Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• BGFalcons82

  

  tk421;1034580 wrote:Ha! And people called me paranoid when I talked about the slippery slope.
  
  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166
  
  
  
  Engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States. Perhaps like speaking out against the government, activism against the government? No, of course our government would never seek to suppress those speaking out against them, that would never ever happen, right? Slippery slope, stop being so paranoid.

  I never thought I'd see a worse POS legislation than ObamaKare, but this one might just top it. To think rights granted to each and every American in blood 235 years ago can be wiped away with the swipe of a pen, without an Amendment process, and an ignorant kept media spending inordinate time looking for statements from Gingrich's ex-wives, is very very troubling, if not the end of what we used to call America. When the 2nd Amendment disappears, America will be officially over.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1035141 wrote:We already thoroughly covered this in the past. Not sure why I even bother but what they hey. Even if you accept that government should not grow in the future as a percentage of gdp, bringing in only 14% of GDP in revenue...well below the historical average...will ensure large deficits with out very large spending cuts that will decrease the size of government to levels not seen since before WWII. And, with a refusal to cut defense spending, social security and medicare right now drastically...that is not achievable. And of course, such cuts would raise unemployment drastically and ensure slow economic growth for several years because austerity in a slump only makes problems worse and ultimately be self-defeating. This is not in dispute at this point. This is why you have to have balanced deficit reduction over time. Do you even care that what you think would work is being tried in Europe and proving disastrous? Does it even matter to you?
  
  Even if you want to get government to only be 10% of GDP you're going to have to grow your way there and not cut your way there and if you want to cut things you have to get to full employment first. Getting government to 10% of GDP may be a wise goal but even if it were it has to be achieved over time and could be achieved faster with an increase in revenue in the near term.

  
  It just is not sinking in is it? As short as 4 years ago, in 2007, we had a deficit of 'just' $160 billion --- revenues of $2.56 trillion, and outlays of $2.72 trillion. In 2012 we are projected to have a deficit of over $1.1 TRILLION, even though revenues will be $60 billion higher than they were in 2007. Most people understand that that means we have had a SPENDING EXPLOSION. And 2012 is on top of the already-3-year multi-trillion dollar deficits --- the spending binge is beyond astounding. Obama would have been fired 2 years ago if it were possible, as would any CEO of any company whose policies have done nothing but make absolutely everything worse that he has touched.
  
  He has taken the size of the entire federal government from where it was just 10 short years ago AND DOUBLED IT. THAT IS CRIMINAL!! IT IS THEFT FROM US AND AT LEAST 2 FUTURE GENERATIONS, supposing we could even survive that long which we cannot.
  
  
  You act like we did not have a defense department and social security and medicare just 10 years ago when we had a surplus; obviously we had these programs and managed in at least a half-assed manner to keep deficits to a somewhat managable level. The problem is this guy has come up with an extra trillion or more, PER YEAR, in additional spending to create a level of dependency never seen before in our history -- over 43 million on food stamps. He is the King of Food Stamps, and the King of Unemployment.
  
  He is the ultimate socialist / marxist, or whatever you want to call him. I don't know if you get paid to spin your hogwash, but my goodness you are so far off base it is laughable.
• QuakerOats

  The tin-pot dictator strikes again:
  
  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LABOR_BOARD_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-04-15-24-18
  
  
  Change we can believe in .........
• fish82

  

  QuakerOats;1038847 wrote:The tin-pot dictator strikes again:
  
  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LABOR_BOARD_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-04-15-24-18
  
  
  Change we can believe in .........

  Meh....no biggie IMO. The "agency" isn't even funded, so Cordray can sit on the sidewalk and do whatever he's supposed to be doing.
• QuakerOats

  fish82;1038852 wrote:Meh....no biggie IMO. The "agency" isn't even funded, so Cordray can sit on the sidewalk and do whatever he's supposed to be doing.

  It is the NLRB recess appt's that is the problem.
• BGFalcons82

  

  fish82;1038852 wrote:Meh....no biggie IMO. The "agency" isn't even funded, so Cordray can sit on the sidewalk and do whatever he's supposed to be doing.

  Not to be picky, but when we have a $1,200,000,000,000 budget deficit, how is any agency "funded"?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  In one of the most blacked-out stories in America right now, the US military is preparing to send thousands of US troops, along with US Naval anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel, to Israel. It took forever to find a second source for confirmation of this story and both relatively mainstream media outlets are in Israel. With one source saying the military deployment and corresponding exercises are to occur in January, the source providing most of the details suggests it will occur later this spring.
  
  Calling it not just an “exercise”, but a “deployment”, the Jerusalem Post quotes US Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany. The US Commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.” In an effort to respond to recent Iranian threats and counter-threats, Israel announced the largest ever missile defense exercise in its history. Now, it’s reported that the US military, including the US Navy, will be stationed throughout Israel, also taking part.
  

  http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/us-troops-going-to-israel483/
  
  There's your president telling everyone about bringing the troops home and downsizing our military while sending our young men and women off to prep for another war of conquest.
• I Wear Pants

  Why are we sending troops to Israel? That seems stupid to me.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040205 wrote:http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/us-troops-going-to-israel483/
  
  There's your president telling everyone about bringing the troops home and downsizing our military while sending our young men and women off to prep for another war of conquest.

  War of conquest? Its a defensive deployment of a few thousand. When we are massing troops on Iran's borders we can talk conquest.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040270 wrote:Why are we sending troops to Israel? That seems stupid to me.

  Its not stupid to maintain a funtioning military relationship with friendly nations. Its a very small contingent of troops. Also contrary to popular belief nuclear armed missiles are not Israel's big worry. Its massive barrages of conventionally armed missiles and rockets. I have no problem with this. When it comes to foreign military deployments we have greater fish to fry.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040575 wrote:Its not stupid to maintain a funtioning military relationship with friendly nations. Its a very small contingent of troops. Also contrary to popular belief nuclear armed missiles are not Israel's big worry. Its massive barrages of conventionally armed missiles and rockets. I have no problem with this. When it comes to foreign military deployments we have greater fish to fry.

  I have a massive problem with this. We should not have thousands of troops in Israel. "We have bigger fish to fry?" Please tell me you don't have other places in mind to send our troops.
  
  Who is going to bomb Israel that won't already be destroyed by Israel's military? Israel is far and away the biggest military power in the region. Which isn't surprising considering we pay for it.
• majorspark

  

  fish82;1038852 wrote:Meh....no biggie IMO. The "agency" isn't even funded, so Cordray can sit on the sidewalk and do whatever he's supposed to be doing.

  Its always a biggie when the constitution is violated.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040598 wrote:I have a massive problem with this. We should not have thousands of troops in Israel. "We have bigger fish to fry?" Please tell me you don't have other places in mind to send our troops.

  I am talking about foreign military deployments that need scaled back. Those that number in the 10's of thousands and lasted more than half a century.
  

  I Wear Pants;1040598 wrote:Who is going to bomb Israel that won't already be destroyed by Israel's military? Israel is far and away the biggest military power in the region. Which isn't surprising considering we pay for it.

  Well lots of people have but Israel has never destroyed them because you people would go ape shit if they did.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  majorspark;1040575 wrote:Its not stupid to maintain a funtioning military relationship with friendly nations. Its a very small contingent of troops. Also contrary to popular belief nuclear armed missiles are not Israel's big worry. Its massive barrages of conventionally armed missiles and rockets. I have no problem with this. When it comes to foreign military deployments we have greater fish to fry.

  So we need to send our young people over there to get hit with these rockets?
  

  majorspark;1040575 wrote:Well lots of people have but Israel has never destroyed them because you people would go ape shit if they did.

  Exactly, we buy their obedience with billions in foreign aid. We tie their hands. Why not leave Israel the fuck alone and let them defend themselves as they see fit, maybe treat them like a sovereign nation? I don't care if Israel conquers the whole Middle East as long as our troops aren't doing the fighting for them.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040613 wrote:I am talking about foreign military deployments that need scaled back. Those that number in the 10's of thousands and lasted more than half a century.

  Okay good. But can't we scale those back and um, not expand other ones?
  
  

  Well lots of people have but Israel has never destroyed them because you people would go ape shit if they did.

  And shouldn't we? Why should we support Israel just wiping out everyone in the area? I mean support as in, cheer on, not with military means either. We should allow Israel to operate by themselves as an independant nation. And if they choose to act justly then we should praise them and unjustly we should work to get them to stop. We don't need to be either actively subsidizing or fighting every damned country in the middle east.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040656 wrote:Okay good. But can't we scale those back and um, not expand other ones?

  If we scale back say 30,000 and redeploy say six to more relevent areas, its not an expansion. I realize the more massive scale back is not happening with this deployment but it should.
  

  I Wear Pants;1040656 wrote:And shouldn't we? Why should we support Israel just wiping out everyone in the area? I mean support as in, cheer on, not with military means either. We should allow Israel to operate by themselves as an independant nation. And if they choose to act justly then we should praise them and unjustly we should work to get them to stop. We don't need to be either actively subsidizing or fighting every damned country in the middle east.

  Your are the one who mentioned destroy as a deterent. Israel will not destroy their enemies for two reasons: One you people will go ape shit. Two they choose to restrain their power.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040687 wrote:If we scale back say 30,000 and redeploy say six to more relevent areas, its not an expansion. I realize the more massive scale back is not happening with this deployment but it should.
  
  
  
  Your are the one who mentioned destroy as a deterent. Israel will not destroy their enemies for two reasons: One you people will go ape shit. Two they choose to restrain their power.

  No, they choose to restrain our power. If we stop subsidizing Israel they have to operate as their own sovereign country and decide for themselves what to do. And "you people will go ape shit" seems to say that we'd be wrong for going ape shit in that situation.
  
  But why do we need 6,000 troops getting missiles launched at them in Israel? Why do we need our soldiers to be getting killed there unless we're trying to drum up support to go and wipe out some of Israel's enemies? We should bring troops home from places like Korea, Japan, and Germany and we should not send them to places like Israel.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  majorspark;1040516 wrote:War of conquest? Its a defensive deployment of a few thousand. When we are massing troops on Iran's borders we can talk conquest.

  Yeah, I'm sure we're just marching over to check up on our ally. And when a rocket kills some of our troops over we will claim Hezbollah shot an Iranian rocket at our forces there and there is your excuse for the next and final invasion before we are bankrupt and ruined as a nation.
• I Wear Pants

  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/04/397425/obama-airline-rules/?mobile=nc
  
  This is the sort of thing I want consumer agencies to do. This kind of regulation benefits the consumer and does not place a burden on businesses at all, doesn't tell them to change their prices or how they operate. Just that they must show their actual price without making consumers jump through a bunch of hoops.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040698 wrote:No, they choose to restrain our power. If we stop subsidizing Israel they have to operate as their own sovereign country and decide for themselves what to do. And "you people will go ape shit" seems to say that we'd be wrong for going ape shit in that situation.

  If the enemy can count on enough people going ape shit then destruction is not a deterent to their bombing. Thats all I am saying. I am not talking morals here. Just reality.
  

  I Wear Pants;1040698 wrote:But why do we need 6,000 troops getting missiles launched at them in Israel? Why do we need our soldiers to be getting killed there unless we're trying to drum up support to go and wipe out some of Israel's enemies? We should bring troops home from places like Korea, Japan, and Germany and we should not send them to places like Israel.

  My 6,000 example would not have been concentrated in Israel. Nor is that the number to be deployed.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;1040711 wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/04/397425/obama-airline-rules/?mobile=nc
  
  This is the sort of thing I want consumer agencies to do. This kind of regulation benefits the consumer and does not place a burden on businesses at all, doesn't tell them to change their prices or how they operate. Just that they must show their actual price without making consumers jump through a bunch of hoops.

  It seems harmless, but it's not necessary either. It isn't that difficult to figure out what the total price would be without paying some high paid bureaucrats to come up with shit like this.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040700 wrote:Yeah, I'm sure we're just marching over to check up on our ally. And when a rocket kills some of our troops over we will claim Hezbollah shot an Iranian rocket at our forces there and there is your excuse for the next and final invasion before we are bankrupt and ruined as a nation.

  What all troops should not leave the borders of the US except in times of war? Oh know something bad could happen. If our troops are attacked they should defend themselves. Beyond that a declaration of war is needed. The problem is not foreign deployments. Its following the constitution when incidents occurr.
  
  As for not having the money the laws of economics will reign all this in at some point.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;1040729 wrote:It seems harmless, but it's not necessary either. It isn't that difficult to figure out what the total price would be without paying some high paid bureaucrats to come up with shit like this.

  So shit like advertising $9 fares is cool when it isn't true at all?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040736 wrote:What all troops should not leave the borders of the US except in times of war? Oh know something bad could happen. If our troops are attacked they should defend themselves. Beyond that a declaration of war is needed. The problem is not foreign deployments. Its following the constitution when incidents occurr.
  
  As for not having the money the laws of economics will reign all this in at some point.

  If the government followed the laws of economics it would have ended much of what it does by this point. They don't.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040715 wrote:If the enemy can count on enough people going ape shit then destruction is not a deterent to their bombing. Thats all I am saying. I am not talking morals here. Just reality.
  
  
  
  My 6,000 example would not have been concentrated in Israel. Nor is that the number to be deployed.

  Wait, who's bombing in your scenario?