Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • wkfan
    Tiernan;1315254 wrote:Wow what's happened to Worthington? ...that used to be Upper Arlington Lite. Either way I doubt I see you on the soup line anytime soon WK.
    Same thing that has happened to most of the rest of the county for the last 4 years. Salaries are frozen, retirement fund is stagnant, costs for almost everything is up, especially gasoline and including taxes (oh wait...didn't BHO say 'of you make under $250,000...your taxes won't increase'?....another lie).

    Since the only soup line that I experience (thankfully) is the one that I serve on once a month...I doubt that I will see you.
  • Bigdogg
    Belly, enjoy the moment. Let us know when you sell your business! My guess your employees will be much bettter off.

  • jhay78
    Footwedge;1315164 wrote:Comrade, we've lived in a partial socialist state for 75 years or so. We would have remained the same had Romney been elected. Reagan espoused social programs too, believe it or not. Our republic has voted for it. Like it or not, that's what the democracy wants. Plenty of opportunity to repeal SS, welfare, UC, and many others. Never happened...and never will happen. Even if Ron Paul been elected (my choice), it would never happen. The vast majority of Americans think these policies need to stay. want to live in a country that has no social programs, then move to Canada....oh wait! In fact, good luck in finding even one country that doesn't provide for the good of their people. Oh, China would probably best fit your political agenda. No business regs, no UC bennies, no health care, no labor laws, no safety laws, no regs on clean air/water...you name it. Beijing is looking for people that view the world the way you do.
    Since I and no one else with a life has time to refute every falsehood in that post, I'll start with this. There's a huge difference between "protecting the social programs that have been promised to Americans" and promoting a social/welfare state. Reagan railed against LBJ's agenda in the 60's, and never touched SS and Medicare when he was pres because A) he wasn't a dictator, and B) by then millions of people paid into them and were expecting what they were promised.

    Tightening up the existing social programs that are etched into our society is a good idea. Expanding and inventing new ones is not.
  • QuakerOats
    Me thinks we need to start a new thread:


    Disgusted with obama administration II
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1316631 wrote:Me thinks we need to start a new thread:


    Disgusted with obama administration II

    Ehhh, let's give him 18 months, at least. The poor fellow has inherited a terrible mess.
  • Bigdogg
    jhay78;1316598 wrote:Since I and no one else with a life has time to refute every falsehood in that post, I'll start with this. There's a huge difference between "protecting the social programs that have been promised to Americans" and promoting a social/welfare state. Reagan railed against LBJ's agenda in the 60's, and never touched SS and Medicare when he was pres because A) he wasn't a dictator, and B) by then millions of people paid into them and were expecting what they were promised.

    Tightening up the existing social programs that are etched into our society is a good idea. Expanding and inventing new ones is not.

    I have yet to see you post any creditable facts that America is becoming more of a social/welfare state. I have posted on here before and you are free to look up for yourself the overwhelming majority of people on public assistance are children and the disabled. Since this is the people I deal with everyday, I will tell you beyond any shadow of doubt, it is not a good way to live, and it is not easy. You go ahead and spout your ignorant rants though, it's funny and sad all at the same time.
  • Bigdogg
    QuakerOats;1316631 wrote:Me thinks we need to start a new thread:


    Disgusted with obama administration II
    If you do there will be one about that bastard Kasich also.
  • tk421
    gut;1316651 wrote:Ehhh, let's give him 18 months, at least. The poor fellow has inherited a terrible mess.
    Does this mean that he can no longer blame Bush?




    :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
  • Abe Vigoda
    tk421;1316735 wrote:Does this mean that he can no longer blame Bush?




    :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
    Seriously, given that the President has very little control over expenditures that have been committed to previously over the past 200 years, how long do you think it would have been realistic for anyone to fix the problems dating back 2008? Hell, besides tax cuts and two unpaid wars Bush inherited lots of debt.
  • Devils Advocate
    This administration can't even screw our country right.

    It has had almost 4 entire years to send us off to bankrupt oblivion, when the right presided it would only take 2.
  • QuakerOats
    Bigdogg;1316702 wrote:If you do there will be one about that bastard Kasich also.
    Oh, you mean the guy who fixed an $8 billion budget deficit in less than 1/2 a term .........he's so mean.
  • Bigdogg
    QuakerOats;1318453 wrote:Oh, you mean the guy who fixed an $8 billion budget deficit in less than 1/2 a term .........he's so mean.
    LOL! first off it was way less then 8 billion, second he pasted the buck down to the local governments, third every governor in Ohio history has passed a balance budget, it's the law you fool! Wow, are you really that gullible?
  • QuakerOats
    Bigdogg;1318503 wrote:LOL! first off it was way less then 8 billion, second he pasted the buck down to the local governments, third every governor in Ohio history has passed a balance budget, it's the law you fool! Wow, are you really that gullible?
    Read up .......... you'll get there eventually.
  • Bigdogg
    QuakerOats;1318554 wrote:Read up .......... you'll get there eventually.
    I live it everyday I know. You need to get out of your suit.

  • Footwedge
    jhay78;1316598 wrote:Since I and no one else with a life has time to refute every falsehood in that post, I'll start with this. There's a huge difference between "protecting the social programs that have been promised to Americans" and promoting a social/welfare state. Reagan railed against LBJ's agenda in the 60's, and never touched SS and Medicare when he was pres because A) he wasn't a dictator, and B) by then millions of people paid into them and were expecting what they were promised.

    Tightening up the existing social programs that are etched into our society is a good idea. Expanding and inventing new ones is not.
    "Every falsehood"? Name one. You can't because there aren't any. Correcting you is an every day job here. You were the one that erroneously stated that Reagan didn't raise taxes. I proved to you that he significantly raised SS taxes. If I were QueenCityBuckeye, you would be called a liar...a serial liar for that matter. And the mods would offer no penalty for attacking the poster I might add.
  • majorspark
    Well at least we have all found common ground here. When the government causes more money to come out of ones pocket it is in fact a tax. No matter what they may call it. A credit one may not be eligible for, insurance, regulatory compliance...No matter how they sell it its still a tax.