Message 151 of 397 (653189) 02-19-2012 3:12 AM

Reply to: Message 148 by Buzsaw 02-18-2012 7:02 PM

Then it's funny he hasn't had more success in destroying this republic. I mean, it's still here, isn't it? The recession's over, taxes are lower, the stock market's recovered, unemployment is down, corporate profits are at an all-time high, inflation is low, we still have an auto industry, the Iraq war is over, Osama Bin Laden's dead, our standing in the world is considerably higher ... of course, there's a black man in the White House, and that's just wrong, but I think the republic can weather it.

You guys do have it hard, don't you? You have to keep a straight face while simultaneously pretending that he's made root and branch changes to the very nature of our society and that he's hardly achieved anything. It would drive me nuts, but then you seem to have less to lose in that respect.

Message 152 of 397 (653221) 02-19-2012 11:31 AM

Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate 02-19-2012 3:12 AM

Yes, a remnant of the republic which the founders established still exists. That remnant has been significantly reduced due to some fulfilled campaign promises of change by our executive despot in chief.

The recession is not over by any means. The lamestream media rarely airs a fair and balanced political view, being nearly all liberal Democrat Obama supporters.

The housing market is still in recession except for a few selective locations where conservatives have managed to keep union leaders (mostly Obama & government oriented jobs) at bay, limit state liberal government mandates imposing high property welfare doles regulations and income tax burdens, upon businesses and upon citizens at large.

Much of what has raised the stock market is not the value of the stock book values. It is the inflation of the US $$ which has raised the cost of just about everything. Week by week and month by month the increase in food prices, fuel energy prices, commodities, etc ever escalate, whereas previous to this administration it was a yearly thing.

Obama mandates via executive order. In addition he mandates by his appointments of over a dozen czars who are not accountable to congress or the people, essentially circumventing the elected legislative branch.

Liberal governors mandate democrat supporting unions for state jobs, the dues of whom are used largely for bribing politicians. These in turn bribe the Obama administration via imposing politically advantageous policies up their citizens.

This all trickles down all to the way to county governments. For example, here in my county, the percentage of welfare, SS disability, grants, government union employees, early government school and law enforcement retirees (many who double dip) is so high that their vote overwhelms that of property owners, businesses and non government private citizens.

Message 153 of 397 (653230) 02-19-2012 12:42 PM

Reply to: Message 152 by Buzsaw 02-19-2012 11:31 AM

What do you base this conclusion on? GDP?

Nope, recession's over according to GDP (though we've got a lot of catching up to do to make it back to where we were supposed to be by now.) Employment?

No, Obama's reversed the trend and jobs are coming back. Industry capacity? If a recession is still on, it'll show up in the form of factories shuttered and other forms of unused manufacturing capacity:

Nope, wrong again. Capacity utilization is up and rising, implying that businesses are putting people back to work. How about personal consumption? If the recession is over, people will have more money in their pockets to spend:

Huh, would you look at that?

I realize you're graph-illiterate, Buz, so let me spell it out for you - that the recession is over isn't a media conspiracy, it's economic fact. Obama reversed it. The kid wins again.

Ah, right. Inflation. Your invisible inflation that Obama has purposefully created, somehow, yet can't be seen anywhere in the price of anything:

That's the semiannual averaged percent change in the CPA. As you can see it's never been over 2% since the Bush administration; most economists suggest that a 4% rate of inflation is about where we'd like to be. The inflation you're complaining about is a figment of your imagination, and always has been. I bet you can't supply even a single piece of evidence for it, but somehow that won't convince you of anything except how carefully the Kenyan Muslim has covered his tracks. Right?

Well, that's 100% wrong. Firstly, there's no such thing as a "czar", that's a media term for Executive branch advisors. Secondly, Bush had over 30 czars in his administration, far more than Obama ever has. And thirdly, as we saw in the case of Elizabeth Warren, Obama's nominated Consumer Protection "czar", approval of Congress is absolutely required and it's not pro forma - they can filibuster or outright deny the appointment as they see fit. As they did, with Elizabeth Warren, to the great misfortune of the American people.

It continues to be a source of amazement that all of the conservatives, like yourself, who are in the former group always seem to think they're in the latter. You live on the dole, Buz. Don't think we forgot. And your continued disparagement of the public assistance you have no shame about extending your hand for is classless.

Message 154 of 397 (653251) 02-19-2012 2:38 PM

Reply to: Message 152 by Buzsaw 02-19-2012 11:31 AM

They're called "facts".

Don't be afraid.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 156 of 397 (653525) 02-22-2012 8:24 AM

Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog 02-22-2012 8:13 AM

Yet I still read from many sources that our country has already taken the path towards higher inflation (we have a bet, IIRC) and that it will definitely show its ugly head within the next three-five years.

If these hucksters are wrong, where do I send your check?

The Federal Reserve’s Explicit Goal: Devalue the Dollar 33%

Persistent Questions About the Future of the US Economy

These are examples of the type of thinking that I read. Are they simply hucksters?

Message 157 of 397 (653527) 02-22-2012 8:56 AM

Reply to: Message 156 by Phat 02-22-2012 8:24 AM

Don't we have a ten-year bet? I'll let you know then, since I'll likely have moved twice by that time.

Yes. Do you notice:

quote:

---

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

---

that there's no discussion here of the fact that the American population and productivity will grow during the same period of time? That matters, don't you think? Since the amount the dollar can buy is the amount of dollars (admittedly growing) divided by the amount of things to buy (also growing!)

You can always say that inflation is "just around the corner" but that's if current policy continues past the point where the economy has recovered from the recession. But why would you continue current policy at that point?

Imagine if your car drove off the side of the road, and your driver refuses to turn the wheel and bring the car back onto the road, because if he keeps going in that direction, he'll drive right off the other side of the road. But why would you keep going in that direction? Why wouldn't you get back on the road and then straighten the wheel?

Message 158 of 397 (653528) 02-22-2012 9:39 AM

Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler 02-10-2012 5:26 PM

Well, two possible answers:

1. The voting public wasn't paying attention to SENATOR Obama's voting record. The ignorant public ERRONEOUSLY thought "change" and "hope" (and ponies?) were being offered, so they now feel disenchanted and disillusioned.

2. Actually, there is no disenchantment and no disillusion. Some of the voting public WAS paying attention to SENATOR Obama's voting record. Some of the public knew NO change or hope were being offered. However, to be sure, ponies were given, just not to the 99%ers, as we'll see . . .

Let's look at Obama the SENATOR and see what type of man he was BEFORE taking the White House.

1. As a SENATOR, Obama (a supposed "professor of constitutional law") clearly showed that he supported illegal, unconstitutional actions; while a SENATOR he voted FOR illegal wiretapping (HR 6304). It retro-actively took criminality off of telecommunication companies AND Bush Jr. This action SHOULD have been a HUGE red flag for ALL voters of things to come.

2. As a SENATOR, Obama clearly showed that he SUPPORTED impeachable offenses:
The 35 Articles of Impeachment by Kucinich was never supported by Obama. I ask, exactly who was surprised that the war crimes committed by the Bush Administration was never investigated by Obama? People expecting ponies? Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws, but that only meant for the 99%, not for the other 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Not only didn't Obama assign investigators to Bush Jr. war crimes, President Obama ALSO went out of his way to PROTECT Bush Jr. . . .

quote:

---

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

---

http://motherjones.com/...bama-quashed-torture-investigation

3. As a SENATOR, Obama clearly showed that his real masters are on Wall Street.

quote:

---

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originat­ing and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. . . The political publication, The Hill, re­ported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations.

---

4. As a SENATOR, Obama's voting record clearly showed he was on the corporate 1%'s side:

quote:

---

On February 10, 2005, SENATOR Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. . . . Three days before Senator Obama ex­pressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this cor­porate giveaway. . . .This legislation, which dramatically im­paired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pres­sure from 100 corporations, 475 lobby­ists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign

---

5. As a SENATOR, Obama voted for every bill that funded illegal and immoral wars. He may have stated that the Iraq was a "dumb" war, but there wasn't a bill funding the death of innocent Iraqi/Afghani women and children that Obama didn't RUSH to approve. Indeed, Obama desperately tried to EXTEND the illegal and immoral Iraqi war occupation beyond Bush Jr.'s status of forces agreement. But, fortunately, the Iraqi's would not allow continuing immunity from persecution of war crimes (like in Fallujah) by american troops (demanded by Obama).

If a person is disappointed with Obama's actions as the president, then doesn't that simply mean they weren't paying attention to Obama's actions as a SENATOR?

More to come . . . How many impeachable crimes has Obama committed compared to Bush Jr.?
http://www.zcommunications.org/...-to-obama-by-david-swanson

Message 159 of 397 (653529) 02-22-2012 9:41 AM

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

You know, the pony you delivered in the shape of the bankers bailout was ALMOST too much. I mean, we all know that you serve us and not the 99%, but really, on top of the bailouts, MASSIVE EXECUTIVE BONUSES? (I can only gold-plate my cat so many times before it starts resembling a Brâncuși abstract.) Nevertheless, as long as the 99%ers continue to support you against their own interests, how can I complain?

Yours truly,
CEO Lloyd Craig Blankfein
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

---

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

Just wanted to say thanks for the pony in the form of shameless profits. Who knew there would be so much easy money in the sale of children's death. It might not be as much fun as actually torturing children (one day I'd love to share THAT experience with you), but the sale of cluster munitions or bomblets (colourful explosive devices that attract children) are through the roof (just like children's teeth through the top of their heads, Ho-ho-haaa!).

Thanks again for the ever increasing department of "defense" contracts and for refusing to sign the 2008 convention on cluster munitions. May you be re-elected in a landslide and may peace never shine (but I repeat myself).

Scott C. Donnelly, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Textron, Makers of Fine Munitions

P.S. As long as we keep getting the contacts either way, you can let Israel attack Iran. Lie to the public that it's WMD again. That corny schtick NEVER fails to terrify child-like Americans.

---

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

Just wantd to say thanks for the ponie in the form of non-investigated war crimes. Uncle Dick and I is rolling on the grund in laphter. How'd we ever got away with the atrocities in Fallujah, eh? Oh right, "liberal" media. F***ing yeah! Thank god you are not a stand up feller like that douchebag, Kucinich (35 articals of impeachment? RIGHT HERE Arsehole! haha). Gotta go, Rove's here, and we'r doing lines off of Condoleezza's ass.

Georgie Jr.
President of the F***ing United States of the Universe

---

Message 160 of 397 (653530) 02-22-2012 9:49 AM

Reply to: Message 159 by dronester 02-22-2012 9:41 AM

quote:

---

Obama plan would cut corporate taxes, end loopholes

President Obama will ask Congress to close dozens of corporate tax loopholes... Business groups have long complained about the high effective corporate tax rate, but many big businesses actually pay much lower after using loopholes and tax breaks.

---

http://www.bizjournals.com/...would-cut-corporate-taxes.html

In the meantime, Kuchinich is such a stand-up guy that he's doing nearly nothing to prevent his own district from being gerrymandered away, which is why he's Dronester's favorite politician - prone to completely ineffective grandstanding, because it's more important to die on the right hills than to win elections. Well, at this rate, Kuchinich will leave the House never having lost one - but he'll be gone, nonetheless.

Message 161 of 397 (653531) 02-22-2012 10:09 AM

Reply to: Message 160 by crashfrog 02-22-2012 9:49 AM

http://www.latimes.com/...ate-taxes-20120222,0,4725599.story

quote:

---

Obama wants to cut corporate tax rate to 28% as part of overhaul

---

While driving to work yesterday, I was listening in on npr. They were interviewing the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder. It's obvious that saving the auto industry saved Michigan. But since Rick is a supporter of Romney, he couldn't possibly admit that saving the auto industry saved Michigan. That was my prediction before I started listening to the interview anyway.

So, the host asked Snyder if he thought saving the auto industry saved Michigan's econ. And sure enough, my prediction came through. He talked for about a minute round and round in circles that pretty much admitted saving the auto industry saved Michigan but without actually admitting it up front. Classic example of a cop-out answer. Anyway, the host then asked if he supported bailing out the auto industry. Snyder said he didn't have any comment on that.

You could tell in the entire interview that he really thought saving the auto industry helped his state. But since he already swore loyalty to Romney, he couldn't actually say anything that could possibly be in favor of Obama. So, he just ended up giving cop-out answers.

Message 162 of 397 (653532) 02-22-2012 10:51 AM

Reply to: Message 161 by Taz 02-22-2012 10:09 AM

LoL. The liar in chief is in campaign mode. just as he was when he lulled the sheeple in his first campaign.

He leaves orders with his Congressional bypassing regime full of unaccountable dictatorial czars before departing on each tax paid paid vacation and campaign trip so as to be personally unaccountable for nothing.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes

Message 163 of 397 (653538) 02-22-2012 11:24 AM

Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw 02-22-2012 10:51 AM

I'm sure that there are some things that he's unaccountable for.

Watch out for those double negatives.

Let's face it, you're a joke.

Message 164 of 397 (653539) 02-22-2012 11:27 AM

Reply to: Message 161 by Taz 02-22-2012 10:09 AM

Not quite. Obama wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%, but wants to pay for doing so by closing loopholes that have allowed some businesses to pay far less in taxes, with some even paying none at times.

The Republicans, who are so focused on paying for any new programs that they almost didn't pass the payroll tax credit extension, want to reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 25%, but leave all the loopholes in place...essentially making the deficit even bigger without "paying for it" elsewhere.

So, the Republicans haven't been asking for the same thing, they've been asking for something irresponsible and dumb.

Edited by Perdition, : speeling