jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (82 posts)

I sat with a group of Democrats last night...

  1. habee profile image94
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    when I went to a private club/restaurant that we belong to. All of them voted for Obama, but none are happy with him. One wants Hillary to challenge him in 2012, two said they'd vote dem in 2012 if someone other than BO is running, one is definitely voting Republican in 2012, and two have completely defected from the Democratic party. These two are small business owners. Between them, they own a sporting goods store, a hardware store, a construction business, and a company that makes wooden pallettes. They claim that the Dems are trying to destroy small businesses. Among the complaints made by the other former Obama supporters cited:

    1. broken campaign promises
    2. they see Obama as Bush #3
    3. they don't like his immigration policies
    4. they don't like the health care law
    5. they thought he would govern as a moderate
    6. he's not liberal enough
    7. he's spineless

    As I've said before, Obama can't seem to make anyone happy. If he pleases moderates, he alienates his base. If he pleases the base, he alienates moderates.

    BTW, don't shoot the messenger!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image95
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Wow!  That must have been the entire Obama voting group from your county!  I never realized that many black people were in your club!

      1. habee profile image94
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Most of these were white. One was a college professor I think you know. He's a huge Hil fan. One was Hispanic, and one was Vietnamese. No blacks were there. I wondered at first if their views could be partly attributed to their "Southern-ness," but all of them weren't from the South.

        What was strange to me is that some in the group viewed BO as too liberal, while others said he was too moderate.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image95
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I was joking, of course!  I've never noticed any black people in that club unless they were working in the kitchen!  LOL!

        2. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Pretty typical, I think. Conservatives act like he's the liberallest liberal who ever liberalled, and moderates who lean conservative are probably influenced by that. The actual far left in America considers him a moderate conservative and the European far left considers him far right! Liberals complain about how he's bent over backwards to Republicans trying to compromise; Republicans complain that he's been "my way or the highway" from the start. Etc.

          I think it's important to try to counter the outright lies being spread by certain corners, but politics is so wrapped in personal perception that two people can still look at truthful accounts of exactly the same events and come to completely opposite conclusions.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The plethora of contradictions within this tiny group is indicative of the national problem.  Not liberal or moderate enough.  Spineless, yet strong enough to push through a tough health care policy that they don't like.  Out to destroy small businesses (I can't understand where in the world they get that idea from).

      And these people think Hillary is a better candidate?  Did they support her health care proposals in 1993?

      1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
        JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        well i guess so because rite now she is rated at 62%

    3. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not really understanding your friends understanding.  They say Obama is destroying small business but they give you examples that have nothing to do with business???

    4. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think had he ended the wars, he would have greater support. He made HUGE promises in this regard, repeatedly. He has backtracked, repeatedly. I think he should have avoided the entire Arizona issue. Getting in the middle of that simply darkened the lines that divide us.

      In the end, he seems ok with it. He has an agenda and he appears to be sticking to it. He would rather impose his will on the people, than govern according to the will of the people. Even if this makes him a one term president with an unpopular legacy. Time will tell.

    5. katiem2 profile image59
      katiem2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the helpful report on the political climate of the group you were to dinner with.  Enlightening and interesting.

  2. Shadesbreath profile image84
    Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

    I think the problem is not Obama, but the "base."  All the "bases."  You know, it's no coincidence that "base" has another definition.

    The American people are the problem. Too many base bases. It's all about ME ME ME.  Nobody gives a crap about the country anymore.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree.  It's been said that we get the government we deserve.  I don't think any politician in power can achieve anything approaching a mandate as long as the population remains so confused in its priorities.

    2. rebekahELLE profile image89
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      the media has a lot to do with that. people who listen to that stuff all day, that's what they feed on.

      Obama's approval rating at this time in office among Democrats (81%) is higher than any Democratic president since Kennedy. (74%) He has a higher approval rating along party lines than Bush did at this time in his presidency (66%) according to the most recent Gallup polls. Clinton has a 44% approval rating at this time in office.

      EDIT: I read the bottom chart wrong. Bush's OVERALL rating at this time was 66%.

      1. livewithrichard profile image85
        livewithrichardposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Not sure where you got those approval ratings but everything I see points to less than 45% approval and one poll has him at 39%.  He is favored by dems at 75% - 80% agains any other Democrat candidate.

        Personally I think he's an appeaser and not the person that can complete the job we sent him there to complete.  His first and biggest mistake was pushing a massive health care bill, whether we need it or not, before getting the people back to work with some sort of jobs bill.  The stimulus package he worked on and the one he is working on now will not help put people back to work.

  3. JOE BARNETT profile image61
    JOE BARNETTposted 7 years ago

    "geo. bush saw the lowest approval rating of any modern US president except president nixon who resigned mid-term over watergate"

        "by the time pres. obama was elected his successor his approval rating was 25%"

       "bill clinton ended with a 66% rating while briefly dipping to 41%"
         pres. obama currently holds a 48% rating. he has remained the highest of highs and  if his presidency ended today the highest of lows in polls for any president except for eisenhower and kennedy. republicans hate him i mean rate him at 25%, that's understandable. i think the people that you spoke with were really unaware of what has actually taken place. he is ranked at 88% among democrats so i guess you were sitting with the confused 12%

  4. rebekahELLE profile image89
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    what I'm looking at gives his overall approval at 46%. it went up since the election.  I got it here. http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx

    1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
      JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      that is 48%

      1. rebekahELLE profile image89
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        48%~ that is the most recent week?

        it is going up for various reasons factoring from all sides.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Excellent and unbiased reporting, Habee!
    Next time you go to the club, can you sit with a group of Republicans? Cheers, MM

    1. habee profile image94
      habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, MM! When I go to the club, I "work" the room. We're usually with our best friends - he's an Independent who voted for Obama, and she's a northern liberal Democrat who wanted Hil but voted for Obama. They weren't with us last night. Most of the members of the club are conservative, but I think last night must have been "Democrat Night." lol. The Republicans must have stayed home to watch football.

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    It's impossible to please all the people all the time.

    But it is possible to fulfill your promises. The only real reasons to hate Obama (if you agreed with him in the first place, that is) is because he hasn't delivered.

    I dislike him mostly because he's expanded government. He isn't a bad person (as far as I know), he's just a liberal.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Just curious, do you want no government at all or just a little government? If it's a small government you want, then how small should it be before it's considered a dictatorship, a kingship, or
      communistic?

      1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
        JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        execellent question! let's wait for the answer. . . . crickets.

        . . .  never a plan! only criticism. typical!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ...

          umm... thanks for the vote of confidence....

          I would like to point out that I try to take every challenge to my ideals very seriously -- I'm sure that many on these forums will agree (even those who disagree with me).

          1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
            JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            and there was a plan in there somewhere?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Chaos Theory, by Robert Murphy
              Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
              Anarchy and the Law, Edward P. Stringham
              Practical Anarchy, (can't remember author's name)
              Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block
              Freedom Under Siege, Ron Paul
              End the Fed, Ron Paul
              The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard.

              There you go. That'll probably satisfy you..... if you even bother to read them. A few of them are completely online for free in PDF format, so you have NO excuse!

              Here's a discussion -- that you probably won't bother to read -- that discusses a few failures of arguments against anarchy.
              http://mises.org/daily/1778

              Here's a video discussing Anarchy and how governments can't be limited.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC … re=related

              And, just to give you something short and sweet that will help you "see the light", here's Milton Friedman discussing "greed" and how it generates all that is valuable.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8P … re=related

              1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
                JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                well you've shut me up for a few minutes but ahl be bach

              2. JOE BARNETT profile image61
                JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                and before i go would you be a democratic or republican anarchist?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm an anarchist.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I'm definitely an anarchist. But i've said this numerous times - I'll settle for what is truly written in the Constitution -- gold and silver for money, the tenth amendment being upheld, etc etc.

        Even above the Constitution, I'd much rather have the Articles of Confederation -- the document before "the" constitution.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          As in separate nation/states, like the old Soviet Union?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            the term state was chosen for a reason: these are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. It's a plural term. Each one is a sovereign state that agreed to become somewhat united. The tenth amendment of the constitution, Article 1 of the constitution, and just about every document and chain of events leading up to the Constitution being ratified justifies this claim.

            If I'm not mistaken, Virginia seceded from Britain first. Thus it was, at one point, it's own state. It voluntarily chose to join a loose union of other states near it (Canada was invited).

            I would "settle for the Constitution" because it would finally take the role of government back to what it was supposed to be: States that disagreed were allowed to leave whenever they wanted (this power is not stripped of the states, and thus is preserved in the 10th amendment).

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              This issue was settled in 1865. Maybe you didn't hear.  The world has moved forward; maybe you should too.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image83
                Reality Bytesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The issue was not settled.  The Constitution is a contract.  If the centralized powers break their end of the contract, the States have no obligation to continue to consider it a valid contract.

                Thereby giving the States standing to secede and consider the Union irrelevant.  Not that I support this, but it is possible.

                1. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Wouldn't be a good idea though.  If any state decided to go lone star, they would loose the support of the Union.  That would be a very poor state with little defense and I am pretty sure, it would self destruct or become a "traitor".

                  @ Rogers, have you ever considered why states don't leave?

                  1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
                    JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    texas did and they suffered. texas received no benefits what so ever from the union

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    yeah - they get attacked by the people that promised to let them leave when they want.

                    "Oh yeah, you can leave whenever you want to! no problem...

                    ... we'll just kill you!"

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Any failures by Obama to fulfill promises were due to Republicans and recalcitrant Blue Dog Democrats.

      1. habee profile image94
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Ralph, I don't think you can blame ALL the broken promises on Congress. Most, but not all. At least you admit that some Democrats were to blame.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Okay. I concede that point.

      2. Reality Bytes profile image83
        Reality Bytesposted 7 years agoin reply to this



        You got part of it right.


        Blue Dog Democrats.

  7. donotfear profile image88
    donotfearposted 7 years ago

    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/fordonotfear/obama0002.jpg?t=1290905423

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brilliant!

      roll

  8. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    The only political party in the past two years that has voted in more or less a monolithic set have been Republicans....whereas Democrats are very broad-based...

    While there may be conservative Democrats, there are no liberal or progressive Republicans...

    If I was with a group of people having this type of conversation I would definitely want to know more details...

    If someone says that Obama was trying to destroy the little businesses, I would ask, "How so?"

    Based on the person's ability to answer....how many times his or her eyes get big and roll around, and how many complete sentences come out of his/her mouth, how much to weigh this person's political competence... 

    How the Republicans look at all like a viable alternative I don't know....

    1. habee profile image94
      habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I did ask, and they started talking about tax codes and investments and red tape and insurance regulations that I know nothing about, so I was lost. I've never been a business owner. Right or wrong, they seem to blame the present economy on the Democrats. I was surprised, however. These 2 business owners were real Obama cheerleaders in the 2008 election.

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    I read this passage in a book I just read.Not sure if it is true but interesting:

    "The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States and one of the most famous documents in history. The framers of the U.S. Constitution must have foreseen the document they crafted as being nearly flawless—but actually a lot of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, hated it! Compromises had to be made in order to get some members of the convention to sign; fifteen never did. They all agreed that “something is better than nothing,” so they passed the Constitution with the proposal that new delegates could meet in a few years and draft a superior document. No new document was created and the Constitution as written remained. Alexander Hamilton was so unhappy with the document that in 1802 he called the Constitution “a frail and worthless fabric.”"

    Stupid History: Tales of Stupidity, Strangeness, and Mythconceptions Throughout the Ages by Leland Gregory.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, and now the pretend constitutionalists worship it as though it were flawless and immutable.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely.  The founding fathers would have a good belly laugh listening to the "Constitutionalists" who pretend to understand it better than the best legal minds of the past century who have interpreted it and applied it to modern situations.

        I'll get the ridiculous reply of course, "It doesn't need to be interpreted.  It's written in plain English!!"

        To those who repeat such nonsense ad nauseum: Explain the second amendment.  How could it possibly be understood to have more than one meaning?

        Take your time.

    2. JOE BARNETT profile image61
      JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      those fifteen started fox news!

      1. habee profile image94
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        lol!

  10. habee profile image94
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I read that the Texas economy is booming. Off topic, but this just reminded me.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image83
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not that far off subject don't you live near Texas.

      Your state may decide they are better off with Texas then new England, New York and California?

      1. habee profile image94
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Nah...I'm in GA.

  11. livelonger profile image95
    livelongerposted 7 years ago

    I agree with some of the points made by people in this thread, that despite what seems like a ton of negativity projected towards Obama, even by his former supporters, it is, in fact, fairly typical for a first-term president. No doubt the crappy (but improving) economy is not helping.

    I voted for him and still support him, since he continues to do things that he said he would do during his campaign (not all of them, but most of them). What he's been able to accomplish in just a couple of years is actually pretty staggering. (If you're offended by the f-word, then don't visit this link but it does run through all of the things Obama had done by election 2010 that many might not be aware of).

    A lot of people assumed that he would be the "anti-Bush" and thus projected a lot of their hopes and expectations onto him, many of which he never said he would do.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I actually think a lot of that sentiment was because of Oprah.  If I recall right, she literally called him the "savior", and though many/most who supported him and still do support him had never thought any such thing, it remains that people who have the most "popular opinion" can fill the opinions of millions without actually considering that we don't "actually" think that.

      But you are definitely right about people projecting hopes on him that he never promised, for instance.  I remember full well Obama talking about change... "it won't happen over night", "it will take time" "it will be hard". 

      Most just remember, "change you can believe in" and now the slogan is stigmatic.

      1. livelonger profile image95
        livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Did she really say that? I don't pay attention to celebrities' natterings on politics.

        I personally believe his agenda and what he has accomplished so far, even with a recalcitrant opposition party, is change I could believe in, but maybe my expectations were low. smile

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          My mistake, she calls him "the one" but makes references to "messiah".

        2. Randy Godwin profile image95
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          No, your expectations were realistic, like so many others.  The very ones complaining so much about Obama didn't want him to be president in the first place.  And ironically, they expected him to clean up the terrible mess made by the guy THEY put into office!  Twice! 

          The same ones who thought Sarah Palin was fit to be president if McCain happened to fall ill!  So their credibility is shot to begin with, and the sour grapes attitude they are displaying now shows their true colors!

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for pointing this out, LIvelonger. Obama has kept more of his promises than most other presidents had kept by the same point in their first terms, and is still working on keeping most of the rest. He compromised on some of them, which is good, right, that a leader is willing to compromise to get stuff done?

      He's kept about five times as many promises as he's broken. He's still working on most of them, and if he doesn't manage to keep those, well, he's got a pretty good excuse at this point...

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        True, and his promises are superior to those made by Bush, McCain, Palin, the Tea Party, et al.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's a good link. Thanks.

  12. Daniel Carter profile image77
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    Seems we've become a country of endless special interests. And I think observations shades made of the ME ME ME syndrome are pretty accurate. In a time when we are facing such huge financial stress personally, in business and as a country, we are only watching out for us. It would make the world a bit better to remember to be a good neighbor and learn to watch out for each other a bit more.

    The government isn't going to do that. That's our job.

  13. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    For those of you who don't like Obama--Congrats! You have now given us Boehner, McConnell, Issa and Cantor.
    First order of importance?
    1. De-fund NPR, and de-fund Unemployment extensions. BUT--make SURE you keep those tax give-aways to ka-trillionaires that will add 700 billion to the deficit you always cry about.
    2. Go after a Democratic President Part II coming your way--billions upon billions and hour after hour spent to do it. Geuss they have nothing better to spend OUR time and money on, huh? Meanwhile.....Bushco? Anyone? Criminal acts?????ANYONE?
    And thanks Oh so ever much for an American Representative who says he'll
    "keep an eye on the President " for Bibiguns Netenyahoo.

    What can anyone say? Thanks for nothing!

  14. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    One place that I don't want to look to in order to model my economy is Texas.....the state that thievery has built...Halliburton, Enron, need I go on? 

    Anyplace where George Bush and Dick Cheney resides, in my book, is a place to avoid...

    Compared to the destruction and death that warranted an invasion of Afghanistan....I wonder sometime if similar action would ever be taken in Texas to bring in our own born and bred international terrorists (Cheney, Bush, the 21st Century Neo-con crowd)...

    I will refrain from bringing up the ridiculous influence Texas has on the publishing of textbooks, and how they have worked to rewrite American history in favor of the "Protestant" and "European" perspective.... 

    I've traveled through Texas...I love the country and I have many friends there. The "system" there, in my opinion, is as corrupted as it gets..

    1. Reality Bytes profile image83
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I am sure you are happy in your "convict colony".

      From your profile!

  15. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    Yes....

    Being that Los Angeles is the most populous county in the country....with at least half as many people residing here as the entire state of Texas for that matter....we will also have the largest jail system...

    Prison industry is a big money maker...as we all know..

    Plus, with every felon convicted, one less voter or potential voter is taken out of the system...

    Keefe Commissary does very well charging $1.25 for a .25 package of Ramen soup..  And a prisoner must pay for everything....which means (since prisoners have no money) the county government reaches into the pockets of any family members they can....at least indirectly..

    There's an ongoing rumor running through the L.A. County Jail system and beyond that County Sheriff Baca's daughter interplays between this private enterprise and the county (no conflict of interest issues here of course...I am still researching this claim)..

    Corporations get the benefits of government handouts while the rest of us watch our services get cut....

    Since California pays the lions-share of Federal taxes...how much Californian wealth has been transfered to Halliburton via their representatives in the White House from 2000-2008...

    Our education is cut...rates increase....and our dollars go to Cheney and his cohorts..

    I have friends who are from Iran..and who travel back and forth every year...they have seen Halliburton offices in Iran...and Cheney/Halliburton was indicted in 2004 for breaking Federal law by illegally doing business with Iran...

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77754
    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3 … ndict.html
    http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0419/041_print.html

    The full indictment, with the evidence is published online in a pdf file...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_migo6j … playnext=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrZLk7uTYp8

    I love this one (above)...he remains to be pursuaded, because he knows what Halliburton is up to....

  16. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Massachusetts:

    Jailhouse money pits
    By MAGGIE MULVIHILL And SARAH FAVOT NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTINGSunday, November 21, 2010 1:31 AM EST

    "Lack of oversight costing millions
    Breaking a promise to taxpayers, legislative leaders have failed to begin a top-to-bottom review of Massachusetts' sheriff operations that could save millions being lost to inefficiencies and questionable fiscal practices found at jailhouses across the state.

    The nine-member commission was mandated by law last year to recommend improvements in the administration and finances of state sheriffs. Hundreds of millions of public dollars flow through the 14 sheriff's offices each year.

    The commission has a Dec. 31 deadline to issue a comprehensive report on how to streamline sheriffs' operations, including sorting out the byzantine system of laws governing the county correctional system."

    I'd also direct you to google "Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons"

    It's only going to get worse now that the Old Guard Repubs are back.


    Even Babs Bush owns stock in prisons.
    Cheney and Gonzales got in trouble for their dealings with it. Get That? Get the complete dis-connect? The VP and the AG, in cahoots with corrupt prison-for-profit schemes.

    Or maybe we should start facing the truth about us.

    1. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Chris, you will find this all over the country. It's not exclusive to Bush, Cheney or any political affiliation. County Sheriffs family members are routinely owners of Jail commisaries and hold lucritive contracts.

      Look into Charles Foti, former Sheriff of Orleans Parish Louisiana. A Democrat who has engaged in "prison-for-profit"
      It's not a partisan practice.

      1. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I only mentioned them because they were the VP, the AG and the wife/mother of the president while they are doing it.
        We think we elect good people....it's anything but.

        And I happen to know some of those southern Dems are the worst sort of sadistic freaks. It's just here and now, it's Repubs by far that I see being a horrible species of something resembling human.

  17. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    Reality bites....

    1. Reality Bytes profile image83
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol  Sorry, that you live in California.  A state that is like a cement block dragging the Country into the abyss.

  18. Seafarer Mama profile image85
    Seafarer Mamaposted 7 years ago

    Wow. So much to sift through in all these replies. Was able to read some, but not all.

    My take is that he is giving all the tax breaks to the rich and not helping to create more jobs so that most americans can actulaly support their families.

    I voted for him and it seems like Hilary is the only one willing to speak out within the party against some of his policies. I do not like his health care plan. It mimics Massachusetts's plan to make it illegal not to have health coverage, but pulls the rug under those who are neither rich enough to afford the best or poor enough to afford state support. Hmmm.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Bush is the one who "gave all the tax breaks to the rich." Obama is opposed to extending the Bush tax breaks for people who earn more than $250 thousand per year. The Republicans want to extend all the Bush tax breaks.

      1. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, and at the same time cut from people who have no income!!!!

        There are 5 people to every 1 job available....through NO FAULT of the people of America.

        Make the out-sourcers pay their unemployment! Don't those CEO's get like 5 million $$ bonus a year? You know how many families that would feed?

        THEY took the jobs outta here--why make the workers live on the streets with their kids?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          In the Detroit area there are record numbers of people on the streets at traffic lights with signs asking for money for food.

          1. JOE BARNETT profile image61
            JOE BARNETTposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            my neice just arrived here saturday from southfield, to live

  19. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    I'm not sorry Reality....

    We are the gateway to the Pacific Rim and western South Ammerica....without California and our ports and rail network the landbound states and the eastern seaboard would be a lot less internationally relevant...

    Being that California is the chief coffer-filler in terms of federal dollars, as goes the West, so does the rest....

 
working