okie
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 08:08 pm
See my post on the global warming thread. Another reason why Obama has no credibility.
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-845#post-4726229
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 09:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So I guess you think there is even a slight chance that the Special Committee can find another $475 million to cut.

And if they can't, where will O find the money to pay for the stimulus if he's not willing to raise taxes for another year or two?

I would say that I find it difficult to believe that you don't realize the money will be borrowed from the Chinese or Arab princes, but actually it's not. You believe whatever tripe The One and the Democrats feed you with their weekly talking points memo.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 09:08 pm
Finn says:
Quote:
where will O find the money to pay for the stimulus if he's not willing to raise taxes for another year or two


Obama's willing. As the polls repeatedly have shown, the American people are more than willing. Tea Party politicians and their allies have completely refused to. Perhaps that's why their approval ratings are in free fall.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 09:19 pm
@MontereyJack,
MJ, The irony of the tea party is they are out to get Obama to fail, but they're destroying their own "party." It's really comical, if you think about it.

I'm not sure if there are any thinking American who thinks the tea party can fix anything! They've already destroyed our AAA credit rating.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 09:40 pm
Quote:
Obama is the commander in chief as covert operator. The flag-waving “mission accomplished” speeches of his predecessor aren’t Obama’s thing; even his public reaction to the death of bin Laden was relatively subdued. Watching Obama, the reticent, elusive man whose dual identity is chronicled in “Dreams From My Father,” you can’t help wondering if he has an affinity for the secret world. He is opaque, sometimes maddeningly so, in the way of an intelligence agent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-covert-commander-in-chief/2011/09/08/gIQAbZB8FK_story.html?hpid=z2

Obama as the would be Vladimir Putin (if he could get away with it)???.......this idea has legs.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 10:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I don't need any more money from the gov't or any help from anyone. I won't benefit personally from almost any of the plans that I believe would help the nation.

So, how am I - or other Dems - engaging in 'class warfare' when I argue that marginal taxes on the wealthy (everyone really) should go up? When I point out that the wealthy pay a far lower share of their income in taxes now than they have in 70 years? And that these things are greatly harming our nation in a wide variety of ways? I don't think so. It's just an attempt to invalidate the arguments of your opponents for which your traditional answers don't quite cut it.


Well, that's an interesting argument.

Let’s, for the sake argument, assume you really will not profit in any way from the largess of a federal government that bloats itself on increased taxes the way a tick bloats itself on blood.

Maybe you really believe this nonsense or maybe you're just inextricably tied to the purveyors of the ideology you've decided to embrace.

In any case, if you really don't stand to benefit from government handouts, you are not a typical Democrat voter, and you certainly are not a Democrat politician.

Power corrupts as we, unfortunately, saw with the last Republican controlled congress, and yet you believe that Democrat politicians have remained pure.

It makes no sense whatsoever, I suppose, for Democrat politicians to foster class warfare.

Why would they?

They have nothing to gain from it?

Nothing, that is, except power and all the benefits that power brings.

The Democrats' strategy for the securement and preservation of power has become to buy the votes of citizens who are not asked to contribute to the common welfare but live, to one degree or another, as wards of it.

The Democrats need money to pay for the programs they put into law to buy votes. It's finally reached a point where almost no one but the most rabid Democrat partisan believes we can keep borrowing money to fund these programs. If the credit card gets cut in half what happens to Democrat office holders?

You can bet they are not going to tell their constituents: "Sorry, but the gravy train has come to a stop. We just can't afford to fund these programs that you like and depend upon."

Hell, if they did that, they would become pseudo-Republicans and then who would vote for them?

No, if it is becoming harder and harder to get the country to accept that we can borrow our way to prosperity and social equality, where do they get the money they need to spend?

It's simple...The Rich. Most of those sons-of-bitches aren't going to vote for them so no big deal if they piss them off. They've spent the last few decades cozying up to the Mega-Rich so that the Jeffrey Immelts of the nation consider it good sense to hedge their bets and provide them with support. Obviously the number of Mega-Rich votes is meaningless so it is all about money and acting the quisling.

Immelts is clearly a brilliant individual. He knows that there are no guarantees that the country will be run by Republicans for a significant stretch of time, so the best strategy is to curry favor with Democrats.

If Republicans win, their policies will work to his favor. If Democrats win, he will have bought dispensation. Brilliant.

When the Democrats talk about making billionaires pay their fair share, the only billionaires they intend to target for a "fair" contribution are the ones who clearly oppose them. the Immelts and Buffets aren't going to be hurt. How can they manage this selectivity? Through the labyrinth that is our tax system.

It's all a sham anyway because Obama know that the real fatted calf is the group of Americans who, in bygone years, were called Upper Middle Class, people who make over $200,000 a year. There's a lot more of them than Buffet sized billionaires and most of them don't vote for Democrats and most of them don't feel the need to hedge their bets and contribute to the Democrat party. So screw them, "they have the money," so let's take it.

Never mind that the vast majority of them have not been making $200+ for but the last two to five years of their careers. Never mind that all-in, the majority of these individuals don't have net worths in excess of $2.5 million. They are rich pigs and the poor people of the nation demand they pay their fair share.

I realize I am a capitalist running dog, but it seems to be that if Democrats were, in any way, true to the ideology they try to foist on us, they would be all for tax reformation that eliminates the thousands of special interest loopholes.

Surprise, surprise...they're not. Why not? Because they benefit from them as much, if not more, than Republicans.

Appreciating the effect that referring to Palin invokes in so many members of A2K, she is absolutely right about calling out crony capitalism. Even the NY Times agrees with her, and yet what is being ignored is that the Democrats are as guilty as or more so than the Republicans.

What was the $400 million in taxpayer dollars spent on propping up a failing business like Solyndra if it wasn't crony capitalism?

It's easy, and perhaps accurate, to charge that both parties are power mad scum bags, but how are left-wingers consoled by the belief that their chosen party is "no worse" than the other?

At their most realistic and their worse, which party betrays its followers more?

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 10:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
You are wrong, unless you believe that Jay Carney was lying when he told Bill O'Reilly that the Administration wouldnot be looking to raise taxes until one or two years from now.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 10:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They've already destroyed our AAA credit rating.


This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments you have every posted and your body of ridiculous comments is quite vast.

For some reason I actually thought you were not quite the same automaton repeating Democrat talking points as Cyclo, but apparently I was wrong.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 01:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

MJ, The irony of the tea party is they are out to get Obama to fail, but they're destroying their own "party." It's really comical, if you think about it.

I'm not sure if there are any thinking American who thinks the tea party can fix anything! They've already destroyed our AAA credit rating.

Cicerone, you have an uncanny ability to get things backwards.

Obama is failing badly all by himself - no help is needed. He sailed into office on a wave of public enthusiasm - in this country and abroad, and with far less hostile scrutiny by the media than any Presidential candidate in memory. With his election his party also won strong majorities in both houses of Congress.

What has he done with these advantages? He has squandered them on an ill-timed, ill-conceived expansion of government at a time and in conditions that called for exactly the opposite; lost control of the House of Representatives; and is widely seen as weak, detached and ineffectual here and in other nations.

It is certainly true that he was confronted with some difficult and serious issues soon after taking office. So was his predecessor. Unfortunately for Obama, instead of assessing the new situation, setting appropriate priorities and leading, he merely unleashed his very partisan attack dogs in the Congress to pursue the prefabricated agenda their paymasters in organized labor, environmental groups and sectarian community and single issue groups had prepared for them.

In a situation that called for serious leadership in the solution of difficult and complex issues, and the formation of political syntheses for their resolution, he has been detached, leading, as always, from far behind, repeatedly resorted to political cant when serious thought and action were required, and sneaky adolescent political gotcha games when serious political engagement with the opposition was needed. He has demonstrated a truly remarkable ability to learn nothing at all from experience, repeatedly dishing up the same failed nostrums for the restart of an economic recovery aborted by his own foolish decisions on spending, energy and fossil fuel production, trade treaties and commerce.

He will join Jimmy Carter as a one term President, and we will be well rid of him.

With respect to the tea party, it is obvious that its force as an independent entity is waning as the Republicans coalesce in the selection of candidates for the coming election. That's OK - the tea Party has done its duty and thoroughly energised Republicans and Independents in a way that we have not seen since the 1980s.

Poor Cicerone appears to forget that Senator Obama voted against an effort to raise the debt ceiling in 2006 for ostensible reasons identical to those of his Republican opposition today. Could this have been merely a cynical policical maneuver by then Senator Obama ? Could the annointed one have been faking it then? The real reason creditors are increasingly concerned about our debt, and the long-term demographically driven rise in entitlements that is behind it, is the persistent unwillingness of our hapless government to deal with it in obvious and effective ways. For now our bonds are propped up by the even worse situation of European banks and sovereign borrowers. However, if we fail to take decisive action soon we will be right behind them.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 02:27 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
and with far less hostile scrutiny by the media than any Presidential candidate in memory.
There was no way to know who Obama was, he was too young with very little record and with a habit of making himself a closed book......I am the first one to bitch about our failed journalism, but in this case there were plenty of stories about how we were rolling the dice by electing an unknown. We decided that the unknown Obama was a better bet than was the known McCain, and before that the known Clinton.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 03:36 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
He sailed into office on a wave of public enthusiasm ...


There were many voices predicting this sort of outcome George when the political settlements of the early days were chiselled into the hardest rocks. Alexis de Tocqueville , whilst admiring the "cradle of liberalism", feared the "tyranny" and the "apathy" of the uneducated majority.

Quote:
If ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.


Book 1, Part 11, Chapter V11 of Democracy in America (1835).

Great play was made during the election campaign of the millions of small contributions to Mr Obama's funds and the use of the new electronic media in whipping up hysteria. The winning rhetoric during the campaign was incomprehensible to the intelligenstia as was the speech the other day. I remember being gobsmacked on seeing enthusiastic cheering responding to what was little more than braying.

And Media and Congress have laid themselves down before the steamroller of the tyranny of the uneducated majority.

Your post merely describes the inevitable consequences.

What you fail to see, I think, is what a fantastic acheivement it was to go from where Mr Obama was at the beginning to the Oval Office even if it is only for one term.

When Nero buggered up the Roman finances he was sentenced to be put to death in the manner of the ancients which I won't describe on this occasion. He stabbed himself to save the bother. Mr Obama, even after one term, will be feted with foundations, libraries, speaking engagements, protection, missions and all the other trappings of an ex President. No matter how monumental his failures look to you.

He represents that tyranny which is insatiable and can only collapse when it collapses.

From what I have seen of your posts you are in favour of all the forces which bring about the tyranny of the uneducated majority and here you are indignantly expostulating, red in the face and the vein in your temple pulsing furiously, about the very obvious consequences. And you're not alone.

The very idea that extending the franchise to every adult over 18 can result in anything but chaos seems insane to me. And it ought to do to a senior naval officer too.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 09:38 am
@georgeob1,
Not totally true; you forget about the No Party that has been hindering his administration - and party. You should know this by now even though you keep parroting the same refrain; Cyclo has proven you wrong on this point many times.

That's the reason Obama's rating is still more than double of congress; that's a fact.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 11:03 am
@cicerone imposter,
On the other points you made.

As for Obama's voting against the debt ceiling when he was in congress, there was no fear of a tea party-like extremism, and no chance he could defeat it.

You say that the "tea party energized the republican party." ROFLMAO. If that's your observation of the tea party, then you don't know anything about conservatism. Do you really believe the tea party is what conservatism is all about?

On Obama being a "one term president." How do you know that? Why are so many of the front-runners of the republicans out of touch with America? Social security is a ponzi scheme? Do you think conservatives believe that?

Finally, I've not agreed with Obama on many issues, but compared to the conservatives running for office, he's looking pretty good. His rating is still way above congress', and I don't see that changing during the next 14 months.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 11:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
Neither of the versions that passed the House and Senate contained a severability clause, and because Reconciliation was used to place it in law, there was never a conference meeting where the problem might have been found and corrected.

The purpose of a severability clause is to hold that if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, the remaining portions stand on their own and can't be struck down along with the offending portion.

So it is possible that if the SC finds the mandate portion unconstitutional that they can strike down the entire law.

It's certainly not automatic, but its possible.

In any case, the Administration is, itself, arguing that the mandate is the lynchpin of the legislation. Without forcing everyone to buy health insurance, the funds needed to drive the program will not be available.

Should the other portions of the law survive a ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional, I'm assuming Congress will have to take it up again to engineer a fix.

Since the Democrats no longer enjoy complete control over Congress we can expect a major political battle.

Undoubtedly the Democrats will want to borrow what is needed to cover the loss of funding and then add it to the list of reasons why the rich need to pay more taxes.

There is virtually no chance that the Republican House would allow this to happen particularly since the GOP's 2012 presidential candidate will almost certainly be running on a platform that promises a full court press to get Obamacare repealled, beginning on Day One of the new administration

The Democrats have all along dismissed the high levels of negative public reaction to Obamacare based on the theory that once the American people see how it will work they will appreciate it and it will, like SS and Medicare, become a political third rail for any politician trying to reform or abolish it.

Unfortunately for them, if the American people are going to really warm up to and strongly rely on Obamacare, it won't be until sometime after 2014 when all the provisions go into effect. I'm sure they can find people who have benefited from it already, but they are a small minority of the public.

From what I can tell there is a consensus that the Supreme Court will take the case and that a decision could be expect in the Summer of 2012...long before 2014 and only shortly before the national election.

When I think of the howls issuing from the Left should the SC, directly or effectively kill Obamacare, I am reminded of a commercial a while ago wherein Vincent Price's wife uses credit card rewards to buy her husband a bug zapper. There sits Vincent in the backyard laughing maniacly as the bugs are inincerated. At one point there is an especially loud zap and he chortles "Isn't it wonderful!"
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 12:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

As for Obama's voting against the debt ceiling when he was in congress, there was no fear of a tea party-like extremism, and no chance he could defeat it.
What exactly do you mean here? The "extremism" to which you referred involved withholding votes for an increase in the debt ceiling until the Congress and the President could agree on significant spending reductions to slow the further accumulation of the debt which they would be authorizing. There is nothing "extremist" about that. The truly remarkable element in this comedy was the feckless ineptitude of the President, his self-absorbed arrogance and unwillingness to come to terms with the basic features of our democracy. Obama offered precisely the same argument against an increase in the debt ceiling when he cast his vote in 2006. It appears you are rationalizing his action then by saying it was merely an empty gesture, mere political theater. I will readily agree he is very given to that sort of thing, and that too is a significant element of his colossal failure as a President.

cicerone imposter wrote:

You say that the "tea party energized the republican party." ROFLMAO. If that's your observation of the tea party, then you don't know anything about conservatism. Do you really believe the tea party is what conservatism is all about?
In the first place, what does "knowing anything about conservatism" (as you may define it) have to do with energizing the Republican party? In the second, the tea party activists were a disparate, very loosely organized collection of independent groups united only by a set of relatively conservitive ideas that united them (to a degree). Today they exist primarily as a metaphorical political punching bag for paranoid progressives and others who prefer trivialized boogeymen to really thinking about things. You can choose the category you prefer here.

cicerone imposter wrote:
On Obama being a "one term president." How do you know that? Why are so many of the front-runners of the republicans out of touch with America? Social security is a ponzi scheme? Do you think conservatives believe that?
I certainly don't know the future as you are implying, nor do I claim t0. However, I am convinced by the very rapid collapse of the overenthusiastic support he once enjoyed that Obama's political capital has undergone a trajectory much like that of an inflated 2006 subprime mortgage. The trend appears irreversible and he is a spent political force. That is what I was expressing. (I will however be willing to bet any sum you may like on the outcome).

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 12:32 pm
As I was watching his speech on Thursday I heard President Lincoln crediting Abraham Lincoln with founding the Republican party. I though to myself "That doesn't sound right," but didn't really make anything of it, and actually forgot about it until I saw an article that reported that PBS in publishing a transcript of the speech eliminated the reference because, of course, it is flatly wrong.

It turns out that PBS did not deliberately edit the transcript to remove the president's gaffe. In fact they published a copy of the speech they were provided prior to Thursday night, rather than an actual transcript of the speech. So lazy but not mendacious.

Still you have to wonder why Sarah Palin's alleged gaffe about Paul Revere got so much play in the media while Obama's, by comparison, has received very little.

It's particularly puzzling since apparently Obama the great scholar forced the error by ad libbing on his prepared speech. Jokes about how he needs to stick to the teleprompter should abound.

Rather than acknowleging unbalanced coverage, I've heard media apologists explain that like Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin's gaffes are so frequent and funny, and so indicative of her true skills and intent, that they make for a good story, while Obama's are really just an occassional slip of the tongue.

Yeah, right.

This is not to say that Obama's gaffes are particularly egrigious or laugable, but he has a long list of them and some are pretty funny, some suggest ignorance, and others are just weird.

Anyone who makes as many speeches as Obama or gives as many interviews as Palin are bound to make gaffes, most of which really are just slips of the tongue.

They're worthy fodder for Jay Leno or John Stewart, but widespread coverage?

So Obama's don't get wide spread coverage, and Palin's do and that has nothing to do with anything like political bias.

Yeah, right.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 12:49 pm
@georgeob1,
You wrote,
Quote:
What exactly do you mean here? The "extremism" to which you referred involved withholding votes for an increase in the debt ceiling until the Congress could agree on significant spending reductions to slow the further accumulation of the debt which they would be authoirizing. Obama offered precisely the same argument when he cast his vote. It appears you are rationalizing his action by saying it was merely an empty gesture, mere political theater. I will readily agree he is very given to that sort of thing, and that too is a significant element of his collosal failure as a President.


Extremism is when a group of new legislators go to Washington without any clues about "compromise," and vote in lock-step with each other to damage our country. No government can work when any group continues to say "NO," and are unwilling to compromise on most issues.











The following was copied from Magginkat's post on another thread that speaks loud and clear about "conservative lies."

Quote:
One out of six employed Texans are now teachers, police officers, highway engineers, military personnel or other government workers — and many of these jobs were created with the federal money that Perry-the-candidate now loudly denounces. Indeed, he's running around ranting about President Obama's stimulus program, but he gladly accepted the third highest amount of stimulus funds taken by the 50 states. There's his miracle.


Conservatives are lost in their own mire, and you have the audacity to talk about Obama.

You wrote,
Quote:
In the first place, what does "knowing anything about conservatism" (as you may define it) have to do with energizing the Republican party? In the second, the tea party activists were a disparate, very loosely organized collection of independent groups united only by a set of relatively conservitive ideas that united them (to a degree). Today they exist primarily as a metaphorical political punching bag for paranoid progressives and others who prefer trivialized boogeymen to really thinking about things.


The republican party is confused about voting in lock-step with the tea partiers, and have lost control of their party politics. The tail is waging the dog.


You wrote,
Quote:
I certainly don't know the future as you are implying, nor do I claim t0. However, I am convinced by the very rapid collapse of the overenthusiastic support he once enjoyed that Obama's political capital has undergone a trajectory much like that of an inflated 2006 subprime mortgage. The trend appears irreversible and he is a spent political force. That is what I was expressing. (I will however be willing to bet any sum you may like on the outcome).


Voters are fickle, and we don't know how Obama will compare with any of the GOP candidates running by November 2012. Performance ratings on any president depends a great deal on their highs and lows, and the reasons for such. That's the reason why historians are apt to wait a few years after they leave office before they rate any president. I don't gamble, and like I said, we'll just have to wait until and next election - and a few years after that to determine how Obama rates.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 01:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Why are so many of the front-runners of the republicans out of touch with America? Social security is a ponzi scheme? Do you think conservatives believe that?


While I will readily agree with the imprudence of saying so, the obvious fact is that Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme, and that feature of it was recognized and debated in the Congress when it was passed in the 1930s. If you will take the trouble to reflect and think instead of merely reacting, you will recognize that managers of corporate pension funds and sellers of insurance and annuities are required by law to hold reserves of capital at least equal to the present value of all known and expected future claims on those funds, based on actuarial data. This is not the case with Social Security - its "reserves" are simply the credit of the U.S. government. We have the theoretical fiction of a Social Security trust, but the fact is the government uses the monies collected in FICA taxes to pay for its current general expenses and to pay current obligations to beneficiaries of social security. The trust merely holds IOUs from the government. This would be a clear violation of law for any insurer or issure of annuities, and it is precisely the crime for which Charles Ponzi was convicted in the 1920s. You can read more about it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

I recognize that the feature in question here is common to most government pension schemes, including pensions for government employees and even Congressmen and former Presidents. However the issue is relevant because of the accumulated demographic changes that have occurred since 1936 and the significantly changed ratio of investors (those employed and paying the FICA tax) to beneficiaries (those cashing SS checks every month). The problem is compounded by the current Administration's proclivity to treat the FICA tax not as the payment for a future annuity (as it was originally conceived and authorized) but rather as some kind of anti progressive and unfair tax on the poor. Indeed the President has proposed significant reductions in these taxes as an economic "stimulus" while flatly refusing to consider any alteration of the benefit structure and indeed trying to pretend that the financial structure of the scheme is sound (it is not), and that he will protect it for the future (he will not). This is political demagoguery of the worst sort, and I suspect that is what incited Gov. Perry's ire.

I suspect the truth is you knew this stuff all along and were just thoughtlessly ranting away.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 01:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are just sputtering now.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2011 01:28 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well, that's an interesting argument.

Let’s, for the sake argument, assume you really will not profit in any way from the largess of a federal government that bloats itself on increased taxes the way a tick bloats itself on blood.

Maybe you really believe this nonsense or maybe you're just inextricably tied to the purveyors of the ideology you've decided to embrace.

In any case, if you really don't stand to benefit from government handouts, you are not a typical Democrat voter, and you certainly are not a Democrat politician.

Power corrupts as we, unfortunately, saw with the last Republican controlled congress, and yet you believe that Democrat politicians have remained pure.

It makes no sense whatsoever, I suppose, for Democrat politicians to foster class warfare.

Why would they?

They have nothing to gain from it?

Nothing, that is, except power and all the benefits that power brings.

The Democrats' strategy for the securement and preservation of power has become to buy the votes of citizens who are not asked to contribute to the common welfare but live, to one degree or another, as wards of it.

The Democrats need money to pay for the programs they put into law to buy votes. It's finally reached a point where almost no one but the most rabid Democrat partisan believes we can keep borrowing money to fund these programs. If the credit card gets cut in half what happens to Democrat office holders?

You can bet they are not going to tell their constituents: "Sorry, but the gravy train has come to a stop. We just can't afford to fund these programs that you like and depend upon."

Hell, if they did that, they would become pseudo-Republicans and then who would vote for them?

No, if it is becoming harder and harder to get the country to accept that we can borrow our way to prosperity and social equality, where do they get the money they need to spend?

It's simple...The Rich. Most of those sons-of-bitches aren't going to vote for them so no big deal if they piss them off. They've spent the last few decades cozying up to the Mega-Rich so that the Jeffrey Immelts of the nation consider it good sense to hedge their bets and provide them with support. Obviously the number of Mega-Rich votes is meaningless so it is all about money and acting the quisling.

Immelts is clearly a brilliant individual. He knows that there are no guarantees that the country will be run by Republicans for a significant stretch of time, so the best strategy is to curry favor with Democrats.

If Republicans win, their policies will work to his favor. If Democrats win, he will have bought dispensation. Brilliant.

When the Democrats talk about making billionaires pay their fair share, the only billionaires they intend to target for a "fair" contribution are the ones who clearly oppose them. the Immelts and Buffets aren't going to be hurt. How can they manage this selectivity? Through the labyrinth that is our tax system.

It's all a sham anyway because Obama know that the real fatted calf is the group of Americans who, in bygone years, were called Upper Middle Class, people who make over $200,000 a year. There's a lot more of them than Buffet sized billionaires and most of them don't vote for Democrats and most of them don't feel the need to hedge their bets and contribute to the Democrat party. So screw them, "they have the money," so let's take it.

Never mind that the vast majority of them have not been making $200+ for but the last two to five years of their careers. Never mind that all-in, the majority of these individuals don't have net worths in excess of $2.5 million. They are rich pigs and the poor people of the nation demand they pay their fair share.

I realize I am a capitalist running dog, but it seems to be that if Democrats were, in any way, true to the ideology they try to foist on us, they would be all for tax reformation that eliminates the thousands of special interest loopholes.

Surprise, surprise...they're not. Why not? Because they benefit from them as much, if not more, than Republicans.

Appreciating the effect that referring to Palin invokes in so many members of A2K, she is absolutely right about calling out crony capitalism. Even the NY Times agrees with her, and yet what is being ignored is that the Democrats are as guilty as or more so than the Republicans.

What was the $400 million in taxpayer dollars spent on propping up a failing business like Solyndra if it wasn't crony capitalism?

It's easy, and perhaps accurate, to charge that both parties are power mad scum bags, but how are left-wingers consoled by the belief that their chosen party is "no worse" than the other?

At their most realistic and their worse, which party betrays its followers more?




Very well said.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2109
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 05:54:36