America Loses If Obama Wins

[DamnYankee]

AH-BOOOGA BOOOGA BOOOGA!!

Cowardly fear mongering...it's all you've got, you desperate little man!

Another highly intelligent post from Zippy.

 

[Damocles]

What? What is the problem in pointing out the truth, that the right refused to acknowledge, let alone, believe?
Didn't George W. Bush, do the exact same thing, with the aid of a Republican dominated Congress, and spent, like drunken Democrats. You can be in denial all you want, the reality is different than what you suggest.

So, more of the same means "change" in your world? Seriously? He did the same thing as Bush at twice the rate and that's good enough for you?

This also ignores 4 total years with at least one house of congress held by the Democrats during Bush's terms. It's like y'all just promptly "forget" Democrat congresses spending like, as you said, drunken democrats. The problem with the truth is it often makes democrats look bad, so you often ignore it.

 

[poet]

So, more of the same means "change" in your world? Seriously? He did the same thing as Bush at twice the rate and that's good enough for you?

This also ignores 4 total years with at least one house of congress held by the Democrats during Bush's terms. It's like y'all just promptly "forget" Democrat congresses spending like, as you said, drunken democrats. The problem with the truth is it often makes democrats look bad, so you often ignore it.

You might have a point, on a cold day in July. But you're so willing to ignore and dismiss the accomplishments of President Obama, disregarding the lack of cooperation of the Republican Congress, and his inability to control the mavericks in his own party. The Republicans have hindered this president's initiatives and progress. The Democrats, under Bush, did no such thing. And you can't even talk about spending, with all that Bush/Cheney did.

 

[apple0154]

He tried to work across the aisle? Are you kidding. He told us "we won" and tried for force feed us crap.

You know that's not the truth. It's been frequently asked why he didn't do more with his majority and it was due to him wanting the Repubs on board. He wasted precious time hoping the Repubs would cooperate.

This ignores the fact that the same company that changed our credit rating pointed out that just increasing the cap would not be enough to maintain our rating.

That was said after they commented on the Congress not being able to come to a compromise. The government/country is made up of the citizens and the citizens have money which the government can tax and use to pay the bills. It was not a case of not being able to pay. It was a case of not wanting to pay. Again, the government does not have a problem paying it's bills. All it had to do was raise the ceiling and increase taxes once the economy picks up.

What are you talking about here? This is nonsense and has nothing to do with anything I have ever stated here.
More of that same, nobody objects to a safety net.

I included that to show the typical demented thinking of the Repubs.

There will especially be a shortage of jobs if the WH objects to any solution other than their ideological solution of a "green economy", ignoring the solution that could provide us more security and immediate jobs due to a rejection of solutions on an ideological basis. A more pragmatic approach needs to be taken.

Pollution control has to start somewhere. There's always been an excuse to put it off. And whether or not pollutution causes global warming common sense dictates the less pollution, the better. From acid rain to people with breathing difficulties (asthma to COPD) pollution ultimately costs society.

If Obama gets reelected it is not a guarantee he'll ever have such a huge majority in both houses.

Maybe not but as more and more poeple realize their job opportunities are constantly decreasing they will be taking a closer look at government programs and the safety net. Jobs which are plentiful today may very well be all but extinct in 20 years. There was a time when companies would have a room full of data entry clerks. When typesetting was a decent trade. It wasn't all that long ago and to have ones medical coverage tied to their job is absurd in this day and age. To see people lose their home after 15 or 20 years because they can't make a few monthly payments instead of either receiving financial help or simply extending the mortgage a year and giving the unemployed a chance to retrain and find a job......fundamental changes have to be made and the Republicans/Conservatives don't want changes made. They want things to continue as they were/are but times have changed.

It's a brave, new world.

 

[evince]

To pretend this republican party of the last couple of years has NOT gone against Obama at every turn is shear lies.

They wrote bills and then voted against their own god damed bills when Obama said he liked them.

They would have killed their children if he said they were cute.

 

[cawacko]

To pretend this republican party of the last couple of years has NOT gone against Obama at every turn is shear lies.

They wrote bills and then voted against their own god damed bills when Obama said he liked them.

They would have killed their children if he said they were cute.

Do you think they'd have time to kill children considering they spend most of their time killing/trying to kill the elderly.

 

[zappasguitar]

Obama had 60 senators (if you want to count Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman as Democrats, which I don't) for a year. During that year he got the stimulus passed and nearly got health care done. Republicans got their 41st seat on Feb. 4, 2010 when Scott Brown took office, and from that point on could effectively obstruct anything they wanted to -- which is exactly what they did.

Careful now...the truth and Damo are a bit at odds at times.

 

[DamnYankee]

Careful now...the truth and Damo are a bit at odds at times.

Another highly intelligent post from Zippy.

.

 

[zappasguitar]

.

It sure as hell tops your standard post accusing someone of being gay...or your incessant comments regarding your fantasizing about having sex with another man.

 

[Vader]

President Barack Obama, speaking of the 2012 election and hoping to rekindle the vigor of his political fundraisers, said recently, "We are going to win this thing, and America is going to win as a consequence." In order for American voters to believe Obama's claim that America will win if he wins, they must overlook the fact that the quality of life for a number of major demographic groups has worsened during Obama's term in office.

Take America's children as an example -- a favorite group used by liberals for voter sympathy. According to a report published by the National Center On Family Homelessness, the homelessness of children rose 33% from 2007 through 2010. Were 2011 data available, the increase would have no doubt been significantly higher still, given the plethora of foreclosures during the Obama term.

We now have about 1 in 45 children in America who are homeless-a staggering figure indeed. Essentially, we have about one child in every two school classroooms who is homeless.

While liberals often claim to be pushing legislation "for the children", the most liberal president in decades has been a disaster for America's children. The historically high unemployment and underemployment rates have pushed millions of families into foreclosure and eventually out of their homes.

Then there are the minority groups that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 with their votes and their wallets. The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 96% of who voted for Obama, stands at 15.5% as of last month, while Hispanics, who pulled the lever for Obama at a clip of 67%, have an unemployment rate of 11.4%. When Obama took office, those rates stood at 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively.

The massive government spending and bailouts have done nothing to improve the living conditions of these minority groups as a whole. In fact, under Obama, not only have blacks and hispanics been less employed, but the wealth gap between minorities and whites has reached an all-time high. In 2009, white U.S. households had median wealth of $113,149 compared to $5,677 for blacks and $6,325 for hispanics, according to a report from the Pew Research Center.

That gap has most certainly risen since 2009 with the further increase in the spread of unemployment rates between whites, blacks, and hispanics during Obama's presidency. Essentially then, under the first black President of the United States, whites have become increasingly wealthier than blacks and hispanics, and to an unprecedented degree.

Liberals often tout the wealth gap between ethnic groups as an ill of society that needs to be fixed such that all groups have similar wealth. So the question begs then as to why, from a financial and economic perspective, would anywhere near the same percentage of these minority groups vote to relect a man whose presidency has been nothing short of an economic disaster for them? Furthermore, we might ask why would opinion leaders from these groups seek to reelect Obama if they are indeed fighting for the prosperity of the people within these groups?

Then consider those between the ages of 18-29 who voted for Obama back in 2008 by about a 2-1 margin, many of which were in college or just beginning their respective careers. Getting that first job out of college which relates to their degree has been extremely difficult for a large number of college graduates during Obama's time in the White House.

Business owners have been reluctant to hire new employees due to broad economic and tax policy uncertanties, along with the affects ObamaCare might have upon their costs of doing business.

Obama knows that these recent college graduates are an important voting bloc for him and so he recently threw them a bone by suggesting a reform in the student program that would save them a whopping $8-$12 month. For these voters, some of whom may be carrying a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars or more, that should be seen as a slap in the face. Like the minority groups, from an economic sense, it would be illogical at best for them to support Obama again in 2012.

What about the low-income voters? Better than 70% of those earning $15,000 or less and nearly 60% of those earning between $15,000-$30,000 cast their ballots for Barack Obama in 2008. Of course, these workers have been hurt disproportionately more than those in the middle and upper-level wage earners during the weak economic growth that has characterized Obama's presidency.

The Obama presidency has simply been a disaster for our nation. From an economic sense, there seem few if any groups that can say they are better off now than they were when Obama took office. If the economy is the number one issue in the minds of these voters, they cannot and should not re-elect President Obama to another four years in the Oval Office, as sending President Obama back into the White House will not result in a win for America.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/america_loses_if_obama_wins.html#ixzz1i8Rm66M4

What you actually mean is that REPUBLICANS AND BIG BUSINESS CRIMINAL SCUM lose if Obama is re-elected.

 

[Damocles]

You know that's not the truth. It's been frequently asked why he didn't do more with his majority and it was due to him wanting the Repubs on board. He wasted precious time hoping the Repubs would cooperate.

You are nuts, he flat said it.

That was said after they commented on the Congress not being able to come to a compromise. The government/country is made up of the citizens and the citizens have money which the government can tax and use to pay the bills. It was not a case of not being able to pay. It was a case of not wanting to pay. Again, the government does not have a problem paying it's bills. All it had to do was raise the ceiling and increase taxes once the economy picks up.

Rubbish, it was said before. Spending too much also causes a drop in rating.

I included that to show the typical demented thinking of the Repubs.

Yet all it shows is the typical demented thinking of Democrats about people they don't like. It is utter nonsense.

Pollution control has to start somewhere. There's always been an excuse to put it off. And whether or not pollutution causes global warming common sense dictates the less pollution, the better. From acid rain to people with breathing difficulties (asthma to COPD) pollution ultimately costs society.

Yet it can be done pragmatically rather than ideologically, especially when people's jobs are on the line.

Maybe not but as more and more poeple realize their job opportunities are constantly decreasing they will be taking a closer look at government programs and the safety net. Jobs which are plentiful today may very well be all but extinct in 20 years. There was a time when companies would have a room full of data entry clerks. When typesetting was a decent trade. It wasn't all that long ago and to have ones medical coverage tied to their job is absurd in this day and age. To see people lose their home after 15 or 20 years because they can't make a few monthly payments instead of either receiving financial help or simply extending the mortgage a year and giving the unemployed a chance to retrain and find a job......fundamental changes have to be made and the Republicans/Conservatives don't want changes made. They want things to continue as they were/are but times have changed.

It's a brave, new world.

The republicans offered different solutions, only to be rejected by a Senate who can't even agree with the President enough to pass an actual budget.

You babble away, but the man didn't "reach across the aisle"...

Reaching across the aisle would look more like that retarded Pill Bill of Bush's written by Kennedy..

 

[Alias]

What you actually mean is that REPUBLICANS AND BIG BUSINESS CRIMINAL SCUM lose if Obama is re-elected.

Where do you think jobs come from? Duh!!!!

 

[apple0154]

You are nuts, he flat said it.

Yes, he said he won but he also tried to work with the Repubs. We saw that with ObamaCare until it came to the point where he had to dismiss the Repubs from talks. He started out with a velvet glove but had to resort to something harder. That was the "waste of time", his trying to work with them.

Rubbish, it was said before. Spending too much also causes a drop in rating.

Why do you and others have a problem understanding the wealth of the country/government is based on the wealth of the citizens? The debt of the government could have been handled by tax increases. Also, the argument over raising the debt ceiling was mentioned. Why, if it wasn't important?

Yet all it shows is the typical demented thinking of Democrats about people they don't like. It is utter nonsense.

It’s logical thinking. I wrote, “The composition, the specific individuals involved, will and does frequently change so it's only logical to help the poor in a proper manner knowing that for the vast majority it is a temporary situation.”

It’s fine to put into place policies where Repubs believe they will result in jobs for everyone but that doesn’t solve the problem of the poor today. As someone noted the economy may change in a year but people have to eat now. Temporary loss of work results in many losing what took them decades to acquire. It’s insane when policies could be implemented to carry the people over until they found other employment. Furthermore, most lose their health coverage as it’s tied to their job. There is no reason people should have to face those circumstances.

Yet it can be done pragmatically rather than ideologically, especially when people's jobs are on the line.

But it's never done. "Let's be pragmatic." That's the same argument the Repubs used concerning health care reform. How long has that discussion been going on? People argue government health care will reduce jobs. Is the goal of health care to supply jobs or supply medical care?

The republicans offered different solutions, only to be rejected by a Senate who can't even agree with the President enough to pass an actual budget.

You babble away, but the man didn't "reach across the aisle"...

Reaching across the aisle would look more like that retarded Pill Bill of Bush's written by Kennedy..

The problem is the Repubs do everything they can to maintain the status quo when major changes are needed. The Constitution can not be interpreted the same as it was 200 years ago. The Preamble makes clear the purpose and intent of the Founding fathers. The purpose was to make a better country and the Constitution has to be interpreted in that light. If the goal is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the Preamble clearly states, then medical care and the stopping of pollution directly relates to life and it's difficult to pursue happiness when one is ill and unable to afford medical treatment.

As one of the government Repubs recently stated the struggle between the Dems and Repubs concerns the way the country should go into the future. Do you want only a selected few to benefit or as many as possible? What would the Founding Fathers have wanted? The Constitution starts with, "We, the people..." not "We, the select few..." or "We, the 1%..."

On that note I'm off to Costco.

 

[DamnYankee]

It sure as hell tops your standard post accusing someone of being gay...or your incessant comments regarding your fantasizing about having sex with another man.

Examples of this, fatso?

 

[Damocles]

Yes, he said he won but he also tried to work with the Repubs. We saw that with ObamaCare until it came to the point where he had to dismiss the Repubs from talks. He started out with a velvet glove but had to resort to something harder. That was the "waste of time", his trying to work with them.

Only because he simply wasn't going to. He made a show of "working with them" but the reality was it was "my way or the highway"...

Why do you and others have a problem understanding the wealth of the country/government is based on the wealth of the citizens? The debt of the government could have been handled by tax increases. Also, the argument over raising the debt ceiling was mentioned. Why, if it wasn't important?

The debt cannot be handled by tax increases. If you took all of the money from the top 10% you could only pay a few months of bills.

We need growth, it is the only way out of the massive debt we have incurred.

It’s logical thinking. I wrote, “The composition, the specific individuals involved, will and does frequently change so it's only logical to help the poor in a proper manner knowing that for the vast majority it is a temporary situation.”

No, this whole conversation began with your suggestion that we guarantee a certain amount of money to anybody at all times.

It’s fine to put into place policies where Repubs believe they will result in jobs for everyone but that doesn’t solve the problem of the poor today. As someone noted the economy may change in a year but people have to eat now. Temporary loss of work results in many losing what took them decades to acquire. It’s insane when policies could be implemented to carry the people over until they found other employment. Furthermore, most lose their health coverage as it’s tied to their job. There is no reason people should have to face those circumstances.

Again, nobody argues against a safety net, that's just your silly nonsense prejudice.

But it's never done. "Let's be pragmatic." That's the same argument the Repubs used concerning health care reform. How long has that discussion been going on? People argue government health care will reduce jobs. Is the goal of health care to supply jobs or supply medical care?

Both. People actually need to be doing the work in order to provide the care.

The problem is the Repubs do everything they can to maintain the status quo when major changes are needed. The Constitution can not be interpreted the same as it was 200 years ago. The Preamble makes clear the purpose and intent of the Founding fathers. The purpose was to make a better country and the Constitution has to be interpreted in that light. If the goal is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the Preamble clearly states, then medical care and the stopping of pollution directly relates to life and it's difficult to pursue happiness when one is ill and unable to afford medical treatment.

Which again doesn't change the reality, if you have people working first (growth in the economy) then you can afford the research that will eventually get us off the energy you believe is negative. If you never get them to work because you refuse to be pragmatic, you wind up with a stagnant economy, an inability to pay, and finally an inability to actually implement the ideas if they ever come to fruition.

As one of the government Repubs recently stated the struggle between the Dems and Repubs concerns the way the country should go into the future. Do you want only a selected few to benefit or as many as possible? What would the Founding Fathers have wanted? The Constitution starts with, "We, the people..." not "We, the select few..." or "We, the 1%..."

On that note I'm off to Costco.

I want the focus to be on growth in the economy, which will make it so we can afford all the goodies, and for solutions to be found that do not focus on failing models from Europe. We have a unique ability to use the states to find a better solution so that we do not, in the future, wind up with riots in the street like in Greece where people are upset when the government is forced to take back some of the unaffordable "entitlements".

I prefer a future where we are assured a continuing ability to maintain rather than one where we have seen unsustainable entitlements cave whole nation's economies.

 

[zappasguitar]

Examples of this, fatso?

You refuse to provide examples when asked, but now you expect me to...how's about you help yourself to a big ol serving of Go Fuck Yourself?


See now how your childish refusal to respond with anything other than vitriol has come back to bite you on the ass?

 

[DamnYankee]

You refuse to provide examples when asked, but now you expect me to...how's about you help yourself to a big ol serving of Go Fuck Yourself?


See now how your childish refusal to respond with anything other than vitriol has come back to bite you on the ass?

I've consistently provided examples when challenged, except for troll posts of course. The real issue is that you just don't like the examples, or answers, that I've provided.

I find great irony with your insistence that my posts are childish and vitriolic. I don't recall a single post of yours off-hand that I would consider anything other than childish and vitriolic.

 

[zappasguitar]

I've consistently provided examples when challenged, except for troll posts of course. The real issue is that you just don't like the examples, or answers, that I've provided.

I find great irony with your insistence that my posts are childish and vitriolic. I don't recall a single post of yours off-hand that I would consider anything other than childish and vitriolic.

Whatever...you lie about everything else so why wouldn't you lie about providing evidence to back your claims?

You made up bullshit lies about my comments regarding the straw polls conducted earlier this year and when pressed to provide evidence, you spent MONTHS dodging and weaseling out of answering.

Hell, you STILL have not adequately answered some questions regarding Bachmann and the straw polls...

 

[DamnYankee]

Whatever...you lie about everything else so why wouldn't you lie about providing evidence to back your claims?

You made up bullshit lies about my comments regarding the straw polls conducted earlier this year and when pressed to provide evidence, you spent MONTHS dodging and weaseling out of answering.

Hell, you STILL have not adequately answered some questions regarding Bachmann and the straw polls...

Now you say that I 'lie about everything'. This is extremely funny because you are now completely unable to prove this new allegation.

 

[apple0154]

Only because he simply wasn't going to. He made a show of "working with them" but the reality was it was "my way or the highway"...

That’s not the case. Obama won and a major item on his platform was health care for everyone. The Repubs were against that idea. Not just against HOW it would be implemented but against the very idea itself. A universal/single payer plan? A mandatory insurance purchase? A government option? The Repubs wanted nothing to do with anything that would have allowed everyone to have medical coverage because they wanted it kept strictly a “pay or suffer” system.

The debt cannot be handled by tax increases. If you took all of the money from the top 10% you could only pay a few months of bills. We need growth, it is the only way out of the massive debt we have incurred..

It wouldn’t have solved the entire problem but it would have helped. I showed where one person, a CEO of a health management company no less, took home the equivalent of 98,000 people earning $50,000/yr. Insanity is the only appropriate word.

Yes, we need growth but that isn’t an excuse to not help people. There’s no reason some people have to lose everything they’ve worked for just so others can benefit. As I mentioned before there are 150,000 vacant homes in a Los Vegas suburb just going to rot. Vacant homes in Iowa are being bulldozed. This is happening while people are homeless or living in motels. It’s outrageous.

No, this whole conversation began with your suggestion that we guarantee a certain amount of money to anybody at all times.
Again, nobody argues against a safety net, that's just your silly nonsense prejudice.

The safety net does too little. The safety net has to ensure people have medical coverage. The safety net has to ensure families can stay together and not be separated in different housing units.

Both. People actually need to be doing the work in order to provide the care.

Keep the ones who are providing the care and get rid of the need for the others.

Which again doesn't change the reality, if you have people working first (growth in the economy) then you can afford the research that will eventually get us off the energy you believe is negative. If you never get them to work because you refuse to be pragmatic, you wind up with a stagnant economy, an inability to pay, and finally an inability to actually implement the ideas if they ever come to fruition.

Medical care has been discussed for generations. The state of the economy made no difference. As soon as the government got money, lots of money in the 90s, did welfare drastically increase? Were homes built for the homeless? Did the poor see a cent of that money? And let’s not forget Rumsfeld’s infamous words concerning Iraq. “War was an option we could afford.” War is an affordable option but medical care and housing isn’t?

Regardless whether one believes the poor are entitled to anything the point is looking after them is affordable. If people don’t want to look after the ill and poor then they should just say so but they have to stop the lies it can’t be done.

I want the focus to be on growth in the economy, which will make it so we can afford all the goodies, and for solutions to be found that do not focus on failing models from Europe. We have a unique ability to use the states to find a better solution so that we do not, in the future, wind up with riots in the street like in Greece where people are upset when the government is forced to take back some of the unaffordable "entitlements".

I prefer a future where we are assured a continuing ability to maintain rather than one where we have seen unsustainable entitlements cave whole nation's economies.

For every failing country there are dozens with social policies that are doing well. The problem with Greece is corruption, not social policies. From what I’ve learned the practice is to avoid transaction taxes. If people were heavily fined for that offence things would change.

As for things here we’ve seen a booming economy and nothing changed. If anything, when the government gets a really big amount of money it decides to blow it on war or cut taxes which does absolutely nothing for the poor who don’t have any money on which to pay taxes.

As Obama said the time for talk is over. (Did he say that?) If not now, when? (I don’t think he said that, either.) ……Anyway, he did imply it was time for a change and while some believe he might have spent more time addressing job creation he had bigger fish to fry. While it may not have been the most opportune time to deal with health care and other social matters opportune times came and went, many times over. If things like universal health care had already been in place the people losing jobs today would have one less thing to worry about.

Social programs have to go to the top of the list rather than the bottom where they have always stayed. Just as Social Security and other programs that came out of the New Deal have remained here is an opportunity to improve society going forward. How can anyone expect things to remain the same as when we travelled by horse and buggy and had candles to light our homes? Just as we've seen advancements not even dreamed of in the past we can't expect past ways of running society to be effective or proper. We're way overdue for change and Obama is the man to do it.