Obama '08?

@H2O MAN,

Real Clear politics has Obama at an average 49.1 approve and 44.7 disapprove.

RealClearPolitics

@revelette,

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives,
values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

Obama is a Fascists.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

And you're an idiot!

0 Replies

@revelette,

Now those are the numbers of a unifying leader!

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now those are the numbers of a unifying leader!

But hardly unusual, historically. Would you agree with that?

0 Replies

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

1. MFITR = Maximum Federal Income Tax Rates ( in percent)
2. FREC = Federal Receipts (in trillions of dollars)
3. FOUT = Federal Outlays (in trillions of dollars)
4. FDEF = Federal Deficits (in trillions of dollars)
5. FDEB = Federal Debts (in trillions of dollars)
6. TCPOP = Total Civilian Populations (in millions)
7. TCEMP = Total Civil Employments (in millions)
8. PCPEMP = Percent of Civilian Population Employed (in percent)

Years……....MFITR…...FREC…....FOUT…....FDEF…....FDEB…...TCPOP..…TCEMP..…PCPEMP
1980……....70.000…..0.5171…..0.5909…..-0.074…..0.9077…..167.75….. 99.302…..59.200
1988……....33.000…..0.9092…..1.0644…..-0.155…..2.6023…..184.61…..114.97…..62.300
1992……....31.000…..1.0912…..1.3815…..-0.290…..4.0646…..192.81…..118.49…..61.500
2000……....39.600…..2.0252…..1.7890…..+0.236…..5.6742…..212.58…..136.89…..64.400
2003……....35.000…..1.7823…..2.1599…..-0.373…..6.7832…..226.60…..141.03…..63.500
2007……....35.000…..2.5680…..2.7287…..-0.161…..9.0077…..231.87…..146.05…..63.000
2008……....35.000…..2.5240…..2.9826…..-0.459…..10.025…..233.79…..145.36…..62.200
2010……....35.000…..2.1651…..3.7207…..-1.556…..13.562…..237.83…..139.06…..58.500

People losing their jobs (TCEMP reduced) caused federal redeipts to drop (FREC reduced), because causing people to lose their jobs causes people to have less income to tax. .

0 Replies

@revelette,

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Quote:

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, “This was one tough election to poll and forecast. Rasmussen Reports caught the major trends of the election year nationally and in most states.” In December 2009, a full 11 months before Election Day. A Democratic strategist concluded that if the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 elections. Other polls at the time suggested the Democrats would retain a comfortable majority. The Republicans gained 63 seats in last month's elections.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/february_2011/55_say_obama_s_budget_doesn_t_cut_enough

Quote:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/february_2011/55_say_obama_s_budget_doesn_t_cut_enough
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters say, generally speaking, that the president’s budget proposal cuts government spending too little. Ten percent (10%) say it cuts too much, while 26% say his budget cuts about the right amount. (To see survey question wording, click here).

While congressional Republicans are criticizing the president for not cutting enough and are planning much bigger budget cuts, 40% of voters say, generally speaking, that the changes proposed by the GOP also cut government spending too little. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say Republicans want to cut too much, while 18% think their planned budget cuts are about right. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now those are the numbers of a unifying leader!

Has anyone noted what is going on in Wisconsin, where a number of Democrats ducked out of a vote on ending collective bargaining for government employees, so that the government can be managed efficiently and the peoples business done?

I think this is important, because apparently Obama has sided with the unions and against the people of Wisconsin. The question becomes, is the government by the people and for the people, or is it for the special interests of unions, teachers unions, and Democratic voters? This strikes me as a classic collision of two opposing forces, one being big government and all of its powerful cooperating organizations and businesses, such as unions, etc., lining up against the other side, which is the people, and the people's right to govern themselves in a responsible manner? We now see which side of the question Obama has placed himself, apparently big government first and foremost, and anyone that will support the Democrats and their overbearing government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/teachers-march-wisconsin-capitol-senate-moves-curtail-union-rights/

"In a statement he released earlier, Walker, who just took office last month, said the actions of the lawmakers were "disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who showed up to work today and the millions of taxpayers they represent.""

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Obama is a Fascists.

So, where is the second Obama?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The question becomes, is the government by the people and for the people, or is it for the special interests of unions, teachers unions, and Democratic voters?

Okie, you are such a hypocrite!

2 Replies

@JTT,

I'm not certain that hypocrite is an exact fit but he certainly has no idea how to construct a logical argument.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

It's hypocrisy alright, POM, among other things. Has Okie ever used the same argument for all the special favors that the government regularly bestows upon the richest, most powerful corporations in the country?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
The question becomes, is the government by the people and for the people, or is it for the special interests of unions, teachers unions, and Democratic voters?
Okie, you are such a hypocrite!

How so? I have never worked for government, nor have I ever belonged to a union. I have paid taxes like clockwork.

Question, does government exist to serve unions and government employees or does it exist by permission of the people / taxpayers, to do the peoples business?

My opinion is, either they go to work, or let the state of Wisconsin find people that want to work to get the job done, don't ya think? With all the unemployed out there, they shouldn't have much trouble finding people that need work and want to work.

2 Replies

@okie,

I guess okie never served in our military.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I guess okie never served in our military.

It took me a bit to catch what you were talking about, ci, but yes I forgot, serving in the military is, I suppose, working for the government. Yes, if you count military, I worked for the government, however, I was talking about civilian government jobs.

Actually, you bring up a good point. How long would the military get by with trying to unionize or walking off the job? If they can't do it, why should any government employee be unionized? Some believe that one of the worst things to ever happen in modern political history was JFK's action to allow government employees to unionize, which essentially set up a collision course between the private sector and government. The following article is worth reading, and it helps explain why the events in Wisconsin are so important.

http://therightfieldline.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfks-unionization-of-federal-work-force.html

"JFK's unionization of federal work force made Democrat Party a public-sector dependency The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association.

They broke the public's bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency."

0 Replies

@okie,

So okie, do you think people should be able to bargain with their employer when it comes to wages, benefits, and vacations?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So okie, do you think people should be able to bargain with their employer when it comes to wages, benefits, and vacations?

As individuals, yes. In fact, I have done so. Its called freedom. But the employer should also have freedom. It is a two way street. I might even consider the validity of unions working for private enterprise, if the unions do not resort to thuggery, but I believe public sector or government employees are a different matter. The pay and benefits should be openly identified, and the prospective employees can decide whether they want to work or not. This is supposed to be a free country, and so government employment should not be ruled by union dictators.

This is worth posting again:
"JFK's unionization of federal work force made Democrat Party a public-sector dependency The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow."

2 Replies

Mr. President, do you think we're stupid?

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

As individuals, yes. In fact, I have done so. Its called freedom. But the employer should also have freedom. It is a two way street.

So is it a 2 way street if the employer can deny the employee the ability to bargain? What if the employer could use the government to force the employee to take whatever the employer offers? Would that be freedom?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Mr. President, do you think we're stupid?

If you are asking about the opinion of you personally squirt, I think I can answer for about 280 million Americans. Yes, you are stupid squirt. You go beyond stupid at times.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know