President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Angel]

For decade after decade the working people have taken care of the lazy. I think anyone getting an unemployment check, and especially welfare, should have to report and do some sort of work. Clean up garbage in cities and on the sides of the road, shovel snow, remove graffiti and similar sorts of jobs. This country should be fucking spotless. No one should get money for free. I have never collected any sort of unemployment or welfare in my life and I (hopefully) never will. I would work at McDonalds first. Hell, within 2 or 3 years (or less) I'm quite sure I'd be in some sort of management. Fantastic corporation.

Alot of assuming going on in this post. I thought Clinton made sure recipients have to work to recieve welfare bennies.

It's a good idea really. I believe President Clinton referred to it as Americorps. Welfare recipients should push a broom or pick up trash. This nation should look like Disneyland, spotless.

At a minimum they should have to disclose all of their finances-many people think welfare benefits are there so they can enjoy the luxuries of life and NOT have to pay for necessities. I get SO pissed off when I see patients with Medicaid who also have in their medical record that the had liposuction twice in the last year (we do in office lipo so I see this all the time!)...yet the taxpayers are paying for their healthcare??? If you can afford liposuction, you can afford to pay for health insurance! We live in a society where people think they "deserve" luxury. Luxury is not a right. I am glad the programs are there for those people that need them but not if the reason they need them is so they have money to pay for new boobs!

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC, any opinion (lol) on Donald Trump running for president?

Not a chance. He's an admitted Repub, but too socially moderate. Like Bloomberg, I think his appeal is waay overstated. I'd vote for Jesse Ventura before either of them.

[Rockindeano]

Trump for Prez? This would surely bring him down. Hysterical though. He tears into Rosie Odonell. Calls her fat, a disgusting pig, looks like Hell, degenerate, etc. Classic stuff. I have new respect for Trump now. His comments would be harsh even for this Board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGS0EFya ... re=related

This is awesome stuff.

[fredinator]

TNC, any opinion (lol) on Donald Trump running for president?

Not a chance. He's an admitted Repub, but too socially moderate. Like Bloomberg, I think his appeal is waay overstated. I'd vote for Jesse Ventura before either of them.

I saw him on Joy Behar tonight and boy is he persuasive. Who would you like to see run?

[fredinator]

Trump for Prez? This would surely bring him down. Hysterical though. He tears into Rosie Odonell. Calls her fat, a disgusting pig, looks like Hell, degenerate, etc. Classic stuff. I have new respect for Trump now. His comments would be harsh even for this Board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGS0EFya ... re=related

This is awesome stuff.

Anderson is pretty amusing in this vid. This is an old fight so I doubt it would bring him down. He sounds like he is seriously considering running--I've heard him talk about it more than once now.

[Rockindeano]

Trump for Prez? This would surely bring him down. Hysterical though. He tears into Rosie Odonell. Calls her fat, a disgusting pig, looks like Hell, degenerate, etc. Classic stuff. I have new respect for Trump now. His comments would be harsh even for this Board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGS0EFya ... re=related

This is awesome stuff.

Anderson is pretty amusing in this vid. This is an old fight so I doubt it would bring him down. He sounds like he is seriously considering running--I've heard him talk about it more than once now.

Come on....he is going to need the backing of one of the parties. It's been tried before by billionaires and they both failed. Trump has personality, but he isn't good at "politics." Obama would tear him up in a debate. And, don't laugh, his hair. People laugh all the time about the hair issue, but past presidents have been chosen because of hair. Ask Nixon if he lost that televised debate on TV with Jack Kennedy because JFK had the killer lettuce, while Dick had oily strands of "hair." Seriously, can you imaging a President Trump deplaning from Air Force One in a Maryland wind, his comb over flying everywhere where it shouldn't? The media would have a field day with that, and the rest of the world would laugh their asses off at us.

Never happen.

PS- It would be interesting however, to see if he would extend the Bush tax cuts though, being in the top1% as he is. I wish someone would ask him his take on this.

[fredinator]

I really don't have an opinion re him running for president. He was very persuasive and he didn't make me want to hurl--listen to his interview on Joy Behar and then come back and say what you think for heaven's sake. He bashed Bush, thinks Obama is weak, thinks we're crazy for being in a war in Iraq--actually thinks all the wars in the Middle East are a colossal waste of money, hates OPEC. I was impressed a little. Didn't know he was a Republican--he didn't sound like one on her show--so that was kind of a turn-off.

[Rockindeano]

I really don't have an opinion re him running for president. He was very persuasive and he didn't make me want to hurl--listen to his interview on Joy Behar and then come back and say what you think for heaven's sake. He bashed Bush, thinks Obama is weak, thinks we're crazy for being in a war in Iraq--actually thinks all the wars in the Middle East are a colossal waste of money, hates OPEC. I was impressed a little. Didn't know he was a Republican--he didn't sound like one on her show--so that was kind of a turn-off.

I'm not so sure he is a republican. He may very well be his own man.

By the way, I DID listen to the interview. I agree with you, very good listen.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I saw him on Joy Behar tonight and boy is he persuasive. Who would you like to see run?

Nader shares my values, but he's become a bad punchline. My ideal candidate would never get elected, so it's pointless. I could vote for an independent Ron Paul-sort, maybe even a protectionist Pat Buchanan-type, so long as he was committed to preserving and expanding social safety nets, and legalizing pot/whores.

[donnaplease]

TNC, any opinion (lol) on Donald Trump running for president?

I'm not TNC, but I'm ALL for it! I think he has EVERYTHING that we need in a president.

He has said he would run as a republican, for those that were curious.

[lights1961]

Dow was at 14000 when it peaked under W in July I think of 08 before the crash... so misleading to say that as of NOV 08... it never rose to any peak... typical misleading the truth by liberals.. next... these are NOT TAX CUTS... their extensions of the tax rate as they are right now and have been for many years... ... nothing more nothing les... these WOULD BE TAX HIKES if the rates are allowed to expire... easy economics...and the BIG O... knows that tax increase and still no new jobs being created... it will be an uphill battle for his re election chances... if the rates staying the same works... he gets all the credit... just saying...

[Seven Wishes2]

Giving the rich more money, especially to a moderate degree (from 39% to 36% on income over $250,000) will NOT create jobs. The ultra-rich, as many unbiased articles already posted on other pages prove, simply put the extra money in the bank or purchase luxury items that are more stimulative of foreign economies. The GOP has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the typical American on that issue for 30 years.

Now, I'm sure some of the contrarians here will try to interject and counter my post (with flimsy data). So, let's just "pretend" my hypothesis is correct. "Hypothetically," given that tax cuts for the ultra-rich do not help create jobs, do Republicans on this board still support these massive tax breaks on their behalf that will add $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years?

[fredinator]

I saw him on Joy Behar tonight and boy is he persuasive. Who would you like to see run?

Nader shares my values, but he's become a bad punchline. My ideal candidate would never get elected, so it's pointless. I could vote for an independent Ron Paul-sort, maybe even a protectionist Pat Buchanan-type, so long as he was committed to preserving and expanding social safety nets, and legalizing pot/whores.

I used to like Nader but he went nuts seems like back in the 70s or maybe the 80s and ruined one of my guy's chancies for getting the nomination (I think I have that story right). He was just being a dick about it as I recall so I lost respect for him--seemed like he went all ego over it. I totally agree with this statement, "committed to preserving and expanding social safety nets, and legalizing pot/whores" but would go on to add end the war on drugs and legalize all of them.

As far as a Republican candidate, I did form the beginnings of an opinion last night after Trump was on Behar's show. Trump would be far, far more palatable to me as he sounds now than a Karl Rove puppet Rick Perry or a nincompoop Sarah Palin (is she considered a TeaBagger by the way?). If so, then a nincompoop Tea Bagging Sarah Palin. I can't see Trump being manipulated by either Rove or the Tea Party or really anyone and that to me is one of the most appealing and interesting things about his consideration for running. That would be nice--not having either candidate make me want to go call ralph...

[slucero]

Giving the rich more money, especially to a moderate degree (from 39% to 36% on income over $250,000) will NOT create jobs. The ultra-rich, as many unbiased articles already posted on other pages prove, simply put the extra money in the bank or purchase luxury items that are more stimulative of foreign economies. The GOP has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the typical American on that issue for 30 years.

Now, I'm sure some of the contrarians here will try to interject and counter my post (with flimsy data). So, let's just "pretend" my hypothesis is correct. "Hypothetically," given that tax cuts for the ultra-rich do not help create jobs, do Republicans on this board still support these massive tax breaks on their behalf that will add $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years?

I'm not sure how extending tax cuts that were already in place adds $900B to the Deficit... it was never "missing".... maybe some in Congress see that $900B as already budgeted....

[Saint John]

So, let's just "pretend" my hypothesis is correct. "Hypothetically," given that tax cuts for the ultra-rich do not help create jobs, do Republicans on this board still support these massive tax breaks on their behalf that will add $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years?

If it could be proven that giving a trillion dollars in tax cuts didn't create one job, I'm still for it. I will never demonize those in this country that are living the American dream and have vast riches. I will, however, demonize the failures in this country. I'm talking about perfectly capable people that simply don't have the courage and desire to work and become wealthy. Hell, I'm one of those people, but my ideas and opinions are always formed by removing myself from the equation. I'm not going to expect to suck off of the titty of the government and hate on the good citizens of this country that have been able to combine education, work ethic and money management because I've made some poor choices in my life. That would just be another poor choice.

And quit calling them "massive tax breaks" and saying that they're "adding $900 billion to the deficit!" They're not! That's a fucking lie. You're pulling down your own pants and showing your wee wee when you do that. They pay far more in terms of a percentage and we should be thankful. The government, both parties, continues to spend money they don't have and can't afford. A guy making 10 million dollars pays about 3.9 million dollars a year while "Joe 50 grand" pays about $10,000. It's time to start being fair to those that earn. So, let's try something new ... just once. Let's stop giving out free money and entitlements to those that can't and won't work for whatever reason(s) and see how they like it. Hell, the working have floated this boat long enough. If it's fair to demonize those that give the vast majority of the tax money, then I see no reason why, for just once, we demonize the lazy fucks that contribute nothing! Unless you're severely handicapped, mentally retarded, have debilitating war injuries or are in some sort of vegetative state, you and your fucking kids should get nothing from this country. Nothing!!! Try this for about 5 years and maybe people will start to appreciate what those evil rich people contribute, because right now it sure seems like no one does. And, for the record, I make less than $45,000 per year. But you'll never see me take a fucking penny in aid.

[RedWingFan]

Giving the rich more money, especially to a moderate degree (from 39% to 36% on income over $250,000) will NOT create jobs.

Shut up! You're 100% irrefutably wrong here, again!
How do Al Gore and Barack determine who gets your head and who gets your ass? They flip a coin? I'd call you a two bit whore, but they get paid to be violated and humiliated. You do it for free.

http://theweek.com/article/index/210181 ... ing-summit

Irony alert: The unusually chilly global-warming summit
Cancun is hosting the U.N. conference on man-made climate change — amid record cold temperatures
posted on December 9, 2010, at 11:57 AM

The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer.

At least we get to see how you spend your free time when not sharing your brilliance with the board!

[Seven Wishes2]

You don't want to fuck with me today.

First of all, you're wrong.


“Experience shows that lower tax rates for high incomes don’t generate better job creation,” says a new report by Business for Shared Prosperity. “As The Wall Street Journal reported, President Bush ‘shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records’ in 1939. The Bush administration created just 1.1 million jobs net, while the Clinton administration created 22.7 million.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45914.html

More shenanigans:

http://themoderatevoice.com/94579/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-about-jobs-really/

Seriously, fuck face, you don't want a piece of me today. I'm in a really shitty mood and I've got all day and night.

[Saint John]

“Experience shows that lower tax rates for high incomes don’t generate better job creation,” says a new report by Business for Shared Prosperity. “As The Wall Street Journal reported, President Bush ‘shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records’ in 1939. The Bush administration created just 1.1 million jobs net, while the Clinton administration created 22.7 million.”

Who fucking cares?! He also says this, "But additional tax cuts for high-income households would be irresponsible." And I suppose having kids at a rabbit's pace while on food stamps isn't irresponsible?!?! Or not being able to survive in the easiest country in the world to do so?!?! It's time to tax everyone at the same rate. 15-20% across the board and let the fucking chips fall where they may. This country is great because of those rich folks. They could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them. Game over.

[rsimpson]

“Experience shows that lower tax rates for high incomes don’t generate better job creation,” says a new report by Business for Shared Prosperity. “As The Wall Street Journal reported, President Bush ‘shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records’ in 1939. The Bush administration created just 1.1 million jobs net, while the Clinton administration created 22.7 million.”

Who fucking cares?! He also says this, "But additional tax cuts for high-income households would be irresponsible." And I suppose having kids at a rabbit's pace while on food stamps isn't irresponsible?!?! Or not being able to survive in the easiest country in the world to do so?!?! It's time to tax everyone at the same rate. 15-20% across the board and let the fucking chips fall where they may. This country is great because of those rich folks. They could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them. Game over.

Wow. Something I agree with.

[Saint John]

So, let's just "pretend" my hypothesis is correct. "Hypothetically," given that tax cuts for the ultra-rich do not help create jobs, do Republicans on this board still support these massive tax breaks on their behalf that will add $900 billion to the deficit in the next two years?

And, for the record, I make less than $45,000 per year. But you'll never see me take a fucking penny in aid.

How on gods green earth do you ever survive on such a paltry pittance?

I don't have 9 kids, I only spend what I have and I try to save and invest wisely. But don't tell everyone ... it's a big secret that the "rich" people don't want to get out!!!

[Seven Wishes2]

I suppose having kids at a rabbit's pace while on food stamps isn't irresponsible?!?! Or not being able to survive in the easiest country in the world to do so?!?! It's time to tax everyone at the same rate. 15-20% across the board and let the fucking chips fall where they may. This country is great because of those rich folks. They could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them. Game over.

I don't disagree with you. In theory, I like the idea of a flat tax. But it could never and would never work in America. And, BTW - while I'm an avid supporter of Medicare, I'm not an entitlement system junkie. I think welfare needs serious reformation. Medicaid is a fiasco. The problem is, how do you separate the offenders from the truly needy? The idea of my tax dollars going to support someone who deliberately has seven kids and files bogus disability claims makes me sick. The only way to solve these issues is to get local, state, and federal governments more involved in oversight, regulation, and audits. The GOP hates that idea because it's "big government". However, it does have its place, and I believe these entitlement programs need to be tackled thusly.

[Saint John]

I suppose having kids at a rabbit's pace while on food stamps isn't irresponsible?!?! Or not being able to survive in the easiest country in the world to do so?!?! It's time to tax everyone at the same rate. 15-20% across the board and let the fucking chips fall where they may. This country is great because of those rich folks. They could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them. Game over.

I don't disagree with you. In theory, I like the idea of a flat tax. But it could never and would never work in America. And, BTW - while I'm an avid supporter of Medicare, I'm not an entitlement system junkie. I think welfare needs serious reformation. Medicaid is a fiasco. The problem is, how do you separate the offenders from the truly needy? The idea of my tax dollars going to support someone who deliberately has seven kids and files bogus disability claims makes me sick. The only way to solve these issues is to get local, state, and federal governments more involved in oversight, regulation, and audits. The GOP hates that idea because it's "big government". However, it does have its place, and I believe these entitlement programs need to be tackled thusly.

Good post and I wholeheartedly agree. I think the answer is perhaps an independent agency deciphering "the offenders from the truly needy." And you're right, while the right hates "big government," the left also "buys" those votes ... so we're probably fucked for the foreseeable future.

[Seven Wishes2]

You're spot on. An independent agency (like the SEC used to be) with no connections or ties to the government, to regulate every single entitlement program. It's time to weed out the liars and pilferers. The truly needy need help, but other than in the case of permanent disability, not a permanent cash supply. Training programs for higher education of specific trades, with a moratorium, would get a lot of the halfway cases up and moving. It would cost a lot in the short term, but I'd bet the debt would be reduced by hundreds of billions of dollars within a decade.

[Monker]

Dow was at 14000 when it peaked under W in July I think of 08 before the crash... so misleading to say that as of NOV 08... it never rose to any peak... typical misleading the truth by liberals..

The point is that it is an absolutely LIE to say that there was some kinda sell-off or bailing out because Obama was elected. That is just a flat out untruthful statement that has absolutely NO facts to back it up.

As for Bush and the Dow, if you could not see that the Dow had peaked and you should be moving your funds OUT and into safe funds, then you simply were not paying attention to what was going on.

I find it interesting that people like FF believe in buying high and selling low. Essentially, that is what he is saying people should do.

[Saint John]

I find it interesting that people like FF believe in buying high and selling low.

Hey, that works if you're "shorting" stocks! Otherwise, as I think you're implying, you're fucked!

[Seven Wishes2]

You're tripping over your own lying tongue again, ShitPaster.

You need to give credit where it's due. The economy is in MUCH better shape than it was when Obama took office.

I love how those GOP bloggers consider measures (the auto and Wall Street bailouts) that ultimately saved us from the second Great Depression "a tax-hiking and regulatory reign of terror". It's laughable, and so are you. We've told you time and time again to stop drinking the fucking cool-aid, LiePaster.

[RedWingFan]

You're tripping over your own lying tongue again, ShitPaster.

You need to give credit where it's due. The economy is in MUCH better shape than it was when Obama took office.
I love how those GOP bloggers consider measures (the auto and Wall Street bailouts) that ultimately saved us from the second Great Depression "a tax-hiking and regulatory reign of terror". It's laughable, and so are you. We've told you time and time again to stop drinking the fucking cool-aid, LiePaster.

I think a little flashback is required here. Check out your old post here 7braincells. My God you are stupid. Funny how you accuse others of drinking kool-aid, when your "if" posts fail to materialize as badly as Obama's stimulus fails to stimulate. Your posts contain "and if unemployment goes down to around 8.5%, as many economists are predicting.."
Then when unemployment continues to rise closer to 10% you come back with..."The economy is in MUCH better shape than it was when Obama took office."

You suck down the kool-aid faster than Obama's jizz.
You are such a jackass and a fool! You should feel right at home in the Democrat Party!

I suspect your "many economists" and "scientist" quacks you quote in the fraud GW theory may be the same folks. They're about as accurate. You should be embarrassed!!!

The CPI is improving steadily, and if unemployment goes down to around 8.5%, as many economists are predicting - and once the health care bill goes into effect and people realize it will help more than hurt them - the GOP will be BURIED in this November's elections.And you can't have a revolution if you don't have ANY fucking ideas.
That, and the fact that Republicans are in trouble because the Tea Party will take away a lot of votes from the GOP this fall.
Your party should be just as worried - and if the economy is loking better this winter, forget about it.

[Seven Wishes2]

Dude, I could find so many examples of posts of yours that were either blatant outright lies, false prophecies, or logical fallacies, that it would take me three months to find them and disseminate them.

If your hero Dubbya hadn't allowed American companies to outsource with such alarming frequency, the unemployment rate would be closer to 7%. It's going to take YEARS to undo the damage that liar did to the United States, economically, diplomatically, and infrastructurally.

[slucero]

For the last fucking time...

The unemployment number commonly read about (9.8%) DOES NOT INCLUDE all who are unemployed... The government doesn't speak of the U-6 number because it is more accurate and frightening...




The REAL unemployment number is 17%

[Seven Wishes2]

Ah, I see. So when it rose to 8.8% in January of 2009 (when Dumbya was still "President"), that was the ACTUAL figure, which is now "adjusted" to 17%. Nice math. Typical.