REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What ever happened to Impeach the President & Repeal Obamacare?

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Friday, April 5, 2019 17:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10589
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 1:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Anyone?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:15 AM

REAVERFAN


I think it's down to shouting "No third term!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.

It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.

As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.

The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 11:02 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Anyone?


SGG



That was/is all playing to the base. It was never real...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:27 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.

A better Obamacare would NOT have passed. The Obamacare we have passed by one vote from a nearly dead man, who then died.

Obamacare was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress:

Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare). So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

More at www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:03 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Yep, the GOP is desperately trying to smear Hilary and connect her to Obama. I think she'll get worse treatment than Obama in the Republican-controlled Congress for that reason alone.............plus the fact that she's a woman and will soundly beat any one that they can come up with.

The next 4 years is going to be HELL!

That's why, in many ways, I want a Republican to win to see what they will do - not only domestically, but also in foreign policy. Trump or Carson will shit their pants as to the hard decisions they will face.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
I think it's down to shouting "No third term!"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:06 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Exactly.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Anyone?


SGG



That was/is all playing to the base. It was never real...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thanks Second, forgot about that little thing.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.

A better Obamacare would NOT have passed. The Obamacare we have passed by one vote from a nearly dead man, who then died.

Obamacare was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress:

Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare). So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

More at www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:11 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it cost states more to have uninsured using the emergency room as a clinic office?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:20 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Is this what you were talking about in regards to the NSA?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-advances-nsa-20150602-story
.html



SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.

It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.

As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.

The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I understand that healthcare was "difficult". That it would have experienced a lot of pushback from the insurance industries, for precisely the reason that ANY cost-effective single-payer or public option would have either immediately killed them on the spot, or slowly out-competed them. It's too bad Obama didn't fight for healthcare with the same cunning and vigor and tenacity that he fought for the Presidency. But what Obama did was toss the project to Max Baucus. Now Max, if he was one thing, was the man who got more healthcare insurance money than ANYONE in the Senate.


And he's STILL pushing for those "Free trade agreements" - TTIP and TPP - just like Bill Clinton pushed for - and got- NAFTA. So, how did that work out for us?

You people seem to forget that when Obama came to power, we were in the worst economic and financial freefall since the Great Depression. People voted for Obama because he promised ... what was that? HOPE and CHANGE. But Roosevelt, in his time and under similar circumstances (with just as much opposition) accomplished so much more.

I suspected Obama was going to go back on his promises when, right after he assumed office, it fell to him to appoint a Treasury Scy. But instead of appointing Sheila Bair, who- as Chair of the FDIC knew a thing or two about how to make banks run right- appointed Timmy Geithner, Wall Street protege.

All of those bankers who engage in FRAUDULENT BANKING? (The fraud went far far beyond just writing fraudulent loans ... it included selling "mortgage-backed products" for which mortgages had not even been written) Any of them go to jail?

As far as the NSA-snooping. that construction of the massive data-storage center in Utah almost certainly began on Obama's watch. Do you think Obama didn't know about this?

That fact that Obama prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all other Presidents COMBINED? Instead of giving Snowden a medal - which he fully deserves- he vowed to prosecute him. So much for the Fourth Amendment AND his promise of the "most transparent government ever"!

Obama, shortly into his second term, floated the idea of "indefinite preventive detention". So much for habeas corpus!

Those "kill lists" - in which Obama gets to be judge, jury and executioner of American citizens after some Star Chamber proceeding- were done with not only with Obama's knowledge but also with his direct, personal involvement. So, whatever happened to "due process" and a "trial by jury of your peers"?

As a Constitutional professor, don't you think that Obama KNEW he was wiping his feet on the first Ten Amendments?

------------------

Maybe looking back on Clinton ... who is less emotional as a topic ... would be instructive. Bill Clinton stabbed the middle class in the back many times:

He pushed for - and got- NAFTA and CAFTA, which not only decimated American manufacturing jobs but ALSO the small farmers south of the border and in the Caribbean, leading to a massive influx of poor migrants from the south and massive food insecurity everywhere south of here. As a single example of why this happened and who pushed for it, that's one the the reasons why Haiti was so stricken after the quake- all of its small rice farmers had been displaced by subsidize rice from the southern USA. Haitians were entirely dependent on cheap commodified imports like McDonald's, because "someone" decided that it would be better (for whom?) for Haiti to be a source of cheap manufacturing jobs (I saw World Bank plan along those lines) than attempting to maintain an independent economy, and Bill Clinton was all too happy to go along with those plans!

He repealed the Glass-Stegall Act; this was the law written in the 30s which separate YOUR SAVINGS from risky banking, and it was ONE OF THE DIRECT CAUSES of the 2008 crash.

He signed the Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act; THIS bill brought us Enron shortly afterwords but also allowed the sale of the "mortgage backed products" and "Credti Defualt Swaps" which were ANOTHER CAUSE OF THE CRASH of 2008.

He signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a big fat smooch to Bill Gates and the recording industry. This not only did away with "fair use" for electronic media, it also created a whole new set of ridiculous restrictions, including a prohibition on benchmarking software performance and a prohibition on reverse-engineering software. It was Bill Clinton's Justice Department under-prosecuted Microsoft for its monopolistic practices so severely that Judge Penfield Jackson actually protested the performance of the Justice Dept prosecutors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. and it was on Bill Clinton's watch that the infamous NSA_key was discovered in MS operating system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY And we have been operating on a monopoly of insecure platforms, with backdoors built in for the NSA ever since

AND, on a completely cultural note, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and promulgated the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for the armed forces.


The middle class, at the time, thought Bill Clinton was their friend because they thought they could have a beer with him, and because he raised the minimum wage and was fortunate enough to be President during the tech bubble.


-----------
Just like Bill Clinton, I don't think you realize how complicit Obama is in protecting the rich and powerful. The difference between Obama and the Republicans is that he's not a religious nut-job, and he's able to make liberal-sounding promises guilt-free, without ever intending to keep them.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 11:35 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Don't be surprised if the next President is Republican. It is always a coin flip determining which party takes the White House. If Obama had governed like FDR it would be a certainty that he would have been impeached and Republicans win in 2016. Has Obama had any trouble? Only when he attempted something a nominally Democrat would do. If Obama did NOT violate the Constitution, he would be impeached. He is doing what Republicans want.

The USA is Republican land. Just look at state legislatures and governors. There are currently 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and one independent that hold the office of governor in the states. There are 31 Republican-controlled legislatures, 11 Democratic-controlled legislatures, and 8 Split legislatures.

It is impossible for a real Democrat to be elected President in Republican land. It is numerically impossible. It's hopeless. That's why it's Obama. That's why it might be Hillary. That's why it cannot be Bernie Sanders for President.

And that's why Obama hasn't been impeached in Republican land. He is a Republican without the craziness of the Tea Party. He's a Republican without the foreign policy stupidity of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Even Obamacare is Republican because it's Romney-care. (Remember Republican Mitt Romney?) In Republican land a Hillary or an Obama have a 50-50 chance of winning against a real Republican. A Bernie or a FDR have no chance.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 5, 2015 11:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Don't be surprised if the next President is Republican.
Good.

Sometimes you just have to dive deep into stupid and hit bottom.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 6, 2015 3:31 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors. Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008.

I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:

1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck".............

The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.

Why the president didn't fire Sebelius is beyond me. That was a mistake.

(Source: Policy.Mic, by Soshanna Weissmann)

http://mic.com/articles/36159/sen-max-baucus-obamacare-s-biggest-advoc
ate-now-warns-of-disaster


2- Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.

"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerable Washington Post.

Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before joining the administration, had this comical exchange with Damon Silvers, deputy chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, at an April 21, 2009, hearing:

Silvers: All right. Let me stop you right there. What I don’t get–and I practice law, and you have been in banking — is a deal where —

Geithner: Actually–I have never actually been in banking. I have only been in public service.

Silvers: Well, a long time ago. A long time.

Geithner: Actually never.

Silvers: Investment banking I meant.

Geithner: Never investment banking. Spent my entire life in public service in the Treasury and at the Federal Reserve.

Silvers: Well, all right. Very well then."

(Source: Fact Check.org, by Eugene Kiely)

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/obama-white-house-full-of-wall-street
-executives
/

P.S. It is widely known that President Bush and Congress cut a deal with the Wall Street Banking Industry, lead by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (who was once a Wall Street Banker with Goldman Sachs) who pressured both the President and Congress into passing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Too Big to Fail crisis). It involved the "toxic housing assets" known as derivatives that nearly collapsed the world banking system (all because of a handful of greedy bastards), and allowed 10 banking concerns to merge with other banks and take over 77% of the industry, making them too big to fail. Both Paulson and Bernanke fiddled while the country burned.

All this took place under Bush's watch. Obama inherited the worse banking
fiasco since the Great Depression (also man made) and you make it seem as though he orchestrated this unholy mess. I may be wrong but, only one Wall Street banker went to jail......

"In the aftermath of the crash, the Justice Department did not refrain from prosecutions altogether. In 2009, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York tried two Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers—Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin—who had effectively run their $1.6 billion fund into the ground in the spring of 2007, an event that many believe was the canary in the coal mine of the financial crisis. But a jury acquitted the two men in November 2009. Added to the general fear that the economy was extraordinarily fragile, the unexpected acquittal seemed to put a deep freeze on Wall Street prosecutions for close to three years."

(Source: The Atlantic, by William D. Cohan)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-b
ankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368
/

Obama has made some mistakes in his presidency and, as a consequence, has been subjected to ridicule and constant negative verbal bombardment by conservatives and the far right. There are a handful of critics within the left that are not as abusive as some, but nonetheless vocal. But the innuendo and outright lies, well, I'm not impressed. You and all the naysayers have every right to believe as you do. Obama is a card-carrying anti-American Muslim who was born in Kenya, and is out to destroy America.

I suggest that many don't even know the reason why they hate the president so much. From Day One, Congress has had it out for the president, why?....
because he's a democrat. Let's hope that's the reason.

By the way........who was the last president to tell the whole truth while in office?


SGG



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 6, 2015 9:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.

It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.

As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.

The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.



This might be one of the smartest things that anybody has ever posted in the RWED, Sigs. Well... I'll at least say that it's the most agreeable thing I've ever seen anybody post here before.

The only thing I would add is how in the last 16 years under both of their leaderships our National debt has risen nearly 13 Trillion dollars to nearly 4 times what it was in September of 2000.

For all their other flaws, this was the single most important reason I always said Bush Jr. should have been outed, and then Obama nearly doubles W's financial blunder.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo
5.htm




Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 6, 2015 10:43 PM

ELVISCHRIST


$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."


Math > You

Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 6, 2015 11:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."


Math > You

Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.



Seriously dude, look again....

09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63

By REAL math, that means that Bush Jr. nearly doubled the national deficit in 8 years. It would have actully needed to be 11,348,356,419,773.72 to be a complete doubling.

Also, even though the deficit has risen $8,125,879,380,838.14 since Obama has taken office, there's still a full year of unrecorded data to add to the total before he leaves office officially. If you just average the yearly raise per year since he's taken office, that's another $1,160,839,911,548.31 he will add to the deficit... in total making $9,286,719,292,386.45.

To lay it out in even simpler terms, in the 8 years that W. was president, his spending alone accounted for over 43% of the entire National Deficit by the time he left. ($5,674,178,209,886.86/$10,024,724,896,912.49)

In only 7 years, Obama's spending alone on top of that has accounted for over 44% of the entire National Deficit and there is still one year to go ($10,024,724,896,912.49/$18,150,604,277,750.63)



I was actually hoping that Obama's numbers were better than Bushes because you seem to entirely miss the point here. BOTH of them were terrible presidents. It just so happens that fiscally speaking that Obama is already the winner and by the time he leaves office he will have been the first president to truly double the National Debt and more before he leaves.

:)... and/or :(


Don't they give out a lot of free money for school these days? At least take some of that money and buy a calculator.

Free Tip of the Day: You're posting here on a computer. If you type "calc" at the start menu, it already comes with one! Yay!

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 6, 2015 11:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I see where you're going with this.... The numbers are kind of skewed since they're from September. The way I took it from 2000-2008 and 2008-2015 makes it look better to me and worse in your eyes.

(We're really on the same side. I think both presidents were the worst America ever had to offer, but I know that anybody who doesn't love Obama is an enemy in your eyes)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's work with the new numbers then, shall we? (SPOILER ALERT: I don't think they're going to work out the way you think they will when you now have to consider we're only looking at 6 years on Obama's watch instead of 7).

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63

In this case, W's share of the entire National Debt by September 30th of 2009 would have been nearly 49% ($5,807,463,412,200.06/$11,909,829,003,511.75)

That would mean that in only 6 years, Obama has raised the National Debt just under 35%. There's still 2 years to go though. Every year it raises more than the last, but to keep the math simple, we'll just average those 6 years and add 2 more. ($18,150,604,277,750.63 - $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,240,775,274,238.88 / 6 = $1,040,129,212,373.15 x 2 = $2,080,258,424,746.30 + $6,240,775,274,238.88 = $8,321,033,698,985.17)

These numbers would put Obama at just under 41% of the National Debt, which will be over $20 million at that time ($18,150,604,277,750.63 + the additional 2 trillion and change it will be by September 30th of 2017)

Keep in mind that the number when he goes out will be at least $500 billion higher by the time he leaves than that, and the numbers we are using are unfair either way to place blame on any one administration because of the month they take place in.


Also keep in mind that this is the worst kind of pissing contest ever. Either way, they both screwed us hard core.

Next time you buy that gallon of milk for $3.49 or that pound of ground beef for $4.59, I've got two guys you can blame for it. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)



EDITED TO ADD: Either way Bush did NOT double the deficit Clinton him with, although it came very close. But that's talking about the ENTIRE deficit before the new president stepped in.

Obama is well on his way to raising the deficit by 9 trillion dollars before he leaves. Bush "only" raised it 6 trillion. :)



Either way, both of these assholes by 2017 will have accounted for nearly 75% of our entire National Debt in only 16 years. ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 1:33 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.

Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."


Math > You

Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 1:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.

Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."


Math > You

Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.




Not sure what your point here was SGG...

If it was anti-Bush, I get it. Once again I will remind you that you can look back 8 years ago and see I was one of the few people calling for the impeachment of W.

That doesn't excuse Obama's reckless spending today.

Bush gave billions (trillions?) to Halliburton. Obama gave billions (trillions?) to Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Woo Hoo! Everybody has insurance now!!!!!!

That doesn't change the fact that hospitals will charge you almost $10k today just to do an ultrasound on your nuts to figure out that you DONT have testicular cancer.

Back in 1989, my dad's insurance only paid a little over $100k to fly the best neurosurgeon in the country to operate on my 6 year old brothers head when he had a brain hemmorage. That price also included a 6 month stay at the hospital, 24 hour care, food and countless physical therapy sessions after he woke up from his 3 month coma.

Obamacare didn't fix a single thing. If anything it's nothing more than a temporary bandage on the symptom of a disease that's bigger than Halliburton. The fact that healthcare is now Government Mandated for EVERYONE and subsidized for those who can't afford it only means that the prices will continue to rise.

The healthcare industry isn't interested in Health or Care.

They don't make any money if everyone is healthy.

They're evil vultures. They feed upon the sick and the dying. Period.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 2:16 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see where you're going with this.... The numbers are kind of skewed since they're from September. The way I took it from 2000-2008 and 2008-2015 makes it look better to me and worse in your eyes.

(We're really on the same side. I think both presidents were the worst America ever had to offer, but I know that anybody who doesn't love Obama is an enemy in your eyes)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's work with the new numbers then, shall we? (SPOILER ALERT: I don't think they're going to work out the way you think they will when you now have to consider we're only looking at 6 years on Obama's watch instead of 7).

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63

In this case, W's share of the entire National Debt by September 30th of 2009 would have been nearly 49% ($5,807,463,412,200.06/$11,909,829,003,511.75)

That would mean that in only 6 years, Obama has raised the National Debt just under 35%. There's still 2 years to go though. Every year it raises more than the last, but to keep the math simple, we'll just average those 6 years and add 2 more. ($18,150,604,277,750.63 - $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,240,775,274,238.88 / 6 = $1,040,129,212,373.15 x 2 = $2,080,258,424,746.30 + $6,240,775,274,238.88 = $8,321,033,698,985.17)

These numbers would put Obama at just under 41% of the National Debt, which will be over $20 million at that time ($18,150,604,277,750.63 + the additional 2 trillion and change it will be by September 30th of 2017)

Keep in mind that the number when he goes out will be at least $500 billion higher by the time he leaves than that, and the numbers we are using are unfair either way to place blame on any one administration because of the month they take place in.


Also keep in mind that this is the worst kind of pissing contest ever. Either way, they both screwed us hard core.

Next time you buy that gallon of milk for $3.49 or that pound of ground beef for $4.59, I've got two guys you can blame for it. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)



EDITED TO ADD: Either way Bush did NOT double the deficit Clinton him with, although it came very close. But that's talking about the ENTIRE deficit before the new president stepped in.

Obama is well on his way to raising the deficit by 9 trillion dollars before he leaves. Bush "only" raised it 6 trillion. :)



Either way, both of these assholes by 2017 will have accounted for nearly 75% of our entire National Debt in only 16 years. ;)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 2:39 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.


SGG



Numbers surely don't lie. But you're very right that they don't tell the whole story.

The Clinton economy was great for all of us in America. Nobody really talks today about how a big part of that was opening the floodgates of the WTO to every third world country that now employs most of the manufacturing jobs (China) and service jobs (India) that we used to do ourselves.

All that plastic crap we used to buy at the dollar store was nice. Now we're paying the piper.




All that being said... Bush Jr. might not have entered the office with an illegal war that he ended up starting, but he sure did enter office on the brink of financial collapse.

When Clinton left office, gas prices by me hovered somewhere between a buck and $1.30 a gallon. Nearly one month after W. took over they were creeping up to an unfathomable $2/gal and people thought the sky was falling.

As bad as a president as he was, and let me remind you again that we are in complete agreement on that, there is no way that he was responsible for that in only a month and it was one of those residual things that take time to culminate.

We've had quite a long string of bad Presidents. W. and Obama just happen to be the worst of the worst.


You're right about Congress' role in it all. They're even worse then the puppets we put into office. It's not just the presidents themselves, but their entire administrations behind them. (For example, your joke about president Cheny).


To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enima!"


I say flush them all out.

Forget about impeaching anybody. Let them finish their term and then put them in the unemployment line.

If you want to spend your time and energy fighting anything, don't waste it on impeachments that will likely never happen. FLUSH OUT the OLD CREW and DEMAND that the new crew do away with all the "healthcare for life" and huge pensions that the taxpayers are paying for these self-serving assholes we mindlessly elect.

For a country with a government that is supposed to be "For the People, By the People", we sure seem to love paying through the nose for terrible "leadership" and then funding a sweet ass retirement for a shit job.

If 90% of these guys and gals phucked up their jobs that bad in any arena of the Public Sector, they'd be out on their ass without a golden parachute.





I think we agree on at least 95% of things SGG. Let's not quibble over the 5% we may or may not agree on.

It's time to bring an end to the division of the civilians. The only part of the saying that means anything to any of them in their cozy chairs is the "Divided We Fall" part.

As long as intelligent civvies are too busy fighting each other over bullshit talking points, they can just sit back and coast their way to a great living and retirement package for their entire family.


In honesty, I feel bad for the W's and the Obamas for having to take all of the heat, and I feel a little guilty talking about their administrations in this very thread as if they were just One Man. History will teach our future children that they were just One Man, just like our Social Studies classes taught us that George Washington and Abe Lincoln and JFK were just One Man....

I sure wouldn't want to be king......

But a cozy Congressional job where I can be re-elected unopposed from here to eternity so long as I don't get caught screwing around on my wife or with unsavory items on my computer????

Where do I sign?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 7:56 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"

Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"

What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.

But Progressives are weak at organizing.

Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.

Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.

Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 11:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors.
Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things. IF he hadn't, then my list wouldn't be so friggin' long!

Quote:

Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008.
And I think I'm the only one on this site who actually predicted it. And I will tell you right now that Obama's "fix" for the crisis is just leading to another one.

Quote:

I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:
1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck".............

The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.

Obamacare's problem is much more fundamental than it's implementation. The problem goes right back to what Max Baucus designed, which has led to one of the greatest collective butt-fuckings the population has ever experienced (aside from our relentless expensive "wars"). Because when all is said and done, the portion of GDP spent on healthcare will go UP from its already extraordinarily high expenditure (relative to other industrialized nations) and the health insurances and healthcare industries will rake in even more dough.

I'm not going to give an inch on this. I was following the debate VERY closely because our daughter has had a preexisting condition ever since she was born (brain injury @ birth) making her ineligible for any insurance aside from Medicaid. I saw how the discussion went from single-payer to public option, and how Obama's support for a government-backed plan diminished as time went on, and was last mentioned as a goal in his second State of the Union speech, and then he told its supporters ... and that was the vast majority of the nation ... that it was a non-starter and that he was taking it off the table.

Do you remember the Harvard research paper that I brought up which found that America is an oligarchy?

Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oli
garchy-2014-4


What the authors found is that "the people" mostly get what they want, because their goals mostly correspond to what the rich want. But when the goals and desires of the American people conflict with the goals and desires of the wealthy, the wealthy almost always get their way. Now, this can't possibly happen without the connivance of politicians, who are tied to their donors' apron strings.

Quote:

Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.

"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerable Washington Post.



I never said that Timothy Geithner was a Wall Street banker, or that he worked for Goldman Sachs. I said he was a Wall Street protégé. Now, who or what is a protégé? A protégé is one who is mentored by someone richer, wealthier, and more powerful; it means "protected one" and is derived from the word "protection".

Geithner was Rubin's protégé, and Rubin worked for 26 years at Goldman Sachs, who (by the way) was influential in getting Bill Clinton to repeal Glass Steagal. And Geithner followed the Wall Street mantra of protecting the banks in response to the crisis. Geithner himself is still defending his actions

Quote:

“To oversimplify it, and I think this was Jon Stewart’s framing,” Geithner told the students, “why would you give a dollar to a bank when you can give it to an American? Why not give them a dollar to help them pay their mortgage?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/magazine/what-timothy-geithner-reall
y-thinks.html


GOOD QUESTION, TIMMY!

Banks sell EACH OTHER their crappy financial products which they use as "assets" to justify more loans. So bank "A" sells assets to bank "B", which in turn repackages those assets and sells them to bank "C" etc. When the underlying value of those crappy mortgage-backed started imploding, that chain of asset sales starting working in reverse: instead of being a money multiplier it became a money divider. The billion dollars of bad loans that might have impacted only one bank suddenly impacted ten. If you were committed by PAYING THE BANKS, you would have to pay EACH ONE a billion dollars (=$10 billion). On the other hand, Geithner could have simply bought up the troublesome mortgages directly. That would have made the underlying mortgages whole, and ALL of the follow-on assets would have ALSO been made whole. Timmy not only went the vastly more expensive route, he also cause in GREATER wealth inequality: he gave money to the rich. That's why our economy is still limping along.

Quote:

P.S. It is widely known that President Bush and Congress cut a deal with the Wall Street Banking Industry, lead by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (who was once a Wall Street Banker with Goldman Sachs) who pressured both the President and Congress into passing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Too Big to Fail crisis). It involved the "toxic housing assets" known as derivatives that nearly collapsed the world banking system (all because of a handful of greedy bastards), and allowed 10 banking concerns to merge with other banks and take over 77% of the industry, making them too big to fail. Both Paulson and Bernanke fiddled while the country burned.

All this took place under Bush's watch. Obama inherited the worse banking
fiasco since the Great Depression (also man made) and you make it seem as though he orchestrated this unholy mess. I may be wrong but, only one Wall Street banker went to jail......


If Bush has WANTED to create a financial crisis, he couldn't have engineered it more perfectly: reduced taxes and spent on pointless foreign wars, handcuffing the government from being able to take fiscal action by strapping it with a vast amount of debt. Created an escalator of money upwards, reducing the purchasing power of the vast majority of Americans and making them more reliant on debt. Prohibiting the States Attorney General from prosecuting banks and other lenders for fraudulent mortgages.

But don't forget, this would not have imploded so badly if CLINTON had not set the stage by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and by signing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which allowed Credit Default Swaps and certain accounting practices like "mark to market" valuation of assets.

And OBAMA went right along with Bush's Rx, and expanded it into the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which allowed the Fed to buy up the banks' bad assets .... once again, buying the same asset multiple times, which the banks had propagated from one to the other. THANKS TIMMY!

Quote:

Obama has made some mistakes in his presidency
MISTAKES???? That's like saying that BUSH made "mistakes", or than CLINTON made "mistakes"!

Quote:

and, as a consequence, has been subjected to ridicule and constant negative verbal bombardment by conservatives and the far right. There are a handful of critics within the left that are not as abusive as some, but nonetheless vocal. But the innuendo and outright lies, well, I'm not impressed. You and all the naysayers have every right to believe as you do. Obama is a card-carrying anti-American Muslim who was born in Kenya, and is out to destroy America.
What did I say specifically at the very beginning of my post? Oh yes, it was ...

Quote:

Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him. It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.
I highlighted, underlined, and italicized the important word so that it can't be missed.

Obama is a corrupt sumbitch, just like Bush before him, and Clinton before him, and Bush before him, all the way back to ... probably Nixon, who was also a corrupt sumbitch but also a realist.

There's only ONE THING that Obama is doing that's good, and that's creating some distance between us and the Saudis and us and the Israelis. And that's because he's been dissed and backstabbed by the neconons during his terms in office (looking at YOU, Hillary!) so often, that right now, with no more elections to lose, he's probably getting back at them.

Quote:

I suggest that many don't even know the reason why they hate the president so much. From Day One, Congress has had it out for the president, why?.... because he's a democrat. Let's hope that's the reason.
No, they hate him because he's a half-black Democrat. I, on the other hand, hate Obama for what he's done, not for his skin color.

As far as honesty is concerned, the only reason why a President has to be dishonest is when he's either protecting important state secrets, or he's stabbing the American people in the back.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 11:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"

Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"

What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.

But Progressives are weak at organizing.

Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.

Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.

Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial



Democrats, with rare exceptions, do not offer an antidote to Republicans. Most Democrats will back down and vote they way the party leadership wants, no matter how craven or disingenuous the plan. Sen Feinstein and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Heck, even Kamala Harris backed down and swallowed the Fed's decisions on how to "punish" the banks. The exceptions are people like Russ Feingold, Tulsi Gabbard, and Cynthia McKinney.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 7, 2015 2:08 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Answering two posts:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I, on the other hand, hate Obama for what he's done, not for his skin color. . . . Democrats, with rare exceptions, do not offer an antidote to Republicans. Most Democrats will back down and vote they way the party leadership wants, no matter how craven or disingenuous the plan.

If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama. You'll always get less than you deserve by compromising and supporting a Democratic Party President, but you'll get nothing from a Republican. Either compromise your heartfelt principles by supporting a Democrat or remain pure, smug, and uncompromising while a Republican President signs legislation to end every slight improvement since the Great Depression. Such a difficult choice you have.

As a guide for what you should do now, you could look back at the choice you made in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries to discover why you are unhappy with 2015's President. From completely different choices come small differences in outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2008

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 12:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama.
McCain is scary crazy. Romney might not have been as bad as Obama.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 2:43 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Romney might not have been as bad as Obama."

It's possible that Obama bent over backwards trying to be one of 'them', in a futile attempt at something that was not going to happen.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I can't decide if Obama is weak and stupid, or complicit.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 9:49 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


I'll deside for you then. He iz smart & strong and duz hiz best agenst tremendous oppozition.

Wen thingz get compicated, it can be hard to tell the good guyz frum the bad guyz, especially wen the bad guyz are pumping out massiv disinformation everywhere all the time.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 10:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Name me one thing that Obama did that was unequivocally good.


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 7:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"

Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"

What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.

But Progressives are weak at organizing.

Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.

Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.

Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.

Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial



Hey Second,

First off, I'd like to say that I agree 100% about the whole voting at a church thing. In the last 10 years I could count on my fingers and toes how many times I've been in a church. Weddings, funerals and voting...

For a country that seems to love separating church and state, it seems silly to me that the elections happen in churches 9 out of 10 times. Pragmatically speaking, I get it. Elections are usually on Tuesday and nobody is using the building, so why not have it there? Maybe the problem is that we do it in cold ass November. Maybe if we did it in the summertime instead we could just have it at your local K-Mart parking lot. Any time of day that place is empty. :)

Being somebody who believes very much in God and has a less than great relationship with him, I feel strange going to the church to vote. I only started voting since being a homeowner, so I can't say if it's this way everywhere, but I've never gone there once without having to say hi to a priest. It's a pleasant enough interaction, and he doesn't try to sell me on any religion or services, but I feel guilty that I don't ever go to church and it's something that I know is going to happen every time I go there and it's just off putting.


I disagree with you that "Progressives" are crappy at organizing though. Forget the fact that a vast majority of any successful protests in the last 100+ years were from the left, but you have to admit that aside from Fox News and WLS, the left pretty much owns the entire media.


While we're talking about Progress, I really wish we'd stop using the term "Progressive" to speak about Liberals. I'm sure that the people on the left are all for it, but in many ways I feel that it is a misnomer.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that the Left should not have a title with a positive connotation, but I don't agree that Progressive should be it. On the flip side, I'm perfectly okay with the Right's use of "Conservative" as their positive flag, although I'll be the first to admit that they have abused that many times as well.... especially the Neo-Cons and the W. presidency that single handedly doubled the national deficit in 8 years.



I want to give you a Local example about how voting Republican was the Progressive move in my township, and I may have already mentioned this on another thread.

More than 4/5ths of my city shares its township with Gary, IN's township. For every dollar we paid in property taxes that went to poor relief in the township, only 2 cents came back to people living in my city.

In times where the price of everything seems to rise every year, the group of Republicans we voted in managed to shave my property tax bill by 20% last year. They didn't do so by cutting social programs in the city or cutting school budgets. They simply took this injustice to the State of Indiana. At the time, Gary spent more than 34 TIMES the state average on "poor relief". "Poor Relief" didn't just include the actual money that went to help poor people, but all of the corrupt city officials and their beautiful cars and platinum credit card and free gas and all of their friends and family members they had given unnecessary jobs to to actually get our tax dollars into the hands of the people that actually needed help.

Shortly after these Republicans were voted into office and the talks began with the state, there were quite a few Gary politicians who were arrested and FEDs came in and confiscated their computers.

Gary has until November 2016 to reduce the Poor Relief spending to 12 times the state average (1/3 of its spending 2 years ago). If they can't do it, we can vote our way out of the township and join one of the other nearby ones.

So far.... mission accomplished. My city had to pay $1,000,000 less in property taxes this year. For me, that was a savings of around $220 on my property tax bill. Had I not already fought my ass off in previous years to reduce my own property taxes by nearly 50%, it would have been more like $400 off my bill.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like progress to me. Especially when you consider the only people who were losers in this situation were a bunch of corrupt politicians and their cronies. Some went to jail, others no longer get a free ride and/or a job they're not qualified for that pays way more than somebody of their intelligence/education level should ever be getting paid.

Welcome to the wonderful world of $7.75 minimum wage. I've been here for quite a while now. I'll show you the ropes. ;)





Honestly second, nobody goes to church anymore... especially the youth of the nation.

For decades, Television and Radio have replaced church for most American citizens. Even if a lot of them would associate themselves with a particular religion, almost none of them actually physically go to church. Go to a Sunday Mass at one of your local churches on some non-holiday weekend and you'll find only 25% of the pews taken and 80% of those people have quite a few wrinkles on their faces. The only two times you'll ever see a full house are Easter and Christmas.


When the Democrats lose the Presidential election next year, it won't be because they don't know how to organize. It will be because after all of those promises of "Hope" and "Change" that were abandoned, they're feeling disenfranchised.

Welcome to at least 4 years of Republican "leadership". 8 if he doesn't completely fuck everything up.

Chances are that if he gets re-elected, he's still going to do such a piss poor job that we'll have at least 4 if not 8 years of Democratic "leadership" after that. :)


Strange.....


While posting that last little bit, I had Elton John's "Circle of Life" from the Lion King creep up in my head.

So it was, so it is, so it shall be.....



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 8:09 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama. You'll always get less than you deserve by compromising and supporting a Democratic Party President, but you'll get nothing from a Republican.



The problem with this logic is that we're only talking about PRESIDENTS!!!!

I live in Indiana, and because of the Electoral vote, my vote for president is meaningless anyway. Romney won in my state by over 100k votes, so I was pissed I didn't vote with my heart for Ron Paul.



Next year, the office of PRESIDENT is the ONLY office I WON'T be voting for.

Yep....



Local politics are where it's at. The closer you get to Federal level, the less meaningless they become, and the less of a difference between "sides" there actually is.

W. might as well have been a Liberal and Obama might as well have been a Republican for all the good they did us while we continue to bend over and get pounded.


My challenge to you is to forget completely about the Presidential election next year.


Think Globally, Vote Locally.

Fuck the President. ;)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 8, 2015 11:59 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


My point: that Obama was handed a dingy with several holes in it's hull to navigate through the rough seas of near economic meltdown. In other words, he was deep in the hole before setting foot in office.

Bush, as I recall, walked in with a surplus, and nearly doubled the national debt. Obama walked into a bear trap with a ball and chain attached to it. Bush mismanaged his way to the bottom, while Obama did what he could to dig his way out and up. The stimulus package may have been a risk but he was dealing with the worse economic collapse since the depression. No way he was coming out of that unscathed.

I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but his were errors of omission, while Bush were errors of commission (which is far worse). You say that Obama made the health insurance industry rich. Was this a purposeful maneuver on his part? So, if he does nothing - that would be better? The health care and insurance industries have been broken for years. I have seen this first hand - hospitals overcharging and double charging patients through careless, and purposeful, errors. So it's better to leave it alone and allow the industry to name it's price regardless. Yes, both industries are scum, praying on the weak and infirmed; Is there a better plan?

I'm no economic expert, but I dare say that the president tackled a heady subject, the opportunistic health care industry, and has attempted to reinvent the wheel. It seems to me that people want the status quo, rising health care costs and so forth. But, are overall health care costs really rising? The below article may shed some light on that subject.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-02/obamacare-isnt-drivin
g-up-health-costs-really


Yes, the national debt did rise under Obama's watch, but how and was it effective in averting, rather than inviting, financial disaster? Was the stimulus package successful in jump-starting the economy? What about double digit unemployment? What cost more, health insurance or emergency room visits? Did Congress do their part to assist the president in finding ways to putting the country back on track?

Bush's policies pushed war, which encouraged spending in the military sector (by the way, the VA was in no great shape then either). At the end of his term Bush handed over the keys to the kingdom, and the house was in a state of disrepair. You either bite the bullet to dig yourself out of a huge financial hole or you go hide in a corner until your four years are
up. Obama made some hard choices and here we are. We are able to say, remember when.


SGG




Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.

Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."


Math > You

Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.




Not sure what your point here was SGG...

If it was anti-Bush, I get it. Once again I will remind you that you can look back 8 years ago and see I was one of the few people calling for the impeachment of W.

That doesn't excuse Obama's reckless spending today.

Bush gave billions (trillions?) to Halliburton. Obama gave billions (trillions?) to Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Woo Hoo! Everybody has insurance now!!!!!!

That doesn't change the fact that hospitals will charge you almost $10k today just to do an ultrasound on your nuts to figure out that you DONT have testicular cancer.

Back in 1989, my dad's insurance only paid a little over $100k to fly the best neurosurgeon in the country to operate on my 6 year old brothers head when he had a brain hemmorage. That price also included a 6 month stay at the hospital, 24 hour care, food and countless physical therapy sessions after he woke up from his 3 month coma.

Obamacare didn't fix a single thing. If anything it's nothing more than a temporary bandage on the symptom of a disease that's bigger than Halliburton. The fact that healthcare is now Government Mandated for EVERYONE and subsidized for those who can't afford it only means that the prices will continue to rise.

The healthcare industry isn't interested in Health or Care.

They don't make any money if everyone is healthy.

They're evil vultures. They feed upon the sick and the dying. Period.



Do Right, Be Right. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 1:06 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

My challenge to you is to forget completely about the Presidential election next year.

I accept your challenge and will now go completely off-topic with "The Unnatural" a short story by David Eagleman.

When you arrive in the afterlife, the Technicians inform you of the great opportunity awaiting you: make any single change you want, and then live life over again. Their pamphlet suggests that you might choose to make yourself two inches taller, or give everyone on the Earth a better sense of humor, or make birds talk. You then get to rerun that choice on the Earth to see what happens. They inform you proudly that this is a unique experiential education program.

Having just attended your own funeral, you may be tempted to propose a clever choice: you want to be the one who eradicates death altogether from our planet.

Just be forewarned: if you propose this, a kind Technician may pull you aside to let you know that you have tried this path before in your previous reruns of life, and it inevitably led to frustration.

Are you telling me this because it will put you out of a job? you ask.

No, the Technician replies.

Is this because death is incurable? you ask.

No, the Technician says.

In that case I would like to have my wish fulfilled.

Suit yourself, replies the Technician.

So in your new life you grow into a famous medical visionary. You argue that there is no such thing as a natural death and raise millions to fund your research. You program computers to calculate all possible mutations of viruses before they happen and design prophylactic treatments against them. You compute the exact effects of every medication on the normal cycles of the body. Your aggressive anti-death program is a success: after the final breath of an incurably ill elderly woman, you are able to announce that hers represented the last natural death. Great celebrations ensue. People begin to live forever, healing just as they would when they were young, free at last from the overhanging cloud of mortality. You are greatly admired.

But eventually, just as the Technician warned, your success begins to lose its shine. People come to discover that the end of death is the death of motivation. Too much life, it turns out, is the opiate of the masses. There is a noticeable decline in accomplishment. People take more naps. There’s no great rush.

In an attempt to salvage their once-dynamic lives, people begin to set suicide dates for themselves. It is a welcome echo of the old days of finite life spans, but superior because of the opportunity to say goodbye and complete your estate planning. That works well for a while, rekindling the incentive to live strongly. But eventually people begin to take the system with less than the appropriate seriousness, and if some large new development occurs, such as a new relationship, they simply postpone the suicide date. Whole cadres of procrastinators grow. When they reschedule a new date, others ridicule them by calling it a death threat. There develops enormous social pressure to follow through with the suicides. At long last, after many abuses of the system, it is legislated that there is no changing a preset death date.

But eventually it comes to be appreciated that not just the finitude of life but also the surprise timing of death is critical to motivation. So people begin to set ranges for their death dates. In this new framework, their friends throw surprise parties for them—like birthday parties—except they jump out from behind the couch and kill them. Since you never know when your friends are going to schedule your party, it reinstills the carpe diem attitude of former years. Unfortunately, people begin to abuse the surprise party system to extinguish their enemies under the protection of necrolegislation.

In the end, great masses of rioters break into your medical complex, kick the plugs out of the computers, and once again have a great celebration to mark the end of the last unnatural life, and you end up back in the Technicians’ waiting room.

http://mechangel2002.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-The-Verse-sketch-cards
-571107326


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 1:49 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


By the way, I worked for personal injury attorneys who represented plaintiffs against hospitals and car accident victims. I had a case where our client was charged approx. $10,000 for a 4-day hospital visit.

His wife came to our office complaining that something was off with the bill and I investigated. It turned out he was charged double for the procedure and, not only that, he was charged for an item that was something to the affect named "domestic cleaning" something (I don't remember) some $200. When I asked what that was the hospital administrator was unable to tell me, she didn't know either. She looked it up and revealed that it was a box of Kleenex. She removed the item from the claim. In total their bill was a more reasonable $4,000 and change.

Multiply that by several hundred thousand or even million and you'll see why the health care industry is such a mess.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:17 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You know something 6SJ, I think it may be closer to 96%, but why quibble indeed.

There are a number of factors contributing to the running of this country, and One Man does not tell the story. It's funny, but you're right, we agree on more than we probably care to admit. And, yes it's not that simple, but I agree that it is a distraction that will allow the magic trick to work.

The cushy job that Congress, in many ways the real culprits (partly because they supposedly represent us almost directly) have and the president, in today's modern world, is used as a political decoy. I remember seeing a report that Congress is scheduled to have the most amount of days off in our history. 9 days in session for November and 11 days in session for December 2015.

2016 fares no better. "The 110 days in-session for 2016 mark the lowest in the McCarthy era, compared to 133 days in 2015 and the 112 of 2014."
A whopping 255 days off. Now that's a sweet job, no wonder they fight tooth and nail to keep their cushy jobs. Plus, on top of that, they get all those fringe benefits.

Thing is I do know better, but sometimes I get caught up in the rhetoric and hyperbole of "gotcha" and cage-match politics. It has been very cleverly built over the years. I will try hard not to get caught up in it again.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.


SGG



Numbers surely don't lie. But you're very right that they don't tell the whole story.

The Clinton economy was great for all of us in America. Nobody really talks today about how a big part of that was opening the floodgates of the WTO to every third world country that now employs most of the manufacturing jobs (China) and service jobs (India) that we used to do ourselves.

All that plastic crap we used to buy at the dollar store was nice. Now we're paying the piper.




All that being said... Bush Jr. might not have entered the office with an illegal war that he ended up starting, but he sure did enter office on the brink of financial collapse.

When Clinton left office, gas prices by me hovered somewhere between a buck and $1.30 a gallon. Nearly one month after W. took over they were creeping up to an unfathomable $2/gal and people thought the sky was falling.

As bad as a president as he was, and let me remind you again that we are in complete agreement on that, there is no way that he was responsible for that in only a month and it was one of those residual things that take time to culminate.

We've had quite a long string of bad Presidents. W. and Obama just happen to be the worst of the worst.


You're right about Congress' role in it all. They're even worse then the puppets we put into office. It's not just the presidents themselves, but their entire administrations behind them. (For example, your joke about president Cheny).


To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enima!"


I say flush them all out.

Forget about impeaching anybody. Let them finish their term and then put them in the unemployment line.

If you want to spend your time and energy fighting anything, don't waste it on impeachments that will likely never happen. FLUSH OUT the OLD CREW and DEMAND that the new crew do away with all the "healthcare for life" and huge pensions that the taxpayers are paying for these self-serving assholes we mindlessly elect.

For a country with a government that is supposed to be "For the People, By the People", we sure seem to love paying through the nose for terrible "leadership" and then funding a sweet ass retirement for a shit job.

If 90% of these guys and gals phucked up their jobs that bad in any arena of the Public Sector, they'd be out on their ass without a golden parachute.





I think we agree on at least 95% of things SGG. Let's not quibble over the 5% we may or may not agree on.

It's time to bring an end to the division of the civilians. The only part of the saying that means anything to any of them in their cozy chairs is the "Divided We Fall" part.

As long as intelligent civvies are too busy fighting each other over bullshit talking points, they can just sit back and coast their way to a great living and retirement package for their entire family.


In honesty, I feel bad for the W's and the Obamas for having to take all of the heat, and I feel a little guilty talking about their administrations in this very thread as if they were just One Man. History will teach our future children that they were just One Man, just like our Social Studies classes taught us that George Washington and Abe Lincoln and JFK were just One Man....

I sure wouldn't want to be king......

But a cozy Congressional job where I can be re-elected unopposed from here to eternity so long as I don't get caught screwing around on my wife or with unsavory items on my computer????

Where do I sign?

Do Right, Be Right. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:24 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


You have ZERO claim on anything close to the AFTERLIFE after what my 6 year old brother had to go through and what he continues to live with every fucking day without any "Veteran" benefits...

I was at the park with him and my other brother and my Dad and he's the one who carried him back home on his shoulder and he ended up in the hospital, at 6 years old, to have brain surgery and somehow survive, and end up completely hatelful and bitter about everything and make you wish 9 times out of 10 that he just died on that operating table when he was 6 years old...

"Right" or "Left", you fuckers don't even have a clue...

There's actually been "Thesis's" written about my Brother....

He shouldn't even be alive today, considering the medicine and means available in the late 80s, let alone today.

Given all of that... He's the 'happy' one

If you see him taking pictures in Chicago, he'd be more than happy to take your pic for free with your friends or family there and email it to you the nxt day.

I was only 10 and there weren't politics back then. My dad made a good buck and my mom stayed at home. Growing up, my old man hated politics completely, so I never even really thought about them till I came to the RWED....





BTW... teh "beat" that Dennis Leary "stole" a decade before Rescue me started was Billy Joel's "Pianio Man"



(Oh right... i have to be fucking backwards and go by Haken's rules to make a fucking video play on this site in 2015... whatever)



Seriously,.... is any non 30 year old used up slut still fucking Haken now?

He's got to be older than fucking God in 2015






No fucking way that Deniss Leary at that time or any dead dude he was sing about whould admit that...



My Brother swears that Nibiroo is real....

Whatever man...

Everyday I wake up and I can't believe what's fucking happening...

I envy you for believing whatever whacked out Niberoo prophecies you believe in. I'll even talk to you at least once a month and let you indulge yourself all about them.

I'm the last person to judge you. Single White Male with a house full paid for. Hate's People in General. Sings Tom Petty better than Tom Petty ever did.

Fuck you, I'm cool.

:)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Girls in their late teens and early 20s that still liked great rock icons????



Probably not if they weren't tied up.

Fuck you cops... Girls like being tied up around me ;)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Allright.... let's be real here....





The closer to the fire the more you get burned.....

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Allright.... let's be real here....





The closer to the fire the more you get burned.....

Do Right, Be Right. :)




P.S. It's fucking ridiculous that I hvae to remove an "s" to a site to have songe here.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 10:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

My point: that Obama was handed a dingy with several holes in it's hull to navigate through the rough seas of near economic meltdown. In other words, he was deep in the hole before setting foot in office.

Bush, as I recall, walked in with a surplus, and nearly doubled the national debt. Obama walked into a bear trap with a ball and chain attached to it. Bush mismanaged his way to the bottom, while Obama did what he could to dig his way out and up. The stimulus package may have been a risk but he was dealing with the worse economic collapse since the depression. No way he was coming out of that unscathed.

I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but his were errors of omission, while Bush were errors of commission (which is far worse). You say that Obama made the health insurance industry rich. Was this a purposeful maneuver on his part? So, if he does nothing - that would be better? The health care and insurance industries have been broken for years. I have seen this first hand - hospitals overcharging and double charging patients through careless, and purposeful, errors. So it's better to leave it alone and allow the industry to name it's price regardless. Yes, both industries are scum, praying on the weak and infirmed; Is there a better plan?

I'm no economic expert, but I dare say that the president tackled a heady subject, the opportunistic health care industry, and has attempted to reinvent the wheel. It seems to me that people want the status quo, rising health care costs and so forth. But, are overall health care costs really rising? The below article may shed some light on that subject.



So, to re-cap.... Obama came to power during the worst economic and financial collapse since the Great Depression. He had the backing of a large majority of people who believed in his promises. And he labored and brought forth the status quo, breaking ALL of his promises along the way? IS THAT what you're saying?

I dispute that these were "errors" of omission, or that they were errors at all. He took many positive (and by positive, I don't mean favorable, I mean provable actions, not just lack of action) that made many things worse- everything from expanding internal security to violating Constitutional rights to bombing Libya (yet another failed state!) and droning everywhere else to pushing for mandated private health insurance to bailing out the banks instead of the people.

Roosevelt, for his part, came to power under exactly the same circumstances. There was the same anti-tax, feed-the-rich feeling in Congress. (Funny how some things never change)

As far as "would things be better without Obamacare?" the answer- for me and mine at least, is YES. There were many state programs that were experimenting with solutions to the high cost of medical care. Thos experiments would have gone on. What my family has experienced overall is a loss of coverage and a HUGE increase in premiums.

"Is there a better plan?" you ask? YES, OF COURSE. There are MANY better plans.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 11:05 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Name me one thing that Obama did that was unequivocally good.



Averted a depression.


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 2:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage. He wasn't ALL bad, he just set the stage for worse things to happen eight years after he left office.

When Obama's chosen mechanism to "avoiding a depression" (feed the rich) comes crashing down to make a worse depression than what we've just had, I'll get back to you.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 9, 2015 5:47 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage. He wasn't ALL bad, he just set the stage for worse things to happen eight years after he left office.

When Obama's chosen mechanism to "avoiding a depression" (feed the rich) comes crashing down to make a worse depression than what we've just had, I'll get back to you.



So just curious, do you think the US has ever had a good president?



I know lets get our own version of Stalin and make him president


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Needs some thought.There is never anybody who is 100% good, but some who are more good than bad- Jefferson, Adams, FDR.


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 6:43 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


"Ventriloquist - is an act of stagecraft in which a person changes his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere......."

Funny how when I write a response you find some way to distort or reinvent my words. You started out okay and then slowly the train began to veer off it's track. I admit, I may not use the correct words to depict my full meaning but, NO I did not say that he broke ALL of his promises (name me just one president that has kept all of his promises), nor did I say that he worked to maintain the status quo. Those are your words.

He has worked to change that, which we as Americans have come to know as
same-o, same-o (status quo). But I'm not here to argue for what I clearly stated, that the president was tossed headlong into a firestorm, and people like yourself have pointed fingers but offer no solutions. Please don't
try to put words into my mouth or try to change my POV. I'm not falling for that game. Please re-read my response and you will see that I believe that
POTUS did his level best to "right the ship" as it were, and no amount of
Republican doublespeak will change my mind.

By the way, I don't expect for you to agree or disagree, but to merely be open to a different POV. I am open to yours and consider the possibilities, that is, of course, whenever I understand the point you wish to make. I reject, out of hand, the notion that this president was looking to sabotage
the country, as many have suggested. Seven years ago there were right-wing enthusiasts swearing up and down that Obama was going to repeal the 2nd Amendment (which is Constitutionally impossible, no One Man can do that),
yet here we are and it's still intact. Foolish humans!

Believe what you will, it's a free country. I, for one, appreciate the president for his hard work to lead the nation in a positive direction. Has he made mistakes, of course, no one in history can ever say that they've never made mistakes.

The NSA thing, that's a load of crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-passes-nsa-reform-bill-the-usa-free
dom-act
/

The ACA - pre-existing conditions, being able to add your kids up to age 26,
the premiums rose for some and decreased for others. It would take some time for the industry to be positively affected in terms of costs coming down (Medicaid met with similar negative response).

Before there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Package, a move the president was forced to make to jumpstart the economy)There was the:

- Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: "enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and supply cash directly to banks."

Bailing out the banks was established well before Obama took office - Bush, Bernanke, Paulson - any of these names ring a bell? Congress?

Obama took a calculated risk and it paid off. Unemployment is at 5.0%, the lowest it's been since April 2008 (before the near economic collapse).
The rich are making gobs of money, of course they don't exactly share that
with the general public. Need I go further?

And where exactly is this better plan? Can you share the MANY better plans you speak of?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:48 AM

THGRRI


Good post SSG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"Ventriloquist - is an act of stagecraft in which a person changes his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere......."

Funny how when I write a response you find some way to distort or reinvent my words. You started out okay and then slowly the train began to veer off it's track. I admit, I may not use the correct words to depict my full meaning but, NO I did not say that he broke ALL of his promises (name me just one president that has kept all of his promises), nor did I say that he worked to maintain the status quo. Those are your words.

OK

Quote:

He has worked to change that
He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?

Quote:

which we as Americans have come to know as same-o, same-o (status quo). But I'm not here to argue for what I clearly stated, that the president was tossed headlong into a firestorm, and people like yourself have pointed fingers but offer no solutions.
But I have. The very first thing Obama could have done was appoint someone who knew how banks run and how they fail: Shiela Bair. Instead, he appointed a New York regulator with close ties to Wall Street.

Quote:

Please don't try to put words into my mouth or try to change my POV. I'm not falling for that game. Please re-read my response and you will see that I believe that POTUS did his level best to "right the ship" as it were, and no amount of Republican doublespeak will change my mind.
I'm not a Republican. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat, and if you were to re-read my posts of old (like the one on Libertarianism) you'll see that not only do I disagree vehemently with most Republicans (esp rightwing ones) I was an early Obama supporter. I voted for him the first time around to give him a chance.

Quote:

By the way, I don't expect for you to agree or disagree, but to merely be open to a different POV. I am open to yours and consider the possibilities, that is, of course, whenever I understand the point you wish to make. I reject, out of hand, the notion that this president was looking to sabotage the country, as many have suggested. Seven years ago there were right-wing enthusiasts swearing up and down that Obama was going to repeal the 2nd Amendment (which is Constitutionally impossible, no One Man can do that), yet here we are and it's still intact. Foolish humans!
Obama did what most Presidents before him: feed the rich.

Quote:

Believe what you will, it's a free country. I, for one, appreciate the president for his hard work to lead the nation in a positive direction. Has he made mistakes, of course, no one in history can ever say that they've never made mistakes.

The NSA thing, that's a load of crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-passes-nsa-reform-bill-the-usa-free
dom-act/

Obama can veto legislation that he thinks is unconstitutional. He DIDN'T have to engage in drone strikes against American citizens.


Quote:

The ACA - pre-existing conditions, being able to add your kids up to age 26, the premiums rose for some and decreased for others. It would take some time for the industry to be positively affected in terms of costs coming down (Medicaid met with similar negative response).

Before there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Package, a move the president was forced to make to jumpstart the economy)There was the:

- Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: "enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and supply cash directly to banks."

Bailing out the banks was established well before Obama took office - Bush, Bernanke, Paulson - any of these names ring a bell? Congress?

Obama took a calculated risk and it paid off. Unemployment is at 5.0%, the lowest it's been since April 2008 (before the near economic collapse).
The rich are making gobs of money, of course they don't exactly share that
with the general public. Need I go further?

And where exactly is this better plan? Can you share the MANY better plans you speak of?



There are MANY better plans, healthcare-wise. EVERY DEVELOPED NATION has a better one than the USA!

AFA better economic recovery plans, all Obama needed to do was take a page out of FDRs book .... but that would have run into resistance from the wealthy.

You say he's "working" to do this and that, but what I see is President who hangs back, who delegates most of his plans to people like Geithner and Baucus. I think we should have a reasoned discussion, so is there a way to tone down the emotion?




--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:13 AM

THGRRI


President Obama makes history again.




"President Barack Obama has been affectionately referred to as the “first gay president,” due to historical LGBT rights achievements during his tenure in the White House, and a new OUT magazine cover story seeks to solidify his image as a champion of equality."

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-graces-the-cover-lgbt-themed-out-maga
zine



Every time you open your mouth SIG you put your foot into it. You are batting a 1000 when it comes to being a moron.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:40 - 495 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:25 - 981 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL