# Obama Supporters--important opportunity!!!



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Now that we've had the opportunity to watch Mr. Obama for awhile, how do those of you who voted for him feel about your decision? I didn't vote for him personally and was called a racist for stating my intentions. I didn't understand why voting for the black guy made me a racist in the eyes of some, and still don't understand to this day.

I remember some college kids saying before the election that they "We're excited to be a part of the first generation of Americans to vote in a black president." I didn't understand why a person would vote for someone just b/c of the color of their skin, just like I didn't understand why folks would assume I wasn't voting for him simply b/c of the color of his skin. I didn't agree with his views and thought his goals/promises were lofty to say the least. I just thought the guy was blowing a lot of smoke and was more of a public speaker than a leader. Besides, I'm usually voting republican b/c they support most of my views. I remember there were plenty of folks on this site defending him and calling some of us names and so forth. Where are those folks now? Do they not visit the political forum anymore? Why do you suppose that is?

Finally, is there anyone here that can tell me why they're happy they voted for him at this point? Is there a single person on this forum that plans to vote for him in the next election? Would it be safe to assume that Mr. Obama was voted in b/c he's black or should we believe he was voted in b/c people were gullable enough to think he was actually going to achieve all he said he would?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Would it be safe to assume that Mr. Obama was voted in b/c he's black or should we believe he was voted in b/c people were gullable enough to think he was actually going to achieve all he said he would?


He got voted in because of both of these. I remember debating this with my mom at thanksgiving and why she voted for him. She told me many things.... Like he was not going to raise taxes, he was not going to take away from her retirement, "change", he was going to fix the health care system (she works for Mayo Clinic and now understand what was passed is not helping...mayo is looking at many options and some are not that good.), etc. She bought into all of the hot air he was blowing. And now is silent on some of these things. I will not tell my mother I told you so...but I think she knows it now.


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

Neither did I vote for him. Nor would I vote to re elect him. Regardless of skin color. I agree with you 100%. A very interesting question you raise. HUM. They all wanted change. Well they got it. They lost their jobs. Now there a change they can handle.

I did not vote for him for several reasons.

He has never produced a valid birth certificate.
He has yet to saluti the flag.
He carries a bible. But not King James.
He was (once) of muslem decent. "Yeah once"
I thnk He still is. 
He planned to end the war before he was ever elected.
We can not fight terrist with a muslem president.

I just dont like his views. And I agree with nothing he has said or done.
I dont like his insurance,immagration,bailouts. nothing.

I think if we make it out of obamaville still breathing it will be a plus.
worst thing america ever did was elect Obama.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

many who post here often were not duped into the Obummer hype.....we told all who would listen, the guy was big trouble. :bop:


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

hunter9494 said:


> many who post here often were not duped into the Obummer hype.....we told all who would listen, the guy was big trouble. :bop:


There were a few. I'm just curious to know how their decision sits with them now.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

takethekids,

Don't worry there are still supporters here but they are very quite oke: You won't get a response from them.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't wish to ridicule them. I just want to know how they feel about their decision now and why. I suppose you're right. We won't get the satisfaction of hearing from them. They sure had a lot to say before, during, and immediately after the election didn't they?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath that the guy who told me he was a genius and I should listen to him is going to call and say he was wrong. As a matter of fact he perhaps still thinks he was right. I think some are to full of themselves to ever admit they made a mistake, but it must be painfully clear now that they did. We have one regular that does admit he made a mistake. Now, that is admirable.
Takethekids, I would say those who voted for Obama because of the color of his skin are racist, just like the folks who want to let the Mexicans keep coming illegally. They will not shut the border because of the color of their skin. I am one of those people that believe racism works both ways. Also, don't even try tell me only white people are racists.


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm proud to say that I did NOT vote for Obama! Not just Monday morning QB'ing. McCain was not my guy, but I supported him anyway because Obama's program offered nothing in the country's long term best interest. One thing's for sure, Obama's election woke up a lot of people. The level of activism by folks previously uninvolved in the political process is breath taking. It's amazing how that volunteers are appearing everywhere to get the word out about the mistake that voters made in Nov, 2008. I know that my spouse and I (along with many others) are knocking on doors and talking to folks about the direction that Obama and his masters are pushing us. Now that we're into the primary season and headed towards the November mid term, we'll see what happens. It's gonna be interesting.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Most of the Obama voters I know are surprisingly quiet. Most use the "I just don't follow it much anymore" excuse.....BULL!

They were all pretty quick to bash Bush back in the day every chance they got, but as of late I haven't heard nary a peep of them as it pertains to politics. Its kind of nice in a way, but im still taking full advantage of the opportunity and getting every oke: in that I can.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I voted for him for two reasons.

#1. The economy. He has been an epic failure, as bad as Bush. And now we are finding out Clinton too. Republicans can kiss my a$$, McCain, under the direction or influence of Phil Gramm would not have produced any better results. Gramm and other corporate whore republicans continue with their attempts to "free" up the markets even more. They call it "free", while many other economists call it what it is, manipulation. McCain lost me with Gramm, I didn't like the guy and still don't like the guy. He is a greedy sow.

#2. To bring back some integrity to the White House. Bush sold us out, Clinton was too busy screwing around on his old lady. Instead Obama has gone around apologizing for things that we did that helped a majority of the world. Obama has also probably weakened us to a point that is going to take a while to fix.

So far there has been nothing done about guns, which I didn't think he would. There are a lot of nerve racking things going on but these things wouldn't even clear the democratic party let alone the Senate. The HC bill may work out, it may not. This immigration thing is ridiculous and I think Obama has signed his own walking papers with it. He has awarded no bid federal contracts, he has not cut one bit of waste from the gov't in fact he has added to it. Clinton made the mistake of not being a centristic president, and he lost congress at the mid terms, hopefully Obama has the same thing. The real risk to this country is pelosi, she is out of control. Yet not only does no one call her on her many indiscretions she gets a free pass.

All and all he has been a failure, I am not convinced that McCain would have been any better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am not convinced that McCain would have been any better.


Can you name anyone who could have done a worse job than Obama, even if they tried? I can't stand McCain, but he would have done so much better than Obama there would be no comparison. The only good thing about Obama is he along with Pelosi and Reid have shown us what democrats are about, and that is full out socialism. They are rich themselves but the truth is they want to keep people down. They like to appeal to the poor for votes, but if you have noticed anything over the last 50 years it's that the poor keep voting democrat, but they are still poor. Hmmm 
The democrats are not for the poor, they are for their own power. They maintain that power by taxing the productive and giving it to the parasites.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Consider this:
He hasnt had an open press conference in nearly a year, why? because he cannot speak without a teleprompter and he would make a fool of himself answering live questions. Regan, Clinton and the Bushes had an average of 2 per month.
He is half white, so why does everybody call him black?
The Democrats may have set themselves so far back that they may never dig themselves out. There are currently 13 Democrats in races this fall that are under 50% in polls in their home districts.
In 1998 the national debt was 57% of the GDP, today it is at 94%. There is a bill being passed right now to spend another $200 Billion to pay unemployment benefits and pay their insurance premiums, and it will get passed!!
Still blaming Bush? Enough already!
McCain would have been worse? How? As much as I hate to say it but Hillary would have been better than Obama.
The minorities should look at history. It was the first Republican president that freed the slaves.
Obama and his chronies have left Arizona out to dry because of their new resolution to REQUIRE anyone on a presidential ballot to provide a birth certificate before any presidential election.
He has promoted his New World Order enough to the point that his hold on the democrats is unraveling faster anyone could have predicted.
He has made a mockery of this country. Now its our turn for change.
More to come.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> #1. The economy. He has been an epic failure, as bad as Bush. And now we are finding out Clinton too. Republicans can kiss my a$$, McCain, under the direction or influence of Phil Gramm would not have produced any better results.


You can blame bush for some of the failed economy but two of the three you are blaming are dems. Clinton with his loosening the restrictions on banking institutions was the start of the down fall of the housing market (it also started the "boom"). We needed to find a balance point. Then when bush came in things were still on the rise. So he did nothing. People kept telling him don't worry. Well then we got what we got. I can't blame Obama for the housing market. But he is doing nothing to help it. He actually just helped prolong it so it won't rebound as fast.

Bailing out the banks was a waste of $$. Let them fry for giving out bad loans. Other banks who did not do as bad or were still running in the black would have bought up the bad debt. Which in turn would have made the failing banks to either go under or help generate some capital to start over. Then the good banks (yes there are some out there) would be running at good profits and be investing. But the bail outs did none of this. It was just an artificial boost that did not save anyone from losing their home.

But I am not sure if Mc Cann would have done better but he could have not done worse. I don't know and we will never know. Congress would not have passed many of Mc Canns bills just out of spite. So who knows if he could have done better or worse.

Then I don't want to even start on the HC stuff. Here is a little tid bit of what is going on with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN. Some higher ups were all for the HC....others not so much. Now that the State of MN did not pass a HC plan of its own (MN had a great HC options for people who could not afford it and what not. It got cut or downsized a crap load) Mayo is freaking out about how it will stay afloat. The worry is that more and more people will be in the federal system with no state HC to back it up. So Mayo and its patients won't be fully covered under the Federal plan. So now they are scrambling big time. Much of this has not been put in the news just yet because they are trying to figure things out. But it is the "buzz" around town type thing. Just look at what Mayo clinic of AZ did. They stopped taking medicare and medicade patients (not sure if this is still in affect) but it was because the new pay based with the federal plan would bankrupt them. I will get off my soap box now. But just keep an eye on all of this.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

TK33,

Thank you for your post! I admire the stones it took to make your post. Those are the things I was hoping to hear. Let's just hope the rest of his supporters are thinking something similar.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Obama, maybe more congressional liberals have alienated independents. That support is all but gone according to polls. I had more issues with our crooked congress than I did with obama until this AZ bill. I have lost all faith in him.

If McCain had been elected and kept Gramm on as an advisor I am positive the economy would be as bad or worse. They believe in a modified version of trickle down economics. It seems about the same, just add some more greed. We all know what the libs want.

The financial mess is mostly on Clinton, but the "freeing" up of the commodities markets contributed to the crash and continue to stall or slow recovery/growth.

I am convinced the only answer is to shrink the federal govt.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Clinton with his loosening the restrictions on banking institutions was the start of the down fall of the housing market (it also started the "boom"). We needed to find a balance point. Then when bush came in things were still on the rise. So he did nothing. People kept telling him don't worry. Well then we got what we got. I can't blame Obama for the housing market. But he is doing nothing to help it. He actually just helped prolong it so it won't rebound as fast.


The internet is full of video of Bush people pleading with Barney Frank to impose more control on Fannie Mae post 2006 elections when Frank, Schumer, etc all became committe chairs. One I vividly recall even had Frank saying "you guys are all crying the sky is falling as if we're going to bail them out if they fail...which we aren't".

My point is be careful what we blame Bush for. He gave us plenty of other things to blame him for, and I never liked him much, but I firmly believe we can thank mainly the liberal democrats and their push to let poor people live like the rich for the housing collapse.

But I gotta say I like the tone of this thread.

And I second the comment about Tony's cajones by takethekids, but we already knew he was raised right and doesn't avoid a direct question  . A practice seldom seen by those here who prefer to sit left of the aisle :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> The democrats are not for the poor, they are for their own power. They maintain that power by taxing the productive and giving it to the parasites.


I missed this before. I am not going to lump all democrats into this category, but it definetely applies to the ones that are in power now.

pelosi, obama, bloomberg, menino, clinton(s), etc all have a history of cheating someone somewhere or on multiple occasions. The law doesn't apply to them. Take this AZ bill as a prime example. The liberals didn't get their way on this so the first thing they will do is sue, wasting more taxpayer money on a bill that a huge majority of taxpayers support. Instead of punishing people for breaking the law they want to punish businesses, including ones that do all the proper paperwork and unknowingly accept fraudulent documents. Guns, file lawsuits. Take a job and don't like it, file a lawsuit. Act like an idiot at work and get fired, file a lawsuit. A coworker does something to you, file a lawsuit. Until every thing is gone and there are a few government elitists left.

I don't like corporations that outsource, much like what is going on in ND I don't like corporations that get tax breaks. You take a risk going into business, your reward should be your profits and that is it. Then you pay taxes on them like everyone else. This is still the trouble that I have with republicans. Either make one uniform tax code or get rid of the special breaks that don't apply across the board.

I don't care what happens we are either looking at some real cutbacks or tax increases if we don't fix our trade deficit and get some regulation back into the markets.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

A few thoughts on the above post.

1. Tax breaks are given to get business to stay in a certain area like the U.S.

2. Unions have done some good in the past but have turned into a monster.

3. Both of these things have contributed to business going off shore. Cost in doing business...... to stay competative in this new global econony they have to make their product with cheap labor with no unions, no insurance, no perks period. The only way companies could sell products at a competative price in the U.S. would be to load imports with a very heavy tariff. Then everything we buy would be very expensive and the unions could do what they want and businesses would stay here and not do the expensive move.

4. Better idea is to control the unions! Make tax incentives permanent for all businesses making it a level playing field for all business. They got to make a profit to stay in business period. They can't print more money like the government.

5. The only way our economy is going to come back is to have jobs for people and to have an agenda that the majority of people agree with. Keep the taxes at a reasonable rate and constant so the business people know what to expect and they will start hireing. More people working the more taxes paid and the government _*may*_ not print more money.

6. And by the way I have been selfemployed since the early 70's. Hireing, fireing, keeping books and doing things that somewhat qualifies my take on some/most of this subject.

7. I have been looking into the fair tax and it seems on the surface to be a good idea. So far the best idea that I have heard lately. The other thing to do would be to fire a bunch of the helpers in the government and reduce government spending. More taxes is not the way to go, the government will only find a way to waste most of it.

8. Get me off this soapbox please!!!! :lost:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Taxing business is simply liberal slight of hand. Who do you think pays those taxes? If a company produces X at a cost (labor and materials) of $10 then pays shipping of $2 to get it to market the people who sell it may charge $18. So along the way you have laborers at the original business, laborers at the shipping business, and laborers at the retail business who all made money. Not just the owners, all the laborers too.

So now you see this $18 item and decide that back at the original company they should be taxed. I think they get taxed about 23% now. $10 becomes $12.30, and Obama wants a value added tax at each step of the way. The $12.30 + 2 = $14.30 x 1.23 = $17.59, and that taxed becomes $17.59 + 6 = $23.59 X 1.23 = $29.01. So your product at the store went from $18 to $29 at the current tax rate, plus the liberal desired value added tax VAT. These companies will all have to look at their product margin and ask themselves with the cost of labor and equipment replacement can they make a profit? If they can't they raise the price and you pay it. If you don't pay it they can't stay in business unless somehow they lower production costs. If they can't lower labor because it would go below minimum wage, or because of unions they have only one choice and that is go where labor is cheaper.

It's not always greed that makes companies move. Who are the greedy, the company trying to stay in business, the union laborers trying to force higher wages on a company already going down, the liberal who wants to tax them because they understand nothing about business and don't get that they pay the taxes, or the welfare recipient that thinks taxing the mean nasty business will mean more money for him doing nothing? So ask yourself, was it George Bush causing all of the outsourcing?

Oh, wait, we havn't figured any profit for the original company yet. Add $3 profit then the $2 shipping, and the retailer needs to charge more. There you have it, some of these empty heads can't understand that the original company has to make a profit to stay in business. I figured the above with no profit for the original business, just like communists think it should be. Is that what we want?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Many of the tax breaks for businesses in ND that you refer to are temporary. They are given to encourage a business to come to the state and establish it's self within the community. These tax breaks typically have a daylight at a designated period of time. So do we want new business and jobs with a lower tax rate for the initial start and then full tax later or nothing at all? Something is better than nothing. Increase the tax of products made overseas and lower the tax on products made here by US workers. Make the US a business friendly environment again.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Here is an example of the government giving tax incentives.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091008/dell-4/

Dell is still hanging on and has paid back the incentive money. They will move if the market changes so they can sustain a profit.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Dell-Postpones-NC-Plant-Closing-043010.aspx


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> So now you see this $18 item and decide that back at the original company they should be taxed. I think they get taxed about 23% now. $10 becomes $12.30, and Obama wants a value added tax at each step of the way. The $12.30 + 2 = $14.30 x 1.23 = $17.59, and that taxed becomes $17.59 + 6 = $23.59 X 1.23 = $29.01. So your product at the store went from $18 to $29 at the current tax rate, plus the liberal desired value added tax VAT.


Here is the sad thing. We have a perfect example on how a VAT tax does not work at all. Look at the situation in Europe now. Most of Europe has a VAT on products. Now the economy is going in the tank and what are most of the goverments doing over there.... Raising the VAT and cutting wages. Hmmm. That will do nothing to promote growth at all. People won't have money to buy products. It is crazy. But what does our goverment want to do......add a VAT tax while our current unemployment rate is still around 10%. uke: The only reason why a VAT is being discussed is so the goverment can keep spending. It just makes me sick.



> Make the US a business friendly environment again.


I would love to see this. But the problem is the US has too much regulation. Think about it China does not care about the enviroment. So business is going over there. They could care less if people pollute and the cost of labor. Boy that is one way to cut costs. Business now won't have the "carbon tax" or other enviroment taxes or need to purchase "credits", and labor costs are down.

Now I am not saying screw the planet. But this is another reason why business or I should say big industry has left the US.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Now I am not saying screw the planet. But this is another reason why business or I should say big industry has left the US.


Exactly, the problem is not that people or corporations don't care about the planet, the problem is that people that are being paid by the government are telling the gov't that we are in environmental peril. Put in the VAT system the gov't can waste even more money killing our economy permanently.


> So do we want new business and jobs with a lower tax rate for the initial start and then full tax later or nothing at all? Something is better than nothing.


Wrong


> Taxing business is simply liberal slight of hand.


wrong


> . Tax breaks are given to get business to stay in a certain area like the U.S.


wrong.

Tax breaks are not given across the board, tax breaks do not apply to every business, tax breaks do not always payoff, and taxes not being paid by businesses is as big of an issue as the people who freeload off of welfare.

Let's say two businesses start up at the same time in the same general area. One owner greases the wheels of a local leader or a state leader. The other one doesn't . Tell me which one succeeds first or has greater margins? Explain to me why the government should play a role in helping one business succeed while getting in the way of another business at the same time???
You want to spur an economy, get jobs rolling, and continue to progress? Across the board tax cuts and spending cuts. No favorite playing by the gov't. Period. A $10 billion corporation pays the same tax rate as a $100k small biz.

You cannot have the gov't there only when they are benefiting your cause, no matter Rush or Glen say  ... Government needs to set even rules and get the heck out of the way.



> I have been looking into the fair tax and it seems on the surface to be a good idea. So far the best idea that I have heard lately. The other thing to do would be to fire a bunch of the helpers in the government and reduce government spending. More taxes is not the way to go, the government will only find a way to waste most of it.





> Increase the tax of products made overseas and lower the tax on products made here by US workers. Make the US a business friendly environment again.


 :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
The least they could do is make countries that import from follow the same environmental standards that we do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Taxing business is simply liberal slight of hand.





> wrong


They have suckered you. They tax the business after calling them greedy and make the liberals feel all cozy. The truth is they are taxing you because the business has to raise the price of their product. If you think business is actually paying the taxes I have some swamp land for sale.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Let's say two businesses start up at the same time in the same general area. One owner greases the wheels of a local leader or a state leader. The other one doesn't . Tell me which one succeeds first or has greater margins? Explain to me why the government should play a role in helping one business succeed while getting in the way of another business at the same time???
> You want to spur an economy, get jobs rolling, and continue to progress? Across the board tax cuts and spending cuts. No favorite playing by the gov't. Period. A $10 billion corporation pays the same tax rate as a $100k small biz.


Now lets look at this. You say greasing the wheels....or are these people just smart enough to use goverment tax breaks, loan programs, TIF money, etc. and the other business owner is not as smart or did not look into these options?

Now back door bribes and things like that are wrong and illegal. But it is also who you know in the world not always what you know. Just like if you walk into a resturaunt and you know the server and they come to you first compared to another table that just came in right before you.

Now you talk about goverment helping one business succeed and another fail......kind of like an artificial stimulus thing...correct! Like what I talked about with cash for clunkers, tax rebates for home buyers, stimulus $$$. etc.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't know if this is totally true or not. But I have been listening to Man Cow the past couple of mornings. He keeps talking about how the census is hiring people then firing them later on then re-hiring them. It is like this.... A person walks into work on friday and they get told they are fired....but see you on monday and we will re-hire you. Now Man Cow is saying this is to help the goverment say they are creating jobs. Any validity to this?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, I have seen a number of articles on that hire/fire scenario. They make it look like they are creating jobs.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama

You guys are funny.

Obama was, is, and will be a nobody. Every month he is in office I believe more and more that he is NOT the man calling the shots, he is a puppet.

People said Cheney was the man with the plan in the background being all Rasputin like in Bush' ear.......well I think Obama has his own little "Rasputin", or several, sitting in the back calling the shots. Is it Pelosi, Reid, I dont know. Maybe its several, maybe not. At any rate, Obama is not in charge.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I doubt there is anyone here that doesn't understand behind the scene pressures. I think it works both ways at this time. I think Obama puts pressure on Pelosi, and Pelosi puts pressure on Obama. I would guess that Bill Ayers and his cronies exert a certain amount of pressure. What your saying isn't profound to most conservatives. We all know there is a bunch of hoodlums in Washington and outside of Washington that push each other around. I doubt any of us know which way it's working, but we don't like this administration. Cut the head of the snake and you solve much of the problem.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Is it Pelosi, Reid, I dont know.


Soros? Whoever it is wields a lot of power. That is why I have more of a problem with congress than the white house.


> Now lets look at this. You say greasing the wheels....or are these people just smart enough to use goverment tax breaks, loan programs, TIF money, etc. and the other business owner is not as smart or did not look into these options?
> 
> Now back door bribes and things like that are wrong and illegal. But it is also who you know in the world not always what you know. Just like if you walk into a resturaunt and you know the server and they come to you first compared to another table that just came in right before you.


The point is that it is not the job of the gov't to help anyone or play favorites in business. The only way that you can have breaks and incentives is if the gov't is sitting on a surplus. Otherwise the burden just moves to everyone else, that is the part that I have an issue with.

Once again you cannot have the gov't there only when it benefits you. The government's only function should be to set and enforce even rules and get out of the way and let the business world function. All of these issues with the economy now are thanks to gov't getting in the way over the last 20-30 years. Get the rules back to the way they were and get the gov't out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Otherwise the burden just moves to everyone else, that is the part that I have an issue with.


TK we pay it either way. If we don't tax them and the politicians keep spending they raise our taxes. On the other hand if they tax any business that business simply passes the cost off onto us. Business doesn't care and in the end we pay it no matter what. The only difference is if government starts taxing, controlling wages, and controls what they charge they simply move to another country. All that outsourcing you blame Bush for was actually caused by taxes and controls. Do you think Bush did that? Bush did enough things wrong, so their is little need to blame him for things he didn't do. 
Outsourcing was the liberals just like the housing crash and loan defaults were caused by liberals led by Barney Frank. Barney forced the lending agencies to give loans to anyone who looked like they had a pulse within the past 24 hours. We will never solve this problem if people can't see what the problem is and who caused it. 
If you still believe all these things TK you will vote for Obama again in 2012.
If you think I am wrong simply watch what happens to the idiots in New York. The last time they did something like this they lost a large number of their millionairs. Soon they will have only poor people to pay no taxes. New York is racing California for last place.



> N.Y. Assembly Looks at Millionaire's Taxa
> Updated: Thursday, 27 May 2010, 8:11 AM EDT
> Published : Wednesday, 26 May 2010, 1:53 PM EDT





> MYFOXNY.COM STAFF REPORT
> 
> MYFOXNY.COM - New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is reportedly pitching a plan for an increased "millionaire's tax" aimed at 75-85 thousand New Yorkers making $1 million or more a year.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

outsourcing started a long time ago. It was accelerated by Clinton, kept on by Bush, and at the rate we are going we will be completely outsourced by the time these pricks are done. The mid terms won't come fast enough.

I've never blamed outsourcing on Bush, I blame him for doing nothing about it, my issue with him and repubs is their brilliant "freeing" up of the commodity markets. That is why we see the high oil prices in a global recession, wild steel and metal prices, and other stupid commodity things. You think these are good for business?

Every thing that you mentioned is the result of the gov't being involved in business, no matter what it is or which party. They should not be involved at any capacity. Everytime they do they screw something up. The liberals screw it up and the repubs manipulate it to their advantage or the advantage of their highest bidder.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Can't much disagree there TK. Perhaps only slightly about Bush doing nothing about the outsourcing. I'm not sure if he even tried, but without backing by congress it would have been a waste of his time. I don't think he could have done anything. Things are bad now because we have a liberal president, liberal senate, and liberal house doing all the wrong things. 
Liberal theologians can't even leave things alone. One actually says the miracle of bread and fish feeding the multitude never occurred and that Jesus simply convinced those who had to share with those who did not and essentially spread the wealth. I heard a pastor tell a funny story about liberal theologians. It was something like this: "I was walking alone in a dark forest with only a single candle to light the path before me, and along came a theologian and blew it out". I am beginning to cringe when I hear the word "liberal".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well one thing I disagree with it that I don't mind goverment giving tax breaks or special loans for business or start ups. I do have a problem when it is targeted at only one market type thing. Like helping a fast food chain and not a supermarket. (just an off the cuff example). They need to be there to help any one. But again have limits....ie like a 3 year tax break or low interest loan with a short life....5 year, 10 year or what ever. Not 30 year loan. This helps generate some business. But again it is a fine line and I agree that if a business fails goverment should let them fail.

The comodities was bush and also congress's fault. They both got greedy and let groups influence their actions and votes.

Here is a wild conspiracy theory...... BUSH and his big oil buddies secretly funded Obama's rise to power so he would win to take the heat off of Bush being labeled the worst president ever. :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK33 said:


> I voted for him for two reasons.
> 
> #1. The economy. He has been an epic failure, as bad as Bush. And now we are finding out Clinton too. Republicans can kiss my a$$, McCain, under the direction or influence of Phil Gramm would not have produced any better results. Gramm and other corporate whore republicans continue with their attempts to "free" up the markets even more. They call it "free", while many other economists call it what it is, manipulation. McCain lost me with Gramm, I didn't like the guy and still don't like the guy. He is a greedy sow.
> 
> ...


For every "corporate whore Republican" there is a corporate whore Democrat. After taking one look at Obama's response to the "outing" of the anti American veiws of his 20 year spiritual leader the Reverand Wright, what kind of intergrity did you think this man would bring to the White House? I'm not trying to be a smart *** here, just curious. I have asked a couple of friends I know voted for Obama about this particular issue (his 20 year association) and they will not even acknowledge it let alone discuss or defend it. If you want to lay the blame for outsourcing of jobs on someone why not look at the real culprit, unions and lawyers?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

For the same reason that I looked past Bush's draft dodging when I voted for him. Obviously no one likes Wright's views, now Wright is claiming that Obama sold him out, like sands through the hour glass. As I have said before in this forum and above in this topic, I really thought that no democrat would be as foolish as Clinton and try to be this liberal. The single biggest lie of Obama was his claim that he was going to work for bipartisanship and reach across the aisle. The liberals have done anything but that so far, hopefully they will be the ones looking for bipartisanship next January or whenever congress is sworn in after the elections.

I will agree that lawyers are out of control. The amount of money that gets spent just to protect yourself from a lawsuit is disgusting. The fact that juries award money in these lawsuits is worse, we need tort reform across the board, fast. Not gonna happen with this group of crooks.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I voted for Obama in the last election, and if he decides to run again, I will probably vote for him then.

What has he done that I agree with? Well, here is a short list:
1. He has pushed for a serious debate on environmental issues. He set aside over 2 million acres of public lands as wildnerness areas, blocking them from development. He has also forced the citizenry and Congress to finally discuss and debate global climate change.
2. He has initiated the first phase of his plans to improve our country's education system by pushing for an affordable college education for all Americans.
3. He stepped up to the plate and bailed out the U.S. auto industry. If he wouldn't have, those factories would either be shut down or owned by foreign interests.
4. He pushed through federal legislation on health care reform. Is it perfect, no. However, something needed to be done.
5. He did not abandon our obligations to finish two wars which we inherited from the Bush administration. He could have simply called back the troops and walked away from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, he continued forward in hopes of fulfilling the mission.
6. He signed a new treaty with Russia on nuclear arms reduction.
7. He pushed for reform and tighter regulation of the banking industries. An example of this was the legislation passed to limit the power of credit card companies. This was way overdue.

I will be the first to say that he did not accomplish all of the change that he wanted to. However, I think that he underestimated the reluctance of Congress (both parties) to change the status quo. Most members of Congress are bought and paid for, and frankly, they are reluctant to regulate the industries that got them Washington, DC. For the rest of his first term, I hope that he puts renewed focus on improving our public education system in this country, especially in the areas of math and science.

I do not regret my vote for one second. Obama is certainly more capable than McCain could have been. And, he is a dramatic improvement compared to Bush. I think that this country is doing just fine, although we still need a long way to go to turn around the damage from eight years of deregulation. I smile when I hear and read the vehement and hateful rhetoric that comes from the political right, not only from that talk radio crowd, but also the "cut and paste" machine that uses email and message boards like this one. If Obama has that crowd so upset, he must be doing something right.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> He has pushed for a serious debate on environmental issues. He set aside over 2 million acres of public lands as wildnerness areas, blocking them from development. He has also forced the citizenry and Congress to finally discuss and debate global climate change.


Yet noticeably ineffective and lethargic in the Gulf oil spill, funny one of the czars hasn't come up with a plan. Global warming is a hoax, maybe they should implement that after every country we import from follows the cap and tax guidelines. Planet in Peril, Carbon Footprint, etc etc, all a way to make us more of a third world country. Hopefully there is more debate and the public can find out how much money has been wasted and how many bogus and unfounded theories have been stuffed down our throats in the name of saving the planet.


> If Obama has that crowd so upset, he must be doing something right.


He has a lot more than that crowd upset.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

All I can say BigDaddy is thank God your not in office. Before you admire that treaty with Russia ask yourself who it controls, and how we verify Russia actually adheres to it? Also, for years we have been trying to improve education the liberal way and our kids perform more poorly with each "improvement". Perhaps the best way is to give vouchers and let people choose where they go. Of course liberals don't like that idea because it takes away from their ability to warp little minds at an early age.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

WOW, talk about someone with his head in the sand. That is some strong kool-aid you've been gulping, ehh Big Daddy.

A dramatic improvement? Just about any political analyst will tell you that to date, Obama is a dismal failure.

Bush had his bad points, and he made a bundle of mistakes. But he was a much better President, and a much better person than what we have in the White House now.

Say what you want about GWB, but he believed in this country and it's constitution, Obama believes in neither.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Obama are some of the most anti-American people we have living with-in our borders.

huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

This article pretty much sums up Obama's inability (intentional) to uphold his duty as president. I also think it shows what the real agenda is
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23629


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama's Arizona Stance Borders Treason
> By Neil Braithwaite Wednesday, May 26, 2010
> Without a hint of hesitation after Arizona passed their new immigration law, President Obama immediately condemned our 48th State by calling Arizona's new immigration law misdirected, troubling, and potentially discriminatory. What followed was an onslaught of protests and proposed boycotts against Arizona from New York to Los Angles filled with allegations of hate and racism over their new immigration law. So the question that remains is; by standing idly by while all this is taking place, is President Obama, in essence, encouraging harm against the very country that he swore an oath to protect?


 :******: :******: :******:

Impeach is to good, this man should be in prison. You don't have to hate America to like Obama, being naive beyond imagination can accomplish that too. I like the motto of Canada Free Press: "CANADA FREE PRESS: Because without America there is no free world". I think that's what Obama is trying to destroy. I wonder if he considers himself part of the great caliphate?



> I smile when I hear and read the vehement and hateful rhetoric that comes from the political right, not only from that talk radio crowd, but also the "cut and paste" machine that uses email and message boards like this one. If Obama has that crowd so upset, he must be doing something right.


The vehement "hateful" rhetoric is because many love this country. They see Obama as an internal enemy. So do I. So if people are angry the man is doing something right? As I remember Hitler ticked off a lot of people too. Your logic about that is right in line with the rest of your logic about Obama.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

TK33 wrote:


> Yet noticeably ineffective and lethargic in the Gulf oil spill, funny one of the czars hasn't come up with a plan.


Personally, I think that the political right would have criticized the White House either way. If they would have stepped in immediately, they would have been accused of stepping in when it was the BP's responsibility. Seriously, do you think that the EPA has any more expertise in stopping a leaking oil well that BP does? What exactly was Obama supposed to do? Put on some swim fins and grab a wrench?

Huntin1: Part of the reason that most moderates or liberals have stopped visiting this board is because posters like you are incapable of any sort of serious discussion. Be honest with yourself and answer this question: Is there anything that anybody could tell you at this point to change your opinion that Obama is a Muslim or was born outside of the U.S.? And to think that you accuse me of drinking the Kool Aid.

Plainsman wrote:



> The vehement "hateful" rhetoric is because many love this country. They see Obama as an internal enemy. So do I. So if people are angry the man is doing something right? As I remember Hitler ticked off a lot of people too. Your logic about that is right in line with the rest of your logic about Obama.


You have somehow concluded that only conservatives love this country. This is simply not true. I love this country more than you can imagine. You sound like a little kid that threatens to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get to play shortstop. That's not how this country works. Our government is a government of the people, and don't forget the fact that the majority of people expressed their wishes and put Obama in the White House.

If you are so miserable, then try to change things. Otherwise, you are always free to leave. Good luck trying to find another country on this earth that has as many freedoms as this one has.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

> Personally, I think that the political right would have criticized the White House either way. If they would have stepped in immediately, they would have been accused of stepping in when it was the BP's responsibility.


You are probably right about the political right criticizing either way. He hasn't done anything to give hardly anyone confidence in the White House. My understanding that in '94 a fund was started to help pay for a problem like this (the government has collected over 1 billion). As far as I know none of it has been spent on this spill or any other. The only thing that this administration has done is to up the tax on a barrel of oil so they can collect another 10 billion or so in the next 10 years. The government should stand shoulder to shoulder with BP until this problem is solved. BP should pay for it and has so far, but ultimately everyone pays. Everyone knows that BP wanted to kill it's workers, spill an enormous amount of oil, get all the bad publicity, spend millions stopping, containing and cleanup. The administration pulls all the top BP people to Washington to give them down the road instead of letting them do their job and help figure out how to stop the leak. They weren't going anywhere. Get um later.



> Huntin1: Part of the reason that most moderates or liberals have stopped visiting this board is because posters like you is because posters like you are incapable of any sort of serious discussion. Be honest with yourself and answer this question: Is there anything that anybody could tell you at this point to change your opinion that Obama is a Muslim or was born outside of the U.S.? And to think that you accuse me of drinking the Kool Aid.


I think those posters have stopped because they have finally seen the writing on the wall and are ashamed of themselves for helping put this prez in office. I don't know what religion he is but he is not for the U.S. people and doesn't seem to be a Christian.



> You have somehow concluded that only conservatives love this country. This is simply not true. I love this country more than you can imagine. You sound like a little kid that threatens to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get to play shortstop. That's not how this country works. Our government is a government of the people, and don't forget the fact that the majority of people expressed their wishes and put Obama in the White House.


I don't think that is what Plainsman is saying, the progressives (or far left or what ever they are called on any particular day)are trying to change this country into something that the majority do not like. The majority are going to show this in the next two election cycles just what they think. A lot of the people made a mistake and I think they will try to correct it in due time. :bop:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Personally, I think that the political right would have criticized the White House either way. If they would have stepped in immediately, they would have been accused of stepping in when it was the BP's responsibility. Seriously, do you think that the EPA has any more expertise in stopping a leaking oil well that BP does? What exactly was Obama supposed to do? Put on some swim fins and grab a wrench?


I agree that the right would have criticized them either way. Funny that when it comes to a liberal agenda they don't mind the critics, let alone what the majority of Americans think. But when it comes to something big they sit back and do nothing.

There are several things that the administration could have ordered but they have not. Including ordering more help and more supplies in sooner. This is the problem with our government, too big, too slow, too wasteful (both time and money), and too bureaucratic. Obama has only made this worse, remember in his campaing when he said he was going to make the government less wasteful and more efficient, even going line by line through the federal budget? Fail. Funny you mention the EPA. The EPA has expertise in nothing, they shouldn't be doing anything but testing and reporting. Instead they are getting in the way and making policy that they also have no expertise on.

Personally I think that BP is doing some on the job training and experimenting at the expense of the Gulf of Mexico. Bipartisan problem, yet another example of the corruption in our gov't.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> You have somehow concluded that only conservatives love this country. This is simply not true. I love this country more than you can imagine. You sound like a little kid that threatens to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get to play shortstop. That's not how this country works. Our government is a government of the people, and don't forget the fact that the majority of people expressed their wishes and put Obama in the White House.
> 
> If you are so miserable, then try to change things. Otherwise, you are always free to leave. Good luck trying to find another country on this earth that has as many freedoms as this one has.


You have contradicted yourself here. I don't doubt your love for the country but you speak of change. Obama, pelosi, Rahm, and company obviously do not love this country. They are putting all of us in huge economic and social peril with brain dead things like cap and trade, immigration inaction, and bogus foreign policy. I left HC out because I agree that something needed to be done but the way that it was done was wrong. So wrong that Obama himself called it bad politics during the campaign. If the bill was so good though I wonder why they are waiting so long to implement it.

If liberals love this country so much than why are they going against the works of the framers and picking and choosing what they want from the constitution? Why do liberals continuously sue the government of the people? Why do liberals support a violation of federal law and a derrilection of duty by the congress and the president?

Obama and congressional liberals days of smoke and mirrors are done, this immigration finally woke some people up. Keep in mind that this is twice in three months that they have gone against a majority of people. Just like Clinton's administration there will be a day of reckoning. Lame duck in November.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Big Daddy, I really don't care what religion he chooses to practice. That's between him and his God.

As far as him being born in the US. All the man has to do is produce a valid birth certificate. And I'm not talking about that certification of live birth that ACORN posted for him. I mean a legal birth certificate.

I'm much more capable of intelligent discussion that you seem to believe, and I gave up the kool aid a long time ago.

Huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Jindahl has been asking for federal approval to build barrier islands for a while now. No answer from the federalis.

That was the delay that I blame on Obama. Funny Al Sharpton and his cohorts are not blaming the gov't for being racist and not caring about the people of the Gulf Coast. :shake:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't think that is what Plainsman is saying, the progressives (or far left or what ever they are called on any particular day)are trying to change this country into something that the majority do not like. The majority are going to show this in the next two election cycles just what they think. A lot of the people made a mistake and I think they will try to correct it in due time.


Thanks ShineRunner I knew someone would get it. Actually I think everyone understood it, including BigDaddy. That's the liberal politician MO. It doesn't have to be true, you simply count on the naive to believe it. 
When I said some people love this country BigDaddy what I was thinking at the time was Obama saying we are going to fundamentally change America. Well, you don't fundamentally change something you love.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> What has he done that I agree with? Well, here is a short list:
> 1. He has pushed for a serious debate on environmental issues. He set aside over 2 million acres of public lands as wildnerness areas, blocking them from development. He has also forced the citizenry and Congress to finally discuss and debate global climate change.
> 2. He has initiated the first phase of his plans to improve our country's education system by pushing for an affordable college education for all Americans.
> 3. He stepped up to the plate and bailed out the U.S. auto industry. If he wouldn't have, those factories would either be shut down or owned by foreign interests.
> ...


# 1...... I believe this is all smoke and mirrors as well. And is hurting our country like others have stated. Look at china and other country's we import from and are taking our industry. They should adhere to the same rules and regulations as we do. If not it is hurting our country economically. But this has been a problem for years. Our industry has been leaving this country.

# 2 ..... Is a college education a right or privilege? Should everyone go to college or post secondary type of schooling? The cost of college is getting way out of hand but that is because schools are paying way too much to its professors. Look at some of the programs or what teachers can do. They can just get paid to write a book and not actually teach. Colleges have really no set teaching standards they need to follow. I mean in HS teachers have to have kids pass a standardized test of some sort in order to graduate. In college the teachers writes the plan or program, submits it to the university and then the university say yes or no to that teaching program. They don't have to have the kids pass a test in a certain time frame. They really don't have to care at all if they don't want to. Many college professors are not good teachers. Which is a huge difference. I could go on and on. But I am getting a little off topic. With that rant. But again.... Is college a privilege or a right?

# 3 ......Are we getting this $$ back? What does this set for any other business? We can do what we want and get bailed out. We could have lost some of the companies to over seas investors. But we could have seen them revamp the way they worked. Also who is apart of the reason why these companies were failing? Look deep into the auto industry..... They had to develop or adhere to strict goverment regulations....MPG, Emmisions, etc. Yes this was part of the problem....too much goverment controls....also revert back to # 1.

# 4 ........ I agree something needed to be done. But what was really done? Was anything done to actually lower the cost of HC. Anything in the bill actually help to lower the cost of health care. NO! What did the bill do......increase goverment spending, put limits on how much hospitals get paid by medicare and medicad (will make hospitals run in the red even further), cut medicare and medicad, will make people not have coverage or limit coverage because of the above spending limits on medicare and medicad, will increase the cost of insurance....yes it will. Think about it. Medicare is getting cut. Hospitals will need to make up $$ elsewhere or go belly up. So hospitals will start to charge insurance carriers more on certain procedures or visits because some basic forms are automaticly covered in policies....ie # of doctor visits for check ups. Hmmm...make up costs by charging more per visits. If you don't think so....watch. I could go on and on with how wrong this bill is.

But I will also point out a few good things....... Extending coverage for children under a parents policy until they are 25 (or is it 26). :thumb: The pre-existing conditions :thumb: (even though it will raise insurance costs for anyone who is insured by the company. but it is a good thing to give them coverage or offer it to them). The idea of insurance pools or groups small business can form is another good idea.

# 5 ........ I agree he is doing a good job... to a certain extent that he did not withdraw the troops. But he did publicly tell his plan. Did we as a nation not learn anything for the Vietnam War. Our leaders publicly told our strategy. Hmm...this has always floored me by both parties or any leader. Why tell what your strategy is? History lesson. The US during the vietnam war publicly said that they would not push more than 20 miles into cambodia after any VC. What did the VC do....move 30+ miles into Cambodia as they retreated. Don't people think that the enemy is watching and listening to any news article involving the war? I know I would.

# 6 ........ I have not totally looked into this yet. So I don't have any comment.

# 7........ This is good and bad. Hopefully it will never let the banks get out of control like they did. But the bad thing is now with the tight restrictions banks are not lending out money so people or business's can't invest or grow. When our job market is at the low it is now the only way is to expand to help create more jobs. But banks are not lending out the $$$ to help jump start this. Now I am not talking about just giving anyone $$ to start up a business. I am talking about operating loans. An established business wants 10% money than the previous years operation loan they got to help expand. Banks are not giving that to too many businesses. Some farmers are having a hard time getting operations loans for expansion or purchasing new equipment and the likes. This is slowing growth. The CC company things are great.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Big Daddy and others who still think Obama is doing good...

What are your thought on these issues...

1. Immigration and AZ or how he is handling it?

2. The Value Added Tax?

3. Other tax issues? (non-profits filing forms, small business filing 1099 forms for every vendor paid more than $600, raising taxes on middle class, raising taxes on anyone, etc?)

4. Bail outs.....both auto and banking? (millions and millions more in national debt)

5. national debt? (increased spending)

6. Foregin Policy? Has he been doing good or bad?

7. National Security issues?

8. Freedom of press or access to the press? Do you think it is good or bad the way he handles the press? Is it good he is keeping them at arms length or is he hiding something?

9. How he is handling the so called "Scandels" of his administration?.....ie Sestak and other issues that have come up.

10. Unemployment rates and jobs in the US?


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Chuck, don't you know it's ALL Bush's fault oke: oke:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

When 'Big Eddie' was a Rush Limbaugh wannabe he would have called Obama an empty suit. Sadly, as it turned out ,,,,,no one is emptier than ED. :eyeroll:

Even with his hard core supporters, Obama has no chance in 2012. He is and was an experiment that failed.
Pelosi and Reid are just plain nuts!

Once again; Congressional term limits would go a long way to mitigate any damage a President like Obama could do to the country.
And,,,,it would free us all from the corruption that is Washington.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Big Daddy and others who still think Obama is doing good...

What are your thought on these issues...

1. Immigration and AZ or how he is handling it?
I disagree with AZ's approach first and foremost because they are using state authority to enforce a federal law. I heard an interview with a county sheriff that stated that he used to simply haul illegals to the feds and let them handle them. Now he has to use state resources to house and prosecute illegals because they are violating a state law.

I also disagree with AZ's approach because it is short-sided. I read that between 50% and 75% of ag-related labor force in this country is comprised of unauthorized, illegal aliens (http://www.saveusfarms.org/). It is also estimated that if we simply enforce the immigration law, gathered those workers up and deported them like many people want us to, we will see our GDP drop by over $2.5 trillion. Those are real numbers. It tells me that we need a pragmatic, strategic approach to assimilate those workers into our society. Otherwise, we had better be prepared for our food prices to go up dramatically or bank on buying more food from foreign countries. 
2. The Value Added Tax?
Don't know enough about it to comment.

3. Other tax issues? (non-profits filing forms, small business filing 1099 forms for every vendor paid more than $600, raising taxes on middle class, raising taxes on anyone, etc?)
Frankly, I don't have a major issue with taxes. I view them as part of paying the dues to live in this great country and get the public services that I desire such as good roads, good schools, clean water, and defense. As part of the record, my wife and I have a decent household income and pay our fair share of taxes. I also agree with many that income taxes were designed to be a progressive tax. We also give $300 a month to our church.

4. Bail outs.....both auto and banking? (millions and millions more in national debt)
This is a tough one. I simply ask myself, if we hadn't bailed out the auto and banking industries, who would have? The Chinese? The bail outs that I disagreed with were those involved with bailing out people that got themselves into bad mortgages. I think those folks should have been accountable for bad decisions or forced to make some hard choices about selling some luxury items to generate some cash. 

5. national debt? (increased spending)
Debtis not a good thing. I fully recognize that we will be paying off our debt for generations. However, I don't know how much of a choice that we really had. Frankly, I'd rather see the troops pulled out of Iraq as a cost saving measure before we see the auto plants shut down in Detroit. Iraq was never a threat to this country.

6. Foregin Policy? Has he been doing good or bad?
I agree with Obama's foreign policies. He has opened a dialog with many countries and improved our image in the world. He has forced Israel to step up and stop taking for granted that we will always be there to defend them. I agree with Clinton's approach of using diplomacy first and force second.

7. National Security issues?
Not much has changed from the Bush Administration. I don't lie awake at night waiting for an attack.

8. Freedom of press or access to the press? Do you think it is good or bad the way he handles the press? Is it good he is keeping them at arms length or is he hiding something? 
Frankly, I disagree with those that call Obama arrogant. I found the Bush Administration extremely arrogant and unwilling to have open, frank discussions. Obama is much more approachable. Does he have enough press conferences? Nope. But if he did, the right wingers would accuse him of being on the air all the time and playing the celebrity card. He can't win here. I think that we have much better access to this White House than we did with the last one

9. How he is handling the so called "Scandels" of his administration?.....ie Sestak and other issues that have come up.
Scandals happen. He's had lots of them, but this is mostly due to poor vetting of candidates on the front end.

10. Unemployment rates and jobs in the US?
I look at those states that have the most unemployment and note that those states had high levels of state spending. I also look at those states that are still doing OK in our economy (ND, WY, and WV) and note that those states had low levels of state spending. Republicans believe in state rights. I think that this should also include state ownership of their own economic predicaments. Those states that spent within their means and made wise choices are doing OK. Staying within your means holds true if you are a household, a business, or a state.

I also think that the stimulus bills did create some jobs and add money to the economy that would not have been spent otherwise, especially those projects aimed at infrastructure. Contrary to rightwing spin, most of those jobs were in the private sector, not the public sector. Is it bump sustainable? Nope, but it wasn't intended to be.

In conclusion, I am relatively happy. I am doing OK financially, as are most of my friends and family. This country is the greatest country in the world.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Private wages have gone down while government benefits have gone up,,,,
Big unions are getting burned, they were lied to and are just now finding this out.
The man had never held a job before this
He has lied and lied and lied,,,,and continues to do so
The military community seems to respect the office but not the man in it, that is bad news
Without a tele prompter,,,he is nothing more that a blundering idiot
With it he is barely more
Still blaming Bush???? Get a grip
After all he did campaign in 57 states and had two more to go,,,,genius
It took him 35 days to visit Lousiana after the oil spill,,,,got right on top of that didn't we??
He is more concerned with the NBA playoffs than problems here
He has filled his cabinet with people that "forgot" to pay all their taxes?????
He is considering a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans,,,,huh??
His approval rating is at just over 40%, in less than two years!!
He watched a college football game last fall and thought he should have won the Heismann trophy!!! :rollin:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm a little busy today so I'm only going to comment in the AZ immigration issue.

The best estimates I can come up with is that illegals contribute somewhere between .5 and .7% to our GDP. Or somewhere between 55 and 77 billion. Pretty insignificant when you consider the costs.

In 1996 Dr. Donald Huddle, a Rice University economics professor reported that illegal aliens cost the American public 30 Billion dollars per year, in todays economy that translates to about 70 billion.

The contribution is a wash when compared to costs.

I am all for immigration, but do it the way that it is supposed to be done, the way all of the other naturalized citizens of this country have done. BECOME AMERICANS!

And there-in lies the problem. Many of these illegals don't want to become Americans, they want all America has to offer but they do not want to contribute to our society. They want our wages, our health care, our free public schools, our welfare, but they don't want to give anything back. And they don't want to give up the citizenship in their home country and become American. Why? Because they can't get these things in their home country.

I think Teddy Roosevelt's quote is more fitting today than it was in 1907:



Teddy Roosevelt said:


> *In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against such a man because of his creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American &#8230; There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag &#8230; We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language &#8230; and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is loyalty to the American people*


(Bold and underline added by me)

I applaud AZ efforts, they are trying to do what the federal government has failed to do for years.

huntin1


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Big Daddy.... Thanks for the comments.



> Big Daddy and others who still think Obama is doing good...
> 
> What are your thought on these issues...
> 
> ...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy said:


> I voted for Obama in the last election, and if he decides to run again, I will probably vote for him then.


Than theres no helping you.



> 4. He pushed through federal legislation on health care reform. Is it perfect, no. However, something needed to be done.


"Something needed to be done"?

Obamacare is kind of like replacing your transmission when the real problem is a burnt out head lamp. Costs a whole lot more money and doesn't address or fix the real problem. But hey, "something" needed to be done. :roll:

Thats about all ill comment on. The rest of your reasoning is just laughable.

Im also revising my previous statement about Obama. He was, and is, a nobody. However, he will NOT be a nobody in the future, he will be known as the worst president this country has ever seen. Coupled with the worst congress ever.

Bush is loving this guy.


----------

