Irish Drifter wrote:
TicaFan wrote:
The PA has not harmed our basic liberties,
You and Dick Cheney may be the only two people in the world that hold that view.
Not at all, if that were true tell me why the Democrats overwhelmingly supported the provisions of the PA being extended? Are you suggesting they didn't have time to read it by the time it came up for a "revote"? If the government can steal money from future generations how much liberty do you really have anyway? If you or anyone else can show me where the PA has reduced the average American's liberty I'll concede that.
Pacifica55 wrote:
Well said, ID.
I seem to recall something in the oath of office that sez the President is beholden to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution protects the people, if it is allowed to.
In my opinion, the thorough thrashing the Constitution took under GW will have the longest negative effect. They got away with ignoring the Constitution (when they didn't shred it completely). That set a precedence that cannot be set back.
Please provide specific examples. The Constitution is meant to protect THE PEOPLE from government, and that includes larceny and theft, which is what we are seeing.
NYG wrote:
This is borderline racist
Oh BS, stop being so defensive. By the same token, if I put a plan in place that overwhelmingly benefits one group over the other that would also be racist.
Quote:
If he were trying to create a welfare state targeted toward the racial group you are targeting here with these statemnts why would he be telling black folks to get of their a**es and go to school and work
Big deal, that's relatively meaningless talk. I could say one thing and legislate another. I cannot dissuade myself from the connection between his 2001 proclamation that the Constitution is deeply flawed and his disappointment that it doesn't allow for redistribution of wealth the policies and commitments he's beginning to put in place.
Quote:
Why would he be telling black men to stop being sperm donors and spend time with your K*ds
(pissed off Jesse Jackson with this)
That was classic but nowhere in his agenda that I've seen aside from lip service is that issue addressed. IOW, the same consequences to the average taxpayer will continue to exist for other people's irresponsible behavior. So, he pissed off Jesse Jackson, but will anything change?
Quote:
Why would he be telling black families to turn of the TV and read to there K*ds like he and his wife do
I am sure he will never lose enough melinin to get your vote but you can at least listen to his radio addreses
I agree, that is good advice for us all. But what does it change socially or from a policy standpoint?
Quote:
All of this is about trying to un-phuck a system the W and cheaney left
I pray for the man, that all of this works because the other side has no clue what to do
I feel sorry for anyone that cannot make the connection between policies the Democrat's forced on us and the banking system and the current housing crisis. To put where we are the past eight years on Bush and Cheney(?) is uninformed or irresponsible.
FWIW, entitlement spending increased drastically under Bush. How it works is if Bush wanted to waste some money he had to compromise. So IOW, the Dems reward Bush with irresponsible spending if he attaches to it other irresponsible spending. What we have is a system where irresponsible spenders work together. A specific example of that would be the first stimulus where taxpayers received a check, a rebate if you will. Well, in order for Bush to get that- something a lot of people agreed was a good idea- he had to compromise with Democrats who required that every person who files a tax return even if they paid no income tax also be given the same amount... not a little less, but the same. That effectively increased the total we borrowed by around 50%. How do we know that to be true, because half the population that files a return already pays no federal income tax. Funny thing about Bush is he let entitlements soar and the rich keep their money. How could this guy not be popular?
Quote:
We should give all ourselves a break. We just went from the Dumbest president to maybe the brightest
All of this needs time to sink in
Really, I'm more suspicious of a brilliant guy than a dumb one not so good at hiding who he really is. The fact is, Obama has never talked about tightening our belts, he even told us when he was campaigning that his plans were going to be expensive. There seems to be a belief among people who aren't paying attention that this money is only being spent because we have to and that it will rescue our economy. That's not true. Not only is it not true but it's only the beginning of what they intend to spend and not surprisingly are using the most inefficient government mechanisms to do it. I don't see what's so hard to figure out, Obama and his camp says we will save or create 3 million jobs. That means we are subsidizing inefficient industries that would fail on their own or supposedly investing so that we create long term jobs. I would like to know how many created will be long term versus propping up industries that are doomed to fail unless we keep giving them money, wouldn't you? But at any rate, the simple math is that over the next few years we'll spend around $250,000.00 per job saved or created. Not a very good investment.
On a side note, I have no interest in the color of Barrack's skin although I've always thought it kind of funny he's considered a black man. I guess a mommy's race is insignificant? But I would think his policies are bigoted and dishonest no matter what just going by what he says. The vast majority of the beneficiaries to his policies will be minorities. For example, regardless of what he promised, I believe sincerely that when he promises every K*D in the US $4000 to help with school he knows it's a) unrealistic, b) will be means tested so that say you make $70k a year working your butt off, you won't in the end be included, and c) that any plan like that will overwhelmingly benefit minorities and even then probably not require that those people who receive the benefits be required to focus on the types of disciplines we need so much help in- math and science. So, if those promises came about- that he actually did provide that kind of help- not only would those policies end up being restrictive and ultimately bigoted in their distribution, they will not even be effective at making us more competitive.
But I posted a link for people interested to hear exactly what Obama thinks of our Constitution and what his focus politically might be, in his own words. Regardless of the smokescreen that Bush created this mess(on his own, no less), I think the course and action Obama is taking would be largely the same socially and fiscally regardless although I'm sure he would rather have a surplus to rob, most politicians do. In fact, I'm fairly certain the exact approach in writing and setting into law used in this legislation is not nearly as much to save the economy but to begin the process. Leave it to government to create jobs at a cost of a quarter million each.
As for those that believe Clinton produced a real balanced budge or surplus please read this and show me something that disproves it. I've known for years there was no real surplus.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
To add something else, I hope everyone trumpeting the great Obama and this fabulous new spending package understand how much it's going to cost in the long run on its own, not to mention the indications that the treasury will seek at least another trillion and that the framers of this legislation have already indicated more NEW legislation will be required.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/tru ... -trillion/
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
Pura Vida 
