Obama '08?

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

What is wrong with redistributing wealth when a tiny percent of the people have a hugely disparate ownership of it? At one time, 32 % of the wealth was controlled by old man Rockefeller. Teddy Roosevelt correctly busted the monopolies.

Redistributing wealth is theft. Theft is a crime.

The wealthy are far better judges of what are better investments for them in improving the economy and increasing good jobs than is the federal government after it steals their wealth.

The wealthy voluntarily contribute to private charities that are far better judges of how best to really help people help themselves than is any federal agency.

Almost all of us in the lower wealth classes have prospered and enjoyed our lives because of the investments of the wealthy, not inspite of them.

I want the federal government to secure and enforce all the lawful liberties of all of us, and not deny any of us any of our lawful liberties.

Stealing someone else's wealth is not made moral by assigning it the euphemism redistribution of wealth.

Worst of all, stealing the wealth of the wealthy will make all our lives worse off, not better off.

1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee in 1778, wrote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.

Our 221 year old Constitutional Republic was formally adopted March 4, 1789. Since 1913 when we adopted the progressive income tax, we have been drifting and are now plunging toward dependency and bondage.

Why do so many humans keep taking the same failed actions over again expecting each time a different result? Maybe, it's because they do not want to face reality! Maybe, it's because they are insane!

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year USA Total Civil Employed
1977................92,017 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1978................96,048
1979.................98,824
1980...............99,302,000
1981...............100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981TO-1988]
1982...............99,526,000
1983...............100,834,000
1984...............105,005,000
1985………........107,150,000
1986...............109,597,000
1987...............112,440,000
1988...............114,968,000
1989...............117,342,000 [BUSH41 1989 TO 1993]
1990...............118,793,000
1991...............117,718,000
1992…….….......118,492,000
1993...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993 TO 2000]
1994...............123,060,000
1995………….....124,900,000
1996...............126,708,000
1997………….....129,558,000
1998...............131,463,000
1999...............133,488,000
2000...............136,891,000
2001………………136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2002...............136,485,000
2003...............137,730,006
2004...............139,252,000
2005………….....141,730,000
2006……..........144,427,000
2007...............146,047,000
2008...............145,362,000
2009...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Stealing someone else's wealth is not made moral by assigning it the euphemism redistribution of wealth.

Of course taxation isn't immoral just because you assign it the euphemism "theft".

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Boy Ican.. It still looks like Obama's economy is 21% better than Reagan's using your standard of comparison.

1 Reply

Today's announcement, by Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana that he won't seek reelection this fall, is yet another in a lengthening string of indicators that we are likely to see a major reversal in the political fortunes of President Obama and the left wing Democrats who have been counting on him to achieve "change we can believe in". It appears that most folks aren't buying it, and that an increasing number of Democrat legislators are bailing out for various reasions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Your posts are like Mad Libs, George. Remember them?

"____ event which has taken place _____ is yet another indicator that the Democrats have failed at _____ and the public obviously is turning on them. All other interpretations of the data are false, because I speak for the populace of the Country as a whole, naturally."

A monkey could make more meaningful contributions to the conversation than this.

Quote:

It appears that most folks aren't buying it, and that an increasing number of Democrat legislators are bailing out for various reasions.

Is this related to the 'succession' of Republican victories?

Let me ask you: are there more retiring Republicans or Democrats this cycle? I only ask, because surely you believe that the Republicans bailing out is also a signal the their political fortunes are not getting better and that the public isn't buying their ideas either. Right?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh, I see. Apparently you believe Bayh's announcement and that earlier of Dorgan are good news for the President.

Makes it all clear.

To be effective, mockery, generally requires more art and skill than you presented.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Oh, I see. Apparently you believe Bayh's announcement and that earlier of Dorgan are good news for the President.

No, but they are quite common occurances in 2nd-year elections in presidential terms. It has very little to do with the president at all. Perhaps you are unaware that the Senate is in fact a separate branch of government then the Executive?

Quote:

Makes it all clear.

To be effective, mockery, generally requires more art and skill than you presented.

I was not mocking you, George, but expressing sadness at the trite level of conversation you have been reduced to.

Do you honestly believe that stating the exact same thing over and over again is interesting conversation, which shows incisive knowledge or insights into our political situation? I certainly don't, but that is exactly what you have decided to do: every single event is just another opportunity for you to trumpet doom for the Dems in this upcoming election, and assert yet again that the Dems have failed the country with their very ideas and philosophies- not to mention the obligatory (though thankfully not every post) reference to 'Chicago politics.'

I mean, jeez. It's becoming Ican-ish in its repetitiveness.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

An interesting * about Evan Bayh's "retirement." The deadline for getting into the Dem primary is Friday. There will have to be a scramble...or, if no one gets in, the party can select a candidate in May or June by some kind of convention.

1 Reply

@parados,

Wow! That's a surprise, Parados! You observe Obama's economy is 21% better than Reagan's, even though Obama's economy is 3.7% worse than Bush's economy. Do you now perceive Bush is your hero instead of Obama?

Quote:

TOTAL CIVIL EMPLOYED
1988...............114,968,000 [REAGAN 1981TO-1988]
2008...............145,362,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2009...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

(100% x 139,959,000 / 145,362,000) - 100% = 96.3% - 100% = - 3.7%
(100% x 139,959,000 / 114,968,00) - 100% = = 121.7% - 100% = + 21.7%

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

An interesting * about Evan Bayh's "retirement." The deadline for getting into the Dem primary is Friday. There will have to be a scramble...or, if no one gets in, the party can select a candidate in May or June by some kind of convention.

That was interesting -- the timing. Politico reports today that he wouldn't commit to running when asked 3 weeks ago, but gave no indication he wouldn't seek reelection. He also didn't tell many people, so some were feeling a bit blindsided by his decision. Too bad. I liked him. I didn't agree with everything he represented, but he seems like a good guy. I wish him well in his civilian life. (Also liked his speech today -- quite moving).

0 Replies

This will help you understand Obama.

Quote:

Targeting the Tea Parties
Liberals created another "astroturf" group to kill the Tea Party Movement. A new website appeared recently called "The Tea Party Is Over." Their mission is: "To prevent the Tea Party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction."

The website is paid for by the "American Public Policy Committee," which is nothing more than a domain name registered to Craig Varoga. Varoga, along with his partner, George Rakis, are in a consulting firm called Independent Strategies, and are listed on IRS documents as the people responsible for several other astroturf organizations, which include:
-The American Public Policy Committee Donations | IRS forms
-Patriot Majority Donations | IRS forms
-Citizens for Progress Donations | IRS forms
-Oklahoma Freedom Fund Donations | IRS forms
-Mid Atlantic Leadership Fund Donations | IRS forms
-Public Security Now Donations | IRS forms
-Pioneer Majority Donations | IRS forms
-Bluegrass Freedom Fund Donations | IRS forms

Each of these so-called organizations list their address at 300 M Street SE, Suite 1102, Washington DC. Neither Varoga nor Rakis occupy this office. It is, however, occupied by Joseph Sandler who is an attorney for the Democratic National Committee.

These two people launder millions and millions of dollars from labor unions through these astroturf organizations, and now they have put the Tea Party Movement in their crosshairs. It is essential to expose this attack on the Tea Party Movement.

0 Replies

So now that the Dems are on the cusp of losing Bayh's Senate seat maybe Obama is waking up to the realization that giving free-range to the party hacks Pelosi and Reid was a bad Idea. Not applying the thumb screws to those two idiots will probably cost him any chance he had at Washington being made to work well enough to fix some stuff.

Time to reevaluate, Obama is already almost a lock to repeat the Clinton experience come Nov, with humiliating losses of seats and power.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I don't see much evidence of any daylight between the President and the Democrat leaders in the Congress. They are all propelled by the same Democrat interest groups. The President willingly put his legislative agenda in their hands, and, if anything, apears to have been more led by them than the reverse.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is this related to the 'succession' of Republican victories?

Let me ask you: are there more retiring Republicans or Democrats this cycle? I only ask, because surely you believe that the Republicans bailing out is also a signal the their political fortunes are not getting better and that the public isn't buying their ideas either. Right?

Members of both parties are deciding to not run for reelection. In general I suspect this represents some (generally unknown) combination of their own frustrations and alarm that the majorities they once thought secure are not that any longer. That there is a growing public malaise with incumbents seems beyond doubt. Since Demoreats are in the majority, particularly in the House, where everyone faces reelection this November, the malaise, even if it is evenly distributed, will impact them the most. Since Democrats control the legislative agenda in both Houses of Congress, both the facts and the historical public reactions to such things point mostly at them.

This pattern has so far worked very seriously against Democrats in the Senate, where there has indeed been a succession of reversals for them. Just a month or so ago the possibility of a Republican Senate after November looked remote. Now it appears at least an even betL possibly also for the House.

It is beginning to look like 1994.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

You are an advocate of trickle down. Old man Rockefeller would have gladly flicked a dime your way. Billy Carter would have pissed on you.

1 Reply

The Reps here are gleeful that the right may again take control. Indeed, this could happen. Then we would revert to the failed Bush policies of deficit spending, providing more wealth to the super-rich, eliminating government regulation, etc. This would really accelerate the country's decline.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Let us take your points one by one.

Deficit spending, Bush's deficit spending does not rival Obama's. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being worst, Obama is a 10, while Bush was maybe a 4. We need to go below 4 to near 1. So you cannot characterize Bush's spending as totally conservative at all, in fact conservatives were unhappy with his spending. Your apparent argument that since Bush was bad, going to total disaster is better, which is a logical fallacy.

Wealth to the super rich, again a misrepresentation of Bush's policies. In fact, Bush was instrumental in enacting more taxcuts to the very low income earners, resulting in unprecedented tax refunds for low earners, in fact way more than they even paid in income tax to begin with.

Eliminating government regulation, your term is again misleading and misrepresenting the reality. No Republican advocates eliminating government regulation completely, but we do advocate eliminating needless and redundant regulation that primarily accomplishes the blocking of economic activity rather than anything positive.

The country's decline, that is obviously your opinion, but the facts speak otherwise. Obama has done more to accelerate decline by unprecedented deficits, just one example. And in the area of national defense, the population trusts Republicans more than Democrats. Since Obama's election, we have seen a real decline in confidence in our national security. Plus confidence in the economy, we are in a free fall at the present time. We need conservatism in Washington once again, and it is evident to I think most of us that returning to conservative policies is our only hope to reverse the decline in America.

0 Replies

Just read an article at Public Policy Polling (a Dem-leaning polling company). Tom Jensen, after hearing about Bayh's decision today, says:

"I can't believe I'm saying this but I really think Republicans have a chance to win back the Senate this fall now."

Then he goes on to break it down a bit (you can read the rest over there, if interested).

He also has some thoughts on how Obama's popularity (or lack thereof) will impact the midterms. This is interesting, because the L. A. Times over the weekend published an article on how some Democrats are beginning to distance themselves from Obama, feeling that "aligning themselves too closely with the White House could be a strategic mistake ahead of the midterm election".

"Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat who represents a California Central Valley district burdened by high unemployment and home foreclosures, said in an interview: "The Obama administration has failed miserably in trying to solve the problem."

Rep. Jim Costa, a Democrat who also represents California's Central Valley, blames Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for not doing enough to alleviate a drought that has hobbled farmers. Costa said his phone calls to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have gone unreturned.

"They're not listening carefully enough to the people I represent," Costa said.

Asked whether he wants the president to campaign for him, Costa said: "I'm more popular in my district than the president."

The article reports that sources at the WH approve of the distancing strategy. Weird? I think it is, kind of.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Rep. Jim Costa, a Democrat who also represents California's Central Valley, blames Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for not doing enough to alleviate a drought that has hobbled farmers.

Carumba! Even I didn't expect the man to make it rain.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know