I'm not a big fan of President Obama. With that said, I wonder if the economy would be much different if George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc were still president. I'm beginning to think that the forces controlling the economy are much bigger than the the presdient of any country.

Or, and this is probably the case, maybe it's too complex for a simple mind like mine to understand!!!!!

If Bush were still in office I guarantee we would all be waiting in bread lines, using segregated bathrooms, and drafting our 16 year old kids for one of the many wars he would have created. What pisses me off beyond all recognition is the fact that Obama is trying to fix the economy, he's actually tried to do a lot but anything and everything he proposes gets shot down by congress and blocked by the republicans. I remember they even said after they took control congress that they would just block anything he had to offer. What kind of bi-partisan consensus does that create? Work with the guy instead of bitching about all of his ideas and calling him a communist. My only criticism about president Obama is that he is not assertive enough when dealing with these people. He has a great idea to try and work together and fix our problems, however when the republicans give him the finger he needs to step up his game and call them out on it! I think a lot of this animosity towards our president was created by uneducated white trash starting rumors about Obama. Shit like "he's a faaaringer," "a muslim," "took the oath on the Koran," "is anti-religion that's why prayer day (which takes place every year mind you) will be canceled this year," "he's a communist," "he hates the military," "he's a terrorist," I could go on all day. Anyways I think he is doing a better job than most in his position could be dong, including those who criticize him who wouldn't know what the hell to do if they were in his position as commander and chief. Lastly, I think he has successfully restored a multilateral approach to foreign policy which has restored relations with a lot of the countries affected by Bush's unilateral foreign policy strategies. People may be saying who cares but you will when you realize that the rest of the world has a positive opinion about our country, doesn't want to kill us so easily, and actually supports many of our decisions at an international level meaning if push came to shove then we wouldn't have to rely purely on our military rather international led invasions. Sorry but I am not a screaming lib, I don't even have a particular party, and I voted for Obama but I just think this guy is getting shit on by a lot of people accusing him of things getting worse. I mean he is now slowly bringing outsourced jobs back over to the US and unlike Bush he is giving tax breaks to corporations manufacturing inside of our country and not making countries like China economically more powerful.

huluhoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Bush were still in office I guarantee we would
> all be waiting in bread lines, using segregated
> bathrooms, and drafting our 16 year old kids for
> one of the many wars he would have created.

No one had to read any further than "Bush". You are obviously one of the uneducated idiots that lives in the soundbite moments of the MSM.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one had to read any further than "Bush".

Yes, God forbid anyone criticize the Bush presidency.

The tax cuts that added trillions to our national debt without creating jobs.

The needless, ridiculously expensive wars that were not paid for.

The deep recession and near economic collapse which we were saved from by President Obama.

No Child Left Behind – The most anti-education legislation EVER.

The list goes on and on.

Well, this certainly stuck a nerve. I hadn't intended to start a Bush vs Obama arguemnt.

Obama had complete control, with a Dem Senate and House, his first 2 years. And, I agree he has tried, so that's what prompted me to muse about whether the issues are actually beyond what a president, any president, and do.

Maybe the dialogue should shift from trying to control things to what can we do to protect ourselves from forces that are outside out control. Not us individually but us, as in the USA.

Have you noticed gas prices lately? Why are they back down!? Do you think they were up because of...you know...trading?

Nah...those guys in the offices of ExxonMobil wouldn't be making a buck off oil prices, would they?

Nah...not that...nah.

Then again, maybe Obama's policies are SLOWLY taking effect?

Nah.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> huluhoop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If Bush were still in office I guarantee we
> would
> > all be waiting in bread lines, using segregated
> > bathrooms, and drafting our 16 year old kids
> for
> > one of the many wars he would have created.
>
> No one had to read any further than "Bush". You
> are obviously one of the uneducated idiots that
> lives in the soundbite moments of the MSM.

I think you may have missed the point of my post, or were just too lazy to read everything. yeah, really uneducated, maybe I should run in the next election?

huluhoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you may have missed the point of my post,
> or were just too lazy to read everything. yeah,
> really uneducated, maybe I should run in the next
> election?

If you honestly think the Republicans are "blocking" legislation, you know nothing about how bills get passed. Here's a hint - the Senate has to "attempt" to pass the bill also. If they do not even vote for a bill with modifications, the only ones blocking anything moving forward is - the Senate.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you honestly think the Republicans are
> "blocking" legislation, you know nothing about how
> bills get passed. Here's a hint - the Senate has
> to "attempt" to pass the bill also. If they do not
> even vote for a bill with modifications, the only
> ones blocking anything moving forward is - the
> Senate.

In our legislative system, the House and Senate can
each pass its own 'version' of a given bill and then
resolve the differences in Committee. Or, each chamber
could pass the other's bill verbatim. The way that the
Repugs. block legislation in our system is to pass bills in
the House that they know the Senate will not pass verbatim
and then, when the Senate passes its version, refuse to
compromise in Committee.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when the Senate passes its version,
> refuse to
> compromise in Committee.

Pardon?

The Senate hasn't passed anything - that is the problem. The Democrats have nothing and want to do nothing so they can try and blame the Republicans for not getting anything done. Classic. If they don't even try to pass their own version of a bill then they are the obstructionists.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532141884735626.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Senate hasn't passed anything - that is the
> problem.

Wrong:

The Senate voted 9/15/2011 to spend $7 billion on emergency disaster relief over the next year, as Democrats and Republicans from storm- and tornado-ravaged states joined for a forceful show of support for storm victims that will set up a showdown with the House on disaster funding.

The measure passed 62 to 37 as eight Republicans defied their party leadership, which had rejected the measure as an unnecessary political sideshow and backed the spending.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong:
>
> The Senate voted 9/15/2011 to spend $7 billion on
> emergency disaster relief over the next year, as
> Democrats and Republicans from storm- and
> tornado-ravaged states joined for a forceful show
> of support for storm victims that will set up a
> showdown with the House on disaster funding.
>
> The measure passed 62 to 37 as eight Republicans
> defied their party leadership, which had rejected
> the measure as an unnecessary political sideshow
> and backed the spending.

Wow - you cited one example. And what, the House packaged the disaster relief money into a larger package where the number was slightly lower and was offset with some other cuts.

?

So....

I thought the Democrats were all for paygo under Pelosi - of course it was more pay than go with her - and now that the House is trying to at least moderate additional spending by cutting from other areas that is some kind of crisis?

Only for the Democrats.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Retail price of gasoline is down because the commodity price of gasoline is down. This is traded on the exchange, and is a reflection of supply and demand.

Oil Trader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you noticed gas prices lately? Why are they
> back down!? Do you think they were up because
> of...you know...trading?
>
> Nah...those guys in the offices of ExxonMobil
> wouldn't be making a buck off oil prices, would
> they?
>
> Nah...not that...nah.
>
> Then again, maybe Obama's policies are SLOWLY
> taking effect?
>
> Nah.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The measure passed 62 to 37 as eight Republicans
> defied their party leadership, which had rejected
> the measure as an unnecessary political sideshow
> and backed the spending.

Better:

Here we go again: Countdown to shutdown
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/here_we_go_again_countdown_to_shutdown.html
The difference between the House GOP budget resolution and what the Democrats want is about $2 billion. That's about what those guys on the Hill spend in about 15 minutes. And we're going to have a government shutdown over this?...

Harry Reid is a humbug. Since this is a family oriented website, that's about the strongest language I can use. He is holding the government hostage fore purely political reasons; showing just how mean those Republicans truly are by denying disaster relief to people who desperately need it.

But the GOP is doing no such thing, of course. They have funded every dollar requested by FEMA. The sticking point is cutting a paltry $2 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget.

And that's the bottom line.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

To yucky, registered, all other right wing nuts-name 10 things Obama has done that have been beneficial to country/ are good things.

He gave Rahm Emanuel a blowjob.

That said, what do you mean by 'country' - the chunk of dirt defined by boundaries, the individual people inside it, or the regime that controls both?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 12:51PM by Ellipsis.

I just mean anything of real value that you think Obama has done well. I just want to see if people can acknowledge any good Obama has done, rather than always whine about the awful decisions he makes. Its funny because when Bush did something wrong, in public eye, it was opposed by the vast majority-it was widely accepted as wrong. Obama's "wrongs" are different-All republicans oppose, but the majority of democrats say it was correct.

Registered Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To yucky, registered, all other right wing
> nuts-name 10 things Obama has done that have been
> beneficial to country/ are good things.

Better - if you are his supporter, you name 10 good things he has done. I would like to see what it is that he has done other than increase the use of the term "racists" and "racism" since he has been in office.

The only thing that has happened of any form of "good" nature since he has been in office is that Osama Bin Laden was killed.

Here is a short list of stupid things he has done:

1. Bombing Libya - this from the folks who think we should leave Iraq and should not have stayed in Afghanistan so long.
2. Speaking of which - increasing troop levels in Afghanistan when every adviser in the world told him to get out.
3. Allowed the Democrats to increase spending to quadruple that of anything under Bush. Yes, revenues are down, but that should have indicated a time to reduce spending - instead the Democrats doubled down on stupid and spent a third again as much as was already being spent.
4. Sat back and watched as the Democrats passed Obamacare
5. Refused to enforce laws on the books that the Executive branch is charged with enforcing. Then spending the resources of the Federal government to sue States which attempted to follow policies to help the Federal government enforce the law.
6. Go out and espouse policies that have made the Middle East so unstable as to threaten the existence of Israel, and peace in general in the region for decades.
7. Give new meaning to the term "crony capitalism"

etc...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Did I say I support him? No I didnt, stop assuming. I just asked a question. You cant even answer it. You honestly cannot name 10 simple things he has done well while in office? All you do is focus on supposed "negative" things he has done, opposed MOSTLY by one party. I didnt ask 10 of what you and other right wing people consider stupid, I said name 10 good things. Its not hard. I dont want an answer from left wingers or democrats, just republicans/or conservatives.

registeredmoronn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did I say I support him? No I didnt, stop
> assuming. I just asked a question. You cant even
> answer it. You honestly cannot name 10 simple
> things he has done well while in office? All you
> do is focus on supposed "negative" things he has
> done, opposed MOSTLY by one party. I didnt ask 10
> of what you and other right wing people consider
> stupid, I said name 10 good things. Its not hard.
> I dont want an answer from left wingers or
> democrats, just republicans/or conservatives.

Feel free to list them yourself. I honestly cannot come up with 10 good things he has done - so please, enlighten us with your thoughts. Can YOU answer your own question?

LOL

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

You honestly refuse to say anything good about Obama. But I bet you can name good things Bush has done? Why should anyone care about your opinion-you are so biased, you cannot say anything he has done well? O i forgot, your talking points do not include things which he has implemented successfully, or have worked well. Its amazing-you cannot bring up ten things, just ten. Are you racist? Do you just not like him because he is part african? Do you just disagree with all things he does, because he is a democrat? This just goes to show you how Republicans/or conservatives do not really pay attention to everything, just stuff their leaders on talk radio and fox news think are wrong, and talking points to "try" and get point across.

obama is like the crayola shit, you keep wiping hoping its over but it doesnt go away.

I can list 10 good things Obama has done while in office. He has taken 10 vacation.

Just shows U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You honestly refuse to say anything good about
> Obama. But I bet you can name good things Bush has
> done? Why should anyone care about your
> opinion-you are so biased, you cannot say anything
> he has done well? O i forgot, your talking points
> do not include things which he has implemented
> successfully, or have worked well. Its amazing-you
> cannot bring up ten things, just ten. Are you
> racist? Do you just not like him because he is
> part african? Do you just disagree with all things
> he does, because he is a democrat? This just goes
> to show you how Republicans/or conservatives do
> not really pay attention to everything, just stuff
> their leaders on talk radio and fox news think are
> wrong, and talking points to "try" and get point
> across.

eesh, get a life.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Good one sumguy, you really contributed. It's kind of hard for Republicans to think and actually understand/look up/read/formulate thought huh? You dont know even half of what Obama's done. But it's all bad, says Fox News. Still waiting for an actual response, or are you right wingers not smart enough? Thought so. Im sorry, you wont be able to tune into Faux news for your answer, I know its taking a while to look up positive things repubs have said about Obama, but hurry up please.

Registered, you got shat on. You look like a dumbass, you cant think for yourself, and cant answer simple question. All you can do is spout talking points. It isnt eesh btw. Can you name 10 good things? I want to hear from the right, I dont care about what left has to say at this time.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a short list of stupid things he has
> done:
>
> 1. Bombing Libya - this from the folks who think
> we should leave Iraq and should not have stayed in
> Afghanistan so long.

One of the things that became apparent from Libya is that the rest of the world can actually solve some of its problems with little or no involvement of the U.S. Britain and France carried most of the freight, but then again they got most of the credit when the rebels took Tripoli.

> 2. Speaking of which - increasing troop levels in
> Afghanistan when every adviser in the world told
> him to get out.

I agree on this, but the guy did run on the platform that Afghanistan was the war that we should have been fighting, not Iraq. So now that he's learned what just about every other leader who has dealt with Afghanistan has already learned (the country is a mess and will be until they get their own act together) it seems that he is at least drawing down forces towards and ultimate withdrawal.

> 3. Allowed the Democrats to increase spending to
> quadruple that of anything under Bush. Yes,
> revenues are down, but that should have indicated
> a time to reduce spending - instead the Democrats
> doubled down on stupid and spent a third again as
> much as was already being spent.

The problem wasn't that he spent, but was the way he spent. Money didn't go to hiring people but instead went (as it did in the last months of Bush) to maintaining institutions.

> 4. Sat back and watched as the Democrats passed
> Obamacare

Correction-Failed to develop and push a rational overhaul of the health care industry, leaving it instead to Congress and ultimately special interests lobbyists to develop the details of a plan that has some good features, but on the whole sucked. Of course it might have been possible to overcome those special interests if Republicans had been willing to support changes in what was a rotten system.

> 5. Refused to enforce laws on the books that the
> Executive branch is charged with enforcing. Then
> spending the resources of the Federal government
> to sue States which attempted to follow policies
> to help the Federal government enforce the law.

I hate to say Bush, Bush, Bush, but how the hell does what Obama did differ from what GW Bush did? For both it seems like respecting the laws is something that is done when it is convenient. Reagan went after North and Poindexter for Iran-Contra. How many in the Bush administration were prosecuted by their own president for their breaches of the law?

> 6. Go out and espouse policies that have made the
> Middle East so unstable as to threaten the
> existence of Israel, and peace in general in the
> region for decades.

Dictotorships are so preferable to democracies. Wasn't there a Republican president not too long ago who was talking about regime change in the Middle East, and how that was going to be a good thing?

> 7. Give new meaning to the term "crony
> capitalism"

Seems like the same old definition to me.

to ellipsis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just mean anything of real value that you think
> Obama has done well. I just want to see if people
> can acknowledge any good Obama has done, rather
> than always whine about the awful decisions he
> makes. Its funny because when Bush did something
> wrong, in public eye, it was opposed by the vast
> majority-it was widely accepted as wrong. Obama's
> "wrongs" are different-All republicans oppose, but
> the majority of democrats say it was correct.


How about the stupendous job he did with troopergate?!!!!

Good answer!!! Non-sarcastic too! You right-wingers are so smart, but cannot answer this at all.

Unless Bush was President of Europe, the situation would probably be worse. Of course at the rate Bush was going, he probably would have been President of Europe by now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Bill N:

Crony Capitalism - the insinuation here is that Bush/Cheney somehow favored policies that ultimately helped the bottom line of their supporters. Let's say that is true in things like offshore drilling, holding the EPA in check, etc. Halliburton doesn't really count - they have gotten no bid contracts for decades from all the administrations because they are technically the best at what they do. How many businesses did the Bush administration lobby for getting funding/aid that went bankrupt following evaluation that they had a horrible business plan? Solyndra would not have gotten a loan under Bush because their business plan made no sense. Instead, we have Solyndra execs lining their pockets with money (because Obama and his staff pushed it) that will no longer be at their personal risk since the government plan insured them from being held liable for the losses since the government backed their loan. Maybe we should take over Solyndra and make them a wholly government owned company like Fannie and Freddie...

Taking the whole Iraq war - an indirect result of 9/11 - where all sorts of stupidity was going on, it is hard to say who or what benefited the most from that. I was watching this movie the other day "The Green Zone" I think it was where Matt Damon plays a warrant officer charged with finding WMD and supposedly finds all sorts of evidence that the administration was out trying to kill all the Iraqi leadership off to cover up their falsification of WMD information. Sure, we would all love to see democracies like the US all over - but the reality is, our democracy is not the same as anyone elses will be - so there are times a dictatorship or monarchy or even theocracy would be the better answer. That's just the way it is. But Obama was coddling ALL the bad players in the region - the ones who foment violence in the form of terrorism on their neighbors (in particular Iran), and have done little to deter Iran from doing something we all will regret in the long run.

Looking at Libya - we did all the heavy lifting no matter what you would like to believe. Britain had all of what, 12 cruise missiles? Or was it 20 or so - we had to supply virtually all of the specialized munitions required for precision, low risk sorties. We supplied the electronic oversight, command and control and other capabilities used for overall theater coordination, we provided marge amounts of logistics and material support, period. France and the other EU countries provided a few extra attack aircraft and some support ships along with extra flight crews and such - but it was largely an American led effort.

As far as Obamacare goes - yes, he sat back and let it happen. At least when Clinton proposed his healthcare changes he was out in front leading the reform efforts and coming up with what it should look like. Obama does nothing but talk in sweeping generalities and feel good BS.

The administration's selective enforcement issue - well let's see, Bush had 9/11 and subsequent follow on to that to deal with. Then there was the Patriot Act, and other programs (still in place under Obama) as part of the counter-terrorism effort (where did all that crying go over the phone taps - that are still taking place the same way today).

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Can you just name 10 things?

Registered and All Right wingers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you just name 10 things?

There is only one good thing he can hang his hat on. OBL.

You go ahead and name 10 things if you are so up on it. Much like Democrats and raising taxes, if you can't name 10 things, why do you think anyone on the Republican/Conservative side of the aisle can.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I asked republicans, conservatives, right wingers, etc. for THEIR point of view. I dont want my own, or democrats, liberals, etc. I want to hear ten things Obama has done well from the right's POV.

Registeredmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I asked republicans, conservatives, right wingers,
> etc. for THEIR point of view. I dont want my own,
> or democrats, liberals, etc. I want to hear ten
> things Obama has done well from the right's POV.

And there are not 10 good things to list. You are a moron to keep asking, and unless you have 10 examples of your own you have nothing to do otherwise than to sit here and troll for an answer you will never get.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Obama does many things each and every day, yet you can not name ten things he has done that are good. Thousands of things hes done, nothing good. I guess your opinion isnt valid, as you cannot even recognize the good Obama has done, and instead, just say everything he does is bad.

RegisteredMoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama does many things each and every day, yet you
> can not name ten things he has done that are good.
> Thousands of things hes done, nothing good. I
> guess your opinion isnt valid, as you cannot even
> recognize the good Obama has done, and instead,
> just say everything he does is bad.

Please, enlighten us - what good things has he done? I am intrigued to hear what you feel he has accomplished. If you can't name them - then seriously, STFU.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 04:07PM by Registered Voter.

Since Registered cannot answer a simple question, can any other right leaning people?

RegisteredMoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since Registered cannot answer a simple question,
> can any other right leaning people?

Can you? Otherwise the only moron here is you. I actually provided an answer to your question - but you seem to want to move the goal posts when the answer doesn't suit you.

Here, 10 things he probably did that were good:

1. Didn't clog the toilet up with the large amounts of BS he passes
2. Managed to not make any new speaking gaffs since his CBC speech the other night
3. Raised more money for his Presidential Campaign (good in his eyes)
4 and 5. Hugged his daughters (counts as two)
6. Hasn't played a round of golf in 3 days or so
7. Made a speech at the UN last week
8. Hasn't been brought up on impeachment charges (yet) from the fallout surrounding Solyndra or any other bad loans he backed.
9. Managed to get through a totally biased hispanic woman for a Supreme Court Judge.
10. Didn't have another politically embarrassing photograph show up where he was staring at a woman's ass (accidental) or waving his hand in front of another VIPs face.

There ya go.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Great job, you biased hater. Also, you think that photo with that hand blocking the rep was real? Goes to show how stupid you are. Prbably didnt even cnsider it could be photoshoped. You cant have a real discussion, just use talking points. Typical Repub nowadays, hates for no reason, cannot even see the good he's done. Anyone else that can actually answer? Didnt think so, Repubs arent very smart.

RegisteredMoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great job, you biased hater. Also, you think that
> photo with that hand blocking the rep was real?
> Goes to show how stupid you are. Prbably didnt
> even cnsider it could be photoshoped.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yeah...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

How about you show us how even minded you are and list 10 good things that Bush did.

If the economy goes up credit Obama. If it goes down blame Bush. Any questions see me after class

I asked you to answer my question first. If you do, I'll gladly answer yours. Dont change subject. I asked for answer, and you guys cannot. Pathetic.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Senate hasn't passed anything - that is the
> > problem.
>
> The measure passed 62 to 37 as eight Republicans
> defied their party leadership, which had rejected
> the measure as an unnecessary political sideshow
> and backed the spending.

Better answer #2:

Obama Lies about the ‘Do-Nothing Congress’
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278069/obama-lies-about-do-nothing-congress-deroy-murdock
Obama speaks as if the entire Congress were in lock-step Republican opposition to his every initiative. Damn those pesky elephants!

Of course, Obama’s rhetoric cynically turns things upside down.

Congress consists of a do-something House of Representatives, run by Republicans, and a do-nothing Senate controlled by Obama’s very own Democrats. Obama evidently believes that if he can keep spouting clever lies and distortions, no one will call him on it. Well, it’s time to do so.

The 112th Congress has been characterized by a very active legislative pace in the Republican House, featuring the passage of many measures designed to revive America’s exhausted economy.

The Democratic Senate, meanwhile, is a much lazier place, where House Republicans’ measures go to die.

The figures bear this out, beyond debate.

Through September 15, the Republican House had been in session for 120 days. The Democratic Senate through the same date had been in session only 115 days.

In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as different as Times Square and the Everglades. Through September 15, the GOP House had voted 711 times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the Democratic Senate had only 137 recorded votes. So, the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose sloth dooms the nation actually are five times as energetic as their indolent counterparts in the Democratic Senate.

This distinction might discredit House Republicans if they wasted their time voting on National Apricot Yogurt Month and similar matters of national urgency. In fact, Republicans have approved serious legislation designed to get America moving.

...

These have included bills to reduce anti-business regulations, accelerate offshore oil production, and speed the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian oil to refineries in Texas. The pipeline alone would create 20,000 jobs.

...

While House Republicans adopted a budget last April 15, the Democratic Senate has not approved a budget since April 29, 2009. This Democratic inaction seems to violate the U.S. Congressional Budget Act, which requires passage of an annual budget resolution. Indeed, the Senate rejected Obama’s budget in May by a vote of 0 to 97 — with every Democrat in the chamber voting nay.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registeredmoron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I asked republicans, conservatives, right
> wingers,
> > etc. for THEIR point of view. I dont want my
> own,
> > or democrats, liberals, etc. I want to hear ten
> > things Obama has done well from the right's
> POV.
>
> And there are not 10 good things to list. You are
> a moron to keep asking, and unless you have 10
> examples of your own you have nothing to do
> otherwise than to sit here and troll for an answer
> you will never get.

This moron wouldn't know a good thing if it snuck up behind him and fucked him in the ass.

Extending the bush tax cuts was a good thing

Trying to renege on them less than one year later isn't

Reneging and lifting his EPA's Ozone regulations is a good thing but if reelected he'll renege on that too.

The UBL thing? I guess he could have said no.

Reneging on himself to shut down Guantanamo was a good thing.

Reneging on himself to not try terrorists in civilian courts was a good thing

Some people think reneging on his Iraq pullout was a good thing so let's go ahead and count that anyway.

His economic policies have driven oil below $80.00 per barrel. That's a good thing

Pissing off everyone not dependent on a government job, on welfare or basically non-losers is a good thing because it will cost him his second term.


That's eight.

RegisteredMoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I asked you to answer my question first. If you
> do, I'll gladly answer yours. Dont change subject.
> I asked for answer, and you guys cannot.
> Pathetic.

Just because you want to derail the thread. You are the only pathetic troll loser here. I gave you an answer - a couple of times now as have others. You don't like it - sucks to be you. Now move along trollie.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

@ Registered Voter-I didn't mean to insinuate that the GW Bush administration favored policies that ultimately helped the bottom line of their supporters. I meant to scream it from the rooftops. However on this point I don't see them as much different than other administrations.

There is far too much to address from your post in response to mine to address all of it, so I will pick just one point for now. The Solyndra fiasco is an example of what has been wrong with both Obama and GW Bush's approach to the economy. There is far too much concern over the health of the company when instead the concern should be directed to those things the company does that we like, namely produce products and create well paying American jobs. These latter goals could have been accomlished by either buying up large amounts of their products (as the USG did in the early days of the computer industry) or by offering massive tax breaks to either Solyndra or those who bought its products (as more recent administrations have done). Instead we tried to prop up the company itself and ended up pissing away a pile of money. In other words WE SIMPLY REPEATED THE EXACT SAME MISTAKE WE MADE WHEN WE BAILED OUT THE FINANCIAL FIRMS under the last days of GW Bush/first days of Obama. So yes I do hope we take over the company and go after the execs.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 112th Congress has been characterized by a
> very active legislative pace in the Republican
> House, featuring the passage of many measures
> designed to revive America’s exhausted economy.

Really? Like what?

> The Democratic Senate, meanwhile, is a place, where
> House Republicans’ measures go to die.

As well they should.

> Through September 15, the Republican House had
> been in session for 120 days. The Democratic
> Senate through the same date had been in session
> only 115 days.

Wow, five (5) whole days! You’re right,
Representatives are SO much more industrious
than Senators.

> In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as
> different as Times Square and the Everglades.
> Through September 15, the GOP House had voted 711
> times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the
> Democratic Senate had only 137 recorded votes. So,
> the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose
> sloth dooms the nation actually are five times as
> energetic as their indolent counterparts in the
> Democratic Senate.

You realize, I’m sure , that the framers designed the
Senate to act as a break on the House. Sounds like
the Senate is doing its job.

> In fact, Republicans have approved serious legislation
> designed to get America moving. These have included
> bills to reduce anti-business regulations, accelerate offshore
> oil production, and speed the Keystone XL pipeline, which
> would carry Canadian oil to refineries in Texas. The
> pipeline alone would create 20,000 jobs.

Right-wing talking points – blah, blah, blah.

I’m not going to waste my time explaining to you why this
legislation supposedly “designed to get America moving” is
DOA in the Senate. I can tell you, though, that I support the
Senate preserving ANWAR, not issuing new leases when current
leases aren’t being used, and not approving a pipeline which
represents a HUGE risk to our environment AND will not impact
energy prices at all.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m not going to waste my time explaining to you
> why this
> legislation supposedly “designed to get America
> moving” is
> DOA in the Senate. I can tell you, though, that I
> support the
> Senate preserving ANWAR, not issuing new leases
> when current
> leases aren’t being used, and not approving a
> pipeline which
> represents a HUGE risk to our environment AND will
> not impact
> energy prices at all.

Good, I am sure it would just be the current batch of liberal talking points in any case. But you keep on believing we can have a vibrant, growing economy with investments in companies like Solyndra and choking off the development of our natural resources. Keep thinking that way and you may as well move to China now.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

With a depressed president, it's hard for president Obama to move this country forward. The man does not have any ideas at all. Most people need to understand that recessions are cyclical and it really doesn't take a president to create one, because of the natural cycle of buying, etc. However, if we're headed for a "double dip" then I have to wonder what it was that Obama did or didn't do to get us back in the hole?
Attachments:

You're all fucking lemmings, arguing as you jump hand in hand off the same cliff. Fucking fascists and commies...constantly screwing the moderates who know both sides are corrupt and extremist.

Bush-Bama-Bush-Bama----



MySpace Graphics - Myspace Layouts,Graphics, and Comments!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good, I am sure it would just be the current batch
> of liberal talking points in any case.

Yes, you definitely exceeded the talking points
quota for this thread with your last cut & paste
job.

> But you keep on believing we can have a vibrant,
> growing economy with investments in companies like
> Solyndra and choking off the development of our
> natural resources.

Sure. And you keep believing that we can have a
vibrant,growing economy without government investment
in infrastructure & education. Keep up those lies about
energy, too. Lying is what you wackos do best.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure. And you keep believing that we can have a
> vibrant,growing economy without government
> investment
> in infrastructure & education. Keep up those lies
> about
> energy, too. Lying is what you wackos do best.

The government doesn't create jobs - unless you live in Washington, D.C. (and those jobs are funded by all the other businesses that are actually not sponsored by the government). You might want to pull your perspective out of your ass.

Coke chief criticises US tax rules
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/071f902c-e636-11e0-960c-00144feabdc0.html
Coca-Cola now sees the US becoming a less friendly business environment than China, its chief executive has revealed, citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure as reasons its home market has become less competitive.

Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, said “in many respects” it was easier doing business in China, comparing the country with a well-managed company. “You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other,” he told the Financial Times....

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Coke pays very little tax in the US. Their tax rate is only 6.5 percent because they set up an offshore subsidiary that collects licensing fees from their US operations. It's very common among US multinationals to cheat on taxes by shifting their intellectual property rights offshore even though the R&D was done here.

Blinkered Sod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sure. And you keep believing that we can have a
> vibrant,growing economy without government
> investment
> in infrastructure & education. Keep up those lies
> about
> energy, too. Lying is what you wackos do best.

Give your posting some thought. Government investment in infrastructure and education is essential. No doubt about that. However, government in Washington is getting too big. Their oversight of many programs is something that should be happening at the state level where better control over these programs can be achieved. If this happens from Washington, there's no way a "one size fits all" approach will work.

Control needs to be given back to the states and localities. The lobbyists have the ears of those in Washington, which is a very bad thing. Time for big, big changes are needed and NOW!
Attachments:

There's a lot of tax cheating among the big corps. The average discrepancy between their taxable income and what they report to shareholders is 40 percent.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The government doesn't create jobs - unless you
> live in Washington, D.C. (and those jobs are
> funded by all the other businesses that are
> actually not sponsored by the government). You
> might want to pull your perspective out of your
> ass.

The economy doesn't know whether the entity that picks up the garbage, produces the electricity, operates the phone service or railroads, or pumps oil out of the ground is a government, a government controlled entity or a purely private business, yet all of these activities produce what Tea Party types like to call "real jobs". The idea that a job is somehow endowed with greater worthiness simply because it is with a purely private entity rather than a government or a government controlled entity is a crock of free market shit. One major reason why the government doesn't create more of these so called "real jobs" is that in the U.S. it is considered inappropriate for the government to compete against the private sector. However if you know where to look you can find government entities that are providing services that people want to buy, and in return are producing profitable returns for the government.

I think even this distinction between "real jobs" and government jobs is a crock as well, but that is a rant for another thread.

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a lot of tax cheating among the big corps.
> The average discrepancy between their taxable
> income and what they report to shareholders is 40
> percent.

So, the question is: 1) Would the corporations be more forward with their correct earnings if they faced less government control and oversight? Don't you think that corporations are being cheats because of the extra emphasis being applied by the Liberals who want more control over companies. or, 2) Would companies keep 2 separate balance sheets due to the extra government control with the Liberal party applying so much control over them?

Also, don't you think that the companies would loosen up some of their cash and hire if they had a better outlook on our future and not the bleak one that we now have faced with Obama?
Attachments:

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a lot of tax cheating among the big corps.
> The average discrepancy between their taxable
> income and what they report to shareholders is 40
> percent.

In fairness much of this confusion comes from the fact that tax liabilities for accounting purposes are reported differently from tax liabilities for income tax purposes. For this the blame initially lay with FASB, but I think now public companies have gotten to like the idea of hiding their true income tax liabilities.

The only solution is for we the people vote for the new canidate who ever it may be.

Depressed Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the question is: 1) Would the corporations be
> more forward with their correct earnings if they
> faced less government control and oversight?
> Don't you think that corporations are being cheats
> because of the extra emphasis being applied by the
> Liberals who want more control over companies.
> or, 2) Would companies keep 2 separate balance
> sheets due to the extra government control with
> the Liberal party applying so much control over
> them?
>
> Also, don't you think that the companies would
> loosen up some of their cash and hire if they had
> a better outlook on our future and not the bleak
> one that we now have faced with Obama?

1. The idea that companies are cheats because of current policies is ridiculous. Companies have played games with taxes for years for one reason: THERE IS BIG MONEY IN IT FOR THEM.

2. That's right. It is all Obama's fault that unemployment is extremely high in recent terms, consumer spending is down, lower and middle class savings are largely wiped out by unemployment, stock market declines, real estate declines and rising real costs of living, and conditions overseas are in many cases as bad or worse than they are here. Companies will start hiring when they know there are consumers out there who are BOTH ABLE and WILLING to buy their goods and services, and if there is enough profit in it they will do so regardless of tax rates or regulations.

sumguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only solution is for we the people vote for
> the new canidate who ever it may be.

It's going to take even more than voting a candidate into office. Holding them accountable will be a requirement, too. In the past, we could vote for a candidate and be happy if they achieved 60% of what they promised.

We need more focus on accountability and not campaign lies.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. That's right. It is all Obama's fault that
> unemployment is extremely high in recent terms,
> consumer spending is down, lower and middle class
> savings are largely wiped out by unemployment,
> stock market declines, real estate declines and
> rising real costs of living, and conditions
> overseas are in many cases as bad or worse than
> they are here. Companies will start hiring when
> they know there are consumers out there who are
> BOTH ABLE and WILLING to buy their goods and
> services, and if there is enough profit in it they
> will do so regardless of tax rates or regulations.

I didn't mean to fully imply that this was Obama's fault. However, the Democratic party seems to insist on more controls in the "system" to the point that they might be responsible for choking off many of the incentives for companies to spend at this point in time.

If Obama looses I blame George Bush

-
Attachments:

The tax deferral law has been around since the days of the Marshall Plan. There have been attempts to repeal it over the years. It's repeal is being blocked by the Republicans. At the same time, they lobby Congress for tax holidays to repatriate the profits as in 2004 under a 5.25% tax rate. As long as the deferral option exists, the corps sit in the driver's seat unlike other taxpayers who have to pay first and contest their tax liability later.

Oil Trader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you noticed gas prices lately? Why are they
> back down!? Do you think they were up because
> of...you know...trading?
>
> Nah...those guys in the offices of ExxonMobil
> wouldn't be making a buck off oil prices, would
> they?
>
> Nah...not that...nah.
>
> Then again, maybe Obama's policies are SLOWLY
> taking effect?
>
> Nah.


There down cus summer is over and the economy sucks. They always go down in the fall and during recessions

If you think gas just under $4.00 is down then they have won. Wait until you see the next bench mark $7.00 a gallon. Obama has delayed oil drilling in the USA long enough for the oil companys to pack up and move many of the rigs to new locations and they won't be back any time soon.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The government doesn't create jobs - unless you
> > live in Washington, D.C. (and those jobs are
> > funded by all the other businesses that are
> > actually not sponsored by the government). You
> > might want to pull your perspective out of your
> > ass.
>
> The economy doesn't know whether the entity that
> picks up the garbage, produces the electricity,
> operates the phone service or railroads, or pumps
> oil out of the ground is a government, a
> government controlled entity or a purely private
> business, yet all of these activities produce what
> Tea Party types like to call "real jobs".

Oh really Bill?? I own property in 3 states. I can tell you first hand that privately held electrical cooperatives, as an example, are much more efficiently operated utility companies than government operated ones.

If you don't think the private sector economy doesn't "know" about all the hidden fees, subsidies, inefficient administrative operations compared to private sector costs you are only fooling yourself.



The
> idea that a job is somehow endowed with greater
> worthiness simply because it is with a purely
> private entity rather than a government or a
> government controlled entity is a crock of free
> market shit.

Except for the fact that you wouldn't have your government job if it weren't for the private sector being there first to provide revenue for your paycheck. look at it as the chicken egg thing if you want but that is not reality. The private sector came first and is the lifeblood to all you folks workin' for the government. Which by the way Bill the government is suppose to work FOR the people.You are there to serve us. Not the other way around.


One major reason why the government
> doesn't create more of these so called "real jobs"
> is that in the U.S. it is considered inappropriate
> for the government to compete against the private
> sector. However if you know where to look you can
> find government entities that are providing
> services that people want to buy, and in return
> are producing profitable returns for the
> government.

Except for the military, and as always noted by your type, firemen and police, name one.

>
> I think even this distinction between "real jobs"
> and government jobs is a crock as well, but that
> is a rant for another thread.


You have to think that Bill. Your entire career is invested in the false notion that if government jobs like yours were eliminated the entire economy would collapse.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh really Bill?? I own property in 3 states. I can
> tell you first hand that privately held
> electrical cooperatives, as an example, are much
> more efficiently operated utility companies than
> government operated ones.

I've lived with well managed municipal utilities and poorly managed private companies, and I've lived where the opposite is true. I'd hate to think what kind of electrical or water service I might have gotten from any of the private cable TV companies that I've had over the years.

> Except for the fact that you wouldn't have your
> government job if it weren't for the private
> sector being there first to provide revenue for
> your paycheck. look at it as the chicken egg thing
> if you want but that is not reality. The private
> sector came first and is the lifeblood to all you
> folks workin' for the government. Which by the way
> Bill the government is suppose to work FOR the
> people.You are there to serve us. Not the other
> way around.

Check your history Macky. The private sector as we think of it today wasn't what came first in the early European new world colonies. Private sectors usually follow a stage of communal existence in most human societies. Of course history isn't exactly a friend to much of the right wing economic theory.

> Except for the military, and as always noted by
> your type, firemen and police, name one.

Actually the examples you mention aren't cases where government is profitably providing goods or services desired by customers. They are examples of government providing public services at public expense that the private sector relies upon. One example of profitable governmental services would be Virginia's ABC stores. Now the inevitable right winger response to this will either be i) it could make more money as a private entity, and ii) it has a government mandated monopoly. The monopoly argument also exists for a large number of private fields, including IT and pharmaceuticals and yet right wingers think that is ok. As for the it could be making more money line, that can also be said for many private entities.

> You have to think that Bill. Your entire career is
> invested in the false notion that if government
> jobs like yours were eliminated the entire economy
> would collapse.

Well since I think it was Wingnut once said that I was a dog catcher, I guess if my job was eliminated you'd be stepping in alot more shit from the dogs running around loose. Since it suits my purpose to let your type continue to believe this line, I will leave it at that.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> I've lived with well managed municipal utilities
> and poorly managed private companies, and I've
> lived where the opposite is true. I'd hate to
> think what kind of electrical or water service I
> might have gotten from any of the private cable TV
> companies that I've had over the years.

I stand by my post and can cite numerous examples.
>
> > Except for the fact that you wouldn't have your
> > government job if it weren't for the private
> > sector being there first to provide revenue for
> > your paycheck. look at it as the chicken egg
> thing
> > if you want but that is not reality. The
> private
> > sector came first and is the lifeblood to all
> you
> > folks workin' for the government. Which by the
> way
> > Bill the government is suppose to work FOR the
> > people.You are there to serve us. Not the other
> > way around.
>
> Check your history Macky. The private sector as
> we think of it today wasn't what came first in the
> early European new world colonies. Private
> sectors usually follow a stage of communal
> existence in most human societies. Of course
> history isn't exactly a friend to much of the
> right wing economic theory.

Sure Bill take the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock for instance. Read William Bradford's account of how well cooperatives and European style socialism of the day worked out for them.

As a matter of fact Bill this is what makes your ideology diabolical so let's do check our history and knock your lies out quick.

What modern history texts tend to omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.


"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense." .................William Bradford 1623 (or there abouts)

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content." William Bradford

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."


"Of course history isn't exactly a friend to much of the right wing economic theory." Bill N. 2011

SLAM DUNK!

Sorry Bill I'm going with Bradford on this one.

" Private sectors usually follow a stage of communal existence in most human societies."

And why Bill? Why is this? It's because as William Bradford recorded your "communal existence" failed and failed miserably.

In the beginning of the human society known today as The United States of America
it failed.

Also very instructive that out of a 3+ trillion dollar federal budget all you can cite is state owned liquor stores in VA? Great example. You showed me! I sure as hell don't understand why we are 14 billion in debt what with all the profit from state owned liquor stores in VA!

Jesus God Bill! You are going to have to reassess your entire understanding of political reality or you will be destined to be wrong and deceptive to others the rest of your life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 10:20AM by mcsmack.

Macky-I swear you don't even read what you said. If you had you would have noticed that YOUR OWN WORDS were "The private sector came first and is the lifeblood to all you folks workin' for the government." Now you want to conveniently overlook the fact that YOU WERE WRONG about private enterprise being first. I guess you find it much easier to win arguments when you are constantly shifting the point being argued over.

To follow up on your comment, production did go up in both Plymouth and Virginia after they shifted from communal to private ownership. However this was done in order to advance the public interest, not the other way around. In addition neither Virginia nor Plymouth were able to maintain themselves by private efforts of residents alone after this switch over. Those private efforts had to be continually supplemented by public efforts. You are again ignoring history.

You like to paint everything as a public v. private issue with private representing everything good, public as a parasite that sucks the life blood from private efforts while providing little in return, and anyone who disagrees with you MUST be on the public side of the debate. I see it as a public-private partnership where each helps the other out.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To follow up on your comment, production did go up
> in both Plymouth and Virginia after they shifted
> from communal to private ownership. However this
> was done in order to advance the public interest,
> not the other way around. In addition neither
> Virginia nor Plymouth were able to maintain
> themselves by private efforts of residents alone
> after this switch over. Those private efforts had
> to be continually supplemented by public efforts.
> You are again ignoring history.
>
> You like to paint everything as a public v.
> private issue with private representing everything
> good, public as a parasite that sucks the life
> blood from private efforts while providing little
> in return, and anyone who disagrees with you MUST
> be on the public side of the debate. I see it as
> a public-private partnership where each helps the
> other out.


You know what the difference is Bill? The difference is, instead of the government forcing everything to some common denominator, with everyone producing for the common good, you have private sector creating what it does best. Then, the government is supposed to fill in gaps where the private market can't perform properly all the time, usually due to either lack of resources or lack of demand. For instance, roads are great and certainly help the transportation process, but without tolls a private concern has no reason to maintain a road other than however it may affect their profitability. So in steps the government to provide roads so as to facilitate commerce. The government can levy a tax in some form to help pay for the costs of maintaining the road since they can also get people who don't normally use the road to help pay for it. A private company would have to get permission to levy a toll on people that use the road, but they might not be able to get enough in the collections to pay for their costs.

Today, the government provides things above and beyond anything it needs to provide. Sure, there are some essential services the government provides to fill gaps - but really the Federal government has started providing benefits and functions far beyond anything it is really needed for - and in many cases duplicates things that were better provided in the private sector. That is the real issue. There are many things that should be left to the private sector to provide, with some regulation by the government, but the government should be wary of entering into providing a service unless there is ample evidence that the need for that service is not being met.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Individuals look out for themselves.

Governments support the aggregate.

Our government was created to counteract the natural selfish tendencies of the average republican (okay, all of us.). That's what law, order and taxes are for.

Civilization works better then anarchy and despotism. Which is what republicans could get with their reckless edicts.

Bill, it seems to me that you think the Federal Government somehow spontaneously founded itself and descended from the sky.

There is complete disregard to the idea of a free people coming together to form a government. You view the Government as autonomous being that has formed our society and entitles the people to only that of which it allows.

Quit sucking off the government if you don't like it. Move somewhere else. This is like the argument between a child and his parent and the kid refuses to move out of the house or pay the rent.

@ Registered Voter- Careful. You are getting very close to my way of looking at things. Now add to what you said the idea that the public at large rather than simply those with a vested economic interest have a say in determining what the private sector does best, what gaps need to be filled and how to fill them and you are there.

The idea that the Federal government has gotten horribly bloated and is involving itself in areas where it has no business being IS NOT the exclusive possession of the right. Liberals have been saying the same thing. Where we differ is on what is cut.


FurfaxTownie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill, it seems to me that you think the Federal
> Government somehow spontaneously founded itself
> and descended from the sky.
>
> There is complete disregard to the idea of a free
> people coming together to form a government. You
> view the Government as autonomous being that has
> formed our society and entitles the people to only
> that of which it allows.

Last time I checked my history books the Federal government was founded by representatives from the different colonies/states, which themselves were created either by the English crown or by those authorized by the crown to create them. You could perhaps make a case that among existing states Vermont and Hawaii were the creations of free people coming together.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macky-I swear you don't even read what you said.
> If you had you would have noticed that YOUR OWN
> WORDS were "The private sector came first and is
> the lifeblood to all you folks workin' for the
> government." Now you want to conveniently
> overlook the fact that YOU WERE WRONG about
> private enterprise being first.

Bill you are just an idiot. Even before our colonial beginning it was private capital and wealth created in the private sector which was confiscated by European monarchs that funded the discovery of the new world. The private sector by natural law has to come first and to argue otherwise is juvenile. Wealth has to be created by the private sector for the public sector to even exist.

Our entire reason for existence is the rejection of such government. I know you've heard of The Tea Party because you denigrate them all the time. But have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party of 1773? the same principles are in play now. More people are figuring out every day that letting Washington spend like they do isn't wise and can't be sustained. Your way of doing things was rejected by the Pilgrims in the beginning and also rejected by fighting the Revolutionary War.

I guess you find
> it much easier to win arguments when you are
> constantly shifting the point being argued over.

You are delusional.
>
> To follow up on your comment, production did go up
> in both Plymouth and Virginia after they shifted
> from communal to private ownership. However this
> was done in order to advance the public interest,
> not the other way around.

You are absolutely wrong. It was done to advance the freedom of the individual. I can't even begin to understand perverted history liberals like you espouse.There is no way you believe what you say. You just hope there are idiots out here that believe you. Liberals only hope is to rewrite history, lie, try to pretend you are something your not and hope you fool just enough people to sustain your agenda.

In addition neither
> Virginia nor Plymouth were able to maintain
> themselves by private efforts of residents alone
> after this switch over. Those private efforts had
> to be continually supplemented by public efforts.
> You are again ignoring history.

You bet! That's why we have the Constitution. That's why people like your good buddy Obama complain that it doesn't say enough about what the government can do TO the people.
>
> You like to paint everything as a public v.
> private issue with private representing everything
> good, public as a parasite that sucks the life
> blood from private efforts while providing little
> in return, and anyone who disagrees with you MUST
> be on the public side of the debate. I see it as
> a public-private partnership where each helps the
> other out.

16 trillion in help and counting Bill. You see nothing because you are blind as a bat

Macky-There was a time when you were a fairly good spokesman for your point of view, but now it is just sad.

1. Do you know what things were like when man was in the state of nature? Utopian views of Locke and others who influenced the founding fathers are not proof. Studies of primitive recent human cultures and ape societies that I have read and less advanced societies in historical times do point to communal ownership of resources with a dominant person (or ape) that determines the allocation of those resources among the group. In addition you could still see remnants of the original notions of communal ownership of property in western societies in the Renaissance and in some instances even today.

2. Last time I studied it the 1773 Boston Tea Party and its equivalents elsewhere in the colonies were about POWER. The American colonists were arguing whether the British crown and parliament had the power to tax and regulate the colonies without colonial consent, not whether it was a good idea to do so. Today we aren't arguing about whether Congress has the power to impose excise or income taxes or regulate interstate commerce, all of which are granted in the Constitution, but whether it is doing so in a good way.

3. As I read your post it appears the GOAL of the early colonists in allocating communal property to private persons was to increase production to allow the colonists to feed themselves, to pay off their debts to their backers and improve their lives generally. Sounds like an argument for a public-private partnership.

4. People on all sides of politics have been happily expanding Federal powers to suit their ends since 1789. Of course the part that is overlooked is that quite often the powers the Federal government has sought to assume are those that the states were already exercising in 1789, and frequently it was done to check the states in the exercise of those powers. While you cloak your arguments in a desire to return to the smaller Federal government of earlier times I suspect you are still happy to have the Federal government check the states in exercising those powers.

5. "16 trillion in help". Yep and much of that was frittered away propping up private institutions, in unwise tax reductions at times when the economy could easily have been able to meet even what you would consider "bloated" demands of the Federal government, and in foreign military and economic ventures. I know that like me you opposed the Federal intervention at the end of the Bush administration and opposed the unfunded Medicare drug program, but where were you when Bush was cutting taxes in 2001, and where were you when Bush decided to put the Iraq war on credit? Also which of the programs that are beneficial to you today are you willing to sacrifice?

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macky-There was a time when you were a fairly good
> spokesman for your point of view, but now it is
> just sad.
>
> 1. Do you know what things were like when man was
> in the state of nature? Utopian views of Locke and
> others who influenced the founding fathers are not
> proof. Studies of primitive recent human cultures
> and ape societies that I have read and less
> advanced societies in historical times do point to
> communal ownership of resources with a dominant
> person (or ape) that determines the allocation of
> those resources among the group. In addition you
> could still see remnants of the original notions
> of communal ownership of property in western
> societies in the Renaissance and in some instances
> even today.


Apes Bill?? Come on man!
>
> 2. Last time I studied it the 1773 Boston Tea
> Party and its equivalents elsewhere in the
> colonies were about POWER. The American colonists
> were arguing whether the British crown and
> parliament had the power to tax and regulate the
> colonies without colonial consent, not whether it
> was a good idea to do so. Today we aren't arguing
> about whether Congress has the power to impose
> excise or income taxes or regulate interstate
> commerce, all of which are granted in the
> Constitution, but whether it is doing so in a good
> way.

No actually Bill the original Tea Party was over whether or not it made sense to send money to Great Britain who would the administrate funding the military needed here. We decided it wasn't a good idea and the little skirmish known as The Revolutionary War settled it.
>
> 3. As I read your post it appears the GOAL of the
> early colonists in allocating communal property to
> private persons was to increase production to
> allow the colonists to feed themselves, to pay off
> their debts to their backers and improve their
> lives generally. Sounds like an argument for a
> public-private partnership.

Except that's not what happened and it isn't my words but those of William Bradford that states it. It wasn't until they gave up on communal society that their lives improved and payed off their debts.
>
> 4. People on all sides of politics have been
> happily expanding Federal powers to suit their
> ends since 1789. Of course the part that is
> overlooked is that quite often the powers the
> Federal government has sought to assume are those
> that the states were already exercising in 1789,
> and frequently it was done to check the states in
> the exercise of those powers. While you cloak
> your arguments in a desire to return to the
> smaller Federal government of earlier times I
> suspect you are still happy to have the Federal
> government check the states in exercising those
> powers.

check and balance works. It is working now as the Federal government is out of control and shredding the constitution in the process. The Tea Party's participation in the political process is making sure of it. Give them one or two more major election results and you and your way of thinking will be even more marginalized.
>
> 5. "16 trillion in help". Yep and much of that
> was frittered away propping up private
> institutions, in unwise tax reductions at times
> when the economy could easily have been able to
> meet even what you would consider "bloated"
> demands of the Federal government, and in foreign
> military and economic ventures. I know that like
> me you opposed the Federal intervention at the end
> of the Bush administration and opposed the
> unfunded Medicare drug program, but where were you
> when Bush was cutting taxes in 2001, and where
> were you when Bush decided to put the Iraq war on
> credit? Also which of the programs that are
> beneficial to you today are you willing to
> sacrifice?

The Bush tax cuts stimulated economic growth and were critical to growth post 9/11. Eventually we will stop spending money on Iraq and Afghanistan but the new prescription drug plan is unsustainable and unfunded pretty much forever.

"Also which of the programs that are
> beneficial to you today are you willing to
> sacrifice?"

All of them.

Stimulus is just a way to kick the can down the road. Austrian Business Cycle Theory prescribes liquidation of assets so markets can readjust themselves as opposed to being 'goosed' to death by low interest rates and fiscal irresponsibility.

Keynes is only cited as a means to legitimise what the regime would do anyway - spend ill-gotten taxpayer money to consolidate its power and reward its friends.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apes Bill?? Come on man!

Sorry but apes and a few remote tribes are about as close as I can come to how man was living in the state of nature. What is your source? John Locke?

> No actually Bill the original Tea Party was over
> whether or not it made sense to send money to
> Great Britain who would the administrate funding
> the military needed here.

Well of course the British wanted to administer the funding. It was THEIR TROOPS that were being posted to the North American Continent that needed to be paid for. (There were several regiments of British regulars left in North America after 1763 plus assorted naval and marine personnel.) The armies that drove the French out of Canada and brought Pontiac under control weren't exclusively home grown American militias, but instead contained large numbers of British regulars. In addition to those regulars there were separate colonial militias that were recruited and paid for locally. One example would be the Virginia militia that Dunmore and Lewis led west in 1774 to bring (IIRC) the Shawnees under control.

Of course there is more to it than simply who got to administer the funds, but that is for another day.


> Except that's not what happened and it isn't my
> words but those of William Bradford that states
> it.

Perhaps it is because you overlooked the following from the same source (sorry but the language is modern rather than in 1623 vernacular):
"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery."
Sure sounds like they created private property for the public good.

> check and balance works. It is working now as the
> Federal government is out of control and shredding
> the constitution in the process. The Tea Party's
> participation in the political process is making
> sure of it. Give them one or two more major
> election results and you and your way of thinking
> will be even more marginalized.

Clearly you don't read what I've said, because I acknowledge that the Federal government has been shredding the Constitution since 1789. However you want to return to the 1880s, back when the USSCt. said the states couldn't regulate activities because they were interstate commerce but the Federal government couldn't regulate those same activities because they weren't interstate commerce. Whatever the policy benefits of the position, it is constitutional dishonesty.

> The Bush tax cuts stimulated economic growth and
> were critical to growth post 9/11.

Bush's tax cuts were largely passed BEFORE 9/11/2001, so any connection between the two was accidental (unless you buy into the whacko theory that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance). As I recall the response to 9/11 was to urge consumers to go out and spend, and spend they did right into the poor house.

> All of them.

Which ones? Be specific. How will Macky suffer pain from the massive government retrenchment that Macky wants?

Ellipsis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stimulus is just a way to kick the can down the
> road. Austrian Business Cycle Theory prescribes
> liquidation of assets so markets can readjust
> themselves as opposed to being 'goosed' to death
> by low interest rates and fiscal
> irresponsibility.
>
> Keynes is only cited as a means to legitimise what
> the regime would do anyway - spend ill-gotten
> taxpayer money to consolidate its power and reward
> its friends.


Austrian Economic/Business theory is the equivalent to believing in creationism. And pretty much the same group of people believe in both.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Apes Bill?? Come on man!
>
> Bush's tax cuts were largely passed BEFORE
> 9/11/2001, so any connection between the two was
> accidental (unless you buy into the whacko theory
> that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance). As I
> recall the response to 9/11 was to urge consumers
> to go out and spend, and spend they did right into
> the poor house.

Bush gained a lot of political capital after 9/11 that allowed him to get laws passed he otherwise wouldn't have had. A kind of mandate if you will that wasn't there after his election but was after 9/11.

>
> > All of them.
>
> Which ones? Be specific. How will Macky suffer
> pain from the massive government retrenchment that
> Macky wants?

I know every time a liberal is faced with the horrifying prospect of reducing the scope and size of the federal government the usual scare tactics follow. "Are we going to fire teachers, not educate our kids, starve grandma, shut down the police and fire departments, take milk from the babies, let loose father rapers and mother stabbers, choke out the air with pollution, let rotten meat start another black plague, planes will crash, seas will rise, locusts, water will be laced with poison and undrinkable, BP would fill the gulf with oil, bridges will collapse" and on and on.

But...... I could probably live without whatever service your public sector government job is providing. Seriously! We could replace all the STOP/SLOW highway construction sign guys with electric signs.

If I were king for a day I would order every federal agency to cut 10% of it's personnel. Anyone remaining would be sent home until they reached within 10% of their healthy body weight.

Seriously though I am fortunate and have worked hard enough that at 50 years of age I will never have to depend on medicare or social security so I'd be happy to opt out! When I turn 65, or whenever conventional wisdom says we are to retire, I'll be making just as much if not more money than I am now.

I don't even care if you don't fix potholes. I'll just get on my boat and sail away.