Guns, Gays and Amnesty for Illegals - The Obama Agenda

• IggyPride00

  

  I was reading some of the articles after the gun bill died yesterday and in one of them I was struck by that observation made by a Democrat Party U.S Senator that wouldn't go on the record.
  
  They said that the feeling on the hill is it is just too much right now. Guns, gays, and immigration is all the Obama administration seems to be interested in, and the Senator said that maybe they could get one of them done if that is all they were doing, but all 3 is just too much.
  
  Why is the regime so out of touch with the American people? The economy is still in the dump, and all BHO seems interested in is things that will do nothing to address what is really concerning people.
  
  I can't remember a regime in recent history that was more out of touch with what was really concerning the American public than this one.
• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00;1428110 wrote:I was reading some of the articles after the gun bill died yesterday and in one of them I was struck by that observation made by a Democrat Party U.S Senator that wouldn't go on the record.
  
  They said that the feeling on the hill is it is just too much right now. Guns, gays, and immigration is all the Obama administration seems to be interested in, and the Senator said that maybe they could get one of them done if that is all they were doing, but all 3 is just too much.
  
  Why is the regime so out of touch with the American people? The economy is still in the dump, and all BHO seems interested in is things that will do nothing to address what is really concerning people.
  
  I can't remember a regime in recent history that was more out of touch with what was really concerning the American public than this one.

  Obama is a lame duck president already. All he will have to go on is Obamacare which is a fail anyway as it's going to be more expensive than Medicare-For-All was going to be and has actually made unemployment worse. He has no chance of getting back the House in 2014 and will likely lose the Senate.
• BoatShoes

  Add in that the higher payroll tax and the sequester are going to continue to take a couple billion out of the economy every single month things are only going to get continually worse. He's probably going to suffer the fate that FDR would have after his similar quest for a balanced budget in 1937 had the Nazi's not come to power and leave office a failed president.
• wkfan

  BoatShoes;1428290 wrote:Obama is a lame duck president already. All he will have to go on is Obamacare which is a fail anyway as it's going to be more expensive than Medicare-For-All was going to be and has actually made unemployment worse. He has no chance of getting back the House in 2014 and will likely lose the Senate.

  BoatShoes;1428294 wrote:Add in that the higher payroll tax and the sequester are going to continue to take a couple billion out of the economy every single month things are only going to get continually worse. He's probably going to suffer the fate that FDR would have after his similar quest for a balanced budget in 1937 had the Nazi's not come to power and leave office a failed president.

  Has someone gotten hold of your username and password?
• BoatShoes

  wkfan;1428303 wrote:Has someone gotten hold of your username and password?

  Facts are facts.
  
  And, f you'd really read my posting history I am really not an Obama apologist. He is just better considering that the Republican party is swept up in economics ideology that was literally out of fashion in 1930. The whole national conversation is wrong. We're totally obsessed with the federal budget deficit when we should not be. But that is another story. He is just another, milder form of deficit scold as the whole democratic party realistically has been since the defeat of George McGovern and the election of Jimmy Carter the southern, conservative democrat. It's kabuki theater that Democrats when in power have actually been better at balancing the federal budget by and large than Republicans (wrongly) and yet are still considered the fiscally profligate party generally. It is almost comical on the standard of "f15c@l r3sp0nsibilitah" guys like McConnell, Paul Ryan and Boehner have any credibility and that a democrat/supposedly great liberal hope Obama is going to fail trying to meet their demands.
  
  Add in that he has formally proposed cutting medicare more and a chained CPI for Social Security just like the Republicans have demanded, they will surely use that against him in the 2014 elections as his proposing a "vicious attack on seniors"; demoralizing his liberal base and getting out the vote for the Old White Republican base and you'll probably see a similar shellacking to 2010, if I had to guess right now.
  
  His dream of being the great compromiser...that he could be a post-partisan president is an abject failure. He will not get bi-partisan firearms legislation...bi-partisan immigration reform....a bi-partisan grand bargain. It is all going to fail. Predictably. And, he will lose.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  wkfan;1428303 wrote:Has someone gotten hold of your username and password?

  To his credit, he will criticize his dear leader. He believes Obama hasn't spent enough or printed enough, which isn't really even possible, so he finds him to be too conservative.
  
  He should know, though, that Barack would love to print and spend to his hearts content. It only makes him and his buddies wealthier, at our expense. The fact is that they can't print anymore, the Fed has rates at 0%. That means they are creating money nonstop to keep rates from rising. I don't know what else you want them to do unless you want them to drop $100 bills from a helicopter. There is a reason they are doing it this way. If they filter the new money through the banks and government spending, then major price inflation only occurs in asset prices and health care and college tuition and the areas where that new money is spent first. This keeps the illusion of confidence in this system and keeps the gravy train open for the government officials and their friends. If you start dropping money from the sky you would see price inflation everywhere, and even the dumbest of sheep would be upset about paying $10 for gas and $8 for milk.
• tk421

  

  Has there been another President and VP that have ever gone on national TV after a voting loss and whined and pouted so much? Biden looked like a 2 year old denied a lollypop.
• Belly35

  

  tk421;1428398 wrote:Has there been another President and VP that have ever gone on national TV after a voting loss and whined and pouted so much? Biden looked like a 2 year old denied a lollypop.

  Only community organizers do that. Not real presidents
• IggyPride00

  

  Cleveland Buck;1428385 wrote:To his credit, he will criticize his dear leader. He believes Obama hasn't spent enough or printed enough, which isn't really even possible, so he finds him to be too conservative.
  
  He should know, though, that Barack would love to print and spend to his hearts content. It only makes him and his buddies wealthier, at our expense. The fact is that they can't print anymore, the Fed has rates at 0%. That means they are creating money nonstop to keep rates from rising. I don't know what else you want them to do unless you want them to drop $100 bills from a helicopter. There is a reason they are doing it this way. If they filter the new money through the banks and government spending, then major price inflation only occurs in asset prices and health care and college tuition and the areas where that new money is spent first. This keeps the illusion of confidence in this system and keeps the gravy train open for the government officials and their friends. If you start dropping money from the sky you would see price inflation everywhere, and even the dumbest of sheep would be upset about paying $10 for gas and $8 for milk.

  By keeping unemployment high the government has managed to keep a lid on wages. That is the only reason at this point we have no inflation despite record money printing and 0% interest.
  
  At this point the government needs to screw the little guy in order to keep the racket going, which is why they are more beholden to their corporate masters than ever.
  
  Government conspires with big business to keep unemployment high, business gets to have record profits and falling wages, and government gets to spend as much as they want because there is no fear of inflation.
  
  That is effectively the deal right now in this country and it is disgusting.
• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00;1428413 wrote:By keeping unemployment high they have managed to keep a lid on wages. That is the only reason at this point we have no inflation despite record money printing and 0% interest.
  
  At this point the government needs to screw the little guy in order to keep the racket going, which is why they are more beholden to their corporate masters than ever.
  
  Government conspires with big business to keep unemployment high, business gets to have record profits and falling wages, and government gets to spend as much as they want because there is no fear of inflation.
  
  That is effectively the deal right now in this country and it is disgusting.

  I agree, so here's an idea. Let's get rid TANF...pro-longed unemployment insurance...food stamps...Section 8, etc. etc. and have a New New Deal. Let's have the federal government buy all of that unemployed labor out there and repair our crumbling cities, infrastructure, secure the border who knows...whatever We the People find subjectively valuable. Let's put more dollars in people's pockets and pay people to go to work so that more real goods and services are exchanged and Uncle Ben is compelled to raise rates. Let's stop relying on Monetary Policy pushing on a string.
  
  At current rates, the interest on the borrowing would be lower than our economic growth and thereby create a windfall for the treasury. Or, Uncle Ben could put his powers to use and put money in the hands of working people instead.
  
  Let's stop worrying about the budget deficit when it will take care of itself if we were not letting so much of our labor force sit idle waiting for jobs that will not come.
• gut

  Let's just have everyone work for the gubmit and have the gubmit decide what we should do, make and build.
  
  There's a reason lawyers only run lawfirms.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1428719 wrote:Let's just have everyone work for the gubmit and have the gubmit decide what we should do, make and build.
  
  There's a reason lawyers only run lawfirms.

  Yeah man totally because employing people who the private sector does not want to employ is exactly the same as having everybody and everyone work for the government!!
  
  Right on bro!
  
  And yet, you complain about the government paying people not to work! Laughable! The obvious solution is to eliminate the welfare state and have the public buy unemployed labor as a buffer stock of employed transitional labor until they can find private sector employment.
  
  And, second of all, you like to disparage lawyers but guess what...lawyers wrote and created our uniform commercial code which is the envy of the world. Blood-sucking lawyers, not executives and managers from "teh bidniz w0rld" are the ones who created the rules upon which our modern free-enterprise system functions. So please save your perpetual condescension.
• Ghmothwdwhso

  wkfan;1428303 wrote:Has someone gotten hold of your username and password?

  
  ^^^^^ This x 1,000,000,000. WTF?
• gut

  BoatShoes;1428721 wrote:Yeah man totally because employing people who the private sector does not want to employ is exactly the same as having everybody and everyone work for the government!!

  What you don't get is, if there was actual VALUE, actual ROI, in the supposed projects the gubmit was going to employ these people to do...private enterprise would do it.
  
  Your solution for every problem is throw more money at it. That fails repeatedly, again and again and again. You have to make an actual conscious effort to continue to ignore reality.
• gut

  Ghmothwdwhso;1428771 wrote:^^^^^ This x 1,000,000,000. WTF?

  Only a temporary bout of lucidness. It happens, just like someone with alzheimer's occasionally has a good day.
• believer

  

  Liberals always believe that:
  
  1. More government is good government.
  2. The government has a cure to all our ills.
  3. If only the government would inject more money into the problems, the problems would go away.
  
  But common-sense and economic realities tell us that more government means less personal freedom & liberties, when government attempts to "fix things" the problems almost always grow exponentially worse, and the more government injects bogus dollars into "fixing" our problems the national debt load only grows larger and the problems only get more expensive.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1428877 wrote:What you don't get is, if there was actual VALUE, actual ROI, in the supposed projects the gubmit was going to employ these people to do...private enterprise would do it.
  
  Your solution for every problem is throw more money at it. That fails repeatedly, again and again and again. You have to make an actual conscious effort to continue to ignore reality.

  Wrong! There are things that private enterprise does not finance. Private Enterprise did not create the Erie Canal which created unquestionable ROI for the nation and wealth and economic value. Private Enterprise does not finance the United States Navy which creates unquestionable ROI for the United States and the Entire World and all multi-national private corporations and has created massive amounts of wealth and economic value. Private Enterprise did not finance the Interstate Highway system which created unquestionable ROI, wealth and economic value.
  
  And, that is Keynes' point anyway of the collapse in aggregate demand anyway...even if, under normal conditions, the entrepreneur might have a great idea that creates economic value, he holds off because the demand is not there. Say's Law is wrong.
  
  Also, we the people collectively as a nation...just like corporations and partnerships collectively and individual people...can spend money for consumption purposes in ways that we all think makes us subjectively better off. It is not a zero sum game! This is what the classical economics tells us...transactions are mutually beneficial.
  
  For example, If we the People, together, were to decide that we are subjectively better off if we paid 100,000 more troops to guard the borders to ensure that they were secured and to try to stem the tide of illegal border crossings, it would not be an economic loss! These are the foundations of classical economics. If I pay dollars in exchange for a massage or a smoothie or a new shirt...I did it because I feel it makes me better off. This is how we should properly understand government purchases of unemployed labor and putting it to use for things that we all think will make us better off. We The People value the decreased amount of illegal border crossings whereas the individual unemployed who are now unemployed value working in exchange for income. What private sector firm is going to get a ROI for securing the border? It is erroneous because it is properly understood as a consumption expenditure by the federal government...more like an individual purchase of a video game or a car that we individually feel makes us wealthier and better off as opposed to say and individual investment in a widget maker.
  
  The Public Financed Ohio Stadium. Is there any doubt that we Ohioans feel that made us better off...that it contributes to the wealth of our society???
  
  The Morril Act created our great, large public universities like Ohio State...not the private sector. Is there any doubt that our society has achieved an extraordinary ROI...that it created wealth for our society???
  
  It is almost comical really. You complain about paying people not to work and then you suggest that the private sector would finance great things like the Tennessee Valley Authority when it does not...it holds their money in the Cayman Islands because they are predictably worried about investing when nobody has any money because they're unemployed or because their wages aren't growing due to downward pressure on wages and deny the undeniable ROI for our society that employing the unemployed has had.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1428908 wrote:Liberals always believe that:
  
  1. More government is good government.
  2. The government has a cure to all our ills.
  3. If only the government would inject more money into the problems, the problems would go away.
  
  But common-sense and economic realities tell us that more government means less personal freedom & liberties, when government attempts to "fix things" the problems almost always grow exponentially worse, and the more government injects bogus dollars into "fixing" our problems the national debt load only grows larger and the problems only get more expensive.

  So huge amounts of tax relief and huge amounts of tax rebates (that would necessarily result in deficits) is more government and less personal freedom???
  
  Wrong.
  
  I would be fine with huge tax relief like the elimination of the payroll tax cut.
  
  This is where Conservatives always get it wrong. Liberals are not the mirror opposite of you. We don't believe more government is always the answer like you guys think less government is always the answer. We don't think government cures all ills because you think less government cures all ills.
  
  Meanwhile, this huge tax relief could be done without a penny more of debt if we wanted. In fact, doing it that way would actually put pressure on Bernanke to end ZIRP.
  
  You don't want the government to hire people directly...fine...let's have a negative payroll tax until the private sector has its desired savings met and they can begin spending on real goods and services again.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1428290 wrote:Obama is a lame duck president already. All he will have to go on is Obamacare which is a fail anyway as it's going to be more expensive than Medicare-For-All was going to be and has actually made unemployment worse. He has no chance of getting back the House in 2014 and will likely lose the Senate.

  Who logged in under BS account? Because this sure wasn't a post from BS.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1428322 wrote: He is just better considering that the Republican party is swept up in economics ideology that was literally out of fashion in 1930.

  
  I know; this crazy conservative notion that balanced budgets are somehow better than racking up $16 TRILLION in government debt is ridiculous. And then, the idea of reforming social security and medicare just because they represent $86 TRILLION in unfunded liabiltities really takes the cake. What a bunch of quackpots.
• QuakerOats

  Iggy --- you left out the destruction of the greatest health care in the world, and the massive assault on business through administrative means.
  
  
  But then again, why would a radical community activist care about job creation or building a widget.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• gut

  BoatShoes;1429168 wrote:Private Enterprise did not create the Erie Canal which created unquestionable ROI for the nation and wealth and economic value. Private Enterprise does not finance the United States Navy which creates unquestionable ROI for the United States and the Entire World and all multi-national private corporations and has created massive amounts of wealth and economic value. Private Enterprise did not finance the Interstate Highway system which created unquestionable ROI, wealth and economic value..

  I agree with all that. It's what govt should do. It's a lot less than govt does now, and it's not what you were talking about when you said the gubmit should just put everyone to work fixing shit that ain't broke.
  
  Gubmit can't spend its way to prosperity when it is a huge contributor to the economic malaise. This is Econ 101. You keep ignoring the obvious because you're Keynesian true believer, but the problem is Keynesian economics DOES NOT support perpetual deficits. There is literally not a single, credible economic theory that supports what you and your puppet master Krugman continue to push.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1429536 wrote:I agree with all that. It's what govt should do. It's a lot less than govt does now, and it's not what you were talking about when you said the gubmit should just put everyone to work fixing shit that ain't broke.
  
  Gubmit can't spend its way to prosperity when it is a huge contributor to the economic malaise. This is Econ 101. You keep ignoring the obvious because you're Keynesian true believer, but the problem is Keynesian economics DOES NOT support perpetual deficits. There is literally not a single, credible economic theory that supports what you and your puppet master Krugman continue to push.

  It absolutely is what I'm talking about. We could get rid of all of these "automatic stabilizers" supporting demand that nevertheless pay people not to work and buy up the unemployed labor of the people that the private sector does not want and employ them to create things we as a society want...that will bring wealth, and value to our society....even things that conservatives would support like more border security.
  
  Or, we could just put more and more dollars into the hands of the people so that demand creates whatever jobs the invisible hand determines.
  
  I am not talking about perpetual deficits and I really never have. You are a smart guy and I have been saying this for years on here but you can't seem to get it straight. You run deficits when unemployment is high, period. Now is the time for deficits.
  
  At Full Employment I am fine with deficit hawkery. I've said that multiple times. Keynesian economics supports deficits when interest rates are at zero Gut. Keynes said "the boom not the bust is the time for austerity." Are we anywhere near the boom? No! He also said that enough activism from the Central Bank could make the Treasury View correct but we don't have that either!
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1429244 wrote:I know; this crazy conservative notion that balanced budgets are somehow better than racking up $16 TRILLION in government debt is ridiculous. And then, the idea of reforming social security and medicare just because they represent $86 TRILLION in unfunded liabiltities really takes the cake. What a bunch of quackpots.

  balanced budgets are bad when interest rates are at zero and the FED will not pursue aggressive enough economic policy and the private sector and the foreign sector trying to save more than they spend. It's really an accounting identity.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1429182 wrote:Who logged in under BS account? Because this sure wasn't a post from BS.

  This is erroneous. I've supported Obama and the democratic party generally but I'm not a water carrier.