Can someone explain Obama please... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 07-28-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

The democrats showed during their complete control of government power they were about as united as a herd of cats.

The GOP is starting to show that the foundation they got elected with the help of the tea party that they are drifting back into same ole shit

Is that really much of a surprise to you? The GOP of today is like a two bit drug whore, they will fling them selves at whom ever to get the next high. They did it with the religious right with Bush's presidency & now they do it with the tea party.

The guys in power don't care about either the RR or TP's agendas, they just want their votes to continue on doing the same ole, same ole. This is why I laugh my ass off @ the tea party as well as the religious right, because both are too stupid to realize they are getting used for the next fix so the big boys in Washington can play big boy games with their big business buddys.

The democrats are much the same, but at the very least the average Joe gets a bit more out of them.

JFK · 07-28-2011, 01:33 PM

dayumn ............. have to back to training ;)

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

leftist fantasy has no place here.

Right wing extremists have no place in the world... so it equals out.

raymor · 07-28-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

... so as I understand it, there are two bills in Congress right now. One by the republicans, one by the democrats

The democrats have NOT put forth a bill.
The republicans are set to pass their third bill from the house today, which the democrats who control the senate say they will kill in the senate.
That's part of the problem, that democrats won't even put a bill up for vote, and Obama, who is supposed to be the leader, hasn't put out a specific plan. All they have done is said "no" to everything the republicans propose.

Of course we're in this mess because the dems didn't take care of it before the election like they were supposed to. They controlled the house, senate, and white house and still couldn't do their job.

If the democrats in senate would follow the standard procedure and change the house bill to their liking, it could then go to conference committee for the final compromise version to be worked out.
So far the dems have refused to introduce any bill, to amend the republican bills, or to pass anything.

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

The democrats have NOT put forth a bill.
The republicans are set to pass their third bill from the house today, which the democrats who control the senate day they will pass in the senate.
That's part of the problem, that democrats won't even put a bill up for vote, and Obama, who is supposed to be the leader, hadn't put out a specific plan. All they have done is said "no" to everything the republicans propose.

Of course we're in this mess because the dems didn't take care of it before the election like they were supposed to. They controlled the house, senate, and white house and still couldn't do their job.

If the democrats in senate would follow the standard procedure and change the house bill to their liking, it could then go to conference committee for the final compromise version to be worked out.
So far the dems have refused to introduce any bill, to amend the republican bills, or to pass anything.

The dems do have a plan on paper, proof of that was the review of it showing they didn't cut as much as thought, much like the reps plans.

Why put a bill up if it's going to get shot down? Why put it up when the other party already told you they would shoot it down? Why would the Reps put one up, even though the Dems said they would shoot it down and Obama said he would veto it? Do you think it's good for our country to waste time voting on bills everyone knows wont pass when they should be working on bills that should pass, thus giving people a reason to rail if it doesn't?

Why in hell would you want what they did plan to pass? Do you like being fucked in the ass?

How about this... one party, I don't care which, actually put something together that makes real cuts in areas that really need it, doesn't strip away what is ours, and doesn't play politics with the future.

Until that happens, both sides are playing us all for fools.

Connor · 07-28-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You mean like they did for Harley Davidson?

China shouldn't be a trusted trade partner under the NAFTA, thats got to change

I was never a fan of NAFTA, myself.

Connor · 07-28-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

if ours was so bad, and others so good, you would see companies moving to industrialized nations for those benefits. But in reality, most move to 3rd world countries so they can have slave labor and fuck the environment up without any regs or costs.

Trying to argue w/ 12licks is like trying to explain to a religious fanatic there's no magical man in the sky. Why waste your breath? lol

I think you're dead on right with the above statement... but I think the person who said the Dems didn't do shit when they were "in power" is also right. Which means, which you kind of hinted at, the Dems controlling things (like Obama and Reid) aren't that much different than the other side... at least where business and financial issues are concerned. Which is what pisses me off. The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends.

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Is that really much of a surprise to you? The GOP of today is like a two bit drug whore, they will fling them selves at whom ever to get the next high. They did it with the religious right with Bush's presidency & now they do it with the tea party.

The guys in power don't care about either the RR or TP's agendas, they just want their votes to continue on doing the same ole, same ole. This is why I laugh my ass off @ the tea party as well as the religious right, because both are too stupid to realize they are getting used for the next fix so the big boys in Washington can play big boy games with their big business buddys.

The democrats are much the same, but at the very least the average Joe gets a bit more out of them.

The Democrats want to Regulate us, the gop wants to censor us. My only real concern is I don't agree with whats been going on in this country for the last ten years. The president and the other parties are going around the intention of what the constitution says, States should be have more power to regulate themselves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I was never a fan of NAFTA, myself.

Same here, I can see this with Canada, but Mexico and China?

sperbonzo · 07-28-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong there. There is no difference at all. BOTH sides pay off the people that get them elected. In the case of the Republicans, it's corporations of all sizes. In the case of Democrats, it's large corporations and the unions.

And don't think that this makes no sense, since the Democrats seem to do things against business. The fact is that when Democrats do things that are going to make things harder on businesses in the US, like more regulations and taxes, they are STILL doing it as a favor to their large corporate buddies. The fact is, that the largest corporations can MUCH more easily cope with higher taxes and more regulations than the middle, small and start ups can. Those large corporations have the infrastructure, and international resources to deal with any of those issues. What they pay their Democrat buddies to do is to kill off any possible competition by raising taxes and regulations that those small companies can't cope with nearly as well.

.

VikingMan · 07-28-2011, 02:11 PM

Here is your explanation:

Obama was groomed and funded by people who hate the idea of strong nation states. Oh by the way they also have the Republicans bought off or blackmailed as well. Regardless of what party is in the majority or in the white house the results will be the same: our culture is destroyed, kids are dumbed down, our economy is fleeced, and 3rd world immigrants pour in by the hundreds of thousands every year. Everytime a Congressman or Senator decides to make a stand and fight for their country they are set up in a scandal or put out of office in the next election because their opponent mysteriously gets a mountain of extra funding.

Now you know so you don't need to ever ask again or complain about the farce of Republican vs Democrat politics. YOU ARE WELCOME

It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed the average business person is about politics. Sure I can understand how the average consumer is a complete idiot but I expect more from people who are entrepreneurs. Turn off Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc and WAKE THE FUCK UP!

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

China shouldn't be a trusted trade partner under the NAFTA, thats got to change

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla;

Same here, I can see this with Canada, but Mexico and China?

I think you may have confused what you read. China has an FTA with the NAFTA members (as do many countries). China is the largest trade partner with NAFTA, they aren't part of or under NAFTA, only 3 member countries are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I was never a fan of NAFTA, myself.

What issues do you have with nafta?

While I didn't deal with this part of the business directly, our Canadian company had/has to use nafta rules, I assume for the tax benefit. We purchased distro/manufacturing parts, ship them into Canada, add our flavor to them, and ship them back. I really can't find the raw deal in not getting double taxed.

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Trying to argue w/ 12licks is like trying to explain to a religious fanatic there's no magical man in the sky. Why waste your breath? lol

Because sometimes we all..... have to try an educate the undereducated, stupid, and deprived. If for nothing else, the small hope that one day they will be able to out debate my children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I think you're dead on right with the above statement... but I think the person who said the Dems didn't do shit when they were "in power" is also right. Which means, which you kind of hinted at, the Dems controlling things (like Obama and Reid) aren't that much different than the other side... at least where business and financial issues are concerned. Which is what pisses me off. The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends.

Proof of that is the fact that Congress is exempt from insider trading laws, allowing them to report rather large gains, during the massive economic down turn and robbery of Americans investments in 08.

I truly feel that if they cared, at all, about the people or this Country, we wouldn't be having this debate, at any level.

Connor · 07-28-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong there. There is no difference at all. BOTH sides pay off the people that get them elected.

Well in the general sense sure... but what I meant was, for example, when G.W. was in, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts. I'm sure the current administration has friends who are doing better now than they were a few years ago. Most political factions have certain "special friends" that they favor above all others.

sperbonzo · 07-28-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Well in the general sense sure... but what I meant was, for example, when G.W. was in, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts. I'm sure the current administration has friends who are doing better now than they were a few years ago. Most political factions have certain "special friends" that they favor above all others.

Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying.

.

Connor · 07-28-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What issues do you have with nafta?

The economic conditions in different countries aren't always the same, to state the obvious... so with Canada, it works pretty well because living conditions in Canada and the U.S. aren't too far apart. But when you consider countries without these living conditions ... like Mexico ... free trade allows large American corporations to effectively set up shop in these countries and leech off of the cheap labor there. This costs jobs in places where the labor force can't accept such low wages because of the cost of living. It seems to me that the end result from all this "free trade" is a reversal of all the standard of living increases that were hard won on the backs of early labor unions. Whether you feel labor unions went too far or not ... I don't think many people here want to go back to the labor conditions chronicled in, for example, The Grapes of Wrath.

Isn't it interesting that 50+ years ago a middle class family with a single income in America (and I'm assuming Canada too) could meet the basic necessities of life, and even grow a savings account and enjoy the occasional vacation. Now, you can accomplish the same with two incomes. That's not a horrible fate, especially given houses are better now and we have more comforts, but it's still a step back -- and it requires people in that position to depend on someone other than themselves. But unchecked free trade, I believe, threatens to put even that situation in jeopardy.

If I am competing with someone in another under-developed country for the same job, and that person shares a house with 8 other people in his family -- who can afford to accept the lowest wage, him or me? So my only response then is to downgrade my quality of life, unless I'm one of the fortunate who get to live an elite life of power afforded by the corporations who are pursuing all this shit.

Connor · 07-28-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying.

Well I'm a lot closer to that position now than I was three years ago, I can definitely tell you that.

uno · 07-28-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I didn't like the mandate either... I would have been fine with it if there was a "public option" so we weren't forced to do business with huge private companies, but without the "public option" (another Obama cave -- and he caved before he even HAD to on that, suggesting he never intended to try for it) I agree the mandate is intolerable.

I think that's kind of misdirected. Harry Reid is ultimately to blame for taking that off the table.

uno · 07-28-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

The democrats showed during their complete control of government power they were about as united as a herd of cats.

The GOP is starting to show that the foundation they got elected with the help of the tea party that they are drifting back into same ole shit

Completely agree on the dems in congress.

The GOP has been doing shit since day 1 when they took the house that was the 'same ole shit.' From day 1 it was all abortion, planned parenthood, abortion, and did i mention abortion?

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I think you may have confused what you read. China has an FTA with the NAFTA members (as do many countries). China is the largest trade partner with NAFTA, they aren't part of or under NAFTA, only 3 member countries are.

it's the loopholes that NAFTA leaves wide open, like China shipping thru Mexico's ports

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Totally understand this loophole, but you've gone back time and time again about NAFTA being evil that takes away American jobs etc. What I've notice, you've never addressed why it's a necessary evil because we import so much oil from Canada and Mexico it insures our trade deficit to stay down instead of the huge problems of the past. Pretty much why NAFTA was created in the first place.

Or the US made trucks that are assembled in Mexico? Why do we give them the jobs when they are giving us the workers?

Even Hilary when running for president said it needs to be rewritten

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

it's the loopholes that NAFTA leaves wide open, like China shipping thru Mexico's ports

China makes money doing business with us directly, so if they are using a loophole, they're saving me and you money. But they aren't, it's American corps that would move it through Mexico, so "they" can use the free trade agreement with Mexico.

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

China makes money doing business with us directly, so if they are using a loophole, they're saving me and you money. But they aren't, it's American corps that would move it through Mexico, so "they" can use the free trade agreement with Mexico.

so you agree it should be changed

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Or the US made trucks that are assembled in Mexico? Why do we give them the jobs when they are giving us the workers?

Even Hilary when running for president said it needs to be rewritten

The parts are made all over the world and shipped to Mexico because of labor & shipping costs. First, that means free trade coming in, from Mexico, thus money is saved. Second, parts aren't always covered under free trade, but manufacturing is, thus they put them together for us so we can do the trade.

And if we didn't have a trade agreement with them, the labor costs are so vastly different that it would still be beneficial to setup labor shops in Mexico, even more so when they have all the parts coming to them.

Logistically, Mexico is much more central, thus much cheaper shipping costs per unit. Now you can ship each part directly, costing you more per part + tax, or send it to a much more central place that is cheaper, put it together cheaper, ship in larger containers cheaper, and save yourself a f'in ton of money.

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

so you agree it should be changed

No, I don't think NAFTA needs to be changed, at least not related to trade. Nothing I said should have given you that idea, as nothing I said was bad.

Overall I think we need some labor rules, but I'm not sure if I'm up for more regulations.

That isn't to say some other trade agreements don't need to be changed or simply just burned.

BVF · 07-28-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Well you're kind of all over the place... I don't think you're following the discussion here, I think you're more worried about protecting your guy at all costs, so you're seeing what you want to see and arguing things nobody's talking about. .

all over the place how? You blamed BOTH for the budget problems but then placed the ULTIMATE blame on Obama, along with some bullshit about how the republicans are "doing what they're supposed to do"....

I don't give two fucks if Obama gets re-elected or not....But don't be the moronic ostrich who puts his head in the sand...

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

The economic conditions in different countries aren't always the same, to state the obvious... so with Canada, it works pretty well because living conditions in Canada and the U.S. aren't too far apart. But when you consider countries without these living conditions ... like Mexico ... free trade allows large American corporations to effectively set up shop in these countries and leech off of the cheap labor there. This costs jobs in places where the labor force can't accept such low wages because of the cost of living. It seems to me that the end result from all this "free trade" is a reversal of all the standard of living increases that were hard won on the backs of early labor unions. Whether you feel labor unions went too far or not ... I don't think many people here want to go back to the labor conditions chronicled in, for example, The Grapes of Wrath.

I would fully agree with you, if manufacturing was still our primary industry when nafta was setup, heck, corps were already doing business in mexico because of labor. While some jobs may have been lost, the gains on far cheaper shipping and free trade, created trillions in revenue for American corps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Isn't it interesting that 50+ years ago a middle class family with a single income in America (and I'm assuming Canada too) could meet the basic necessities of life, and even grow a savings account and enjoy the occasional vacation. Now, you can accomplish the same with two incomes. That's not a horrible fate, especially given houses are better now and we have more comforts, but it's still a step back -- and it requires people in that position to depend on someone other than themselves. But unchecked free trade, I believe, threatens to put even that situation in jeopardy.

That's still very possible today, on one income, you just have to give up all the crazy shit that people like me and you can't live without

To me, life is simply too different today to compare to back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

If I am competing with someone in another under-developed country for the same job, and that person shares a house with 8 other people in his family -- who can afford to accept the lowest wage, him or me? So my only response then is to downgrade my quality of life, unless I'm one of the fortunate who get to live an elite life of power afforded by the corporations who are pursuing all this shit.

That's the thing though, you're not competing with them.... that job isn't here and they can't do your job with the technology they have. And if the job was here, nobody would buy the product, as it would be 10x the cost than the one made in Japan by a competing international corp, that hires cheap labor.

That's why I feel the green technology field, whatever directly it may go, is the best bet for our Country. New tech has always created jobs, improved the eco, etc... to me it's the only real solution to jobs.

12clicks · 07-28-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Trying to argue w/ 12licks is like trying to explain to a religious fanatic there's no magical man in the sky. Why waste your breath? lol

I think you're dead on right with the above statement... but I think the person who said the Dems didn't do shit when they were "in power" is also right. Which means, which you kind of hinted at, the Dems controlling things (like Obama and Reid) aren't that much different than the other side... at least where business and financial issues are concerned. Which is what pisses me off. The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends.

Ouch.

davecummings · 07-28-2011, 04:37 PM

I am, and have been for many years, a registered Libertarian; I vote in every election; I have no potential solutions to offer, but I hope somehow a magic wand appears and make my next paragraph happen.

I wish politicians would stop being political and making everything they do be intended to help their Re-election. Instead, they should work hard for the best thing for America, not a political party or their re-election:-(. I wish we had 2-5 year term limits for ALL offices at ALL levels, thus letting us get real "work" out of those elected, instead of subjective politics. Heck, with the aforementioned, we might even entice more qualified candidates to run for office, work hard for the good of America, and chuck politics/lobbying/re-election subjectivity/etc aside!?

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I am, and have been for many years, a registered Libertarian; I vote in every election; I have no potential solutions to offer, but I hope somehow a magic wand appears and make my next paragraph happen.

I wish politicians would stop being political and making everything they do be intended to help their Re-election. Instead, they should work hard for the best thing for America, not a political party or their re-election:-(. I wish we had 2-5 year term limits for ALL offices at ALL levels, thus letting us get real "work" out of those elected, instead of subjective politics. Heck, with the aforementioned, we might even entice more qualified candidates to run for office, work hard for the good of America, and chuck politics/lobbying/re-election subjectivity/etc aside!?

Agreed!

I can't remember which Country it is... but one of them do one term on and one off. The off term you campaign in, based on how well you did on your on term.

Dvae · 07-28-2011, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

One thing to remember is Obama does not create the budget, he can only push a direction, so he's only pushing to merge them, while Congress still has to agree. If that's what it takes to get the deal done, and they both do it, that is a bi-partisan compromise, based around the current situation, it's the only compromise, assuming it goes through.

I did not think you of all people would get this wrong.

Obamas 2012 Budget

From Wikipedia:

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

mountainmiester · 07-28-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying..

In fact, the Obama administration has added a significant amount of additional contracts to Halliburton through No Bid Contracts. Same crap just a new group doing it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e1_1273440915

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

I did not think you of all people would get this wrong.

Obamas 2012 Budget

From Wikipedia:

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

Interesting info... learn something new every day. I always took the Presidents as a proposal, not a real budget.

I am pretty sure though the Constitution some place says; any act/bill, etc raising revenue must originate in the House of Reps, which normally does the budget, because of that. After that Congress passes the actual budget, then it must be authorized to give out the money, by them again, then it's ready go. So I took that as Congress doing the budget.....

Does this mean Obama actually did submit a budget, and it was rejected?

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 04:56 PM

A quick google answered my own question... I see both sides kicked it back.

Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

Edit: I see now the link Dvae shared has the 2012 budget on it as well.

mountainmiester · 07-28-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Does this mean Obama actually did submit a budget, and it was rejected?

The budget is submitted by the President then Congress can either vote to pass it or modify it, vote on it then pass it back to the president for approval or veto. if vetoed, it goes back to congress who can either modify it and then vote to submit or they can override the veto with 2/3 majority vote.

ThunderBalls · 07-28-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Or the US made trucks that are assembled in Mexico? Why do we give them the jobs when they are giving us the workers?

Even Hilary when running for president said it needs to be rewritten

You can thank Reagan for that, NAFTA has nothing to do with it.

Robbie · 07-28-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

You can thank Reagan for that, NAFTA has nothing to do with it.

Okay..."Thank you Ronald Reagan" Not sure why I'm thanking a dead President from 30 years ago..but I did what you said. heh-heh

And wasn't THE ONLY THING HAPPENING IN THE WORLD according to the nightly newscasts, the big "immigration problem" a few months ago? It was like EVERYTHING hinged on stopping those evil Mexicans from coming to the U.S. to get jobs.

Now why would they come here to get jobs if all of our jobs are down in Mexico?

the content guy · 07-28-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think that's the way a lot of people see him now. The word that comes to mind is: "disappointment"

He got elected talking a lot about changing stuff. Then he gets in and immediately seemed to bow down to Reid & Pelosi. And instead of jumping right away on the economy...they instead spent a year and a half on "healthcare" and that ended up being not much more than forcing Americans to buy insurance and making billions of more dollars for the insurance companies. They didn't even do one thing to actually make healthcare affordable (they even started the process by making a deal with the big pharmaceutical companies to ensure that Americans pay more than anybody else in the world for drugs)

In my mind...the fact that he wasted that first half of his term on a subject (healthcare) that wasn't the top priority of the American people really was a huge blunder. People are out of work and are losing their homes. With no money and no place to live, the only thing Obama offered them was: Now you HAD to buy insurance! And here's the great news...the insurance companies can't refuse to TAKE YOUR MONEY. Whoopty doo.

He seemed disconnected to the fact that a person with cancer and NO job and underwater on his mortgage can not afford insurance. He was supposed to do National Health Care...but the big insurance companies would be put out of business...so they sat his ass down and got things done in a way that will make them even more money.

And meanwhile the economy went further and further south.

I'm almost positive now that he is a one term president. I'm thinking we are going to have a President Romney in 2012. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'd much rather have a President Ron Paul at this point...but the media is too set against him.

I wish Obama had more of a spine from the moment he walked into office and had done the things he said he was going to do. But I think he still looked up to the people in his party who were in power for so many years like Reid and Pelosi and took their advice instead.

I believe you are absolutely correct Robbie. Good analysis.

Dvae · 07-28-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

A quick google answered my own question... I see both sides kicked it back.

Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

Edit: I see now the link Dvae shared has the 2012 budget on it as well.

Interesting that the NY Times calls it a proposal while the OMB calls it a Budget.
For all intents and purposes it is a proposal until it passes both houses of Congress and the POTUS signs it.

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

Interesting that the NY Times calls it a proposal while the OMB calls it a Budget.
For all intents and purposes it is a proposal until it passes both houses of Congress and the POTUS signs it.

Damn, the OMB employees, 400 and 500 people, and these aren't just your average paper pushers either.

Btw, found what I was thinking about: Article 1 - The Legislative Branch - Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto.

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

I guess they would make the bill that would raise the revenue, however the budget itself isn't a bill.

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Rewritten to exclude loopholes her husband should of covered, but your reply is completely irrelevant to the actual problem and why we need NAFTA to balance an extremely lopsided trade imbalance.

It's like most people who'll spout out their views on politics when in fact, most haven't a clue or the bigger picture to make a valid point. I myself, get caught up in this or argue about the things we "should" of done when in reality it's just a symptom of a much greater problem we choose to ignore, or don't even know.

Wait, you think NAFTA is balancing the trade imbalance?

TheDoc · 07-28-2011, 08:00 PM

I think everyone here will love this....

Dennis Kucinich

sperbonzo · 07-28-2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

In fact, the Obama administration has added a significant amount of additional contracts to Halliburton through No Bid Contracts. Same crap just a new group doing it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e1_1273440915

Pretty much EXACTLY what I'm saying

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

You can thank Reagan for that, NAFTA has nothing to do with it.

Wow, you sure are slow aren't you. When Reagan left office, inflation was 4.4% and unemployment was 5.5%

So where the fuck do you think Reagan had anything to do with Pickups being assembled in Mexico?

Or

are you talking about the Illegal Alien Amnesty he did, too bad ever POTUS since hasn't enforced the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986.

Or

Are you just a moron?

I await your answer

Vendzilla · 07-28-2011, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I think everyone here will love this....

Dennis Kucinich

I like him

BFT3K · 07-28-2011, 08:21 PM

The government, today, announced that it will be changing the nations emblem from a Bald Eagle, to a condom, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

Brujah · 07-28-2011, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The government, today, announced that it will be changing the nations emblem from a Bald Eagle, to a condom, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

VikingMan · 07-28-2011, 09:20 PM

Most of you guys complaining about Obama will just vote for the next crop of puppets anyway

marlboroack · 07-28-2011, 11:47 PM

raymor · 07-29-2011, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying.

.

Also when Gore did a paper and presentation on the right way for the government to work with private industry, he used Haliburton as the case study. Al Gore showed how Haliburton was able to get jobs done at lower cost and much more quickly than the government could do it itself.

In fact Presidents have been giving awards and props Haluburton since 1963 because when you need 700 oil well fires extinguished NOW or you need a prison built in a few weeks nobody else can do it like they can. I've watched them work so I se what Gore was taking about.

Contrary to popular belief among the lefties, other companies DID bid on the Iraq contingency contracts. Those other companies needed several months and billions of dollars to hire people and aquire large equipment. Haliburton was ready to go because that's what they do. They handle big projects right and they are always ready to go. Need a refinery? Haliburton can build you one quicker than any government agency can approve the paint color.

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *******

Most of you guys complaining about Obama will just vote for the next crop of puppets anyway

Oh, cmon, thats not fair.

They ALL will, not most. (on both sides, sadly)

Obama is a disaster, the worst possible presdient at the worst possible time. He has set the dems back decades, even if he MIGHT have kept us from a bushite economic collapse for the moment, I will grudgingly stipulate.

But you know the anti-obamites will manage to vote in somebody even worse.

So hang on, buy tools and useful supplies and get practical skills, because what is coming is going to be bad.

07-28-2011, 01:33 PM	#52
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,382	dayumn ............. have to back to training ;) __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

07-28-2011, 02:11 PM	#60
VikingMan Exploiting human weakness Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: next to a salmon stream Posts: 6,451	Here is your explanation: Obama was groomed and funded by people who hate the idea of strong nation states. Oh by the way they also have the Republicans bought off or blackmailed as well. Regardless of what party is in the majority or in the white house the results will be the same: our culture is destroyed, kids are dumbed down, our economy is fleeced, and 3rd world immigrants pour in by the hundreds of thousands every year. Everytime a Congressman or Senator decides to make a stand and fight for their country they are set up in a scandal or put out of office in the next election because their opponent mysteriously gets a mountain of extra funding. Now you know so you don't need to ever ask again or complain about the farce of Republican vs Democrat politics. YOU ARE WELCOME It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed the average business person is about politics. Sure I can understand how the average consumer is a complete idiot but I expect more from people who are entrepreneurs. Turn off Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc and WAKE THE FUCK UP! Last edited by VikingMan; 07-28-2011 at 02:13 PM..

07-28-2011, 04:37 PM	#78
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	I am, and have been for many years, a registered Libertarian; I vote in every election; I have no potential solutions to offer, but I hope somehow a magic wand appears and make my next paragraph happen. I wish politicians would stop being political and making everything they do be intended to help their Re-election. Instead, they should work hard for the best thing for America, not a political party or their re-election:-(. I wish we had 2-5 year term limits for ALL offices at ALL levels, thus letting us get real "work" out of those elected, instead of subjective politics. Heck, with the aforementioned, we might even entice more qualified candidates to run for office, work hard for the good of America, and chuck politics/lobbying/re-election subjectivity/etc aside!? __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

07-28-2011, 04:56 PM	#83
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	A quick google answered my own question... I see both sides kicked it back. Obama's 2011 Budget Proposal http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html Edit: I see now the link Dvae shared has the 2012 budget on it as well. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation Last edited by TheDoc; 07-28-2011 at 04:58 PM..

07-28-2011, 08:00 PM	#91
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	I think everyone here will love this.... Dennis Kucinich __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

07-28-2011, 08:21 PM	#95
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	The government, today, announced that it will be changing the nations emblem from a Bald Eagle, to a condom, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

07-28-2011, 09:20 PM	#97
VikingMan Exploiting human weakness Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: next to a salmon stream Posts: 6,451	Most of you guys complaining about Obama will just vote for the next crop of puppets anyway

07-28-2011, 11:47 PM	#98
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327