Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  Obama watch (Page 5)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 27 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Obama watch by fierobear
Started on: 01-28-2009 02:01 AM
Replies: 1051 (15604 views)
Last post by: avengador1 on 07-06-2014 05:04 PM
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post05-03-2009 10:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

WH Reporters: Difference between Bush and Obama.

Can you spot it?



I though protocol was every one stands when POTOS stands or enters a room and only sits after he does or tells you to?
IP: Logged
rpro
Member
Posts: 2920
From: Rockledge, FL
Registered: Jun 2006


Feedback score:    (16)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 76
Rate this member

Report this Post05-03-2009 11:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rproSend a Private Message to rproEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
You've obviously never read A Slobbering Love Affair.

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post05-03-2009 11:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Phranc:


I though protocol was every one stands when POTOS stands or enters a room and only sits after he does or tells you to?


Protocol is also for the POTUS *not* to bow to foreign heads of state.
Not a lot of consistency in protocol, with the media, or the government.
IP: Logged
Wichita
Member
Posts: 20656
From: Wichita, Kansas
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post05-04-2009 01:32 AM Click Here to See the Profile for WichitaSend a Private Message to WichitaEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I love the Onion's account of Obama's 100 days. Here is a snippet.

DAY 14: Taco Tuesday
DAY 19: After a tense afternoon holed up in the Situation Room, President Obama finally locates that old pack of Lyndon Johnson’s Benson & Hedges.
DAY 40: President Obama forwards the link to the new “Star Trek” movie trailer to the entire staff. Again.
DAY 53: White House luncheon guests share a moment of awkwardness when someone says, “Madame first lady,” and both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama turn around.
DAY 84: Joe Biden meets with Treasury Secretary Geithner to discuss economic policy and whether you need to pay taxes on an old suitcase full of money you happened to find in a park 15 years ago.
DAY 100: Everything all fixed.


http://www.theonion.com/con...utm_source=b-section

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-04-2009 01:33 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound:


Note the overall 56% approval 43 % disapproval on your own link. Rasmussen always low balls the Democratic party.
You are being dishonest to leave out the middle two choices. A one point difference is a disconnect from reality.
But you are a republican so this is typical.


I didn't leave out anything. The article explains how the numbers work, but like a typical liberal, you go right to the insult while the point ZOOOOMS over your head.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-07-2009 10:01 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Save pennies, but spend dollars...

White House: Obama seeks hike in domestic spending

WASHINGTON – In twin strokes, President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to award generous budget increases to domestic programs while proposing relatively modest cuts to wasteful or obsolete programs that just won't seem to die.

Officials said Wednesday that Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget had produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion — or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were being unveiled Thursday.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the president's plan for program cuts is just a start and that a lot more needs to be done to dig the government out of its fiscal hole, especially curbing the growth of the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and the poor.

"But $17 billion a year is not chump change by anyone's accounting," he said.

Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama's generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.

Most of the major elements of Obama's budget for next year were released in February. Additional details were coming out Thursday and next week.

The roster of cuts won't be easy for Congress to swallow. Lawmakers from the potent California, New York and Florida delegations are sure to fight the elimination of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which gives money to states to help defray the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit crimes. President George W. Bush tried and failed to kill the $400 million program several times.

In fact, some of the cuts, like terminating production of C-17 cargo aircraft and phasing out direct payments to farmers with sales exceeding $500,000 annually, have already been rejected by Obama's allies in Congress. A key House panel is proposing adding $2.2 billion for 8 C-17s to Obama's pending war request, while a congressional budget plan passed last week protects the farm payments targeted by Obama.

About half the budget savings would come from an effort by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to curb defense programs, including ending production of the F-22 fighter and killing a much-maligned replacement helicopter fleet for the president.

Orszag briefed Democratic lawmakers on a partial roster of the cuts Wednesday. Obama also is fleshing out the details of the $1.3 trillion portion of the budget that he requested Congress pass through appropriations bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

And just as Congress is beginning work on a new war bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the fall, Obama is sending up a $130 billion request to fund them next year. That figure may not be adequate considering the increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan.

Obama has said repeatedly his administration will go through the budget "line by line" to eliminate waste. But the resulting savings are relatively minor compared with the government's fiscal woes, especially a deficit that's likely to exceed $1.5 trillion this year.

Republicans weren't impressed with the cuts.

"While we appreciate the newfound attention to saving taxpayer dollars from this administration, we respectfully suggested that we should do far more," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

Many of the cuts mirror those proposed previously by Bush but largely rejected by Congresses controlled by both Republicans and Democrats.

In fact, Democrats already have pared about $10 billion from Obama's appropriations requests in passing the $3.4 trillion congressional budget plan last month.

And lawmakers are unlikely to go along with a call to raise — after 2010 — per-ticket fees on airline travel to fund airport security programs.

In a preview, administration officials named a few examples Thursday which mostly represented easy-to-pluck targets, like ending the Education Department's attache in Paris, at a savings of $632,000 a year. Another example: the obsolete LORAN-C aircraft navigation system, which still gets $35 million a year despite being made obsolete by the satellite-based Global Positioning System.

In other budget areas, the administration would keep paying for private-school vouchers for about 1,700 children receiving them in Washington, D.C., an administration official said. Obama is proposing $12.2 million for the 2010-11 school year and would like to continue the funding until the kids in the program graduate. He would not allow new students into the program.
IP: Logged
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post05-07-2009 11:11 AM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
It's like running up 8 credit cards to the max then deciding not to buy a piece of Bazooka Joe.
IP: Logged
D B Cooper
Member
Posts: 3141
From: East Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 55
Rate this member

Report this Post05-07-2009 05:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for D B CooperSend a Private Message to D B CooperEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

"Officials said Wednesday that Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget had produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion — or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were being unveiled Thursday."

HaHaHa LOL. !! Even "two-penny" Jenny Grandholm did better than that with her proposed budget cuts. ($300M in cuts to fix a $1.3B shortfall)


IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post05-07-2009 07:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Someone making $50k a year can easily save $1000 if they first open up a $1 Million line of credit.

None of Obama's "savings" will bring his budgets anywhere close to the "irresponsible" spending of any other president in history. That's not a jab - that's fact, as supported by Obama's own budget numbers.

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-07-2009 07:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

Someone making $50k a year can easily save $1000 if they first open up a $1 Million line of credit.

None of Obama's "savings" will bring his budgets anywhere close to the "irresponsible" spending of any other president in history. That's not a jab - that's fact, as supported by Obama's own budget numbers.



Those liberals who complained about Bush, Republicans and fiscal irresponsibility are looking MIGHTY foolish about now.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-08-2009 03:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Uh oh. Now, even the mainstream media is yawning at Obama's proposed budget cuts. Also notice that, during the campaign, Obama belittled McCain for proposing cuts EXACTLY THE SAME as Obama's proposal, but suddenly it means something now that he's doing it!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/po...is-17-bill-in-b.html
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post05-08-2009 04:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Any one else see how the service workers union ( a very close friend of ACORN ) has used its white house help to make sure Cali can't cut its wages to save the state? So Obama is telling a state that if you want federal monies to help you then you have to do what the unions want and not what is better for the state as a whole.
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post05-08-2009 04:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Those liberals who complained about Bush, Republicans and fiscal irresponsibility are looking MIGHTY foolish about now.


They don't see it. They don't care about the extra spending because "he had to spend some money." Yet they're touting his fiscal responsibility for every penny he saves. If, and that's a big IF, he manages to get his budget deficit down to his 2015 projections, they'll cheer his fiscal responsibility, ignoring the fact that it's STILL higher than any other president in history.
IP: Logged
rpro
Member
Posts: 2920
From: Rockledge, FL
Registered: Jun 2006


Feedback score:    (16)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 76
Rate this member

Report this Post05-08-2009 06:26 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rproSend a Private Message to rproEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
A friend of mine sent this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30636895/

With the help of your tax dollars and some heavy handed government interference, they have suceeded in edging out the American worker, sending more jobs and money abroad and probably sacrificed some of the quality. Good for GM's profits, good for the government, which will probably impose an import tarriff on GM cars manufactured abroad and bad for the American public in every way imaginable. It might look good to stockholders, but if the public realizes what is happening here, it should kill GM's sales once and for all.

Remember, "we" couldn't afford to let them fail, and I am now convinced that "we" refers to Obama, his crooked congressional bedfellows and the GM execs that were in the room when he made that statement.

Thanks Obama! Thanks democrats! I knew you would stand up to the corporate thugs on our behalf!
IP: Logged
Old Lar
Member
Posts: 13797
From: Palm Bay, Florida
Registered: Nov 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 214
Rate this member

Report this Post05-08-2009 06:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Old LarSend a Private Message to Old LarEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
One down (top aid) only a few hundred more to go.

http://news.aol.com/article...ork-flyover%2F473128

[This message has been edited by Old Lar (edited 05-08-2009).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-08-2009 08:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rpro:

Thanks Obama! Thanks democrats! I knew you would stand up to the corporate thugs on our behalf!


HAHAHAHA! What was that Obama said during the campaign about outsourcing?

JUST WAIT until cap and trade kicks in. You think jobs are leaving NOW? pffffft! This is nothing. And it's ALL brought to you by Democrats.

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-10-2009 01:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Christ, this guy is SO naive. And he's the PRESIDENT!

Upfront costs complicate Obama's health care plan

WASHINGTON – Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.

NAAAAAW. You don't say???

The upfront tab could reach $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while expected savings from wringing waste and inefficiency from the health care system may take longer to show.

Details of the health legislation have not been written, but the broad outlines of the overhaul are known. Economists and other experts say the $634 billion that Obama's budget sets aside for health care will pay perhaps half the cost.

Obama is hoping the Senate comes up with a bipartisan compromise that would give him political cover for disagreeable decisions to raise more money, such as taxing some health insurance benefits. In the 2008 campaign, Obama went after his Republican presidential rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, for proposing a large-scale version of that idea.

Wow. That's the second time in a week that Obama has proposed something that he CRITICIZED McCain for proposing during the campaign. So, was McCain smarter than we thought, or is Omama "McSame"?

Concerns about costs could spill over in the coming week when the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing on how to pay for coverage. Committee leaders hoping to have a bill before the full Senate this summer must first convince their own members that it won't break the bank.

"You go to a town meeting and people are talking about bailout fatigue," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "They like the president. They think he's a straight shooter. But they are concerned about the amount of money that is heading out the door, and the debts their kids are going to have to absorb."

It's about time.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said cost control has to come ahead of getting more people covered. "Unless we halt skyrocketing health care costs, any attempt to expand coverage will be financially unsustainable," he said.

Obama wants to build on the current system in which employers, government and individuals share responsibility for health care. He says his plan would make health insurance more affordable, particularly for small businesses and individuals. The government would subsidize coverage for low-income people and some in the middle class.

The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.

But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.

The office visits, tests, procedures and medications that the experts question represent a lot of money for doctors, hospitals, drug companies and other service providers. Dialing them back won't be easy. Providers will resist. Patients might complain their care is getting rationed.

If the governement is running it? You THINK? Ask a Canadian about that.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus, said "it's clear that the financing of this is not going to be easy." Baucus, D-Mont., says the basic approach to health care must become more economically efficient.

Instead of paying doctors and hospitals for the number of services they provide, as happens now, Baucus wants to tie reimbursement to the quality of care. Quality would measured by standards that doctors and hospitals have a hand in shaping.

Yet those kinds of changes take time, several years or even the better part of a decade.

The money to cover the uninsured will be needed right away, about $125 billion to $150 billion a year.

That leaves hard choices for lawmakers and Obama.

Baucus favors requiring individuals to get health insurance, which will help. But he also supports subsidies for people who can't afford coverage — a cost to the government.

To help close the money gap, Baucus is open to some limits on the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance.

Health benefits are considered part of an employee's compensation, but are not taxed. If all health insurance were taxed like regular income, the government could raise an additional $250 billion a year.

In the campaign, Obama opposed tampering with tax-free employer-based health care, saying it would undermine the system that delivers coverage to most people. Other prominent Democrats agree. Asked if he would support taxing benefits, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the top tax-writer in the House, simply said: "No way!"

Baucus says doing away with the tax break altogether would cause harm, but some limitations might curb waste in the system. Obama's aides say he's still opposed, but willing to consider any serious proposals from Congress.

Obama's opposition to taxing employer-provided health insurance isn't the only campaign position he might have to jettison to pay for health care.

He once criticized his chief Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing that everyone in the U.S. be required to have medical insurance. Yet such a mandate probably will be in what Congress puts together because requiring individuals to pay would lower federal costs.

For Obama, there are no easy ways to pay for health care. Options include raising other taxes, cutting deeply into Medicare payments to providers, or phasing in the expansion of coverage for the uninsured — beyond his four-year term.
IP: Logged
MadDanceSkillz
Member
Posts: 2591
From: Indiana
Registered: Jan 2009


Feedback score:    (27)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 88
Rate this member

Report this Post05-10-2009 10:20 PM Click Here to See the Profile for MadDanceSkillzSend a Private Message to MadDanceSkillzEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Wow. My fellow Fiero owners are also for the most part my fellow conservatives.

I say we all practice some "Healthy and patriotic public dissent" that the liberal hordes so love to engage in and remove the catalytic converters in our cars. Of course, the EPA might sick PETA on us. I've always suspected they were the EPA's Gestapo.
IP: Logged
spark1
Member
Posts: 11159
From: Benton County, OR
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 175
Rate this member

Report this Post05-10-2009 10:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for spark1Send a Private Message to spark1Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by MadDanceSkillz:

I say we all practice some "Healthy and patriotic public dissent" that the liberal hordes so love to engage in and remove the catalytic converters in our cars.


Before scrap metal prices tanked, the meth heads here were removing lots of catalytic converters. Real patriots!
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-11-2009 11:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion

WASHINGTON – With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion — about four times the record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.

As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In one of the few positive signs, the actual 2009 deficit is likely to be $250 billion less than predicted because Congress is unlikely to provide another $250 billion in financial bailout money.

The developments come as the White House completes the official release of its $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, adding detail to some of its tax proposals and ideas for producing health care savings. The White House budget is a recommendation to Congress that represents Obama's fiscal and policy vision for the next decade.

Annual deficits would never dip below $500 billion and would total $7.1 trillion over 2010-2019. Even those dismal figures rely on economic projections that are significantly more optimistic — just a 1.2 percent decline in gross domestic product this year and a 3.2 percent growth rate for 2010 — than those forecast by private sector economists and the Congressional Budget Office.

For the most part, Obama's updated budget tracks the 134-page outline he submitted to lawmakers in February. His budget remains a bold but contentious document that proposes higher taxes for the wealthy, a hotly contested effort to combat global warming and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all.

Obama's Democratic allies controlling Congress have already made it clear that they will reject key elements of his plan. Already apparently dead is a plan to raise $267 billion over the next decade to pay for his health care initiative by curbing the ability of wealthier people to reduce their tax bills through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.

And the congressional budget plan approved last month would not extend Obama's signature $400 tax credit for most workers — $800 for couples — after it expires at the end of next year.

Wait a minute...you mean that "tax cut for 95% of tax payers" was for only ONE YEAR??? What will people like Jeremiah do without that $14/week windfall???

Obama's remarkably controversial "cap-and-trade" proposal to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions is also reeling from opposition from Capitol Hill Democrats from coal-producing regions and states with concentrations of heavy industry. Under cap-and-trade, the government would auction permits to emit heat-trapping gases, with the costs being passed on to consumers via higher gasoline and electric bills.

I'm not sure what's so remarkable about a bill that would tax everything, raise the price of everything, tank the economy even further, chase more jobs overseas to where they WON'T reduce CO2 emissions, and have NO measurable effect on the climate

Among the new proposals is a plan — already on its way through Congress — that would increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's borrowing authority from $30 billion to $100 billion in order to grant a two-year reprieve from higher deposit insurance premiums while the industry is struggling.

Also new are several tax "loophole" closures and increased IRS tax compliance efforts to raise $58 billion over the next decade to help finance Obama's health care measure. The money makes up for revenue losses stemming from lower-than-hoped estimates of his proposal to limit wealthier people's ability to maximize their itemized deductions.

The updated budget also would repeal an unintended tax windfall taken by paper companies that use a byproduct in the paper-making process as fuel to power their mills. The tax credits were never intended for paper companies, but now they could be worth more than $3 billion a year, according to a congressional estimate.

The budget would make permanent the expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses that was provided for two years in the just-passed economic stimulus bill. It also would renew most of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and would permanently update the alternative minimum tax so that it would hit fewer middle- to upper-income taxpayers.

You mean...Bush actually DID cut people's taxes? What will the Democrats do when they find THAT out???

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-11-2009).]

IP: Logged
partfiero
Member
Posts: 6923
From: Tucson, Arizona
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 83
Rate this member

Report this Post05-11-2009 02:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for partfieroSend a Private Message to partfieroEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Revenues are down 30% this month so the deficit is now over 2 trillion, but who is counting.
A couple of hundred billion here and a couple of hundred billion there.
So much fun watching them bankrupt this nation.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 05-11-2009).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-11-2009 02:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by partfiero:

Revenues are down 30% this month so the deficit is now over 2 trillion, but who is counting.
A couple of hundred billion here and a couple of hundred billion there.
So much fun watching them bankrupt this nation.



What's really fun is having the last laugh. WE TOLD THEM this would happen, but nooooo, they HAD to vote for hopey dopey. And they are only going to make this worse.
IP: Logged
partfiero
Member
Posts: 6923
From: Tucson, Arizona
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 83
Rate this member

Report this Post05-11-2009 03:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for partfieroSend a Private Message to partfieroEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


What's really fun is having the last laugh. WE TOLD THEM this would happen, but nooooo, they HAD to vote for hopey dopey. And they are only going to make this worse.


Even though we did not pull the handle last Nov that flushed this nation down the toilet, it won't fun watching our future generations swirl in the toilet water.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-11-2009 04:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by partfiero:


Even though we did not pull the handle last Nov that flushed this nation down the toilet, it won't fun watching our future generations swirl in the toilet water.


Nope, not at all. But my wife and I are positioning ourselves into jobs and careers that will likely survive what's coming. We don't have kids, so we won't have to watch the next generation suffer like others will. I'd like to empathize, but I just can't...not when people made this choice. Now, they'll have to live with the consequences.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-14-2009 06:19 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Obama claims that his foreclosure plan has helped. The numbers seem to disagree...

How's Obama's foreclosure policy working out?

It has been nearly three months since a newly sworn in President Obama stepped forward with a plan to rescue underwater homeowners from foreclosure. Now, we learn that the President's $275 Billion foreclosure fix has floundered and failed. The professional media slobbered over Obama's homeowner bailout under the pretext that they cared about the little guy/gal losing the family home. Yet as foreclosure numbers climb to a record, breakneck pace the media stubbornly refuses to note this enormous failure of the Obama administration. The foreclosure "surge" has been lost.

CNN is reporting that April saw a record 342,000 homes slip into the foreclosure process. And the worst is yet to come. According to the article, government intervention did slow down the process, for a moment. Some major lenders took a pause last February to see what the foreclosure bailout plan would bring. But the delay is over. According to CNN it will get worse next month as even more homes move into repossession.

President Obama spoke of his plan in February -- "Through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can avoid foreclosure." (NPR ) Instead the foreclosure rate has accelerated. The President pushed through hundreds of billions in spending that has done nothing to ease the foreclosure frenzy.

It is now time for the media to question the judgment of President Obama and his economic policy. His quick fix, band-aid, throw money at the problem, Democrat solutions have not rescued the little guy from escalating foreclosure rates, unemployment rates, or crashing home values. We were assured that the emergency spending bills he pushed through would have a short term stimulus effect, yet we see none. We were told that George Bush wrecked the economy. Common sense must dictate that if Obama knows so much better than Bush, why hasn't he at least stopped the crushing foreclosure rate?

The media should be asking questions of the President. Why was the President under the illusion that his plan would rescue homeowners? Where did he get his intelligence? Was his information cherry-picked from all the available opinions within the government? Weren't there government officials, media and business experts warning that the fix would fail? Is anybody going to be held responsible for this "optional war" on foreclosure that stuck taxpayers for $275 Billion worth of nothing?

And the media should be asking questions to itself. Why did it uncritically report this massive fraud without asking for any proof it would work? Would a $275 Billion failure be ignored if big-business had dropped the ball instead of big government Democrats? Of course these questions are rhetorical. The media doesn't have the spine to stand up to a popular President they agree with.

==========================================

The only reason why the foreclosure rate isn't even worse is that banks DON'T WANT any more houses.
IP: Logged
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post05-14-2009 06:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
There was something a few weeks ago that showed how many people had restructured under a private business set up verses Obama's and as expected the free market system did much much better.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-14-2009 08:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Change of subject. The lefties (including some here) would have us believe that when Democrats win elections, it is proof that the voters in this country are becoming more liberal. Here is some evidence to the contrary.

Still the Biggest Missing Story in Politics

In August of last year I wrote an article, "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics," which reviewed the single most important datum in the last thirteen Battleground Polls over a period stretching from early 2002 to late 2008. The critical fact, completely ignored by almost everyone, was that in answering Question D3, which asked the respondent what he considered his ideology to be, sixty percent of the American people described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative."

In every single Battleground Poll, conservatives vastly outnumbered not only liberals, but moderates and undecided respondents combined. The Battleground Poll itself is a bipartisan poll, combining the resources of the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. Unlike many polls driven by newspapers, networks, or other agenda driven organizations, this poll is one of the few which has no ideological agenda or partisan bias.

The last Battleground Poll, which came out after my article, no longer revealed the answer to Question D3. Did that mean that America, suddenly, stopped being an overwhelmingly conservative nation and had been seduced by Obama into being moderate or Leftist? No. The Tarrance Group did reveal the ideological breakdown of Americans, although in a different way than in the thirteen prior Battleground Polls.

Those earlier polls had asked people to describe themselves as "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "don't know," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." Those who chose "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" were as low in some of the thirteen polls as 58% of the nation and as high in other polls as 63% of the nation, and the average of the polls was a rock solid 60%, year in and year out.

The Tarrance Group chose to look at ideology differently in its post-election poll. Respondents were asked to refine their definition of "conservative." So instead of being asked about the intensity of their ideology (i.e. "very conservative" versus "somewhat conservative"), the Battleground Poll changed the question.

Two questions replace the old Question D3. Now Americans were asked on social issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" as well as on fiscal issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." The Tarrance Group also provided data on the answers to this question within political parties.

The responses illuminated some aspects of the prior polls, but the over all result was the same: Americans, overwhelmingly, are conservative. There were some differences between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Twenty-six percent of Americans call themselves "very conservative" on fiscal issues and forty-three percent consider themselves "somewhat conservative" on fiscal issues. One percent of America is moderate on fiscal issues -- that vital "center" of American politics! -- and three percent "don't know." Twenty-two percent of Americans are "somewhat liberal" on fiscal issues, and a piddling five percent of Americans are "very liberal" on fiscal issues. When the mushy "moderate" and "don't know" respondents are excluded, fiscal conservatives outnumber fiscal liberals by seventy-four percent to twenty-six percent.

Social conservatives are the clear majority of America too, although the numbers are not quite as overwhelming. Thirty-four percent of America, more than one person in three, is "very conservative" on social issues and nineteen percent are "somewhat conservative" on social issues. One percent is moderate on social issues - again, that vital "center" of American politics! - and seven percent "don't know." Twenty percent are "somewhat liberal" on social issues and nineteen percent are "very liberal" on social issues. When the mushy "don't know" and moderates are taken out, social conservatives outnumber social liberals fifty-nine percent to forty-one percent.

Tarrance also helps explain what Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are so popular with Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Republicans are both social and fiscal conservatives. Ninety-one percent of Republicans are fiscal conservative. And seventy-seven percent of Republicans are social conservatives. Any effort to change the Republican brand ought to begin with that dramatic fact.

What about Obama's own political party, the Democrats? Only forty-two percent of Democrats are both social liberals and fiscal liberals. Perhaps more amazing, twenty-three percent of Democrats, almost one in four, describe themselves as both social conservative and fiscal conservative. Forty-seven percent of Democrats describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, and thirty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as social conservatives. Fifty-eight percent of Democrats consider themselves either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative or both.

These results, more detailed and more informative than past responses to Question D3 in previous Battleground Polls, do not alter the profoundly conservative character of the American electorate at all. A social conservative, who was perceived as a social conservative running against a social liberal, would win an easy majority of the American people in any election. A fiscal conservative, who was perceived as a fiscal conservative running against a fiscal liberal, would win a landslide greater than any in the history of these two political parties. A candidate perceive as both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative would win one quarter of the Democrat Party vote, if the Democrat was perceived as a liberal, and sweep the nation easily.

In fact, if a Democrat ran for his party's nomination as a conservative - and if the other candidates for the nomination were perceived as liberals - he ought to be able to compete for the fifty-eight percent of Democrats who were social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or both. The biggest story in American politics has been answered again, with the data even more detailed and refined. The answer is the same - just the same - America is still, in every way and from every vantage, a conservative nation.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-15-2009 04:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Obama Chutzpa, Deflection By Reflection

The Obama administration must be feeling the heat on the budget deficits, because the President is now deflecting by reflecting.

This from Bloomberg.com:

May 14 (Bloomberg) – President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

No, he’s not quoting a citizen at a Tea Party.

Reflection of emotion is a technique taught to the best telephone customer service representatives. The customer is angry so, instead of saying something like “calm down” or “don’t be angry,” the representative says, “Well I can certainly understand why you’d be angry, Mrs. Jones, because we sent you rotten fruit. We just can’t do that and keep good customers like you.” Immediately, the customer is placated. Works like a charm.

So President Obama, the author of unsustainable deficits, deflects criticism by adopting the stance of the critics. This is not Saul Alinksy. It’s Ted Bundy outraged at serial killers. Or, Barry Bonds doing a public service announcement against steroid use.

But wait, this gets better.

“WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - High U.S. budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on Monday.”

So we go from Deflection, through Reflection on to Projection, as Orszag projects Obama’s expenditures onto Bush.

Now that’s chutzpa.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-15-2009 04:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27075 posts
Member since Aug 2000
Obama's nose grows another couple of inches

Remember when Obama faced the cameras and told us that he had just talked to the Caterpillar Corporation president who promised him he was going to hire back thousands of workers once the stimulus bill was passed?

Of course, it turns out that was a bald faced lie when the business executive admitted that he had no intention of hiring anyone back on for the foreseeable future.

Flash forward to this week when Obama invited 6 major health care trade groups to the White House and said the following:

"These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment," Mr. Obama said. "Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year - an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion."


In the immortal words of Independence Day's Secretary of Defense Albert Nimzicki, "That's not entirely accurate," as Robert Pear of the New York Time s reports:

Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

"There's been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members," said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. "I've spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it."

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said "the president misspoke" on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry's commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: "I don't think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry's commitment."

The Washington office of the American Hospital Association sent a bulletin to its state and local affiliates to "clarify several points" about the White House meeting.

In the bulletin, Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the hospital association, said: "The A.H.A. did not commit to support the ‘Obama health plan' or budget. No such reform plan exists at this time."

Pollack also wrote, "The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually."

That quote from the White House flunky was priceless. From "the president misspoke" to his words were "correct and accurate." I wonder who screamed at her to get her to change her statement?

This is a president, mind you, who promised to "listen" to the people and not dictate to them. Either he needs a hearing aid or he's just making stuff up as he goes along.

I'll take the latter explanation.
IP: Logged
avengador1
Member
Posts: 35467
From: Orlando, Florida
Registered: Oct 2001


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 571
Rate this member

Report this Post05-15-2009 04:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for avengador1Send a Private Message to avengador1Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Obama restarting Bush-era terror tribunals
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-15-2009 06:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Bush's 3rd term continued

You have to almost feel sorry for liberals. I mean "almost" because frankly, their disappointment in their messiah is delicious to see.

Obama's latest outrage - according to the left - is his plan to keep the military tribunal system in place for terrorist detainees.

These are the same military tribunals that Obama believed was "an enormous failure." during the campaign.

What changed? It turns out that since there are no good options on how to adjudicate terrorist cases, the Bush system (with a few minor bones thrown to the ACLU regarding procedural matters) was the best option all along.

When witnesses put their lives on the line by giving information on terrorists to the US government, it becomes impossible to try the thugs in a regular American court. To do so would expose the names of those witnesses and the almost certain al-Qaeda revenge on their families or the witnesses themselves.

Also, some information on the terrorists was gleaned using "national technical means" which is shorthand for top secret NSA intercepts and even satellite technology. Revealing those in open court - even to a judge - is just too risky.

Taken altogether, the president decided to continue the Bush-era system. Peter Baker and David Herszenhorn of the New York Times detail the changes being contemplated:

Mr. Obama will ask for an additional 120-day delay in nine pending hearings before commissions so the administration can revamp the procedures to provide more due process to detainees, the officials said. The new system would limit the use of hearsay, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers and provide more protection if they do not testify.

The decision, to be announced Friday, could set off more criticism from civil libertarian and liberal groups that have increasingly complained that Mr. Obama has not made a sharper break from former President George W. Bush's terrorism policies. During last year's presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called the military commission system put in place by Mr. Bush "an enormous failure" and vowed to "reject the Military Commissions Act."


Meanwhile, the left literally has nowhere else to go. Their criticism will be muted and, I daresay, we won't be hearing many charges against Obama that he is a war criminal.

What do you think the chances are that Obama will thank George Bush for setting the tribunals up in the first place?
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
randye
Member
Posts: 13768
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 216
Rate this member

Report this Post05-15-2009 07:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

Meanwhile, the left literally has nowhere else to go. Their criticism will be muted and, I daresay, we won't be hearing many charges against Obama that he is a war criminal.

What do you think the chances are that Obama will thank George Bush for setting the tribunals up in the first place?


Paraphrasing Saul Alinsky;

"'...All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be,"
Michele Obama, Democat Party National Convention Speech

B. Hussein Obama is finding out about the world as it is and not the fantasy world of the liberal mind.
I think he may have suddeny realized that any terror attack on the United States now....he owns.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-15-2009).]

IP: Logged
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post05-15-2009 07:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
So Obama is fixing the massive mistake he made on day 1. Think that will be the beginning of a trend that fixes all his other massive mistakes made in the first 100 days?

Wounder what neptune and conn have to say about this?
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 01:30 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

Wounder what neptune and conn have to say about this?


Conn likes to make questionable excuses for Obama. Neptune just babbles incoherent nonsense like "woo woo choo choo bye bye".

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 13768
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 216
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 12:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

So Obama is fixing the massive mistake he made on day 1. Think that will be the beginning of a trend that fixes all his other massive mistakes made in the first 100 days?

Wounder what neptune and conn have to say about this?


Not "fixing massive mistakes" so much as grudgingly coming to some hard truths. Like a child learning there isn't really a Santa Claus.
As was pointed out before and during this past election, B. Hussein Obama followed Alinsky's "playbook" almost to the letter.
Alinsky was all about how to *get* power. He died before ever seeing any of his neo-Marxist dreams come to fruition and consequently his "playbook", (Rules for Radicals and Revilie for Radicals), doesn't cover what to do with that power once you have it.
What we have seen in the first 100 days has been a veritable "smash and grab" robbery and an attempt to shove a much socialism as fast as possible down the throat of the nation. An attempt remake "the world as it should be", at least according to the "progressive", (read; "*socialist*), mind.
IP: Logged
Uaana
Member
Posts: 6570
From: Robbinsdale MN US
Registered: Dec 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 138
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 12:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for UaanaClick Here to visit Uaana's HomePageSend a Private Message to UaanaEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Why can't Conn and Neptune come in and defend Obama?
I know this is mostly a conservative thread but I know I don't like talking in an echo chamber
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 12:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Uaana:

Why can't Conn and Neptune come in and defend Obama?
I know this is mostly a conservative thread but I know I don't like talking in an echo chamber


Conn expressed frustration at (at least what he perceived as) trying to argue into a stiff wind of mostly conservatives. That would be mostly because most of the lefties jumped ship on these discussions. I presume it's because:

1. With Bush gone, they had nothing to b*tch about.
2. With Bush gone, they suddenly discovered that they OWNED the problem and might be having trouble making plausible excuses for the messiah, who afterall, is perfect, which leads to the inevitable angst over why it appears that he keeps screwing up.

As for Neptune, probably the above plus it appears this whole thing was about not much more than "we won, you lost, nah nah nah nah nah nah!!!". After that, there's little or no substance to form a logical and cogent argument.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-16-2009).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 01:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27075 posts
Member since Aug 2000
 
quote
Originally posted by randye:


Not "fixing massive mistakes" so much as grudgingly coming to some hard truths. Like a child learning there isn't really a Santa Claus.
As was pointed out before and during this past election, B. Hussein Obama followed Alinsky's "playbook" almost to the letter.
Alinsky was all about how to *get* power. He died before ever seeing any of his neo-Marxist dreams come to fruition and consequently his "playbook", (Rules for Radicals and Revilie for Radicals), doesn't cover what to do with that power once you have it


AH! That just might make things interesting. I didn't realize that they didn't have an endgame strategy. Actually, you can see that playing out as we speak. Notice how Obama made a campaign promise, then tried to fulfill it, then realized it wouldn't work, backed off, said the opposite? I think you're going to see a LOT of that. He really has no idea what to do with power. I guess he reached the final chapter of "Rules for Radicals" and was left wondering..."what NOW, Saul???"
IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 13768
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 216
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 02:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


AH! That just might make things interesting. I didn't realize that they didn't have an endgame strategy. Actually, you can see that playing out as we speak. Notice how Obama made a campaign promise, then tried to fulfill it, then realized it wouldn't work, backed off, said the opposite? I think you're going to see a LOT of that. He really has no idea what to do with power. I guess he reached the final chapter of "Rules for Radicals" and was left wondering..."what NOW, Saul???"


Even more interesting, Saul never wrote about how to *hold onto* power.
In typical Marxist fashion, those for whom Alinsky wrote both of his screeds were considered "useful idiots".
It was always about encouraging "change", without much thought given as to *what* they were changing to.
The simple analogy is a teen who wants a fancy new car but hasn't given thought to the fact that he can't possibly afford the payments, insurance, maintenance, and taxes on his fast food pay check. He knows only what he *wants* and believes it isn't "fair" that others have what he doesn't have. He wants to CHANGE his present circumstances.
He dreams of "Economic and Social Justice" (equality of outcome without regard to effort).
The modern "progressive" is simply the "useful idiot" of the Marxist.
Alinsky looked at the 60's radicals and clearly saw them as such.
Semantics, substituting "progressive" for leftist, socialist, Marxist, was one of the hurdles to clear to bring in the "uninvolved middle" that Alinsky said were crucial to effecting "change".
Afterall, who isn't *for* progress?, and only a kook would stand up and say "I'm all for Marxist Socialism".

You see the liberals on here vehemently denying that they are socialists, and GOD FORBID that anyone would dare to call them Marxists!
They are quite proud of the "progressive" label without a great deal of thought or realization that the core ideology behind that name is still Marxist socialism.
Public schools did their part through indoctrination, dumbing down critical thinking skills, teaching moral relativism and applying a layer of semantics.
Bereft of critical thinking skills and indoctrinated to believe that conservativism, ("conserve"), = stuck in old ways and refuses to change, whereas "progressive" = "progress", (Change), a generation of "useful idiots" was manufactured.
The idealism of youth has always hoped for a brighter future and sought to change things toward that end.

Edit to add after I posted this:
Here is an example...

 
quote
Originally posted by ray b:

right = regressive or to look backwards
left = progressive or to look forwards




Does anyone really think it was simply serendipity that made "HOPE" and "CHANGE" the slogans of the Obama campaign?

The twenty and thirtysomethings that turned out in droves for Obama, (proud products of years of indoctrination), aren't likely to be thinking much about their eventual retirement or the crushing taxes that they will have to pay in the future or the burden of overwhelming government control over their lives. When you were twenty years old how much time did you spend thinking about your eventual retirement or taxes. Thats WAY off in the future for them, or so they believe, and not of much concern right now. There is simply CHANGE to be made and HOPE to be had.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-16-2009).]

IP: Logged
D B Cooper
Member
Posts: 3141
From: East Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 55
Rate this member

Report this Post05-16-2009 07:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for D B CooperSend a Private Message to D B CooperEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I think you're over-analyzing here. The 'screw the taxpayer' platform gets folks elected, since the majority of US citizens don't actually pay taxes. So long as it's always somebody else who's going to get the bill for it, who really cares how much "change" costs or whether the possible benefits outweigh the costs ? There is a BIG block of voters out there who simply don't care how much money gets wasted as long as it's somebody else's money. IMO that's what won the election.

Remember how in it's original form, only white male land owners were granted voting rights in the US ? Okay, white and male shouldn't be relevent and eliminating them were positives. But since taxation was largely tied to land ownership at that time, tieing voting rights to the same criteria was a good thing. IMO one should not have any input on how tax money is spent unless some of that money is actually his. That is the single biggest problem with our government nowadays. That and our worthless fiat currency.
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 27 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock