Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Who Lost?

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 9, 2012, 2:21 p.m. EST by Justoneof99 (80)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who lost? The working class who are paying for Obama kickbacks to big campaign donors: Obama gave $535 million to Solyndra; the company went bankrupt and left a toxic waste site at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, CA. Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million; the company declared bankruptcy and owes $1.5 million in back taxes. Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories; the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage; filed for bankruptcy. Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America: filed for bankruptcy. 71% of these grants went to Obama donors & fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were then approved for grants/ loans totaling more than $11 billion. The Energy Department’s inspector general has begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus. Who lost? We lost.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

If you want to stimulate the solar industry, you must create demand. Giving assistance to the end user will do this and ultimately boost solar companies bottom line too. Handing money to corporations buys political contributors, but does nothing to create demand. We are subsidizing an industry that produces a product that most people cannot afford.

See what Germany's doin' with solar:



IMO, they will use this attempt and failure to say " We tried alternatives, but it just didn't work". It will be their reasoning to stick with oil & NG.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

This points out how Exectutives avoid responsiblity. Both Public and Private Executives should be losing their jobs, bonus', and severence pay packages. Your Bank loses money, the employment contract is not legal (in my opinion, all contracts have to be legal, can't pay bonuses when the company goes bankrupt or loses money or take government bailout, no severence pay package for drivng the compny into the ground). Like the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. The point is we don't see responsibility in all these bad deals. Peatraus seems to be an outlier.

So yes seems some people say get a job, take a low paying job, pay your taxes & shut up. But they don't demand the heads of Banks who got Bailouts or the government officials involved in TBTF Bailouts (Total conflict of Interest in the whole mess, where is the Outcry of Voters)

So we have Austerity now with Low Interest Rates for our Individual Savings Accounts. Budget cuts will cut government jobs of course. No plan exists to keep jobs in America or create an environment for jobs to spring up. One Study shows that if they increase Interest Rates more money will flow in the Economy and add jobs....

Austerity with No Responsiblity Good Slogan for OWS

Bailouts & Low Interest Rates with No Responsibility

War, Disease, Poverty, Refugees, Rape, Murder with No Responibility

Subsidies for Corporations, No Tax for Biggest Corporations, Defense Contracts for Defense Lobby, ... with no responsibility.

Finanical Schemes are where you Buy out a Company, Load it with debt, Pay yourself a big Dividend, then Layoff 1000s of employees, and maybe the Social Safety Nets pick up the burden, ...but these days anything the government is involved in seems like a Finanical Scheme where the Corporation no longer has Risk

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 7 years ago

The success rate with those investments was higher than Bain's. All investment is a risk, not all companies succeed, thus is the capitalist system. I propose a move to a much more socialist system. Capitalism is a sucking sound on human effort.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 7 years ago

Please provide us with proof that Obamas investments were more sound than Bains.

[-] 0 points by ftrp (-95) 7 years ago

solyndra, GM, lighsquared, all loses. all loosers. all paid for with taxpayer money. bain ws about private money. see the difference?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Who won - those who voted for him - who is going to lose out - those who voted for him thinking he is the greatest when it comes to making the economy grow. .

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

How do you know what they were thinking when they were voting?

I don't understand some of these replies. It's as if some of the posters on here believe they have cornered the market on everyone's thought patterns in life. Or have the incredible superpower of reading minds. Are you one of those who maintain such an absurdity within their own meager ego? That's hilarious. I'm just saying.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Well lets see - the younger generation want everything for free - that is well known and Obama wants them to think he can do this for them. They voted for him for this reason

The younger generation is out of work with college degrees and Obama wants them to think he can get them jobs - they voted for him for this reason

The younger generation of illegals got a free pass from Obama and they voted for him for this reason.

The younger genration want free college, and Obama said he would provide it for them and they voted for him for this reason.

So, here we have a person who in the last 4 years boasted on how he made things better for Americans and will move forward making it better and that's why they voted for him.

The debt will increase by 1 trillion dollars every year under him and it still won't change things - he doesn't have a clue as do a lot of the younger people in this country who have been brainwashed into thinking theat "success is evil".

So there you have it.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

No, there you have it. Now realistically, and lets take each point you made.. Did you talk to all those who want everything for free? How many? Where do they live, what is their income level, if any? Did you count all those who are out of work with college degrees? How many are there? What Universities, colleges did they attend? Did you talk to all those who want free college.. What are their reasons, how many are there and where do they live? So...the last four years for you were hell?

Did you talk to anyone of those whose families were amBUSHed on 9/11?
Any of them vote for Romney that you know of?

Let's get facts instead of hypothetical theories posted on here, alright? Name names, places, individuals who have given you this nonsense information.

You sound as if you might be suffering from Romnieshia...and there is definitely a cure for that! I'm just saying.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

And RINO roadblocks have not had anything to do with preventing recovery?

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

When you have a Presdient in office who doesn't have a clue on how to improve the economy which is shown by the 5 trillion already spent with another 1 trillion looming on the horizon - what do you think?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I think that many things have been roadblocked by the RINO's - like ending the Shrub tax breaks for the wealthy making over 250,000 a year - like the RINO's standing in the way of ending fossil fuel subsidies - like the RINO's standing in the way of creating real universal health care - like the Rino's standing in the way of funding support for green technology etc etc etc etc

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Well Obama spent millions on failed solar panel companies - where are those jobs - can't blame the Republicans for that.

Healthcare costs are on the rise and Obama said that today - can't blame the Republicans for that.

Obama talks about "taxing the rich" and at present the stock market is down over 500 points - can't blame the Republicans for that.

The bottom line is - Obama continues to make promises as he did in the last four years - if he was such a great president that 5 trillion that was squandered if used properly would have improved the economy - but it didn't because he was for bailing out banks and wall street instead of helping main street.

GDP - without any flux of money is going to improve somewhat as it is now doing at around 2% - gee that's great after 5 trillion in spending isn't it .

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The 5 trillion you site is from the $1.4T annual deficit that Bush left. Us.

Stock market has increased 100% under PresObama.

Healthcare costs have been going up at exorbitant rates for 30 years. The ACA that repubs fought WILL cut costs for people and our govt.

Greentech investments have yielded millions of jobs over the years and will yield millions more as soon as traitorous repubs get out of the way.

And the economy is a great deal better than the Bush great recession. We are in the Obama recovery, only weak because of treasonous repub obstruction of all dem proposals to create jobs.

The repubs filibustered the million vet jobs Bill last month. Why?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago
  1. The Fed under Obama has increased the national debt with endless handouts to WallSt. You need to begin admitting that to yourself, like it or not, he gave the ok for it to happen.
  2. The recovery is weak because prices have gone up dramatically because of the Fed money printing has retarded the deflationary period that always follows a recession which is a required corrective action to a capitalist economy(low demand = lower prices), and since this was prevented prices continued to rise when they should have fallen. All while wages are in decline due to exploitative employers. I'll just re-post the same articles and more if you choose to refute it again.
  3. With growth averaging 1%, this is not a recovery, it's a numbers game designed to strengthen consumer confidence because the disconnect between WallSt, politicians, and the real world have lead them to believe consumer confidence can overcome the reality that the working class can no longer sustain the economy in it's current state.
[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I thought the Pres is not supposed to influence the fed. And I'm afraid our $16T national debt doesn't really include the QE the Feds been involved in.

The recovery is weak because traitorous repubs have obstructed thePres jobs Bills.

The GDP growth has been between 1.8% & 4% so the average is NOT 1%. Your item #2 states "the recovery is weak" (I agree), Your item #3 states "this is not a recovery" huh? Maybe your sayin this is a "hidden recession"?


[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

So then you don't know what what bonds are or the function of the treasury. So you're a liar and an idiot, congratulations.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

It took you this long to figure that out? Just kidding, Rich, you probably figured it out, like me, a long time ago, probably about June 1st I'd have to guess, heheheh.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

What have I lied about? Or is that just more unfounded accusations.?

"idiot"? you resort to name calling always because of the impotence of your position! Your arguments can't stand up to honest, civil discourse.

The Pres (& Treasury) are supposed to not influence the Fed.!

You avoided the facts of my comment because I guess you know it's true.


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

You're almost to the point of so ridicules that I'm beginning to be amused by you. So let me help you out.

This is a continuation of a program that has been in play for a few years now so you can glean from this an assessment of how it works and how it adds to the national debt. Not all of the QE printing has been done on the tax payer dime but none the less a few trillion dollars of our national debt has been going to WallSt, ie, we pay the loan back but the money from the initial loan goes to the banks, thus the tax payer is backing the loan, cosigner if you will. If the banks manage to pay back the amount they have borrowed from the fed and what has come from the treasury backed printing, then we don't actually get stuck with that bill but it is still tacked onto the national debt until such time as it is repaid in full.

Minutes of Fed meeting suggest a new bond-buying program could be unveiled in December

The catch is that the banks have borrowed more than is feasible for them to repay. They have borrowed over 9 trillion of the printed money so far and there isn't anywhere close to that much money in the entire banking and/or financial sector and would take 20-30 years for them to pay back in full. It is very likely that when nobody is looking, the government will eat the majority of this debt because the banks simply cannot pay back that much money. And this is all if the printing stopped today. At 40 billion a month, those already absurd numbers are growing at breakneck pace.

If you still don't get it, there is plenty of information available for me to continue expanding on this. So much so that a full rundown could make this understandable at the elementary level. Lets see how much tutoring you need before you can wrap your head around it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I've responded to all your unfounded accusations. We disagree. But what I am is not OWS related. Your inaccurate description of me are not issues that affect the 99%.

It is not relevant. You are simply trying to distract from the important issues that you cannot argue.

Why do you feel a need to attack me personally. Nothing you have said is true. I debate important issues honestly in a civil way.

Try it. It is it's own reward & life affirming.


[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Fortunately your answer doesn't matter as much as your being confronted with it. Next time you want to try and pin labeling on me, make sure you have more than a comment you've decided to twist out of context. I have an entire forum of your divisive and noninclusive comments to permalink to, personal defamation and political hate rants and all.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I think you need to stop attacking me personally. It is not relevant!

If their is some important issue you'de like to debate, then perhaps I will do that. (job creation, cutting working class taxes/debts, higher wages?)

But your constant attacks on me are unfounded, inaccurate, meaningless, useless, and simply a distraction.

It's beginning to be harassment.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

So now challenging your labeling of persons by political affiliation or dividing issues by those labels you apply to everyone, I'm attacking you personally? Stop wiggling around the issue and confront your apparent recycled hate.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I have an opinion on the approach we should pursue to address our problems. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone with an opinion usually think that their opinion is correct, and that their approach will help everyone.

Even conservative have said that their approach will help all people. Whether everyone agrees or not.

So I'm not dictating what should be done for anyone. I'm expressing my opinion that I believe will help most people (the 99%).

Just like conservatives have an opinion they believe will help everyone.

Do you think any conservative will come around to a progressive approach? Will you.?

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Stop pretending to have me on the defense with your misleading questions. I'm not some new guy to the forum with mysterious positions and we both know that. Your approach has continued to be divisive and discriminatory on a forum designed for the 99%. You face hard debates and questions with more of the same and repeated slogans that have no real meaning nor is it an answer to 90% of the debates you inject yourself in or resulting questions. Pretending my positions are in question doesn't change anything.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I will continue to use 99% because I know that ALL of the 99% would benefit from the progressive solutions that OWS supports.

I am not saying that I speak for the 99%. I am not saying that all the 99% believe as I do. I am saying that regardless of how the 99% think, they will benefit from the progressive solutions we need.

You disagree?. You think conservatives might be offended? Will any come around to our progressive approach?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Ah, you know whats best for them. How dictatorial of you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I am not trying, nor am I succeeding at supplanting anyone with party labels. When have I done that? You are spewing unfounded accusations.

I am all inclusive of all the 99% when I discuss the progressive solutions we are fighting for.

I just refuse to use gender as a means to attack the people I debate with.

Get it?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

We aren't all progressives, or liberals, or democrats. If you are talking about those groups, than the number is much much smaller than 99%. You are attempting to place your definition of progressivism onto people that do not fall within the scope of progressive ideas. You are willfully ignoring large swaths and attempting to speak for people that do not agree with you or your ideas of progressivism. No you are looking out for about 53%. Start using that number or lose the conservative trash talk. Pick one.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

No "undermining" here boss. I just refuse to use gender as an insult against the people I debate. It is a distraction tactic, it is irrelevant, and it is sexist.


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

No, I understand you're trying supplant people with party labels. Understand?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I ain't omitting people. My position is one that includes and stands for the 99%. Which includes ALL genders & ethnicities, colors.

But to use that catagories in regards to the people I'm debating is irrelevant and simply a distraction.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

To undermine their demographic by supplanting party labels in not bringing people together, it's division by artificial labels.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

People (the 99%) are under assault. All colors & genders. By the 1%. That doesn't mean a discussion on inflation is more valuable if you try to assign a gender or ethnicity to me. That is a distraction.

I believe OWS stands against the racist & anti immigrant policies of the right wing, I think also OWS stands against the anti womens rights, rape confused republicans as well.

Certainly I do.

I have said as much on this forum, but I never use these catagories to attack the people I'm discussing important issues with. Nor do I use them as distractions.


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

That doesn't mean a discussion on inflation is more valuable if you try to assign a gender or ethnicity to me. That is a distraction.

lmao, you know better than that.

You do no favors by omitting the people connected to the issues and supplanting them with false labels, like anti-dem or conservative.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I did not really understand your last comment.

I will only say that I am hear to discuss important issues honestly & in a civil way. I stand with, and take the side of the 99%. I submit openly that I believe the root of ALL our problems is conservative policy. I advocate strongly for progressive solutions.

Gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, the personal info of all on this forum is not relevant. Discussions in that regard are simply distractions from the important issues I come here to discuss.

Every important issue that affects the 99% is address by our political leaders, and we live under their rule. Further more the discussion of these issues must consider the reality of the ever present political spectrum (that has not been rescinded).

If I believe a comment/opinion/position is conservative I say it. Not to insult but to have things out in the open, to express my opinion. You're allowed to hold conservative positions.

I disregard the conservative approach because I know it is the root of all our problems.

I hope that is useful in understanding me better, but that is not really required.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Discussions in that regard are simply distractions from the important issues

Those are this issues. Haven't you been paying attention. Blacks and women are under assault in this country but you're a liberal and that is somehow not relevant? Connecting people on this forum with the criminal neglect of politicians by way of label is somehow more acceptable and relevant than the actual human beings this movement is fighting to protect? Women need representation, not the liberal brand. The black community needs a political voice, not the liberal brand. Think what you want, but you don't seem to have enough appreciation for humanity to really grasp the issues of our day.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Glad I could help.

I am certainly comfortable with my position and the comments I offered.

Most of all I am proud that I have resisted theurge to personally attack. I am pleased I argued the points honestly and never resorted to the distraction of insults and such.

So if someone wants to read these comments they should have at it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Not true? Rather than have a foul mouth as I do sometimes, you avoided real identifier such as gender with me and race with others, which are real things, you blanket people in artificial identifiers such as conservative and the classic anti-dem. The thing that is missed in all the bullshit from the political/media culture is the blurring of reality through erasure of history(roots). You've heard the expression "have to know where you've been in order to know where you're going"? As it becomes less and less ok to even mention gender or race or heritage, any sort of foundation. All the history of those also become forgotten. A good example is the rebirth of the women's lib. How absurd is it to be fighting this fight again? And this soon. We can't say anything about black culture. I'm sure when I said black chick, someone winced. Well fook off because knowing the history of rock, and southern rock, there is a cultural tie there that brings another respect for the performance. You can't get that richness from dry artificial and grey labels like liberal or conservative. So, pardon my honesty and potty mouth. I live in a world not so dry and inhumane as boiling everything and everyone down to one and two liner nothings. Discrediting everyday human beings with the actions of the lunatics in Washington. Everyone in Occupy could just as well donated there hundred dollars, turned the TV back on and be done with it. Some spend days on the street, some hours writing on blogs, some in groups trying to bring communities together, and not making a dime. There is a richness of soul you insult time and again with the empty nothing identifiers you slam people with repeatedly. Another word is passive aggressive, but I like the long road sometimes.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You can't argue it is happening effectively because there is NO proof.

Better to limit your objection to the free ride that the Fed provides the banksters! When they should be helping the individuals who have been victimized by the the banks.

Better to put aside the partisanship against one politician that you insist on engaging in. The system is bigger than Pres Obama. Outefforts must target all pols. And the banksters.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

only if you didn't actually read any of the links I posted could you say that. Unfortunately when anyone reads those links then your comments, it falls back on your user name(whatever thats worth). The Fed is a symptom, not the cause. Culture is the cause. Spreading information, as your arguments provided such an opportunity for, read or unread by you, is the cure.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

But the repubs ain't goin after Pres Obama, cause they ain't got no evidence. cause it ain't happening.


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

I'm not going to argue reality with you. It is happening. If you want to debate the points of what is happening let me know but I'm done arguing with this wall.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You're not making sense. The pres has no influence over the Fed. If he were exercising any, your repubs would be squealing, & investigating.

So you are wrong AGAIN about what the Pres is doing.

Blame the Fed. I agree with that. But you can't resist making this partisan so you drift into your fantasies it would be funny if it weren't sad.


[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

The Romney campaign did bring it up and so did Republican members of the House. I would offer you the article on CNN Money about it but you wouldn't read it anyway.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You left out the fact that the Pres has nothing to do with Fed action.

You also left out that the Fed lending to banks is shortterm. So we may "co sign", and for some short time we are on the hook, but those Fed loans haven't been defaulted on by the banks. Why would they, they pay almost 0% interest. THAT is the crime! They borrow it @0% then make huge % profit just on the float.

The people should have their high interest debt refinanced this way. THAT is the crime.

Have I ejimicated you yet.?

AAaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha!

So your worried that "the govt will eat the majority of this debt" The short term debt?

You don't sound like you know what you are talkin about. You left the 2 main facts.

Pres has ni influence, And banks borrow short term.

Read a book! Stop misleading people.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Economic policy is under National Defense per EO12333(1986). Secondly, the career of the Fed chair rides on what the president thinks. This is life, not a computer simulation. Don't be so naive. Obama also said that all of the TARP money has been repaid, survey says! He's a liar

Your second lesson. There will be a test on this material so read carefully.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You mock me!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well then I'm very happy for you. I'm sure your parents are very proud of you.

I should say I make no effort to compile evidence against other posters here. I'm not here to personally attack anyone. I am here to discuss important issues honestly in a civil way. so for me the personal attacks should never come into use.

Obviously I prefer to pit my opinion/approach against another. Compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I avoid the "crossfire", "msm zinger", 'politics of personal destruction" culture that is at the center of much of our inability to communicate.

So if I'm talkin about you personally or vice versa then we ain't talkin about the important issues that matter to the 99%.

You know?

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Long live the 99%, Progressive ideas, down with Republicans, Check the pols, I like puppies!


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I am against the continued cheap lending (QE) to the banksters by the fed.

I already said I think the people should get direct loans from the fed.

I just disagree with your lies that Pres Obama is influencing the Fed, and that somehow that money is added to the national debt.

It ain't. Electronic phoney money xfering back and forth that allows banks to make money on the float.

So of course I'm against it.

I just can't let your lies go unchallenged. Oh and conservatives have absolutely criticized QE. That is yet another lie you've spewed.!

Get it.? I'm against QE & against your lies.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Obama has many tools he can and could have utilized to end the printing beginning with replacing Bernanke and up to refusal to sell any more US financial instruments to the Fed, yes the US treasury is under white house control and Obama could order them to refuse any further sales to the FED. The list of action not take go on and on. But you know all of this already. You play dumb and only now concede the point because you just realized you spent three days digging yourself a deep hole that exposes your true interest. GAME OVER

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

LOL. If there was evidence the Pres was influencing the Fed, your right wing wackos in the House would have launched investigations!

Repub TARP prgm payback? Pres has not said ALL money has been paid back. So that would make YOU the liar? It would also make your terp fallacy a distraction from your inaccurate FED accusations.

You are all kind of wrong!. As always!

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Are you now siding with the banks? You think all this money backed by US tax payers going to the banks is Ok? Thats funny that you mention the conservatives not bringing up the Fed printing because that money is going right into the hands of their buddies, why would they do anything to fuck that up? Maybe it's the same reason you want to pretend it isn't happening, because you aren't really a liberal nor do you actually support Occupy or doing anything to interfere with the banks and their continued extortion of the American public. After three days of you ignoring reality, article after article, fact after fact, your spin can be seen as nothing less then a defense of the banks. Get off this forum you fucking sellout.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Well if the economy is so great then why is unemployment around 18% with the age group 18 - 28?

Why do you think Obama allowed dependents to stay on their parents HC plan until they are 26 - because he knows they won't have a job.

ANd the stock market lost over 500 points since his re-election - I guess that's the repbulicans fault.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The unemployemnet problem been exasperated by repubs:

  • I mentioned they filibustered the vet jobs bll 1 million. (many younger than 28)

  • State repubs fired almost a million public workers

  • Repubs blocked infrastructure jobs bill million jobs

  • repubs blocked greentech jobs action another million.

And others. So repubs traitorous behavior has made the unemployment problem worse.

Stock market goes up and down. It was 6500 when Pres Obama took office. So it is up 100%. it is down mostrecently because ofrepublicans comments about not being willing to raisewealthy taxrates.

And the ACA allows for young people to stay on parents health plan because the 20's are the age people avoid health costs. So this makes it easier and cheaper to get the into the pool. It is criticaly important to get healthy people into the system.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

The stock market prior to him being elected was around 13,000 - so to say it improved is a lame excuse.

And BTW as I noted - why didn't Obama do anything about jobs that were lost during the first two years when he was in charge -

Can't say he didn't know about it because he used it as a means to get re-elected - but did nothing but focus on HC so that it could be named after him.

That was his goal and now he blames Republicans because of the slumping economy.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Pres Obamas policy are responsible for creating almost 5 million jobs. Replacing all those jobs losr during his 1st 2 years in office from the Bush great recession.

Before Pres Obama was re elected the stock market was 13000, then repubs started saying they would not compromise on tax increases on the wealthy. . Before Pres Obama was elected (2008) the stock market was 6500 so it has gone up 100% during Pres Obamas tenure.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

RINO stonewalling of the jobs act? Ring any bells? Or are your ears always ringing?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

If Obama knew how to "negociate" he could have worked with the Republicans - but he doesn't. He knows very little about how to negociate which when it comes to working with your opponent goes a long way in solving problems.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I am done talking with you Shill. You have no standing in reality and all you do is spout/spew RINO/CorpoRATist BS. Buh-Bye.

[-] -2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 7 years ago

Well, Shay has a point. The Divider-in-Chief does NOT know how to negotiate. Take today, his first press conference in 5 MONTHS. All bluster and postering in front of the cameras about his position on taxes. Is that really a good way to negotiate?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Face it - you like the status-quo ( RINO/CorpoRATs PTB ) - and so you attack the present administration and leave the other causes for failure to improve alone.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

What I don't like is a president who for the past 4 years boasted about how he was going to change things and didn't.

It's apparent that the people who voted for him again wanted more of his change and they wouldn't give someone with business experience a chance.

One thing I forgot to mention about the millions that Obama invested in solar panels. The reason they failed is because China was building them cheaper.

Obama couldn't see this nor did he even consider looking into this before investing in these companies. A business person would have analyzed the maket before they would have invested.

But, hey, when the government is going to give you millions for free - that's not an issue - so what if the business fails - they don't have to pay it back.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

What you also don't like is looking at - is reality and accepting the fact that this term of office has been sabotaged by CorpoRATs/RINO's and this next term of office looks to be more of the same crap from corpoRATs/RINO's.

BTW - love how you parrot the RINO/CorpoRAT talking points/lies.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Hey, he was in charge for 2 yars and didn't do crap about improving the economy - his main goal was to get a "healthcare bill" passed so it could be named after him - Obamacare - he knew what he was doing.

So don't give me this crap he was being blocked by the "republicans" when in fact the economy as he stated was losing millions of jobs during his first two years - he ignored those stats though.

And boasted about it to get re-elected - why didn't he do anything about it when he knew about it when he was in charge the first two years.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

There was the stimulus/bailout program created by Shrub to work with at the time. Creating a national Health Care Program would have immediately helped the poor and the families just slapped down by the economic meltdown.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

He still didn't do anything for the economy - that can't be denied.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

BS shill BS - he did what he could to help the economy in-spite of the RINO persistent/consistent/relentless sabotage. No I am not happy with the state of the economy - but try to join reality Shill - there has been damned little support for anything positive.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

He was in charge for 2 yerars and knew how the country was bleeding jobs - he ignored it but instead focused on HC. Give me a break - he could have done something to improve it but he didn't

He wanted his name to go down in history - and it sure is.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Unemployment is high cause of repubs blocking Dem jobs program

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Of course he did. That is why the economy IS better

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

I guess unemployment over 8% is the new norm -

[-] 0 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

Suck it up and please move forward...

Crying over spilled milk won't matter. Want change? Then be a positive energy factor, not a negative ion.

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

Why is the taxpayer always being told to suck it up? No one involved with OWS pays taxes?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Woa. Wait a minute. I pay plenty of taxes. I'm not complaining about that. I just think others also need to pay their proportionate share.

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

You didn't answer my question. Why would you suggest that taxpayers suck it up? This is blatant theft; most of government is blatant theft.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

No. The government provides services the public uses; it builds roads, provides for defense, provides police, firemen, weather stations, disaster relief, environmental protection, assures (or should) for a good economy for people to work in, care for elderly, and the sick who cannot care for themselves...... Sure, the government does some foolish things, I don't agree with a good bit of what the government does, but but to say the government is mostly theft is just plain ignorant. The theft is done by people who do not do what they are supposed to do when the government gives them money. The theft is also done by the people who do not pay their fair share of taxes which pays for all the things the government does for them.

You ask who lost. Everybody loses when some people steal from the government, and when other people don't pay their share of taxes.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

Either way, I don't like the social mandates that accompany the return of our own money.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

Go to Alaska or Texas and you'll have like minded folks.

Social mandates should be up to the people, democratic determination. You don't need politicians for social issues.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

First they rob us of our money and then they tell us we are morally deficient human beings who must either correct our behavior or starve.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

Death and taxes. 2 certainties.

You could pull a Wesley snipes move. Is another option.

Other than that, the tax man will get you. That is why we need to watch where the money is going. No more wars, end corporate socialism.

I like small government ideology. I just don't accept the preachiness, and let them burn or drown or starve that conservatives push. We need some level of federal government. Some could end and I wouldn't miss it. Department of homeland security, education could be trimmed. No child left behind laws gave more tests, and regulations, but more tests don't equate higher test scores, or better results. Bring in corporations to show ideas of how to improve learning, if they can help. But we do need public education as a floor.

Math and reading scores would go up if that was what our culture values. The culture says these aren't valuable.

What we need is living wage jobs. High tech jobs and green energy jobs. How to get corps and colleges, states and individuals working towards thes in local communities would be interesting. How about having 18 year olds work in agriculture, in exchange for a year of tuition.

There have to be solutions, less politics, win-loose scenarios.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

The problem is that we vote horizontally; it's always either/ or. We're not looking at issues as one people to judge them good or bad and then vote them up or down. There's too much diversity, too many competing and conflicting interests; it stifles intelligent governance.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

The ballot choices in Fl were a fuckin joke. The lady asked us if we meant to leave so many blank. Was like YA.

They had to do something special with the machine if there were blanks on there.

But we got a cute sticker that said we helped keep freedom alive ... (sound of vomiting)

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

It's not about the taxpayer.
It is about Obama, as the above post states, by more whining and complaining from the losing side..


Let Wall street pay their fair share. Bring back all the jobs that are created by the companies the Republicans, and their big business cohorts sent overseas, including Donald Trumps. Put the people back to work here and then let the ones who are above and beyond the middle class pay their fair share as well. Bring the bank accounts out of the foreign countries and give their banker bed buddies use of the interest to help reinvest in America..

Give the middle class more incentives for paying higher taxes. There is none, so who actually pays the salaries for politicians anyway?

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

You are saying to suck it up and move forward but this is political corruption, the abuse of our tax dollars... why are we always being told to suck it up as those in power steal from us to give to their friends? Would you say suck it up if Romney was doing this? And that is key to this election - it has allowed the powers to be to proceed with their agenda.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

I would say suck it up to anyone and everyone, regardless of who is in office. What you fail to remember is that there has been a segment of society, within this country, who has had to "SUCK IT UP" for decades, centuries even! They have even shed blood while being made to do so. Please stop acting childish. This government has failed on many levels to protect innocent taxpayers. Let's just see what happens.
I'm just saying.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

Who had to suck it up for decades? My family has sucked it up for decades, in fact we've been paying taxes in this country for centuries.

But why would you make this a black white issue? Believe it or not, there are millions of African Americans that pay taxes, too. And these criminals in office have shit on them, too.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

I was talking about the Japanese-Americans in the interment camps they were forced into at gunpoint here in America during world war II.
What are you referring to?

I'm not hung up on black, white, issues....you are. I'm talking about nations of people here..period.

I'm just saying..

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

Well, we all feel for those unfairly interned; my great grandfather was a German national and he was interned during WWI at Fort Oglethorpe for almost two years - until long after the war had been concluded. But no one cries for them do they? It didn't even rate a historic mention.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

And that is why you remain bitter towards this administration and this country?

Come on! Who do you owe allegiance to?

More individuals who came here from other countries got a better shake than those whose ancestors were here originally.

Let's just cut to the chase...... That is the history of this country....fair for some, but unfair for others, but opportunity available to all? Isn't that the concept we were all raised under?.

I'm just saying

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

I don't like the present direction of our country; there's far too much dystopia, not enough stability, not enough certainty regarding the future.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

Ahhh... Such is life...

We are born, then we struggle to survive, then we die, individually. No getting around that fact. So do the best while we are here and that is all any of us can do individually..... I'm just saying.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

I've always expressed it this way: you live, you work, and you die - it's a very basic philosophy and that is how I have lived my life. For the working class abject poverty is always but one half-step away - we're but three mortgage payments away from losing our homes at all times, which took years to acquire; a thousand dollar loss this month can very easily result in a missed payment months from now. And having a home is but one aspect of caring for ourselves. This administration has actively sought to take money off our tables through increased taxes, higher insurance costs, higher energy prices, while simultaneously it has transferred that wealth to those unwilling to work in the form of food stamps and expanded medicaid.

It has actively sought to export jobs, to destroy local economies... in short these people are no f*cking good.

And if you're young and too stupid to see these things, then you deserve the government you get. I was never so young, never...

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

Then again, like the hole in the bucket ole man...it's a vicious circle. So suck it up!

I'm just saying.

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

I will never suck up to corrupt governance.

[-] 2 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 7 years ago

Look around, there is really not much else you can do, now is there?

All this going around with me is not actually solving anything is it?

You have solutions? I would love to see those solutions other than reading your constant whining on here. This nation needs strong minds, moral values, and people with perseverance to move ahead, no matter what! Somewhat like the aftermath of Sandy. If you can't do that then I suggest you just go get some rest and let those who can, handle it because this conversation with you is like being on a Ferris wheel, turning around and round, but never really going anywhere else! So, I'm jumping off. Life is too short for this nonsense. I'm just saying!