President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby BobbyinTN » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:42 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:How about calling out the Supreme Court, mainly the 5 conservatives who just last week ruled in favor of no limits lobbyist could pay to government reps. That was ballsy.


Yeah ballsy and stupid...even my 7 year old would know that no law can limit freedom of speech.

I know that pesky 1st Amendment bothers you libs, but SCOTUS was right sorry.

I suggest you go look up the Constitution again...it is right there in very easy to understand language..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Bolded so you can pick it out...


Corporations aren't individuals. And you should remember, unions vote liberal and now they can spend all the money they want to elect anyone they want or to bash anyone they want.


US law has for well over 100 years given Corporations the same status and individuals, it's called Corporate Personhood. I suggest you educate yourself before you make a further idiot of yourself.













I've read the Constitution. It seems like you need to brush up on that knowledge.


And if you think corporations are deserve individual rights, then you must be in favor of repealing DADT and you're all for equal marriage.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:46 am

JasonD wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:Jesus Christ Matt and Stu- what the fuck you want?

He threw a bunch of bones out there to the Cons....

You guys must be pissed he wants to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Great speech on all fronts.


lol yea, because the military fag policy is really something that I care so deeply about (ridiculously transparent political grandstanding to silence his gay leftist critics, btw... and probably not a good idea based on the amount of homophobia that runs through much of the armed forces)

Look, I don't even like Republicans who supposedly share more of my views. What makes you think I'm gonna enjoy or credit Obama when he mentions a few things in the midst of trying to do all kinds of major programs that will fundamentally alter the rest of my life and that cut against everything I believe in? These guys are all fuckin liars. You don't see me in here waving the flag of any particular Republican either, do you? They're all liars and the system is fuckin broken. But I'm especially not gonna give one iota of credence to someone like Obama who doesn't have one true belief that I can relate to.



WOW! Fag? Really Matt?


For once I agree with you Bobby...and I actually agree with Obama, the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit has to go. If ANYONE wants to serve who is physically able, then they should allowed to do so, regardless of sexual preference.


I totally agree, but if the gay-hatin' straight population wanna exclude people like me from joining their military, then let ‘em all fight for MY freedom. Meanwhile, if anybody needs me, I'll be sitting on my back porch sipping on an ice cold beer & waiting for the steaks to get done grilling.










They love double standards. The want corporations to be counted as "individuals" but they can't see how stupid that sounds when they deny gay Americans their rights.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby hoagiepete » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:47 am

Rockindeano wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote: Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?


That's exactly what the president was talking about last night. Trust. Too many lobbyists. He wanted every member of Congress to have a website listing the names of every lobbyist who met with said congressperson. It's also the reason why he publicly scolded the black robes- now there will be even more control and power for lobbyists and less or none for the American citizen. It is a terrible decision. I just don't understand the conservative mentality. It boggles my mind.


Hey! I'm a lobbyist (can't believe I just admitted that here :shock: ) and the last time I checked, I and the members I represent are American citizens trying to make a living just like anyone else. They employ hundreds of people and our country needs them to survive and grow. Just happens the government has a long history of passing laws that could put them out of business. Like eveything else, there are terrible lobbyists, but there are many out there trying to do good that won't screw the "American Citizen," whoever the hell that really is.

Shit, first I'm not a "working man" even though I often work over 80 hours a week. Now I'm not even a fuckin American Citizen. Thanks for making my day.

We're all guilty of painting with a broad brush, but this is too typical of the libs that live a life thinking it would be just fine if we had no companies making profits or people making salaries more than the lowest common denominator.

Having said all this, I'm not thrilled that corporations can have unlimited funding for campaigns.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:47 am

Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby conversationpc » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:00 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:WOW! Fag? Really Matt?


For once I agree with you Bobby...and I actually agree with Obama, the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit has to go. If ANYONE wants to serve who is physically able, then they should allowed to do so, regardless of sexual preference.


Wow, we all three agree. Let's have a party! :-D
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby conversationpc » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:03 am

7 Wishes wrote:I remember a lot of people in here being emphatic in their support of the McCain - Feingold Act. Where are those voices now?


Who here supported it other than possibly you liberals?
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby conversationpc » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:05 am

BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.


I don't think there should be an amendment to the Constitution having anything to do with marriage. It's not a federal issue and should be left up to the states to decide. Regardless, marriage shouldn't be tampered with by any government, federal OR state.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Ehwmatt » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:11 am

I'm not a practicing religious person (baptized and such though), but my personal life isn't affected one iota if gays get "married" and get the financial perks and other rights like power of attorney. Go for it, have at it, have a ball.

I do have a problem with attempts to challenge something the people legitimately voted on, like the challenges to Prop 8 after it passed.

Admittedly, the courts are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, but I think Prop 8 and others like it are very legitimate measures for the people to speak on, given that any qualitative, primary definition of marriage contains the phrase between a man and woman.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:46 am

BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.

Absolutely.

Why should 2 consenting adults be denied based on sexual preference the ability to enter into matrimony...being a married man I say SHARE THE PAIN! ;)

Look it doesn't matter what it is called, gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights in this regard as heterosexual couples.

There is NO DIFFERENCE and I don't think the government has any business telling loving adults they can't do so.

Which is why I am a conservative libertarian, and not a Republican.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:48 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.

Absolutely.

Why should 2 consenting adults be denied based on sexual preference the ability to enter into matrimony...being a married man I say SHARE THE PAIN! ;)

Look it doesn't matter what it is called, gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights in this regard as heterosexual couples.

There is NO DIFFERENCE and I don't think the government has any business telling loving adults they can't do so.

Which is why I am a conservative libertarian, and not a Republican.


But, by the same stay out of my business token, how do you feel about people going into court challenging a people-approved Prop 8?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:50 am

BobbyinTN wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:How about calling out the Supreme Court, mainly the 5 conservatives who just last week ruled in favor of no limits lobbyist could pay to government reps. That was ballsy.


Yeah ballsy and stupid...even my 7 year old would know that no law can limit freedom of speech.

I know that pesky 1st Amendment bothers you libs, but SCOTUS was right sorry.

I suggest you go look up the Constitution again...it is right there in very easy to understand language..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Bolded so you can pick it out...


Corporations aren't individuals. And you should remember, unions vote liberal and now they can spend all the money they want to elect anyone they want or to bash anyone they want.


US law has for well over 100 years given Corporations the same status and individuals, it's called Corporate Personhood. I suggest you educate yourself before you make a further idiot of yourself.



I've read the Constitution. It seems like you need to brush up on that knowledge.


And if you think corporations are deserve individual rights, then you must be in favor of repealing DADT and you're all for equal marriage.


You need to read about corporate personhood...and then realize the Constitution applies to that corporate person as well as you...therefore if they can deny the rights of a corporation they can deny that right to you.

Answered about DADT and the gay marriage thing above...
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:53 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.

Absolutely.

Why should 2 consenting adults be denied based on sexual preference the ability to enter into matrimony...being a married man I say SHARE THE PAIN! ;)

Look it doesn't matter what it is called, gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights in this regard as heterosexual couples.

There is NO DIFFERENCE and I don't think the government has any business telling loving adults they can't do so.

Which is why I am a conservative libertarian, and not a Republican.


But, by the same stay out of my business token, how do you feel about people going into court challenging a people-approved Prop 8?


Like the founding fathers who in their wisdom recognized that pure democracy results in the tyranny of the majority...I think that ballot initiatives can be used to deprive people of their rights and is justified under the guise of "democracy"...

Pure democracy can be as tyrannical as a Stalin or a Hitler...the Republican form of government give balance to the system for both the majority and the minority which is why our founding fathers worked so hard to give us that form of government.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby slucero » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 am

BobbyinTN wrote:
JasonD wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:Jesus Christ Matt and Stu- what the fuck you want?

He threw a bunch of bones out there to the Cons....

You guys must be pissed he wants to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Great speech on all fronts.


lol yea, because the military fag policy is really something that I care so deeply about (ridiculously transparent political grandstanding to silence his gay leftist critics, btw... and probably not a good idea based on the amount of homophobia that runs through much of the armed forces)

Look, I don't even like Republicans who supposedly share more of my views. What makes you think I'm gonna enjoy or credit Obama when he mentions a few things in the midst of trying to do all kinds of major programs that will fundamentally alter the rest of my life and that cut against everything I believe in? These guys are all fuckin liars. You don't see me in here waving the flag of any particular Republican either, do you? They're all liars and the system is fuckin broken. But I'm especially not gonna give one iota of credence to someone like Obama who doesn't have one true belief that I can relate to.



WOW! Fag? Really Matt?


For once I agree with you Bobby...and I actually agree with Obama, the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit has to go. If ANYONE wants to serve who is physically able, then they should allowed to do so, regardless of sexual preference.


I totally agree, but if the gay-hatin' straight population wanna exclude people like me from joining their military, then let ‘em all fight for MY freedom. Meanwhile, if anybody needs me, I'll be sitting on my back porch sipping on an ice cold beer & waiting for the steaks to get done grilling.


They love double standards. The want corporations to be counted as "individuals" but they can't see how stupid that sounds when they deny gay Americans their rights.


There is no double standard... once the legal definition of "person" and "whoever" to include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals, was then codified into the US CODE, and made "positive law" it then it became LAW.. and protected under the Constitution.

You may not like it (neither do I) but it is the LAW... and in order to restrict Constitutional protections to living citizens ONLY then that law needs to be challenged and repealed..

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:11 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.

Absolutely.

Why should 2 consenting adults be denied based on sexual preference the ability to enter into matrimony...being a married man I say SHARE THE PAIN! ;)

Look it doesn't matter what it is called, gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights in this regard as heterosexual couples.

There is NO DIFFERENCE and I don't think the government has any business telling loving adults they can't do so.

Which is why I am a conservative libertarian, and not a Republican.


But, by the same stay out of my business token, how do you feel about people going into court challenging a people-approved Prop 8?


Like the founding fathers who in their wisdom recognized that pure democracy results in the tyranny of the majority...I think that ballot initiatives can be used to deprive people of their rights and is justified under the guise of "democracy"...

Pure democracy can be as tyrannical as a Stalin or a Hitler...the Republican form of government give balance to the system for both the majority and the minority which is why our founding fathers worked so hard to give us that form of government.


Right, I addressed that above. I just don't think there's a leg for the challenges to stand on, given the total lack of societal and lexical ambiguity surrounding the concept of "marriage." It's of religious origin and has always contemplated a man and a woman. It also happens to result in significant social and financial perks, as well (enter the desire for marriage status for gays). That's why I don't think there's any leg for challengers to stand on after the people have spoken. We are not talking about an overly burdensome or vague criminal statute that is applied in a discriminatory matter. It's just a whole different animal to me and not the kind of thing that should be feared as resulting from the "tyranny of the majority."

With all that said, I really have no personal objection to gays being married or at least being allowed to enter into a legally recognized relationship that grants them all the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual married couple.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RocknRoll » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:46 am

I just took the time to read this "GOP Solutions" document which was presented to Obama during the Baltimore meeting. Some of it's a stretch but interesting.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions

The entire document is downloadable under Better Solutions (PDF)
RocknRoll
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:46 am

conversationpc wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Saw that RVR agrees about DADT so I'm hoping he also agrees that DOMA needs repealed and a Federal law for equal marriage needs to be established.


I don't think there should be an amendment to the Constitution having anything to do with marriage. It's not a federal issue and should be left up to the states to decide. Regardless, marriage shouldn't be tampered with by any government, federal OR state.


It has been before and probably will be again.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:49 am

Ehwmatt wrote:I'm not a practicing religious person (baptized and such though), but my personal life isn't affected one iota if gays get "married" and get the financial perks and other rights like power of attorney. Go for it, have at it, have a ball.

I do have a problem with attempts to challenge something the people legitimately voted on, like the challenges to Prop 8 after it passed.

Admittedly, the courts are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, but I think Prop 8 and others like it are very legitimate measures for the people to speak on, given that any qualitative, primary definition of marriage contains the phrase between a man and woman.



Prop 8 was financed by churches and the majority should NEVER be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. Prop 8 was wrong and hopefully it'll be the impetus for a Federal law.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby RedWingFan » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:55 am

You have got to be F'ing kidding me! :roll:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/f ... d=si_ncaaf

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.

"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.

Several lawmakers and many critics want the BCS to switch to a playoff system, rather than the ratings system it uses to determine the teams that play in the championship game.

"The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football ... raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties," Weich wrote.

Weich made note of the fact that President Barack Obama, before he was sworn in, had stated his preference for a playoff system. In 2008, Obama said he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system, a point that Hatch stressed when he urged Obama last fall to ask the department to investigate the BCS.

Weich said that other options include encouraging the NCAA to take control of the college football postseason; asking a governmental or non-governmental commission to review the costs, benefits and feasibility of a playoff system; and legislative efforts aimed at prompting a switch to a playoff system.

Weich noted that several undefeated teams have not had a chance to play for the national championship, including TCU and Boise State this year and Utah last year.

"This seemingly discriminatory action with regard to revenues and access have raised questions regarding whether the BCS potentially runs afoul of the nation's antitrust laws," he wrote.

Hatch, a Utah Republican, was steamed that his home state team was deprived of getting a chance to play for the title last year.

"I'm encouraged by the administration's response," he said in a statement. "I continue to believe there are antitrust issues the administration should explore, but I'm heartened by its willingness to consider alternative approaches to confront the tremendous inequities in the BCS that favor one set of schools over others. The current system runs counter to basic fairness that every family tries to instill in their children from the day they are born."

Under the BCS, the champions of six conference have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games, while the other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive more money than the other conferences, although the BCS announced this week that the ones that don't have automatic bids will receive a record $24 million from this year's bowl games.

Bill Hancock, executive director of the BCS, said that officials there would need more time to review the letter before commenting on it. He did say, "We're confident that the BCS structure complies with the laws of the country."

"The consensus of the schools is to go with the BCS," Hancock added. "We feel strongly the people in higher education are the people best equipped to manage college football."
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby RocknRoll » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:01 am

RedWingFan wrote:You have got to be F'ing kidding me! :roll:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/f ... d=si_ncaaf


Sounds like bipartisanship to me. :roll:

Besides Washington doesn't have anything else to get in the middle of. :lol: :lol:
RocknRoll
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 am

Postby JasonD » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:16 am

.
.

Image

Image
User avatar
JasonD
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby JasonD » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:20 am

Mac -vs- PC? ..... Prop 8 Me!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T7ux8M4Go
.
.

Image

Image
User avatar
JasonD
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby JasonD » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:43 am

Matt, I found this video especially for you. Happy nightmares! :twisted:

Kiefer's Hot Man Love:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdNsIZ_IM0
.
.

Image

Image
User avatar
JasonD
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby BobbyinTN » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:45 am

Did anyone else see the smack down President Obama gave the GOP yesterday? He was amazing.

Here's a link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 ... 42213.html

There's links within that story for the video and transcript.

He kicked their asses and took names!
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby Rockindeano » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:59 am

BobbyinTN wrote:Did anyone else see the smack down President Obama gave the GOP yesterday? He was amazing.

Here's a link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 ... 42213.html

There's links within that story for the video and transcript.

He kicked their asses and took names!


Absolutely he did. I would love one of these Cons who post here to come in here and say otherwise, because they simply can't. This was a one sided ass beating.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby slucero » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:04 am

yup.. he's an articulate man for sure...

BUT...

if he loses the majority he enjoys in Congress all that "kicking ass and taking names" will be moot....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:43 am

Rockindeano wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Did anyone else see the smack down President Obama gave the GOP yesterday? He was amazing.

Here's a link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 ... 42213.html

There's links within that story for the video and transcript.

He kicked their asses and took names!


Absolutely he did. I would love one of these Cons who post here to come in here and say otherwise, because they simply can't. This was a one sided ass beating.


The only CON that is going on is the one that the libs are trying to foist on this country.

Again I say, don't give me word ("Their just words") give me actions...their words are meant to decieve...their actions are meant to take more power from the people of this country, and centralize it in their hands by making people dependent on government.

The fact that would LIKE THEM TO DO SO, speak volumes about you and your ilk.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:08 am

The government became somewhat less centralized under Reagan, but no Republican has reduced the size of the Federal government since Eisenhauer. However, Obama's policies will actually reduce the number of Federal employees, and Clinton slashed the work force by over 40%.

I don't understand the GOP's obsession with non-obstructionist nationalization when it comes to programs that help those less fortunate then them, improve health care, or educate the unemployable.

And it seems the finger-wagging is usually just a method of mass distraction. I haven't heard the GOP put a workable and forthright policy forward since the middle of the Clinton Administration. Simply voting "no" is not a matter of voting one's conscience, or even what best represents one's constituency. For instance, how do you explain that 80% of the populace polled in Massachusetts approves of their state-funded universal health care, and yet attempt to claim they voted for Brown in protest of Obama's health care proposal? It simply doesn't jibe, and isn't logical.

It speaks volumes about the Democrats - positively in that they are more malleable and willing to compromise and negatively in that they have no backbones - that since 1980 the likelihood of a Republican legislative proposal has been about four times as likely to poss through the Executive branch and become law than one initiated by the Democrats, even though it is without doubt that left-central economic policy is far more successful than the thoroughly disproven trickle-down theory so haughtily embraced by Reaganites and Dittoheads.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby slucero » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:57 am

left-central economic policy is far more successful than the thoroughly disproven trickle-down theory so haughtily embraced by Reaganites and Dittoheads.


You could assert that... but the current GDP numbers have some interesting nuggets that would call that assertion into question..

From the BEA excel table, I've added "change" columns..

Note the drop in "Goods" and "non durable goods" in personal consumption expenditures.

For background:

Durable Goods: Personal consumption expenditures on tangible goods that tend to last for more than a year. Common examples are cars, furniture, and appliances. Durable goods are about 12% of personal consumption expenditures and 8% of gross domestic product.

Non-durable goods: Personal consumption expenditures on tangible goods that tend to last for less than a year. Common examples are food, clothing, and gasoline. Nondurable goods are about 30% of personal consumption expenditures and 20% of gross domestic product.

These two categories below have nearly tripled... downward.. and represent 42% of consumer spending... and 28% of GDP.....



Simply put... this report shows a consumer that is spending EVEN LESS than the quarter before... yet the government says GDP rises 5.7%... well it's not due to the consumer...

And we have two revisions of this number left to go...

Image

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby slucero » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:29 am

...and there's only ONE WAY to pay for bigger government...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:47 am

Whatever. Read it and weep.

The pure and raw, absolute, and incontrovertible data proves you're wrong. Republicans make the economy worse, increase federal spending, increase the size of the federal government, increase the poverty rate, and cause an increase in unemployment and don't create jobs.

This is irrefutable data and cannot be manipulated.

http://www.washingpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

http://pla.blogspot.com/2003_07_06_pla_archive.html#105778843621430685

Employment growth since the Great Depression:

1) Roosevelt (1933-45): +5.3%

2) Johnson (1963-69): +3.8%

3) Carter (1977-81): +3.1%

4) Truman: (1945-53): +2.5%

5) Kennedy (1961-63): +2.5%

6) Clinton (1993-2001): +2.4%

7) Nixon (1969-75): +2.2%

8) Reagan (1981-89): +2.1%

9) Ford (1975-77): +1.1%

10) Eisenhower (1953-61): +0.9%

11) Bush (1989-93): +0.6%

12) Bush (2001-present): -0.7%

13) Hoover (1929-33): -9.0%


Job growth was higher under all six Democratic Presidents than under any of the seven Republican Presidents.

http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm

Just for the Record

From FY1962 (the first Kennedy budget) through FY2001 (the last Clinton budget) presidents have prepared forty budgets. Control of the White House was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with each party preparing and submitting twenty budgets. We decided to take a look at the fiscal performance of the Federal government during that period. The measurement we used was budget deficits and surpluses. We wanted to control for inflation to make the comparisons meaningful. Fortunately, the Government Printing Office publishes such information on the web. We got our data here at table 1-3. All dollars are adjusted for inflation and are expressed as 1996 dollars.

Kennedy-Johnson Administrations (FY1962-FY1969)

During the eight years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (FY1962-1969), the budget was in deficit for seven years. The largest deficit was $110.1 billion in FY1968. The only surplus was $13.4 billion in FY1969. The Kennedy-Johnson budgets added $250.9 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly budget deficit of $31.36 billion.

Nixon-Ford Years (FY1970-FY1977)

The Nixon and Ford administrations ran deficits for each of their eight years. The highest deficit was $188 billion in FY1976. The lowest deficit was $11.1 billion in FY1970. The Nixon-Ford budgets added $702.7 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $87.84 billion.

Carter Years (FY1978-FY1981)

The Carter administration ran a deficit in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $136.6 billion in FY1980 and the lowest was $83.1 billion in FY1979. The Carter budgets added $482.8 billion to the national debt and averaged yearly budget deficits of $120.7 billion.

The Reagan Years (FY1982-FY1989)

The Reagan administration ran budget deficits in each of its eight years. The lowest deficit was $188.6 billion in FY1989 and the highest was $311 billion in FY1983. The Reagan years added $1.94 trillion to the national debt and averaged annual deficits of $242.23 billion.

The Bush (George Herbert Walker) Years (FY1990-FY1993)

The Bush administration ran deficits in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $318.5 bilion in FY1992. The lowest was $261.9 billion in FY1990. The Bush years added $1.16 trillion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $289.68 billion.

The Clinton Years (FY1994-FY2001)

The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.

Summary

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Kennedy 1962-1965
The last Eisenhower budget had 782,000 non-defense employees. By the end of the Kennedy term that number had risen to 857,000. The Kennedy administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 75,000 government employees.

Johnson 1966-1969
The Johnson years saw the number of government employees rise to 960,000. His administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 103,000 employees.

Nixon (which include the Ford years) 1970-1977
The Nixon years saw non-defense government employees rise from 960,000 in Johnson's last year to 1,173,000 in 1977. Nixon (and Ford) have responsibility for an increase of 213,000 employees.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the number of non-defense federal employees dropped by 14,000.

Reagan 1982-1989
In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.

Bush 1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.

Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

Conclusion
Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.


UNEMLPLOYMENT

Conclusion
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.

TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.58%, 5.68%, 4.32% and 2.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 5.40%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%.

NON-DEFENSE FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.
Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.

POVERTY LEVELS

Average Yearly Change in U.S. Poverty Levels, 1961-2000 Period Average Yearly Change
Number of People Below Poverty Line Percent of Population Below Poverty Line (Poverty Rate)
All 40 Years Down 206,750 Down 0.27
Democratic
Administrations
(20 Years)
1961-63, JFK
1964-68, LBJ
1977-80, JC
1993-00, BC Down 829,900 Down 0.58
Republican
Administrations
(20 Years)
1969-74, RN
1975-76, GF
1981-88, RR
1989-92, GB Up 416,400 Up 0.036

Change in U.S. Poverty Levels During Each Presidential Administration Since 1961,
Ordered By Reduction of Poverty Rate Administration Change During Administration
Number of People Below Poverty Line Percent of Population Below Poverty Line (Poverty Rate)
Johnson
1964-1968 Down 11,047,000 Down 6.61
Clinton
1993-2000 Down 6,433,000 Down 3.50
Kennedy
1961-1963 Down 3,415,000 Down 2.74
Nixon
1969-1974 Down 2,019,000 Down 1.69
Reagan
1981-1988 Up 2,473,000 Up 0.03
Ford
1975-1976 Up 1,605,000 Up 0.60
Carter
1977-1980 Up 4,297,000 Up 1.25
Bush II
(first term)
2001-2004 Up 5,416,000 Up 1.41
Bush I
1989-1992 Up 6,269,000 Up 1.78
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests