Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;908228 wrote:I believe it was Herman Cain that said the 1st federal agency he would get rid of was the EPA. After reading the article, I'm going to agree with him if this is how they intend to operate. Oh wait...they also said that CO2 was a poison that needs regulated.

  Writerbuckeye;908316 wrote:Yes, they did. You lose.
  
  http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1887263,00.html

  The poison thing started with these posts not yours jmog.
  

  jmog;913367 wrote:Look back through my posts and the one you quoted when you asked for a link to the statement.
  
  Do that and you will NOT find me saying that the EPA called itba poison. I said they called it a danger to public health which isn't a big stretch from poison.
  
  Reread my post that YOU quoted when you asked for a link. You are wrong.

• gut

  BoatShoes;915022 wrote:A Bloomberg Survey of Economists suggests that "The American Jobs Act" will prevent a Recession in 2012.

  Technically, perhaps. $450B is around 3% of GDP (note the impact is predicted to add only 0.6% - ain't that ROI great), so that would offset a small dip in real GDP growth and avoid the technical definition of a recession, plus a small bump from an increase in employment. The Classical guys finally had their day when the last stimulus largely fell flat because people and businesses have finally started acting rationally the way models predict, which is to say increase savings in anticipation of future tax increases. I have serious doubts that this stimulus won't suffer a similar fate. On the other hand, maybe it is the case that the increase in savings recently was a return to normal, healthy rates, and a result of people feeling poorer because of housing and the markets and nothing to do with saving to offset future expected tax increases. Problem with economic models is people are generally too stupid or too hedonistic to make rational choices.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;915218 wrote:Well shuckydarn, let's spend and spend to reduce unemployment by an irrelevant amount.
  
  This country is destined to fail, we cannot collectively be this stupid, or are we?

  At least the disconnected buffoons in the Beltway are this stupid. It's almost as if our nation's "leaders" have a death wish.
  
  The incredible thing is this is not just happening here. The Euro-Socialists are clamoring to jump off the cliff faster than our elected idiots, the lost-decade Japanese are sitting around saying "DUH", and the Chi-coms are laughing all the way to the bank.
  
  Blows my mind.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;915025 wrote:I mean you're aware that what's killing Europe is austerity...you know

  And hell, all this time I thought it was years of spending money they didn't have on a false socialist utopian model.
  
  To heck with austerity, let's spend more money we don't have; that oughta work.
  
  
  Wow --- beam me up.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Valerie Jarrett just can't stop telling the truth about Obama - http://nation.foxnews.com/valerie-jarrett/2011/09/29/valerie-jarrett-point-government-give-people-livelihood-so-they-can-provide-their-families
  
  Hey Boat - still think the regime doesn't have communist ideas and leadership?
  
  Look at the people in the room, they are either dumbfounded at how in the hell she ever got to a position of power, or they have absolutely no idea of what she's saying. Marx never had a better pupil.:thumbdown:
• gut

  believer;915496 wrote:.. the lost-decade Japanese are sitting around saying "DUH"..

  Is it lost decadeS now, or did they reset the clock after a few year temporary reprieve? Our residential Austrian expert insists that wages just decrease in a deflationary environment, and that lower prices is a boom for demand and growth.
• jhay78

  

  BGFalcons82;915826 wrote:Valerie Jarrett just can't stop telling the truth about Obama - http://nation.foxnews.com/valerie-jarrett/2011/09/29/valerie-jarrett-point-government-give-people-livelihood-so-they-can-provide-their-families
  
  Hey Boat - still think the regime doesn't have communist ideas and leadership?
  
  Look at the people in the room, they are either dumbfounded at how in the hell she ever got to a position of power, or they have absolutely no idea of what she's saying. Marx never had a better pupil.:thumbdown:

  Bruce Bartlett (former Reagan advisor) thinks she's a moderate. :rolleyes:
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;915846 wrote:Is it lost decadeS now, or did they reset the clock after a few year temporary reprieve? Our residential Austrian expert insists that wages just decrease in a deflationary environment, and that lower prices is a boom for demand and growth.

  The Obama stimulus and bailouts haven't decreased unemployment rates or bankruptcy filings while home prices and home sales have fallen and can't get up. PIMCO's Bill Gross told Bloomberg this can all be fixed with nearly zero interest rates and additional debt to stimulate the animal spirits of investors and entrepreneurs. The federal-funds rate has been pegged at 0 to .25% since December 16, 2008, and Uncle Sam's debt is $13.3 trillion and counting. If this hasn't goosed the animal spirits, what will?
  
  
  The failure of central bankers to make things all better again by creating some money and lowering some interest rates has the financial press fretting about deflation and thinking the US economy is turning Japanese. James Bullard, who heads the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, came out with a paper entitled "Seven Faces of 'The Peril'." He concludes that the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC's) "extended period language may be increasing the probability of a Japanese-style outcome for the U.S." To avoid that outcome, Bullard argues that the Fed's most important tool is quantitative easing — printing money to buy government debt.
  The Wall Street Journal's James B. Stewart claims deflation is bad because "deflation erodes profits and asset values," in his "Smartmoney" column.
  [INDENT] People wait to buy expecting lower prices, reducing demand. Lower profits cause companies to cut expenses, including employees. It is a downward spiral that, if Japan's experience is any indication, is difficult to arrest.
  [/INDENT] Mr. Stewart is wrong on all counts. Profits are the difference between the price we sell a good for and the price it costs to produce that good. As Jörg Guido Hülsmann makes clear in his book Deflation & Liberty, "In a deflation, both sets of prices drop, and as a consequence for-profit production can go on."
  
  
  And while asset values may drop, the assets don't go away. The real wealth of the nation — assets used for production — are still available to produce. However, it may be that because the debt is liquidated on those assets as prices fall, new owners will own and operate the assets, but commerce and production will certainly carry on.
  Lower prices increase demand; they do not reduce or delay it. That's why more and more people own flat-screen TVs, cellular telephones, and laptop computers: the prices of these goods have fallen, and people with lower incomes can afford them. And there are more low-income people than high-income people.
  
  
  Lower prices don't mean lower profits; nor do they mean that employees will be laid off. More demand for a good or service means more employees needed to produce those goods and services. "There is no reason why inflation should ever reduce rather than increase unemployment," Hülsmann writes.
  [INDENT] People become unemployed or remain unemployed when they do not wish to work, or if they are forcibly prevented from working for the wage rate an employer is willing to pay. Inflation does not change this fact.
  [/INDENT] Hülsmann goes on to point out that only if workers underestimate the amount of money created by the central bank and therefore reduce their real wage-rate demands will unemployment be reduced. "All plans to reduce unemployment through inflation therefore boil down to fooling the workers — a childish strategy, to say the least."
  Of course, Mr. Bullard over at the St. Louis Fed doesn't mention anything in his paper about individuals attaining their goals through subjective knowledge and pricing decisions. Instead he draws lots of lines on graphs and talks about Taylor-type policy rule, zero bound, the Fisher relation, "targeted" steady states, and lots of stuff that has nothing to do with economics.
  
  
  So while the bond-buying Mr. Gross says zero rates will arouse the animal spirits in all of us, Mr. Bullard worries that "promising to remain at zero for a long time is a double-edged sword." Bullard writes that zero rates are "consistent with the idea that inflation and inflation expectations should rise in response to [that] promise." But in the same paragraph he continues,
  [INDENT] But the policy is also consistent with the idea that inflation and inflation expectations will instead fall, and that the economy will settle in the neighborhood of the unintended steady state, as Japan has in recent years.
  [/INDENT] Wow, no wonder Keynesian central banking is so hard. You're damned if you cut rates and damned if you don't. "I moved the line on the graph. Let's see some animal spirits for crying out loud!"
  
  
  In the real world, banks aren't lending because, as Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression, if rates are too low, bankers have no incentive to lend, especially in a risky economic environment. Also, as Professor Jeffrey Herbener wrote in the Asian Wall Street Journal, "with distressed banks, reflation fails to induce another bank credit expansion."
  [INDENT] Keynesians have mistaken the impotency of the Bank of Japan to restart credit expansion in the 1990s as a liquidity trap. But the problem is not that interest rates are so low everyone expects them to rise and therefore hoards cash. Banks refuse to lend because of the overhang of bad debt. Any cash infusion is held as reserve against it. Businesses refuse to borrow because of their debt burden, built up to expand capacity during the boom, and their over-capacity resulting from their malinvestments.
  [/INDENT] Japan has tried every stimulus trick in the book — in addition to holding rates at zero — and still its economy has been in a funk for two decades. But firing a worker in Japan is virtually forbidden and don't get the idea that consumer prices have fallen through the floor. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), last year saw the biggest drop in consumer prices at 1.13%, after prices rose 1.4% the year before. The chart of Japan's inflation rate is essentially flat. Not exactly the deadly deflationary spiral it's made out to be.
  
  
  Hülsmann explains that the Japanese government hasn't allowed deflation to heal their economy, with "the only result of this policy [being] to give a zombie life to the hopelessly bureaucratic and bankrupt conglomerates that control Japanese industry, banking and politics."
  
  
  As for Bullard's quantitative-easing (QE) idea, the Bank of Japan has done plenty of it, buying not only government bonds but corporate debt and stocks as well. Bullard's colleagues over at the San Francisco Fed have studied whether it worked. In a 2006 report, Vice President Mark M. Spiegel wrote that QE lowered long-term interest rates and "there appears to be evidence that the program aided weaker Japanese banks and generally encouraged greater risk-tolerance in the Japanese financial system."
  
  
  Spiegel concluded, "In strengthening the performance of the weakest Japanese banks, quantitative easing may have had the undesired impact of delaying structural reform."
  
  
  
  
  "Deflation is one of the great scarecrows of present day economic policy and monetary policy in particular," Hülsmann told his Economics of Deflation class at this year's Mises University. It seems a nation will destroy its finances battling the nonthreat. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says the Bank of Japan "needs to keep interest rates close to zero and continue its asset-purchase program until there is a 'definitive' end to deflation," Bloomberg reports. But in the same report the OECD worried that the Bank of Japan's ability to stimulate would be curtailed by Japan's public-debt-to-GDP ratio approaching 200%.
  
  
  Sounds like the folks at the OECD, like Mr. Bullard, can't make up their minds. What Austrians know for sure is that, as Professor Hülsmann makes clear, "the dangers of deflation are chimerical, but its charms are very real." Inflation, on the other hand, only helps those who are massively indebted and inefficient — governments.
  

  http://mises.org/daily/4623
• QuakerOats

  BGFalcons82;915826 wrote:Valerie Jarrett just can't stop telling the truth about Obama - http://nation.foxnews.com/valerie-jarrett/2011/09/29/valerie-jarrett-point-government-give-people-livelihood-so-they-can-provide-their-families
  
  Hey Boat - still think the regime doesn't have communist ideas and leadership?
  
  Look at the people in the room, they are either dumbfounded at how in the hell she ever got to a position of power, or they have absolutely no idea of what she's saying. Marx never had a better pupil.:thumbdown:

  
  You must be a hater; these people are merely centrists with the right prescription for our ills, but the repubs in the house are saying no to jobs.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;915213 wrote:You need to read your own link.
  
  Craptacular growth does not necessarily mean > recession.
  
  There was no good news in that article. If there was any, please point it out.

  Of course it's not good news but this is the age of diminished expectations because people have forgotten the lessons of the great depression and 1990's Japan. The first stimulus was too small amounting to only about $250 in fiscal expansionary efforts after the offsets by the state's austerity and Keynesians warned that it was way, way, way to small to counter the economic contraction and that Conservatives would use that to say that it failed (and you do say that despite the fact that it worked even in its small capacity!)
  
  
  
  
  
  And there's plenty of more evidence if you'd care to look.
  
  The point is economists agree that the AJA would help....and we need to go bigger...WWII style bigger when we spent 42 times the u.s. economy
  
  It's like history is repeating itself....we repeated the mistake of 1937 when everyone went austerity on both sides of the atlantic prior to making it out of the recession (which is predictable given the small size of the stimulus) and now what's happening in Europe is teetering on similarity to the collapse of Credit-Anstalt to make the "Great Depression Great"
  
  We need big time fiscal expansion as Monetary policy is at its wits end. We also need banks and the federal government to forgive and renegotiate the tremendous debt overhang consistent with Irving Fisher's debt deflation theory of depressions but those negotiations and clemency's aren't happening so higher targeted inflation would be the best bet as it would alleviate the debt burden. No need to worry about stagflation al la the seventies because we're no where near the natural rate of unemployment.
  
  But, the point is, you my friend would not support any of those things. This is the world we're living in:
  
  
• BoatShoes

  gut;915485 wrote:Technically, perhaps. $450B is around 3% of GDP (note the impact is predicted to add only 0.6% - ain't that ROI great), so that would offset a small dip in real GDP growth and avoid the technical definition of a recession, plus a small bump from an increase in employment. The Classical guys finally had their day when the last stimulus largely fell flat because people and businesses have finally started acting rationally the way models predict, which is to say increase savings in anticipation of future tax increases.

  I respectfully disagree. The stimulus helped but it was not large enough to make up for the contraction in aggregate demand and slacking demand, not uncertainty or skittishness over future taxes or regulations are the reason the economy is still depressed. The classical guys also said that there would be a rise in interest rates whereas the keynesian story said otherwise.
  
  It is true that when the Recovery Act passed unemployment got higher but it would have gone higher still without the Recovery Act—that’s a consensus among non-partisan experts—but unfortunately that is an awfully hard hand to play as evidenced by how many conservatives say "They said unemployment wouldn't go higher than 8%" The administration tied their own hands by making that claim and underestimating how high it would go.
  
  However, that was tough not to do because the administration came to power right as the storm was hitting (GDP contracted by 9% the quarter before he took office); FDR took the stage when the storm had been upon the land for years already with unemployment above 20%. In a voter's eye it's as if Obama was responsible whereas in FDR's day the public had seen the result of doing nothing.
  
  But anyway, Here's a piece by Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute if you have the time. http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/
  
  As an aside, I don't think efforts to stem up long term uncertainty problems would hurt for what it's worth. For instance, Barack Obama keeps trumping up extension of a "temporary" payroll tax cut which Robert Barro argued against because he also doesn't believe in the Keynesian story. But I think a reduction in the corporate marginal rate would be a good move. In essence, a long term cut in that rate would be like a permanent cut in the payroll tax as it acts in a similar fashion. It's already too high anyway and is a poor revenue raiser and would go a long way towards making BHO seem more friendly to business. So there's no reason you couldn't put that in as a long term package to go along with the short term fiscal stimulus (even though it's way too small). Hopefully such a rate reduction will come out of the deficit commission.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;915898 wrote:http://mises.org/daily/4623

  Yawn. And yet, Japan is mired fighting deflation. Oh, but it's not a problem...Nevermind everything that's supposed to happen in such a scenario, according to Austrians, hasn't. But it's because of meddling intervention. A convenient argument, if not somewhat circular logic.
  
  The gold standard argument falls flat on its face. They blame volatile swings in those times on Central Banks departing from the gold standard. Errr, fiscal discipline is about the only argument in favor of a gold standard. So they've defeated their own argument. And then at the cost of the central bank to intervene to manage frictions and liquidity issues - a very real tool with proven benefits of shorter and shallower recessions. Yes, we had a doozy of a recession, the track record is still far superior when held-up against that of the gold standard.
  
  Honestly, the Austrians can't pull their own heads out of the textbook up their ass. The theory is all nice and dandy, but the assumptions ignore frictions and real world economics, such as wages are sticky and cannot adjust as quickly as prices in a deflating regime, which chokes off growth. Suppliers often enter into multi-year contracts, and that means significant deflation puts you out of business. The long-term might be nice if your business can survive the short-run. Economists tend to want to brush-off the short-run, but reality is the long-run doesn't matter to those who can't survive.
  
  And I'm not a Keynesian, either, but the Austrians buried their head in the sand for 25 some years while their theories weren't holding up to real world experience, and now they come storming back in as if one big recession has vindicated them. The truth, the reality, and sound policy lay somewhere in between.
  
  And. umm, what happens on a gold standard with a growing global population and a relatively fixed money supply. Ohh, it's just deflation, and everything magically adjust downward (except it doesn't work that way in the real world). Not to mention, the US is a net importer - what happens with all that gold flow out of the US? What about the fact that, limited as it is, most gold is mined outside of the US? It's idotic. The people arguing practically for the gold standard aren't really arguing for a gold standard but making a political statement in support of fiscal discipline. It's the same thing with FairTax. It gets lost on the sheeple, but the gold standard is little more than a theoretical argument about how to institute more fiscal discipline (the gold standard itself proven not much better in that regard).
• gut

  BoatShoes;915923 wrote:I respectfully disagree. The stimulus helped but it was not large enough to make up for the contraction in aggregate demand and slacking demand, not uncertainty or skittishness over future taxes or regulations are the reason the economy is still depressed. The classical guys also said that there would be a rise in interest rates whereas the keynesian story said otherwise. .

  Some good points, I'd say the truth is somewhere in between, and frictions and irrationalities (which are notoriously hard to account for in these descriptive models) unbalances everything. I'll try to read your link when I get a chance.
  
  I disagree that people and businesses haven't reacted to uncertainty or future taxes. There's a reason businesses are sitting on a ginormous pile of cash, and likely that is why we didn't see the pick-up in demand, because the third leg of a recovery is always hiring, which never materialized. Put even half the people back to full employment (which would still be well short of historical full employment) and your demand problem is solved.
  
  Businesses were doing well. The stimulus worked in that regard. You have to dig deeper to understand why businesses didn't hire, which is why the recovery has never really taken root and developed into full-blown expansion. And in this case I don't think more stimulus would have made a difference. It may be irrational fear, but a lot of businesses and people hunkered down with alarm over the ballooning deficit and debt. I truly believe the greatest "stimulus" Washington can offer right now is a balanced budget, because IMO that fear and uncertainty stemming from that is the real drag on the economy.
  
  As a side note, the old adage of having 6-months savings for a rainy day has been extended to 12 month, even 18 or more. National savings rates were unsustainably low, even negative at one point, for far too long. But I think the savings rate is a bit higher than it would otherwise be as the non-recovery drags on and having gone through this - back to the uncertainty thing. People who do have jobs putting an extra 6-12 months of savings away for a rainy day (businesses, too) is a pretty big headwind for aggregate demand.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;915826 wrote:Valerie Jarrett just can't stop telling the truth about Obama - http://nation.foxnews.com/valerie-jarrett/2011/09/29/valerie-jarrett-point-government-give-people-livelihood-so-they-can-provide-their-families
  
  Hey Boat - still think the regime doesn't have communist ideas and leadership?
  
  Look at the people in the room, they are either dumbfounded at how in the hell she ever got to a position of power, or they have absolutely no idea of what she's saying. Marx never had a better pupil.:thumbdown:

  Wow man wow...that is really all you've got...this is your coup de gras? Jees you're suggesting that she's saying that the administration wants to hire and provide for people whan that is not it at all. All a reasonable person could glean from that is that the administration wants to or should be active in combatting unemployment. C'MON MAN! Marx never had a better pupil? From that video? You are reaching brosef, hard.
  
  I mean you hold up that video with a tenuous relationship between her statements to ideological marxism at best versus actual policy making and you side with that. I hope you're never on a jury my friend as your standard of proof for propositions you already think true a priori are not up to scrutiny.
  
  Furthermore, let's think about this; Valerie Jarret served as the chairman of the Chicago Stock Exchange and was on the board for a total of 7 years. What kind of marxist/communist, having any principles whatsoever would serve on the Chicago Stock Exchange? That would be like James Dobson serving on the Board of Planned Parenthood.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;915936 wrote:Yawn. And yet, Japan is mired fighting deflation. Oh, but it's not a problem...Nevermind everything that's supposed to happen in such a scenario, according to Austrians, hasn't. But it's because of meddling intervention. A convenient argument, if not somewhat circular logic.

  The reason they are still fighting it is because they never let it happen. We would be in the same position now except our currency is in a much more precarious position than theirs is/was. It isn't so hard for us to inflate prices, soon the inflation will be out of control.
  

  gut;915936 wrote: The gold standard argument falls flat on its face. They blame volatile swings in those times on Central Banks departing from the gold standard. Errr, fiscal discipline is about the only argument in favor of a gold standard. So they've defeated their own argument. And then at the cost of the central bank to intervene to manage frictions and liquidity issues - a very real tool with proven benefits of shorter and shallower recessions. Yes, we had a doozy of a recession, the track record is still far superior when held-up against that of the gold standard.

  Because you said so? The recessions in between the big ones are shallower, sure. Not shorter, but shallower. But then you have the big ones every 40 years or on a scale that never happened before. Good for you if you believe that is superior to what we had before.
  

  gut;915936 wrote: Honestly, the Austrians can't pull their own heads out of the textbook up their ass. The theory is all nice and dandy, but the assumptions ignore frictions and real world economics, such as wages are sticky and cannot adjust as quickly as prices in a deflating regime, which chokes off growth. Suppliers often enter into multi-year contracts, and that means significant deflation puts you out of business. The long-term might be nice if your business can survive the short-run. Economists tend to want to brush-off the short-run, but reality is the long-run doesn't matter to those who can't survive.

  These "real world" frictions can't be adjusted to? Or you just assume everything would operate the same way in a sound money economy as opposed to our inflationary bubble economy. Abrupt severe deflation would obviously hurt a lot of people and businesses. You only get that when you are coming down from an inflationary boom though. The slow steady deflation of a healthy free market economy is never severe enough that it couldn't be adjusted for.
  

  gut;915936 wrote: And I'm not a Keynesian, either, but the Austrians buried their head in the sand for 25 some years while their theories weren't holding up to real world experience, and now they come storming back in as if one big recession has vindicated them. The truth, the reality, and sound policy lay somewhere in between.

  The Austrians never went anywhere. People just didn't want to listen to them. Who wants to work when you can just print money?
  

  gut;915936 wrote: And. umm, what happens on a gold standard with a growing global population and a relatively fixed money supply. Ohh, it's just deflation, and everything magically adjust downward (except it doesn't work that way in the real world).

  Yes the result is slow, steady deflation, assuming everyone around the world stayed on a gold standard, which they wouldn't. And yes, you have made it clear that the economy is rigid and unable to adjust, it only knows what the Federal Reserve and federal government tell it to know.
  

  gut;915936 wrote: Not to mention, the US is a net importer - what happens with all that gold flow out of the US? What about the fact that, limited as it is, most gold is mined outside of the US? It's idotic. The people arguing practically for the gold standard aren't really arguing for a gold standard but making a political statement in support of fiscal discipline. It's the same thing with FairTax. It gets lost on the sheeple, but the gold standard is little more than a theoretical argument about how to institute more fiscal discipline (the gold standard itself proven not much better in that regard).

  The United States would lose a lot of their gold if they continued the unsustainable pattern of trade deficits. We would have to make the things we want to buy and make things that other countries wanted to buy. It sucks. We would have to work again instead of sitting in an office on Wall Street and gamble with newly printed dollars every day. Assuming our economy became healthy again though, we would stem the loss of gold and eventually gain gold from other countries who are buying our exports. Fiscal discipline is a big part of the case for gold (not the whole case though), and yes as long as government has control over the money, nothing is perfect for enforcing discipline. It still has a history of being much more effective than fiat currency and central banks.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;915956 wrote:Wow man wow...that is really all you've got...this is your coup de gras? Jees you're suggesting that she's saying that the administration wants to hire and provide for people whan that is not it at all. All a reasonable person could glean from that is that the administration wants to or should be active in combatting unemployment. C'MON MAN! Marx never had a better pupil? From that video? You are reaching brosef, hard.
  
  I mean you hold up that video with a tenuous relationship between her statements to ideological marxism at best versus actual policy making and you side with that. I hope you're never on a jury my friend as your standard of proof for propositions you already think true a priori are not up to scrutiny.
  
  Furthermore, let's think about this; Valerie Jarret served as the chairman of the Chicago Stock Exchange and was on the board for a total of 7 years. What kind of marxist/communist, having any principles whatsoever would serve on the Chicago Stock Exchange? That would be like James Dobson serving on the Board of Planned Parenthood.

  Huh...I've re-read my post and am confused about how you got from Point A to Point WTF.
  
  NEVER said it's all I've got. It's just another daily visit into the depths of the regime's psyche.
  NEVER said it's my coup de gras. Maybe you're hoping it is?
  There will be more tomorrow and the next day and the next day from the socialists and marxists associated with Barry and the Agitators.
  
  These type statements come out daily from the Left. Did you hear what the governor of North Carolina had to say about suspending elections and what Orszag wrote about having less democracy yesterday? Let me know if you need links. I'll remind you that Peter Orszag was Barry's OMB director. If you just pay attention, you can hear their words.
  
  Regarding the video that apparently wasn't working very well for you: Here are direct quotes from Karl's "A" student:
  
  "We have to give people a livelihood so they can provide for their families"
  "It's a moral decision"
  "We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, a footing, and that is what government is supposed to do."
  
  She couldn't have explained communism any better if she tried. Did you notice she wasn't reading it...it came quite naturally to her?
  
  Regarding her stint on the Stock Exchange for 7 years: Reagan was the head of a guild and a registered Democrat for a good portion of his childish days. It's quite possible to change political stripes, therefore your analogy fails. Hell, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 instead of the Gipper. Part of growing up.
• majorspark

  

  Um the governor of North Carolina was just joking. No wait it was hyperbole. Wait the hyperbole thing was a joke too. It was just sarcasm.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;916012 wrote:Regarding her stint on the Stock Exchange for 7 years: Reagan was the head of a guild and a registered Democrat for a good portion of his childish days. It's quite possible to change political stripes, therefore your analogy fails. Hell, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 instead of the Gipper. Part of growing up.

  LOL Me too!
• QuakerOats

  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/obama-s-standing-with-global-investors-reverses-to-57-unfavorable-in-poll.html
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Can at the very least, we all agree that the President is kicking ass on the terrorism front?
  Al-Aulaqi and his number killed in a drone strike.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/eveningnews/main20114151.shtml
  
  I'm shocked this isn't a bigger story on here. This is basically the biggest leader of AQAP and behind the other attacks against the U.S.
• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;917676 wrote:Can at the very least, we all agree that the President is kicking ass on the terrorism front?
  Al-Aulaqi and his number killed in a drone strike.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/eveningnews/main20114151.shtml
  
  I'm shocked this isn't a bigger story on here. This is basically the biggest leader of AQAP and behind the other attacks against the U.S.

  What has Obama done to kick ass on the Terrorism front? I fail to see how the president gets the credit for something the military is accomplishing.
• tk421

  

  Exactly, unless you're suggesting if there were a Republican president in the WH that the exact same things wouldn't be happening?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sleeper;917686 wrote:What has Obama done to kick ass on the Terrorism front? I fail to see how the president gets the credit for something the military is accomplishing.

  lol, the President is Commander in Chief, plus gives the final order on whether to execute the order.
  He also directs the CIA to continue to use the drones and to operate in Yemen.
  
  Add in the fact that Obama has increased the use of drone strikes, using them more in 3 years than Bush did in 8.
• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;917698 wrote:lol, the President is Commander in Chief, plus gives the final order on whether to execute the order.
  He also directs the CIA to continue to use the drones and to operate in Yemen.
  
  Add in the fact that Obama has increased the use of drone strikes, using them more in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

  Cool. A trained monkey could do the same thing.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Yeah Obama is kicking ass. Assassinating U.S. citizens without due process is always a great thing. The founders of this country would be thrilled.