Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Voting for Obama in 2012?

Posted 2 years ago on March 9, 2012, 12:07 p.m. EST by 2percent (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

With the economy booming, unemployment coming down and the whole world coming together..... should we all vote for Obama? The media is showing this President as one of the best ever.

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Obama's foreign policy is violent

[-] 6 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Obama's domestic policy is violent

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no

that's local

[-] 7 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

He can locally assasinate you and throw you into a foreign prison to be tortured?

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

And that is shown on what page, of what document that has been incorporated into policy....Just wondering...would like to read it....

[-] 3 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm guessing the NDAA is a very loooong document, so you have me, I haven't read it. But you can if you don't believe all the people and even MSM reporters that have.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

And that is shown on what page, of what document that has been incorporated into policy....Just wondering...would like to read it....

[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The lethal strike that killed Anwar Awlaki was backed by U.S. special operations forces and Yemeni authorities, and marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan, who had produced virulent, English-language online propaganda for Al Qaeda.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Once again....that is shown on what page, of what document stating that it was incorporated into policy?. Just wondering...would like to read it.... Conspiracy theories are everywhere.....yet...no one seems to be in an uproar about the truths of 9/11 and the involvement of the powers that be here in America? How many U.S. citizens were killed in that fiasco? Puh..leeze....give me a break!!

[-] 5 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm 69 years old. I've voted in every election and bi-election since 1964. The only elections that I have not voted in have been occasional school board and local elections where there did not seem to be any political differences involved and the people running were either on a local ego trip or using the local election as a stepping stone to higher office or both. In all those years and all those elections I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat and I see absolutely no reason to start now. It is of course only my personal opinion but it also seems to me that the whole question has absolutely nothing to do with OWS, which clearly states on the home page of this very web site that we don't need politicians to build a better world. It's doesn't say "except for Obama" or "except for the Democratic Party," the very institutions that continue and broaden American imperialism and American militarism and American coporatism at this very moment. I may be wrong but it seems to me that only a person who has never been to an occupation or a GA and who has only the vaguest notion of what OWS is all about could even begin to raise such a question.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

^ I'm with this guy.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Me too.

This is worth another view (it's been put up previously by others in this forum) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_wjQtfhZQ

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Reverse psychology.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Obama’s Top 25 Accomplishments


I may not think everything Obama has done is ideal.
I may think some things Obama has not done should have been done.


If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……Obama is not an American / Obama can control gas prices / Obama is a Muslim -
don’t waste your time reading the following facts


During the last 10 years, what – SPECIFICALLY - has
Bain Romney or Cotton Mather Santorum done to help America?


By Paul Glastris, Ryan Cooper, and Siyu Hu

  1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

  2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

  3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

  4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

  5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

  6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

  7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.

  8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.

  9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

  10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.

  11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.

  12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.

  13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United tates rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.

  14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.

  15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.

  16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.

  17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.

  18. Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.

  19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.

  20. Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

  21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.

  22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”

  23. Passed Credit Card Reforms: Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (2009), which prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees.

  24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.

  25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Hahahaha you said "If you have opinions and beliefs such as : ……Obama is not an American / Obama can control gas prices / Obama is a Muslim - don’t waste your time reading the following facts " hahaha so fucking true.

I do not support Obama, but I hate when people try and use made up bullshit to try and discredit him when there are so many real facts to do so.

While I am not a supporter I will agree his administration has done some good. Where he has done good I think he could have done better. I would also say there were other democrats in 2008 who would have done a much much better job.

I posted a long list of facts earlier, which is above your comment, that proves Obama is just a tool and a continuation for the power of the 1% and the continuation of the Bush war legacy.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't disagree. My candidate was Hillary. It seemed to me at the time that their positions were the same - but I thought after whitwewater & monica, Hillary would NEVER let the Rs attack without battling back.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Hilary and Obama are almost identical. She is just as much a warmonger as Obama. She supports sanctions and wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and she has since she was the first lady.

And the R's are just stupid. I don't really know any other word which better describes the R's.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I know that many people believe Hillary & Obama may have similar approaches in that area. I disagree - but not strongly. As I said - Hillary would never have let the Rs trample her.
On virtually every other issue - THAT would have made a difference..


Rs is not stupid
Rs is what you wipe with tp


[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

If the electorate votes Obama back into office in November, then we deserve to lose our country. I never know where to start when I think of all the horrible decisions that Obama has made. And when people say..."well he gave the go to kill Bin laden" my answer is, isn't that a given. Who wouldn't have given the go? Isn't that the president's number one job- to keep the country safe?

The whole argument that he created and saved jobs with the stimulus. Common sense dictates that his policies have slowed down the economy and caused so much uncertainty that employers and business owners aren't hiring. Media reports on how much each job that was created by Obama's stimulus are between $185K to $278K to $312,500K per job. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cost-obamas-stimulus-plan-312500-job-vote-created-or-saved-and-guess-who-paying-it.

If Obama ("the great uniter") truly had a successful 1st term he would be running on his record and not dividing the country to such a degree that is truly sad and totally unamerican. He wouldn't be trying to divert people's attention away from his failures to non-issues like contraception. (Title X already provides free birth control to any woman who needs it- with priority for the uninsured and the poor)

The country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and Obama administration doesn't have a budget!

Obama- http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/11-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-hypocrites-if-they-do-not-call-for-barack-obama-to-resign

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

http://www.totalnoid.com/2009/12/14/rolling-stones-matt-taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/7332-why-i-dont-believe-obama-anymore

I say anybody but Obama, and I mean anybody

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people need a target for their frustrations

someone to blame

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you want to bring these up one at a time, go right ahead, but please don't spam this.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

What's wrong? Can't multi-task?

[-] 2 points by BearDickinson (125) from Ewing, VA 2 years ago

Obama is a re-electionist -- mark that statement ! ~ - untill we convince him of a better approach, it will get no better - maybe after the election ? it's a fucking shame that the Occupy Movemet began in 09-2011 instead 0f 09-2010, ya think ?

[-] 2 points by rugbug (3) 2 years ago

personally i'm tired of the two party system, id really love to see people get together and nominate their own candidate, but i think people are too fearful that we wont have the numbers to vote them into office

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

I will be voting third party.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes but don't forget about all this:

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it or fancy legislature like HR 2990 that ends this system and creates actual job growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

OBAMA Administration could grant criminal immunity to Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, those responsible for fraudulent foreclosure practices that drove millions of Americans from their homes during the housing crisis. It's called a settlement.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165806/obama-brink-settlement-big-banks-and-progressives-are-furious

Obama's new campaign guy is a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

"Is this the United States congress, or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"-Dennis Kucinich The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It's a private for profit bank ran by frauds. Its a Ponzi scheme where they issue debt created from thin air and then they STEAL your tax money and put it in their wallets and their cronies' pockets. You know those trillions of dollars in government debt? Who do you think pays the interest on it?!?! WE DO! The Federal Reserve has no accountability and create trillions of dollars out of thin air for their own private interests all the while devaluing our US dollar. You don't see Obama trying to correct this fraudulent system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

In 2009, Obama himself appointed Michael Taylor as a senior adviser for the FDA even though Taylor had formerly served as a vice president for Monsanto.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen... etc

His administration is also selling arms to the regime in Bahrain that is killing protesters.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

Obama also supports ACTA which is essentially a global version of SOPA that applies to all goods.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty. The departure from Iraq was required by the 2008 Iraq-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement signed by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and then-President George W. Bush and approved by the Iraqi parliament, giving it the status of law. Once the troops left Iraq, big oil stayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

“This bill [the NDAA] authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.” - Dennis Kucinich

In reference to the passing of the new NDAA the Armed Services Committee released this,"the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations." More war for Obama!

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being involved with the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda ties with the Libyan rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This officially classifies them as "associated forces"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks on video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Here's an article with Ralph Nader on the unconstitutional actions by Obama and his administration against Libya,

"Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment/ Another good article on the topic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

It's really sad that most "democrats" just say "well Republicans are worse" when it comes to these issues. That's not the way to go about these problems we see in our country. Something actually needs to be done about BOTH parties acting outside of the law and bankrupting the nation. Saying "well, republicans are worse" doesn't solve the problem. Obama works harder for Wall Street and the military industrial complex than he does for main street.

4 more years of Bush's war legacy! - Obama 2012

A vote for Obama or a vote for the GOP is a vote to continue the trail of destruction.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

NDAA, HR347, yeah ... he's on a roll. So far, at best, he wins the lesser of two evils argument (is that enough to convince me to stand on line come election day, I mean, fuck it, I live in NY, he'll win NY under virtually every conceivable circumstance, so I don't feel any motivation to vote in 2012).

If I lived in Ohio .... okay, maybe I would think about it harder. Not that I think someone like Romney would be incredibly different, but maybe (this could be naive optimism), just maybe, Obama could be pushed back to the left.

Unfortunately, with laws like HR347, all we can do is hope the ACLU (or some organization like that) can defeat the law (but of course before they can take it to court, they have to have a defendant). Anyway .... such is the state of our once great nation.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I am not happy with HR347 - have YOU read the ACLU position on it?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, they highlighted the fact that this is an add on to current law, but lowers the intent requirement (to knowingly). They're basically taking a "wait and see" attitude (I mean, there's nothing else they could anyway, as they can't challenge the case without a "case or controversy" ... in this context, a defendant).

[-] 1 points by cpfstock (2) 2 years ago

In the interst of full disclosure, while I am not part of the 1%, I am top 10 for sure.

[-] 1 points by cpfstock (2) 2 years ago

"With the economy booming"! Excuse me. Care to examine the facts? 1. In 2011, some $6.3 trillion in global stock market value was erased 2. GDP growth was well below levels that typically mark a robust recovery: 0.4%, 1.3% and 1.8% in Q1, Q2 and Q3, respectively. 3. New housing starts averaged just over 600 thousand for 2011, well below the historical average of 1.5 million and previous troughs between 800 and 900 thousand. 4. New home sales were just as bad, averaging around 300 thousand during the year, down over 75% from a bubble-time peak of near 1.4 million in 2005. 5. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20 city index was down 3.4% year-over-year in October, and has fallen in every month since April 2011 (seasonally adjusted). 6. The widely-followed nonfarm payrolls averaged gains of only 137 thousand jobs per month during 2011, ranging from a high of 235 thousand in February to a low of 20 thousand in June. 7. 1.4 million people left the work force entirely. This pushed the participation rate down to 64.0% by the end of 2011, a level not seen since the recessionary period of the early 1980s. 8. The labor force remained effectively flat for the year, but notably has not grown at all in the trailing four years. In fact, the trailing four-year growth rate dipped to -0.02% in December 2011; this is the first time since the labor force began being measured in 1948 that the 48-month growth rate has been negative. 9. Furthermore, nominal per capita wage growth is also negative over the trailing four-year period, another unfortunate first for this 52-year old data series. 10. At the press conference following the November 1-2 meeting of the FOMC, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke stated: “In short, while we still expect that economic activity and labor market conditions will improve gradually over time, the pace of progress is likely to be frustratingly slow.” That's the facts, jack. So, no you should not vote for Obama.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

2percent,aka- Michele Obama

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So unemployment went from over 9% when he was in office to 8.3% four years later. He really did a good job on that front especailly spending billions of dollars trying to do something about it.

As far as the "whole world coming together" why are there so many protesters in the rest of the world? Yah, they are really coming together aren't they.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not to mention no wage increase of the average schmoe

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Very true - and the inflation rate has continually gone up but you don't hear the liberal media saying anything about that. It has gone up especially high in the construction industry - goods that are used to build houses and high rise buildings.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Would those be goods produced by the Kochs?

Why yes, they would.

Koch Industries, leaders in inflation, and buying our government!!!

[-] 1 points by onepercentguy (294) 2 years ago

no. voted for him last time only because McCain's comments into October showed he was utterly uninformed and unable to deal with the financial crisis.

would vote for Romney over Obama.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts +
Antonin Scalia +
Clarence Thomas +
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore

OR

Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?


If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and believe that President Gore would invade Iraq, or NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind


If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy


Just because Thomas & Scalia take Koch money does not mean you have to


[-] -2 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

Your content is all bullshit propaganda but your formatting seems very,.... ZenDogish in overall layout and structure. It's good you dress up your comments because that's the only thing that might halfway impress anybody.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Thanks for the comparison to ZD
Do you have the guts to answer my question
tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?
OR
are you just another koch troll?

[-] -2 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

The Koch Bros ROCK!!

The SCOTUS is extremely important and that is why Republicans need to win in Nov and stock it with hardcore Conservatives. This is a defining moment in US history and will quite likely shape the future either way (good or bad) for the next 30 years.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

No !!! The Only thing the Kochs do is ... suck !! verum ex absurdo !

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

wait a minute - those are the good Justices lol! The ones who uphold their oath. Unlike Ginsberg who openly sites the Constitution of South Africa as Superior to the U.S. Constitution lol!

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and can you show me where she said
"Constitution of South Africa as Superior to the U.S. Constitution"

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

its all over the internet look it up

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

are you afraid to post it?

and can you show me where she said "Constitution of South Africa as Superior to the U.S. Constitution"

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

and this is who you want on the US supreme court ? You can make any excuse you want - her comments are totally inappropriate for someone in her position.

[-] 1 points by 2percent (0) 2 years ago

But, the majority of media reports show positive results from his actions. The Solydra issue was just a gamble that went wrong, like buying a stock that goes down. No ones fault. The auto bailouts saved jobs and the results have been wonderful! On and on, how do you not vote for Obama?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

When GM makes a car I would want to buy and the tax-payers get their money back-actually, from their financial gambling, not from their car manufacturing side, I will conclude the results are "wonderful."

I suggest we just don't vote until we get election reform. It will invalidate the elections and freeze up the system.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

GM is currently the largest car manufacturer in the world. Somebody, apparently, is buying their cars. And the issue was not simply GM. By saving them the entire supply chain was saved as well, representing 250,000 manufacturing jobs in the country that would have vanished. That supply chain would then have moved overseas, like the supply chain for electronics. That move would have been permanent, and further depressed the entire economy for the foreseeable future. And we would be complaining that we have to buy cars made in China.

We bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs. How can we then criticize saving them? And while you hate the fact that taxpayer money was used, GM is now in a position to pay it back, with interest. How much would it have cost in Federally backed pension payments or unemployment and food stamps and welfare had all those jobs been lost? That expenditure would have been unrecoverable.

Finally, your not voting doesn't mean the neoCons will abstain as well. They will, in droves. And what that means is an even more hard right, corporate-friendly, civil liberties opposed Supreme Court. It you want more Scalias and Thomases packing the court, don't vote. If you want to make sure OWS protests can be more easily squashed, don't vote. If you want to see Citizens United upheld don't vote. If you want to make sure NO election reform will happen, because a right wing court will strike down any laws about it, don't vote. Otherwise, as they say, vote early and often.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

The Chinese are buying their cars. I'm not against their bailout, but I don't think it went wonderfully.

OWS needs to be non-partisan and concentrate on what the 99% of us have as common grievances. The R's and D's are both screwing us over and we are unable to get anyone in power to change it because they cards stacked so high against the average citizen, non of us will ever get into Congress. Your vote is like a bullet. If you don't see a target, keep it in your pocket. - Malcolm X

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Of course the bailouts weren't wonderful. But they served their purpose. And we would be in permanently worse shape without them.

As to your Malcolm quote, there is indeed a target, and I have pointed out what that is. Legislation comes and goes, but Supreme Court decisions are durable and last a lifetime. With Ginsburg set to retire, handing a free advantage to the plutocratic corporate interests by allowing a NeoCon to gain office to replace her would be a disaster effecting a whole generation. Voting does not mean giving up activism. It stems the tide, giving some space within which activism can function. If the court swings even farther to the right, not only via the Supreme Court, but also the hundreds of federal district court appointments that will be made, OWS is doomed. It's not a matter of endorsing a failed, corrupt system. It's a matter of making sure that system doesn't give itself more power to crush us. Allowing a Romney or Santorum to gain the presidency would be the death knell of OWS.

If you want OWS to survive and flourish, you MUST keep the NeoCons out of office, you MUST keep the courts from turning even more rightward.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Who gives the Supreme Court its power of judicial review? Congress. This is how the basic theory of balance of powers works. You must keep ALL corporatists out of government. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court gets stacked with Nazis. Our government was built to withstand that IF we have a functioning democracy. Demand it!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Of course we have to demand it. We have to demand it in the streets, in the parks, in the foreclosed homes AND at the ballot box.

It very much matters how the Supreme Court is stacked. Judicial review is not granted by each sitting congress, it is embedded in the system from the time of Jefferson. Was Citizens UNited passed by the Congress or the by the court. Was it congress or the Court that struck down Arizona's public finance election laws? That Courts have wide independence. They decide what is or isn't legal in terms of the laws that are passed. That is tremendous power, and effects each and every person in the country. Roe v Wade was not decided by Congress, but by the Court. The details of what constitutes the right to assemble is decided by the Courts. Voter suppression laws and gerrymandering are decided, ultimately, by the courts. Those courts can enhance or suppress our democracy and our freedoms.

So yes, it is critical to keep the Corporatists out of Congress. But in terms of the presidency, if the left does not vote in someone, even a corporatist, who will appoint good people to all the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, if we thereby allow a Romney or Santorum to win (because the pro-corporatist electorate will not abstain simply because we do) is to absolutely INSURE that the corporatists win. If the Supreme Court becomes stacked with right wing fascists, OWS is over, dead, gone. And it will be so in the blink of an eye.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

The number of justices and the right of judicial review isn't in the constitution. It's simply tradition, like many of the ways our government functions. Congress has the power to change it if the court oversteps its bounds, which it clearly did with Citizens United. Our Founders weren't dumb. We have the tools we need to succeed. The courts are the hardest to fix. I suggest we do it last, since if we have more direct power over Congress.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Judicial review was established during the Jefferson presidency. Not everything in law is directly linked to the Constitution, but is most often an interpretation of it. Judicial review is such an interpretation, based on separation of powers doctrine. It was an extremely wise court decision, in my opinion. Without judicial review no rights can be reviewed, no law can be found unjust or in conflict with the constitution, and the country is left with the tyranny of the majority.

ALL law is essentially tradition, since it is no more than tradition that bases law upon a single document to begin with. As such, judicial review is just as much an integral, inseparable part of American law as the constitution itself.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

That's not true. Great Britain has no formal constitution. It uses tradition as its basis of laws. The Romans codified their laws. The US has a mixed system, since both have good and bad things about them.

Why would we have no system to control the juidical branch if it usurps too much power? That doesn't make any sense. Studying the history of judicial decisions, I can hardly agree they have been a great protection of the minority anyway.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

None of the Bill of Rights would be enforceable if it were not for an independent judiciary with the authority to conduct final review. Elected officials rule by majority, and the only institution that can overturn the tyranny of the majority is an independent judiciary. And although it is far from a perfect system - being human and not divine - it has still worked more than it hasn't.

Codifying a law does not make it any less tradition-based: it simply formalizes the tradition. If the traditional authority of a law is ignored, it has little effect. Prohibition is a case in point; some researches claim it actually increased the incidence of alcoholism.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

There are more companies then Solyndra that went bust with government grants. Better study up on your politics - apparently you have a long way to go to understand what is really happening in this country.

What you don't realize is that 250,000 jobs is a drop in the bucket when it comes to 14 million people out of work. In addition to that the population grew (people who entered the work force) by 7 million people since his election.

And the average job growth rate for the past 12 months is a little over 100,000 per month.

Now you wonder why the 18 - 30 age group is out of work - Ask the Obama Administration - maybe he can give you the answer.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Current estimates are that the stimulus package either created, or, just as importantly, SAVED, over 4 million jobs.

But the criticism is correct. The stimulus should have been double what it was to have real traction. Too bad every later job creation measure Obama proposed was blocked by the House and filibustered in the Senate.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The problem with the stimulus is that once the money runs out so does the jobs. That's why we need private companies to provide jobs.

Even with the government proping up those companies with grants, eventually that money runs out and so does the job.

So, as you can see, on that basis alone the government can't continue to take money from productive companies and people to "create" jobs.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If the stimulus had been sustained enough and funded enough, it would have given the private sector the time to recover and create more jobs. The problem with recessions is that it destroys demand as it destroys jobs and the income that comes with the. And without demand no products can be made and sold. So that leads to even more layoffs and a further depression of the economy.

Real stimulus is designed to do two things: the first is to provide a floor that the economy can't sink below. The second is to infuse cash - enough of it and for a long enough time - to stimulate demand again, so the inventories go down and manufacturing, buying and selling can get back to speed. If that stimulus is too stingy, it doesn't work well, and if it is cut off in mid-stream, as the republicans did, the jobs do indeed dry up as the money runs out.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Just how much money do you think it would have taken to prop the economy up until the private sector provided more jobs.

What you don't understand is that it doesn't work - only temporarily. Right after the great depression it was done and the only reason things got better was because the war came along.

With todays problems the majority of the people in this country - probably around 60% are into debt up to their eyeballs.

They can't afford to go out and buy the 300,000 homes, the 45,000 suvs the 30,000 power boats and all the goodies that go along with owning a house.

If that wasn't the case the economy would be booming like it was in 2004-2005-2006-2007.

It's going to take another 5 years for major improvement - and for that to happen corporations will have to start building their businesses in this country instead of in China, India, and Tiwiain

To change that, the government needs to impose import taxes on goods imported from china and use that money to provide incentives for companies that manufacturer and produce goods here in the United States. Otherwise it won't change anytime soon.

Also with the baby boomers retiring - 76 million in the next 30 years you can take their purchase power out of the economy because they will be on a budget.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

First, let me say I agree 100% with your statement; .."corporations will have to start building their businesses in this country instead of China, India and Taiwan. To change that, the government needs to impose import taxes on imported goods here in the United States." This is indeed what is at the heart of the problem. On the other hand, your assessment of the effectiveness of gov. stimulus after ww2, is a little flawed. What you seem to miss is, the war WAS stimulus. Massive stimulus. Furthermore, even before the start of the war, gov stimulus had shown positive effects. The primary reason that the Obama stimulus was not more effective than it was, is exactly due to the issue that you described. Much of the stimulus went not to stimulate the US economy, but rather the Chinese economy, as well as the others you mentioned. Stimulus can work, but not very well when you have what Keynes described as "leakage", which means a trade deficit, and in the case of the US, a MASSIVE deficit.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Here is a brief regarding the "New Deal".

These reforms, together with several other relief and recovery measures were called the First New Deal. New regulations and attempts at economic stimulus through a new alphabet soup of agencies set up during 1933 and 1934 and previously extant agencies such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation did not halt economic stagnation. By 1935, the "Second New Deal" added Social Security, a national relief agency (the Works Progress Administration, WPA) and, through the National Labour Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labour unions. Unemployment declined by over one-third in Roosevelt's first term from 25% to 14.3% between 1933 and 1937, but faster than the economic upturn came 1938's "recession within a depression" and unemployment zoomed to 19%, then declined to some extent until the draft to fight World War II

I am also including the link to this info - This is a great read. http://world-crisis.net/financial-crisis/great-depression.html

What's really interesting when you read the contents of this link is what happened back then is exactly what's happening right now.

Everything of what's happening today falls right in line with the Great Depression.

The only difference between then and now is we don't have a "WWIII" to prop up the economy.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

"Everything of what's happening today falls right in line with the Great Depression." I have to agree that many things do, but there are also differences. A couple of those differences put the US in a worse position this time around. One; in that era, the US was a net exporter. Two; which to a degree, is repeating the first, the US was energy independent. In fact, we were oil exporters. In reading the article you linked, I have to take issue with one of the opinions expressed. That is, the idea that Smoot-Hawley had any significant effect at all in lengthening the depression. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/obrien.hawley-smoot.tariff

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Most mainstream economists, including the ones who were invited to the White House prior to the first stimulus package being put forward, argued that double the amount being discussed (and eventually enacted) would have done it.

What's more this approach HAS worked in the past. FDR used these methods (and more) to get the country of the Great Depression. And by 1933 the depression itself was over, although more recovery was necessary. His programs continued, making great progress until 1937, when he abandoned Keyensian strategies and embarked on austerity measures, creating a second recession. With the reapplication of stimulus strategies in 1938, the country began experiencing another recovery. all this happened PRIOR to WWII.

As to import tariffs and incentives for domestic manufactures, I agree with the second part of that statement. Tariffs are touchy things, though, and may even violate international agreements. I don't think a trade war, which could easily happen, would be a very good thing right now. What's more, Bush talked about this very thing during his first term. Although the idea of tariffs wasn't specifically mentioned, it was strongly hinted at in Diplomat-speak. Within a couple of days of Bush's speech on the subject, China let it be known that it was considering "diversifying" its portfolio of treasury bills, in other words, it would dump them, and stop buying them, doing real damage to the American economy. Bush never mentioned tariffs again.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, instead of calling it a "tariff" we could call it a "economic stimulus fund" to be used to stimulate and grow our economy. That would work because it wouldn't be going into the tax coffers of the government - instead it would go to businesses that would help "build America".

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm not so sure the Chinese would see it that way. It's not so much that I object to the idea - I don't - it's only that it has too great a potential for really bad consequences. And simply changing its name and targeting where the money would be disbursed doesn't make it any less a tariff, and would not hold up in court. It would still be a direct violation of trade agreements. It would also invite economic retaliation, something I don't think we can afford right now.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

epa1,I rarely find anything in your posts that I don't agree with, but I here I do just a bit. With a half trillion dollar trade deficit (for 2011), how do we have anything to fear from a trade war. How would a general tariff on manufactured goods do any thing but help the US worker and the US economy?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

A trade war could increase that deficit more than any offset that tariffs would provide. At least that's my concern.

THat said, I do think that if a company is American owned, one can demand American labor laws are applied to the entire workforce, whether here or abroad, including adherence to minimum wage laws and overtime rules, and that not doing so would result in a tax on products entering the country that would make up the difference.

My concerns would be the same: that it would be viewed as an opening salvo in a trade war with China and be responded to by them.

And it is not simply a trade war that I'm concerned about. It's what China can do in terms of all the T-Bills it holds. They have the ability to crash our currency and economy virtually overnight. That's precisely what they threatened to do 9 years ago, and is the reason the Bush administration had to back off.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

China only owns about 10% of US treasuries. Not enough to crash the US economy imo. I think the idea that Bush HAD to back off, was more of an excuse that an actual reason. If China decided to start dumping its' 1.1 Trillion in treasuries, the rest would plummet in value. Other than this issue, how would China initiate a trade war? Any move they could make would reduce imports to the US. If we were able to stop all trade with China, we would immediately be billions ahead every month. Those goods can and would be made in the US, as they were in the past. http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/npr-will-china-dump-u-s-debt/

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You make some very good points, especially regarding the fact that the US is China's biggest market. Still, if they feel they have to make a point in order to protect their long term interests, they would not hesitate, in my view, to take action that could hurt us significantly. They are, in fact, looking to slow growth in some ways at this time.

I'm not sure i agree that Bush backing off was an excuse: he was the one who brought it up in the first place.

I am not writing with anything approaching certainty, by the way, but only expressing concerns. I would really like to have some economist's views on the is issue, and haven't been able to find good ones yet.

Do you have any sources of information along those lines you could point me to?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Reply to "Thank for the article.." Perhaps I didn't chose the best possible of articles within that sight. The sight (economy in crisis) is primarily devoted to the issue of free trade. Maybe you will find this one useful. http://www.epi.org/publication/trade_policy_and_job_loss/

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm not certain that an attempt to dump US treasuries by China could not occur or that it couldn't have a negative effect, but to continue on our current path seems to be the worse of evils. The NPR article I linked was by an economist, but on the general topic of free trade, a have a good site. Ian Fletcher is an economist, educated at Colombia U and the U of Chicago . http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-disingenuous-economics-of-ron-p

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THank you for the article. Unfortunately it sheds no light on this issue: it is simply a critique of Ron Paul's free trade hypocrisy. (And I concur with the Author's assessment.)

But we are living in a very different TYPE of economy, with different realities than did the government of 1934 and certainly that of 1784.

I am NOT advocating free trade. I just don't know what the solutions are to the problems we currently face regarding global trade, especially in terms of China. I would like to see some real numbers, like a risk/benefit analysis, about issues like tariffs. What would the benefits likely be, what would the costs be, explained quantifyingly? IN other words, what are the numbers that result from different actions?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I believe china already does that on imports to their country but they hide it - could be wrong though.

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

What is so wonderful about the auto jobs saved dummy??? Where is our 26 billion that GM owes the tax payers??? How come the chevy (catch on fire) volt stopped production???

[-] 1 points by 2percent (0) 2 years ago

Obviously, our Commander & Chief knows why the Chevy Volt plant has been shut down for five weeks for inventory adjustments, not enough taxpayer rebate incentives. So, he plans to increase the taxpayer incentive from $7500 per vehicle to $10,000. This will increase the sales of Volts. On the subject the taxpayers being owed 26 billion, when GM share price doubles from the current value the taxpayers will break even. Obama and his team is looking out for the little guy..... the taxpayer!

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Yes Obummer what a guy eh??? looking out for us taxpayers even though he increased the debt by over 5 trillion so far

[-] 0 points by 2percent (0) 2 years ago

Maybe you heard the phase from President Obama or his groupies, "He inherited the worst economy....... blah, blah, blah". So all the money spent on Solyndra, the wind mills on cars and all the other cronie capitalism is justified. By the way did you ever hear about Obama "inheriting the worst economy....... blah, blah, blah".

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

After four years the ass clown is still saying "He inherited the worst economy and it is all Bush's fault"

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You say that as though he didn't.

Why are you so reality challenged?

Could it be an addiction to FLAKESnews?

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

At some point in time, he has to take ownership of it. Maybe when he gets done with his vacations, parties and the WH, vacations, etc. Then he might take a look at the economy. Although time is running out for shoe shine and he will be getting ejected out of office soon

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Considering FLAKESnews blamed him, before he was even elected, the whole statement is a stretch..

Plus there's that whole (R)epelican't record for stonewalling.

Records, mind you, not just strategic filibusters.

[-] -2 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Do not blame his failures on Fox news, he did not need any help. He is the worst POS since Carter. Hey they are both libtards so they have an excuse I guess

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Record corporate profits.

Kept GM and Chrysler going.

Got Osama.

Steady job creation.

All in a (R)epelican't created recession.

It took Reagan 8yrs to turn it around.

You should be singing his praises, you would it it was a (R)epelican't in office.

Ain't hypocrisy grand?

[-] -2 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Record green energy flops, GM still owes us 26 billion and oh the wonderful Chevy volt has ceased production. Scum bag put us another 5 trillions plus in the hole and also gave us a bonus, the credit rating downgrade. Should I continue????????

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sure, go "right" ahead.

Have all the rope you want. You already fucked it up.

[-] -2 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

No I did not fuck up, your hero "Nappy" did though

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

More lame insults?

Are you good at anything else?

Still think Bush and the (R)epelican'ts can do no wrong?

Guess what? You're wrong.

[-] 0 points by Copper123 (-2) 2 years ago

Yes he came into office under some bad recession conditions its not because of him that it has improved. The stock market is better now and he still wants to keep throwing taxes at Americans which isn't helping. He also has put 6.5 trillion dollars onto the national debt. While Busch wasn't perfect he still was a lot better than Obama. Obama wants to cut benefits to active duty and retired troops. He still doesn't want to drill because he thinks we will all be driving electric cars. He doesn't have Americas future at heart.

[-] 0 points by Copper123 (-2) 2 years ago

Doubts about what? You can not honestly tell me that he is any good.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He's better than the last guy, and he did come in under recession conditions. Rather major, recession conditions.

Is this your first recession?

[-] 0 points by Copper123 (-2) 2 years ago

Obama is an idiot and the worst president we have ever had

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You say that as though you're not.

I have my doubts.

[-] 0 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

Surprise, surprise "CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion"

New CBO calculations have had to revised the projected cost of Obamacare- its only $820 billion off its original estimate used by Obama when shoving, I mean selling Obamacare to the public. But billion scmillion- it doesn't matter, we, oops, I mean China can afford it.

Oh yeah, BTW another number has been revised- The CBO also projects that 2 million fewer uninsured will gain insurance under the law than previously thought, with the total uninsured population declining to 30 million instead of 32 million. Either way, I never have understood how 30 million more people can be added to the health care system, without first increasing the number of doctors and nurses (which there is already a shortage of) without causing extremely long wait times for appointments, surgeries, and all other medical services.

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

[-] 0 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

The guy is a complete fraud. Watch out suckers. He's swinging the watch in front of your faces again. He sold out to Wall Street and he is sucking up to them again for campaign contributions. He said Wall Street did nothing illegal; what they did was simply unethical. Nobody is buying the bullshit Obama is selling.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Amazing how 8 years of job losses under Bush, and a sudden crash of the Worlds economy, fall down some peoples memory hole.

Strange how every other major county in World did the same thing.

Even China.

Is this your first recession?

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

no he is one of the worst. He fulfills a scripture in Isiaha. "And their leaders wisdom shall flee them.".

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the republicans can not make vote for a man that uses bombs

[-] -1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 2 years ago

RON PAUL!!!

He would appoint a strict constructionist libertarian to the Supreme Court, he has never voted for an imbalanced budget, and he would end the wars that are costing us so much money, instead of following the path the current administration is on of never-ending warfare.

Why is nobody discussing the fact that we just sent 12,000 troops to Libya, a country without a strong central government, where the US is probably going to set up a 'stabilizing force' (occupation) at the cost of billions of dollars to the tax payers but probably netting companies like Halliburton billions or trillions of dollars in oil revenues?

Why is nobody discussing the fact that Obama is now the most warlike US president, yet he only invades countries that are sitting on giant pools of oil? SOMALIA?!? Where was the peacekeeping force when they had thousands of people dying every year of famine, and one of the worst human rights records in Africa? Why haven't we 'stabilized' them til now, since they haven't had a functioning central government since 1991? Wait... I bet it has to do with the fact that nobody knew there was oil there til just now.

Britain responded by seeking mineral rights in exchange for food and humanitarian aid. We responded by sending in troops to fight 'insurgents'. Who are now supposedly linked to Al Qaida.

Let me be the first to say it... A Libyan fighting foreign soldiers in Libya is not an insurgent. A Somalian fighting foreign soldiers in Somalia is not an insurgent. Reverse it in your head... If the US were too weak to attack other countries, and the most militaristic nation on earth sent troops over here to 'stabilize' our government, what would we call the people that take up arms against the invading force?

PATRIOTS.

Ron Paul won't sell the money of US taxpayers and the blood of US soldiers to special interests and greedy oil companies. He knows that the only reason our military is there is to provide the muscle for the oil companies. Would you rather do business with the country that is offering you food and humanitarian aid that your country desperately needs, or the one that invades your country, holds your citizens hostage in their own towns and homes through curfews and security checkpoints, and rigs your political system so your 'freely elected' government officials do what oil companies tell them to do? Do we really think the Somali people are going to be any better off in 5 years? How about the American people? Just more PTSD, more homeless veterans under age 30, more wasted taxpayer money, and year after year of banner profits for the 1%.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that doesn't just do what he's told by these corporations. He is the ONLY candidate that will stand up for the constitution and the American people. The 1%, regardless of party affiliation, want endless war, and the man that I VOTED FOR has given it to them.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not making the same mistake twice.

[-] -1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

I will not vote for any Incumbent. Obama is a bought and paid for corporate stooge. His only talent is making weak minded people think he "cares".

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'll probably vote for some incumbents

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

There are many Reps and Dems who need to go. No one should be a Professional politician.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

meh

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Cool. Be sure and vote out the POS teabaggers first, plus the (R)epelican'ts that crashed the economy.

If you're in Texas, be sure to kick out Mr. P and Perry too.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Obama is the best! oh wait this just in....Obama worse president since Jimmy Carter.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Agreed, but he is still 1000 times better than those running against him.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

How can you make such an "uninformed" statement? Herman Caine has done more them him in providing jobs without being the president.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's funny! Slapping my knee!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

whatza a Caine job?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

A job unlike a "Obama orginizer job. The only time the Obiminiation created jobs was with other peoples money. Caine on the other hand produced jobs with "private" money.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

mokey is money

government money should be in control of the people

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

1000 times wow!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

At least.

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

OK, well we know who you will be voting for.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that's ridiculous

Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths March 2003 to June 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i think that you have the wrong thread..

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yes!

He has done nothing wrong.