God save Obama

[davey]

As an Aussie who was around when America's last great President was assassinated, I have to ask--why don't the majority of Americans appreciate their present inspirational man?
Being an avid reader of US magazines and newspapers I cannot believe the stupidity of a huge proportion of the US population. Many think he is a communist just because he wants free health care for people on low incomes. This has been the case in Australia for over 40 years. Just because we look after not only our poor but those on lesser wages doesn’t mean Australia is a socialist country. Far from it!. That’s just human decency.
Hence that is all Obama is trying to instill in his people, and for that he is being crucified. JFK and his brother Ted would be turning in their graves at the contempt being thrown at someone who is just continuing their great work.
Many US citizens believe he is a Muslim because of his name and as he spent time in Indonesia as a child. How can so many people believe something so ridiculous?
In Australian he is a hero. Our prime minister is busting to have him visit us as she is hoping some of his magic appeal will rub off on her.
The same in Europe. When he visited there all public events were attended by hundreds of thousands. People hung on his every word and gave wild cheers throughout his speeches. Many had tears in their eyes as people did when Martin Luther King spoke with a similar message many years ago.
He also wants to reduce the insane amount of firearms in the US. Gun crime is out of control in America but again the majority believe that having a house full of machine guns is their God given right. “Just check the Bill of Rights” is their pathetic explanation when 40 people are shot by a disgruntled work mate.
School children have to be searched for weapons in many US schools as massacres in these supposedly innocent environment is a far too common occurrence.
What do American now think of this great man? They voted so heavily against him at the mid terms he lost control of the Sanate.
What am I missing here? What happened to this great country that all of us were so proud to have as an ally? The crazies like Sarah Palin have taken over and now instead of being proud, in 2010 we are embarrassed at what is happening to this once great nation.
God save Obama!

 

[jetset]

Characterising others as stupid because they do not happen to share your views is hardly the way to start a rational discussion imo.

And the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives - not the Senate, although their majority there suffered.

I'll leave it to the pro and agin' Obama folks to share their views on your post about the President and his popularity at home and abroad.

 

[davey]

I rest my case

Thanks jetset. Obvioulsly a Palin fan and you just aswered all of my questions in just a few words. I will sleep better tonight.....

 

[jetset]

Your arrogance and penchant for making offensive and totally wrong assumptions tells me quite a lot about you too, Davey!

 

[davey]

Good on ya mate

Good on ya mate. Peace and Love.

 

[jod5413]

Davey, take a chill pill.

Jet is one of the smartest and well liked members here. You won't last long if you start alienating the members here.

JMO

 

[rockycatt]

davey, (jod5413) is spot on jet is your best friend around here

lets not be like the mad dog that vomits only to return and eat that same thing again and again

 

[sarahoy]

thanks davey

Totally agree davey but it was a little risky mentioning home truths on this forum. Good on you for having the balls.
Catcha
Sarah

 

[jod5413]

davey, (jod5413) is spot on jet is your best friend around here

lets not be like the mad dog that vomits only to return and eat that same thing again and again

Damn, RC! I didn't say that, did I? Vomit eating? Yucky!

Davey was putting together a very good post, I think. He just got a little bit over the top from passion or frustration, maybe?

 

[same_old]

I have to admit being on the OUTSIDE you do see a lot of things that could improve, however so can our Government mate, we are driven by money which isnt taking us in a good direction either.

Perfect example is the road laws now days in AUS.

I agree with the other posters in regrds to you coming across a but more subtle.
if ou want people to apy attention or listen then calling them names isnt a good way to start.

 

[bryand]

I assume, Davey, that your post was only intended to evoke drama on the board. Because, even in Oz, I'm sure you understand stuff like deficits, national debt, unemployment and a sinking dollar. Or maybe you just have illusions about JFK? Who knows. And please tell me what relevance Dr. King has to the discussion. Just because he and Obama happen to be black?

It appears to me that Obama charmed you the same way he charmed the democrat party 2 years ago. The problem is that he couldn't back up the dream.

 

[jod5413]

Oh shoot! Is this thread about Politics? I never, ever do politics. It's too hard to stay civil.

Seeya!

 

[jelsmith]

Well....I am not a fan of government period being an anarchist and all....but Obama inherited a steaming maggott laden pile of POO sometimes you just gotta work with what you got.....so in my book he's aces so far....better than a Bush any day of the week.

 

[kauphy]

Well....I am not a fan of government period being an anarchist and all....but Obama inherited a steaming maggott laden pile of POO sometimes you just gotta work with what you got.....so in my book he's aces so far....better than a Bush any day of the week.

thats what gets me when is everyone going to stop using bush for an excuse

as to why obama is doing shitty.

you know hes not the frist president to walk into a big bunch of poo.

but he is the only one who keeps whining about it and pointing his finger whining i,m not to blame he is.

i wish he would get over it and act like a man and take responsibility for the

things he knows he has f000k up which right now as i see it is everything he

has done so far. to putting us more in debt then any other president in

history to just being the arrogant person he is and i,m being nice.

no need for all the obama lovers who i know are on this site to go getting all

upset like you all do when i post anything against him this is just mho and we

all still as of now have that right to think and speak what we think.

so you all have fun with this thread i,m done caz i know where these things go.

 

[jelsmith]

I guess my point is....since I gotta live under some form of government (the guys with the handcuffs don't seem to favor anarchy) I would rather do it under him than Bush or any other Republican. Bush drug us into a war only to finish something daddy tried and failed at. The US government provided freaking Sadam with weapons early on....I mean really? Then we go over and claim we are bombing your country in an effort to create peace.....thats like saying im f#$%ing for virginity.....

Anarchy sounds better Im just sayin

 

[bryand]

Well....I am not a fan of government period being an anarchist and all....but Obama inherited a steaming maggott laden pile of POO sometimes you just gotta work with what you got.....so in my book he's aces so far....better than a Bush any day of the week.

Aces? Did you say aces? What dream are you following?

 

[jelsmith]

The one where Im living comfortably.....if it doesnt directly affect me then Im down with whatever.....Ill only complain if its puttin a kink in my chain...sociopath remember

 

[Lucky Loser]

I like Obama but fear he is being very poorly advised and people are right to have concerns about his leadership. His policies are not suited to the present fiscal problems the US is facing which call for austerity not over spending.

Ben Bernanke and Co are getting the US into a huge debt hole and printing money Zimbabwe style. Since when does taking on more debt to fix an insolvency problem work. It's clearly not working and never will but the Fed just dont seem to get it. Its an easy fix for them but I fear it will turn out to be very damaging for the US economy in the long term.

It will be future generations who will be left with the problems they are creating.

 

[jetset]

It's not just the USA - look at the extremes to which the national debt situation has driven Europe. The indebtedness of some nations (and how the future generations are going to repay the interest+debt) is increasingly scary. As are the austerity measures that have followed.

And quantitative easing (printing more money) has been practised in the UK, too.

Trillions of dollars, and who holds the markers?

It seems that developing nations have best escaped the immediate effects of the banking debacle, but that smugness could be short-lived; they have to be impacted eventually as the demand for raw materials declines in faltering economies and investment capital becomes harder to find.

However, I'm afraid I've gone off-topic to some extent, so back to President Obama....

 

[greasemonkey]

As an Aussie who was around when America's last great President was assassinated, I have to ask--why don't the majority of Americans appreciate their present inspirational man?

Exactly what has he accomplished for America that is an inspiration?

Being an avid reader of US magazines and newspapers I cannot believe the stupidity of a huge proportion of the US population. Many think he is a communist just because he wants free health care for people on low incomes. This has been the case in Australia for over 40 years. Just because we look after not only our poor but those on lesser wages doesn’t mean Australia is a socialist country. Far from it!. That’s just human decency.

ummmm..Noooo, that IS socialism. That is why its called a social program. health care is not free (for all of you Obama loving, socialist drones). SOMEONE pays for it. It is redistribution of wealth. Which is stealing personal property from one and giving it to another.
Human decency would be giving to charity that provides for lower income people. Forcefully confiscating a citizen's personal property is not decent. It is theft. It is socialism.
Davey, think of what you said. He wants to incorporate a socialist healthcare program on people that do not want it as a whole. It IS socialism and that is why we view it as such. That is why his approval rating is so very low. People of America are free, and the producers and thinkers are very much against his policies. Those that would rather not do for themselves are largely for him. Luckily, the producers and doers in our society still slightly outnumber the others...at least at the poll.

Hence that is all Obama is trying to instill in his people, and for that he is being crucified. JFK and his brother Ted would be turning in their graves at the contempt being thrown at someone who is just continuing their great work.

Huh? Can you name any accomplishment that Obama has in his 2 years in office? The government takeover of the Auto industry (socialist)? The govt. take over of health care (socialist)? The govt. takeover of some banking (socialist)? The war in afghanistan (thought he was against war)? The unemployment rate (much higher than when he took over)? The massive bailouts? The huge deficits?
What the hell good is he doing???

Many US citizens believe he is a Muslim because of his name and as he spent time in Indonesia as a child. How can so many people believe something so ridiculous? .

What is even crazier is how some (like obama) could actually believe that raising taxes could help in a recession. Or that more govt. spending will somehow create jobs... et al.

In Australian he is a hero. Our prime minister is busting to have him visit us as she is hoping some of his magic appeal will rub off on her.

She better hope not. He is not very popular here. Democrats running for office largely try to distance themselves from his socialistic policies. His presidency is becoming more and more of a disaster each week. It is not because of "dumb americans" it is because he has a distaste for what made america a super power. He doesnt appeal to the producers in his country.

The same in Europe. When he visited there all public events were attended by hundreds of thousands. People hung on his every word and gave wild cheers throughout his speeches. Many had tears in their eyes as people did when Martin Luther King spoke with a similar message many years ago.

Your embarrassing yourself here. What is the similarity in message? I am embarrassed for you. What a wrong and uneducated comment.

He also wants to reduce the insane amount of firearms in the US. Gun crime is out of control in America but again the majority believe that having a house full of machine guns is their God given right. “Just check the Bill of Rights” is their pathetic explanation when 40 people are shot by a disgruntled work mate.
School children have to be searched for weapons in many US schools as massacres in these supposedly innocent environment is a far too common occurrence.
What do American now think of this great man? They voted so heavily against him at the mid terms he lost control of the Sanate.

We Americans like our freedom. Just because a criminal commits a crime doesnt mean that MY RIGHTS should be taken away. As a matter of fact I want the right to defend myself against the criminal. Not let someone else protect me like a socialist.
CRIMINALS break laws. so if it is against the law to own a firearm then they will break that law and still have one. You would like to take MY RIGHT to protect myself away. Just brilliant. That is why you don't know the difference between freedom and socialism. You are embroiled in it. Socialism like your thoughts are short sited. You put a bandaid on a problem then create a larger problem. Then you ask govt. to fix the problem that it jsut created thus making 3 more new problems. I have never had a felony nor been arrested. Why should my right to own a firearm be taken? It is already against the law to own or have a firearm if you are a felon. They still do it because they are criminals.

What am I missing here? What happened to this great country that all of us were so proud to have as an ally? The crazies like Sarah Palin have taken over and now instead of being proud, in 2010 we are embarrassed at what is happening to this once great nation.
God save Obama!

I am embarrassed that anyone would have these simple thoughts running through their head. Your opinions are based on what facts?

 

[greasemonkey]

I guess my point is....since I gotta live under some form of government (the guys with the handcuffs don't seem to favor anarchy) I would rather do it under him than Bush or any other Republican. Bush drug us into a war only to finish something daddy tried and failed at. The US government provided freaking Sadam with weapons early on....I mean really? Then we go over and claim we are bombing your country in an effort to create peace.....thats like saying im f#$%ing for virginity.....

Anarchy sounds better Im just sayin

You DO realize that Obama isnt running against Bush right? Or do you take the simple approach that if someone is republican they are a bush clone? I am failing to see logic in any of your comments.

 

[greasemonkey]

Well....I am not a fan of government period being an anarchist and all....but Obama inherited a steaming maggott laden pile of POO sometimes you just gotta work with what you got.....so in my book he's aces so far....better than a Bush any day of the week.

Im not sure how much you know of Ronald Reagan but he stepped into one of the worst situations in our countries history. He had to replace Jimmy Carter, who was easily one of the worst 3 presidents in our history.

Carter's policies had us in massive stagflation, deficits, unemployment, foreign policy dilemmas, Trade gaps, inflation and a general feeling of losing power.
why? because his policies were ultra liberal/socialist. MORE govt... MORE govt. programs... MORE govt. spending...

His foreign policy was to take a stance of weakness and bow to our enemies and do anything to not have to fight. His fiscal policy was to print more money, borrow more money and spend more money...

Sound familiar? It should. We are living it now. Obama is taking on the same FAILED policies of Carter in a large way. The only thing that will save him is if he is as smart as Clinton and backs off the socialism and allows the conservatives to run the show. (remember the liberal clinton vetoed the balance budget act 3 times before the conservative congress basically put a political gun to his head and made him sign it - now he is revered for signing it as it was exactly what was best for America).

Back to Reagan... he stepped into a huge pile of poo, but he PROSPERED because of sound decisions and fiscal responsibility. He LOWERED taxes, decreased social spending, strengthened our military and stood strong abroad. He made Kadafi lay down. He broke the soviets. He took a position of strength and our economy BOOMED for 20 years because of it.
So, if Obama stepped into a pile of poo, why is it WORSE now? It's worse because his policies are socialist and socialism has failed over time everywhere it has ever been tried.

 

[Cabrair32]

We Americans like our freedom. Just because a criminal commits a crime doesnt mean that MY RIGHTS should be taken away. As a matter of fact I want the right to defend myself against the criminal. Not let someone else protect me like a socialist.
CRIMINALS break laws. so if it is against the law to own a firearm then they will break that law and still have one. You would like to take MY RIGHT to protect myself away. Just brilliant. That is why you don't know the difference between freedom and socialism. You are embroiled in it. Socialism like your thoughts are short sited. You put a bandaid on a problem then create a larger problem. Then you ask govt. to fix the problem that it jsut created thus making 3 more new problems. I have never had a felony nor been arrested. Why should my right to own a firearm be taken? It is already against the law to own or have a firearm if you are a felon. They still do it because they are criminals.

Agree Whole heartedly!

As Benjamin Franklin said

"Those that are willing to give up freedoms for safety will get neither and deserve none"

I just hate it when people want to take away my freedom because they are scared. Why would anyone want to voluntarily give up their own freedom(s)?

It is a sign of total weakness.

I'm glad Davey cannot vote here

 

[LaurieJim]

Does anyone remember the long gas lines back in the 70's during the Carter admin, some will but if you dont, ask your parents or grand parents.

President Obama seems to be following the same route as Mr. Carter except the world was a bit more pleasent then, no rogue nations with nukes pointed at their neighbors with the intent of blowing humans off the face of the map just because of their cultures.

I have nothing against President Obama but in this time and age, where is another Ronald Reagan, when needed? Its not in Mrs. Palin imo, I like her but she doesnt have what it takes to lead this country as bad as it pains me to say it, might as well be honest about it and tell it how I feel.

Laurie

 

[slotplayer]

He took a position of strength and our economy BOOMED for 20 years because of it.

didn't the stock market crash 22% in 1987?

 

[jelsmith]

You DO realize that Obama isnt running against Bush right? Or do you take the simple approach that if someone is republican they are a bush clone? I am failing to see logic in any of your comments.

Im not trying to make sense to anyone but myself. Im saying Im currently unaffected by anything the man is doing. Therefore Im living comfortably and dont really care what is going on. I was merely pointing out that the last president started a pointless war. I said before I only complain when it directly affects me.

Im not sure how much you know of Ronald Reagan but he stepped into one of the worst situations in our countries history. He had to replace Jimmy Carter, who was easily one of the worst 3 presidents in our history.

Carter's policies had us in massive stagflation, deficits, unemployment, foreign policy dilemmas, Trade gaps, inflation and a general feeling of losing power.
why? because his policies were ultra liberal/socialist. MORE govt... MORE govt. programs... MORE govt. spending...

His foreign policy was to take a stance of weakness and bow to our enemies and do anything to not have to fight. His fiscal policy was to print more money, borrow more money and spend more money...

Sound familiar? It should. We are living it now. Obama is taking on the same FAILED policies of Carter in a large way. The only thing that will save him is if he is as smart as Clinton and backs off the socialism and allows the conservatives to run the show. (remember the liberal clinton vetoed the balance budget act 3 times before the conservative congress basically put a political gun to his head and made him sign it - now he is revered for signing it as it was exactly what was best for America).

Back to Reagan... he stepped into a huge pile of poo, but he PROSPERED because of sound decisions and fiscal responsibility. He LOWERED taxes, decreased social spending, strengthened our military and stood strong abroad. He made Kadafi lay down. He broke the soviets. He took a position of strength and our economy BOOMED for 20 years because of it.
So, if Obama stepped into a pile of poo, why is it WORSE now? It's worse because his policies are socialist and socialism has failed over time everywhere it has ever been tried.

I was in elementary school when Reagan was president I was like 8 so I had less of a care then as I was again comfortable. I call for no government period. I do tend to pick on the Repubs cause I dislike their their views on religion, abortion etc and taking away basic freedoms and choices. Im no democrat. Im an anarchist. I don't even vote that's really why I never complain that and the fact that your vote REALLY doesnt count as the president is elected by the electoral college....cause no matter who gets the job they are gonna eff it up somewhere along the way no matter what party they are. im forced to live in a society run by a government so I make the best of it.

 

[greasemonkey]

didn't the stock market crash 22% in 1987?

I'm not sure if you are asking or if you are commenting. I will assume that you are asking since making a point or comment of that would make you look like a troll that is interested in nothing but stirring the pot. It would be a pointless comment. I have liked some of your posts in the past so I am assuming you are just asking for references sake.....


.....As Mentioned in my last post the economy Boomed for 20 years and there was a day known as "black monday" (October 19th, 1987) that the S&P dropped 20% and the dow dropped 22% .
The difference was that this rebounded the very next day as a record one day gain of 102 occured then that same Thursday it had another rally of 187! There was very little fallout from it and the overall economy barely missed a beat - it was not noticeable for almost all Americans.


Lets put that into perspective also. what did the market fall from? If you fall off the first step it is different than falling off of 100 steps high.

Between August of 1982 and August of 1987 under Reagan's policies, the Dow rose from 776 to 2722. So what was this 20% crash ? Still better than the best days under Carter. YET, it still rallied right back and the economy was STILL booming. (lower taxes, less govt., less social spending)


People can throw in little factoids, or try and rewrite history all they want. The FACTS are that conservative fiscal policies are what makes America's economy work and it is what made America economically superior. Just as much are the facts that socialistic policies hurt American economy. These can only be argued by not using facts. The facts are obvious and incontrovertible. (lower taxes, less govt., less social spending)

 

[RedAndi]

You DO realize that Obama isnt running against Bush right? Or do you take the simple approach that if someone is republican they are a bush clone? I am failing to see logic in any of your comments.

Unfortunately the people so angered by Obama winning are the ones being voted in now, and to me they are way scarier than Bush ever could have been. Let's face it, Cheney was the one doing most of the damage anyway (but his war buddies sure made a lot of money while driving us deeper hmmm? ).
I would gladly take a Bush clone (did I just say that? ) over the alarmist policitians coming up these days

 

[slotplayer]

I'm not sure if you are asking or if you are commenting. I will assume that you are asking since making a point or comment of that would make you look like a troll that is interested in nothing but stirring the pot. It would be a pointless comment. I have liked some of your posts in the past so I am assuming you are just asking for references sake.....


.....As Mentioned in my last post the economy Boomed for 20 years and there was a day known as "black monday" (October 19th, 1987) that the S&P dropped 20% and the dow dropped 22% .
The difference was that this rebounded the very next day as a record one day gain of 102 occured then that same Thursday it had another rally of 187! There was very little fallout from it and the overall economy barely missed a beat - it was not noticeable for almost all Americans.


Lets put that into perspective also. what did the market fall from? If you fall off the first step it is different than falling off of 100 steps high.

Between August of 1982 and August of 1987 under Reagan's policies, the Dow rose from 776 to 2722. So what was this 20% crash ? Still better than the best days under Carter. YET, it still rallied right back and the economy was STILL booming. (lower taxes, less govt., less social spending)


People can throw in little factoids, or try and rewrite history all they want. The FACTS are that conservative fiscal policies are what makes America's economy work and it is what made America economically superior. Just as much are the facts that socialistic policies hurt American economy. These can only be argued by not using facts. The facts are obvious and incontrovertible. (lower taxes, less govt., less social spending)

I was stating an event, there was also a big recession in 1990-1991 that I meant to add in as well. So my point is that saying there was 20 years of an economic boom is somewhat disingenuous.



Using the Dow Jones industrial average as the benchmark, Stock Trader's Almanac shows a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years.

The same $10,000 investment during 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. If you adjust for inflation, the value of a $10,000 investment under Democratic presidents is $33,426.The inflation-adjusted value under Republican presidents is $26,145.

details

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jod5413]

It's not just the USA - look at the extremes to which the national debt situation has driven Europe. The indebtedness of some nations (and how the future generations are going to repay the interest+debt) is increasingly scary. As are the austerity measures that have followed.

And quantitative easing (printing more money) has been practised in the UK, too.

Trillions of dollars, and who holds the markers?

It seems that developing nations have best escaped the immediate effects of the banking debacle, but that smugness could be short-lived; they have to be impacted eventually as the demand for raw materials declines in faltering economies and investment capital becomes harder to find.

However, I'm afraid I've gone off-topic to some extent, so back to President Obama....

Not the least bit off topic. We are all "owners" of this world, what one does, affects another. As far as who holds the markers? I do believe the answer would be China, at least in the US. It would make sense though that European countries would have known China had deep pockets also.

 

[kauphy]

( I do believe the answer would be China, at least in the US) quote


belive it or not i so agree with jod on this one.

china does own more of the u.s then the u.s does right now and it does,nt look as if its going to get any better.

 

[greasemonkey]

I was stating an event, there was also a big recession in 1990-1991 that I meant to add in as well. So my point is that saying there was 20 years of an economic boom is somewhat disingenuous.



Using the Dow Jones industrial average as the benchmark, Stock Trader's Almanac shows a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years.

The same $10,000 investment during 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. If you adjust for inflation, the value of a $10,000 investment under Democratic presidents is $33,426.The inflation-adjusted value under Republican presidents is $26,145.

details

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

ughhhhh.. so frustrating. So intellectually lazy....

OK, lets start with this: You make some arbitrary comment that isn't really relevant at all and I must disprove it. Lets stop with that and you actually tell me how socialistic policies make the economy grow. (hint: you wont be able to because it doesnt)

Your first comment on the mini recession of 90-91 is, AGAIN, pointless. I said the economy boomed for 20 years. That doesnt mean that if you are looking at a graph of those 20 years that it goes str8 up the whole time. There were a few blips and little downward trends but overall it kept moving in the positive direction and YES, it boomed. And it did so for 20 years. I don't care if you tell me that farmer jones lost 2 cows in 1986. that is minor and not the point. The economy did experience a blip or 2 but it steadily proceeded positively for 20 years because of conservative fiscal policies.

Your 2nd comment is, AGAIN, pointless. I say "conservative" policies vs. socialistic policies. You are saying dem vs. rep. NOT the same.
For example, the last republican candidate was Mccain. He is very liberal fiscally. Arnold Schwartzeneger is called republican. He is extremely liberal fiscally. What my point is and what you will be unable to disprove is that conservative fiscal policies are what makes the economy strong.
Lets look at Clinton's presidency as a perfect example. He was not doing well nor was the economy as a whole until the conservative congress was elected at the mid term. They forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment against his will (he vetoed it 3 times for crying out loud). It is the policies that affect the economy not the party that the president is affiliated with.
So then, let us backtrack a little bit.

Obama: Had ultra socialist/liberal house and senate plus extreme social fiscal policy = we are doing horrificly.

Bush: was strapped with ultra socialist/liberal house and senate plus had war to pay for and was too big of a spender. Not a conservative fiscal president as a whole. YES, he got the tax cut thing, however, he didn't get the spending thing. So he was correct in cutting taxes but wrong for increasing spending (the ultra liberal house had most to do with that but he didn't fight them enough and he sure did spend a ton on the war)... so he was NOT incorporating conservative fiscal policy and in fact was using liberal fiscal policy as he initiated the bailouts. Liberal fiscal policy = bad for us.

Clinton: initially had a liberal congress and it was not going well until the conservative revolution and Gingrich came in and righted the ship. The economy took off after the forced balanced budget and deficit controls that the CONSERVATIVES passed. Under his presidency then it ultimately became a conservative fiscal policy. = Good for us.

Bush: "read my lips"... however, he could not control the liberal house and they in fact, did raise spending and taxes while under his presidency. His ideals were to be conservative, however he didn't have the resolve to stick to his guns. = eh....not great, not horrible... just OK.

Reagan: Ultra conservative fiscal policies. Lowered taxes for everyone, increased govt. revenue, strengthened our military, promoted growth and ingenuity... all this while having a liberal congress that could not get around him or go against him because he was moving the economy in such a positve direction and would not waiver... result was best presidency of our lifetime = AWESOME for us.

Carter: Ultra socialistic ideals. Ran our economy and foreign affairs into the ground all while weakening our military. = horrific for us.


-----

So you can look up any tidbit or factoid that you like. The undeniable facts are still that CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy (no matter whom is president) is what makes the economy strong. SOCIALISTIC fiscal policies do nothing but weaken our economy and country.

 

[The Dude]

Oh goody! Another political debate in the Attic.

Please try not to gouge each other's eyes out.

Remember, 'tis the season to be jolly.

 

[colly]

I find American politics fascinating in how much intensity there is- especially from a country where in reality so few of you excercise your right to vote (OK I know some of you think not voting is a statement in itself but seems a copout especially if you haven't even registered). - I am using you in the general not personal sense.

Have been in the States a few times near election periods and can't believe how downright dirty it can get (yes we have dirty politics too -but much more backroom and certainly not aired as primetime advertisements).

The heavy influence of the religious groups always seem surprising in a secular government, nor can I understand how long the campaign process is- sheesh i have to switchoff the TV here after the first few weeks of an election campaign- how on earth do you put up with months and months without shooting the TV set.

I am not going to comment on some of the presidential choices over the years but as an outsider looking in its certainly been diverse (that was me being tactfull).

Cheers

 

[slotplayer]

ughhhhh.. so frustrating. So intellectually lazy....

OK, lets start with this: You make some arbitrary comment that isn't really relevant at all and I must disprove it. Lets stop with that and you actually tell me how socialistic policies make the economy grow. (hint: you wont be able to because it doesnt)

Your first comment on the mini recession of 90-91 is, AGAIN, pointless. I said the economy boomed for 20 years. That doesnt mean that if you are looking at a graph of those 20 years that it goes str8 up the whole time. There were a few blips and little downward trends but overall it kept moving in the positive direction and YES, it boomed. And it did so for 20 years. I don't care if you tell me that farmer jones lost 2 cows in 1986. that is minor and not the point. The economy did experience a blip or 2 but it steadily proceeded positively for 20 years because of conservative fiscal policies.

Your 2nd comment is, AGAIN, pointless. I say "conservative" policies vs. socialistic policies. You are saying dem vs. rep. NOT the same.
For example, the last republican candidate was Mccain. He is very liberal fiscally. Arnold Schwartzeneger is called republican. He is extremely liberal fiscally. What my point is and what you will be unable to disprove is that conservative fiscal policies are what makes the economy strong.
Lets look at Clinton's presidency as a perfect example. He was not doing well nor was the economy as a whole until the conservative congress was elected at the mid term. They forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment against his will (he vetoed it 3 times for crying out loud). It is the policies that affect the economy not the party that the president is affiliated with.
So then, let us backtrack a little bit.

Obama: Had ultra socialist/liberal house and senate plus extreme social fiscal policy = we are doing horrificly.

Bush: was strapped with ultra socialist/liberal house and senate plus had war to pay for and was too big of a spender. Not a conservative fiscal president as a whole. YES, he got the tax cut thing, however, he didn't get the spending thing. So he was correct in cutting taxes but wrong for increasing spending (the ultra liberal house had most to do with that but he didn't fight them enough and he sure did spend a ton on the war)... so he was NOT incorporating conservative fiscal policy and in fact was using liberal fiscal policy as he initiated the bailouts. Liberal fiscal policy = bad for us.

Clinton: initially had a liberal congress and it was not going well until the conservative revolution and Gingrich came in and righted the ship. The economy took off after the forced balanced budget and deficit controls that the CONSERVATIVES passed. Under his presidency then it ultimately became a conservative fiscal policy. = Good for us.

Bush: "read my lips"... however, he could not control the liberal house and they in fact, did raise spending and taxes while under his presidency. His ideals were to be conservative, however he didn't have the resolve to stick to his guns. = eh....not great, not horrible... just OK.

Reagan: Ultra conservative fiscal policies. Lowered taxes for everyone, increased govt. revenue, strengthened our military, promoted growth and ingenuity... all this while having a liberal congress that could not get around him or go against him because he was moving the economy in such a positve direction and would not waiver... result was best presidency of our lifetime = AWESOME for us.

Carter: Ultra socialistic ideals. Ran our economy and foreign affairs into the ground all while weakening our military. = horrific for us.


-----

So you can look up any tidbit or factoid that you like. The undeniable facts are still that CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy (no matter whom is president) is what makes the economy strong. SOCIALISTIC fiscal policies do nothing but weaken our economy and country.

Greasemonkey take a deep breath, nobody is arguing with you. Its pointless to get so worked up. I'm not defending socialism, congress or any president as I'm not an ideolog. I just post what I deem to be credible information and let the folks draw their own conclusions.

 

[Rhyzz]

National Health Care has it's pro's and con's. Do I really want to be paying a huge sum of money from my income to fund a health system that looks after drunks, drug addicts, people who can't stop eating, people who ignore their illnesses and continue to abuse their bodies...no. Do I ever want to see someone with cancer or an illness or disease which can be treated suffer or die? no. That basically sums up the system. I don't believe for one second that America has it right with the private system because insurance seems to be a total scam. Too many people get burned when crunch time comes and they need help. At the same time, the NHS in the UK is a joke. I had hernia surgery a few years ago, it crippled me for a couple of weeks, guess how long I had my bed for in the hospital....1 hour. Yep, 1 hour after waking up I was asked to leave because they had an afternoon case in. Joke.

I think those of us willing to pay for private health care shouldn't be forced to fund the scum of the world who abuse the system, but at the same time I totally agree that a portion of my income tax should be towards health care.

We have an ongoing saga in the UK at the moment with university fees. I'm a firm believer that if you want to go on to further education, you should work damn hard and treat it as a privilege, so by making them fund it themselves you do that. It's far too easy for students to blow their interest free grant money at the moment and then quit University. I'd sooner see my money fund a hospital than some sweaty spaghetti eating student studying 'art & photography' or some other joke course.

/rant

 

[cpdnd31]

Hey I have an idea? Maybe we can get online gaming approved as part of health bill. It does lower my blood pressure at times. I'm smoking in my own home and eat less when im on a good streak :lolsign:

 

[jetset]

Well said - what it really comes down to is how well a national health scheme is administered - a daunting task in itself, I would think.

The new coalition government in the UK appears to be trying to tackle abuses of the welfare system generally as part of its austerity drive, but I understand that the national health scheme is being pretty much left out of the cuts (???)

Most tax-payers (and I'm not just talking about the UK) would perhaps like to at least have the option of choice when it comes to paying for private health care in order to avoid the inadequacies of the "treatment for all" national scheme. Maybe a tax rebate in respect of such individuals would mollify them....after all they would presumably then not be using scarce government facilities?

Talking about the UK austerity drive, I've been marvelling at the string of individuals representing all sorts of government subsidised associations and bodies (some that I've never heard of) who are popping up in newspapers and television interviews earnestly explaining why they shouldn't be required to tighten their belts. Most appear to appreciate the need for austerity....as long as it does not impact them.

I've also been shocked by the riotous behaviour and malicious damage to property perpetrated by some of the students demonstrating in London recently, and as a literally old-school grad I find Rhyzz's views resonating with my own.

Whilst education is hugely important, as is maximising the use of the country's young potential, having to work your ass off to get through 'varsity does wonders for your motivation!

 

[silcnlayc]

jetset: Whilst education is hugely important, as is maximising the use of the country's young potential, having to work your ass off to get through 'varsity does wonders for your motivation!

Say it one more time....hurrahhhh....some do get it...Education is a privilege, not a right...just as healthcare is a privilege not a right...etc etc...


.

 

[jetset]

The problem of an over-emphasis on government welfare imo is that it can dilute the drive, ambition, determination to succeed and compete that makes for a thriving and internationally successful nation.

The tax-payers footing the bill become disenchanted by abuses and too much of a good thing, and where the balance between state welfare expenditure and available tax revenues narrows, the country's economic health can suffer, with the government taxing more so that it can spend more.

And we all know how governments love to spend!

The ultimate peril is that a culture of entitlement can evolve when politicians promise that the government will be all things to the electorate.

This can lead to a dangerous perception that self-sufficiency is not necessarily a desirable or imperative trait, and that the government should provide free education, health, housing, child support, pensions and God knows what else...all at the cost of those (taxpayers) who have worked hard and been responsible and diligent in their financial and life management.

 

[bryand]

Greasemonkey take a deep breath, nobody is arguing with you. Its pointless to get so worked up. I'm not defending socialism, congress or any president as I'm not an ideolog. I just post what I deem to be credible information and let the folks draw their own conclusions.

LOL....jab and hide, jab and hide.

 

[GrandMaster]

Reagan: Ultra conservative fiscal policies. Lowered taxes for everyone, increased govt. revenue, strengthened our military, promoted growth and ingenuity... all this while having a liberal congress that could not get around him or go against him because he was moving the economy in such a positve direction and would not waiver... result was best presidency of our lifetime = AWESOME for us.

Huh? The US government ran biggest budget deficits in history under Reagan until the past couple of years, the US national debt increased from about 33% of GDP to more than 50% of GDP. Under what definition is this fiscal conservatism?

 

[greasemonkey]

Say it one more time....hurrahhhh....some do get it...Education is a privilege, not a right...just as healthcare is a privilege not a right...etc etc...


.

The problem of an over-emphasis on government welfare imo is that it can dilute the drive, ambition, determination to succeed and compete that makes for a thriving and internationally successful nation.

The tax-payers footing the bill become disenchanted by abuses and too much of a good thing, and where the balance between state welfare expenditure and available tax revenues narrows, the country's economic health can suffer, with the government taxing more so that it can spend more.

And we all know how governments love to spend!

The ultimate peril is that a culture of entitlement can evolve when politicians promise that the government will be all things to the electorate.

This can lead to a dangerous perception that self-sufficiency is not necessarily a desirable or imperative trait, and that the government should provide free education, health, housing, child support, pensions and God knows what else...all at the cost of those (taxpayers) who have worked hard and been responsible and diligent in their financial and life management.

Jetset, you have a true skill for putting thoughts into words. You presented it perfectly and without attitude or contempt. I wish I could do that. You are saying it perfectly and accurately. I agree with you whole heartedly.

 

[greasemonkey]

Huh? The US government ran biggest budget deficits in history under Reagan until the past couple of years, the US national debt increased from about 33% of GDP to more than 50% of GDP. Under what definition is this fiscal conservatism?

How is it fiscal conservatism? Really? Well....He cut taxes (Reagan tax cuts in 1981). He created policy that expanded free trade, began Govt. deregulation, He cut the US spending budget, He didn't allow for increase in minimum wage. He cut pork and useless programs, he lowered the rate of govt. workers. He cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28% and allowed people to invest and spend freely without the govt. stealing the funds and redistributing it.

That is all conservative and it was extremely effective. The American wealth increased by over 15 trillion usd. The median family income grew by 4000usd in his 8 years. . 16 million jobs were created. The inflation rate fell from almost 14% to 4% during his time in office. (cleaning up the ultra liberal carter's mess).

The GDP growth was -0.3% when he was elected and it ended at 4.1% when he left office. Revenue from tax reciepts increased under Reagan, however spending also increased. After the 1981 tax increase the reciepts fell by 1% of gdp but the actual number increased. Reagan did increase spending on the military which is still within conservative philosophy yet he did decrease wasteful social spending and cut down on the govt. workforce rates.

The perfect situation would be to have the house and the President agree to cut spending and taxes. If only for 5 years even. The economy would go through the roof and the deficit would get slashed and slashed hard. Cutting spending is the single most important issue and it is where socialists differ from conservatives the most sharply.

 

[jetset]

Coincidentally, found this on the Yahoo site today:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[slotplayer]

LOL....jab and hide, jab and hide.

No hiding or jabbing. I just have two retail websites and its the holiday season so I'm pretty busy right now.

However, I try not to get sucked into a senseless debate of past history. Extremists on both the Left and Right emphasize the pros of the ideology they believe and play down or omit the cons so why bother debating?

All the information about Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama or the recession of 1990 is there on the web. If the folks are truly interested in it they can go look it up and get an accurate account.

 

[GrandMaster]

How is it fiscal conservatism? Really? Well....He cut taxes (Reagan tax cuts in 1981). He created policy that expanded free trade, began Govt. deregulation, He cut the US spending budget, He didn't allow for increase in minimum wage. He cut pork and useless programs, he lowered the rate of govt. workers. He cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28% and allowed people to invest and spend freely without the govt. stealing the funds and redistributing it.

That is all conservative and it was extremely effective. The American wealth increased by over 15 trillion usd. The median family income grew by 4000usd in his 8 years. . 16 million jobs were created. The inflation rate fell from almost 14% to 4% during his time in office. (cleaning up the ultra liberal carter's mess).

The GDP growth was -0.3% when he was elected and it ended at 4.1% when he left office. Revenue from tax reciepts increased under Reagan, however spending also increased. After the 1981 tax increase the reciepts fell by 1% of gdp but the actual number increased. Reagan did increase spending on the military which is still within conservative philosophy yet he did decrease wasteful social spending and cut down on the govt. workforce rates.

The perfect situation would be to have the house and the President agree to cut spending and taxes. If only for 5 years even. The economy would go through the roof and the deficit would get slashed and slashed hard. Cutting spending is the single most important issue and it is where socialists differ from conservatives the most sharply.

We don't disagree about the tax cuts under Reagan, but spending did not decrease in line with government receipts, instead the deficit was financed by borrowing, which would make him a socialist by your definition.

 

[greasemonkey]

We don't disagree about the tax cuts under Reagan, but spending did not decrease in line with government receipts, instead the deficit was financed by borrowing, which would make him a socialist by your definition.

I see your point GM and you are correct. However,The spending was not social spending though. Social spending was actually cut and reduced. The increase in spending was to rebuild our military. Military spending is often cut and the military strength somewhat decreased under liberal policies. It is done to afford more money to social spending and such. Reagan increased spending only in the area of national defense. It was a huge increase in defense spending but social spending was diminished. That is conservative.
The oddity about his terms was that the tax receipts actually were growing at a faster rate than expenditures (of course he would have needed more than 8 years to even that out). He didn't cut the social spending overnight, it was in stages and had to be overcome. Reagan refused to allow our military to be underfunded and believed (rightfully so IMO) that defense was too important to wait and fund later.
Your point is valid in the context that spending wasn't decreased enough or fast enough. Although if we would have stuck to the same principles the deficit would be gone long ago....

My definition of socialist isn't borrowing money so long as there is a valid plan to get rid of the debt quickly. My definition is confiscating your property and giving to me.
Good post. I appreciate your insight and knowledge.

 

[LaurieJim]

Reagan a Socialist, never lmao Mr.Obama, well thats up for debateHe has to be the most spending, globe hopping President in my lifetime. Mr. Bush did travel out of country but as I recollect it was to sneak in and spend time with the troops during the holidays.He also, I hope will be remembered for the great works against Aids in Africa, more than any other President did.


Mr Reagan, will always be remembered for standing up for those that yearned for freedom and didnt put up with any crap from anyone, even telling them to bring down the wall in Germany, that brought freedom to so many.How soon they forget, but I wont.

It pisses me off that others see the US as such a bad place and we are always the bad guys, when yet we are always the first ones to help out other countries in their time of need.


Im proud to be an American and dont need to do an apology tour to state so Freedom is never free and it will always come at a cost, so that we are able to speak whats on our minds.

I just hope that the economy will turn around but dont see how it can be so under this Admin. When I watched the president on tv today over the Bush era and unemployment issue, he did more talking about dissing the republicans than whats most important, its those top earning companys and middle class folks that create jobs and keeps America employed.

We need to bring home all those jobs that American companys have taken overseas and give them a tax break to do so. Im about damn tired of having to talk to a customer service rep in India that I cant understand over my US owned cell phone and internet service, also some hospitals in the US are outing the jobs overseas as well. These are jobs that are needed at home and would be welcomed by those here that are unemployed.

Rant over for now, sometimes you just have to say whats on your mind, right?

Laurie

 

[footdr]

While Obamas compromise on taxes just saved my Business....

the fiscally smart thing to do would have been to NOT extend any of the tax cuts. Plus, I find it hypocritically the the dems. wanted to extend any of the tax cuts when they were so against them when they first passed in 2001 and then in 2003 and condemended Bushe for the past 5 years.

Passing them for the 95% of tax payers that "actually pay/owe taxes to begin with" is a loss of revenue equalling 3 trillion dollars over 10 years.

Passing for families and small businesses earning between $250,000.00 and 999,000.00 will cost approx. an additional 300,000 billion(small change for this overspending administration) and for all 3trillion 700 billion over 10 years.

Anyone who thinks that Millionaires and Billionaires don't spend money on goods, entertainment, real estate and the like, is an idiot.

While they may not create jobs with their tax savings, sole-proprietors and small businesses will.

The spending power of those earning over 200K is far more than those earning less.

And the expense to extend taxes to this group is also far less.

Extending tax cuts to the 95% Obama calls for will create how many jobs?
I am talking reality. I own a small business, decreasing taxes for my employees and not me will not create 1 job.