This is the fourth time I'm asking this. It seems like more are sorry, especially the ones with no job.
He was the best of what was offerd at the time, but unfortunitly, it did not turn out that he became the best. So I was not sorry when I did it, but yes, now I whish I had not.
To Much hidden agenda, not enough real work for All people in America. he is not what we need at all. I got duped in the hype!
So now you wish the Bush agenda was still being followed?
The american people are losing either way. Until we realize our election system has now become a popularity contest for those with the most money we're going to continue to get people that are out of touch.
Absolutely nothing has changed. This presidency is just as bad as the prior one. All that talk of hope and change was nothing.
I agree completely logoi. Even the house and senate are a joke. It's WAY past time for term limits.
And as far as presidential candidates, what is the deal with voting in lawyers to this office? We don't trust them any other time, so we vote for them to run our country? PLEASE, what do we expect!
logoi, The system is as bad as the people let it be. Term limits for the President, but not for others. No incentive to do the right thing.
Money does NOT garuantee victory. People votd for Hope & Change, but didn't know what it was.
Obama himself said he was not qualified before he announced. H
I wish the Regan agenda was still being followed!
Yeah Miss, that was a much better recession than thisone.
miss jkim_ the reagan administration?! reagan took a surplus and left us in a 4 trillion dollar deficit.he cut taxes but it was so bad that when bush senior came into office eventhough he promised not to raise taxes( read my lips) he raised taxes!he had too!
Randy, Bush had unemployment under 5% until the Dem's took over Congress. Frank & Dodd destroyed Fanny & Freddie. H
I'm sorry, did you forget the huge mess Obama inherited?? Clean up is still being worked on from that hideous disaster of a truly lying/deceitful admistration. Lets be honest, Rep or Dem it's still going to be laden with B.S. Obama is not the one to blame for the unemployment rate - back track how this came to be. Additionally, He can't just create jobs and he can't force these American Corporations to employ in America and not in India and China.
Dutch, Thank you for your honesty, and learning. H
it sounds like you really don't know what you want nor why you want it. you want grass but you don't want to wait for it to grow. you listen to nay sayers for your advice. w. tore the country down. obama is rebuilding it and as the saying goes" rome was not built in a day.i guess even they had to deal with these views. it always takes longer to re build than to tear down. look at the twin towers, ten years. new orleans 4 years and still building these are just miniscule examples. obama has to do the same but to the entire nation. it may not be fast enough agreed, but show me one "WRONG" move that he has made.
I didn't vote for him, but I AM sorry he got elected! heehee
After the 8+ years or more of dog-pile-on-the-debt, it is going to take a little longer to 'fix' things. The financial world is still recovering and licking its wounds while consumers are tightening their belts. Oddly, I just saw a report today that stated for the first time in 20 years, credit card balances are below $5k per household. That is a good sign folks are reducing debt. now if the Fed would do the same...
PS, why would you already consider firing the Manager after only 7 months on the job? Give him time. If he's got it, then all well and good. If not, the next guy/gal is going to be in dire straits.
Will, Not a very intelligent reply. Are you speaking for ALL Ariican-Americans? There are more "BLACK" Republican's as the years pass. Notice, they are more successful. H
So what, I'm underemployed after having been unemployed for almost 2 years. Go to school, learn a trade, do something to make yourself more valuable as an employee and a person. If you wait for something to fall into your lap, you're going to be waiting a long, long time.
Naw I think it's easier to insult people when you know nothing about them. At least on the computer. I had a while back made a simple mistake on Yahoo news, where I wrote "We should have the right to where a piercing but not the right to pray..." Trying to be sarcastic, the people who responded only picked up on the mistake of WHERE instead of WEAR and called me unintelligent and suggested that I should go back to school. Now I realize that they were pretty much talking out of their rear ends, but still, I can see where you could get upset when people insult your intelligence without knowing anything about you. I guess my whole point is to not look at it as insult's but rather a miscommunication and move on.
Hey you, awesome pic H.
Sorry, but who is Obama? or is it a place? Sure not here in Canada
Just little confused
Hey may have LapTp back by Sat & emails!!!!!!!!
Obama did what they all do; he got in office and no promises he made were kept. He didn't meet with the Boyscouts of America, our future; he was busy knocking knuckles with a professional atheletic team. His wife has made a profession out of traveling with the kids. So far the only thing "presidential" I've seen is getting a dog for the White House, and even that didn't pan out so well, according to Michelle. (I don't understand why, when they aren't even there!)
He's got ties to Oprah, the wealthiest woman in America, and all the other pocket jinglers with pull in this country. All he needs to do is what he's doing... deepening his pockets and telling us its for our own good. He can, he will, and he does it regularly.
I'm sorry I simply thought about voting for Obama for several weeks, felt excited about Obama for several weeks -- but I'm not sorry that I sat and listened to him speak enough to finally realize what an enormous error it would be to do so....... to finally grasp the underlying message of his words.
I am happy that I voted for Obama. He has tried and tried to improve things, and even though there is a Democratic majority in Congress, the Repubs can still stop everything good in its tracks. They should be ashamed of standing in the way and saying no to literally everything that would be good for this country. Everytime I witness their irresponsibility, I am happy I voted for Obama. The party of no is shameful in their attempt to bring down our government just because they are whiny babies that are seeking revenge for the loss of an election.
I voted for Obama too and I an so very sorry. For one thing he did not tell a nation 82% Christian he was Muslim, he has yet to prove he is even a citizen and we all know he isn't or he would prove it and why isn't he forced to in case you think I am defending republicans and more importantly he is not letting states protect their borders which is none of his business unless it is a profit to him why would he not? And finally are you aware illegal immigrants are not screened and some of their many diseases are incurable and coming your way. They work in restaurants and some have already died from either them or green onions (you find the story if you want it)and also have their hands in most of our fruits and vegetables, even soap won't wash these diseases away. It won't we long...believe me.
No, I am aware that this country is not moving forward but the republicans with the help of talk show host propagandists have dogged Obama every step of the way. Congress used the philibuster to say no to every proposal put forth and the talk show hosts lied about evry piece of legislatioto help stop Obama from making a differe nce.. the republicans don't want solutions to come under Obama. and i know that republicans don't want to hear that our financial mess was caused by bush/cheney but that is a fact.
No not really. Anything was better than McCain, Palin and even Bush. I'm rather proud of my vote, when I look at it from that point of view.
Palin? Seriously? What a joke.
And McCain? OMG- now that was just funny.
W.? Well that man should be tried, and forced to compensate all the American Iraq Veterans for their service. After all he did send them into to pits of fire, to carry out his personal dirty work. Yes, W. and his war was about revenge. He should have to pay for it.
Intimate, You must be young, and have a lot to learn. Obama stated shortly before running that he would never run for President because he is not qualified.
Besides government and union workers; who has benefited from his administration? H
I'm not young.
Honestly I'm disgusted by many of the people of my age who plainly are being manipulated by Fox and Friends and other Tea Party pushers.
Pcunix, Not young, that's a good one. The people your age have no idea of REAL history. Not your fault, the school's taught you.
Manipulated by ONE station. What about all the other media? H
I have to say I agree with you, if you don't like what Fox News is putting out there turn it off and watch a different channel. I personally don't have a television thus don't get to watch the news, but I do read a lot, and listen to talk radio and yes I am one of those horrible people who listen to Rush... he's actually not that bad if you take the time to really listen to him, and some of the callers can be down right haliarious.
Sorry to disappoint you.
I'm 40ty and very clear on what I'm talking about. W. was a joke. The fact that you actually think you could possibly defend these three bouncing dummies, is a joke to me. Thanks for the laugh.
Intimate, Your reply is lacking everything. You wanted a man with NO accomplishments, that said before his announcing that is not qualified.
Palin had exposed corruption in her own party, and balanced the budget. She was chosen because of being a woman.
W wasn't running.
McCain at least had experience.
Comingfrom Chicago, I knew B.O. had nothing good to offer. Look ho he's surrounded himself with. H
............, and in seven weeks my position has remained the same.
At some point you guys are going to realize that Obama didn't run against Bush right?
He ran against Palin.
He ran against McCain.
and the party of Bush.
Your point is?
He ran against McCain.
There is no "party of Bush".
"He ran against McCain."
Did I write that???????, oh yeah I did.
As for the Party of Bush, are you sure about that?
Anyhow, excuse my error- the National Republican Party. The Party of Bush, or the Bush's Party. Take your pick. Obama went against an idiot, represented by idiots.
An idiot is an idiot, no matter how I put it.
"Did I write that???????, oh yeah I did."
Yeah you wrote that.
You also wrote that he ran against Palin.
He did not run against Palin anymore than McCain ran against Biden.
You are correct, the republican party does have a bunch of idiots in it.
Just like the democrat party does.
One of them being Barrack Obama.
So you like to argue semantics........., pity.
I try to put myself above the "the sky is blue" ideology.
The Republican Party is disintegrating before our eyes thanks to the Teatards and some of their jackasses in Congress.
That you guys will eventually have to accept the fact that Obama didn't run against Bush... unless of course he is planning the 2012 election against Bush again. He ran against a Republican named John McCain, not against a (Bushian)
You do realize that the point here is there wasn't much difference between Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin?
Palin was Bush, and Cheney was McCain.
Therefore the point is that essentially Obama was pinned against the same ole' same old. The "old" being Bush style government represented by ridiculous foreign policy ideas, horrific spending habits and childish politics.
And the spending has improved.
That is if you think spending more is an improvement
The spending of Bush:
hm.........., let's see the whole Iraqie war was based off his own personal revenge. Yeah- I'd say that Obama has improved the presidential spending habits. So far- we haven't funded Obama's personal war, like we did for Bush.
To me there is a big difference. I'm surprised you can't see that. Oh, that's right you think everyone is an idiot. Substandard opinion on such a broad topic don't ya think? Maybe you are looking through the same "glasses" about this issue as well.
In order to win his party's nomination,John McCain gave up his "maverickeyness" to embrace pretty much all of Bush's policies until he was essentially a Bush clone. Then, he put the nail in the coffin of his presidential bid by screwing up his first highly public decision, choosing a vice presidential running mate. So, yeah, in that regard, he was indistinguishable from Bush, both in policies and in competence.
Possibly around the same time you realize that your opinions are not shared by everyone?
I voted for Obama and will vote for him again. After that, I'll be voting for H.C.
oil, don't forget about controling iraq's oil.
Hell no! What if that idiot Palin had been elected? She's even dumber than Dubya. And McCain? He didn't know what day it was!
No, there was no other choice if you cared for your country! Unless you watched Faux News, then you just did what they told you to do! Who did you go for Harvey? LOL
Randy, I voted for McCain by default. I understood what Obam was about. The great community advisor lost by a 2-1 margin running for Congress. Then David Axelrod help him read better.
You left out Joe Biden.
B.O. is only intelligent when it comes to vocabulary. What are his grades, why did he start at Jr. college? H
mike, Have you seen any improvements since B.O.? Has your portfolio grown? H
Harvey that was just stupid. Has his portfolio grown? Seriously? HOw superficial is that. There are more serious issues going on and lets not forget when all this sh** really started okay? And "we don't have time" for everything to get fixed? Really? Then maybe the Repblicans should stop bitching and whining like babies and fighting Obama every step of the way. Oh no, we can't do that it might inadvertently make him look good...better the country gets screwed or we get another Republican in there to make sure the wealthy get wealthier and the middle class take more on their backs.
I informed our congressional officials that in the coming election that our vote will be against President Obama’s actions in trying to destroy America. We have voiced our anger as to why our representatives remain silent when the constitution is attacked. They ( our representatives ) are ignoring the will of the people by supporting the party leadership in approving important legislation without debate or review.
They were elected by the people to serve the people first before the radicals in their party. Let’s not forget in November.
I just don't want you to forget what happened when you put Dubya in twice. No one else ever will! The humiliation and ruination he caused our country will take decades to be watered down! But I suppose you are ready to do it again, right!
The American people put Bush in the White House.
The Democrats are responsible for the Freddie Mac and Fannie May debacle.
They typically hid behind the race card so nothing would be done to remove the incompetent boob running the show.
There isn't one government program that operates efficiently or within its budget, from FDR's Social Security to LBJ's welfare.
And still the liberals scream for more government intervention and regulation.
Here is the latest on healthcare.
There are no co-pays for preventative care...Yeehaw
All other co-pays have doubled.
You actually believe all that? Seriously, I'm totally curious, and it's important to me, and I'm sure many others. I'm hoping for a real/clear response. I pay way more than 20 bucks and had to drop to a huge huge huge deductible a few months back, if I hadn't it surely would have dropped the unemployment rate in the USA, the fees were so astronomical - thanks to ????........you tell me why that happened, in the meantime, I'll live with the pain in my side and my fevers -- all hail the coming socialized health care. Too bad I'm not a little bitty Old dog, my doctor's visits would be sympathetically cheaper, and my relatives wouldn't mind the notion of taking care of me - I wouldn't eat so much through my healthy elder years....... Not the plan of the Dems...........nope.
I raise my tea glass to you, my friend.
Does the name Jimmy Carter bring back any humiliation to you? It does me. Living in Europe during his "reign" in the white house, was downright embarrassing. The chant of the Europeans was, "Jimmy Carter is a good farmer, but he is no diplomat. He needs to go home to his peanuts."
Jimmy Carter was too honest to be a politician! And I had to live here in America when Dumbya was president! Talk about being ashamed of our country! How many wars and how much torture was Carter responsible for? Did his VP rob our treasury?
Can you see any country at all asking for George to oversee their election results like Carter has been asked to do? Hell, Dumbya's own elections were suspicious enough! LOL!
You're obviously too young to remember 1979, but that was the year my mom had to sell some of her jewelery to get milk for us kids. Oh yeah, he was such a great President.
Harvey, Bush did his part to wreck the economy. It was his bright idea to lower the interest rate to almost 0% and shifted the collapsing stock market bubble into the housing market. Now we have two bubbles for the price of one.
Granted Congress is just as culpable, but that's a symptom of the disease. It's the polices of the two political parties that are to blame, well that and lefty pseudo-intellectuals.
Nope, I lived through his term and saw how he was treated! As I said before, he was too honest to deal with the Washington crowd. I have met the man and he is just as humble as he appears to be. He still works with Habitat for Humanity, helping to build homes for the unfortunate.
I know he was not the best at getting things done but he just didn't have the crooked cronies it takes to be president. But he didn't attack any countries who were no threat to us, killing perhaps hundreds of thousands of people and making his buddies even richer in the process. He wasn't accused of permitting torture or illegal wiretapping of our citizens.
Almost all of this mess we are now in came about after Clinton left office and got worse the longer Bush stayed in office. And really, why do I care what you think LED? You don't vote! But you sure like to pretend you make a difference by the way you opine. But talk, as always, is cheap! And you aren't real good at that either! LOL!
Humble he may be, but he almost singlehandedly destroyed the American economy. The only smart thing he did was appoint Paul Volcker to the Chairmanship of the Fed and in order to fix the mess Carter got us in, he had to raise interest rates to something like 15-20% and leave them there for about three years. Ever ask yourself why it was so much harder to make a living at the end of the 1970's than it was at the beginning. I'll give you a hint, Nixon took us all the way off the gold standard in 1972. This allowed unlimited inflation and that's what made poor people poorer in the 1970's.
Unless I forgot my history, wasn't he responsible for the debacle in Iran? Doesn't that count as a military action? Making people richer? When has modern war ever made anyone better off. Ask the Germans, or heck, even the British how much better off they were after the Great War than before. War, especially in the modern era, makes people poorer not richer. If you're complaining about the sweet deals companies got during the rebuilding of Iraq, then you should probably think about limiting the government's ability to wage war, not complain about government doing what it does best.
You also don't seem to understand economics at all. The problems of the 1970's were not only due to Nixon, much of it was due to the sorts of shenanigans the government had to go through to pay for Vietnam. That, incidentally, was what caused Nixon to tear up the Bretton Woods agreement. The Clinton years were classic boom years. It just so happened the bust occurred after he left office. But make no mistake, Clinton was the prime motivator for the stock market bubble. Bush compounded the problem by his actions that shifted credit from the collapsing stock market bubble to the housing market. And we all know the results of that.
Carter clashed with congress over many programs including one meant to provide health care for Americans and also had the energy crisis to deal with! If you read about what really went on you will understand how he went up against big money congressmen used to wrangling money for their special projects.
Yes, the very things people from the right and left wanted, namely less pork barrel projects, was his downfall! He didn't want to play along with the corruption. The same type of "oil shortage" scams as we had under Dumbya was played out by OPEC which severely affected our economy, just as it did under Bush.
He wanted to do what was right but he was not allowed by congress! He didn't like the corruption by the right or left! He was doomed from the beginning just like any other president who tried to do right would be!
He CAUSED the energy crisis. Jesus even a first year economics student can tell you that when you cap the price of something like gas, you're going to get shortages. Congress has always wrangled taxpayer money to fund pork barrel projects. Want to put a stop to it? Repeal in income tax.
But, hey, what's truth when you can indulge in your boring Communist railing against capitalism and the free market. The very fact that you use Dumbya and other names to describe people you don't agree with shows me how independent your thinking really it.
I'll admit I went through a phase where I called Obama, Papa Obama, but I stopped it because you don't really get to any kind of reasonable discourse when you engage in schoolyard games like that.
"In 1973, during the Nixon Administration, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) reduced supplies of oil available to the world market, in part because of deflation of the dollars they were receiving as a result of Nixon leaving the gold standard and in part as a reaction to America's sending of arms to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This sparked the 1973 Oil Crisis and forced oil prices to rise sharply, spurring price inflation throughout the economy and slowing growth. The US government imposed price controls on gasoline and oil following the announcement, which had the effect of causing shortages and long lines for gasoline. The lines were quelled through the lifting of price controls on gasoline, although oil controls remained until Reagan's presidency. Significant government borrowing helped keep interest rates high relative to inflation. Carter told Americans that the energy crisis was "a clear and present danger to our nation" and "the moral equivalent of war" and drew out a plan he thought would address it. Carter said that world oil supply would probably only be able to keep up with Americans' demand for six to eight more years."
No wonder first year law students are made to attend a little longer! How many years do you have left to go?
Did you miss the part where Carter thought world oil supplies would not keep pace with America's demand for oil more than six to eight years? I've seen clips of that speech. It looks like Carter doesn't know what he was talking about. News flash, high oil prices spurred new oil exploration as oil companies strove to find new sources of oil that they could cash in on. This exploration had the effect of driving down the price of oil because new oil was coming onto the market. OPEC then had to save face because their embargo policies failed. The history of OPEC alone should be enough to demonstrate that embargoes don't work and if you try to manipulate the supply of something, the market will find a way to meet the demand for that good, usually to the detriment of the organization that tries to monopolize something.
Looks like law students shouldn't try to be economists. Apparently reason and logic are not used to teach law anymore.
Oil supplies have been manipulated in order to gouge us for many years! Fake reports by OPEC and American owned companies are nothing new! Where did all of the oil suddenly come from when the gas prices fell after Bush and cronies screwed us for a while?
Remember when the big oil guys met behind closed doors right before prices went sky high? many of us predicted they would begin to drop before bush left office and they did!
You tell me, where did all of the oil come from that caused the price to drop?
There's been an interesting study done on lotteries and the sort of irrationality people have concerning lottery outcome. Basically lottery winners believe they were chosen or gifted by God or some such thing. What really happens is that when something becomes too complex and beyond the ability of a person to grasp it, they attribute things to conspiracies, fate, God etc.
Let me clue you in. Rather than some big conspiracy, the real reason oil became so expensive was due to several factors. Increasing attacks on Nigerian oil producers put several fields off line. Katrina not only shut down oil derricks in the Gulf, but also, oh yeah, shut down refineries. No we haven't had a new refinery build for gasoline production since the 1970's. Thank you ecofreaks. The result is that refineries run at about 100%, almost all the time.
You'll never guess were a lot of our refining capacity is. Yep, the Gulf Coast, which Katrina also shut down. There were also issues at several other refineries, because you can't really run refineries at 100% without maintenance for very long. Things start to break down. Gas prices fell some time after Katrina when oil derricks started drilling again and refineries not only came back on-line but also completed maintenance.
But who cares about cause and effect. It's easier for lazy brains to accept the "Bush is evil" explanation. Are you really a law student? If you are, that's very scary.
You mentioned "first year law students" in your post before I responded! And if the oil "shortage" was only temporary, why didn't Bush release the oil reserves until the gulf oil platforms were back in business.
Remember when a previous president only had to "threaten" the release of the oil reserves to bring down the price? Sorry, the price dropped suddenly just when many of said it would. And I hope you are not so naive as to believe big oil business had nothing to do with the gouging! Look at the massive profits made and the effect on our economy this scam caused!
All coincidence that Bush and Chaney were oil guys and their cronies made out like bandits! Pure coincidence! LOL!
ETA: Of the ten oil platforms affected by Katrina, four were back in full production in a matter of days with four more taking a couple of months to regain full pumping abilities.
I'll have to use small words I see. Oil has to be refined before you get gasoline. Drilling for oil and bringing it up for refining takes a bit of time. This is where oil futures come into play. When oil future prices go up, as when Katrina shut down drilling, that means there is a longer term supply problem with gasoline. This explains why gas prices were so high for so long. Because it takes time for oil to get to the refineries, this disruption determined the length of the high gas prices.
Refining, on the other hand, works on a shorter time scale. This is what, by and large, determines the fluctuation in gas prices from day to day and week to week. Since much of our refining capacity was offline or working at capacity, this determined how high gas prices went up.
When you combine the two, you get high gas prices for some time until the supply situation normalizes.
As for what happened with Billy Clinton, I'm not sure. I wasn't conversant with economics at the time and don't know enough about what was going on at the time to make an informed statement. If I had to guess, I'd say that Clinton waited until his economic advisers knew gas prices were on the way down, then he issued his threat. Clinton had a reputation for anticipating things and timing his announcements very carefully. If there was one thing Clinton was that Obama is not, it's a master of spin.
You do have to guess, apparently! Whereas I had rather find out the facts! Again, why didn't Bush release the reserves if he knew the shortage was only temporary? And did you have to wait in gas lines very often because there was no gas to be bought?
Oil prices started to climb rapidly two years before Katrina ever hit the gulf! Want to guess again?
There was no shortage, it was a scam!
Small words again. The reason Bush didn't release the reserves is because those are strategic reserves. That means that the oil and gas in the reserve is for military, not civilian use. That means that our military will have the ability to fight if we ever have a long term shortage of oil and gas.
It is not to be used to help ecofreaks use their SUV's who are mad because they bought gas guzzlers.
It's not my fault you apparently can't understand something as simple as supply and demand. Small minds look for easy answers I guess.
The gas spike in 2003? Could have had something to do with the Iraq war. Wars consume a lot of gas and we were about to knock off a country that was supplying oil in, albeit, small quantities. No surprise there. At least there is no surprise if you have a modicum of intelligence and common sense.
That's what I understood - that W didn't have the power to release the reserves.
Someone (can't remeber who) complained about all the money republicans accept from big corporations. Like the dems don't do that, too! Until we get rid of lobbyists and their deep pockets, politicians from BOTH sides will always be corrupt.
Nope, not even close! All Georgie had to do was threaten to release the oil reserves like had been done before. He refused to do this for obvious reasons. All of your, perhaps, maybe, I guess BS doesn't get it!
Not everyone drove SUV's or were ecofreaks, as you dubbed them, but if it makes you feel better to think so go right ahead! I notice you ignored the question about having to wait in line to get gas.
And saying I have a small mind only makes you feel better, apparently! As is your tendency to criticize either party because you were afraid to vote because you might pick the wrong side. Oh yeah, there was no one you thought could do the job so you just didn't vote!
You just like to be safe so you can talk your talk without being accused of being for the wrong side! You are the type who like to get right in there and talk politics but actually take no part in the process. But you feel free in criticizing those who do.
I disagree with Harvey and others on these forums, but I do respect their taking a stand on their choices. You, on the other hand, are representative of nothing but talk. I'll bet you do this in all phases of your life! Afraid to take a stand because you are scared you will be wrong!
What kind of job do you have in real life? I certainly hope it isn't anything important which requires making a decision concerning other peoples lives. What good do you think it does to find fault when you contribute nothing to the process? If you want your opinion to mean something to someone other than yourself, then you must earn this right, not just sit on the sidelines bitching, griping, and moaning about the mistakes of others who did take the trouble to go out and vote.
So, keep on with your little program of "safely sitting on the fence" while the rest of us take a stand. You will get all the respect you are entitled to. You can figure out for yourself how much this is! LOL!
Oh I don't know, my fence sitting days may soon be over. It looks like the political field is opening up rather nicely for the first time since the end of FDR's dictatorship.
Teshaun, that argument is getting old. He wasted a year trying to get a bill passed that 60% of Americans hate. That's why they're so pissed at him. A year ago people were screaming "the economy, the economy" and all he did was pass that abortion of a healthcare bill and try to get his even more unpopular cap and trade bill passed.
Interesting, I had to see my jewelry to buy diapers for my son when Regan was president. His bulls*** economic plan. Not a damn thing trickled down to me and my family during that great recession.
Randy, Don't you realize that Carter was one of the WORST President's ever?
Your questions are foolish. Chaney didn't rob anything; where did you get that? B.O. did steal a couple of states from Hillary!
There are other countries, as you know. H
Perhaps Harvey! But Bush was THE worst president ever! You think it was coincidence Chaney's former company, Haliburton
( who gave Chaney millions when he resigned to run for VP) got no-bid contracts? Can you name an instance similar to this in any previous administration?
Are you not ashamed that we attacked a country which was incapable of attacking us and had nothing to do with 911? How many thousands of people did we kill and how much did it cost us to kill them and their children? And did the oil pay for the war? Your boy said it would, but I don't know! didn't oil instead go sky high?
But I suppose it did pay the big oil buddies to be involved and wasn't Bush an oil man? Yes, good, honest, religious, republicans! Feel proud of all the deaths caused by him Harvey? And what good did that stupid war do us?
Aren't you ashamed with the way our current President unashamedly gives sweetheart deals to unions, the people who put him into office. He took an oath to serve all Americans, not just his cronies. You do realize that the only reason the unions wanted this healthcare bill was so they could push off their pensioners on the taxpayers, right?
i lived in germany during his time in office. i don't recall any of that. i was in the crowd at two of his speeches. i heard none of this. sounds like maybe a beer song or something.
Jon, You sound like a speaker for the Tea Party. That's a good thing. H
against the will of which people? because someone must be asking for this.
No. not sorry. Excited actually....can't wait til Obama gets his daring spirit back from trying to appease the repubs.
One day soon they will push him too far.
maybe when Boner called letting the the tax give-aways expire a "job-killer" was it!
WHAT a moronic thing to say!!!
LOL!!!!! Hey Boner--what jobs were created from 2000-2008??????? you know-when you all put that tax give-away in place.
go back to the tanning bed debutant.
Hum, sounds to me like you are slurping from the government trough.
Obama is "appeasing the republicans"? Hmmm. I didn't know people could live that disconnected from reality. Obama is OBSTRUCTED by his own party. The GOP has had no power to obstruct anything. Obama's party had all the votes needed to do anything he wanted. But, he could not. Why? Because he could not get enough Democrats to go along with his wildly radical and horrifyingly destructive agenda. Obama knows nothing about how the country works, he has no experience at business or governance. He wasn't raised in a family that tought him the life experiences he needed to have the self discipline and character to be a worthy public servant. Nope. He has lived flopping from one radical filled situation to another, spent his life hanging around radicals and malcontents, and believed his radicalism was actually wisdom, a young, inexperienced know-it-all with NO working knowledge of anything at all. Just a lot of radical theories and a whole lot of emotional baggage and hate. He's in over his head, without a clue what to do, because he understands absolutely nothing, and that includes the nature of the people he is supposed to serve, and the country he supposedly is to strengthen and preserve.
love my, Your response is difficult to understand. Much of the time Bush had unemployment at 4.5%. Tax cuts have always worked to create job. Did you know there was no Federal income tax until Woodrow Wlson (D Progressive) Fdr increased taxes (D Progressive. Bo. is increasing taxes (D Progressive). Do you see a pattern? H
Politicians in general are really geared at preserving their own lifestyle. I will not go so far as to say they are all crooks but many of them are.
It really doesn't matter who is holding the title of President because the course of government is geared at furthering the welfare of the politicians, and has very little to do with furthering the welfare of the American citizens.
Ohma, Unless we chose the right ones. H
The right ones? Really? I suppose you think the right ones are the Republican ones? I feel sorry for you Harvey you live in an illusion if you believe that a "right" politician exists. Furthermore, you live in an illusion if you believe Bush was a good president, how do you think Obama inherited that mess? It just appeared one day out of nowhere? No, it was Years in the making. And FYI to those people who say Americans voted for Bush...I am not sure I agree with that assessment. I will need more proof that they truly did. Certainly the second time around.
No. I'm sorry that there are so many people being fooled by Fox News and Tea Party nonsense. I'm sorry that there are so many uninformed people in this country.
I'm definitely not sorry I voted for Obama and will do it again.
As one who counts himself as a Tea Party type, I'd love to have you enlighten me about what "nonsense" I am in favor of, and why you know it's wrong. Somehow, I'll bet you haven't the faintest clue what the TEA Party movement is about or why it happened, nor have you any idea why what is so plainly obvious to so many people is completely obscured to you.
Pc, They say, "live and learn." That's not always true. Have you read the Constitution or The Bill of Rights?
Do you realize people have gone to FOX for a reason? Most still haven't, but FOX was voted the most trusted. H
Now I know you are delusional. Anyone who believes the crap on FOX is either incredibly uninformed or just plain stupid. Thank God my husband is constantly in touch with a plethora of news media and lets me know who is full of crap and who is not as well as what is really going on in this country and abroad. People who rely on any one form of news media are just stupid in the first place. FOX has NEVER been trustworthy and has spewed they slanted BS since they began. You can be mentally challanged and STILL see that.
Alan Sabrosky, who is a professor at U of Michigan, and a US Marine, has said that if McCain had been elected, he has no doubt in his mind we would have bombed Iran by now.
Who you vote for DOES make a difference!!!
Unfortunately, we had to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choices were BOTH not the best choices for our country.
I don't know who in the world thought McCain would be a good president, and I KNEW Obama would not. Too many strings, mirrors and too much dazzle dust!
If Bill Clinton could have run again, I would have voted for him.
love, If it doesn't matter; why care? You give one man's opinion, and he probably doesn't know him. B.O. won't bomb aIran, Israel will. Just like the nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria. H
And don't forget that great humanitarian show of force...Operation Cast Led...where they illegally use white phosphorous and targeted civilians...and they have nukes. ALL against the law, but hey--we know the law doesn't apply to some.
And don't forget on that flotilla, when they shot an American kid 4 times in the head.......I won't.
no, I'm not sorry. I think many forget the alternative and where we would be.
McCain admitted during the campaign that economics wasn't his strong suit when we were already in a recession. He wouldn't have passed a stimulus bill. his economic advisor would have led us into a great depression. there would be a much higher unemployment rate with more people losing benefits, more housing foreclosures.
I shudder to think how he would have handled Iran..
or Afghanastan. we know he has a short fuse and is known for his impulsive decisions. I don't even want to mention Palin.. trigger happy Palin.
his only domestic agenda was cutting taxes. his health care plan was tax rebates. we would be in a much worse state than we are, the hole Bush dug would be much deeper. we would possibly be at war with Iran.
And "cutting taxes" is the agenda of all these supposed Tea Party candidates.
But the reality is there is not much to cut. The smart ones know that - they are just pandering to the crowds and will say whatever they want to hear to get elected. The others don't understand, but those are the ones that shoot their mouths off and come off so badly that even most of the TP committed will have to vote for someone else. If one of the naive ones does manage to get elected, they'll either learn reality very quickly or be ignored and shunned by everyone else.
The tax cutting stuff doesn't worry me. It's the rabid social issues that I am worried about. We have made tremendous gains in the last 40 years (no thanks to conservatives, of course) but we can slide back into ugliness yet again.
I am no fan of Ron Paul, but I applaud him for speaking out on the Mosque issue. I haven't heard the TP reaction yet - I imagine it must confuse quite a few of them and that's good - the more confused and fractured they become, the less danger from them.
Yes...horrible ugliness. Like being PROUD of sadistic torture!
PROUD to say "we've cut their allowance"...things like that.
And btw....Palin has already said Alaska wants "conservative values": ie---No abortion. One religion. More money for the already wealthy at the expsense of those with less.
WHY WHY WHY are we going BACKWARDS?
love, She NEVER saaid "ONE RELIGION." I'm for abortion, but I respect a persons right to be for it. That's the American way. You and Pc have no idea what tax cuts do. Do you not like them because you are on gov't assistance? You both are against people having $; what happens if you win a lottery? H
I'm a tea party supporter and I am confused, I'll admit it. Let me get this straight, and perhaps you can help me.
You WANT your taxes raised? WHY? Do you think the folks in Washington are doing a good job of managing the taxes we already pay?
You WANT socialism? YOU want to give your hard earned money, assuming you have a job, to people who don't or won't work? You want to support people who are in this country illegally, take jobs from actual citizens, are paid under the table so no taxes are paid, and then send that money back to their home country to prop up their economy?
You are right, I am confused? Help me out here.
So if the MAJORITY of its citizens VOTE FOR conservative values, including the abortion issue, the people of Alaska, or any state I presume, are moving backwards? Should these people be FORCED to accept the liberal ideology despite how they voted and let their voice and will be known?
And please explain to me how it's an atrocity when a bomb hits a village and kills innocent children, but it’s not an atrocity when a child is killed within its own mother’s womb? I'm confused
And how are those with money getting more, at the expense of those who have less, when they pay the majority of taxes in this country which, pays for all the social programs that the less fortunate benefit from?
~scratching my head~ I am so confused.
Yes of course, they want the government to take care of them and provide for all their needs. Why should they have to work? Why should anyone? It's the role of government to provide for ITS people, and to take from those that have to pay for it all.
Many people are a paycheck away from homelessness. Many children go hungry.
Most of the supposed welfare cheats that you worry about are actually people who would like to work if they could. Some of them have mental problems, some have physical. There are sometimes training programs, but of course those are often among the first to go when tax revenues fall. Others are under educated - but you don't want to help them learn new skills either, right?
What do you want to do with these people? Toss them aside?
Oh, I know: charity. Make them go beg at a church, make them pray to get help.
What about the people who get catastrophic diseases? I know someone who had to sell their home to pay his wife's medical bills. She died anyway and he's deep in debt with young children. But you don't want to help him, do you?
What about young children in slums who don't get enough to eat and get substandard education, which does nothing but create another generation of unemployable people? Why do you want the crime, disease and urban blight that your neglect causes?
Oh, your precious tax dollars! It's all about YOU, isn't it?
We are a massively wealthy country. We CAN afford to do right by our citizens. We CAN provide a safety net, we CAN provide health care. It is only greed and short sighted ignorance that prevents us.
Yes WE can! (Did I just say that?) heehee
Yes WE can but government? No, government can not, and should not!
Yes, it should and must. And we will.
Your outdated conservative philosophy must be abandoned. We have no hope for the future while you continue to retard us.
The society you create is one where the wealthy live behind walls and the poor slave for them until they become useless and are left to die. Your society will be rife with crime and corruption.
Conservatives are just greedy, uncaring people who are too small to understand what is good for them.
The society you want can be found in many places around globe. I suggest you move to one of those countries and see how you like it before you impose what you think is best on the rest of society. That's fair, isn't it?
Actually, conservatives donate substantially more to charities than liberals do. Look it up!
Remember during the election, when the news reported charitable donations from Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin? Biden was scraping the bottom of the barrel. That kind of surprised me. I've always liked ol' Joe!
habee, Biden is nothing of what I believed he was. H
"For decades, surveys have shown that upper-income Americans don’t give away as much of their money as they might and are particularly undistinguished as givers when compared with the poor, who are strikingly generous. A number of other studies have shown that lower-income Americans give proportionally more of their incomes to charity than do upper-income Americans.
This situation is perplexing if you think of it in terms of dollars and cents: the poor, you would assume, don’t have resources to spare, and the personal sacrifice of giving is disproportionately large. The rich do have money to spend. Those who itemize receive a hefty tax break to make charitable donations, a deduction that grows more valuable the higher they are on the income scale. And the well-off are presumed to have at least a certain sense of noblesse oblige.
But in the larger context of “the psychological culture of wealth versus poverty,” says Paul K. Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, the paradox makes sense. Piff has made a specialty of studying those cultures in his lab at the Institute of Personality and Social Research, most recently in a series of experiments that tested “lower class” and “upper class” subjects (with earnings ranging from around $15,000 to more than $150,000 a year) to see what kind of psychological factors motivated the well-known differences in their giving behaviors. His study, written with Michael W. Kraus and published online last month by The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that lower-income people were more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth. They were more attuned to the needs of others and more committed generally to the values of egalitarianism.
“Upper class” people, on the other hand, clung to values that “prioritized their own need.” And, he told me this week, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others.” Empathy and compassion appeared to be the key ingredients in the greater generosity of those with lower incomes. And these two traits proved to be in increasingly short supply as people moved up the income spectrum.
This compassion deficit — the inability to empathetically relate to others’ needs — is perhaps not so surprising in a society that for decades has seen the experiential gap between the well-off and the poor (and even the middle class) significantly widen. The economist Frank Levy diagnosed such a split in his book “The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change,” published in the midst of the late-1990s tech boom. “The welfare state,” Levy wrote, “rests on enlightened self-interest in which people can look at beneficiaries and reasonably say, ‘There but for the grace of God. . . .’ As income differences widen, this statement rings less true.” A lack of identification with those in need may explain in part why a 2007 report from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that only a small percentage of charitable giving by the wealthy was actually going to the needs of the poor; instead it was mostly directed to other causes — cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters — which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers."
YES! Republican's are for less government like crooks are for less cops.
sandra, Don't you work for HUB, I had better be careful. You're probably in S.F., so I understand where you are coming from. Haven't the Democrat's been in charge in Oakland for years; where have all the cops gone. Cali losing teachers, must be the Republican's fault. What did I say? H
Pc, Do you understand what is happening in Europe? H
Pc, I'm in the middle politically; does that group me with conservatives? H
lady, Easy, they don't like when you throw their words back at them. H
We can also create government bureaucracies that absorb an enormous percentage of the money before it reaches those in need.
There is always overhead. You cannot avoid it. If you privatize, you have the same overhead AND a profit motive. You also lose the direct control and oversight you get with government programs.
There is efficient overhead without profit motives:
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati … ia-va-1221
The Salvation Army
Uses of Funds as a % of Total Expenses
Programs: 84% Administrative: 16%
Total income $112,988,993
Program expenses $76,724,496
Fund raising expenses
Administrative expenses 15,112,364
So people should have to be religious to get help? Will the Salvation Army help gays? How does it feel about atheists?
What should the people it does help do in the years when they can't raise enough money?
Private charities are wonderful, but we cannot depend on them. If we could, the government programs never would have existed.
That is always the greatest problem. The administrative cost begin to outgrow the amount of benifit delivered. Then there are the unseen cost. Cost generated by loss of ambition, initiative and desire to even try.
Pc, I'm one of those people with a chronic disease, MS. I would not accept public help for years, then I did. Now I hope to get off of it by writing a book, not about problems.
When you raise taxes, charity donations go down; who do you think loses. You are just another young guy with a lack of understanding. Maybe your friend's that watch FOX can help. H
Sorry to hear that Harvey, MS is tough. I kind of feel lucky that all I have is Diabetes. I used to work with a lady who had MS and she'd get a shipment in of some kind of medicine. It had to be kept cold and I had to stash it in the employee med fridge a couple of time for her so it didn't go bad. The shot was insanely expensive, like $100 a shot and I think she took it daily.
It amazes me how people don't realize how the policies we pursue make things worse. Drug companies get up to 20 years of a monopoly on the manufacture and distribution of new drug therapies. Eliminating that would go a long way to reducing the cost of new therapies and treatments.
Some drug patents were extended under Bush! ( don't want to smear his name for your sake) My glaucoma medicine being one of them!
The last glaucoma medicine I bought the generic cost more than the brand name! The brand decided to undersell the generic brand by $20.00! Now, explain that!
lady, You go girl! If we're all on asistance; where does the $ come from? H
Yes, I want my taxes raised.
Bridges are falling down. We have potholes everywhere. Welfare programs have been cut. Schools are overcrowded and teachers are not paid enough. Mentally ill people are not getting the help they need. I can go on and on.
You call it socialism. It isn't. It's what makes a society worth living in.
Of course cheaters should be caught and punished. But I don't worry about that very much, because it is minor when compared to people who really need help. I'd rather that some go to cheaters if the alternative is hurting those who really need it. There is waste in every budget - it's unimportant in the greater view. That doesn't mean you ignore it, but you don't hurt genuinely needy people because you are so worried about your precious tax money being misused.
I agree with you Pcunix, on the poor conditions of our roads and bridges, and quite frankly, our entire infrastructure, including the power grid (I work in this industry), water works, transportation in general . . . ET-all.
BUT, I just am not convinced that RAISING taxes is the solution. Don't get me wrong, it must be paid for, I agree, but there are a "series" of steps for this.
You mentioned waist, and while there is some waist in any budget, when that waist becomes a hemorrhage and not a trickle, it is imperative that it be found, stopped and stop-gap measures put in place. This is to prevent such things from happening again, or at least, send up red flags before it gets out of control.
You can’t just “ignore” the little bit of water seeping into the ship. Before long, the ship is sinking, and that is just what’s happening to this country.
Overcrowded schools, poorly paid teachers; this is one of my pet peeves. My husband is an educator so I am “painfully” aware of these issues. Again, just raising taxes and throwing money at the problem is NOT the answer. It’s been tried, it’s been done and it has failed miserably.
Our educational system needs an entire overhaul from TOP (teachers unions) to bottom. I could, and maybe should, write an entire series of hubs on this subject.
But my biggest issue is one of priority and it includes every one of us that calls them self an American and I have to look in the mirror here. When grown men are paid the “millions” of dollars they are paid to play a game (sports) and our teachers, who educate our children, and schools, which are falling down around our children, are expected to get by on pennies by comparison, our priorities are WAY off.
YES, we are all to blame, because we will pay the ridiculous prices for tickets, concessions, clothing with our favorite team logo, pay-per-view prices just to watch ONE game, etc, etc, etc.
As far as social services such as welfare, food assistance and other government hand out programs, let me say this; I thank God, (yes I said God) that we do live in a country where we take care of those who can’t take care of themselves or are having a tough time. My issue with this is that we are NOT, as a society, encouraging people who are using these services to rise above the circumstances that have brought them to this situation. Instead, we are encouraging them to STAY in their circumstances and perpetuate one generation after another of welfare recipients. While the number of people who are working and paying taxes to support the social services dwindles at an alarming rate.
Why? Because companies move their jobs overseas to utilize cheap labor, land, and less astringent environmental standards to produce their products; because illegal aliens are working in place of U S citizens and are getting paid under the table so they don’t pay taxes. Then they send the bulk of their money back to their home countries which props up their economy and received OUR FREE social services while they are here.
Finally, you are correct, we should not hurt the “genuine” needy people of this country but, as any counselor will tell you, you don’t continue to enable the ones who can make their situations better.
You have heard of tough love? We have GOT to use some tough love on this great country of ours, IF we really love her and want to save her.
Pc, You probably don't earn enough to pay. H
I am not trying to outlaw war ...why are you trying to outlaw abortion?
As a percentage of their income, the rich pay less than the middle class.
They only pay more as a whole, because they have all the money!
FACT: as of Bush...I don't know if Obama has changed it....
A hedgefund manager who earns 3 million dollars pays tax at a 15% rate.
A school teacher who earns $65,000 pays tax at a 35% rate.
So, as you can see.....the rich get a benefit at the expense of someone who has less.
It's because of this:
poor people pay FICA only
middle class pay FICA, state and federal
incomes over $120,000 pay state and federal, no FICA (may have changed??)
AND, FICA is more than state and federal COMBINED!
So, as a percentage of income, the very rich pay less than anybody.
Then there's the whole issue of earned income versus inherited, invested, etc...earned is taxed more there too.
Then of course, that big tax give-away from bushco...it's been a big re-distribution all right....UP!
That is because they have 95% of the wealth.
No, that's an incorrect figure. The top 1% pay about 50% of taxes. To get to 95%, you'd have to call everybody making more than $50,000 or so "wealthy".
By the way, although I do not make half the income I used, it's still more than enough that I have to pay taxes and is likely to continue to be so for quite a few years. Both the recession and my deliberate shedding of customers as I move toward full retirement have diminished my "wealth", but I still pay my share. And, unlike many I know, I report every dime I make - even the cash.
So, why should the people getting the really large income shoulder this terrible burden of paying half the tax burden?
Because they benefit the most from the society that burden supports.
Defense (a tiny, almost unnoticeable part of the budget) benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. If the country were taken over by the Chinese, say, all our lives would change, but the lives of the wealthy would change more. By the way, that's one reason the wealthy always support defense so enthusiastically :-)
Highways and airports benefit interstate commerce - the big businesses owned by the wealthy. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by business - polluting air and water so that they can continue to be wealthy.
Our tax laws are stuffed with loopholes and subsidies for big business. Why? Because the wealthy exert undue influence on law makers - another benefit.
Public education? Who benefits most from that? The individuals or the people they end up working for?
The bailouts benefitted the wealthy of course. If the banks fail, everyone loses, but the rich lose more.
Finally, never forget where their wealth comes from. They don't create it, middle and lower class workers are the ones who actually do the real WORK that makes these people rich. If you aren't one of the wealthy, it was YOUR work that made them rich.
As to the other nonsense about why we need government, all you need to do is look at history. Start with the Magna Charta. Look at the abuses of company stores, slavery,, look at the history that led to the creation of the FDA. Business AND government can be corrupt, but there is nothing to check business without government.
Flat tax? Ridiculous. We need to jack up taxes on the very wealthy even more. They SHOULD be paying 99%, because they get 99% of the benefits!
Middle-class Americans--not the rich or the poor--pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.
Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.
Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes, but households in the lower income brackets paid relatively little.
miss, I'm with you on the confusion. H
he didn't say he wanted socialism- you said he said that. everything in this country happens because of a vote. your view didn't make it. late term abortion is bad and not legal. but do you remember all the dead women that used to be found from back alley abortions? do you think that outlawing abortions will stop abortions? we are in a deficit! the taxes will be put back to what they were. geo. bush put this in place. obama has nothing to do with this. and if you are a tea partier then you are confused.
Pc, You need help on economics and business. Cut taxes, the company has more $. More money, the company can expand. Expanding leads to jobs. Don't you understand that!
I've been a CEO, I want companies to grow. That way people grow. H
Rebek, You speak of the stimulus bill; what has it accomplished? B.O. said we need it immediately. Why do we have $420 billion sitting around?
B.O. knows nothing of economics or history. He gives a bust of Winston Churchill back to the Queen, and gives her CD's of his speeches. Very nice. If I didn't know better, I would bet he would bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. Oh, he did.
Stop blaming Bush, it's almost two years. Bush stopped the Clinton recession in that time.
Do you understand the Health-Bill is going to kill us. Wait to see what it will do to your health-care, and taxes. H
"Stop blaming Bush, it's almost two years. Bush stopped the Clinton recession in that time."
Are you saying our economy did better under Dumbya, Harvey?
Actually rebekah he would have had no choice but to pass a stimulus bill (McCain) all the top financial advisors told voth Bush and Obama that it was unavoidable or we would have been in a depression the likes of which this country has NEVER seen. Would have made the 30's look like a walk through the park. No one really wanted to save those greedy bastards but sadly, there was no choice.
There was no Clinton recession Randy. We even had a surplus when Clinton left office, REMEMBER??? How Fox brainwashed are you?
I feel sorry for you Harvey, all you can say is one thing over and over "Under bush there was 4.5% unemployment....which quite frankly, relative to what his entire administration did in those 8 years means not a goddamn thing.
moonchild- you go girl!
the hollow gains that people got during bush's term, they lost as soon as the straw house collapsed and everyone wound up in a situation that was worse than when they began.
I'm doing quite well from my gains, sorry about your investment strategies.
Well, everyone except the very rich. They made out like bandits.
Oh, I remember quite well! Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!!!
as if it was a joke!~!!
Repubs cared for 2 segments of society only, imo....rich and conservative christians.
That left a whole lot of us out....as you can see by the results of 2 terms.
I have eyes to see and ears to hear...I experienced the horror that was Bushco, Reaganco....ANY rightwingco!!!
I don't EVER want them back in power. We will be doomed to Hell. Miss Sarah Palin is the opposite of what she says she is. YOU need to read less!
It is strange how the bulk of the blame game gets laid on the president. I have never supported Obama but that is beside the point. The president can't run the whole government. None of the other branches would allow it. What gets to his desk that has caused the present mess has to be drafted through the houses of congress. Those bodies should be responsible to us.
We are at fault for our own mess as a country because we refuse to make up our mind. Do we want entitlements which money has to come from somewhere or do we want to be able to make up our own entitlements through industry which requires much of the money that government uses for its entitlements in order to bring about and support industry.
The only argument I hear about helping industry is that it helps the big men. The question never gets around to wondering what would happen if there was a fair and equal way of doing taxation according to income that there wouldn't be much change for those who get large refunds anyhow. Nor does the question broach the curiosity of how one can help industry without helping your boss at work be able to pay you more.
Someone has to make up their mind or should I say the country must chose what kind of state they desire. Indecision is causing this mess we are in and nothing more.
Nope, not sorry at all. The crazier everyone else gets the more thankful I am to have voted for the most sane one. Will vote for him again too.
I think he could be one of the best presidents eva, if it wasn't for the childlike stupidity coming from the right. The hypocrisy from the right is the worst of its' kind.
The lying, the tactics, the inequality, the superiority complexes, the hate baiting all in the name of their god.
The money hording, favoritism, modeling themselves after dictators philosophy, disregard for actual Constitutional rights, finger pointing, crying, name calling, did I mention outright lying...
I am not sorry I voted for Obama.
say it again!!! preach it sister!!!! the truth in one short paragraph! I love it!
sandra, sandra, sandra. You poor misguided child. B.O. will go down in history as one of the worst President's ever. What has he accomplished! Are those 300,000 GREEN jobs doing well? Please give me a definition of a GREEN job. How about all those SAVED jobs. How do they know thhey saved a job. There are no statistics to figure that or GREEN.
"The lying, the tactics, the inequality, the superiority complexes, the hate baiting all in the name of their god." You must be kidding. I am a Centrist, and I firmly disagree with that statement. I'm also NOT a Christian.
" The money hording, favoritism, modeling themselves after dictators philosophy, disregard for actual Constitutional rights, finger pointing, crying, name calling, did I mention outright lying..." Do you speak in of the Democrat's by mistake?
You are clearly the poor misguided one Harvey. She is dead on. Bush has already gone down as one of the worst Presidents in history, we don't even need more to compare him to. You sad sad misguided little man. I feel sorry for you and those like you who have no clue. And I fear for my country the more sheeple the Republican Foxes get to, the worse this country will become (not a coincidence its Fox after the sheeple is it?)
I am proud I voted for him! And I will vote for him again!
Not sorry I voted for Obama.
And I'd just like to talk about this tax increase for a minute. If I recall, the proposed increase is on couples who make more than $250,000 a year and individuals who make more than $200,000 a year. I don't know very many people who make that much a year...this is an increase on the rather wealthy, not your average Joe.
Yeah, that's the really dumb thing about this.
I talk to people who are barely above the poverty level and, because of Fox News, they are worried about their taxes!
I've talked to people in their final weeks of unemployment who say the same ridiculous things.
But I also here it from the spoiled suburbanite driving her gas-guzzling SUV while she ferries her spoiled brat offspring to yet another sports event while she goes off on her $600 daily shopping spree. That kind is usually the ones complaining about "welfare queens" and calling for "illegal aliens" to be thrown in jail. Of course she forgets that the invisible people who clean her mansion every week are sometimes "illegals", and of course she pays all of the "under the table". Her husband has his own business and asks customers to pay in cash - and both of them scream bloody murder when there is any talk of raising taxes.
And finally the poor guy in the middle. He's honest, but he believes everything Fox News tells him so he's against everything they are. He loves Glenn Beck or he's a Rush Ditto Head. He'd never even think of cheating on his taxes, but he is worried about losing his job. Fox tells him that's the darn liberals fault because of NAFTA and other things he doesn't understand and he knows he's supposed to hate the commies and the ACLU but sometimes he isn't sure why.
Meanwhile, the rich GOP folks keep laughing at all of them.
Wow, you have real issues with FOX don't you?
Just for the record, I'm not a suburbanite, I live in rural America so I guess that makes me one of those "just above the poverty level" folks you speak of. I don't drive a gas-guzzling SUV, it's a pick-up. What kind of "green" automobile do you drive?
My "spoiled brat offspring" consist of one daughter who works full time, goes to school in the evenings to increase her ability to, dare I say, earn more money and take better care of her family. Oh yes, and her husband works full time too.
One son, who just returned from a year in Afghanistan where he was stationed in one of the most hostile zones in that country fighting against those who would love to see this country destroyed.
And my youngest daughter who is struggling to get buy, find a good paying job and make a life for herself. Oh yes, this one is the "welfare queen" who is beyond embarrassed when she has to pull out her EFT card to pay for her groceries, and lives for the day she can take the card back and say, "Thanks for the help, but I'm able to stand on my own two feet now,"
$600.00 daily shopping trips? Um, what planet are you from? My husband is an educator, and I work in the utilities industry. If you could show me where he could get one of those $64,000 a year teaching jobs I would really appreciate it.
And the "illegals?" Yep I see them EVERY DAY, they are the ones who work in the chicken plants that process your McNuggets. They come to our offices and want the power turned on and they use forged, stolen and doctored identification to do so. The crime rate has nearly doubled in this area since the influx of these south of the border amigos, and quite frankly I don't feel the least bit ashamed of wanting them to go back home. But if you are extending an invitation for them to move to your home town, I’ll gladly give them your address.
PC- you said it clearly,succinctly,exactly!
i think i got you mixed up in an earlier post on this topic. if i did you'll see it( disregard)
Well actually, from what I was reading. The increase is still a tax cut for the wealthy. As it is now with the Bush Cuts, the considerably wealthy pay the same amount 33-35% which is what the middle income pays as well.
The difference is that the wealthy get benefits, what my tax preparing friend refers to AMT, or we would know this better as itemized reductions.
With that, they are able to effective reduce all the amount they owe in taxes through deductions up to 39.4 (apx.) which was the Clinton tax rate for the wealthy...
With Clinton, the tax bracket for the rich (over 200,000 single, 250,000 married) was 36-39.4%. When Bush cuts were in effect, the rich were still able to reduce their taxes up to 39.4%, which would, if they had enough money to hire a really good tax preparer, profit off the government.
With Obama's proposal, he will let the tax cuts expire so that they are paying their dues the, 35-39.4%. Obama doesn't have to do anything and it still only applies to those making over 200,000 single and 250,000 married, however...
He is reducing the amount of deductions they can claim up to 28% (something or other) and if they hire really good tax prepares they can still effectively only pay 11% (at most) on taxes.
I would still rather there be a flat tax % rate all the way across the board no matter what you make and would prefer nothing more than 20% but hey. The rich would still complain it is too much and want more for less.
With Obama, just to be fair, to the rest of us he is going to double the amount you get back for a child etc. He also changed the poverty level so that people who don't have to file isn't people who make less than 6,000 a year but something like 17,000 a year.
All in all, I believe it is a good plan but the Republican's seem against this because well... IDK. They wont be able to profit off the government and not pay their taxes.
Also, when I hear the wealthy make the largest charitable donations, I cannot help but think. If charity is something that you do because that is what your heart says is good but you get to write it off at the end of the year, essentially it means that the government makes those charitably donations.
But the Republican's want you to believe that they are these do gooders when really, they are just abusing the government and the rest of us can look at the deficit and say, "Oh, I see now why the Bush tax cuts didn't work. But let's not forget the trillions of dollars that Bush borrowed from China to make those cuts possible for the rich.
nlo, There is so much more coming, wait and see. H
I have to impose a ban on myself again :-)
I'm on the edge of saying something really nasty.. see y'all when I have forgotten about it.
Oh, so you're about to star calling people that don't agree with you racist? That's SOP for the left isn't it? That's fine we're used to it.
How bad can it be coming from a guy with that smile and a rainbow hat? heehee
I just don't want to be nasty. I understand we all want the same thing - a safe, healthy world where we can live in peace and enjoy a little happiness. I just think that conservatives are so very wrong and that many are being manipulated by people who do not have their interests at heart. Others are just greedy and heartless and not very bright - it is those people who make me angry, and I just do not want to lash out at anyone here because of them.
So it is best I just say nothing until I can be less emotional. Besides, I have poker tonite and will have to listen to conservatives bashing Obama all night - but most of them aren't very good players, so it is worth letting them rant while I take their money :-)
Yes we all want the same thing, the difference between conservatives and liberals is liberals want the government to provide for their happiness, and conservatives just want to be left alone to find it for themselves.
I really get tired of hearing this. Prove it or stop saying it.
Among the people I personally know, each and every one who is currently receiving government money (social security, medicare, or disability) are conservatives; some are Tea Party members. Each and every liberal that I personally know is working or is a stay-at-home spouse of another who is working.
I know that's just anecdotal evidence, but if you're going to assert that liberals want the government to provide for their own happiness, show me the evidence. It is my experience that liberals want to make sure that those who cannot take care of themselves are taken care of; that is not the same as expecting the government to provide for their happiness.
Do you need to look further than the posts in this forum? Look at who created all those programs, it wasn't done by conservatives. The proof is as plain as the nos on your face.
Save the Economy by Ending Welfare to Republicans
Democratic strategist Paul Begala, in a piece for CNN, offers a suggestion that if taken to its logical conclusion might actually save the American economy: We should stop giving away money to the people–generally Republicans–who say we should stop giving away money.
Begala specifically addresses Mark Sanford, a vocal critic of the economic stimulus plan despite the fact that he is the governor South Carolina, a state that has been “a ward of the federal goverment” probably since slavery ended there. The nonprofit Tax Foundation estimates that South Carolina takes in $1.35 for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. And though we might quibble about the exact numbers, there is no doubt that the states that are most heavily Republican tend to suck in money–or, as some conservatives might term it, to engage in theft–from more progressive states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back.
Besides South Carolina, the welfare queens include the red or usually red states of Alaska (what, you let Sarah Palin convince you that the oil up there made that state self-reliant–ha!), Arizona (maybe John McCain should pay more taxes on his houses), Alabama, Arkansas, both Dakotas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
There also are a few Democratic states on the list, but then Democrats almost all favored the stimulus plan. It is true that the numbers are a few years old, so some of those states may now be paying their own way–but with the way the economy has slammed the states, it’s more likely that they’ve become bigger bums than they were before. On the other hand, a minority of states–including Barack Obama’s Illinois, Joe Biden’s Delaware, New York and California–are subsidizing those conservative deadbeats elsewhere.
Since conservative critics think we should stop spending, the solution is obvious: Let’s stop giving them our money. The bank bailout was an obvious mistake, since most bankers are Republicans. But we should also stop giving subsidies to farmers, most of whom seem to be welfare-opposing conservatives. And it should be safe to assume that anyone who voted for Republican (or for Democrats who oppose the stimulus bill) automatically wants to forgo any stimulus benefits.
Fine! I'm all for that! And if you think that's fair then you won't mind having all democrats pay more in taxes since they think the government should have more of our money they shouldn't mind contributing!
Now if only you can get guys like charlie rangle and tim githhner to pay up our deficit problem might be solved! heehee
I fully support making sure everyone pays their fair share, regardless of political affiliation.
Great! I'll go a step further I fully support eliminating the IRS and implementing a VAT tax and forcing the government to balance the budget by law as well as implementing term limits across the board.
Don't you think a VAT tax will make things worse? Look at what happened when we allowed an income tax. It wasn't long before we had Social Security and, a bit later, Medicare/Medicaid. What kind of trouble do you think they'll get up to if we allow then a VAT tax? Consider that the size economy is about 14 trillion dollars. A VAT tax of about 7% is a lot of funding for pork barrel projects.
If we really want to change things, we need to starve the government of tax money. The government today is like a binge eater. The last thing you want to give a binge eater is more food.
I concur. Maybe we can petition the government for an excise tax. One flat % rate all the way across. No special deductions whatsoever.
Let's take away all tax benefits and just let us keep our money. I say 15%. Is 15% fair? I say yes.
I know for myself that I could go without the child 'write offs' at the end of the year to keep it when I need it.
I know I wouldn't worry so much about if we are going to owe because we claimed too many during the year just to make ends meet.
It is fair through and through. I know that charity would once again be real charity. We could use our money to stimulate the economy every month not just once a year.
I know we could do better at affording our rent and homes and buy foods that are better for us to eat.
Let's tell Obama this is what we want. One fair tax all the way through. No favorites, no benies, no special interest.
That is a sensible plan. I'd argue for 10%, but heck, I'm surprised to see you argue for a flat tax and not continue with this progressive tax nonsense we currently have.
I think we should talk about this. What if we were also able to select every year what we would like to give our money to as well.
Like a check list with all the things that government is in charge of. So one year you feel inspired to support public education. You can select what percent of your tax money goes to what program.
Say we need to get the deficit down but we also need to protect public jobs like teachers, firefighters and law enforcement.
We say, okay 5% will go directly to the deficit and then we get to select what percent of the remaining % will go to what.
Say you got war on the table. I hate war and I hate supporting it with tax money. So I say I want 0% to go to that but I do support teachers, I want 5% to go to that, etc.
Then perhaps we don't have to pay for things we don't like besides the deficit.
The only argument I have against what you propose is that we already do it every day without giving money to the government. There are people who choose to spend money on private schools and those schools provide salaries for teachers. I'd also argue, but you may not agree with me, that we could privatize fire and police protection as well. It's a bit of an intellectual leap, but when you consider that, on average, private schools do a better job of educating kids than public schools, you should also see a better quality of fire and, especially, police protection.
Still as a sort of "test case" in giving people choice about where their tax money goes, I find that idea intriguing. Have you considered the impact that would have on Congress being able to function? If too many people rejected funding something Congress has passed, like the healthcare bill for example, that could impact Congress' ability to get stuff done. On the other hand, that would create another check and balance against runaway government, so that's another intriguing idea.
I especially like the anti-war proviso. I doubt many people would be in favor of using their tax money for war, but one weakness I see is that money would be set aside in a sort of "pool" to start waging a war, then in a "better to ask forgiveness than get permission" moment, people are told to contribute to the war or they're leaving the troops out on a limb to die. In effect what's to keep the government from using the welfare of the troops against us?
All in all a very thought provoking idea. I still think it would make a better transition phase from total government to limited government, and I still have some concerns about mob rule, but overall a very sensible compromise.
About the first part. People do give money to private schools. The problem with that most people cannot afford private schools which is why we have public education and much of the reason we have government intervention so that those things such as education can be for everyone because it is something that we do need and is a right.
I had also thought about the 'war' scenario in the same sense you presented but, we could decide whether or not we find the 'war' worth fighting. Usually we do not but if there really was a war worth fighting I know that people would fund it, only if it was for the right reasons.
I think we could slowly chip away and the government could get a better idea, a more accurate idea about what 'we' really want by what we say we will pay for individually.
I think it is an idea worth blogging about to see if it could even be considered. The last thing I ever thought I would get was at least a willingness to get a reasonable compromise between two differing sides.
Of course if the idea doesn't take footing, then all we did was talk reasonably from two different sides of the table. Drop it off at the next Tea Party and see if anyone would be willing to put it on the table.
You've got the public/private school thing a bit mixed up. The reason private schools are so expensive is because we have public schools. It's a well known phenomenon in economics that when you subsidize something you cause costs to go up. Look at the increasing cost of colleges. The Federal Financial Aid Program is one of the major cost drivers of that. Likewise Medicare/Medciad is a cost driver for healthcare. Those aren't the only cost drivers, but they're the biggest.
If you look back at the beginnings of the public school system in this country, there wasn't really much of a difference between education rates in public and private schools until 1900 when states began passing compulsory attendance laws.
About the only time I can see us fighting a "just" war is one that protects the territorial integrity of the US.
I may have to do some thinking about this idea. It would, I think, provide useful data for which system works better; a top down system like the Progressives want and a bottom up system like the Tea Party wants. The biggest obstacle isn't going to be the Tea Party, I think, but rather the Progressives. They are the ones who are True Believers and aren't willing to change their ideas for anything.
I for one, appreciate the reach across the aisle, so to speak.
I like the idea of a flat tax. It seems simple and fair.
You don't seem to understand lady luv. The "republicans" have worked their way into actually taking, yes profiting off the government.
Those incredibly rich people you seem to support who are causing this mess are 'taking' money from the government at your expense. They are putting your tax money directly into their pockets.
Why do you think they are rallying so hard against it even when they still get a tax break, just a smaller one then they were currently getting? Because they wont be able to 'take' money from the people anymore.
They wont be able to right off all their taxes and then some. The Bush tax cut expiration will not effect you! It effects the greedy scammers who are taking your money out of the government.
Everyone in government is taking our money! I'd like to know when did government become a career?
Everyone that goes into government comes out with a pension and medical benefits for life. They get paid more then people in the private sector. Criminals aren't allowed to profit from their crimes by writing books or making movies, but politicians do, and they make money on speaking tours too! All brought to you by the American taxpayer!
Please don't tell me that only republicans are profiting, that's just BS!
I'll tell you what, elect me president and I won't take a salary, I'll make my money after I've finished my term.
Still have your eyes closed I see. Open them up to really look at what is going on. I wont say it is only Republicans, but they are the notorious ones.
Sure, if you were president you wouldn't take a salary. What do you suppose you would do instead? Starve? Take hand outs? Not do your job?
Yes, I see you have it all figured out.
I actually understand the debate about government and the nonesense that others are saying about liberals and conservatives about bureaucrats and big government.
The intentions of liberals is NOT to take away the rights of legitimate Conservatives who hold on to their personal values NOR the rights for others to preserve theirs as well.
In the muddied waters of what the Conservative Republican's and Libertarians are presenting is deceptive and they do not actually share a legitimate Conservative/Republican interest but they will make you think that they do.
It is a problem. While the liberals are saying you better watch your back about what you think the Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians are actually supporting because their interest is not with 'you' and most of the people who they have deceived into supporting them.
Take for instance Sharron Angle. Just about a month ago she said she wanted to get rid of the entire institution or public education. When she finally got enough money, she changed it to, "she is the biggest supporter of public education."
How about big corporations? They say they 'hate' big corporations but take the money proudly from big corporations and truth the told, Fox is run by some of the biggest corporations in the world.
Take big oil they said they 'hate', and the idea that 'Climate Change' is not true... Who is funding the propaganda? Who else, but Koch industries who is one of the biggest polluters in the world and they make their money selling products like Brawny Paper Towels and Dixie Cups but they are also one of the biggest oil supporters in the world.
Of course they want to tell you that Climate Change is a myth so they don't lose money. They don't actually care about your health so instead...
They support big pharmaceutical companies that charge you an arm and a leg to get the medicine you need to help you sustain your life a little bit longer because they already know what their actions are doing to your health but they don't want to lose money but only want to make more at your expense.
Then we can move to even bigger corporations like IDK 'corn' or Monsanto and the Republican/FOX involvement with those companies such as Foster Farms and Tyson Chicken.
Monsanto weasels their way into the having 'rights' to a strain of corn that was genetically modified that cross bred with organic corn which they then put small corn farmers out of business by virtue of 'copyright' (not kidding) and they supply nearly "all" the corn produced world wide.
They take this corn and feed it to the chickens that Foster Farms or Tyson and BPI (? something like this) along with growth hormones (steroids) which kill many of the chickens they use...
Because they want less government oversight, they get away with leaving those dead chickens on their conveyor belts on on the chicken coups spreading diseases like salmonella. In current news the effect is a massive recall on eggs that all came from one place.
Now what do you do? Now we don't have eggs. Because they know about the effects of their practices, they decided to wash the chickens that we consume in ammonia. Yes ammonia, to sterilize those chickens. The same chickens that are growing faster than their internal organs can keep up with so they walk around with broken legs, crying indeed, crying because even though a chicken is just a chicken, they are well aware of what their future looks like.
Now take cows. They corn feed cows. Cows eat grass and their bodies are made to eat grass but the corn is cheaper. The same thing happens to them. They reduce government oversight and we end up getting sick because of it.
So the you have IDK huge corporations like FOX, who fires their employees if they refuse to lie to their viewers, noting of course that what these other mentioned corporations are doing to us has been proven to cause cancer and, well kill us.
Yet their profits were worth more than the truth and you/us end up paying not only with our pockets but with our lives. And they wont tell you who supported all of this while in the White House because it would defeat them on their own lies. AKA Bush and other very high ups in the Republican chain.
And I don't say these things because it is a game. But, like so many liberals who are generally beat up by the Conservative Republican groups are trying to tell you that, "THEY are not what you think."
They are using you.
I could also continue on with the hypocrisy by other means like IDK, the "muslim hating" fear crap they are telling you about... Well you should know that when you turn on FOX news, you are not only supporting the biggest... I mean ultimately the biggest media corporations in the world and his best bud... a Saudi Arabian Prince who owns 7% of news corp. along with large media outlets around the world including yes, Disney Land!
Would you like to know more? We have plenty more that you can verify and check out yourself, however. If the only news source you say you can trust is FOX news and the only reps. you will trust are the same ones that are killing you, me and the world, our educations system, social security, health etc... Then we all lose because pride became more important then life itself.
sandra, You must have forgotten Pelosi's bill that she pushed through. Samoa doesn't pay taxes on goods shippd to the US. Who is a top stock-holder in Dole; why it's her husband. Comprendo?
You go ahead and think B.O. cares about you. Can you see through the clouds? H
Sandra everything you are saying is true,but the reality of the situation is the majority of the conservatives would rather believe the lies that are fed to them by fox and palin and the rest of the republican puppet-masters you would think after the complete failure of republican policies over the last few years people would finally be able to see the truth. Even if you get your point across they are only going to deflect and redirect to another arguement...they do not have the answer to the problems that America is facing right now they only have arguements and lies....twenty years from now history will judge them all as fools.
What an attack devoid of understanding. I am sorry to burst your bubble but I envision nothing of the sort. I personally think that our current system of government is thoroughly corrupt but there isn't a safe party only the least of all evils from a certain point of view.
If you want to be a state worker there is no one here who would stop you. I am told they get paid very well. Otherwise there are some real other considerations that have to be honestly observed.
Companies aren't priests doling out money to amuse themselves any more then politicians do of any party. Power can make evil seem economically necessary in business. The question remains, what are you and I going to do about it?
Notice I said do not talk. If there is a violation of conscience in business I figure they should answer to the law for that as much as any politician at any level should. The people should be in charge of government not the other way around.
@miss_jkim That is a very eloquently stated opinion. It would also make an excellent hub.
You are right Pcunix, all those helpless, mindless automatons out there who are part of the horrible Tea Party and its contributors are evil and must be stopped? How do you propose we go about it? I am game.
I think so Lady but I don't happen to have their play book on me. Pcunix seems to be an expert in this area and she is schooling me in liberalism so you might want to ask her. (unless that is what you were doing)
I am very definitely not a "her". I am married to a "her", and admire that sex greatly, but I am not and never have been a "her" :-)
That is an interesting bit of research Sandra, thanks for sharing.
There's an excellent piece in The Nation August 30/September 6 by Eric Alterman entitled "Kabuki Democracy" in which he analyzes the successes and failures of the Obama administration and the issues in our current democratic system of government. Alterman's piece is followed by commentary by Michael Kazin, Norman Ornstein, Salim Muwakkil, Theda Skocpol, Chris Bowers and Barbara Ehrenreich.
Do you EVER read anything with an opposing view?
lady, No he doesn't, but I have sensed a lightening up on B.O. H
Yes, I do. I read a wide variety of publications. And, of course, I read a lot of comments containing libertarian, Teatard and GOP views here in HubPages, including yours which I don't find very edifying.
Ralph, If they had asked Harvey Stelman to comment, I would read it. H
Back to the OP.
Am I sorry I voted for Obama?
1. I would have preferred to vote for Hillary Clinton.
2. Given the choice between Obama and McCain/Palin there was, basically no choice. There was a time when I liked/respected McCain. Had he been willing to cross the aisle and be Kerry's running mate in 2004 America might possibly be a different place today.
Palin -- A spiteful scorpion. I bet McCain rues the day he picked her. Wonder if those stab wounds in his back have healed yet.
I think Obama has done an excellent job of repairing the international reputation that suffered so greatly under Bush.
He has made awesome appointments to the Supreme Court.
He has made some progress toward implementing healthcare for more Americans.
Once and for all, he cannot be blamed for the global recession.
If anyone -- anywhere -- had a quick fix solution, it would have been implemented by now.
So if you -- or anyone you know -- are receiving unemployment benefits, HUD loan modification or any other government aid to get you through, be grateful and stop friggin' complaining. Oh yes, it might also help to stop watching Fox News, but I recognize that is your right, as an Am-ur-i-cen.
You know--you just reminded me of something mom.....
I remember when all the conservs used to bleat: "You should be grateful to live here!! People come from all over the world to live here!!! You're such an ingrate!!!"
NOW....LOOK AT THEM !!!!
How the worm turns when it's YOU in the bottle of tequila, eh?
Not so nice a country when Obama is in charge huh? Now you kind of don't like America huh?
Cause now you can insult the president, call him names, doubt his citizenship, make fun of his heritage, discount everything he does or says. Show 0 respect for him or anyone who voted for him.
And just 18 wee months ago, you would have labeled yourselves un-American traitors!
How funny life is.
So I say to you: (how do you write that sound when you do the razzberry thing with your tongue?)
Or how's this: nanee nanee booboo
Or: don't name it if you can't claim it. Can you diss the president and be a good American or not?
What are you going to do when a majority of American's reject your Anointed One? Obama is well on his way to being a one term President like Jimmy Carter.
That is not the question I asked.....can you be a good American and disrespect the president???
Apparently you can, seeing how you lefties treated the last President. At least I'm consistent. Bush was a failure as a president. Then again so was Bill Clinton, but there you go.
led, He will be hated for trying to destroy the USA. H
love, Conservatives and Centrist's love living here. The new US isn't going to be the same. H
The "nonsense" that white republicans are down-trodden and deserve to march on MLK's hallowed day!
The "nonsense" that showing the president with a bone through his nose is not racist.
The "nonsense" of calling Obama racist!
The "nonsense" that everybody is stupid but you.
The "nonsense" that you hate repubs as well as dems.
The "nonsense" that the rich pay too much in taxes!
The "nonsense" that generational Americans have to carry ID to walk to the corner store.
The "nonsense" that Palin, Bachmann and Armey are anti-gvt types who did it all on their own.
The "nonsense" that you can carry assault rifles to a parade and not be seen as threatening.
The "nonsense" that white people have more rights than any one of color....
Would you REALLY allow a black tea-party? A Mexican one? A Native American one? A Muslim one?
HA!!! You'd be screaming for the police to "stop the terrorists!!!!"
love, You mean like Bush made to look like Hitler? H
Obama is made to look like Hitler too. But being made to look like a vodoo witch doctor with a bone through his nose is insulting him for being African American. It is racist. As is having a sign with the N word on it. As is calling the Black Panthers terrorizing people, yet saying nothing about white people mad at Muslims...who actually committ violence on them.
The Nazis are still alive...Muslims are the new Jew.
love, What planet do you lve on? I hear URANUS is lovely this time of year. H
That is my planet!! How did you know? It's beautiful too...turquois green/blue. Cool. Detached... Serene....just LOVE Uranus!
And surely you heard of the muslim cab driver who had his throat cut for being muslim? Surely you heard about that drunk urinating in the mosque? Come now....when Larry David pissed on Christ, that's all you heard for weeks!
what is going on here? where is weholdthesetruths comment that I was responding to??
Let me get this straight....people who agree with you have wisdom. People who disagree lack understanding?
well I'll be goll-darned.
So THAT'S how it works!!!
Love, Do you really know what you say? H
Harvey - She sure as hell does, man you just don't like it!! LOL You really hate the truth don't you? What Plant are YOU Living on?
Although I disagree with a whole lot of hooey here, I love living in a place where it is okay to have you all make your statements.
I can't think of another place on earth that I would rather be. I love it here. I can spout my own philosophy, shout my own opinions, and do whatever I want. What is wrong with that? I have no fear of going to the city, or walking on the streets, I have a job, I can pay my bills and I can write about whatever I want without fearing.
We have a progressive, thoughtful, well spoken, intelligent president. I think that is pretty neat.
Why do some people want to try to prove that Obama was not born in the US? I have known people like this, they wore tin foil hats, and would not talk out in the open. They were wrong. The thing is, they thought they were right, something was going on that prevented them from recognizing the facts.
The same holds true with some of these naysayers. But I don't really care, I just look at the freedoms they have and thank the all mighty that it is us that have it and that we fight to keep it.
Thoughtful? This was the guy that after his friend was arrested for arguing with the police said the police acted stupidly, even though he (Obama) didn't have any of the facts. That doesn't sound like a thoughtful man to me. A thoughtful man would have said something like "The matter is under investigation and the truth of the matter will come out at the conclusion of the investigation". That is thoughtful.
This is also the man who threw down the gauntlet at his Republican adversaries during the healthcare debate and stated that he would go ahead without bipartisan support for his bill and that if his opponents disagreed then "that's what elections are for". From the way things look now, his party is going to lose big in November. Thoughtful people take the feelings and beliefs of their constitutients in mind when they make decisions. With a 60% disapproval rating on that bill alone, this President has not exactly shown any kind of thoughtfulness in his legislative agenda.
There is no thought in GOP propaganda...it is all hate and fear.
love, And whaaat research led you to that statement? H
Obama wants to kill your gramma, he pals around with terrorists, he wasn't born here, he hates America, he hates white people, he belongs to the Black Liberation Church, he's a muslim, the Dempocrats are all socialists or communitsts, with an agenda to destroy America......I've done a thorough research and I conclude this is all CRAP!! Aimed at scaring people into voting for Repub II, the Nightmare.
Repub II--the Sequel. Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Thats what Republicans do Love. thats how they led us into Iraq. Oh no Orange terrorist alert today, RED RED terrorist alert, yellow good day, oh no Orange again...until people were so damn frightened they would have bombed their own mothers. It was playing with the sheeple so their nerves were on edge and they were desperate to do something to someone to prove America was not weak. Wait...50 years from now we will be worse than weak. We will no longer be a super power. We have become to superficial and ridiculous to hold that status. We hold basketball players and other jocks up as super-heros and have homeless vets. We are about as screwed up a country as they come. We have lost sight of so much we deserve to lose our status. We are a young and stupid country.
Steve,What you say is wonderful, but those with Obama want to change it. H
Good night all, and think about better days, but first a depression. H
Night Harvey. There is a spot of good news. Consumer debt is down and savings are up. Two necessary prerequisites to a recovery. Obama and his cronies can still screw that up though. I hope to God the tax cuts get extended. Letting those lapse really will kill any kind of recovery for years.
Lovesmychris, my statement was about conservatives vs. liberals - not about rich vs. poor.
This is from ABC News, which isn't exactly a right-wing media outlet:
There was also a piece in the NY Times that said the same thing. And I thought it was the liberals who care so much for their fellow man?? Interestingly, liberals tend to make more money, on the average, than conservatives, but conservatives still donate more money, more time, and more blood.
well then you have to distinguish between conservatives and republicans.....
Because all I heard was rah rah rah for the war, yet not many young repubs jumping up to join the fray....like say Cheney did in Vietnam. All bluster and bravado...for someone else's kids.
and I can see the conservatives you mean....the Reagan conservatives vs the limousine liberals. I would agree those conservs there are more caring...because the limo's are a snotty bunch! generally speaking.
but as a political philosophy....lib beat conserv hands down IMO.
Helping your fellow man and making sure no one has to suffer is more important than having a big bank account. IMO
and THIS country has more than enough to help the whole friggin world!! It's just concentrated in SO FEW hands. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and on up!!!
Charity is specific, also. You get to help missionaries sell their religion to hungry children, for example. Pushing religion is what drives a lot of conservative "charity".
But even when it's not that, you still get to pick and choose. For example, we give to the ACLU, Citizens United for Separation of Church and State and two organizations that help disabled veterans. The vets get most of our charity- I'm not a vet, but I think it is disgusting what often happens to those who were damaged in war.
The point is that you can't depend on charity. How many people gave money to fight AIDS when it was seen as a disease of homosexuals? I did, but you can bet your bippy most conservatives didn't.
How many right wingers, happy to poor their money into missionary work, would be willing to have their supposed charity NOT be directed? Probably not a one - which is why it really is not charity at all.
Nope, P, even when church donations are excluded, conservatives still give a larger percentage of their money to secular causes!
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that it's not charity if we get to choose where our money goes?? And BTW, I'm not saying charities should replace government programs. I think government programs are necessary, although some are abused.
It's only charity if he agrees with the cause you're giving to. Typical liberal bias.
It is NOT charity if you are supporting the cause because of some agenda you have.
Funding missionaries isn't charity, for example.
I doubt very much that people getting services from missionary workers really care about all that. All they care about is getting basic needs met. Ever hear of a guy named Abraham Maslow?
By the way, giving to religious charity is still a choice. If you don't like the aims of the charity, don't give. Given the success of religious backed charities, it would seem a majority of your fellow citizens don't agree with you, again. Ever get tired of being in the minority all the time? Could by why you're so angry all the time.
It's not whether or not they care, my point is that there is an ulterior motive and that accounts for WHY there is so much given.
And we are not just talking about direct church donations. A LOT of conservative giving is tied to religious causes.
I don't give to religious charities, but it doesn't make me angry that you or anyone else gives.
There is no anger here, I'm just explaining WHY conservative giving is higher. It is largely motivated by religious agenda.
Religious liberals give for the same reasons, but more liberals are not religious.
Causes THEY want to support. And still very often tied to religious agendas even if that isn't immediately vissble.
Rather than giving tax money that we ALL get to decide on its application, they want to support their pet projects.
Note that hey get a tax deduction too..
Paying taxes would be true charity because you don't control what it is for. Everything else is self interest.
Besides, most conservatives probably have more to feel guilty about :-)
(not entirely serious in that last sentence, so don't go crazy over it)
I don't go crazy over forum posts. lol
I still don't get you. I'll give you a personal example: When I go to DFACS and tell them I want to provide clothing and shoes to their poorest family, and I do so, how is that promoting a personal agenda? How can that possibly be construed as a bad thing??
P, you know that ALL government programs are abused by some people. I'm not saying that because of that, we should do away with all government programs. I've personally known people who abuse SSDI, Welfare, and even food stamps. We used to have employees who would trade their food stamps for drugs instead of buying food for their kids.
I don't know what DFACS is or why you are giving.
Why do I give to veteran organizations? I'm not a vet and I have none in my family. My gifts have no motive and possibly yours do not either but a LOT of conservative giving is driven by religion.
Abuse? Of course their are cheaters. I'll put up with a small amount of that as long as the people who really need help get it. I don't expect any system to be perfect. Yes, I want the cheaters caught i possible, but there will always be waste and corruption. I can live with it - it goes with the territory.
Division of Family and Children Services.
And I agree with you there. DFACS = Department of Family and Children Services. I donate because I have compassion for my fellow man and for animals, and in most ways, I'm a conservative-moderate. I do have a few liberal tendencies, however. I hate war, am against capital punishment, and am very tolerant of others. Although not ALL liberals practice tolerance. lol
I wouldn't want to eliminate charities either, though I bet if we took away the tax deduction, conservative gifting would plunge.
But yes: it's not charity if you are pushing a religious agenda. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's the biggy.
What government program is abused?
All of them. Unemployment insurance for one:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit … 41724.html
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 … d-epidemic
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_1584 … ck_check=1
(That is a particularly interesting look at liberal doublethink. The article states that welfare recipients withdrew 1.8 million dollars from casino ATMs, yet calls the allegations that welfare recipients are gambling with welfare money "unsubstantiated". And people wonder why I hate liberal ideology.)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … wD9HRMPH01
Any time you administer something as large as the US government, you're going to get massive waste and fraud. Only a liberal or insane person would believe otherwise, but I had no need to say it twice.
Are you calling me insane?
That would violate forum rules, wouldn't it?
As I said in my other post, there is always waste and fraud. That doesn't mean we should abandon very needed programs. It may mean that we need to allocate more money to fraud prevention, but the absolute wrong thing to do is cut the programs.
We do allocate money to fraud prevention and it doesn't work. Fraud has increased along with the size of these entitlement programs. You're throwing good money after bad if you increase the fraud budget. Not to mention that any money that goes to fraud prevention doesn't go to the purported cause of the government program.
If there is one thing I miss about New England it's the fall weather. Still it's unseasonably cool here in this part of the Midwest, but I'm not complaining.
Some amount is unavoidable. It is overhead, like office worjers who forget to turn off their lights.
Some can be stopped by simple policy change. Some can't.
What makes you think private programs would not have fraud? i would think thry might have more.
I would venture to say that ALL programs have at least a little fraud involved.
Or you can decentralize the entire system. Decentralized systems are much less prone to graft and corruption. I'm going to give a religious example, so try not to have a hemorrhage.
A friend of mine is a pastor of a Pentecostal church, of all things. We were talking charity one day and he discussed that he was a steward of his congregant's donations. He talked about the (minority) of people who try to get money for booze or drugs. In fact, there is a sort of unofficial group that discusses the frequent fliers, people who hit one church after another for charity, and those that try to get money for booze and drugs. In this way fraud is eliminated.
The only reason this works is because the churches and pastors are members of the community and they know the "lay of the land" best. No government organization, local, state or federal can match this sort of knowledge. Which is why there will always be corruption.
You also don't consider the fact that the more money you're talking about, the greater the fraud. So if you choose to give more to the food stamp program, you will ensure that there will be more fraud.
Decentralization,the conservative mantra. Also known as "local rule", which translates to "We will decide if we want to discriminate".
Larger systems with the same percentage of fraud are equal to the fraud experienced in smaller systems that add up to the same amount, but small, local systems are much easier places to hide corruption abd discrimination.
I''ll take centralized control or at least strong central oversight. I don't trust the local yokels.
That's simply because you don't care about the process. Centralization has always led to evil. Do you think the gulag system or Holocaust would ever really have gotten started without centralization? Those are extreme examples, to be sure, but lend weight to the argument that centralized systems are not optimal for a fair and balanced society.
You have no idea what you're talking about with larger vs smaller systems. You'd have us believe that larger, more complex systems make it harder to perpetuate fraud? That's insane. Enron got away with it's shenanigans because they were a large company an and hid their crumbing failures behind the complexity of their accounting systems. And they were being overseen by the SEC. Who again, were sleeping on the job.
Are you sure you still believe in centralization?
Do you think lynchings in the South required centralization?
I really wish you would stop calling me insane.
Do you think local police can defend us from terrorism?
Do you think local health departments can prevent epidemics? Do you think local pharnacies can make sure drugs are safe?
Can local militias fight an overseas war?
Can local people protect their citizens from monopolies?
Centralized systems are absolutely necessary.
Racial discrimination is NOT specific to the South!
http://detnews.com/article/20070720/MET … d--unequal
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2 … n_in_.html
Hell, Detroit even had a WALL built!
Very true. My children attended Covington middle school which was a good school, but the faculty was completely lily white, except for one music teacher. And there were no minority students.
Privitize/Consolidate/Make laws that guarentee a monopoly for your friends.
No, I'm not....I'm still proud to be a part of histroy. Its completely niev and stupid to think one person can do so many things in a matter of weeks of being in office. It's hard work running something as big as the US. He isn't a bloody super human. I dont see anyone who complaines about the situations stepping up to take his place....Let the man be. He's doing what he can while still attempting to please everyone. That alone, in any situation isnt the easiest thing in the world...
Hey, LDT, I have to run for a bit, so if you post something and I seem to be ignoring it, it's not because you knocked the air out of my lungs with your logic - it's just that I have to go take care of some customers and stuff so that I have the money to fritter away hours of my life arguing with you.
It's a gorgeous day here in New England - I may go for a walk!
P, I've always wanted to see autumn in New England! Lucky you in a couple of months!
Hey, one last thing I thought of.
I don't report my charitable giving. That's because I don't have enough deductions so I just take the standard deduction.
So how would anyone know I gave anything? And how would you know I'm a liberal - I believe in gun rights, for example, so might give the NRA money. Would that get counted as a conservative donation?
Where do the figures come from, anyway? Maybe liberals don't brag about their giving?
Oh, I see from that ABC link - a Salvation Army bucket.
I'd never give them money. Again - religious giving.
OK, I'm going now, Really :-)
By the way, that ABC link also confirmed the religious angle.
There are so many things wrong with that "study". Walmart? Do you know how many liberals HATE Walmart? Salvation Army? Another right wing oganization detested by many liberals.
And a cash bucket? Those of us who shop at upscale stores often have no cash in our pockets at all, so I am not surprised they failed at Macy's. I seldom have more than $2 and often have nothing but credit cards.
Pc, It's easy to see you don't give. Ever hear of a receipt. H
You seem to not understand what I said. Perhaps you do not know the difference between itemized and standard deduction?
And as usual, you are very wrong. Because my income is down 40%, we did stop giving to the liberal organizations we used to give freely to. We do still give to veterans organizations.
Thanks to a porous border and a fake citizenship papers, I am glad to say i voted for Obama... three times!!
Interesting article about the "grass roots" of the Tea Party
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 … fact_mayer
You mean the teabaggers aren't just a bunch of average Joes who spontaneously and independently decided to "take back" their country?
I know. I was also amazed. It probably isn't true. I bet those Koch people don't even exist.
Ron, Put that in your COLT'S helmut, and ...................................... H
The Koch brothers are among the richest and most insidious individuals in the world.
Yes because there is no way that the New Yorker is going to be biased at all.... (That's sarcasm for ya)
NO SH*T!!! William Koch was acused of abuse by his wife, but she dropped the charges. The cops didn't pursue it either.....I thought that was odd...usually the state will pursue even IF the spouse drops it?
No wind farm, but pollutes the Bahamas....cause he's got a house on Nantucket Sound.
Much money spent to derail the windfarm......
Big oil always wins that way. Pollute and Run.
That's the kid Palin and Beck would produce!!!
(do you know, according to Levi, she called Trigg her "little retarded baby")
THEN got all outraged about the word retard......except when Russssshhhhhhh said it, then it was OK. Negotiable Virtue. Fake boobs. What's next?
Oooooh Oooooh--I know!
Laaaaaadies and gentlemeeeeennnnnn, Our top side-show event, miss Saraaaaaah Paaaalllllllin.
Grand Mistress at the Beckles Circus. Saturday. Be there and be square
I am not sorry I voted for Obama. I do not believe McCain would have done that much better. The problem is Congress. Congress is not ready to make the big and needed changes for this country.
Given the alternative TICKET Obama was the only choice. There was a time I would have considered voting for McCain, but he comported himself shamefully during the campaign.
And picking Palin as his running mate sealed it for me. The idea of her being a heartbeat away from the presidency is ludicrous. Lisa Simpson would make a better VP.
As to personal attacks on posters' education levels, the best one I've received was the suggestion that I ask for a refund of my college tuition. Original!
Not in the least. Those without a job would be without a job if McCain or Paul was President too. They don't know that of course but it feels good to have someone to blame. In reality many people are to blame, including the citizens, but this was all a very long time in coming and Obama has little to do with it. Change takes time, recovery takes time.
Harvey Stelman wrote: “love, You really need to read more.” H
Harvey, are you implying that you are “well read”?
Yeah us Americans are aware of our history. Thanks for playing.
No. I'm sorry that anyone would have to be president at this time and be blamed for these times. We have been on a dangerous financial, political, societal path for a long time.
Instead of encouraging Americans to come together, we have radio blowhards and politicians that spew hate and division, the "us or them" mentality. We do have terrorists in the US, and it's the blowhards mentioned above.
For not being able to walk on water? He's not perfect. But Boehner and McConnell and of course are the ones primarily to blame.
by Harvey Stelman 11 years ago
With the quick falling of The President's poll's, it is evident many have changed their minds. Jump in pro or con.
by formerbronxboy 10 years ago
His polls are constantly down.
by Maria Sol 8 years ago
Complete the phrase: Obama will be (voted out of office/reelected) because _____Provide your best comment or opinion as to why the President will either be reelected or ousted this November.
by dafla 12 years ago
What is this thing with Palin being so shielded from the press? Evidently, they don't want her asked about the investigation into "alleged" wrongdoing in the troopergate scandal. I'm thinking maybe she is the one orchestrating this, because I can't see her going along with...
by hubby7 12 years ago
What does everybody think about John McCain choice of Sarah Pahlin as his Vice Presidential pick?My feeling is that she might be a bit too parochial with too little experience. That my feeling. However, I admit I don't know much about her right now. Does anyone? Perhaps upon learning more about...
by vitaeb 12 years ago
Reasons why not to vote for the McCain/Palin ticketUnless your net income is more than $250,000, why would you vote for McCain?The 3% tax cut for the wealthiest people was voted by the legislature pushed through by the Bush administration. It is due to expire. McCain wants the tax cut to be...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|