Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• Belly35

  

  bigkahuna;1146657 wrote:I'm not trying to start anything to much in depth or stray from the original topic, but didn't a lot of people have the same idea/opinion with Kerry vs. Bush in 2004? I was upset by Kerry in 2004, but that's what the Dems came up with.
  
  At least IMO, people felt the same about the Dems and John Kerry in 2004. It seemed like everyone hated Bush but had more faith in him than Kerry. I heard a lot of "I'm voting for Bush because he's the lesser of two evils" argument.

  I would vote for Nikko in 2012 becuase he's the lesser of the two evils. :laugh:
• gut

  bigkahuna;1146657 wrote: It seemed like everyone hated Bush but had more faith in him than Kerry. I heard a lot of "I'm voting for Bush because he's the lesser of two evils" argument.

  The economy is a HUGE difference. And Obama has reminded many independents (and Repubs, too) who voted for him in 2008 what they dislike/fear about socialism. If he can't get his base out, he's simply not going to win even if Romney can't get the far rights out. And for all the talk about Romney not inspiring that base, I still believe those ignorant rednecks will come out in droves to vote out Obama. In 2008, it was a lot easier to get fooled for Obama, much less sit on your thumbs because you didn't like McCain, then it will be for these people in 2012 (most of whom are sitting on much lighter wallets).
• believer

  

  "It's the economy, stupid"....does anyone or everyone remember that mantra the Dems used during the 1992 campaign when Slick Willy beat Bush Sr.?
  
  The economy was in far better shape then than it is now. Yet the Obama Kool Aid connoisseurs refuse to see it.
  
  I still don't trust Romney. I think he's a Dem in Repub clothing. But I have a hunch a Romney Administration will be a little more versed on economics than the Barry Bunch.
• bigkahuna

  believer;1147678 wrote:"It's the economy, stupid"....does anyone or everyone remember that mantra the Dems used during the 1992 campaign when Slick Willy beat Bush Sr.?
  
  The economy was in far better shape then than it is now. Yet the Obama Kool Aid connoisseurs refuse to see it.
  
  I still don't trust Romney. I think he's a Dem in Repub clothing. But I have a hunch a Romney Administration will be a little more versed on economics than the Barry Bunch.

  What else would you expect from a Massachusetts Republican? That'd be the equivalent to a Democrat pretty much everywhere else LOL.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;1147678 wrote:I still don't trust Romney. I think he's a Dem in Repub clothing. But I have a hunch a Romney Administration will be a little more versed on economics than the Barry Bunch.

  So here are the choices:
  1. The completely inexperienced, economically vapid, social engineer and incompentent leader currently occupying the White House. The single thing he got right in 3.5 years was ordering to put Bin Laden in the ocean.
  2. A RINO who will likely follow the Bush/Obama foreign policy, eliminate ObamaKare if the SCOTUS won't, make a start to reduce the annual deficits and won't appoint members of the gun-haters club to the Supremes.
  
  I don't like the Pub nominee either, but that ship has sailed away. The only choice left to make is to either send Barry back to finish his dismantling of the country or try a more traditional path back.
• HitsRus

  

  ....^^^^That
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;1147850 wrote:So here are the choices:
  1. The completely inexperienced, economically vapid, social engineer and incompentent leader currently occupying the White House. The single thing he got right in 3.5 years was ordering to put Bin Laden in the ocean.
  2. A RINO who will likely follow the Bush/Obama foreign policy, eliminate ObamaKare if the SCOTUS won't, make a start to reduce the annual deficits and won't appoint members of the gun-haters club to the Supremes.
  
  I don't like the Pub nominee either, but that ship has sailed away. The only choice left to make is to either send Barry back to finish his dismantling of the country or try a more traditional path back.

  Wholeheartedly agree....Here's another reason Barry has to go:
  
  [video][/video]
• BoatShoes

  believer;1148201 wrote:Wholeheartedly agree....Here's another reason Barry has to go:
  
  [video][/video]

  Durpy Durpy Durp Durp.
  
  H.R. 347 was introduced by Republican Thomas Rooney from Florida's 16th District and all but three Republicans voted for it. One of them of course being Ron Paul, the most true conservative presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater whom you chose not to vote for.
  
  Odd I don't see you arguing that all the Republicans need to go, no?
  
  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149
  
  The law is also a time, place and manner restriction which is totally kosher anyways.
  
  But you have to love the irony of Bolling and Napalitano talking about how it's some kind of grievous violation of the first amendment with the Constitution in the background considering that the same group of dudes who wrote the sucker passed the Alien and Sedition Acts...
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;1148232 wrote:But you have to love the irony of Bolling and Napalitano talking about how it's some kind of grievous violation of the first amendment with the Constitution in the background considering that the same group of dudes who wrote the sucker passed the Alien and Sedition Acts...

  touche'
• stlouiedipalma

  It's all so much BS, the whole campaign thing. Romney courted the extreme right during the early primary season, now he'll have to walk his supporters back to the center. Obama courts the extreme left of his party and now will have to walk them back to the center. I just wish we could fast-forward to November so we don't have to listen to all of the lies, half-truths and empty promises which both parties will serve up, at great expense, in order to sway the undecided.
  
  And in the end, Congress remains as dysfunctional as ever.
  
  Does it really matter?
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;1148936 wrote:It's all so much BS, the whole campaign thing. Romney courted the extreme right during the early primary season, now he'll have to walk his supporters back to the center. Obama courts the extreme left of his party and now will have to walk them back to the center. I just wish we could fast-forward to November so we don't have to listen to all of the lies, half-truths and empty promises which both parties will serve up, at great expense, in order to sway the undecided.
  
  And in the end, Congress remains as dysfunctional as ever.
  
  Does it really matter?

  I can't believe this but we agree.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;1148936 wrote: Does it really matter?

  Possibly all that does matter is a divided Congress/POTUS. Probably the worst scenario is one party in major control of all 3 - a potential disaster narrowly avoided in 2008.
  
  All I care about and hope for out of the next 4 years is a balanced budget. You can't convince me that we went from an arguably balanced budget to $1.5T deficits in about 10 years and there isn't easily $1T that can't be hacked pretty painlessly. Maybe Obama can shift from the class warfare rhetoric to getting the economy untracked and then actually make a dent in the deficit.
• stlouiedipalma

  gut;1149111 wrote:Possibly all that does matter is a divided Congress/POTUS. Probably the worst scenario is one party in major control of all 3 - a potential disaster narrowly avoided in 2008.
  
  All I care about and hope for out of the next 4 years is a balanced budget. You can't convince me that we went from an arguably balanced budget to $1.5T deficits in about 10 years and there isn't easily $1T that can't be hacked pretty painlessly. Maybe Obama can shift from the class warfare rhetoric to getting the economy untracked and then actually make a dent in the deficit.

  
  It won't matter if he has a sudden epiphany and becomes a fiscal conservative, because anything he proposes will automatically be rejected by the Republicans. Barring a supermajority Republican Senate, the same will happen if Romney wins. If these past 3+ years have taught us anything, it's that the minority party can effectively grind the wheels of government to a snail's pace, if not stop it completely. Get used to it, compromise is no longer a part of the D. C. vocabulary, regardless which party is in power.
• Footwedge

  gut;1149111 wrote:All I care about and hope for out of the next 4 years is a balanced budget. .

  Good luck with that. You're OK with all the offshoring of our manufacturing jobs. When private sector jobs go bye-bye, then the government "manufactures" jobs outside the womb of real goods productivity. When the government creates "shovel ready" jobs, they print fiat money. When they print fiat money, the national debt increases. When the national debt increases. future taxpayers are saddled with more debt....which they inherited and did not deserve.
  
  One of the "shovel ready" government creations is the expansion of the military. When wars are started, more kids enlist through the guise of patriotism. When more kids enlist thinking they are fighting for our freedoms, more orphans, widows and widowers are created. Or just as prevalently, more permanently maimed soldiers return only to be tended to by more taxpayer money...money that we do not have.
  
  You want a balanced budget? Less taxation? End the outsourcing of America.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  Footwedge;1149927 wrote:Good luck with that. You're OK with all the offshoring of our manufacturing jobs. When private sector jobs go bye-bye, then the government "manufactures" jobs outside the womb of real goods productivity. When the government creates "shovel ready" jobs, they print fiat money. When they print fiat money, the national debt increases. When the national debt increases. future taxpayers are saddled with more debt....which they inherited and did not deserve.
  
  One of the "shovel ready" government creations is the expansion of the military. When wars are started, more kids enlist through the guise of patriotism. When more kids enlist thinking they are fighting for our freedoms, more orphans, widows and widowers are created. Or just as prevalently, more permanently maimed soldiers return only to be tended to by more taxpayer money...money that we do not have.
  
  You want a balanced budget? Less taxation? End the outsourcing of America.

  Manufacturing jobs are gone and they aren't coming back. We now have machines, computers, etc. that are working on the assembly line.
• gut

  Y-Town Steelhound;1149945 wrote:Manufacturing jobs are gone and they aren't coming back. We now have machines, computers, etc. that are working on the assembly line.

  Yeah And there's also this thing called global competition. Some people really need to wake-up from the 80's, or at least pick-up an economics book.
  
  It's not an issue of being ok with it or not. It's simply acknowledging the reality and that "forcing" mfrs to plop down in the US and be uncompetitive on costs is not good for the economy. Maybe if we do something about the highest corporate rates in the developed world it can make a difference. But, oh no's, corporations make too much money and we need to raise taxes to fund the welfare state.
  
  Nobody complaining about the "offshoring" of jobs would do anything different if it was their wallet. It's just an extension of the welfare/entitlement state that such a policy is wrong, evil and unfair. As long as it's someone else's money, people have no problem pointing a finger.
• gut

  Footwedge;1149927 wrote: You want a balanced budget? Less taxation? End the outsourcing of America.

  And make everyone poorer significantly by paying 20% or more for goods to fund the uncompetitive wages to "insource". The only path to a balanced budget is to cut spending significantly. It's completely run away, pumping up $1.5T in deficit spending in just 10 years. Where is all that money going? Massive govt waste (like GSA trips to Vegas) and a SS/Medicare ponzi scheme.
• believer

  

  gut;1149950 wrote:Maybe if we do something about the highest corporate rates in the developed world it can make a difference. But, oh no's, corporations make too much money and we need to raise taxes to fund the welfare state.

  Spot on
• Footwedge

  gut;1149957 wrote:And make everyone poorer significantly by paying 20% or more for goods to fund the uncompetitive wages to "insource". The only path to a balanced budget is to cut spending significantly. It's completely run away, pumping up $1.5T in deficit spending in just 10 years. Where is all that money going? Massive govt waste (like GSA trips to Vegas) and a SS/Medicare ponzi scheme.

  OK you win. Vote for Bill Clinton.
• Footwedge

  Y-Town Steelhound;1149945 wrote:Manufacturing jobs are gone and they aren't coming back. We now have machines, computers, etc. that are working on the assembly line.

  China, India, and Vietnam use underpaid people...not machines. As for manufacturing, the US is already starting to bring them back. But a long ways to go.
• Footwedge

  gut;1149950 wrote:Yeah And there's also this thing called global competition. Some people really need to wake-up from the 80's, or at least pick-up an economics book.

  LOL. Plenty of economists out there that think your unfair practices on globalization is the number one reason for high unemployment and horrible economic growth here in the states. I guarantee you that I've read more econ books than you...and don't care what you majored in.
  

  It's not an issue of being ok with it or not.

  It most certainly is.

  It's simply acknowledging the reality and that "forcing" mfrs to plop down in the US and be uncompetitive on costs is not good for the economy.

  . And this type of thinking makes me question your level of understanding economics. You like 8.5% unemployment? You like 15 trillion in national debt? Ypu like fiat money? Or would you rather have full employment and pay an additional 5% for goods/services ? Not to mention that the IRS coiffers would dramatically rise. And...you act as if the manufacturers move simply to circumvent minimum wages...but you mention nothing regarding, child labor laws, human rights abuses, OSHA, NIOSH and other factors. If you would actually read a few books on the subjecvt, you would understand.

  Maybe if we do something about the highest corporate rates in the developed world it can make a difference.

  A completely false statement...and of course, unsourced.

  But, oh no's, corporations make too much money and we need to raise taxes to fund the welfare state.

  As opposed to keeping jobs at home and cutting the welfare state in half.
  

  Nobody complaining about the "offshoring" of jobs would do anything different if it was their wallet. It's just an extension of the welfare/entitlement state that such a policy is wrong, evil and unfair. As long as it's someone else's money, people have no problem pointing a finger.

  In earlier decades, there was in fact a patriotic pride in buying and manufacturinging in America. Today, it's quite obvious that corporate America, in bed with the legislature, have lining their own pockets wayyyyy above balancing a budget, keeping Americans working, and growing the GNP. That huuuuge sucking sound is that of the power brokers inhaling your earnings, savings, retirement and even your land. What a shame.
• Footwedge

  The brilliant Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Reaganite and Editor of the War Street Journal explains "outsourcing for dummies...."
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thBSuK4zLis
• QuakerOats

  http://www.freemarketamerica.org/
  
  
  ... the video says it all ....
• gut

  Footwedge;1150059 wrote:LOL. Plenty of economists out there that think your unfair practices on globalization is the number one reason for high unemployment and horrible economic growth here in the states. I guarantee you that I've read more econ books than you...and don't care what you majored in.

  Funny, I don't care how many books you've read when you clearly didn't understand the material. Reading a book doesn't mean you learned anything, as you demonstrate over and over again on this board. I mean, I could read every medical text ever written and it's not going to qualify me to give medical advice, much less perform surgery.
• gut

  Footwedge;1150059 wrote: It most certainly is. . And this type of thinking makes me question your level of understanding economics. You like 8.5% unemployment? You like 15 trillion in national debt?

  The point I'm getting at is making the pie smaller. Until you get this most fundamental of economic concepts you are incapable of engaging in any sort of intelligent debate.
  
  Which is worse, lower wages or higher prices? Fortunately, you don't have to choose because the Obama administration is doing it's best to give us both.