politicususa.com— By now, it is hardly a secret that Republicans have taken every step to subvert the economy to portray President Obama as an ineffective leader.
Oct 22, 2011View in Crawl 4
Punishment is the correct term. They have no interest in working to govern America when a Democrat is president... All they care about, all they think about, is the next election. What have Republicans done since they won their "big win" in 2010? Absolutely nothing, except create typical Washington-style gridlock. We need politicians who know how to work with the other side... at least Barack Obama tries to compromise.
It is very typical for those leaning left to think in terms of "punishing America". Anyone who has even a basic understanding of business knows that you do not undermine your own market. Not if you wanna stay afloat. We need to stop this caustic partisanship and realize that America is about differing people existing together and making each other stronger... not about making the country into one group's vision of how they want it to be for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"It is very typical for those leaning left to think in terms of "punishing America".
--As it is typical of those on the right to think in terms of "punishing success".
"Anyone who has even a basic understanding of business knows that you do not undermine your own market."
--Rationalize all you want. The US economy is being undermined to the point of ruin and many millions of American lives are being deliberately screwed and wrecked by the Republican party for the sole purpose of regaining control of the WH.
"We need to stop this caustic partisanship and realize that America is about differing people existing together and making each other stronger..."
--Yes, your first sentence set such a conciliatory tone, it gave me goosebumps. Anyway, President Obama's election hasn't done anything to hurt the GOP's "market." They're doing better than they ever have. Why do right wingers always insist on portraying the parties as mirror images of each other on ever issue?
"not about making the country into one group's vision of how they want it to be for them."
First off, I am by no means a leftie or a rightie. I am a constitutionalist. That said, I think you need to re-assess the notion that conservatives punish success. On the contrary, it is the left that has a history of punishing success and the right that has a record of advocating merit-based systems.
I wasn't speaking of the GOP's market. I was speaking of the business climate in general. Any policy (govt or corp) that destabilizes the economy is inherently BAD for business of all sizes.
" I am a constitutionalist." Says it all...you live in a fantasy land....businesses are run by sales people who live on a quarterly bonus structure...they have no clue what economics is or how it works or even what is good for business beyond their quarterly quota...that's why we are supposed to have governments who follow economic advice for long term sustainable economies that should supersede short term greed created by the quarterly bonus system....it's the fisherman effect, fisherman left to themselves will fish the waters dry, there is no check and balance without an independent third party looking out for the economy as a whole...it's not the fisherman's job, he's seasonal at best....the sooner people like you start to understand economics and the role of government, the sooner we can actually have a conversation.
The role of government is whatever WE say it is. I do not live in a fantasy land because I think the govt should, for the most part, keep its mitts off of people's lives. Now don't construe that as meaning that there should be no regulation... I never said that. All I said was, any action that destabilizes an economy is inherently bad for businesses in that economy. And this is true no matter the level of govt involvement in the economy.
"That said, I think you need to re-assess the notion that conservatives punish success."
--My point was that that's an accusation those on the right like to level at those who are critical of an economic model that unfairly favors the rich.
I wish more than just conservatives would realize this. The gay rights thing is much more of a religion-driven reaction than anything else. I can tell you I know a lot of self-proclaimed liberals who have issues with gay rights. Everybody needs to get outta everybody else's face about being "not like me".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
you're an idiot. "what have Republicans done since they won their "big win" in 2010". They've passed, through the house, several bills that were put down in the Democratic (you know, the one's that always compromise) controlled Senate. Oh, then it has to be signed by Obama the "compromiser". Obama hasn't compromised on anything. He's still trying to push the same style of crap as when he was first elected. Compromise would imply that he is willing to try something different. Haven't seen much of that out of him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
At a cost of 450 billion dollars over 10 years, supposedly taken from the rich, but I'd like to see the money first. I don't think they'll get the revenue increase they are planning on and we will see a debt increase. Pass the "rich" tax first and then show the money is in the bank and not imaginary. Those are all based on estimates that I don't think reflect the real world anymore. It's easy to create jobs by borrowing money, but it has little to do with the real economy, which depends on private business more than government contracts and government workers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So that's what, 200k+ per job? And that's supposed to be a good thing? Sure the government could hire everyone who is unemployed, tax the rich and borrow the rest to pay for it. Would that be a good thing though?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That'd be great!!! That, with the other $878B from previous stimulus, we should have roughly an additional 6 million jobs. I must have missed those. His bill is nothing but propping up the teachers union.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
In the House, 219 Republicans and 59 Democrats voted for the KORUS bill, while 21 Republicans and 130 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, 37 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted “yes” for the deal with Korea, while 14 Democrats and one Republican (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) voted “no.”
You, my friend, are confused. Just because Obama claims the bill is something both sides can agree on does not make it so. Obama presented a jobs bill. What in the bill, has he compromised on? In fact, Obama had stated earlier, this is the bill all or nothing. That is not compromise.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The jobs bill contains a "bailout" for gov't employees. I have never supported bailouts. While I strongly believe cops and teachers belong on the job, local governments need to figure out how to make that happen, because when the bailout money runs out, they'll be talking about another one, and on and on and on.
Didn't the President of the United States extend the tax cuts for the rich people? Isn't that a compromise? President Obama is trying, but Republicans don't want it.
From what Republicans say and do they just want him to fail. Wasn't it Mitch McConnell who said that their primary goal is to make sure President Obama is a one term president? When John Boehner became speaker of the house wasn't it his callous comment "So be it" regarding a loss of jobs if GOP spending cuts are enacted even though prior to that their motto was, "Where are the jobs?" and "Jobs, jobs, jobs."? The Republicans tried to use the debt ceiling for leverage and threatened that they'd do it again. As far as you or I are concerned anyone with such backwards or warped priorities don't deserve their political jobs.
Agreed. And, the exact same 'script' was used when Clinton became President. Republicans were all about destroying him (not looking to move the country forward). The Independent Prosecutors were well rewarded back then. Still, this is more a symptom of our silly 'two party' system. Perhaps we really should try a 'no party' approach. As soon as you have 'two sides', people have to line up on one side and defeat the enemy. Even though the enemy is also an American.
The government can only formulate the conditions necessary for job growth. It is becoming increasingly obvious that both the banks and the Republican Party have become obstructionist over the last couple months to the extreme. I believe there are two sides to every story, and a large part of this has to do with a lack of communication from Obama to Congress, which has been complained about even by Congressional Democrats. And Republicans want a nominee by December. After Bush, election year became 48 months and started during inauguration day. Their track record on governance includes 100% more spending on failed domestic programs, the largest deficits in US history, and presiding over the worst disaster/attack on US soil with 9 months of warnings from the prior administration and every intelligence agency in Europe. We know who got us in to this mess, and certainly what party will never get us out of it if they nominate another moron. Whether or not Obama can really survive an all out war with the banks to get them back under regulatory control should be a war he is willing to fight at home if he wants to distance himself from the TARP meltdown.
What did the Dems do with total control in 2008. They took a bad economy and made it worse; started 2 more wars I thought they were against, etc. In fact, Obama along with his Marxist administration hasn't done one thing he said he'd do. Change? what Change? it's Bush multiplied by 1000. NOTHING has improved, and libs still want more of the same. Delusional.
Watch what happens when true conservatives, not Republicans, take over in 2012. Do some research and look what the facts of the Reagan era despite a DEM controlled house and senate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.
And who is in charge of spending? Not the executive office. Oh that's right, the Democratic controlled congress he had to work with. You can do better than that savethesea... Charitable contributions were at an all time high; unemployment went to one of the lowest in our nations history; double digit inflation plummeted within 2 years. In short, the carter fiasco was turned completely turned around, no thanks to liberals.
You just can't throw in terms like Marxist and expect to be taken seriously. Do some research? People are more educated and knowledgeable than you think (even evil libs, gasp). Two more wars? Now your 'side' is the 'anti-war' party? Obama reduced involvement in Iraq (I support), surged in Afghanistan (support), and got involved in Libya (jury is still out on this one).
Then, they made a bad economy worse? Well yes, from your perspective, that is true. But, rationally, it's unlikely this all would have been better in two short years under a republican. The economic downturn has been a worldwide problem.
Over all, way too much credit to the Reagan error and over attribution of blame to Obama. I rate him an average President though would have preferred someone with experience.
I'll go along though with you on looking for 'true conservatives' and not Republicans. If that means the likes of New Republicans like Perry and Bachman, no thanks.
wow talk about public censorship. -20 that has to be a record for me.
truth sucks ehh? I voted for obama. yes you heard me right I voted for him. I had to make sure I did my part to keep nutjob McCain out (and I am republican but only because my dad is I think both parties ARE the problem)
but he renegged on his promises. not One single MAJOR campaign promise has been kept. not one. every single one "compromised away"
instead of standing his ground and USING US the people to back him he "compromised away" everything.
HE IS in fact an ineffective leader.
and NO he is not getting us out of iraq either iraq is kicking us out.
Healthcare Bill, tax extensions, jobs bills, unemployment extensions, the list goes on and on and on.
Obama has tried his damnedest to reach out to the Repukes to work WITH them...perhaps to a fault. Just admit it, you Repukes will do ANYTHING to get the Presidency back...no matter how many lives you'll destroy while doing it.
Wanna know something funny? The war Obama sent us into has been won without any American troops lost. Despite the Repuke's consistent bawling Obama did something the UN asked for. Because of that we've helped our allies and actually showed the world we can still win a war.
You Repukes pissed off all of our allies, alienated us from the world, pushed your imperialist agenda, and thus far have us in 2 Trillion dollar wars. Well Obama is fixing YOUR PARTY's f**k ups, despite their every attempt at blocking ANYTHING he does.
How's it feel to be the most hated political party in the world? You f**ks are so f**king far gone you've pulled us "liberals" to what the rest of the world sees as conservative leaning. That's right...according to the world our political scale tips right because you f**ks are so bats**t insane any ideology that's more center seems FAR left when compared you nutcases.
Obama is fixing things? What? name one. Republicans are blocking things? You are seriously a dumbass. You socialists had all the votes to do anything you wanted in both the house and senate. Why didn't they pass anything with a full majority? because they didn't want to take responsibility for f**king it all up.
And why are you now being voted out of office, because you're f**king it all up. Nothings changes, Obama is a worthless president. If you didn't like Bush, like many of us conservatives didn't, than you must hate your Marxist president.
"Obama is fixing things? What? name one. Republicans are blocking things? You are seriously a dumbass."
Really? Name one bill the Repukes allowed passed without modification and without their walking off the job and/or filibustering.
You can't pass a vote when Repukes filibuster and demand "changes" to bills that totally mitigate any benefit. Here's an idea for you f**ks, how about you let Obama and the Democrats pass 2 bills they want without you f**ks getting involved. THEN you can blame Obama if they don't work out.
Lastly, quit using the word Marxist. You obviously have NO f**king clue what you're talking about. Obama isn't a Marxist and until one of you Repuke f**ks can PROVE it to America he is, quit using that word.
Why didn't the dems pass a bill when they had total majority. They were filibuster proof for 2 years! They didn't have the balls to take full responsibility for moving toward socialism. The libs know the U.S. public doesn't want socialist Marxist state. It's all leftist totalitarianism that oppresses the very people they claim they're helping.
You're wrong actually. They supported a ton of the stuff he wanted. Far too much I'd say.
The problem is you f**ks have no integrity. Take you for example. You're an absolute piece of s**t. These days you're pretending to support the Republicans on grounds like Gitmo, Arab wars, Patriot Act, etc. Where'd those things come from I wonder? It's f**king insane. Why should anyone believe anything you ever say?
Personally I think the way you speak of the President is treason. But if it's any consolation, I don't believe in capital punishment.
President Bush supported his share of stuff from Democrats. Education reform sponsored by Ted Kennedy for one. Environmental policies that will ban incandescent light-bulbs soon for another. Campaign Finance Reform for three. I wasn't pleased about no child left behind. It pisses me off that they are dictating what kind of light bulb I am allowed to buy. And it really killed me that President Bush signed CFR.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Since we're making this personal, f**k you too dickless piece of s**t. you people spit of George Bush from the day he announced he was even interested in the presidency and you're still doing it.
We're going to give Obama every courtesy, every break and every benefit of a doubt that you gave Bush. That's right- we're going to flame him for everything, every f**king day and I don't care if you don't like it.
Now that it's YOUR ****s****r & chief, you can't seem to take it. It's treason. BOO f**king hoo..
Don't expect the heat to vanish. It only gets hotter from here.
Expect us to attack your ****s****r & chief with every f**king thing we've got and to piss on his grave when he falls.
If you were a sane person, one might point out the difference between honest opposition to policy and the premeditated attempt to undermine the Presidency of the United States which you've just confessed to. Only the latter is treason.
The world is changing and you will not be a part of it. Your nasty ignorance is laughed at by most people all across the world. You'll get angrier and more frustrated. Uglier. We don't care. Commit all the treason you want. It won't change anything. It reflects only on you and it reflects very poorly.
Bush should have never won his second term, it was rigged. We had a reason to complain about Bush being in office, besides all his f*#cked policies. Also, Congress wasn't fighting Bush like the Republicans are fighting Obama now. Republicans only care about themselves, not the country or the people of the country. We want a better country and it hasn't gotten better from their doing, so we need to try something new. Republicans won't allow the changes we need.
But unlike the bush years, The dems had a full majority with Obama and could have passed anything they wanted. But in true Liberal fashion, no balls to take full responsibility for socialist policies.
This country needs conservatism not an R and certainly not a Marxist D.
I said it in a previous comment and I'll say it again in this one. You don't know the meaning of the word Marxist nor you do understand the economic theory behind the word. If you did you'd see you're a goddamn retard for saying it. Obama is as far from Marxism as Bush was. Clearly you watch far too much Faux Noose and suck on Rush Limbaugh's teat FAR too much.
Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans don't care about America, or America's interests. Their policies not only hurt 99% of Americans, though that is bad enough. They hurt America. So the reality is the Republicans priorities are: ideology first, party second and country last.
Somebody who says something as narrow-minded as "Republicans don't care about America" needs to think about their stance on discrimination and stereotyping. I personally know just as many Republicans as Democrats who are sick over the condition of this country. Ever think that you might be part of the problem?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Undeniable?! Really? The Obama Marxist regime has taken what a progressive Bush did to the U.S. and multiplied it a thousand fold. Spent more money in one year than 8 Bush years; started 2 new wars; distanced us from Israel; unemployment is still over 9%; one on on. An absolute failure anyway you look at it. And you liberals want more of the same. WOW!
Look at what Reagan did in 1 year after the economic mess Carter left. The truth is a conservative America, not Rep or Dem, works for everyone. He won 2 landslide elections because everyone benefited from the richest to poorest despite a liberal controlled Congress and Senate.
I'm not agreeing that Obama is a marxist, but he for sure isnt a "moderate conservative", and intellegent response is all i expected instead of an insult. Not to mention you are supporting an article that classifies the GOP as "a class of Americans who are as evil as Gaddafi".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The truth hurts. Your response drunkclam shows you have no argument. How could you possibly justify what Obama and his admitted Marxist, Maoist friends and coworkers are doing to this country.
Obama, a moderate conservative? Really chilidogs? WOW! He is the furthest from moderate the U.S. has every seen, and look at the results. As soon as you understand what a Marxism is, you'll understand Obama's position and intentions. A few words out of Obama's mouth; social justice, wealth redistribution. You libs are so lost in your emotions you don't see the facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
you are an idiot truthhasnoagenda, you are not worth arguing with. Nothing you say has any value what so ever. As someone else pointed out Obama is the most moderate person to be elected president in our history.
The Obama regime is anything, but Marxist. In truth, it represents moderate conservatism, not a Democratic Progressive stance. Evidence of this truth is found in Obama's negotiating positions and legislative stance. If you doubt it, take a look at objective media/print coverage surrounding every legislative initiative and recent budget negotiations (not the conservative propaganda you appear to favor).
As for calling Bush a Progressive, don't make me laugh. He was as far-right conservative as you appear to be and with about as much common sense to boot. Federal spending doesn't make a President "Progressive". If it did, Conservative Presidents wouldn't exist. Ronald Reagan broke the bank when he TRIPLED military expenditures while reducing taxes. Does the fiscal behavior sound familiar?
You think Reagan revived the U.S. economy? He DIDN'T. Like California, he left the country with a deep deficit.
Our economy is in the toilet as a direct result of Conservative-led economic/fiscal/public policies, NOT Progressive policies. Spin it any way you want, but there's no escaping THAT truth. Republicans have a LONG history of destroying the U.S. economy.
This TRUTH has been brought to you by a political independent with the financial/economic expertise to call out your political/economic theories as the pure BS they represent.
What branch is in charge of spending? Surely you know its the Legislative. The country rebounded from the Carter fiasco directly because of Reagan and in spite of a Democratic controlled congress.
Obama a moderate? Bush a conservative? WOW. By the purest of definitions Bush is a progressive. I didn't know big government, social justice and wealth redistribution had anything to do with being conservitive. Where is your reference point Eraptor, France?
Bailouts, entitlements, class warfare, big government in-general, is by definition Socialism-marxism-liberalism.
You're embarrassing yourself with your expertise. You and Ben Bernanke would get along great.
Of course I recognize that the legislative branch controls the purse strings, but President's tend to set the economic/fiscal path. While President's can influence the country's economy with the policies they champion/implement, they don't control it directly as you are attempting to credit Reagan for doing.
The problem this country has isn't due to big OR small government, it's the absence of EFFECTIVE government. Size is an irrelevant distraction to this core issue.
Social injustice and wealth redistribution are tied to CONSERVATIVE public policies and have been going on FAR longer than Bush's lost decade. In fact, they can be traced back to Ronald Reagan's policies since THAT'S when both downward trends kicked into overdrive. Dubya and Dick simply threw gas on that fire.
If Dubya was the "Progressive" you disingenuously accuse him of being, he would have REVERSED Ronald Reagan's previous fiscal/economic disgrace, NOT "doubled down" on that stupidity. Following Reagan's public policy lead brands Dubya a CONSERVATIVE, NOT a Progressive. Get your facts straight because your political revisionism isn't credible with people who know better, like me.
By the way, bailouts, entitlements, class warfare and big government are ALL favored by hard-core capitalists, particularly the ones you presume to represent. They've been relying on ALL of these elements to create and protect their oversized fortunes. IF ANY of these programs were as "socialist" as you claim, why are the financial benefits accrued to such an insignificant fraction of the population? Try swallowing THAT economic truth, rightard...
Like Herman Cain, you talk out of both sides of your face while gaining NO credibility in the process. THIS is why most conservatives lack the intellect and credibility to serve in any business or government leadership role whatsoever. You've got your heads buried in your ass.
I have one word for you, OBAMA. He's outspent everyone combined over the last 40 years...so what now? Keep doing the same?
You liberals keep bringing up Bush. Give it a rest. Conservatives hated him. He was the best of the worst.
If you libs are true to your beliefs and hate Bush for what he did, like so many of us conservatives, than you must really hate Obama. He is doing exactly what Bush did multiplied by 1000.
By the way the record for the worst job creation is currently Obama. During the Bush years, you obviously forget, the U.S. had some of the lowest years of unemployment ever.
Obama is quite moderate, to the dismay of progressives. He extended Bush's tax cuts in order to get something done even though his platform was to repeal them. Bush was not a progressive president and I don't know what journalist would label him as such. You're confused and you use a lot of buzz words which don't support your arguments, if there are any.
You loved Reagan. He's your hero. I hear ya. And, I disagree. Your opinions seem more based on emotion rather than fact. Reagan, as far as I'm concerned, started this 'wealth gap'. Saying that Reagan did wonders in just one year is telling. Not one year (not even four) is telling in terms of impacts on an economy. Our troubles now are long in the making. It's not possible to lay it all at the feat of liberalism. I give Reagan credit for taking a strong stand against Communism and Terrorism. Beyond that, I believe your going to far.
Again, I support your call to look away from both Dems and Republicans. The entire system needs to be changed.
You are soooo correct! Both parties are progressively changing/destroying this great nation. I haven't been aligned with either party for more than 5 presidential elections.
Reagan's record/numbers speak for themselves. Was it all great? No. However, the recovery was enough to get voters to cross party lines and re-elect him by a landslide.
These issues did start a long time ago. Woodrow Wilson is a good start. The government has gotten progressively bigger, and here we are today.
Not all liberalism? What are entitlements, big government, bailouts, class-war-fare and social justice. What ideology believes government is the answer? All the problems on Wall Street are due to government. If true markets were allowed, and there were no bailouts, these big corporate thieves would be out of business. It is liberal programs that have bankrupt our country.
You tell me what government has ever been the answer. You tell me what country has prospered more as they've become more socialist.
You're right the system needs to be changed, but government is not the answer.
Honestly, my views and yours are not that far off in terms of a call for smaller government. I too call for a 'smaller government' with more power pushed to the local level of governance where practical.
But, you state:
"Not all liberalism? What are entitlements, big government, bailouts, class-war-fare and social justice. What ideology believes government is the answer? All the problems on Wall Street are due to government. If true markets were allowed, and there were no bailouts, these big corporate thieves would be out of business. It is liberal programs that have bankrupt our country. "
There are parts of conservative and Liberal ideology that I like. I support Social Security and Medicare (congress of course has mismanaged SS). Bailouts? Both parties were involved. I prefer some 'compassion' with strong safeguards.
No, Liberal programs did not bankrupt us. Broken governance from both parties bankrupted us. We did not have massive decreases in spending during Republican administrations. As for letting Wall Street and large Corporations off the hook because it's all Government's fault? Not buying that. They all are to blame. Let's promote small business, free markets, and competitive practices.
Thus, yes to smaller governments. And yes to ending practices allowing businesses to become 'too big to fail'. No to laying it all at the feat of one or the other 'side'.
Ooops, there's that "Marxist" word again. You sure love tossing around a word you have no idea the definition of. Can you explain Marxism? I didn't think so.
And yet somehow, there are enough people who vote republican because republicans know how to pander to the moral majority and the anti-intellectual/uneducated.
What's more frightening than sabotage of the US economy, is the deliberate sabotage of US education. Most of the problems of a democracy sort themselves out when the population is adequately educated and thinks rationally.
But when the population has a poor critical thinking foundation, is highly religious (tends to be easily brainwashed to believe in ideals rather than facts), and poorly educated, then all kinds of really simple logic makes sense to them:
"Drugs are bad"
"Abortion is murder"
"If rich people have money, they'll create jobs"
"Terrorists are everywhere, we need more surveillance"
So while it may seem like it will be impossible for Republicans to keep up this nonsense if they want to get re-elected, the sad reality is that their voters vote for them via the same mechanism that gives them unquestionable belief that god exists: blind ignorant faith.
This is not the only cafe at the mercy of the protestors. Others had to lock the doors to try to keep out hordes of protestors using the bathrooms demanding public access and refusing to patronize the cafes. Cafes are losing business from regular customers that are intimidated by protestors milling around. Even small business is under attack on Wall Street.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I heard it's a gateway crime which could lead to serious offenses such as jay walking or feeding pigeons in the city. Be careful. Just say no to milling!
You girls are funny. It's not your cafe. You're not the one losing your income because of the OWS people.
You're not the one who still has to pay rent on the store.
Who still has to pay employees.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Good point, kashy...because it's not like giant anti-abortion protests or tea party protests (on the day Americans are trying to meet the tax filing deadline) cause anyone any inconvenience, right?
America will be returning the favor soon. Something else these short sighted morons should keep in mind, the paybacks will go on for many elections to come.
True, the destruction of the Democrat Party is right around the corner. The 2012 tsunami will make the Democrat shellacking look like a summer breeze. All Democrats will be forced to wear an Obama BS bag when campaigning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The only way this country changes for the better, is for all Americans that have common sense and truly care about this country to set aside their differences, and come together as one.
All that you need to understand is that religion, political ideology, race, financial status, gender, employment, the media, and I could go on forever, has divided the American people. This is what our government relies on. The more divided we as Americans are, the more the government can capitalize on. As long as we are not attempting to better each other, all attempts to bring this country to a better place will ultimately fail.
It would be nice, but I think the right and the left's vision for America are too different. A compromise may be found, but for now it is a battle of competing ideas.
obama is doing a good job of that by himself, he doesn't need any help. oh wait, it's all bush's fault, yeah, sure, whatever sounds good in your empty head. lol
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." -- Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
There's a difference between "debating and disagreeing", and outwardly taking steps to crumble the nation just to point a finger to say "I told you so" in a lunatic attempt to gain favoritism in the elections.
We weren't the ones lying to America while calling anyone who called us on it traitors.
We didn't slander the former Ambassador to Iraq.
We didn't out the head of the CIA group looking for WMD.
We didn't murder Dr. David Kelly, the UN weapons inspector who was in Iraq for years.
We didn't lie a confirmed 935 times about Iraq while calling everyone else traitors.
You have the right to free speech, as long as it is speech that the loonie left agrees with. Otherwise, you are a racist, unpatriotic, capitalist pig, man!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wasn't it you twinkletoes that told me that I have to understand that there are people that have a different viewpoint from myself and that I need to respect that?
I see according to you, that you have no problems slamming, name calling, and showing disrespect to people that have a different political viewpoint from your own.
I'm glad that you are capable of doing what you preach to others. It's good to know that you are a stand up individual. Good for you.
Actually, my point is that you are always inconsistent. You can claim "You're wrong. Troll fail. hahaha" and your tiny little brain might think that you are correct, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
You called people that have a different viewpoint from you the "looney left". You constantly will call names to people that disagree with you, and then cry like a little bitch when you are called out on it.
I remember back when Republicans were getting accused of calling their opposition treasonous and unpatriotic. Never happened, but that didn't stop the left from saying it over and over again.
In fact, the only person with the courage to use that term was Ann Coulter. But it never came from Bush or any of his surrogates.
Yet now the American people have elected Republicans to power and they are carrying out the will of the people, and some fake woman on Digg is throwing the terms "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" around like she (he) does a frisbee at 2 PM on a weekday when the real Americans are working.
Is President Obama powerless? He needs to make his case to the people. If he really does have a good plan, they will support it and put pressure on their leaders. It is called the bully pulpit. Use it. And if it isn't a bill that a majority of democratic, republican, and independent voters can support -- it isn't the right bill.
FTA: "By now, it is hardly a secret that Republicans have taken every step to subvert the economy to portray President Obama as an ineffective leader. It is also no secret that Republicans are intent on transforming the country into a plutocracy with theocratic rulers who will privatize the government to further enrich the industrialists’ wealth and power. There is absolutely nothing Republicans have done since President Obama’s inauguration that helps the American people, and in fact, they have used every means possible to cause pain and suffering for 98% of the population. A brief perusal of the current Republican presidential candidates exposes more anti-American policies that if enacted, will elevate the wealthy class to a position of power this country has never witnessed"
"It is also no secret that Republicans are intent on transforming the country into a plutocracy with theocratic rulers who will privatize the government to further enrich the industrialists’ wealth and power"
Now replace the word REPUBLICANS with "ANY SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL FIGURE IN THE USA TODAY"
they are ALL crooks.
there is one republican who might actually have a chance at fixing things but the media won't even look in his direction out plain old fear and power mongering.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Obstruct - Blame the others for their own practices - confuse constituents with lies, lies and more lies.
Accuse Obama of everything Bush did and of him being a socialist.
Despite that it was their own believe in "No government intervention" that allowed the Oil tycoons, Wall Street vultures bankers and Defense blank checks that depleted the economy to it's knees.
I keep thinking this whole tea party/religiously rabid conservative movement can't become more insane and well, evil. This article is an excellent read and illustrates the lengths the GOP will take to deconstruct the American social fiber that has made us a great country. Considering what he inherited and the organized movement to unseat him, Obama continues to display remarkable integrity and effectiveness as a president, particularly when compared to his predecessor.
Are you familiar with the neo-conservatives? Rove is their wonder-boy. They basically want to manipulate everything so that America becomes a corporate republic (Fascism) and turn the world into colonies and spheres of influence. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) is their statement of purpose. People who signed on are some familiar names Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cohen.
These people want to take power, will do anything to get it, are in bed with the corporations and want to make America the world police.
If you think Obama is the worst President ever. I disagree. He's serving during some of our most trying economic times. Any President would be derided at this point. He's the best ever? Not even close. I believe he's an average president and his inexperience has shown.
Thus, I'm open for an alternative. But, I won't be voting for Bachman or Perry. Thus, the alternative actually has to appear rationally better. The problem though is that people line up on these sides and their views are completely colored by that side. For example:
"You guy keep it up and you'll have to change your Depends but then again you have let Obama and his fools pee down your leg for over 3 years already."
or
"O.T.P. - Obama the President? Sure, I'm all for that"
None of this bodes well for regaining our standing around the world.
The Tea Party Nation sent out a rambling, anti-American letter to approximately 30,000 members that ended with the pledge: “I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped. I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.”
Despite what people think the candidates are not pre-selected. Of course you need a lot of money just to get into a party primary and put your name on the ticket. But if you are politically active you can raise that money pretty easily. So if you are a junior congressmen with not too much experience but are well educated and have made some good connections you too can run for president. Also that money you pay to put your name on the ticket goes to the local party committee. So when you run for president later that local party committee will spend that money to help you run. After you receive your party nomination the money really does come flooding in from special interests.
The problem is participation. If you don't like the democratic nominees maybe you should register with a party and get involved. I registered as a democrat when I registered to vote. I vote on which candidate I think should run. I didn't actually nominate Obama (I preferred Bill Richardson or Joe Biden). But I later voted for him anyway because I still liked him more than McCain. One good thing about registering is that they will send you reminders to vote and details about when/where and who is up for election.
The money comes into the national campaign. People vote for the name they trust. Because many people can't be bothered to watch a debate or read about their candidates they often just trust the name/face they see the most. I think It's a miracle that Obama won because his name sounds a little strange. But people liked him anyway.
Yes it comes down to money. But if you are smart and charismatic you can win. Getting on the campaign trail for the Republican primary costs money. You need to travel, a lot. You need to hold press conferences. You need to prepare for debates. You need to be ready for straw poll events. And you need to pay to get your name on the ticket.
Independents aren't no one. It's just they don't have a large enough constituency to yeah they have no money.
You think all the candidates are rich? No they line their pockets with other peoples money. It's been like that since the beginning. I agree we need campaign reform but you have to participate first.
The problem is that the people in Washington are also the 1% and do you think that a human being is going to go against their selfish nature and put into place policies that would have them put aside their own personal fortune for the benefits of the masses? Yes, Republicans practice and love a "scorched-earth" policy when they are not in the driver's seat, but the Democrats had two years of nearly-complete control of Washington and also did nothing to try and put finance regulations back into place like before the 1980s.
Republicans had nothing to do with obama getting in office,dumb people did that.
i keep forgetting this is a Democrap site with Democrap people reading BS.
It's Republicans who clearly decided to start their plan to retake the White House as soon as Obama was elected (by countering his every move). And, it's Obama's inexperience and lack of leadership.
I'd say both.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
A) I don't remember saying the Dems wouldn't do the same. And, B) No, the Dems didn't do that too bush nearly to the same degree from 2000 to 20004. Compare 'filibusters' then and now. Compare massive independent prosecutions during Clinton's terms. On whole, thus far, Republicans seem to be more 'obstructionist' in nature. But, both do it. It's why the 'two party' thing doesn't work well.
Not a problem. The country will return the favor in 2012. God help the Republican/Conservative who dares to call for bipartisanship in light of THEIR recent legislative behavior/disgrace.
Their "T-bagger" rebranding effort won't save their sorry asses this time.
He did not cater to 'us f**ks'. He drove up the national debt, enriched unions, screwed up our foreign relations. He is a total disaster. He did not cater to me or anyone like me.
No, they're punishing us for the failures of Bush, they are so entrenched in their small minded ideological fantasy world they can't cope when reality of their failure gets revealed, so they lash out at everyone else
dems had control of Congress from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011.
His Holiness passed EVERY major piece of legislation he wanted from Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 2011.
I can only assume that you folks intended for The Chosen One to have 2 full terms without any opposition.
I know one thing for sure though, less than 10 days after whichever repub is sworn in on Jan 20, 2013, you will be screaming about the fact that everyone is not making $100K with Congressional type retirement and health benefits.
And if they dare to embark on military actions,like Barry has, you will be apoplectic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
you're right he f**ked up, and as someone who voted for him I can admit that, but you are blind to the garbage happening on the other side. They are a bunch of lunatics running for office and you turn a blind eye. Shame on you.
Stop with the crazy talk. How much of a moron must you be not to know how our government was planned? The tea party thugs (undercover Koch whores, basically) have had America by the balls for the last three years and they've nearly destroyed the country. Get serious.
While I agree that many far right wing policy ideas are nutty, and that this one in particular from them (yes, I'm including the Republicans in with the Tea Partiers) is absolutely insane, I can't agree with comparing it or them to the situation in Libya.
The article did make a specific reference to comparing this policy to the things done to the Libyan people - and that is just not right. Until they go around killing those that oppose them, this sort of rhetoric is exactly the thing we don't need - from either side of the political spectrum, and all it does is polarize factions just that much more.
They don't have to "portray" O'Blamer as an ineffective leader. HE IS AN INEFFECTIVE Leader.!!! Republican's are doing the only thing that makes sense sinse the big mistake of electing O'Stupid. They're limiting the damage he can do and till sanity is restored and we can put his sorry behind to the curb where it belongs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If Republicans want to be seen as leaders and not as obstructionists they should try writing a bill from time to time. Or imagine this work with Democrats.
As a leader Obama has done a far better job than you seem to think. He's encouraging new legislation every day. He is helping his party and meeting the other. What have the Republicans done? They have this "my way or the highway" attitude. They refuse to meet at any middle ground. When they do they usually cripple any bill that is passed and then complain that it's ineffective. Would you rather Obama just start writing executive orders and use legal and bureaucratic maneuvers to do things his way and tell the republicans to suck it? That's not leadership.
I'd say that Obama has sufficiently punished America for Electing Obama.
I also find it curious that Democrats in congress are now also "punishing America for electing Obama" by opposing his ineffective and detrimental proposals.
It's not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Bail all the water you want out of the boat, but it won't do any good until the leak is fixed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Well, I think that the pawns, lefty-diggers for example, actually believe that taxing and spending will reverse the downward spiral. And the royalty like Obama and Co know they are destroying us. That's what they want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sorry but Bush was in office when the economy was destroyed. Obama hasn't walked on water and cleaned up this train wreck that Bush left. If you can't remember when the economy crashed go google it, Bush was in office, so saying Obama destroyed the economy is a blatant lie.
Still waiting for your answer on where the Pallets of Multiple "BILLIONS" dissipeared to when ole Bush and Cheney packed em up on two C130's and sent them to Iraq? Still waiting .... Until then anything you say about spending Billions has no substance.
Subvert the economy? Really? Ok, you s**theads need to decide if they're all about the corporate power trip, or if they're all about destroying America. The two things are mutually exclusive and you can't have it both ways. Here's a novel idea... less partisanship and more paying attention to what it really means to be an American.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Uh, you don't know what your are talking about. Corporations f**k people for money, look at the recession. They sold s**tty mortgages for profit at tax payer expense for PROFIT. OWS is not partisan. The right wingers that call it as such are f**king idiots attempting to subvert democracy.
"Corporations f**k people for money, look at the recession." ?
Without corporations, we'd have nothing. Nothing. None of the products and services that make our lifestyle safe and comfortable and interesting would be possible without corporations.
In the USSR and N Korea, for example, without corporations there was almost nothing to buy with your paycheck. Grocery stores with no food for sale. Department stores with little clothes. Five year waiting lists for a stove, a refrigerator or a car. Doctors with no medicine.
And the best part is, corporations do it to satisfy the most natural and dependable human motivations -- their own self-interest.
That's fantastic, because we can depend on them to continue to bring us food, clothes etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Without corporations, we'd have nothing. Nothing. None of the products and services that make our lifestyle safe and comfortable and interesting would be possible without corporations."
No one said they need to go away. Way to assume something that was never stated!
"In the USSR and N Korea, for example, without corporations there was almost nothing to buy with your paycheck. Grocery stores with no food for sale. Department stores with little clothes. Five year waiting lists for a stove, a refrigerator or a car. Doctors with no medicine."
Again, you're arguing your assumptions, not anyone's positions. This is not the 1950's, you can quit acting like it is.
"And the best part is, corporations do it to satisfy the most natural and dependable human motivations -- their own self-interest.
That's fantastic, because we can depend on them to continue to bring us food, clothes etc."
Again, that's wonderful. Good for them. Not all corporations are evil. Government shouldn't control that river of corruption that is the market and profits, they should harass by letting it be. All the while keeping the dam of regulations to protect us from similar situations.
Laws like this should have NOT BEEN REPEALED. Corporations are here to make money, and if left unchecked will corrupt our system of politics and cause massive regresses in economic processes.
kasha, are you saying that only a corporation can provide us with goods and services?
"You should be grateful for the miracles that corporations provide for you."
I get it now. You do not fully understand the corporate and business world so you equate their work to miracles. Sounds a bit like something else.......and both are based on a faith preached by others. This corporation "Miracle" talk is preached to you by Rush et al. and the other "Miracle" talk comes on Sundays.
@savethesea
Only very large scale enterprises can provide us with the kinds of goods and services we're accustomed to. Yes, a small business could build me a car from scratch. It would cost $500,000 and it probably wouldn't run.
Yes, small family farms could feed me. And if that's all there were, we'd have to go back to having 90% of the workforce growing food.
So, aside from corporations, what large-scale enterprises could do this for us? Government run farms? Remember the USSR? Their farms were so bad they had to beg us to sell them wheat. Or Cuba? We feed them too now.
kasha - I will not argue with the fact that we are at the point of needing very large corporations. That does not mean they should be able to run amok and not operate with a social conscience. The number one purpose of a large publicly traded corporation is to maximize shareholder wealth. Without proper regulation and a social barometer, shareholder wealth takes precedence over the actual consumers and employees. There needs to be a balance, and the idea of phony paper valuation needs to be reevaluated.
i like the way you "accept my retraction" as I never stated or implied that we do not need corporations - nice spin.
"Of course shareholder wealth takes precedence. Within the law."
and the corporation push the laws to the limits - look at BP and the Gulf coast states for reference.
Should shareholder wealth be the number one priority? No, I feel the overall health of the company should be the number one priority, employee benefits, etc. The market will correct some of that, but most will be ignored in the name of short-term profits. The market does not allow a company to build through the years, investment needs short-term actions.
Without the people buying products from them, the corporations wouldn't have the money to make products, so I think it's wise for them to stop screwing people over.
I am all for stopping any screwing over that is going on. But I would really like somebody to say in specific terms what the screwing has been. The screwing over, to me, has been the giving of any public money at all to private business (excepting normal purchasing arrangements), or to consumers who are a bad credit risk. All this crap would go away if we stopped the loan backing and bailing out.
Bailouts are definitely on my s**t list of screw jobs. But those other things, while not pleasant, are real world business decisions that keep companies viable. Feels like getting screwed when you get laid off (as I can attest) or your healthcare payments go up (as I can attest), but companies cannot be expected to operate at a loss.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Bailouts are definitely on my s**t list of screw jobs. But those other things, while not pleasant, are real world business decisions that keep companies viable. Feels like getting screwed when you get laid off (as I can attest) or your healthcare payments go up (as I can attest), but companies cannot be expected to operate at a loss.
The companies are plenty viable when their profits are higher than they've ever been, yet they keep getting rid of US jobs so they can pocket even more.
They sold s**tty mortgages because they were backed up by s**tty govt policy. By the way... all mortgages are for profit. That's what lending is. The point should be that there should never have been any public money in play in the first place. If you are forced to back bad loans by a feel-good policy than you will lose on the defaults.
People willingly give their money to corporations in exchange for services and products that they want to consume. They give something, people get something. Where it all goes awry is when we allow public money of any form into into the equation. That money is an opportunity to the companies, and they would be nothing short of stupid to not make the best of their opportunities. What I'm saying is... remove the opportunities for companies to benefit from the tax dollar.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What I mean by that is no more public funding flowing from the treasury to private business where there is no return of product or service directly to the government. No more $million loans, no more bailouts, no more sub-prime lending.
But what that means for the social engineers from both sides is that they have to stay the hell out of everybody else's business. Pretty tough for folks that think they know better than everybody else...
They were able to do that because Alan Greenspan though the banks would self regulate and the repeal of the glass seagal act which prevented that sort of packaging and selling of mortgages. Your half truths do not stand up to reality. In fact, the reality that banks took advantage of the governmental system is exactly the point many, including OWS in some regard, are angry of. There were no punishments, only light fines and dodd frank, which isn't even strong enough to stop the same bubble it was meant to stop.
None of which changes the substance of what I'm saying. If we put a stop to the loans and bailouts and engineering spending... problem mostly solved. It doesn't matter who caused the problem, it matters that we understand it and it matters what we do about it now. We can point fingers left and right till the cows come home, but the farm will still go bankrupt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Or you could just regulate them, worked fine for nearly 70 years until the glass segall act was repealed. Bailoits were a bandaid, not constant policy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What if we removed the words republican, GOP, right, democrat, and left from all news media...then maybe we could have a decent discussion of the issues and ideas instead of purposeless (I say as I comment on digg) party bashing.
I'd say that Obama has sufficiently punished America for Electing Obama.
I also find it curious that Democrats in congress are now also "punishing America for electing Obama" by opposing his ineffective and detrimental proposals.
kashy, that's just one of the voices in your head talking. You need to believe that America is going to punish Barack Obama in 2012 but most signs point towards the GOP. I mean, look at the embarrassing ragtag band of candidates you have. You've got gold digging losers galore and sloppy seconds from previous primaries. And then there's the GOP itself (weighed down by the disgusting thugs in the tea party). It's not looking pretty, kashy. ;-(
The Republican Party's wet dream since 2008. That's the problem. If a Republican is elected now, there's a fair chance the opposition party's primary focus will be to win in 2016. Unfortunately, this is all Lose/Lose for America.
That is far too colored by your 'political bias'. There are many that could be worse and many that could be better. I rate him as average and at this point in history, that's not a good thing.
Kind of an irony here ... To act in this way is to incorporate all those things that european peoples fled from Europe to begin with. You did not leave it behind, it came after you. The same principles on money, wealth, etc. All that you wanted out of you now incorporate into your own system. The problem now is there is no other largely unknown part of the world to flee and escape it thus you are stuck with it. The society you are stuck with is what you made it to be.
As for Obama, if you consider all the opposition put up against him on everything. Not just in the political spectrum, but the business and financial areas also I think he has done as well as could be expected considering. Remember he inherited a crap economy, it was off the rails already and looked like it would implode sooner rather than later.
I think many Republicans were and still are hopng that they could lay all the blame of previous Republican government at Obama's door although Bush is not wholly to blame for this. I think it goes far deeper and the nature of what human beings are.
As for the future? Relected or not? Don't know myself, but would it be wrong for Democrats to take the same actions as the Republican if the next president is Republican?
If you friggin say YES then by that argument those Repbublicans that portray this argument are wrong today. I mean why not all businesses owned by Democrats promise if the Republicans get elected you will lay off as many people as possible in response. Seems only fair don't it!
Me I am banking on a double dip recession myself. I think it is inevitable and at that point if Obama planted enough seeds of creating an economy you will be okay. If not it will be very interesting as all those that objected to this will have to eat humble pie being the main opposition against all of it. Better than many of those in Europe though that are doing diddly squat as economies burn. So be thankful for small mercies you aint got our politcians.
Oh and if you agree on any part of what he is trying to do then express it okay. First rule of Democracy keep those bits the other side is offering that you like it is called a start of finding a concensus of popular agreement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereOct 22, 2011
Punishment is the correct term. They have no interest in working to govern America when a Democrat is president... All they care about, all they think about, is the next election. What have Republicans done since they won their "big win" in 2010? Absolutely nothing, except create typical Washington-style gridlock. We need politicians who know how to work with the other side... at least Barack Obama tries to compromise.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
It is very typical for those leaning left to think in terms of "punishing America". Anyone who has even a basic understanding of business knows that you do not undermine your own market. Not if you wanna stay afloat. We need to stop this caustic partisanship and realize that America is about differing people existing together and making each other stronger... not about making the country into one group's vision of how they want it to be for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
"It is very typical for those leaning left to think in terms of "punishing America".
--As it is typical of those on the right to think in terms of "punishing success".
"Anyone who has even a basic understanding of business knows that you do not undermine your own market."
--Rationalize all you want. The US economy is being undermined to the point of ruin and many millions of American lives are being deliberately screwed and wrecked by the Republican party for the sole purpose of regaining control of the WH.
"We need to stop this caustic partisanship and realize that America is about differing people existing together and making each other stronger..."
--Yes, your first sentence set such a conciliatory tone, it gave me goosebumps. Anyway, President Obama's election hasn't done anything to hurt the GOP's "market." They're doing better than they ever have. Why do right wingers always insist on portraying the parties as mirror images of each other on ever issue?
"not about making the country into one group's vision of how they want it to be for them."
--This is very naive.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
First off, I am by no means a leftie or a rightie. I am a constitutionalist. That said, I think you need to re-assess the notion that conservatives punish success. On the contrary, it is the left that has a history of punishing success and the right that has a record of advocating merit-based systems.
I wasn't speaking of the GOP's market. I was speaking of the business climate in general. Any policy (govt or corp) that destabilizes the economy is inherently BAD for business of all sizes.
And if being able to have differences while respecting those differences is considered naive, then we truly are doomed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Oct 23, 2011
" I am a constitutionalist." Says it all...you live in a fantasy land....businesses are run by sales people who live on a quarterly bonus structure...they have no clue what economics is or how it works or even what is good for business beyond their quarterly quota...that's why we are supposed to have governments who follow economic advice for long term sustainable economies that should supersede short term greed created by the quarterly bonus system....it's the fisherman effect, fisherman left to themselves will fish the waters dry, there is no check and balance without an independent third party looking out for the economy as a whole...it's not the fisherman's job, he's seasonal at best....the sooner people like you start to understand economics and the role of government, the sooner we can actually have a conversation.
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
Yeah, how dare he believe in the Constitution rather than working to undermine it....how unpatriotic can you get???
lasersharkOct 24, 2011
The role of government is whatever WE say it is. I do not live in a fantasy land because I think the govt should, for the most part, keep its mitts off of people's lives. Now don't construe that as meaning that there should be no regulation... I never said that. All I said was, any action that destabilizes an economy is inherently bad for businesses in that economy. And this is true no matter the level of govt involvement in the economy.
If that's a fantasy land, then I challenge you to prove it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iiiearsOct 28, 2011
Legislators want a steady job.
Grover Norquist. holds the campaign purse strings.
Public campaign financing.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
"That said, I think you need to re-assess the notion that conservatives punish success."
--My point was that that's an accusation those on the right like to level at those who are critical of an economic model that unfairly favors the rich.
glassagateOct 24, 2011
>> We need to stop this caustic partisanship and realize
>> that America is about differing people existing together
>> and making each other stronger
I just wish that conservatives would realize this, and stop
attacking gay rights.
lasersharkOct 24, 2011
I wish more than just conservatives would realize this. The gay rights thing is much more of a religion-driven reaction than anything else. I can tell you I know a lot of self-proclaimed liberals who have issues with gay rights. Everybody needs to get outta everybody else's face about being "not like me".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rthakidnOct 23, 2011
you're an idiot. "what have Republicans done since they won their "big win" in 2010". They've passed, through the house, several bills that were put down in the Democratic (you know, the one's that always compromise) controlled Senate. Oh, then it has to be signed by Obama the "compromiser". Obama hasn't compromised on anything. He's still trying to push the same style of crap as when he was first elected. Compromise would imply that he is willing to try something different. Haven't seen much of that out of him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
"Obama hasn't compromised on anything."
I guess you missed that whole "jobs bill" thing, where he pursued a bill that both sides could agree on.
user500Oct 23, 2011
You mean the new trade agreements to ship the last of our jobs overseas?
davey914Oct 23, 2011
According to Moody's his plan will create 1.9 million jobs. Read it on politico too - which leans right.
yurmutha412Oct 23, 2011
At a cost of 450 billion dollars over 10 years, supposedly taken from the rich, but I'd like to see the money first. I don't think they'll get the revenue increase they are planning on and we will see a debt increase. Pass the "rich" tax first and then show the money is in the bank and not imaginary. Those are all based on estimates that I don't think reflect the real world anymore. It's easy to create jobs by borrowing money, but it has little to do with the real economy, which depends on private business more than government contracts and government workers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Oct 23, 2011
So that's what, 200k+ per job? And that's supposed to be a good thing? Sure the government could hire everyone who is unemployed, tax the rich and borrow the rest to pay for it. Would that be a good thing though?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
1.9 million jobs in south and central america....
mbraynardOct 24, 2011
Let me explain to you why we on the right think you and everyone like you is a moron.
The president's plan is around $500 billion.
You say it will 'create' about 2 million jobs.
That means the government is spending $250,000 per job created.
Now do you understand why we are blocking your dumb plan?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rthakidnOct 24, 2011
That'd be great!!! That, with the other $878B from previous stimulus, we should have roughly an additional 6 million jobs. I must have missed those. His bill is nothing but propping up the teachers union.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
Way to move the goalpost there...
bluenose2Oct 23, 2011
You are referring the new trade agreements that the Republicans passed instead of the Jobs Bill ?
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
Yeah, cause all the democrats voted no...right, partisan hack?
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
In the House, 219 Republicans and 59 Democrats voted for the KORUS bill, while 21 Republicans and 130 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, 37 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted “yes” for the deal with Korea, while 14 Democrats and one Republican (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) voted “no.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rare-bipartisanship-congress-passes-free-trade-pacts-korea-colombia-panama
They could have senate killed it in the
rthakidnOct 24, 2011
You, my friend, are confused. Just because Obama claims the bill is something both sides can agree on does not make it so. Obama presented a jobs bill. What in the bill, has he compromised on? In fact, Obama had stated earlier, this is the bill all or nothing. That is not compromise.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitOct 24, 2011
This jobs bill is composed of items that you have already supported in the past.
Why are you now against what you were for not long ago?
rthakidnOct 25, 2011
The jobs bill contains a "bailout" for gov't employees. I have never supported bailouts. While I strongly believe cops and teachers belong on the job, local governments need to figure out how to make that happen, because when the bailout money runs out, they'll be talking about another one, and on and on and on.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
We asked what the Republicans have accomplished.
davey914Oct 23, 2011
Didn't the President of the United States extend the tax cuts for the rich people? Isn't that a compromise? President Obama is trying, but Republicans don't want it.
From what Republicans say and do they just want him to fail. Wasn't it Mitch McConnell who said that their primary goal is to make sure President Obama is a one term president? When John Boehner became speaker of the house wasn't it his callous comment "So be it" regarding a loss of jobs if GOP spending cuts are enacted even though prior to that their motto was, "Where are the jobs?" and "Jobs, jobs, jobs."? The Republicans tried to use the debt ceiling for leverage and threatened that they'd do it again. As far as you or I are concerned anyone with such backwards or warped priorities don't deserve their political jobs.
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
Agreed. And, the exact same 'script' was used when Clinton became President. Republicans were all about destroying him (not looking to move the country forward). The Independent Prosecutors were well rewarded back then. Still, this is more a symptom of our silly 'two party' system. Perhaps we really should try a 'no party' approach. As soon as you have 'two sides', people have to line up on one side and defeat the enemy. Even though the enemy is also an American.
zerosumOct 24, 2011
The government can only formulate the conditions necessary for job growth. It is becoming increasingly obvious that both the banks and the Republican Party have become obstructionist over the last couple months to the extreme. I believe there are two sides to every story, and a large part of this has to do with a lack of communication from Obama to Congress, which has been complained about even by Congressional Democrats. And Republicans want a nominee by December. After Bush, election year became 48 months and started during inauguration day. Their track record on governance includes 100% more spending on failed domestic programs, the largest deficits in US history, and presiding over the worst disaster/attack on US soil with 9 months of warnings from the prior administration and every intelligence agency in Europe. We know who got us in to this mess, and certainly what party will never get us out of it if they nominate another moron. Whether or not Obama can really survive an all out war with the banks to get them back under regulatory control should be a war he is willing to fight at home if he wants to distance himself from the TARP meltdown.
truthhasnoagendaOct 23, 2011
What did the Dems do with total control in 2008. They took a bad economy and made it worse; started 2 more wars I thought they were against, etc. In fact, Obama along with his Marxist administration hasn't done one thing he said he'd do. Change? what Change? it's Bush multiplied by 1000. NOTHING has improved, and libs still want more of the same. Delusional.
Watch what happens when true conservatives, not Republicans, take over in 2012. Do some research and look what the facts of the Reagan era despite a DEM controlled house and senate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
Yeah...it's not like NATO is done in Libya, or the troops will be back home by the end of the year or anything...
savetheseaOct 24, 2011
This Reagan?
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.
truthhasnoagendaOct 24, 2011
And who is in charge of spending? Not the executive office. Oh that's right, the Democratic controlled congress he had to work with. You can do better than that savethesea... Charitable contributions were at an all time high; unemployment went to one of the lowest in our nations history; double digit inflation plummeted within 2 years. In short, the carter fiasco was turned completely turned around, no thanks to liberals.
The same will happen after 2012.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
You just can't throw in terms like Marxist and expect to be taken seriously. Do some research? People are more educated and knowledgeable than you think (even evil libs, gasp). Two more wars? Now your 'side' is the 'anti-war' party? Obama reduced involvement in Iraq (I support), surged in Afghanistan (support), and got involved in Libya (jury is still out on this one).
Then, they made a bad economy worse? Well yes, from your perspective, that is true. But, rationally, it's unlikely this all would have been better in two short years under a republican. The economic downturn has been a worldwide problem.
Over all, way too much credit to the Reagan error and over attribution of blame to Obama. I rate him an average President though would have preferred someone with experience.
I'll go along though with you on looking for 'true conservatives' and not Republicans. If that means the likes of New Republicans like Perry and Bachman, no thanks.
mrteflonOct 24, 2011
Waves at Molly.
nerysOct 23, 2011
HE IS in fact an ineffective leader. he is a lousy leader.
NOW this does not remove the fact that the GOP and the DEM are also making things even worse.
trying to compromise on important things is one of the primary reasons he is an ineffective leader.
sometimes you compromise sometimes you just have to put your foot down and Obama REFUSES to put his foot down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysOct 27, 2011
wow talk about public censorship. -20 that has to be a record for me.
truth sucks ehh? I voted for obama. yes you heard me right I voted for him. I had to make sure I did my part to keep nutjob McCain out (and I am republican but only because my dad is I think both parties ARE the problem)
but he renegged on his promises. not One single MAJOR campaign promise has been kept. not one. every single one "compromised away"
instead of standing his ground and USING US the people to back him he "compromised away" everything.
HE IS in fact an ineffective leader.
and NO he is not getting us out of iraq either iraq is kicking us out.
sloppyjoes7Oct 24, 2011
"at least Barack Obama tries to compromise."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
But seriously, you're nuts. Obama loves compromise as much as the Tea Party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Oct 24, 2011
Healthcare Bill, tax extensions, jobs bills, unemployment extensions, the list goes on and on and on.
Obama has tried his damnedest to reach out to the Repukes to work WITH them...perhaps to a fault. Just admit it, you Repukes will do ANYTHING to get the Presidency back...no matter how many lives you'll destroy while doing it.
Wanna know something funny? The war Obama sent us into has been won without any American troops lost. Despite the Repuke's consistent bawling Obama did something the UN asked for. Because of that we've helped our allies and actually showed the world we can still win a war.
You Repukes pissed off all of our allies, alienated us from the world, pushed your imperialist agenda, and thus far have us in 2 Trillion dollar wars. Well Obama is fixing YOUR PARTY's f**k ups, despite their every attempt at blocking ANYTHING he does.
How's it feel to be the most hated political party in the world? You f**ks are so f**king far gone you've pulled us "liberals" to what the rest of the world sees as conservative leaning. That's right...according to the world our political scale tips right because you f**ks are so bats**t insane any ideology that's more center seems FAR left when compared you nutcases.
sloppyjoes7Oct 24, 2011
"Just admit it, you Repukes will do ANYTHING to get the Presidency back...no matter how many lives you'll destroy while doing it."
Actually, Obama is destroying jobs, lives, culture, healthcare, and more.
Luckily, he should be gone next year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthhasnoagendaOct 25, 2011
Truly delusional. WOW!
Obama is fixing things? What? name one. Republicans are blocking things? You are seriously a dumbass. You socialists had all the votes to do anything you wanted in both the house and senate. Why didn't they pass anything with a full majority? because they didn't want to take responsibility for f**king it all up.
And why are you now being voted out of office, because you're f**king it all up. Nothings changes, Obama is a worthless president. If you didn't like Bush, like many of us conservatives didn't, than you must hate your Marxist president.
mlw4428Oct 26, 2011
"Obama is fixing things? What? name one. Republicans are blocking things? You are seriously a dumbass."
Really? Name one bill the Repukes allowed passed without modification and without their walking off the job and/or filibustering.
You can't pass a vote when Repukes filibuster and demand "changes" to bills that totally mitigate any benefit. Here's an idea for you f**ks, how about you let Obama and the Democrats pass 2 bills they want without you f**ks getting involved. THEN you can blame Obama if they don't work out.
Lastly, quit using the word Marxist. You obviously have NO f**king clue what you're talking about. Obama isn't a Marxist and until one of you Repuke f**ks can PROVE it to America he is, quit using that word.
truthhasnoagendaOct 27, 2011
Why didn't the dems pass a bill when they had total majority. They were filibuster proof for 2 years! They didn't have the balls to take full responsibility for moving toward socialism. The libs know the U.S. public doesn't want socialist Marxist state. It's all leftist totalitarianism that oppresses the very people they claim they're helping.
angrycat70Oct 24, 2011
So what were house and senate democrats doing during George W Bush's term? Knitting? Playing canasta?
NO. They fought him tooth and nail- just like republicans are doing now.
It's how the game is played. Don't hate the players. Hate the game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianOct 24, 2011
You're wrong actually. They supported a ton of the stuff he wanted. Far too much I'd say.
The problem is you f**ks have no integrity. Take you for example. You're an absolute piece of s**t. These days you're pretending to support the Republicans on grounds like Gitmo, Arab wars, Patriot Act, etc. Where'd those things come from I wonder? It's f**king insane. Why should anyone believe anything you ever say?
Personally I think the way you speak of the President is treason. But if it's any consolation, I don't believe in capital punishment.
drich255Oct 24, 2011
President Bush supported his share of stuff from Democrats. Education reform sponsored by Ted Kennedy for one. Environmental policies that will ban incandescent light-bulbs soon for another. Campaign Finance Reform for three. I wasn't pleased about no child left behind. It pisses me off that they are dictating what kind of light bulb I am allowed to buy. And it really killed me that President Bush signed CFR.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Oct 24, 2011
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, there were separate vote in Congress for both wars.
angrycat70Oct 24, 2011
Since we're making this personal, f**k you too dickless piece of s**t. you people spit of George Bush from the day he announced he was even interested in the presidency and you're still doing it.
We're going to give Obama every courtesy, every break and every benefit of a doubt that you gave Bush. That's right- we're going to flame him for everything, every f**king day and I don't care if you don't like it.
Now that it's YOUR ****s****r & chief, you can't seem to take it. It's treason. BOO f**king hoo..
Don't expect the heat to vanish. It only gets hotter from here.
Expect us to attack your ****s****r & chief with every f**king thing we've got and to piss on his grave when he falls.
We will break you collectivist f**ks. Your done. It's over and your too stupid to realize it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianOct 24, 2011
If you were a sane person, one might point out the difference between honest opposition to policy and the premeditated attempt to undermine the Presidency of the United States which you've just confessed to. Only the latter is treason.
The world is changing and you will not be a part of it. Your nasty ignorance is laughed at by most people all across the world. You'll get angrier and more frustrated. Uglier. We don't care. Commit all the treason you want. It won't change anything. It reflects only on you and it reflects very poorly.
miklkitOct 24, 2011
What more could you expect from the party over country republicons?
FufigodsOct 24, 2011
Bush should have never won his second term, it was rigged. We had a reason to complain about Bush being in office, besides all his f*#cked policies. Also, Congress wasn't fighting Bush like the Republicans are fighting Obama now. Republicans only care about themselves, not the country or the people of the country. We want a better country and it hasn't gotten better from their doing, so we need to try something new. Republicans won't allow the changes we need.
truthhasnoagendaOct 25, 2011
But unlike the bush years, The dems had a full majority with Obama and could have passed anything they wanted. But in true Liberal fashion, no balls to take full responsibility for socialist policies.
This country needs conservatism not an R and certainly not a Marxist D.
mlw4428Oct 26, 2011
I said it in a previous comment and I'll say it again in this one. You don't know the meaning of the word Marxist nor you do understand the economic theory behind the word. If you did you'd see you're a goddamn retard for saying it. Obama is as far from Marxism as Bush was. Clearly you watch far too much Faux Noose and suck on Rush Limbaugh's teat FAR too much.
truthhasnoagendaOct 27, 2011
Obama's policies and friends speak for themselves. Sorry the truth hurts so much.
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
kind of reminds me of the way the democrats were during the last Bush administration
wuggasladyOct 22, 2011
Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans don't care about America, or America's interests. Their policies not only hurt 99% of Americans, though that is bad enough. They hurt America. So the reality is the Republicans priorities are: ideology first, party second and country last.
clitniblr036Oct 23, 2011
Unfortunately that's what happens when certain groups of people put ideology before actually doing what's best for their country and the people.
Kinda like religion.....
janinewallaceOct 23, 2011Submitter
c**tniblr036
As Bettverboten said on another comment thread:
Great reply!
Some think it is "always" propaganda if it doesn't fall into their realm of thinking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Oct 23, 2011
Like a broken clock is always right twice a day, she now and then on a rare moment [and probably accidentally] utters an accurate statement.
[Except last time we were talking about *her* propaganda].
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
Somebody who says something as narrow-minded as "Republicans don't care about America" needs to think about their stance on discrimination and stereotyping. I personally know just as many Republicans as Democrats who are sick over the condition of this country. Ever think that you might be part of the problem?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
This story is about GOP *leadership* and we have undeniable evidence that they don't care about America.
truthhasnoagendaOct 23, 2011
Undeniable?! Really? The Obama Marxist regime has taken what a progressive Bush did to the U.S. and multiplied it a thousand fold. Spent more money in one year than 8 Bush years; started 2 new wars; distanced us from Israel; unemployment is still over 9%; one on on. An absolute failure anyway you look at it. And you liberals want more of the same. WOW!
Look at what Reagan did in 1 year after the economic mess Carter left. The truth is a conservative America, not Rep or Dem, works for everyone. He won 2 landslide elections because everyone benefited from the richest to poorest despite a liberal controlled Congress and Senate.
Liberalism is based on emotion not truth. Case in point, the flea party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamOct 23, 2011
You are such a f**king idiot.
natnat1Oct 23, 2011
...good argument
chilidogsOct 23, 2011
When someone calls a moderate conservative a Marxist the conversation is over because they are an idiot.
natnat1Oct 23, 2011
I'm not agreeing that Obama is a marxist, but he for sure isnt a "moderate conservative", and intellegent response is all i expected instead of an insult. Not to mention you are supporting an article that classifies the GOP as "a class of Americans who are as evil as Gaddafi".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthhasnoagendaOct 23, 2011
The truth hurts. Your response drunkclam shows you have no argument. How could you possibly justify what Obama and his admitted Marxist, Maoist friends and coworkers are doing to this country.
Obama, a moderate conservative? Really chilidogs? WOW! He is the furthest from moderate the U.S. has every seen, and look at the results. As soon as you understand what a Marxism is, you'll understand Obama's position and intentions. A few words out of Obama's mouth; social justice, wealth redistribution. You libs are so lost in your emotions you don't see the facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamOct 23, 2011
you are an idiot truthhasnoagenda, you are not worth arguing with. Nothing you say has any value what so ever. As someone else pointed out Obama is the most moderate person to be elected president in our history.
anomaly100Oct 23, 2011
Hippie!
eraptorOct 23, 2011
The Obama regime is anything, but Marxist. In truth, it represents moderate conservatism, not a Democratic Progressive stance. Evidence of this truth is found in Obama's negotiating positions and legislative stance. If you doubt it, take a look at objective media/print coverage surrounding every legislative initiative and recent budget negotiations (not the conservative propaganda you appear to favor).
As for calling Bush a Progressive, don't make me laugh. He was as far-right conservative as you appear to be and with about as much common sense to boot. Federal spending doesn't make a President "Progressive". If it did, Conservative Presidents wouldn't exist. Ronald Reagan broke the bank when he TRIPLED military expenditures while reducing taxes. Does the fiscal behavior sound familiar?
You think Reagan revived the U.S. economy? He DIDN'T. Like California, he left the country with a deep deficit.
Our economy is in the toilet as a direct result of Conservative-led economic/fiscal/public policies, NOT Progressive policies. Spin it any way you want, but there's no escaping THAT truth. Republicans have a LONG history of destroying the U.S. economy.
This TRUTH has been brought to you by a political independent with the financial/economic expertise to call out your political/economic theories as the pure BS they represent.
truthhasnoagendaOct 24, 2011
What branch is in charge of spending? Surely you know its the Legislative. The country rebounded from the Carter fiasco directly because of Reagan and in spite of a Democratic controlled congress.
Obama a moderate? Bush a conservative? WOW. By the purest of definitions Bush is a progressive. I didn't know big government, social justice and wealth redistribution had anything to do with being conservitive. Where is your reference point Eraptor, France?
Bailouts, entitlements, class warfare, big government in-general, is by definition Socialism-marxism-liberalism.
You're embarrassing yourself with your expertise. You and Ben Bernanke would get along great.
eraptorOct 25, 2011
@truth,
Of course I recognize that the legislative branch controls the purse strings, but President's tend to set the economic/fiscal path. While President's can influence the country's economy with the policies they champion/implement, they don't control it directly as you are attempting to credit Reagan for doing.
The problem this country has isn't due to big OR small government, it's the absence of EFFECTIVE government. Size is an irrelevant distraction to this core issue.
Social injustice and wealth redistribution are tied to CONSERVATIVE public policies and have been going on FAR longer than Bush's lost decade. In fact, they can be traced back to Ronald Reagan's policies since THAT'S when both downward trends kicked into overdrive. Dubya and Dick simply threw gas on that fire.
If Dubya was the "Progressive" you disingenuously accuse him of being, he would have REVERSED Ronald Reagan's previous fiscal/economic disgrace, NOT "doubled down" on that stupidity. Following Reagan's public policy lead brands Dubya a CONSERVATIVE, NOT a Progressive. Get your facts straight because your political revisionism isn't credible with people who know better, like me.
By the way, bailouts, entitlements, class warfare and big government are ALL favored by hard-core capitalists, particularly the ones you presume to represent. They've been relying on ALL of these elements to create and protect their oversized fortunes. IF ANY of these programs were as "socialist" as you claim, why are the financial benefits accrued to such an insignificant fraction of the population? Try swallowing THAT economic truth, rightard...
Like Herman Cain, you talk out of both sides of your face while gaining NO credibility in the process. THIS is why most conservatives lack the intellect and credibility to serve in any business or government leadership role whatsoever. You've got your heads buried in your ass.
miklkitOct 23, 2011
That isn't even a good attempt at revisionism. If you are representative of the radical right then we can't throw you bums out of office soon enough.
Do you know that 93% of America's national debt was created by just three men?
Reagan
Bush
Bush/cheney
http://reaganbushdebt.org/
Do you know that bush/cheney own the worst record for job creation on record?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Just what is progressive, or even logical, about starting 2 unfunded wars based on 935 verified lies combined with tax cuts for the rich?
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
And then there was the republicon written bill that repealed Glass-Steagal. What did that give us?
The Great Recession!
Looking at your actions makes one think you were getting your marching orders direct from Osama Bin Laden. That is how anti America your actions are.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
Obama has created more debt in three years than Reagan or Bush in eight.
President Bush's tax cuts generated 8.1 million jobs in four years.
You are obviously very stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthhasnoagendaOct 24, 2011
I have one word for you, OBAMA. He's outspent everyone combined over the last 40 years...so what now? Keep doing the same?
You liberals keep bringing up Bush. Give it a rest. Conservatives hated him. He was the best of the worst.
If you libs are true to your beliefs and hate Bush for what he did, like so many of us conservatives, than you must really hate Obama. He is doing exactly what Bush did multiplied by 1000.
By the way the record for the worst job creation is currently Obama. During the Bush years, you obviously forget, the U.S. had some of the lowest years of unemployment ever.
davey914Oct 24, 2011
Obama is quite moderate, to the dismay of progressives. He extended Bush's tax cuts in order to get something done even though his platform was to repeal them. Bush was not a progressive president and I don't know what journalist would label him as such. You're confused and you use a lot of buzz words which don't support your arguments, if there are any.
truthhasnoagendaOct 25, 2011
Just like Clinton, he knows he can only go so far with his socialist agenda without risking re-election.
Unfortunately for our country, Obama unlike Clinton didn't have a Republican congress to stop him.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the GOP either. But I thank God they've curtailed libs a little bit.
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
You loved Reagan. He's your hero. I hear ya. And, I disagree. Your opinions seem more based on emotion rather than fact. Reagan, as far as I'm concerned, started this 'wealth gap'. Saying that Reagan did wonders in just one year is telling. Not one year (not even four) is telling in terms of impacts on an economy. Our troubles now are long in the making. It's not possible to lay it all at the feat of liberalism. I give Reagan credit for taking a strong stand against Communism and Terrorism. Beyond that, I believe your going to far.
Again, I support your call to look away from both Dems and Republicans. The entire system needs to be changed.
truthhasnoagendaOct 25, 2011
You are soooo correct! Both parties are progressively changing/destroying this great nation. I haven't been aligned with either party for more than 5 presidential elections.
Reagan's record/numbers speak for themselves. Was it all great? No. However, the recovery was enough to get voters to cross party lines and re-elect him by a landslide.
These issues did start a long time ago. Woodrow Wilson is a good start. The government has gotten progressively bigger, and here we are today.
Not all liberalism? What are entitlements, big government, bailouts, class-war-fare and social justice. What ideology believes government is the answer? All the problems on Wall Street are due to government. If true markets were allowed, and there were no bailouts, these big corporate thieves would be out of business. It is liberal programs that have bankrupt our country.
You tell me what government has ever been the answer. You tell me what country has prospered more as they've become more socialist.
You're right the system needs to be changed, but government is not the answer.
JustSayNoPartyOct 25, 2011
Honestly, my views and yours are not that far off in terms of a call for smaller government. I too call for a 'smaller government' with more power pushed to the local level of governance where practical.
But, you state:
"Not all liberalism? What are entitlements, big government, bailouts, class-war-fare and social justice. What ideology believes government is the answer? All the problems on Wall Street are due to government. If true markets were allowed, and there were no bailouts, these big corporate thieves would be out of business. It is liberal programs that have bankrupt our country. "
There are parts of conservative and Liberal ideology that I like. I support Social Security and Medicare (congress of course has mismanaged SS). Bailouts? Both parties were involved. I prefer some 'compassion' with strong safeguards.
No, Liberal programs did not bankrupt us. Broken governance from both parties bankrupted us. We did not have massive decreases in spending during Republican administrations. As for letting Wall Street and large Corporations off the hook because it's all Government's fault? Not buying that. They all are to blame. Let's promote small business, free markets, and competitive practices.
Thus, yes to smaller governments. And yes to ending practices allowing businesses to become 'too big to fail'. No to laying it all at the feat of one or the other 'side'.
mlw4428Oct 26, 2011
Ooops, there's that "Marxist" word again. You sure love tossing around a word you have no idea the definition of. Can you explain Marxism? I didn't think so.
truthhasnoagendaOct 27, 2011
http://www.ismbook.com/marxism.html
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
agmlauncherOct 24, 2011
And yet somehow, there are enough people who vote republican because republicans know how to pander to the moral majority and the anti-intellectual/uneducated.
What's more frightening than sabotage of the US economy, is the deliberate sabotage of US education. Most of the problems of a democracy sort themselves out when the population is adequately educated and thinks rationally.
But when the population has a poor critical thinking foundation, is highly religious (tends to be easily brainwashed to believe in ideals rather than facts), and poorly educated, then all kinds of really simple logic makes sense to them:
"Drugs are bad"
"Abortion is murder"
"If rich people have money, they'll create jobs"
"Terrorists are everywhere, we need more surveillance"
So while it may seem like it will be impossible for Republicans to keep up this nonsense if they want to get re-elected, the sad reality is that their voters vote for them via the same mechanism that gives them unquestionable belief that god exists: blind ignorant faith.
mbraynardOct 24, 2011
Your choice of prose makes you sound like a baby. Or a lesbian public school teacher from New England.
"They hurt America."
Who says that? Is that the limit of your rhetorical capabilities? That website has to have the dumbest audience of any media in history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
angrycat70Oct 24, 2011
just because the opposition party doesn't bend over a take it does NOT mean that they have abandoned Americans or America's interest.
Given this administrations track record of abject failure, they are doing their duty.
shivabeachOct 22, 2011
Its funny that the tea thugs would ask small business’s to not allow itself profits just to attack Obama. Now who is more anti business?
I wonder how Obama is anti business? Its not surprising they never say
leonard2Oct 22, 2011
The "Tea thugs"? You were joking right? Here are some real thugs in action (Occupy wall street).
http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/occupy-wall-street-thugs-impinge-upon-diners-union-sq-cafe-and-gramercy-tavern-to-announce-declaration-of-war-on-owner-danny-meyers-10192011/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bille3Oct 22, 2011
This is not the only cafe at the mercy of the protestors. Others had to lock the doors to try to keep out hordes of protestors using the bathrooms demanding public access and refusing to patronize the cafes. Cafes are losing business from regular customers that are intimidated by protestors milling around. Even small business is under attack on Wall Street.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Oct 22, 2011
OMFG, they milled around?!
cosmicsurferOct 22, 2011
Can't have that lawlessness!/s
anomaly100Oct 22, 2011
I know. My God, they MILLED!!! Cretins!
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
Sure is nice to see them arrested. Hope they get nice records to put on their resumes.
mtownOct 22, 2011
Dear god, milling around is one of the warning signs of harder crimes, like loitering or jaywalking!!
anomaly100Oct 22, 2011
I heard it's a gateway crime which could lead to serious offenses such as jay walking or feeding pigeons in the city. Be careful. Just say no to milling!
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
Don't quote me but... I'm pretty sure bille3 meant they're *milfing* around but I don't understand why customers would run away from that. ;-x
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
You girls are funny. It's not your cafe. You're not the one losing your income because of the OWS people.
You're not the one who still has to pay rent on the store.
Who still has to pay employees.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
No, those are the 99%
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
Nope they are the people on the far left side of the intelligence bell curve.
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
99% of the problem.....0003% of the population
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
Good point, kashy...because it's not like giant anti-abortion protests or tea party protests (on the day Americans are trying to meet the tax filing deadline) cause anyone any inconvenience, right?
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
Lame.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
Are you saying your point is lame as well? If not, it seems hypocritical.
drich255Oct 23, 2011
"We are not a collection of RED states, BLUE states. We are the UNITED STATES!" -- Senator Obama.
miklkitOct 23, 2011
When are you going to live by his words?
skews13Oct 22, 2011
America will be returning the favor soon. Something else these short sighted morons should keep in mind, the paybacks will go on for many elections to come.
peppermintpigOct 22, 2011
Not surprising. This is politics.
alnorteOct 22, 2011
Reality will punch you in the throat come 2012.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
True, the destruction of the Democrat Party is right around the corner. The 2012 tsunami will make the Democrat shellacking look like a summer breeze. All Democrats will be forced to wear an Obama BS bag when campaigning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gunny0311Oct 23, 2011
The only way this country changes for the better, is for all Americans that have common sense and truly care about this country to set aside their differences, and come together as one.
All that you need to understand is that religion, political ideology, race, financial status, gender, employment, the media, and I could go on forever, has divided the American people. This is what our government relies on. The more divided we as Americans are, the more the government can capitalize on. As long as we are not attempting to better each other, all attempts to bring this country to a better place will ultimately fail.
drich255Oct 24, 2011
It would be nice, but I think the right and the left's vision for America are too different. A compromise may be found, but for now it is a battle of competing ideas.
sjwill68Oct 24, 2011
obama is doing a good job of that by himself, he doesn't need any help. oh wait, it's all bush's fault, yeah, sure, whatever sounds good in your empty head. lol
janinewallaceOct 22, 2011Submitter
Wow, the rightist stance is as unpatriotic as it is treasonous
drich255Oct 23, 2011
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." -- Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
There's a difference between "debating and disagreeing", and outwardly taking steps to crumble the nation just to point a finger to say "I told you so" in a lunatic attempt to gain favoritism in the elections.
miklkitOct 23, 2011
We weren't the ones lying to America while calling anyone who called us on it traitors.
We didn't slander the former Ambassador to Iraq.
We didn't out the head of the CIA group looking for WMD.
We didn't murder Dr. David Kelly, the UN weapons inspector who was in Iraq for years.
We didn't lie a confirmed 935 times about Iraq while calling everyone else traitors.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
mrteflonOct 24, 2011
Shhh they're trying to bury those kind of facts so they can rewrite history and blame in on the left!
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
You have the right to free speech, as long as it is speech that the loonie left agrees with. Otherwise, you are a racist, unpatriotic, capitalist pig, man!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelOct 24, 2011
Wasn't it you twinkletoes that told me that I have to understand that there are people that have a different viewpoint from myself and that I need to respect that?
I see according to you, that you have no problems slamming, name calling, and showing disrespect to people that have a different political viewpoint from your own.
I'm glad that you are capable of doing what you preach to others. It's good to know that you are a stand up individual. Good for you.
twinklyjesusOct 24, 2011
So, your point is, that what I said above was true? OR, did I call someone a name?
Are you trying so hard to look for some place I am inconsistent, you miss the intent and point of my post?
TROLL FAIL BOOP BOOP BOOOOOOOPComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelOct 24, 2011
Actually, my point is that you are always inconsistent. You can claim "You're wrong. Troll fail. hahaha" and your tiny little brain might think that you are correct, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
You called people that have a different viewpoint from you the "looney left". You constantly will call names to people that disagree with you, and then cry like a little bitch when you are called out on it.
Stay classy troll.
mbraynardOct 24, 2011
"Dissent is patriotic." - Hillary Clinton.
I remember back when Republicans were getting accused of calling their opposition treasonous and unpatriotic. Never happened, but that didn't stop the left from saying it over and over again.
In fact, the only person with the courage to use that term was Ann Coulter. But it never came from Bush or any of his surrogates.
Yet now the American people have elected Republicans to power and they are carrying out the will of the people, and some fake woman on Digg is throwing the terms "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" around like she (he) does a frisbee at 2 PM on a weekday when the real Americans are working.
Looking forward to the collective throat slitting that's going to come round these parts in November 2012.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Oct 23, 2011
Is President Obama powerless? He needs to make his case to the people. If he really does have a good plan, they will support it and put pressure on their leaders. It is called the bully pulpit. Use it. And if it isn't a bill that a majority of democratic, republican, and independent voters can support -- it isn't the right bill.
nerysOct 23, 2011
damned right. its the greatest power the president actually has. unrestricted access to the PEOPLE.
janinewallaceOct 22, 2011Submitter
Excellent article by RMuse!
FTA: "By now, it is hardly a secret that Republicans have taken every step to subvert the economy to portray President Obama as an ineffective leader. It is also no secret that Republicans are intent on transforming the country into a plutocracy with theocratic rulers who will privatize the government to further enrich the industrialists’ wealth and power. There is absolutely nothing Republicans have done since President Obama’s inauguration that helps the American people, and in fact, they have used every means possible to cause pain and suffering for 98% of the population. A brief perusal of the current Republican presidential candidates exposes more anti-American policies that if enacted, will elevate the wealthy class to a position of power this country has never witnessed"
nerysOct 23, 2011
"It is also no secret that Republicans are intent on transforming the country into a plutocracy with theocratic rulers who will privatize the government to further enrich the industrialists’ wealth and power"
Now replace the word REPUBLICANS with "ANY SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL FIGURE IN THE USA TODAY"
they are ALL crooks.
there is one republican who might actually have a chance at fixing things but the media won't even look in his direction out plain old fear and power mongering.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysOct 27, 2011
DIgging it down does not alter the reality. Just lets you pretend to hide from it.
THEY ARE ALL CROOKS democrats and republics. Different sides of the same stinking sleazy corrupt coin.
marcglezOct 24, 2011
The Republican party has engaged in a total obstruction of the government so they can regain control in 2012 like they gained congress in 2010
withearsOct 24, 2011
republicans wrecked the economy as a result of the final Bush years. And now they refuse to participate in fixing it.
WTF is wrong with these people!?
marcglezOct 25, 2011
Obstruct - Blame the others for their own practices - confuse constituents with lies, lies and more lies.
Accuse Obama of everything Bush did and of him being a socialist.
Despite that it was their own believe in "No government intervention" that allowed the Oil tycoons, Wall Street vultures bankers and Defense blank checks that depleted the economy to it's knees.
myvoice4uOct 23, 2011
I keep thinking this whole tea party/religiously rabid conservative movement can't become more insane and well, evil. This article is an excellent read and illustrates the lengths the GOP will take to deconstruct the American social fiber that has made us a great country. Considering what he inherited and the organized movement to unseat him, Obama continues to display remarkable integrity and effectiveness as a president, particularly when compared to his predecessor.
myvoice4uOct 23, 2011
You conservatives can bury me buy you CANNOT shut down my voice.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
Huh. It's the independents that are turning away from Obama now.
wipisOct 27, 2011
Are you familiar with the neo-conservatives? Rove is their wonder-boy. They basically want to manipulate everything so that America becomes a corporate republic (Fascism) and turn the world into colonies and spheres of influence. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) is their statement of purpose. People who signed on are some familiar names Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cohen.
These people want to take power, will do anything to get it, are in bed with the corporations and want to make America the world police.
KritisonlineOct 23, 2011
looks like the world over.
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
Well, people are lining up on their sides again.
If you think Obama is the worst President ever. I disagree. He's serving during some of our most trying economic times. Any President would be derided at this point. He's the best ever? Not even close. I believe he's an average president and his inexperience has shown.
Thus, I'm open for an alternative. But, I won't be voting for Bachman or Perry. Thus, the alternative actually has to appear rationally better. The problem though is that people line up on these sides and their views are completely colored by that side. For example:
"You guy keep it up and you'll have to change your Depends but then again you have let Obama and his fools pee down your leg for over 3 years already."
or
"O.T.P. - Obama the President? Sure, I'm all for that"
None of this bodes well for regaining our standing around the world.
toxnubOct 24, 2011
needs more diggs
wipisOct 24, 2011
The Tea Party Nation sent out a rambling, anti-American letter to approximately 30,000 members that ended with the pledge: “I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped. I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.”
That's f**ked up and bulls**t.
woodsjransomOct 23, 2011
But ish that comes around goes around and they will be getting served come November 2012.
nerysOct 23, 2011
no they won't since we no longer VOTE in this country. We "select" from pre approved candidates that we don't really get any say in.
SO all the candidates are effectively the SAME.
until people start using the greatest power on the planet. The Write In Vote we are going NO WHERE.
the only difference between republicans and democrats is WHERE THEY SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY.
otherwise are are just two sides of the same god damned stinking smelly coin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wipisOct 27, 2011
Despite what people think the candidates are not pre-selected. Of course you need a lot of money just to get into a party primary and put your name on the ticket. But if you are politically active you can raise that money pretty easily. So if you are a junior congressmen with not too much experience but are well educated and have made some good connections you too can run for president. Also that money you pay to put your name on the ticket goes to the local party committee. So when you run for president later that local party committee will spend that money to help you run. After you receive your party nomination the money really does come flooding in from special interests.
The problem is participation. If you don't like the democratic nominees maybe you should register with a party and get involved. I registered as a democrat when I registered to vote. I vote on which candidate I think should run. I didn't actually nominate Obama (I preferred Bill Richardson or Joe Biden). But I later voted for him anyway because I still liked him more than McCain. One good thing about registering is that they will send you reminders to vote and details about when/where and who is up for election.
The money comes into the national campaign. People vote for the name they trust. Because many people can't be bothered to watch a debate or read about their candidates they often just trust the name/face they see the most. I think It's a miracle that Obama won because his name sounds a little strange. But people liked him anyway.
nerysOct 27, 2011
yes they are preselected.
here is the selection criteria
First we created a two party system if your not rep or dem your no one. thats the first selection
Second if you want the party selection you need THEIR approval for all intents and purposes. thats the second selection process.
Third you need media IE rich guys support and approval or you get NO COVERAGE
and NO coverage on MSM effectively neuters you.
SO yes its a list of "preselected" candidates for all intents and purposes.
If your not "approved" you effectively have NO CHANCE in our current system.
this is a FACT.
and lastly don't forget no money no real shot. you basically need to be very wealthy to have a shot at this.
thats an AWFUL lot of preselection criteria for a system you claim does not have one.
wipisOct 27, 2011
Yes it comes down to money. But if you are smart and charismatic you can win. Getting on the campaign trail for the Republican primary costs money. You need to travel, a lot. You need to hold press conferences. You need to prepare for debates. You need to be ready for straw poll events. And you need to pay to get your name on the ticket.
Independents aren't no one. It's just they don't have a large enough constituency to yeah they have no money.
You think all the candidates are rich? No they line their pockets with other peoples money. It's been like that since the beginning. I agree we need campaign reform but you have to participate first.
nerysOct 27, 2011
No you can not. not REMOTELY easily.
if your NOT on television your largely irrelevant. PERIOD. its that simple.
if you can not win the MEDIA you can NOT win the election 99.9999% of the time. Period.
and take a guess who owns the media.
Fox had a standing policy toward the end of the last presidential election.
MENTION the name ron paul on air without permission and your fired.
Now I don't care what you think of ron paul or if he really is a cook THAT is wrong. Period. and you know it.
he did everything right and was FLAT OUT IGNORED.
Find the NEWS talking about any presidential candidate not worth millions or "Backed" by millions.
Find me one. Find me ONE SINGLE candidate that meets that requirement that got equal treatment from the media.
the point is THEY HAVE MONEY does not matter who's money it is THEY HAVE IT. if you don't your irrelevant.
its about as pre selected as it gets without flat out saying so.
psilver1Oct 23, 2011
The problem is that the people in Washington are also the 1% and do you think that a human being is going to go against their selfish nature and put into place policies that would have them put aside their own personal fortune for the benefits of the masses? Yes, Republicans practice and love a "scorched-earth" policy when they are not in the driver's seat, but the Democrats had two years of nearly-complete control of Washington and also did nothing to try and put finance regulations back into place like before the 1980s.
ka5p3rOct 23, 2011
Republicans had nothing to do with obama getting in office,dumb people did that.
i keep forgetting this is a Democrap site with Democrap people reading BS.
angrycat70Oct 24, 2011
>>Republicans Continue To Punish America For Electing Barack Obama
Are you sure that it is republicans punishing America or the incompetent jackass in the White House?
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
It's Republicans who clearly decided to start their plan to retake the White House as soon as Obama was elected (by countering his every move). And, it's Obama's inexperience and lack of leadership.
I'd say both.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
angrycat70Oct 24, 2011
as if the democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing if their positions were reversed. Just like they did when Bush was in the White House
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
A) I don't remember saying the Dems wouldn't do the same. And, B) No, the Dems didn't do that too bush nearly to the same degree from 2000 to 20004. Compare 'filibusters' then and now. Compare massive independent prosecutions during Clinton's terms. On whole, thus far, Republicans seem to be more 'obstructionist' in nature. But, both do it. It's why the 'two party' thing doesn't work well.
eraptorOct 23, 2011
Punish America?
Not a problem. The country will return the favor in 2012. God help the Republican/Conservative who dares to call for bipartisanship in light of THEIR recent legislative behavior/disgrace.
Their "T-bagger" rebranding effort won't save their sorry asses this time.
mercedrocksOct 24, 2011
He's doing a pretty good job of punishing himself with his own leftist ideology, alienating the republicans and everybody else.
He needs to take a page from Clinton and move to the middle.
As a matter of fact too bad we can't have Clinton serve another term.
Now there was a president! Cut spending, raised taxes, and was a MODERATE!
daiichiOct 24, 2011
Lol. I'm not a Republican, but I believe that Obama's punishing America for electing Barack Obama.
sapana543Oct 23, 2011
Republicans don't want to hurt America. They are fighting Obama's agenda which they correctly believe hurts America.
Obama is a failure. His policies are failed. Fighting Obama should not be equated to 'punishing America'.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionOct 24, 2011
What was his agenda, cater to you f**ks and ignore the people that voted him in? then mission accomplished.
sapana543Oct 25, 2011
He did not cater to 'us f**ks'. He drove up the national debt, enriched unions, screwed up our foreign relations. He is a total disaster. He did not cater to me or anyone like me.
spatula7Oct 23, 2011
No, they're punishing us for the failures of Bush, they are so entrenched in their small minded ideological fantasy world they can't cope when reality of their failure gets revealed, so they lash out at everyone else
rowdimanOct 23, 2011
Should have seen this coming when the new GOP congressmen phoned in the taking of their oath. Too busy partying to take it seriously.
miklkitOct 24, 2011
That is just one more example of their total disdain for the rule of law, and the Constitution.
blackhorse19dOct 23, 2011
dems had control of Congress from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011.
His Holiness passed EVERY major piece of legislation he wanted from Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 2011.
I can only assume that you folks intended for The Chosen One to have 2 full terms without any opposition.
I know one thing for sure though, less than 10 days after whichever repub is sworn in on Jan 20, 2013, you will be screaming about the fact that everyone is not making $100K with Congressional type retirement and health benefits.
And if they dare to embark on military actions,like Barry has, you will be apoplectic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionOct 23, 2011
you're right he f**ked up, and as someone who voted for him I can admit that, but you are blind to the garbage happening on the other side. They are a bunch of lunatics running for office and you turn a blind eye. Shame on you.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
Stop with the crazy talk. How much of a moron must you be not to know how our government was planned? The tea party thugs (undercover Koch whores, basically) have had America by the balls for the last three years and they've nearly destroyed the country. Get serious.
dividebyoOct 23, 2011
While I agree that many far right wing policy ideas are nutty, and that this one in particular from them (yes, I'm including the Republicans in with the Tea Partiers) is absolutely insane, I can't agree with comparing it or them to the situation in Libya.
The article did make a specific reference to comparing this policy to the things done to the Libyan people - and that is just not right. Until they go around killing those that oppose them, this sort of rhetoric is exactly the thing we don't need - from either side of the political spectrum, and all it does is polarize factions just that much more.
I think we need another one of these: http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/
And this time, try to get people to really listen and understand...
AngerOutletOct 24, 2011
They don't have to "portray" O'Blamer as an ineffective leader. HE IS AN INEFFECTIVE Leader.!!! Republican's are doing the only thing that makes sense sinse the big mistake of electing O'Stupid. They're limiting the damage he can do and till sanity is restored and we can put his sorry behind to the curb where it belongs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wipisOct 27, 2011
If Republicans want to be seen as leaders and not as obstructionists they should try writing a bill from time to time. Or imagine this work with Democrats.
As a leader Obama has done a far better job than you seem to think. He's encouraging new legislation every day. He is helping his party and meeting the other. What have the Republicans done? They have this "my way or the highway" attitude. They refuse to meet at any middle ground. When they do they usually cripple any bill that is passed and then complain that it's ineffective. Would you rather Obama just start writing executive orders and use legal and bureaucratic maneuvers to do things his way and tell the republicans to suck it? That's not leadership.
krusty47Oct 27, 2011
You mean like Cut Cap and balance? Or any number of other ones that the Liberals Obstruct?
AngerOutletOct 27, 2011
You are so far off i don't know where to begin.
Mani_shah55Nov 3, 2011
Join hands with Occupy Wall Street see article on
http://www.2occupywallstreet.blogspot.com
johnnysoftwareOct 25, 2011
Well, that is one way to look at it.
There is another way to look at it which is the exact opposite.
And a lot more ironic.
atlasfOct 24, 2011
I'd say that Obama has sufficiently punished America for Electing Obama.
I also find it curious that Democrats in congress are now also "punishing America for electing Obama" by opposing his ineffective and detrimental proposals.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
Democrats continue to pretend raising taxes and spending more will reverse the downward spiral.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
Where have 10 years of GOP tax cuts for rich people gotten us?
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
You really think it's the govt's money and they're mistakenly GIVING it to some rich guy.
drich255Oct 23, 2011
It's not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Bail all the water you want out of the boat, but it won't do any good until the leak is fixed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
glassagateOct 24, 2011
Gut the bloated defense budget...
End all farm, oil, and coal subsidies...
Send the Gitmo detainees to US civilian courts (we've handled
far worse)
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
Well, I think that the pawns, lefty-diggers for example, actually believe that taxing and spending will reverse the downward spiral. And the royalty like Obama and Co know they are destroying us. That's what they want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionOct 23, 2011
by us are you saying you make over a million a year?
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
Obama's taxes will effect us all.
concusionOct 24, 2011
when has obama raised your taxes?
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
He has destroyed our economy.
concusionOct 24, 2011
sorry but Bush was in office when the economy was destroyed. Obama hasn't walked on water and cleaned up this train wreck that Bush left. If you can't remember when the economy crashed go google it, Bush was in office, so saying Obama destroyed the economy is a blatant lie.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
Starting in 2013 (after the election) all kinds of new taxes take effect.
concusionOct 24, 2011
well which is it, did he destroy the economy, or did he destroy the economy with s**t not even in effect yet? please get your lies straight.
mrteflonOct 24, 2011
Still waiting for your answer on where the Pallets of Multiple "BILLIONS" dissipeared to when ole Bush and Cheney packed em up on two C130's and sent them to Iraq? Still waiting .... Until then anything you say about spending Billions has no substance.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
Cite some reputable source for this.
rowdimanOct 27, 2011
6.6 Billion has been "found" in Iraq's Central Bank.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
Subvert the economy? Really? Ok, you s**theads need to decide if they're all about the corporate power trip, or if they're all about destroying America. The two things are mutually exclusive and you can't have it both ways. Here's a novel idea... less partisanship and more paying attention to what it really means to be an American.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
Uh, you don't know what your are talking about. Corporations f**k people for money, look at the recession. They sold s**tty mortgages for profit at tax payer expense for PROFIT. OWS is not partisan. The right wingers that call it as such are f**king idiots attempting to subvert democracy.
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
"Corporations f**k people for money, look at the recession." ?
Without corporations, we'd have nothing. Nothing. None of the products and services that make our lifestyle safe and comfortable and interesting would be possible without corporations.
In the USSR and N Korea, for example, without corporations there was almost nothing to buy with your paycheck. Grocery stores with no food for sale. Department stores with little clothes. Five year waiting lists for a stove, a refrigerator or a car. Doctors with no medicine.
And the best part is, corporations do it to satisfy the most natural and dependable human motivations -- their own self-interest.
That's fantastic, because we can depend on them to continue to bring us food, clothes etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
"Without corporations, we'd have nothing. Nothing. None of the products and services that make our lifestyle safe and comfortable and interesting would be possible without corporations."
No one said they need to go away. Way to assume something that was never stated!
"In the USSR and N Korea, for example, without corporations there was almost nothing to buy with your paycheck. Grocery stores with no food for sale. Department stores with little clothes. Five year waiting lists for a stove, a refrigerator or a car. Doctors with no medicine."
Again, you're arguing your assumptions, not anyone's positions. This is not the 1950's, you can quit acting like it is.
"And the best part is, corporations do it to satisfy the most natural and dependable human motivations -- their own self-interest.
That's fantastic, because we can depend on them to continue to bring us food, clothes etc."
Again, that's wonderful. Good for them. Not all corporations are evil. Government shouldn't control that river of corruption that is the market and profits, they should harass by letting it be. All the while keeping the dam of regulations to protect us from similar situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Repeal
Laws like this should have NOT BEEN REPEALED. Corporations are here to make money, and if left unchecked will corrupt our system of politics and cause massive regresses in economic processes.
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
"Corporations f**k people for money"
So are you retracting this statement?
"that river of corruption that is the market and profits..."
How about this one? You should be grateful for the miracles that corporations provide for you.
"Not all corporations are evil. "
Is that your idea of fairness? So MOST are evil?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
No, those statements are true. Corporate interest include money, profits, not human well being. They are not a ethical model of government or rule
savetheseaOct 24, 2011
kasha, are you saying that only a corporation can provide us with goods and services?
"You should be grateful for the miracles that corporations provide for you."
I get it now. You do not fully understand the corporate and business world so you equate their work to miracles. Sounds a bit like something else.......and both are based on a faith preached by others. This corporation "Miracle" talk is preached to you by Rush et al. and the other "Miracle" talk comes on Sundays.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
@savethesea
Only very large scale enterprises can provide us with the kinds of goods and services we're accustomed to. Yes, a small business could build me a car from scratch. It would cost $500,000 and it probably wouldn't run.
Yes, small family farms could feed me. And if that's all there were, we'd have to go back to having 90% of the workforce growing food.
So, aside from corporations, what large-scale enterprises could do this for us? Government run farms? Remember the USSR? Their farms were so bad they had to beg us to sell them wheat. Or Cuba? We feed them too now.
savetheseaOct 24, 2011
kasha - I will not argue with the fact that we are at the point of needing very large corporations. That does not mean they should be able to run amok and not operate with a social conscience. The number one purpose of a large publicly traded corporation is to maximize shareholder wealth. Without proper regulation and a social barometer, shareholder wealth takes precedence over the actual consumers and employees. There needs to be a balance, and the idea of phony paper valuation needs to be reevaluated.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
@savethesea
Well, ok. You certainly implied that we didn't need corporations. If you're retracting that somehow, I accept your retraction.
"The number one purpose of a large publicly traded corporation is to maximize shareholder wealth."
Yes, within the law. If the #1 purpose is NOT to maximize shareholder returns then no one will invest.
"Without proper regulation"
I don't think anyone responsible is saying there should be NO regulation. But 80,000+ pages?
" and a social barometer"
A what? If that means pressure to make corporations return the shareholders profits to anyone but the shareholders, I disagree.
" shareholder wealth takes precedence over the actual consumers and employees."
Of course shareholder wealth takes precedence. Within the law.
"... the idea of phony paper valuation needs to be reevaluated."
What do you mean by paper valuation?
savetheseaOct 24, 2011
kasha
i like the way you "accept my retraction" as I never stated or implied that we do not need corporations - nice spin.
"Of course shareholder wealth takes precedence. Within the law."
and the corporation push the laws to the limits - look at BP and the Gulf coast states for reference.
Should shareholder wealth be the number one priority? No, I feel the overall health of the company should be the number one priority, employee benefits, etc. The market will correct some of that, but most will be ignored in the name of short-term profits. The market does not allow a company to build through the years, investment needs short-term actions.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
Without the people buying products from them, the corporations wouldn't have the money to make products, so I think it's wise for them to stop screwing people over.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
I am all for stopping any screwing over that is going on. But I would really like somebody to say in specific terms what the screwing has been. The screwing over, to me, has been the giving of any public money at all to private business (excepting normal purchasing arrangements), or to consumers who are a bad credit risk. All this crap would go away if we stopped the loan backing and bailing out.
shingoexOct 24, 2011
Downsizing, outsourcing, lower wages, fewer (if any) benefits, bailouts for the rich when the poor need it......
The list goes on, but those are just a sample.
lasersharkOct 24, 2011
Bailouts are definitely on my s**t list of screw jobs. But those other things, while not pleasant, are real world business decisions that keep companies viable. Feels like getting screwed when you get laid off (as I can attest) or your healthcare payments go up (as I can attest), but companies cannot be expected to operate at a loss.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lasersharkOct 24, 2011
Bailouts are definitely on my s**t list of screw jobs. But those other things, while not pleasant, are real world business decisions that keep companies viable. Feels like getting screwed when you get laid off (as I can attest) or your healthcare payments go up (as I can attest), but companies cannot be expected to operate at a loss.
shingoexOct 24, 2011
The companies are plenty viable when their profits are higher than they've ever been, yet they keep getting rid of US jobs so they can pocket even more.
lasersharkOct 24, 2011
OK, so the question then becomes... How do we lower the cost of labor in the US so that there is no impetus to offshore it?
Everybody spouts off about joining in the global economy, but then they don't want to compete in the labor market..
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
They sold s**tty mortgages because they were backed up by s**tty govt policy. By the way... all mortgages are for profit. That's what lending is. The point should be that there should never have been any public money in play in the first place. If you are forced to back bad loans by a feel-good policy than you will lose on the defaults.
People willingly give their money to corporations in exchange for services and products that they want to consume. They give something, people get something. Where it all goes awry is when we allow public money of any form into into the equation. That money is an opportunity to the companies, and they would be nothing short of stupid to not make the best of their opportunities. What I'm saying is... remove the opportunities for companies to benefit from the tax dollar.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
What I mean by that is no more public funding flowing from the treasury to private business where there is no return of product or service directly to the government. No more $million loans, no more bailouts, no more sub-prime lending.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
But what that means for the social engineers from both sides is that they have to stay the hell out of everybody else's business. Pretty tough for folks that think they know better than everybody else...
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
They were able to do that because Alan Greenspan though the banks would self regulate and the repeal of the glass seagal act which prevented that sort of packaging and selling of mortgages. Your half truths do not stand up to reality. In fact, the reality that banks took advantage of the governmental system is exactly the point many, including OWS in some regard, are angry of. There were no punishments, only light fines and dodd frank, which isn't even strong enough to stop the same bubble it was meant to stop.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
None of which changes the substance of what I'm saying. If we put a stop to the loans and bailouts and engineering spending... problem mostly solved. It doesn't matter who caused the problem, it matters that we understand it and it matters what we do about it now. We can point fingers left and right till the cows come home, but the farm will still go bankrupt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorOct 23, 2011
Or you could just regulate them, worked fine for nearly 70 years until the glass segall act was repealed. Bailoits were a bandaid, not constant policy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lasersharkOct 23, 2011
IMHO, we should fix it completely... not revert back to sorta-fixed.
monakerOct 27, 2011
the Taboo of Exposing Racism is Destroying The Divide States of America.
monakerOct 27, 2011
the Taboo of Exposing Racism is Destroying The Divide States of America.
KritisonlineOct 27, 2011
he's got to remember what Kennedy did and said. Then he will be able to fight this off and give another 4 years a go.
KritisonlineOct 27, 2011
he's got to remember what Kennedy did and said. Then he will be able to fight this off and give another 4 years a go.
martin92003Oct 26, 2011
Republcans should try to think whats best for the USA for a change.
ybawahooOct 24, 2011
What if we removed the words republican, GOP, right, democrat, and left from all news media...then maybe we could have a decent discussion of the issues and ideas instead of purposeless (I say as I comment on digg) party bashing.
pyr8bwoyOct 24, 2011
why do we continue to let this happen?
sharky35Oct 24, 2011
Wow, you can make up just about anything, and it'll rise to the top on digg if it has a anti repub spin.
atlasfOct 24, 2011
I'd say that Obama has sufficiently punished America for Electing Obama.
I also find it curious that Democrats in congress are now also "punishing America for electing Obama" by opposing his ineffective and detrimental proposals.
ryanwbOct 24, 2011
Sorry, I spent today with my family otherwise I would have totaly been here to talk down these motherf**king rightwing bastards
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
Huh.
And I'd say it was Barack Obama who was punishing American for electing him.
Closed AccountOct 23, 2011
kashy, that's just one of the voices in your head talking. You need to believe that America is going to punish Barack Obama in 2012 but most signs point towards the GOP. I mean, look at the embarrassing ragtag band of candidates you have. You've got gold digging losers galore and sloppy seconds from previous primaries. And then there's the GOP itself (weighed down by the disgusting thugs in the tea party). It's not looking pretty, kashy. ;-(
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
A.B. O. Anybody But Obama
Who down wit O.T.P. ?
dividebyoOct 23, 2011
O.T.P. - Obama the President?
Sure, I'm all for that
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
OTP = One Term President
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
The Republican Party's wet dream since 2008. That's the problem. If a Republican is elected now, there's a fair chance the opposition party's primary focus will be to win in 2016. Unfortunately, this is all Lose/Lose for America.
shingoexOct 23, 2011
You'd actually prefer someone worse than Obama to Obama?
Voters like you are the real threat to this country?
kasha34Oct 23, 2011
We'd prefer someone who doesn't actively wish to damage the USA. Anybody but Obama.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2011
There is no one worse than Obama. There are several as bad, but no one worse.
JustSayNoPartyOct 24, 2011
That is far too colored by your 'political bias'. There are many that could be worse and many that could be better. I rate him as average and at this point in history, that's not a good thing.
kasha34Oct 24, 2011
Average? He's lit the fuse that will wreck the best medical system in the world. He's spent us into bankruptcy in two years?
afewbravemenOct 24, 2011
Kind of an irony here ... To act in this way is to incorporate all those things that european peoples fled from Europe to begin with. You did not leave it behind, it came after you. The same principles on money, wealth, etc. All that you wanted out of you now incorporate into your own system. The problem now is there is no other largely unknown part of the world to flee and escape it thus you are stuck with it. The society you are stuck with is what you made it to be.
As for Obama, if you consider all the opposition put up against him on everything. Not just in the political spectrum, but the business and financial areas also I think he has done as well as could be expected considering. Remember he inherited a crap economy, it was off the rails already and looked like it would implode sooner rather than later.
I think many Republicans were and still are hopng that they could lay all the blame of previous Republican government at Obama's door although Bush is not wholly to blame for this. I think it goes far deeper and the nature of what human beings are.
As for the future? Relected or not? Don't know myself, but would it be wrong for Democrats to take the same actions as the Republican if the next president is Republican?
If you friggin say YES then by that argument those Repbublicans that portray this argument are wrong today. I mean why not all businesses owned by Democrats promise if the Republicans get elected you will lay off as many people as possible in response. Seems only fair don't it!
Me I am banking on a double dip recession myself. I think it is inevitable and at that point if Obama planted enough seeds of creating an economy you will be okay. If not it will be very interesting as all those that objected to this will have to eat humble pie being the main opposition against all of it. Better than many of those in Europe though that are doing diddly squat as economies burn. So be thankful for small mercies you aint got our politcians.
Oh and if you agree on any part of what he is trying to do then express it okay. First rule of Democracy keep those bits the other side is offering that you like it is called a start of finding a concensus of popular agreement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.