3 of 5
3
Now that everyone Hates Obama
Posted: 10 December 2010 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

Number of peaceful Americans Bush referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: 0
Number of peaceful Americans Obama referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: Millions.

When did Bamy ever say that?

Click here.

Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

Lastly, this economic crisis started on the Shrub’s watch, not Bamy’s.

It’s been two freaking years!  When will Obama and his apologists finally start owning up to stuff that happens on his watch?  Bush was hounded relentlessly for 9/11 happening 9 months into his watch - but the special pleading for Obama continues on for nearly 2 years with Obama in the White House!  That is another reason President Obama’s approval is dropping.  People are sick and tired of his pouting and blaming every single problem on Bush.  A real leader (which Obama is not) takes responsibility and doesn’t give excuse after excuse like some little kid. 

Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

The GOPs started this mess and for some strange reason that is beyond me, people put the same people who started this mess right back in office again!

Actually the Republicans and the Democrats must share the blame for our economic mess.  And to get out of this mess, our nation must undertake some massive spending cuts (which Democrats are generally opposed) and the entitlement mentality (for which Democrats are much more to blame that Republicans) must be reversed.  Look at what is happening in the UK and other European nations right now.  This is what Democrats want the United States to emulate.  Yet they are having to undergo massive entitlement cuts.  We need to also.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 08:31 AM
Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

Number of peaceful Americans Bush referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: 0
Number of peaceful Americans Obama referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: Millions.

When did Bamy ever say that?

Click here.

Looks to me as though people are taking things out of context… again.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 08:31 AM

Actually the Republicans and the Democrats must share the blame for our economic mess.

 

What started the financial mess we are currently in was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.  Which was introduced by Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999.  Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act removed the barrier between depository banking and investment banking.

The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending by 2008, they were approaching 30 percent.  Regulatory legislation was suppose to control the conflict of interest between depository/investment banking but as we all know Bush & Co were not fans of government regulation.

Rocinante - 10 December 2010 08:31 AM

And to get out of this mess, our nation must undertake some massive spending cuts (which Democrats are generally opposed) and the entitlement mentality (for which Democrats are much more to blame that Republicans) must be reversed.  Look at what is happening in the UK and other European nations right now.  This is what Democrats want the United States to emulate.  Yet they are having to undergo massive entitlement cuts.  We need to also.

To some extent I support government restraint on spending but not on social spending.  The government support of the Military Industrial Complex is far more wasteful and morally disturbing than social spending.

But cutting spending without raising taxes is foolish and irresponsible.  The longest economic growth ever seen in this country occurred between 1950 and 1980 in the midst of the New Deal expansion when taxes on the rich were near their highest.  Controlling income inequity so more people can participate in the so called “American Dream” seems to provide a better foundation for economic growth than a return to the Gilded Age economics that the conservatives are trying to push us toward.  Libertarian Lazy Fairy smile as an economic policy is a failure.

[ Edited: 10 December 2010 11:09 AM by Carbon based ]
 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Carbon based - 10 December 2010 11:01 AM

To some extent I support government restraint on spending but not on social spending.  The government support of the Military Industrial Complex is far more wasteful and morally disturbing than social spending.

But defense spending is in the Constitution.  Entitlement programs are not.  So at least be intellectually honest enough to admit you are for spending other people’s money on unconstitutional programs.  I wonder how you would feel about using tax money on an unconstitutional church/state program?  That’s a rhetorical question, of course.  We both know you are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the Constitution.  And besides, defense spending is down (even taking into account Iraq and Afghanistan) while entitlement spending is up.  And since more is spent on all entitlement spending than on defense, of the two, the logical place to start cutting is the entitlements. 

I love how everyone is refusing to acknowledge just how bad Obama is.  What about the far left member of German Parliament who said “[Obama] kills people as he sees fit…”?  I guess the cognitive dissonance among people who were foolish enough to vote for Obama is making them desperately try to change the subject to anything and anyone else just to ease the pain they have for voting for this idiotic fool with no leadership skills in the first place.  Republicans are bad.  Obama is far worse.  Accept it. 

But then again, that’s like asking the religious to abandon their faith.  The religious and the Obama apologists are very much alike in that they both have too much invested in their deluded beliefs to accept reality.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 03:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2007-02-17
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 01:36 PM

But defense spending is in the Constitution.  Entitlement programs are not.  So at least be intellectually honest enough to admit you are for spending other people’s money on unconstitutional programs.

Um again maybe you should take your own advice.
From wiki:emphisis mine

“The United States Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare”, one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the “General Welfare Clause” of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
•  the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments”;and,
•  that Associate Justice Joseph Story’s construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story’s 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: “Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.”
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase “general welfare.”
The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

While Hamilton’s view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court’s equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story’s construction in Story’s 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison’s narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis; the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.”

Since the Supreme Court decides what is or is not unconstitutional we will just have to live with it.  Also I would argue that it IS in the national interest for the government to look toward the “general welfare” of the majority of it’s citizens and not a narrow group of them to the exclusion of all others. 

So the social programs that the govenment has taken action to implement are constitutionaly derived both in the general welfare clause and in support of general national interests.

[ Edited: 10 December 2010 04:00 PM by Carbon based ]
 Signature 

http://www.drawingwithlight.smugmug.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Carbon based - 10 December 2010 03:58 PM

Since the Supreme Court decides what is or is not unconstitutional we will just have to live with it.  Also I would argue that it IS in the national interest for the government to look toward the “general welfare” of the majority of it’s citizens and not a narrow group of them to the exclusion of all others. 

So the social programs that the govenment has taken action to implement are constitutionaly derived both in the general welfare clause and in support of general national interests.

I think the constitution was purposefully written vague just in order to get all the states to accept it. Anyway, the welfare of the Union is not necessarily the welfare of the states or the citizens of those states. The Union is the Federal government. That’s the only welfare the Federal government is obligated to look out for.

The Federal government for the most part can’t interfere in state affairs however they can “bribe” the states to encourage certain behavior. The Federal shouldn’t really be taxing individuals. All the entitle programs should be decided by the individual states and the citizens of that state. Mainly because the Federal government does such a piss poor job of handling money anyway.

I don’t know that the states could any better, cough California…

Still people could have more control and no one else except themselves to blame when everything went to hell.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  491
Joined  2008-02-25
Carbon based - 10 December 2010 11:01 AM

What started the financial mess we are currently in was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.  Which was introduced by Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999.  Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act removed the barrier between depository banking and investment banking.

Yeah, removing the barrier between depository banking and investment banking was a disaster.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2010-08-15
brightfut - 10 December 2010 06:13 PM
Carbon based - 10 December 2010 11:01 AM

What started the financial mess we are currently in was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.  Which was introduced by Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999.  Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act removed the barrier between depository banking and investment banking.

Yeah, removing the barrier between depository banking and investment banking was a disaster.

Commie, what do you have against “Free Markets” where ever they can be created.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2010-08-15
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 01:36 PM

But defense spending is in the Constitution. 

Even when they create more and bigger enemies, while bankrupting our nation?

ps. Another thing to hate Bush for. . .  waging an idiotic war on a credit card.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2010 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 December 2010 07:13 PM
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 01:36 PM

But defense spending is in the Constitution. 

Even when they create more and bigger enemies, while bankrupting our nation?

ps. Another thing to hate Bush for. . .  waging an idiotic war on a credit card.

You mean just like Obama is doing, while using that credit card for even more things than even Bush used it for? 

Isn’t that the main reason so many liberals voted for him, so he would end the war and bring the troops home?  Hasn’t happened yet, has it?  Do you actually think he will bring them all home by the time he is voted out?  He could do it right now in a heart beat with a single stroke of his pen.  He is the Commander-in-Chief.  But he hasn’t.  Doesn’t that make him a warmonger?  Do you acknowledge Obama has created even more enemies than Bush seeing as how Obama has increased attacks on nuclear-armed Pakistan and expanded the scope of the war by attacking Yemen (both without Congressional approval)?  Or are these all also somehow Bush’s fault?  Can you even go two seconds of your life without blaming Bush for something?  He is not the President any more.  Obama is. 

Why no blame for Obama among the wider left?  Why no weekly marches against him by the left for being a warmonger?  Why no Hitler mustaches on his pictures from the left - god knows they have enough practice drawing them on pictures of anyone not a liberal! 

Let me clue you in to reality: Obama doesn’t give a crap about the troops or the war.  He just lied to the left about that issue just so they would vote for him.  Just like he could care less about gays and their rights.  He lied to them to get their votes.  “Sunlight Before Signing”?  Lie!  No lobbyists in the White House?  Lie!  Transparency?  Lie! 

For Obama it’s all about him, his power and his personal glorification.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2010 12:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2009-07-17
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 08:31 AM

It’s been two freaking years!  When will Obama and his apologists finally start owning up to stuff that happens on his watch?  Bush was hounded relentlessly for 9/11 happening 9 months into his watch - but the special pleading for Obama continues on for nearly 2 years with Obama in the White House!  That is another reason President Obama’s approval is dropping.  People are sick and tired of his pouting and blaming every single problem on Bush.  A real leader (which Obama is not) takes responsibility and doesn’t give excuse after excuse like some little kid. 

What president has not blamed the previous administration for most (if not all) the problems facing the current administration? wink

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2010 10:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2010-08-15

Yes Rocinante I’ll admit the madness just keeps grinding along… 
and Obama doesn’t have the straight to buck the machine now that its in motion.

downer

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 05:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2010-07-16
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 08:31 AM
Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

Number of peaceful Americans Bush referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: 0
Number of peaceful Americans Obama referred to as “enemies” that need “punished: Millions.

When did Bamy ever say that?

Click here.

Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

Lastly, this economic crisis started on the Shrub’s watch, not Bamy’s.

It’s been two freaking years!  When will Obama and his apologists finally start owning up to stuff that happens on his watch?  Bush was hounded relentlessly for 9/11 happening 9 months into his watch - but the special pleading for Obama continues on for nearly 2 years with Obama in the White House!  That is another reason President Obama’s approval is dropping.  People are sick and tired of his pouting and blaming every single problem on Bush.  A real leader (which Obama is not) takes responsibility and doesn’t give excuse after excuse like some little kid. 

Mriana - 09 December 2010 06:00 PM

The GOPs started this mess and for some strange reason that is beyond me, people put the same people who started this mess right back in office again!

Actually the Republicans and the Democrats must share the blame for our economic mess.  And to get out of this mess, our nation must undertake some massive spending cuts (which Democrats are generally opposed) and the entitlement mentality (for which Democrats are much more to blame that Republicans) must be reversed.  Look at what is happening in the UK and other European nations right now.  This is what Democrats want the United States to emulate.  Yet they are having to undergo massive entitlement cuts.  We need to also.

You mean like Greece which quite famously enacted austerity measures - only to end up with its unemployment stats hitting a record 12.6%, or France, also big on austerity, which has its unemployment rate stuck at 9.7%, and its youth Unemployment rate hitting 25%?

I mean, essentially you are saying “Lets not follow in Europe’s footsteps, instead lets do exactly what they are doing and enact austerity measures.”

Personally I think austerity isn’t going to do squat. What America needs is a tax hike on its highest sector, a serious audit into military spending with an eye to eliminating waste and fraud, short term Keynsian economics with a view for when the recovery takes (which I think is going to take longer than two years) begin saving up for the next collapse.

The debt and the deficit aren’t that bad - yet. The major problem is that Americans are unwilling to raise taxes to cover them, instead trying to look for services to cut, and to raise the retirement age as an “entitlement”. It actually isn’t an entitlement, people paid into social services with the expectation of getting something out of it at the due date. The New Deal was just that, a deal, which is now treated as though that doesn’t matter simply because some bums and stiffs don’t want to honour their side of it.

This is not a criticism of the Republicans, but of Obama’s deficit commission.

Now as to Obama, I think Obama is a failure. He had for the last two years all three houses, yet whenever something got watered down or weakened to the point of failing to meet its mandates, the need for supermajorities was whined and whinged about.  This cannot be blamed on the Republicans, after all they entered into negotiations the way they are supposed to be entered into - with compromises to be worked out at the table. The Democratic Party did its compromising before hand, and then promptly compromised some more when it came time to negotiate with the other party.

This was not change, this has been standard Democratic practice for decades, and it has consistently dragged America to the right even as the direction it needs to take is to the left. Until the Democrats are willing to actually not compromise their principles before even negotiating them, they are not going to be able to effectively run the country.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 10:13 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 December 2010 07:13 PM
Rocinante - 10 December 2010 01:36 PM

But defense spending is in the Constitution. 

Even when they create more and bigger enemies, while bankrupting our nation?

ps. Another thing to hate Bush for. . .  waging an idiotic war on a credit card.

You mean just like Obama is doing, while using that credit card for even more things than even Bush used it for? 

Isn’t that the main reason so many liberals voted for him, so he would end the war and bring the troops home?  Hasn’t happened yet, has it?  Do you actually think he will bring them all home by the time he is voted out?  He could do it right now in a heart beat with a single stroke of his pen.  He is the Commander-in-Chief.  But he hasn’t.  Doesn’t that make him a warmonger?  Do you acknowledge Obama has created even more enemies than Bush seeing as how Obama has increased attacks on nuclear-armed Pakistan and expanded the scope of the war by attacking Yemen (both without Congressional approval)?  Or are these all also somehow Bush’s fault?  Can you even go two seconds of your life without blaming Bush for something?  He is not the President any more.  Obama is. 

Why no blame for Obama among the wider left?  Why no weekly marches against him by the left for being a warmonger?  Why no Hitler mustaches on his pictures from the left - god knows they have enough practice drawing them on pictures of anyone not a liberal! 

Let me clue you in to reality: Obama doesn’t give a crap about the troops or the war.  He just lied to the left about that issue just so they would vote for him.  Just like he could care less about gays and their rights.  He lied to them to get their votes.  “Sunlight Before Signing”?  Lie!  No lobbyists in the White House?  Lie!  Transparency?  Lie! 

For Obama it’s all about him, his power and his personal glorification.

Remember, Obama is AGAINST gay marriage.  He is also for MORE drone attacks, MORE troops, MORE civil rights violations, and he is for BIG OIL (took the most money from BP of ANY politician in 20 years).  He also has tons of lobbyists working for him or around him. 

Fortunately, he turned the lectern over to Bill Clinton the other night, who at least understands economics.  It was rather symbolic to watch the boy-child turn tail and go off to another party, handing over the “tough questions” to the former president.  Obama did everything but raise his hand and ask permission to leave the room. 

That had to be tough for a guy who clearly suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.  Did you read Obama’s statement about imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo’s receipt of the Nobel Prize (now deemed worthless, as Gore, Arafat and Obama have received it)???  Hilarious.  It opened and closed with statements about himself.  You know the “Ivy League” graduate voted into the presidency who doesn’t know what language Austrians speak, and thinks the automobile was invented in the U.S.  (go ahead, google it, libs).  The one who never published any work as the President of the Harvard Law Review, nor as a “constitutional scholar” cum-professor. 

Two more years Roc, two more years, and this empty pair of clown shoes will be gone.  He can take himself and his bigots (like Holder and the uncharged “New Black Panther” racists) with him back to the South Side.  He’ll fit right in with the other anti-intellectuals and bigots of his era.

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2010-08-15

when politics has degenerated to little more than a public blood sport,
perhaps we’ve passed yet another tipping point . . .

~ ~ ~
{damn I hate those typos}

[ Edited: 12 December 2010 06:07 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3