess we know who was right about that (and who's really be footing the bill).
im not going to watch the video. My point is valid and you have responded out of context.
Seeing you probably have other people do all your chores for you herman I'll post it for you, no charge.
Great information. All we hear usually is that the U.S. corporate tax rates are among the highest without mention of the loopholes and devices for avoiding actually paying taxes.
First off thankyou for writing that info. Don't you get it though? The owners of corperations will ALWAYS FIND LOOPHOLES. So the more we try to regulate them the more they will flee America's economy. The smartest men and women (business wise) in the country will always find a way around income taxes and other taxes because income taxes are wrong and unconstitutional as are many taxes. So if america just keeps trying to chase the rich mans money so it will trickle down to the chasers it will never happen and eveyrone will just be wasting their time. There is no fiarness about it!!! It's not about whats fair, saying "the rich get tax breaks thats not fair, the rich find tax loop holes thats not fair" are words of a loser who doesnt understand the American dream. Saying that is not fair is evidence that you have been brainwasahed by a government that has become too big and is needing all the support it can get to continue its path of legalized plunder. So it brainwashes the middle and lower classes and says hey lets cahse the money and youll get teh reward. BULL CRAP!! Even if all teh rich did conform and pay high taxes, it would not go back to you and other middle class and lower class families. It would just make our governemtn bigger just liek it did after the Great Depression. So wine and cry all you want about corperations who make all this money and dont pay taxes all the while you hyporctically pump your gas at exon, go to mcdonalds to eat, shop at walmart, type on your mac or pc, wear your nike's and meanwhile say "shame on the corperations!!!". If you were truly dedicated to what you say then you would ban corperate America altogether and actually do something more than complain anonymously on some blog about why you think we should keep chasing the rich people's money. Soon we will chase out corperate America, everything will be more expensive, we wont have the convenient luxuries we now enjoy, and we will have a huge lower and middle classwithout any coperate jobs and all the while they will still be askng where did all the money go?
Yes, but are you suggesting that they went up - a lot - during Bush's tenure? That is the only way McCain's claim would make any sense.
"im not going to watch the video."
It's not a video - it's text. Seems to me if you want to retain your middle class illusionionary view of the world, you should stay at home, 'cause out in the real world fiction may clash in an unwanted manner.
You seemed to equate fundamental changes with (at least partial) permanence, when you said:
Fundamental = not easily overturned = something that withstands the will of a new incoming administration due to bureaucratic roadblocks
And "[Congress is] more beholden to lobbyists than Obama" implies that Obama is still somewhat beholden to them. I am not arguing that he is completely free of lobbyist influence. But if you follow the money trail (you always have to), you'll see that he got the vast majority of his funding from "microdonations" across millions of people. Much better than a handful of big donations from big donors.
And I can totally sympathize with your wife.
Sorry - that is not what I meant. I meant, Fundamental = changed at the root = not easily overturned, etc.
For example, a 4% decrease in military spending is not a fundamental change, because nothing really changes at the root of the issue, and a simple flick of the pen by the next guy (or gal lol) in office is enough to increase the spending level again.
But, a 75% reduction in military spending, combined with a withdrawal of troops, closure of bases in foreign countries, and a policy of defense rather than aggresive pre-emptive actions that have been seen to be nothing more than an expansion of the American Empire, would be a more fundamental change that is not so easily overturned.
That is not to say these changes cannot be overturned, but it would require a shift in fundamental policy to do so.
It would also require "faith," in the fact that much of the perceived threat to the American people is manufactured scare mongering
And let's say the big car makers are allowed to fold and be left to the wolves, and instead $100 billion is pumped into developing renewable energy.
I guess we shall see if these microdonors get what they are hoping for. Or even if these are the "changes" they elected him for.
I must admit to being a little unsure as to exactly what changes the electorate is expecting or hoping for.
More of the same only a little bit better does not seem to be it
Wait, hasn't the dollar been in trouble for a long time now?
Like, the minute we stopped basing it off our gold reserve and just print it out with however much paper we've got coming in?
That would work too.
My German friends tell me that the German government is seriously considering offering interest-free loans to citizens to buy cars......
Consume, consume, consume.
How long before you get paid to buy a car?......
when pigs fly!
I haven't been paying much attention to the forums lately so I don't know if it has come up yet but...
Obama the man who promised a change, is putting all the same people (for the most part) from the Clinton admin, into his new cabinet. suprise, suprise!
There is an alleged agreement now for a deadline to pull all the troops out of Iraq, and well that isn't until Dec. 31, 2011.
and to top it off, but a little of subject, our whatchamacallums, those Federal Judges, will be seated with professed "christian" judges, so one could only "speculate" that there is some inside work going on here.
It sorta dawned (lack of better word) on me, that before the prop 22 passed, that the 'churches' had been in the works of having this overturned as it was with pro8,
so I wonder who has the inside scoop? It feels like all this "stuff" about Obama, and Osama, and the market crash etc...is really just tool to keep people busy-ing themselves elsewhere.
yeah- I will take aluminum cans!!
I thought this would make a lovely addition http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion … e_love_thy
I wanted to let you know that this Forum has got me thinking about a Contest... So I started "A Greatest Obama Is AntiChrist Lol of the Year" Contest!
Can We Debunk All These Obama = AntiChrist Nonsense? Yes We Can!
No Hate Rants here, folks! Just tell us which are the Most Ridiculous so-called "arguments" you ever heard of, to "unmask" Barack Hussein Obama as being the AntiChrist. Or even better: just tell us where the fiction is and which "facts" were falsified (and turned into fiction).
Please Nominate Your Candidate! Please Vote! You can win a Priceless Price!
Yes you can!
I always try to look on the good side of people. I'm sure Obama has one but what is his agenda. If you want a socialist you have one in him. This is called the bait and switch game
produced by the makers of socialism and fascism. These men and women are Rothschilds, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Gnostic and Luciferians/ Their agenda is to leave only 500,000,000 humans alive on this earth. There are now about 6 1/2 billion. This means that 6 Billion will have to die. Are you ready for a person that follows this agenda? Do you think that you are one of these elite 500 million.
He is a very well educated human trained by the same people who trained Hillary Clinton as a Marxist socialist. There maybe a chance he might change his mind but I doubt it. Power does strange thinks to the human mind. Examples of bait and switch are: George W. Bush, George Herman Walker Bush, Fascism; William Jefferson Clinton, James E. Carter. Socalism. Who become new Adolf Hitlers with every other person who conforms to the leadership of the New World Order.
Why are there over 1,000 internment camps in this country with Gas Chambers and crematoriums set to go? Why have over 30,000 Guillotines been imported to our country? Why are there foriegn national troops manning some of them today? Now Obama wouldn't know about these things would he? Maybe not but he may be the one who will use them when the time comes. All very anti- Christian but maybe Obama is a real nice guy. Do you believe it?
Okay Dutchman, this sounds like it could be fun.
Lionswhelp I think the Marxist scare around Obama is mostly coming from Republican sore losers. In fact I think a good dose of social responsibility, like universal health care and a better safety net for the poor would do the US good. Although I did receive a fairly scary e-mail concerning Rahm Emanuel, the guy that Obama picked for the White House Chief of Staff. But the person that sent it also sends stuff about Ron Paul or anything except the Dems or Reps.
Lionswhelp concerning your pre-millennial belief about the 1,000 year period mentioned in Revelations 20, well just yesterday I read that some groups that believe this actually become activists in pushing the end times. That would mean they are pushing God's hand and actually advocating for the other side. This same belief was held by some around the time of the Crusades and other periods of upheaval. Zoroastrianism, pre-Christianity, utopianism, Judaism, Nazism and some millennial sects of Christianity have all had a thousand-year period as you can read on this wikipedia about Millennialism. I think it was the Britannica Encyclopedia that said Mormons, Jehovah Witness and Seventh Day Adventists follow a pre-millennial belief. You may want to be aware of this. Continue to read about the 1,000 year period but I think it's better to leave the timing in God's hands.
I have no doubt what you say regarding the Rothschilds, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Gnostic and Luciferians all having the same agenda. There's a lot of material on the internet connecting them all to the New World Order and dastardly deeds.
I don't know how true it is but I have also read some under world group wants to cull the human race to 500 million. I have just read this once online and it connected the British Royal house to it. The British Royal house have also been connected to the above groups. And not just in the movie titled From Hell starring Johnny Depp about Jack the Ripper but many other times online and off as well.
I've read about internment camps in the US but I haven't heard that there are foreign national troops manning some of them though. I haven't read about gas chambers or crematoriums either.
I did a Google search about the 30,000 guillotines that suppose to have been imported to the US. I found a couple of commentors posting about it on activist blogs such as Alex Jones and others. And I found a couple of web sites of companies that import guillotine shearing machines. One pdf that I looked at was about a company that was itemizing their machinery and equipment that listed 2 guillotine shearing machines valued at 30,000, as well as sheet bending, bench drilling, portable grinding and other machines.
I did find one very anti Catholic and anti Democratic web site by a publisher with clear pre-millennial beliefs that speculate the states of Georgia and Montana will or has purchased guillotines. The site does have a link to a web site that looks like a Georgia House of Representatives page from 1995 titled HB1274 - Death penalty; guillotine provisions. So I did a search for the state of Georgia web site and from there did a search for HB1274. But it just found the 2007 House Bill 1274 page. When you go to the page from the Georgia site it doesn't look like the previous one but that could just mean they have changed their format. Anyway if you are concerned you may want to avoid the state of Georgia or possibly even Montana. Especially if you are a Catholic Democrat.
There clearly is a Marxist group that wants to start a revolution in the US seeing anyone can find the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA online but this is a quote on one of their pages "the election of Obama will create (and no doubt already is creating) some new difficulties for us". These punks are clearly a small group of fanatics on the fringe, like the pre-millennialists. Thank God.
Marxism is definitely a threat seeing the huge amount of deaths attributed to Marxism in the 20th century.
But I'm not buying your theory that Obama, Hillary or Bill Clinton are Marxists Lionswhelp. At least not yet.
Don't believe everything you read online Lionswhelp. Especially if it comes from a pre-millennialists publisher. Like I mentioned to you in another thread, "You wouldn't want to eventually realize that you are doing the bidding of the illuminati."
P.S. Did I win a Priceless Prize yet Dutchman?
Mike, do you agree that everyone should contribute what they can to community, and that community should ensure everyone has their basic needs covered?
That's a ridiculous, when did you quit beating your wife question. I can't speak for Mike, but, as I've said above the job of government is to attend to the long range common good of all citizens; to make sure the market delivers honestly on its promise of efficient allocation of resources and productivity growth; to make sure that short term market greed doesn't pollute the air and water, deplete the fish and wildlife, allow our bridges and roads to deteriorate; to make sure that every child has the opportunity for a good education and does not go without health care, etc. To accomplish these goals of a civilized society taxes are required. The rich have the money and therefore simple arithmetic means that they will pay a larger share of the taxes than the poor who pay sales taxes and Social Security taxes. That's our democratic system. Deal with it!!
It looks like you did speak for me too Ralph cause I agree with everything you said. I'd also like to add that everyone deserves a roof over their head as well. There's no need to have homeless people in wealthy countries like the US or Canada.
Mike, so you and Ralph are supporting the communism motto Does this make you communists?
Not one little bit Misha. There is a large difference between being socially responsible for the people of your country and communism. The middle of the ideological road is the best route. Both communism and pure capitalism have both proven that they don't work. Both should be thrown out.
It's scary but I kind of agree with herman's last post except that there is no benevolent aspirations with pure capitalism. Or communism.
Quotes by Christian Rakovsky, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR
“Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the Revolution.”
“words and facts in Marxism are subject to the strict rules of the higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution.”
“The State as such is only power. And money is exclusively power.”
“Moscow is subjective Communism, but [objective] Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective.”
“The Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one [i.e. Communist International]…”
“Communism,” Rakovsky explains, “cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still-living Christianity…”
Christian Rakovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rakovsky
Ralph, when I get that passionate about some issue, it usually means there are problems in my position, whether I realize it or not...
Agreed. The fact that the Soviet Union corrupted a simple premise that's practiced in just about every country in the world doesn't make that premise something incorruptibly evil.
OK, so communism is not evil per se, right? Only for some mysterious reason every single one of countries which tried to implement it ended up with despotism and ruined economy
Communism doesn't work. But your characterization of "everyone should contribute what they can to community, and that community should ensure everyone has their basic needs covered" does not describe communism.
Why? As I mentioned on this thread already, communism motto is "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". Back in USSR we all did learn this by heart as soon as we could pronounce this, you know. This is what every communist lives by
Yes, I understand that, but what what the USSR was, in practice, was "from each according to an inverse proportion to the relationship with a Community Party official, to each Communist Party official and their friends according to their political influence." My mother grew up in Yugoslavia and I'd imagine her experience is similar to that of the USSR's....which is a good reason both countries fell.
It's kind of like the Christianists saying their primary motivation is love and goodness. Just saying something is so doesn't mean that at all; sometimes it is the exact opposite.
Yes, I'm pretty much with you on that. Every communist country ends up in communist party being the owner of everything and everybody.
The vast majority of people actually are trying to live the motto!
What prompts me thinking there should be something wrong with the motto itself, if every attempt to implement it ends up with despotism...
Word "utopia" comes to mind in relation to this
It's like - yeah, it would be great if people can fly all by themselves, nice dream, you know. But try to step out of the window on 17th floor...
the same benevolent aspirations that communism and socialism reach for, can be reached far more effectively through pure capitalism without giving all power to government.
Provide a real-world example where that's true.
Well, to the best of my knowledge it never been tried, but I tend to think it should work
Funny, sometimes when I am talking to some older folks, friends and all, I am chatting about stuff that seems really nice, and they go (that has happened more than a few times) you know that is communism right?
Yeah I understand what you mean Misha. We have to pay close attention to what's happening, especially when you consider what Christian Rakovsky said. But to me the US seems like a fairly right wing capitalist country that looks to be moving towards the center, which is good in my opinion. You know, Canada has had universal public healthcare since the 1950s but I'd hardly call it a communist country.
And I'd hardly want to be considered to be like Canada. The problem with us being socially responsible for other people is there is no motivation to be producers of value. Another problem arises in who decides who is needy and who is not? Can we trust a person or a group of people to make the choice for us? Pure capitalism and a free market solve all the problems that socialism and communism attempt to solve, if the free market is truly free. I vote give the people the power to do as they will with thier tax dollars, and if they truly are good then those less fortunate will benefit. The reason AMerica is a rich country is because of capitalism, so to say countries that are rich like America should support socialism or communism like principles is the antithesis of the principles that made our country rich in the first place. Socialism and Communism is a tool to consalidate wealth to one the ones who fund governments. IT's really a monopoly on a larger scale only we jsut get the scraps and the men in charge get all the money.
"Socialism and Communism is a tool to consalidate wealth to one the ones who fund governments. IT's really a monopoly on a larger scale only we jsut get the scraps and the men in charge get all the money." So who controls about what 50% of the wealth in the good ole capiatalist US? Is it one percent or so.
China has accumulated huge wealth despite communism. China has the highest foreign currency reserve in the world. It is nearly $ 2 trillions. China can change the shape of any stock market including America.
I have pointed out the problem with China in one of my hub that it can break. This is the problem with the communism. USSR broke despite of its supremacy in military power and China can also despite its supremacy in economic field.
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by couturepopcafe5 years ago
Yesterday in Kansas, President Obama has taken ownership of his socialism by declaring outright that he IS a socialist. Hold on to your pocketbooks, folks. In his declared effort to save the middle class, don't be...
by WeStand4Freedom7 years ago
Approximately 7 months ago I posted this forum " Impeachment of a President. Although I received a few followers that agreed w/ my chosen topic, many scoffed. Who is laughing now? Are you all seriously STILL...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
From the time of President Obama's inception in the White House, it was his intention to change America into a "newer" version of America. He felt that that America as it was not in incongruence with...
by Brenda Durham4 years ago
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
President Obama for? Let us count the ways e.g. Obama"care" - yep the disaster which keeps on becoming even more so and the influx of illegals,low skilled and often illiterate, who are exhausting our social...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.