The Obama Abomination

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 12 years ago

   Now that we know Obama's foreign policy is in tatters... the economy barely resuscitable, and America adrift, a book  that  has just come out   fully and accurately  detailing   the extent to which Obama has thoroughly enjoyed the perks of the presidency (to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars) added another item to the list of Obama's abomination. And yet, inexplicably,  by most accounts, he leads Romney in the polls, by as much as 7 points. How to explain? Is the main stream media complicit, by actively covering up Obama's presidential failures? Or is the American electorate so fully incapable of understanding that behind  Obama's rhetorical flair, are falsehoods,and distortions, and  diversions, and discombobulations. Is the American people still collectively tingling in their legs whenever they hear Obama speak? If the answer to these questions is YES, then Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan are toast, and America will indeed  be in for a long cold winter of their discontent.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, A Villarasa. Obama's policy on immigrants is good. I like his foreign policy, not apologetic but rather respectful. America is likened by many countries because of his foreign policy. He has Clinton to do that for him. :-)

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @pretty:
         
         Obama's immigration policy is tinted and tainted by his political need to pander to Hispanic voters. So for him to not promulgate long standing American immigration laws in favor of currying votes from Hispanics is an abomination.
         
         And how can you respect his foreign policy....when he could not and in fact did not do anything to protect the consulate in Benghazi from being overun by terrorists that led to the murder of the Ambassador and 3 other civilians. As far as I am concerned Obama should be hold accountable for those deaths.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            i agree with pretty....obama brought respect back for usa...bush was considered to be bully with lack of intellect...obama is considered to be considerate and project what actually usa stands for...

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Eh.... that's debatable. Obama and Bush actually kind of have similar foreign policy stances, if you use their actions as an indicator. Bush was just very forthright and open about his aggression. Obama's a bit more subtle, but he too favors force. Consider his attack on Libya and his use of drones (boy, does he like those drones!). People's opinions of the US (I think this a PEW or Gallup poll I'm citing here...) spiked upward after Obama's election, but mid 2010, the lines jerk sharply back down again and as of the most recent data collection,  most countries feel about the same toward the US as they did halfway through Bush's second term. (Not sure what happened mid 2010 to change opinion-- still need to look into that).
               
               Obama's just got a great sense of self-awareness and presentation, though. I'd give an A without hesitation there.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Might be totally unrelated, but in mid 2010 we had the insurgence of the Tea Party into Congress.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I considered that as well, but it's a fairly sharp decline, and I find it unlikely that a Congressional change would be so highly publicized in other countries like the Presidential election as to change opinion so drastically.
                     
                     I need to find the chart- it's fairly interesting.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Are you referencing the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project?
                        I can't seem to get the link to copy. But yikes.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Probably. I stumbled across it one day.

                           replyreport
                        2. 71

                           Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Greetings MM. How all is well with y’all.
                           
                           President Obama deserves credit for repairing much of the damage caused by eight years of G.W. Bush unilateral arrogance.
                           
                           In June 2012, The Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project reported on the Global Opinion of Barack Obama this way:
                           “In 11 of the 21 countries surveyed, people, on balance, continue to have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. In eight countries, a majority or plurality expresses a lack of confidence, and in two, opinions are essentially divided. Confidence in Obama in almost all countries is, however, markedly greater than it was for President Bush in 2008.” {1}
                           
                           {1} http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/cha … ack-obama/

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              @Quilligrapher:
                              
                              Does it matter much if Obama has the confidence of people in other countries, when here in the United States his performance as president leaves much. much to be desired. The perception of the majority of Americans is what matters in the coming elections, and should Obama succeed in convincing  that majority (via rhetorical digressions and diversions) , despite his self-admitted laziness at  doing his job as POTUS, then America could indeed be in for a rough and tumble ride the next 4 years.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 G’day Mr. Villarasa. I hope you are having a great day.
                                 
                                 Your comment “Does it matter much if Obama has the confidence of people in other countries…” is itself a rhetorical digression. I was sharing factual evidence of some positive aspects of the President’s foreign policies with another contributor when you interjected that you would rather divert the conversation to unsupported hyperbole. You brushed aside a fact to pursue a fantasy.
                                 
                                 I have often observed a tone of arrogance among some posters who like to imply other people who disagree with them are less informed, “clueless”, or duped by rhetoric and digressions. They frequently use the trite buzzword “Kool-Aid” when they have no real facts. These posters assume without cause that they are endowed with more intelligence, more wisdom, and more knowledge then most others. Getting them to see their folly is an impossible task.
                                 
                                 Your opinion of President Obama’s performance in office is far from universal according to Gallup. About half of all Americans have expressed approval of the job President Obama is doing as president. {1} The fact that you disapprove means nothing to those that do. Since I believe you have no way of knowing the outcome of the election or the events that will occur in the next four years, for me your predictions are interesting, welcomed, and meaningless. If, however, you have any facts to support your claims, I would love to hear them.
                                 
                                 Thank you, Mr. Villarasa, for starting this tread and for your contributions.
                                 
                                 {1} http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallu … roval.aspx

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    @Quill:
                                    "Unsupported hyperbole" eh?
                                    
                                    Let me see now (1) The national debt is now at 16 trillion dollars,  and at the rate Obama is spending our tax dollar money, borrowing from China, and printing money (the Federal Reserve just  printed something like 200 billion dollars with more along the way), we will soon be facing the Fiscal cliff that everyone is predicting, sooner than later, perhaps as early as next year. (2) The unemployement rate nationally is now at 8.2%, it has never dipped below  8% under Obama's watch, and in some states notably California and Nevada, the rate is much closer to 12 %. Businesses are not hiring because of the perception that taxes will increase, and regulation will continue to hamper business expansion(3) More people have been added to the poverty roll, with 50 million on food stamps(4) tax rates are going to explode, the worst of which is Obama care (whether one calls it a tax or a penalty is immaterial...the effect is the same, i.e. less money on people's pockets or bank accounts (5) the economy (during a supposed recovery period from the recession of 2007-2008)  only grew at an anemic 2 percent (or less during some months) (6) median family income is down $5,000.00; (7) housing is still  in the dumps except for a few places sparsely scattered across  the country.
                                    
                                    Now let's go to Obama's foreign policy. He likes to boast that  Usama Bin Laden is dead. True, but given the same sets of circumstances, any other president would have given the same orders that Obama gave. If he did not order the assasination of Bin Laden, and it was subsequently shown that he botched it, then even his fanatics in the main stream media would have howled. Killing BinLaden does not a secure/steady foreign policy makes. In fact  his foreign policy across the board (from the Middle East, to Europe, to Asia) has been marked by timidity, vaccillation, and gross incompetence... a perfect example of which is his utter failure to provide  full and adequate security to the consulate in Benghazi, leading to the death of the US ambassador and 3 other civilians after it was attacked by islamic jihadists and terrorists. (Obama still maintains, as late as three days ago when spoke at the UN General Assembly,  that it was due to a spontaneous and unplanned attack by a mob that was riled by an obscure internet trailer  criticizing  the prophet Mohammad)

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 71

                                       Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hi, Mr. Villarasa. I truly appreciate your taking the time to finally explain your positions with details we can discuss. Our opinions, yours and mine, are the products of our unique, personal thinking patterns.  Therefore, I recognize that it is possible for us to disagree and both be correct at the same time. An opposite viewpoint usually means we are looking at the world from different perspectives, but different does not necessarily mean one is superior. This is the reason I intend, as time allows, to respond to your statement with real facts, not opinions, to show why I believe your perceptions are inconsistent with reality.
                                       The national debt, government spending, US debt held by China, Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing, and the fiscal cliff are five economic realities. By attributing these conditions to the Obama administration, you reveal that you do not know why a “fiscal cliff” exists today. You admit a lack of understanding about the function of the Federal Reserve, the purpose of Quantitative Easing, and the reason China holds US debt. Finally, you have overlooked the government’s extraordinary efforts during the last three years to recover from the legacy of the Great Recession.
                                       
                                       The Fiscal Cliff
                                       
                                       Responsibility for the “fiscal cliff" does NOT lie with the executive branch. Here are the facts. The entire congress agreed by ballot to authorize the leadership in each chamber to select 12 congressmen (the “Super Committee”) to create, discuss, and to formally agree on measures to be taken to achieve a specified budget cutting objective. At the same time, the Congress agreed to vote the entire bill approved by this committee up or down without further debate and modification. The congress had already voted on what deficit reduction measures (“fiscal cliff”) would be taken in 2013 if the committee did not reach agreement on a bill or if the bill coming out of the committee was not approved by the entire congress. President Obama is not responsible for the “fiscal cliff”; the US Congress is. “The automatic cuts, known as sequestration, are a kind of threat Congress implemented on itself in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Yet, they were never meant to actually happen.” {1} The Congress created the cliff, Mr. Villarasa, not the President. Check me out on this, please!
                                       
                                       Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing
                                       
                                       The Federal Reserve, not the President, not the US Treasury Dept, not even the Democrats in Congress, introduced Quantitative Easing, the equivalent of printing money, in 2008 during the final months of the Bush administration in order to reverse a free falling economy, reduce interest rates, and instill business confidence. “The first round of quantitative easing appeared to be effective in preventing the economy from sinking into a giant depression. Economists say this was because everyone realized the Fed would do whatever it takes to avoid deflation. It was essentially a giant confidence boost. The economy stopped sliding and inflation slowly rose.” {2} The QE actions were neither frivolous nor irresponsible. They began during President Bush’s administration as necessary steps to restore economic growth. You can’t lay this one on President Obama either, Mr. Villarasa.
                                       
                                       Borrowing from China
                                       
                                       Here is more evidence that some intelligent people do not understand what is going on in the world. You are admitting how ill informed you are when you try to blame President Obama for China’s good judgement in wanting to buy US securities. China holds about $1.2 trillion in US government debt. However, Mr. Villarasa, that amount is only 7.3 percent of all U.S. debt, and less than 10.3 percent of the total debt held by the public. Japan holds almost the same amount of US debt as China! As you should know, our government, to meet its daily spending needs, has for decades offered its debt on the public markets to any, yes I said any, qualified investor looking to buy. There is no limit to how much one investor can buy. Once purchased, US treasury securities can be resold to other investors on the open market or held until maturity. Both the government and private investors in China voluntarily buy US debt for the same reasons as investors around the world: they have a need to invest, and US treasuries are sought because they are safe and liquid. The debt held by China wields no control over the US economy but does tend to reduce long-term interest rates in this country, which, in turn, lowers interest on home mortgages and other consumer loans. {3} FACT: The President does not borrow money from China; China voluntarily invests in US securities offered in the open markets.
                                       
                                       Government Spending
                                       
                                       You used the words, “the rate Obama is spending our tax dollar money” in a negative way.  I do not think you have any idea how much the President spends of “our tax dollar money.” In the year 2009, under President Bush’s last budget, we saw a $1.4T deficit and a national debt at $11.9T as Federal revenues fell and spending for stimulus and economic stabilization programs rose. It was not a good fiscal year for President Bush. However, President Obama, had to carry on the battle and to face the long-term burdens of the recession during 2010, 2011, and 2012. He did just that and actually delivered lower budget deficits than his predecessor: $1.29T, $1.29T, and $1.32T compared to $1.4T under President Bush’s last budget. {4} You might also wish to consider that his budget performance paid for two wars he did not start.
                                       
                                       National Debt
                                       
                                       Finally, your inability to analyze the real data is making your claims look ludicrous. In terms of the national debt, budget years 2010-2012 under President Obama added $1.6T, $1.3T, and $1.6T compared to the $1.9T added to the debt during President Bush’s last budget year. So the facts, Mr. Villarasa, speak for themselves. While dealing with the Great Depression of 2007-2008, President Obama has been more frugal and more responsible with our tax dollars then his predecessor. {5} At the same time, he has been aggressive in his efforts to turn the economy around including a number of stimulus proposals following the 2010 elections that Congress rejected.
                                       
                                       Thus, the five elements in the first item in your anti-Obama rant represent nothing but a lack of understanding and knowledge. I would welcome your viewpoints on these five topics but please do not respond if you intend to deflect attention to new issues or to logical straw men. I prefer to deal with facts unencumbered by passionate, unsupported hyperbole.
                                       
                                       We both might learn from each other in the end. I’m looking forward to it.
                                       
                                       {1} http://moneymorning.com/tag/fiscal-cliff-2013/
                                       {2} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … e-economy/
                                       {3} http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-n … ca-not-bad
                                       {4} http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publi … 13-TAB.pdf (Table 1.1)
                                       {5} Ibid, (Table 7.1)

                                       report
                                    2. 71

                                       Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Good evening, Mr. Villarasa. How are you doing today?
                                       
                                       Clearly you think President Obama is to blame for today’s high unemployment rate. This perception clings by its fingernails to one very narrow political, not economic, reality. Political pundits will tell you, if you happen to occupy a position in which you can reap praise when things go right then you have to accept the blame when things go wrong even if you do not have real control over the situation. However, this political axiom has no basis in economic fact and is actually foolish when applied to unemployment.
                                       
                                       It is impossible to compare the numbers directly because methodology has changed since the Great Depression. However, you can get a sense of the depth of today’s recession when you consider that unemployment went from 8.7% in 1930 to about 25% by 1933. It dropped slowly over the next four years to 14.3% before jumping up to 19% as a result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s spending cuts in June 1937. The Great Depression was a rough ride for Americans with unemployment over 8% for eleven years! {1}
                                       
                                       The last time things were this bad was President Ronald Reagan’s first term. The President cut taxes with a promise of a “trickle down” bonanza for the middle and lower classes that turned out to be more of a trickle up bonanza for the wealthy. By November 1981, unemployment rose to 8.3%, continued to rise to 10.8%, and remained above 8% for 27 months. Reagan was forced to raise taxes by the end of his second term and unemployment dropped to 5.3%.
                                       
                                       Presidents can create jobs in the public sector but not in the private sector. President Obama took office when the rate was 7.8%. It quickly rose to 10% in October 2009 and remained above 9% for 22 of the next 23 months. The rate fell into the 8% range in October 2011 and remained over 8% since. You are correct to say the rate has been over 8% for 44 months however, placing the blame on President Obama instead of the long lasting dismay economy is what I would call unsupported hyperbole. New job creation in the private sector is beyond the President’s control.
                                       
                                       Still, Mr. Villarasa, the job picture is continuing to improve each month. Unemployment in North Dakota is only 3%. In fact, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah are the top five states enjoying high job creation so far this year according to a recent Gallup survey. {2}
                                       
                                       {1} http://www.politifact.com/georgia/state … sion-cong/
                                       {2} http://www.gallup.com/poll/156482/North … ation.aspx

                                       report
                                 2. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    @Quill:
                                    
                                    Last Wednesday's presidential debate was and will continue to be interpreted by the American people as the turning point of this election. The vice-presidential debate this Thursday  should be interesting in that Paul Ryan might  yet drive the last nail into  the Obama-Biden coffin. Ryan just have to remind people on why and how Obama's incompetence was complicit in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other civilians in Benghazi.

                                    replyreport
                           2. 70

                              Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Hmm... that wasn't the chart I was referencing, but since I can't find mine and yours is legit, I'll go with that instead and stand corrected.

                              replyreport
                           3. 75

                              Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you. At least Europe still loves us. Kinda.

                              replyreport
                           4. 76

                              TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Quilligrapher:  I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts on these forums.  You have a great way of cutting to the chase and supporting what you say with facts.  You obviously are an extremely bright and well read person, and I wanted you to know that your presence on HP is appreciated.  You say what I would like to say but do not have the knowledge or brilliance to put into words.  Thank you.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Amen to that, you raise the level of the conversation and do the fact checking I am often too lazy to do.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 71

                                    Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    tyvm, Josak.
                                    

                                    replyreport
                              2. 71

                                 Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thank you for your kind words.
                                 

                                 replyreport
                              3. 71

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 +++

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 71

                                    Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Ralph, you are too kind.
                                    

                                    replyreport
      2. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. Not only did he lie about getting us out of Iraq, he tripled our troops in Afghanistan. But the worst was his illegal attack of Libya.
         
         He's a loose cannon. If reelected - expect us to go to war against Iran. Obama's just waiting for the nod.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ......................
      
      
      Let's not forget his tendency to incite tug-of-warlike tension between Americans on several levels.
      
      
      
      His speeches nor his image nor his popularity never made my legs tingle.  Nothing about him does. 'Cause I could tell from the words that came outta his mouth early on that America would be in trouble if they elected him.  I may slightly remember cold chills of horror running through my spine, however!
      But Chris Matthews (I think is his name?) is probably still quivering!  LOL
      And indeed many Americans are probably still under the spell of his image and supposed-charisma.   It takes a while for common sense to replace hero worship.
      Let's hope the spell has been broken by now.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         donotfearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Good take on this.  Hero worship is an interesting description but I definitely see it. It seems as though everyone is so caught up in how wonderful everyhting is, so on and so forth, but really?  Is it really wonderful?

         replyreport
   3. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      OBAMA 2012!!!!!

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, no and no, the economy is showing all the sings of excellent recovery, the polls are not activist even FOX has Obama way ahead and personally I really like Obama's foreign policy. America's popularity with the world has risen, it has been relatively cheap and most importantly it has been a very long time since so few of our soldiers have died due to our foreign policy.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Josak:
         
         Most  of the predictors that measure economic health has been on the dumps for the past 6 years, more so and mostly  during Obama's  presidency. That is an incontrovertible fact. Obama's popularity outside the USA is also being belied by the current unrest in most of the Muslim world extending from the Arabian peninsula to the Indonesian islands.  China and Russia are not at all impressed with him; and most Asians see him as a vacillating and weak leader. Only in Europe is his currency still being held in some regard.. even that is being slowly eroded  in most of southern  Europe. Now if Obama runs for the opresidency in France, he would certainly win handily.

         replyreport
      2. 76

         TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Josak:  +1

         replyreport
   5. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There's few out there that still think McCain and Palin would of done a better job if they were elected. LOL!

      replyreport
   6. 82

      wba108@yahoo.composted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, much of what Obama stands for is an abomination. He's been largely mentored by America haters like his own mother, grandfather, Rev. Wright and others. He's contributed to instability, worldwide by appearing weak among world leaders, who knows why he bow's to other world leaders, no other president has ever done that. It could be that he feels that America and the western nations are too powerful so he want to redistribute power to other nations by taking America down a notch.
      
      Obama has repeated lied and mislead the American poeple but the good news is I believe the poeple are starting to get wise to him and I will most likely vote him out of office. Romney has better ideas, has a disciplined organization and is better funded now, adding that to the sluggish economy and I believe Romney will prevail.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I saw that Fox News report too. It was pretty clever how they got to think it might actually be true...
         
         
         Anyway, Romney has no coherent strategy for America. His organization would leave him in a heartbeat if anyone else came along to take his place.
         
         So, repeat after me...
         
         4 more years!
         
         4 more years!

         replyreport
   7. 61

      GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obama will beat Romney because he is the best choice.

      replyreport
   8. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, again, Mr. Villarasa.  I thought I might comment on a few of your remarks.
      
      Gov. Romney’s position in the polls is “inexplicable?” Not if you have been paying attention over the last few months! Where have you been?
      
      “A majority of Americans have unfavorable views of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s comments — caught on film at a fundraiser — regarding the “47 percent” of people who don’t pay federal income taxes and simply would not vote for him, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll…Independents too tilt negative by more than 2 to 1: 57 to 27 percent… Sixty-one percent of all Americans — and voters alike — express negative views of how the Republican challenger is running his campaign.” {1}
      
      “The president also leads Romney on nearly every major issue, according to Pew. Obama has double-digit leads in the poll on foreign policy, the Middle East, healthcare, Medicare and abortion.” {2}
      
      If that does not explain the President’s lead to you, Mr. Villarasa, let me know and I will post more links so you can catch up with the rest of the country.Clearly, you think the American electorate lacks your insight and wisdom. You embody the same elitist attitude that is dragging Gov. Romney down in the polls. Did you say, “Obama’s presidential failures?” Apparently, if A. Villarasa does not agree with a government policy it is automatically a failure even if it has positive results for the country. Sorry, but I can not agree with such a close minded attitude. In addition to the miss-steps, the gaffes, the congressional gridlock, and the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression, this administration has managed to score hundreds of significant and worthy accomplishments that have been beneficial to the country. {3} Your refusal to acknowledge them does not reduce their importance.
      
      Living in a republic like ours, we enjoy political and cultural diversity that is hard to find elsewhere. We have the privilege of sharing our governance with many different ideologies. All it takes is tolerance of other viewpoints. Restricting political thinking to only one narrow bent is to deny our nation its preeminent glory.   
      
      {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … -comments/
      {2} http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pol … nationally
      {3} http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai … -2009.html

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Quill:
         
         You accused me of "unsupported hyperbole" in another post on this forum, but reading the above post of yours just made my head shake. I guess the best response to this  would be the cartoon that Onusonus posted below.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you, Mr. Villarasa, for your prompt reply.
            
            You said that Gov. Romney’s trailing position in the polls was “inexplicable.”  I provided facts explaining President Obama’s lead. Your response was to ignore the facts and refer me to a cartoon containing more meaningless hyperbole. I would have preferred your posting your facts to explain why the President is leading in the polls, if you have any.
            
            Thanks again for initiating this discussion, Mr. Villarasa.
            

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @Quill:
               I wrote/posted my "facts" in response to your other post somewhere else in this forrum.You might want to look for it.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Quill:
         Your guy Obama, the slacker that he is ( in one interview with CBS, he admitted to the fact the he tends to be "lazy") was almost a nonentity in last night's debate. So what happened?  Overconfidence? Hubris? or was it that he was mightily challenged by Romney's command of the facts, and he became so incoherrent  just trying to connect the dots between one talking point  to other talking points that he has obviously not mastered during all those months of campaigning.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Welcome back, Mr. Villarasa.
            
            I applaud your ability to gloat with more hyperbole.
            
            Exaggeration 1: “he…was almost a nonentity”
            The President of the Untied States is NEVER a nonentity no matter who he may be.
            Exaggeration 2: “and he became so incoherrent [sic]”
            I listened to the debate. Did anyone else except you see the President became incoherent?
            Exaggeration 3: “Your guy Obama, the slacker that he is…”
            President Obama is not my “guy” nor is he a slacker.
            
            Finally, what part of this fact do you not understand?
            “Sixty-one percent of all Americans — and voters alike — express negative views of how the Republican challenger is running his campaign.” {1}
            
            Your gloating is premature, Mr. Villarasa, and it may be short lived. The election is more than four weeks away.
            
            Have a good night.
            
            {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … -comments/

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @Quill:
               
               So sorry to tell you this but the Obama boat is leaking badly and no matter how hard  his acolytes in his campaign organization and the   main-stream media try to keep the boat from sinking... it is sinking fast, in a sea of  incompetence colored green by tax payer dollars that he has wasted and spent incomprehensibly.

               replyreport
   9. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   10. 60

       nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       sorry to tell you but thanks to mr. obama, the U.S. is gaing it's popularity once again. not one president in the last 40 years has done what he has to make the U.S. look better in others eyes. your economy is better with him then any one else would have made it. the man is awesome.

       replyreport
2. 87

   Len Cannonposted 12 years ago

   abomination of Obama's nation? Well, that's a pretty bad way to start conversation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @len:
      
      Let me hear your point of view to start the conversation.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Len Cannonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The system broken, the schools closed, the prisons open, we ain't got nothin' to lose, A. Vilarasa, we rollin'

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Are you saying that we have nothing to lose by re-electing Obama? Let me tell you that we  already lost a lot when he was elected in 2008.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               With Romny slipping in the polls, I saw this guy scaping off the Romney 20012 bumper sticker off his car. It turned out that the guy was Paul Ryan! - Chris Rock

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  @Paul:
                  
                  Great joke from Chris Rock... but I won't be surprised if the joke is on folks who are prematurely predicting Mitt Romney's  political demise. Better keep your eulogies safely tucked in your axilla... you might yet be able to use the pieces of paper they are  written on for some other purpose... I heard the Iranian's have run out of toliet paper.

                  replyreport
3. 66

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   ..don't forget.. he isn't even white!

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He's not!
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         He's not even presidential!
         “[Obama] really is like the substitute [National Football League] referees in the sense that he’s not a real president,” Gingrich told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Tuesday night. “He doesn’t do anything that presidents do, he doesn’t worry about any of the things the presidents do, but he has the White House, he has enormous power, and he’ll go down in history as the president, and I suspect that he’s pretty contemptuous of the rest of us.”



         replyreport
         1. 66

            Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            boy, do these grapes taste sour!
            
            

            replyreport
   2. 77

      Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   3. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Greek:
      
      So why is it that when Obama is criticized his rabid fans immediately calls foul and the critic a no good S.O.B racist.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I never said you were a no good S.O.B.
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I never said that you are a rabid Obama fan.....but if you are, then you implied with your comment that I am racist.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               oh come now A.V...
               
               listen, Obama is gong to win a second term.. you know it, i know it, Mitt knows it...
               
               so it's best to just lighten up and look forward to 2016

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  And watch the country devolve into another failed socialist state like Greece? I dont think so.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     My, my, aren't your views extreme and divorced from reality. Obama is, in reality, a moderate or even a fairly conservative Democrat.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        @Ralph:
                        
                        You must be reading  from a list of  the Democratic  talking points that I have gotten so tired hearing so
                        mindlessly being echoed by his media acolytes.  Obama, a conservative Democrat? now that is laughable if not  thorougly discreditable. Now McCain... that guy  is a moderate democrat; stupidly,  the Republicans chose him for their standard bearer in 2008. If you want proof that McCain is a democrat in Republican clothing, just ask Gore's former running mate in 2000.

                        replyreport
                  2. 66

                     Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     actually, Greece is primarily owned by capitalist germany now....
                     
                     while you are already property of chairman mao and company, comrade
                     
                     :-)

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        @greek:
                        nothing really funny about those two scenarios that you just mentioned....except to actually watch the German and Chinese look at each other when they realize they are holding an empty bag. Greece is now rapidly devolving into a chaotic failed nanny socialist state, and America may soon be treading its footsteps.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Lets get this right. The Greek state collapsed because it had too much spending (which just like in the US was mainly caused by massive spending increases under conservative governments) and just like in the US it was the left that took steps to reduce spending.
                           
                           From the beginning of our debt problem it was Reagan who tripled our Debt then Clinton who reduced spending (and almost balanced the budget) then Bush that increased it spectacularly and then Obama who has reduced spending again (albeit by a smaller amount because he is dealing with an economic crisis).
                           
                           Yes Obama is reducing spending, when inflation is taken into account he has reduced it by about 2.6%.
                           
                           From a purely factual basis Obama's spending is lower than Bush's and he has reduced it significantly. Obama's 2010 budget cut spending 1.8%, 2011 increased it 4.3% and 2012 will increase it 0.7% 2013 will reduce it 1.3% (already budgeted) add 1.5% inflation yearly and we get 4.3+0.7= 5. 5- 1.8-1.3-1.5X3= -2.6% on spending from Obama budgets. So who is surprised by the facts? I was.
                           
                           http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05 … ken-sailor
                           
                           (Wall Street Journal Link for proof)

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              @Josak:
                              I agree that George Bush spent like a drunken sailor diring his 8 years in office,  and  he  increased the national debt  by close to 4 million. Obama on the other and has only been in office for 3 1/2 years and he has already increased the debt by 6 million. Additionally, the Obama budget is  non-existent simply because it could not pass muster even in the democratic controlled senate. Your revisionist attempts at making Obama smell like a rose just does not jibe with reality.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 ................................. Seriously 4 million and 6 million? I don't think you have sufficient knowledge to discuss this. (It's Trillion btw and Obama is not at 6)
                                 
                                 One of the Obama budgets did not pass the senate it was then revised and released, so what? It's relatively common and its the purpose of the senate.
                                 
                                 Yes the debt has increase dramatically because our revenue fell horribly due to the recession which was started by Bush, despite that Obama has reduced spending even though we are in a recession which is a positive move in contrast to the recent Republican governments all of which have raised spending.
                                 
                                 You don't get to create the debt and enormous spending through failed policies then turn around and blame the debt on the Democrats, that's hypocrisy.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    @Josak:
                                    the "million" was obviously a typing error. Obama's may not be at 6 trillion, but it would soon be since the projection is that he will add another trillion  this year to the debt,  at the rate that he is spending. The Feds are hardly able to catch up printing more money to cover for Obama's spending.
                                    So you think that Obama's  policies saved America from  economic armaggedon? That is highly debatable.

                                    replyreport
                  3. 70

                     Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I tend to lean more to the right, but I'm tired of people calling Democrats socialists. If you had ever met a real socialist, you would quickly realize that Obama and pals are not socialists. That word gets tossed around and nobody has any clue what it actually entails.

                     replyreport
   4. 84

      donotfearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Greek One!  Bad boy!!

      replyreport
   5. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      True. Just gotta get that black guy outta the White House.

      replyreport
4. 59

   WanderingRobposted 12 years ago

   There's always been an element of 'He is not one of us' to Presidential mud-slinging.
   But this goes above and beyond someone accusing Obama of being a 'Red' with an off-handed comment. It's a disgusting attack that shows the clear hate and racism still embedded into a vast swath of our nation...and it's also the last resort of those with no real arguments to make.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You must be one rabid Obama fan....which begs the question...Why?

      replyreport
5. 59

   doctorulnaposted 12 years ago

   Oh supposedly intelligent fellows ! What does the fact that Obama has got more melanin pigment in his skin,which biologically tags him black got to do with his performance in office?...I hate it when people get irrational with racial issues,spewing out bigotry of the highest order in public fora like this.We've got white,blue eyed, blonde, 6 pack wielding past American president who's performed worse than Obama

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's melanin has nothing to do with why some of us are not so enamored of his performance as POTUS, and to inject race as our reason for being disappointed with his  lackadaisical approach to his job is totally outrageous and reflect the fatuousness of the liberal media and folks who applaud o Obama's socialistic bent.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ya and of course there are all the "truth squads" out there spewing garbage like this
         
         "On the other hand, we have a candidate who is a non-Christian Humanist. He rejects traditional family and moral values, he despises our nation’s heritage, he holds Israel in contempt, he loves Islam, the origins of his heritage are questionable and he believes in Socialism."

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @DMart:
            
            If you still do not believe that Obama has socialistic impulses, then you are not listening and watching very closely. But I guess when your  legs are tingling whenver you hear him speak, then it is really difficult to listen and watch at the same time.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Ha you haven't bothered to read any of my posts where I clearly point out that I'm not a Democrat but let's not let facts get in the way.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  @DMarte:
                  
                  Just because you are not a Democrat does not mean that you could not be a rabid Obama fan.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No I'm not a "rabid" anything. I do however know how to read and follow more than one line of thinking - last I checked when you plan to vote it's up to you to sift through the garbage and make sure you get to the facts.  But then again, lots of folks don't let the facts get in the way

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        @DMartel:
                        
                        So  kindly give me a turorial on what those facts are. I'll be more than willing to consider them. Oh but I forgot, Quillagrapher already did it... you might want to check his post and if you think your facts jibe with his, then just say so.

                        replyreport
6. 61

   tammybarnetteposted 12 years ago

   Obama is actually a very strong leader who is diplomatic and yet unafraid to use our military effectively. His policies whether economic or foriegn have actually taken consideration of all people instead of special interest groups and millionaires dictating his legislation. I am always amazed when conservatives scoff at his audacity to take actions on healthcare without 100% approval of the citizens; George Bush sent us to war without even 50% approval, but I guess the liberal half of this country doesn't matter right? Like Romney said, we are just lazy and our best interest do not matter.I am also flabbergasted when a conservative whose spewing rhetoric believes all liberal points of view are rhetoric and talking points.I have made it a habit to fact check every media story, from either direction, you should do the same.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      +++

      replyreport
   2. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @tammy:
      
      I'm sorry to say but your post lacks coherence, and in the middle  I got so totally lost. And Ralph Deeds gives you 3Plus? HHHmmmm.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not at all surprised you would get lost:)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            writeronlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "in the middle  I got so totally lost." Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but  I've read (endured) your comments through this entire post, from your opening gambit, looking for the coherence you accuse others of lacking, and you've been lost since the start. Common sense, logic, facts, any acknowledgement of a different POV don't sway your self certainty. All you show is arrogance and a patronising tone. Are you really Mitt Romney?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @writer:
               I'd be more than happy to take a look at your logic/facts, then we can start to debate. Calling me arrogant and patronizing is not the best way to start the conversation.

               replyreport
7. 84

   donotfearposted 12 years ago

   PLEEEEASEEEEE!!!!    In all humanity, make it go away!
   
   
   

   replyreport
8. 75

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Obama's leading Romney in the polls is not inexplicable.
   
   

   replyreport
9. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years ago

   The real problem is the peer pressure to be cool.   To be for Obama is hip and cool.  It is such a strong instinct that the modern day politically correct sheep have. They wear rose colored glasses and have utopian beliefs.
   However,  the word "utopia" means that which can NEVER be! The founding fathers knew history, and human nature.  We have to stay in touch with REALITY!  If we accept high taxes, we accept our own DEMISE! Health care IS NOT a good excuse for  r a i s i n g  t a x e s!

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Healthcare not a good reason to raise taxes?
      How about the debt? Is that a good reason?

      replyreport
10. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years ago

    No! Health care is not a good reason to raise taxes. Either is the debt!   The Government is overspending. We need to STOP the government from overspending... not enable it!  We are paying enough for
                                   e v e r y o n e   e l s e ' s   s c r e w  u p s! 
    We are paying for everyone else's screw ups.....Those of us who are still holding on.... those of us who are still holding on tighter than ever!  Question: Why do THEY not have to hold on as tightly as we are?????????????
    
    
                                       They get enough of our tax dollars!
    
                                                              ENOUGH!

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well then, since defense is by far the biggest part of the federal budget, you can have no objection to starting the cost cutting there.
       

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          We are already paying for that. Already!  we are paying plenty already. For a war that no one should be supporting. But no one says a word. why? cuz no one even knows what is going on over there. why???
          
          cuz if we knew, we would start a revolution
          
                                a n d s t o p p a y i n g t a x e s a l t o g e t h e r.     
          
          
                               BTW  Is this what you want our government to be:
                                           Like a big ol' mighty Momma Frog
                                                  To the millions of Tadpoles
                                            Who won't grow their legs or arms,
                                                    Who stay under water
                                                   Lurking free from Harm...
                                                If she keeps on feeding them.
                                                          There they'll stay.
                                             While their healthy hopping relatives
                                                       Work for THEM all day.

          replyreport
11. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years ago

    George Soros is the puppeteer of Obama. He is the multibillionaire who hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the 2004 US senate campaign, and contributed toward his presidential campaign, as well.  I am sharing the Hubapages articles by "jiberish" who wrote, "Soros: Obama's Puppeteer, Parts I 2 and 3." These articles should tell you the nature of what we are dealing with: A Very Leftist Agenda.  George Soros funds organizations such as Center for American Progress, Children's Defense Fund, Move On.org. and Health Care for America Now. What is the leftist agenda? From reading her articles I learned that a leftist agenda is fueled by those who believe in:
    "1) Promoting the the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States.
    2) Depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti terrorists.
    3) Advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or steep reduction in its military spending.
    4) Promoting socialized medicine in the United States.
    5) Promoting radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer, Michael Berliner has explained is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization".
    6) Promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
    7) Advocating stricter gun-control measures.
    8) Advocating the legalization of marijuana.
    9) Promoting open borders.
    10) Promoting dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever increasing taxes.
    11) Promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens."
    Just sharin'

    replyreport
    1. 71

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Soros's contributions to Obama's campaign pale into insignificance compared to money from the Macao pimp-briber-war monger, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers. Moreover, Soros has stood up for democratic values in the U.S. and around the world for many years.
       
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpgrlH9lbro

       replyreport
12. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years ago

    Democracy depends on and produces capitalism. In opposition to democratic principles, George Soros believes in Keynesian economics. He is also anti Israel. Soros uses his economic influence to promote the political left.  Of course that is the cool hip route.  I feel sorry for the founder of this forum who cannot get through to those who are so sophisticated they can't hear and don't care to hear the truth.
    A. V., I support your efforts. Please keep up the good work.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Democracy does not depend on capitalism nor does it produce it, there are dozens of non capitalist democracies around the world and even in the ancient world when democracy was created at the pinnacle of culture and education for the next thousand years the system it as born into was far from capitalist in the traditional sense so that is completely untrue.
       
       Additionally Keynesian economics are a form of capitalist economic system so even if democracy required capitalism, which it does not,  Keynesian economics is still capitalist.
       
       It has absolutely nothing with being cool or hip. Do you seriously believe people choose their preferred economic guidelines based on these measures?
       
       It also has nothing to do with "sophistication" perhaps it has something to do with education in that some people know what they re talking about and have studied the relevant topic and/or worked professionally in the field. You have to be very... "unsophisticated"  to fall for supply side economics when #1 it's central premise of taxation reduction having positive economic effect is in fact provably statistically false in the US and #2 When both the IMF and OECD have stated that the current economic global crisis is the direct result of failing to impose adequate control and regulation on the banking system.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What is(are) the most right thing(s) (in your opinion) that Obama and the democrats are doing in contributing to a better or thriving America? And how?
          
          In my opinion, SOME banks, corporations and individuals who lack values and morals represent the SOME of the very rich who misuse their wealth/power for ulterior motives, agendas and ambitions. For example, consider the members of the Council of Foreign Relations. They want to get rid of the borders north and south of the US. They have no regard for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the constitution guarantees to the citizens of this democratic republic. The government cannot regulate morals and values. It is a sad luck of the draw...and the framers could not have foreseen the situation we are facing today.  My question:  Can there be a check on the power of banks, corporations and multi-billionaires??? What could it be, if not common decency and concern for fellow man exemplified by the Golden Rule?
          
          I am not convinced that Obama loves this country. I believe there are those, CFR, for instance, who are slowly tearing America down right under our very noses. What is the proof that those on the left want the country to stay intact and thrive as a democratic republic. And what in the world is wrong with capitalism in the whole scheme of things (meaning I n d e p e n d a n c e...which is more than mere survival)?????
          
          PS  I am   a b s o l u t e l y   c e r t a i n  that Alex Hamilton would have approved of President Reagan's ecomomic policies. If  the banks took advantage of the policies... shame on the banks.... not the policies.

          replyreport
       2. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Democratic socieities are based on free enterprise which results from free participation in daily life. How can you refute what I said? You cannot have capitalism in a socialistic society! Capitalism depends on a free society where people are motivated to earn livings and in turn, spend money based on their income.

          replyreport
          1. 69

             Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             So how do you explain China? I would say that is a good example of capitalism and democracy not having to be intertwined.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, China is an example of government inspired capitalism. I was just saying that capitalism is the natural result of a free society and that Soros is not for society-based capitalism, but rather government-based capitalism. One is obviously better than the other. Obvious, because in the  l o n g   r u n , society-based capitalism will endure, based on the perpetual and natural motivations of a free people who willingly earn their livings, and spend their incomes.
                
                Too much government intervention can actually shut down individual motivation. Consider this excerpt from the article, "Keynesian Economics vs. Regular Economics," http://online.wsj.com/article/sb1000142053111...html, by Robert J Barro:
                "...an expansion of transfers, such as food stamps, decreases employment and, hence, gross domestic product (GDP). In regular economics, (as opposed to Keynesian Economics,) the central ideas involve incentives as the drivers of economic activity. Additional transfers to people with earnings below designated levels motivate less work effort by reducing the reward (obtained) from working."
                
                I do not get where George Soros, Obama, or the left is standing up for democratic values. The religion of "the left" wants to do so much Good, (through government intervention.) The UTOPIAN urges of these three forces, is to take us away from the truth of human nature and human will.
                
                Keep in touch with your independence, I say!  It is independence through self-reliance, (including the help of one's family, friends and community) that gives the human spirit its strength and ultimate JOY of LIFE.  All I am saying is, let us help ourselves. We want to do it ourselves. Whoever does not feel the urge and joy of one's personal power through one's own sense of accomplishment, is already psychically deviated.
                
                Furthermore, WE need to help each other. The government may want to try to help everyone in the nation, but ultimately, WE must help each other. Those in the government must understand HOW to help us help ourselves.

                replyreport
                1. 71

                   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Keynesian economics IS regular economics.

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      No, it is not. No  No No. I do not know who you are trying to impress.

                      replyreport
                      1. 69

                         Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         What? It's just an economic theory. How is it not "regular" economics, as if there is a regular economics.

                         replyreport
                         1. 81

                            Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Keynesian economics is a specific economic agenda. Keynes did not fit theory to data and failed to consider incentives and rational expectations. Ron Ross Ph.D (rossecon@gmail.com) explained, "The rational expectations hypothesis is the simple assertion that individuals take into account their best guesses about the future when they make decisions. That simple concept has profound implications."
                            Also refer to the article, "Keynesian Economics vs. Regular Economics" from "Opinion", http://online.wsj.com by Robert J Barro: "In regular economics, the central ideas involve incentives as the drivers of economic activity. Additional transfers to people with earnings below designated levels motivate less work by reducing the reward (obtained) from working. In addition, the financing of a transfer program requires more taxes-today or in the future in the case of deficit financing. These added levies likely further reduce work effort-in this instance by taxpayers expected to finance the transfer- and also lower investment because the return after taxes is diminished."
                            
                            Refer to Keynes "General Theory" (1936). Keynes advocated borrowing money and giving it to the people to stimulate economic growth.

                            replyreport
    2. 71

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "George Soros believes in Keynesian economics. He is also anti Israel."
       
       Most academic economists in the U.S. and around the world, including Wall Street economists, subscribe to Keynesian economics. The alternative is discredited "supply-side" or voodoo economics, as President George H.W. Bush called it. Soros is Jewish and most certainly not anti-Israel. He's opposed to the insane policies of Netanyahu as are many Israelis and American Jews.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Mr. Deeds,
          I have this this to tell you: what works in theory often does not work in practice. It may take another four years of President Obama's reign for you to understand this.
          
          Keynesian principles allow the government to affect the economy. However, the stimulus is artificial and therefore short lived.
          
          There is no reason what-so-ever to discredit supply side economics. Clinton reaped the benefits and took the credit for President Reagan's success. Economic growth was indeed spurred under Reagan. But, with Keynesian economic policies, such as government bailouts and food stamps, there is no proof that economic growth results at all. Ron Ross in the article,"Fatal Flaws of Keynesian Economics", http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/22/ fatal-flaws-of-keynesian-econo, points out: "The implication of a Keynesian perspective is that you can hit the economy a few times with a cattle prod and get society back to full employment. Remember the so called "cash for clunkers" program? Maybe it accelerated some new car sales by a month or two, but it had no lasting impact."
          
          J Street is a Soros funded group of 527. It promotes its views and PR through the internet, polls and campaign contributions. According to Jiberish in the hub, "Soros: Obabma's Puppeteer (part 2)." J Street is also "working within the Jewish community to peel away support for the American Israel relationship." She sites that J Street has a campaign to undermine and discredit Israel's efforts at self defense. Go to http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/daily-bread/  "Palestine Now!" was the battle cry of the conference at the J Street meeting on 11/9/09.

          replyreport
       2. 60

          A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          @Ralph:
          It was the same HW Bush who embraced "voodo economics" when Ronald Reagan chose him to be his vice-presidential running mate. And as far as I can gather, most economists and non-economists alike gave Reagan an A+ on how he handled the economy during his 8 reays stint as POTUS.

          replyreport
    3. 60

       A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       @Kathryn Hill:
       
       Thanks for the encouragement.  My take is that someone has got to unshackle all these folks  from Obama's wagon ... folks who are so enamored of Obama's rhetorical flair, that they would accept anything he says so long as he says it with the perfect speech pitch and cadence. Now we all know that without his teleprompter,Obama sounds like the title of one or two of my Hubs...i.e "Random thoughts of a disjointed mind".

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You are welcome.
          I wish those who become president would just wake up every A.M. and ask themselves,
          " What is truly good for the people...?" and make honest inquiry, without involving some pie-in-the sky (National Health Care) personal/political agenda which they base, as you say, on their own (or others) random thoughts, coming from their own (or others) disjointed mind(s.) 
          
          Q.
          What would be good for the people?
          A.
          1. Real free market capitalism, (not crony capitalism.)
          2. The military to be ready for any emergency in order to keep PEACE for America and its allies. 
          3. Judges who respect the People of the United States.
          4. The vetoing of any law introduced that is not constitutional.
          5. Allowing areas of domestic policy to be determined by the states which will enable what the people need the most: Their OWN Power.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Obama's indolence and Biden's insolence during their respective debates offer quite a study on the stark contrast of their approach; the bipolarism so incomprehensible, but not nearly so, if one consider the indefensibility of their record on everything that matters most to the American people, from the economy to domestic/foreign policy. So now their campaign strategy involves nothing more than OBFUSCATION.
             
             The Benghazi issue has been obfuscated by Obama and Biden,  that now  folks have started to talk about Benghazi-gate, comparing it to Watergate, an  obvious reference to the scandal that forced Richard NIxon to resign.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                wow! are we more tolerant now?

                replyreport