A Devastating and Depressing Portrait of Obama

134 replies [Last post]
Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

What is a military budget for? Sorry I have misunderstood you. Give it a rest. I concede - you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Heaven help us if we aren't prepared for an attack - because there is no budget for a war. UNDERSTAND? (No LOL!)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

We aren't talking about opinion, just facts, you threw it out there as fact, all I asked is if you could back it up, guess not. I UNDERSTAND you're talking through your hat again, and yes, I'm not LOL either.

Btw, you didn't misunderstand me, nor did Dollar or Bas, I do give you credit, you don't change you name when things don't go your way, unlike our friends $, or CHR$, or Bas or Locke, or their name of the week, as it were. You're a stand up Lady, right or wrong.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

Thanks. :-) By the way - I am LOL - because this is just a great exercise of the brain - and shows that persons can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not really interested in things going my way - just enjoying the freedom of expressing my point - and acknowledging that someone has a different point of view. Now I"m through - on to the next point - and thanks for sticking to yours.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
DM

Thanks for avoiding the question and also for the government's responsibility, or lack thereof, in accounting for such funds. I must admit, however, that when you quote ABC News as a source you generally lessen your credibility.

Would you care to try and account for Katrina funds? Haiti? And while you're at it, Viet Nam? The same level of accounting will be found. The problem lies not with the Executive Branch of our government, but with the Legislative. Grow up and stop blaming Bush for all the faults being exacerbated by Obama, Pelosi and Reid!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike - read and comprehend

I didn't blame Bush or Obama - just stated facts from government data (most media use this data - not just ABC) IF YOU NOTED; I cited the actions of both Bush Congress and Obama Congress. Take your head out of the 'party' saga - and look at what is happening because we the people have allowed POLITICIANS and CORPORATE HEADS to run our business instead of statesmen. What question did I avoid? I'll be happy to answer it - for you.

Mikeyc
Mikeyc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/14/2009
Mike King - King of Misdirection

While wars are not usually "budgeted" for, especially when we're attacked, that doesn’t mean the costs of waging them has been ignored by Washington.
During the recent TWO wars we were engaged in, Bush handed out tax breaks. In the second Word War, by 1944 nearly every employed person was paying federal income taxes (compared to 10% in 1940).
But please continue, you're entertaining in the way Archie Bunker was. Your arguments are simplistic; easy to understand, the issues you're wrestling with are not. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
MikeyC - Tax rates

In 1940, the tax rate for the "rich" was 90%. Are you pining away for the good ole days?

By the way, the government gets to decide who's rich.

Mikeyc
Mikeyc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/14/2009
Tax Rates

Look, I'm happy for you that you make over 250,000 a year. Seriously, I think that's great and I'm sure you worked for it. Neither do I begrudge the major corporation you own. From your vantage point, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts must look like the perfect storm.
However, the other 94% of us don't see you putting workers back on the payroll, even while your corporations are pulling down record profits. You've discovered, through layoffs, that you can get by with less workers so why would any sane person take an extra million or so out of your own pocket to hire more of the dirty unwashed?
"Rich" is a relative term. What defines it? 100,000, 200,000, a million, ten? I don't know, I just know I'm not.
Government decides whose rich? In China maybe, where by the age of 7 it's been decided weather you will be a carp fisherman or a government dignitary.
That's not how it works here. Government is first decided by people deciding to apply for it, and then convincing enough other people that they will represent their interests. You move up the ladder by convincing more and more people of this. If you decided not to play the game, don't cry when you don't win it.
I have never declared allegiance to a political party. I always wanted the freedom to vote the individual, you know, the guy that would look out for me and mine. It’s terribly hard to vote for anyone today who is asked to sign a pledge that they will vote strictly with the party. Issues are too complex to only have two choices for an answer.
You may think you're being funny or witty with your little one-liners, but second only to life, is liberty. If you want a cabal of four or five people making the decisions for the entire country, you're crying out for an Oligarchy. The Republican Party is, in fact practicing the exact thing you accuse the Democratic party of trying to impose.
I’ll include this link one more time. It’s produced by the John Birch Society, and can be used as talking points for smaller government. It’ll take ten minutes of your life, give it a look before you bother to reply (or not).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
MikeyC

I seem to have lost your point in your monolog. What exactly is your point? Is it your position that those that have money are all evil and need to be put in their "place”. Are you really this naive? You should not confuse capitalists with neo-capitalists. Neo-capitalists are those that derive their wealth on the backs of the taxpayer. They in all likelihood would not even exist if it weren’t for government largess. Capitalists are those that take risk with their own capital and in spite of government make a go of it in the marketplace. They don't owe you or anyone else a job, nor do they hire on the whim of "what's best for society". They hire based on the needs of their business. Don't confuse the two in your analysis, they are quite different.

If you believe in bigger government simply say so, don’t quibble.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Petey C. Observer and the "rich"
PTC Observer wrote:

In 1940, the tax rate for the "rich" was 90%. Are you pining away for the good ole days?

By the way, the government gets to decide who's rich.

People subject to the 90% tax in 1940 were wage earners making more than 5 million dollars per year.

Adjusted for inflation, that's $77,968,571.43 in 2010 dollars.

Would you consider someone making $77,968,571.43 PER YEAR to be rich?

Oh, and that tax rate only applied on the amount earned over 2 million dollars per year ($31,187,428.57 in adjusted 2010 dollars)

By way of contrast, the average income for an entire household in 1940 was two thousand dollars and the income tax rate back then was 4% (but no deductions or adjustments).

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB - And

Your point is what?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Mikey

Since you're displaying the mental acumen of Edith Bunker, let me remind you that the Defense Department Appropriation does account for contingencies. After 90 days it is your Congress that decides whether to continue to fund or bring the troops home.

Would you bother to explain the increase of America's industrialized workforce from 1940-1944, or should I simply remind you that America was not the industrial giant in 1940 that it was in 1944. Funny thing about soldiers, even at a dollar a day they still paid their taxes.

Mikeyc
Mikeyc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/14/2009
M King - Answers the unasked

Once again you pretend to address the issue, but misdirect the reader by answering some other thing in your head. It doesn’t matter what the employment NUMBERS were in ’40 or ’45. The issue is that the PERCENTAGE of workers that were taxed went up by almost 90 PERCENT to pay for the war. This was NOT initiated by congress. Roosevelt had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way. This also does not include war bonds, they were bought voluntarily. President Bush, on the other hand, CUT taxes.
Your arguments/statements are purposefully disingenuous. In a reply to Davids Mom, you place the spending blame squarely on the shoulders of congress and expressly excuse the executive branch during Bush presidency, but blame President Obama along with congress for spending today. Your vitriol and loathing of the President won’t allow you to make an evenhanded statement even within the confines of two sentences. (Do you really want me to give you 500 words on the country’s GDP for the war years, or was that rhetorical?)

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Mikey

Get a grip on yourself. Sure the numbers (or percentages) increased by some 30 million filings between 1937-1945, but it had more to do with a world war than making widgets or whatever. Previously, there was this thing called the Great Depression that did wonders for unemployment. Funny, that you refer to FDR as a tax collector, but it occurs to me that taxes are levied by Congress not Presidents. Read your Constitution!

Yes, Bush initiated, and a Republican Congress cut taxes which actually stimulated the economy and has proven to increase tax revenues. As an aside, you will admit that our nations economy was on a decline during the last two years of Mr Clinton's Presidency. Add to that the attacks of 9/11 and you have the makings of a pretty tough road.

Yes, I blame the triad of Obama, Pelosi and Reid for the massive increase in the national debt. I further blame those in Congress (both aisles)for the last twenty-five years for mortgaging our national future and security to maintain their positions of power.

I need no lesson on economics from you, Sir. I would, however, ask you to reread you caption by Ben Franklin with the premise that one's debt lessens their freedom.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike King - keep your promise to your wife

Would you please name a conflict in which we were involved that was budgeted?

Is this the question you considered unanswerd? THE MILITARY/SECURITY expenses - which have been in recorded US budgets since before the Civil War!!!

Clinton? No implication - there was a surplus when he left. SURPLUS! (no deficit)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Just so I understand what you're trying to say here, you're saying the entire war cost of WW2 was in the budget before Pearl Harbor?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Hutch

Before the next budget was proposed after December 7, 1941, the war was included and every year thereafter.

My folks bought a lot of those war bonds and stamps! Sent three members for three years!

For nine years we had no budget for Iraq or Afghanistan. We just signed notes.

This thing of what the military HAD when war erupted has no bearing.

I swear---common logic has disappeared!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
ok you dip

I said before the war started, BEFORE, can you not read?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
DM

Clinton never in his eight years reduced the national deficit, so to what surplus are we refering? He was forced to govern within the contraints of the Congressional budget approved. You do remember the government shut downs and the 'vast right wing conspiracy' led by Newt Gingrich do you not?

If you are refering to the Defense Appropriations that do take into account contingencies, but after 90 days it's the Congress who says whether the troops stay or not.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mike K.

Clinton didn't ADD to it! You know that!

As to this thing of go to war now, we will approve later, it is going to die a slow death.

We need to get back to declaring war. OK to form troops and weapons and logistics, but hold for vote. Even if the bombs are on the way---unless we can stop them in air! Can't trust any politician especially if the economy is bad. We are set-up right now needing a "good" war.

What congress is going to stop an invasion once it is started? None.
We still are supposed to be ruled by civilians--we must be.
The world has tried Generals, Colonels, and Religious leaders all. It doesn't work for long.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Mike K

Clinton had a budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 not counting the surplus in Social Security. Counting the surplus in Social Security added in, Clinton had budget surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Deficit - Congressional Budget Office

The Republican Congress added money to Clinton's budget every year and never once passed a budget spending less money than Clinton's proposed budgets. The year Newt shot down the government, the Republicans passed a budget 0.3% higher than Clinton proposed. They don't spend less, they just spend it in slightly different places.

T-Man
T-Man's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2006
skyspy

Good spin on what brought America to it's knee's. Unfortunately the politicians hope you continue to drink their cool-aid. Tell me, in our last 10 years what Repub's have done to keep our country from economic decline. To change history we must be blind to party politics and elect those who work for the people and not big business.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
T-Man

Would you consider adding 'big government' to your last sentence?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mike K

Now you know that 85% approximately of our budget has to do with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, All defense costs inc.VA, wars off the books, and about 6% debt service. Plus a few other necessities.

Lately the states, such as Georgia, have garnered a bunch also. Let's stop those contributions for roads schools, cops, firemen, etc., first?

Now that what is left do you want to cut out? Whatever it is will be consumed by the other when available.

You know that 95% of us pay about 15% or less net income taxes? Most corporations pay zero, most LLC pay the owners all the profit they make and are included in the 95%!

The big tax payers are oil companies, banks, insurance companies, chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations.
And you want to give them a tax break!

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Must addendum this

Not all government money comes from income taxes! Forgot to mention that and it's effects.
Social Security deductions, Medicare, tariffs, fees, licenses, fines, depletion allowances of minerals, etc. are substantial. Sales of military hardware is ?????? sometimes "traded" instead of cash---like Israel----they are our base in the middle-east!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Skyspy & Retirement

Good for you! If you are CSRS and had some military time,it would be to your advantage to research buying it back and combining for retirement. I did that and although it cost me $19K, the combo nets me $16K more annually than two separate retirements would have. It's not usually beneficial for FERS employees. Pls ignore fact that I tagged on to an old post.

skyspy
skyspy's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/08/2005
No Problem @homegym

I'm FERS. I hired on when you had to have a college degree and a pilots license. We will see, just because I'm eligible doesn't mean a thing I might have to stay another 10yrs or until the economy turns around. Have a good weekend.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM proves my point again

DM - That's a fairly bold statement coming from a member of a group with 70% out of wedlock births.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

Ahhhhh - when you don't have a cogent response - ATTACK. What group is that? American Christian women? Check again. Most American Christian women proudly have their children AFTER they marry. Have a great weekend.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
When Liberals Attack

No DM, I was refering to out-of-wedlock births in the African America community.

That wasn't an attack, it is a fact.

Here's an attack -
Liberal media goes on attack against GOP's Boehner

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Åmerican Concerns/Kawfi

about our young people and their morals should not be used as a political 'gotcha' - but examined by all of us to determine what is really undermining our country. The percentage is correct - but take a look at the NUMBER of 'white' American women that are having babies out of wedlock. (a lower 'percentage' but double the number) Fewer minorities avail themselves of abortion - and that may be a reason for the higher percentage of live birth out of wedlock among minority women. Boehner and Reid will be names of the past in 10 years - but a child born out of wedlock will be ten years old. That should be our concern. Your concern is the next election.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Score one for David's Mom!

I can't disagree with the above at all because it's so sadly accurate.

There isn't going to be a seismic change in the November elections by simply replacing a bunch of losers with a new crop who will likely be sucking the government teet after getting elected and trying so hard to not tell the truth about who lead the country into the quagmire; financially, morally, and philosophically........IT WAS ALWAYS US. Not the Muslims, not the blacks, not the whites, not the homo's or foreign dictators.....US.

Almost all of us have ties to the "Greatest Generation" and we pissed all over it in the desire for everything material and "we'll worry about that later." That started with the "Baby Boomer" generation and has continued since then. Instead of "sacrifice for the greater good," it became wars where the only suffering was done by our military and their families as long as we bought some bumper stickers, t-shirts and other merchandise that said "We Support Out Troops." Wow, I contributed to the WAR effort! It's pathetic what we have done with the legacy that everyone shed a ton of blood, sweat and tears to accomplish.

Nathan Hale said he regretted "having only one life to give to my country." Most people today would try to plea-bargain the way out of it instead.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM

So, in your world, the higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in the black community is due to fewer abortions? That is a complete crock- It's due to a totally irresponsible lifestyle that is handed down from generation to generation. How about trying not get pregnant in the first place - did that ever cross their mind?

Only someone like you could try to equate a 70% rate (black) with the 23% rate (white).

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Abortion/out-of wedlock/???

The question should be - what is a just/American way to deal with unwanted children? All children born out of wedlock are not 'unwanted' or 'uncared for'.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
DM: OOW

Maybe you can suggest a way to better control births to women who do not have a husband.
It happens across races but in different percentages of their population.
Even that doesn't explain why there are quite often several born that way, maybe by different males to the same female.

I know automatic welfare and subsidies promotes some of this occurring, but it is still a menial living as the Mother can not work if these kids have any hope of having sometime take care of them. Actually usually the Mother can't make enough to pay a baby-sitter---often burdening relatives--particularly Grandmothers.

This also contributes to poor school results as there is no contacts much between the school and parents--not to mention all of the other bad habits picked up in the projects as they are raised.

I also know that some in these cases blame society in general for their predicament, therefore they are due to have monetary help, play centers, etc., paid by taxes and donations.

Also, many wander the streets when not in school---day and night, of all ages. There is no cooperation between different families as to watching over these roaming children!

Lastly, when the kids are caught at something and the law enters, the Mother generally takes the side of her child no matter how serious the charge. They know she will. She really has no other choices.

I don't know if you have any future solutions to resolve any of this? We do need to forget the past at some point and start great improvements.

It has now gotten down to teachers and administrators having to cheat on tests--tests which they have studied for--in order to keep those schools and jobs open.
Just today the FEDERAL government has intervened in this cheating scandal
which certainly means that they don't trust the local schools, the parents, the state school management and Governor, to do much if anything about it!
Already we have seen much cover-up of this problem---wanting everyone to just not raise a fuss, forget about the past, and continue on with the same structure.

I realy don't expect any comments from most on here except the same old usual (no-good, lazy, etc.) comments, but I thought you might!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
CHR-THE FALCONS JUST BEAT THE SUPER BOWL CHAMPS

I wish I did have solutions. The attempt to reform education in the US is encouraging - but already we have the naysayers in action. The problems have been identified - and until we have a more educated populace, many of the other problems that you noted will be difficult to address. . .let alone solve. I often refer to Toronto, Canada - where years ago they had financially integrated neighborhoods (no projects). The pride in neighborhood trumped financial standing. All homes were well kept, etc. There was a feeling of ‘community’ – and neighbors watched out for each other. City services were equal to all - not just those who appeared to have more 'pull'. I have always been anti-project living. The US promoted social, racial, and class segregation through the establishment of 'the projects'. Duncan (Sec. of Education) has begun to reform education with Race To The Top. However, I feel that until the universities begin to do a better job of educating TEACHERS - all the work being done now will have little effect. Getting rid of ineffective teachers is a step in the right direction - but we must identify effectiveness! (It is not always test scores - as the recent and past cheating scandals attest.) There is no doubt that parent education and involvement must improve in urban areas. Those charter schools that have demanded participation in parent ed. and parent involvement have proven effective. In many urban areas - regardless of 'race', three generations of productive citizens may have been lost. Sad.

About the 'unwed' mother situation. Unfortunately for many children, raising a child without a father is becoming more and more common. Motherhood without the benefit of 'marriage' is almost touted as 'cool' in some circles (and race has nothing to do with this). I've always believed the most important years of a child's life are those spent at his mother's knee - and his family support system is functional. Children learn from their role models - family. Each of us needs to look carefully at what our children are observing as models. No amount of or lack of government intervention can improve on good home upbringing. . .IMHO

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
DM: The Falcons did it

I skipped all the other stuff because I wasn't in the mood for heavy thinking :) Proud of the Falcons and how they managed to pull out a big win today and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The Falcons

Great game!!!

justwondering
justwondering's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2006
adoption

Adoption is an option for abortion .

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM - Thou hypocrite

First you state "that if you spend an outrageous amount of money on clothes and your daughter gets pregnant; you'll have higher name recognition than those politicians who actually try to work for the citizens of our country."

Then you state that "concerns about our young people and their morals should not be used as a political 'gotcha' - but examined by all of us to determine what is really undermining our country."

WTF? In your hypocritical world, it's do as I say, not as I do. (Typical for a lib)

The question is not "what is a just/American way to deal with unwanted children?" The question is what is being done at the family level to prevent pregnancy? You libs always look for a government solution for problems that exist at the family level.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
President Obama says....

The conservative view pressed by Fox and its owner Rupert Murdoch "is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.

Gee silly me, I thought it was the guv and its economic policies that are destructive. What on earth was I thinking.

GAltant
GAltant's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2009
Joe Kawfi-LIBERAL MEDIA

The newspaper you are quoting about the "liberal media" is owned by FOX NEWS...bad source...inflamatory news reporting, just like all of the "bad news" we are receiving, conservative and liberal".

America continues to be polarized...we are screwed!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Devastatin' and Depressin'?

Joe, do you believe we should be nation-buildin' in Afghanistan? Hmmmmm?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Jeff C - 7/11

I know you are trying to be funny, but the fact is the rates would go the other way. Today we would pay a dollar tomorrow we will pay two dollars for the same item.

As along as we let our government control the money supply eventually our money will be worthless.

A plague on both their houses.

Recent Comments