Obama: 2014 Will Be a Year of Action

reply to post by Gryphon66


I forgot the "shrinking deficit" is a deficit and still a deficit and will still be a deficit even if the numbers may look, good.

But while Obama claim a reduction is fiscal spending the truth is that the nations debt keeps growing, that is something Obama is not advertising much while claiming that the deficit is shrinking, at the end you can not spend more of what you get in income because that will still take you into a bankruptcy, the national debt tells another story

Just like the Bush administration the Obama administration love to play with numbers, but at the end the you don't need to be a genius to understand how bad our nations economy really is and using the GDP is nothing but a misguiding way to confuse people that rather let others do the math than doing it themselves..

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The false dichotomy of left and right was implicit in my comment if I didn't make that perfectly clear. There's plenty of real problems with the Obama Presidency that need to be continuously called out, for example, continuing NSA invasions into the privacy of everyday Americans, international standing of the US, favoring large corporations over small business and sole proprietors, etc.

Musing about whether he's homosexual, communist or Kenyan is just smoke. But about half of us are buying into that silliness at any given time, which of course, means the other half has to fight against it, and so on and so on, while the real villains laugh all the way to the bank.

The demolition of Don't Ask/Don't Tell is one of the few positive accomplishments of this Administration in my opinion. Just remember that these service-men and -women are Americans first many of whom are putting their lives in danger for the rest of us as well as being homosexual (or bisexual). I would think we'd be happy for these soldiers instead of using them as the butt of a bad joke.

reply to post by marg6043


I do not disagree with your observations. I remember that Mark Twain once said that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics." Every politician twists numbers and facts to their advantage. I wish more Americans had a better understanding of mathematics so that those manipulations would be more widely recognized.

The biggest lie promulgated by one side of the false political spectrum though is that the rich are somehow being impoverished by the Obama Presidency ... and that's just patently untrue. I've had about as much of the "poor pitiful rich boy/girl" as I can take, personally.

President Obama is an authoritarian corporatist, as all modern Presidents have been and likely will be. IMHO.

I know! The Obamas get divorced and he gets some ... action that is.

reply to post by xuenchen


Which year ?
line.

reply to post by beezzer


Which part of what I cited exactly is disguising the true state of the economy?

The two articles from the Murdock-owned hyper-conservative WSJ? The article from the ever-conservative Forbes magazine?

Part of either or none of the above?

Yes, the economy is a mess and it will continue to be as long as we as a people ignore basic reality and continue to buy into political propaganda, be it Red or Blue. There are basic fiscal truths that we've been ignoring for well over 30 years (if not longer). I for one haven't heard a reasonable solution from either "side" that the PTB are spoon-feeding the American public.

What President, Democrat or Republican, has not promoted a big-government agenda? It's either warm-and-fuzzy social programs or chest-thumping defense spending, by and large, take your pick. Reagan increased government spending, transformed the US from a creditor to a debtor nation, and dramatically increased military spending. Both Bushes followed suit AS DID CLINTON.

President Obama is nothing more than the latest in a long-line of sould-out corporatist figure-heads.

reply to post by Gryphon66


What part of my post construed defending the GOP?

We have high unemployment
Piss poor economy
Single-payer healthcare
A military that is tasked to fight with one hand tied behind their backs
A poor foreign policy

Right now, it is a democrat president and democrat run senate.

Will the GOP do any better?

No.

The progressives have infected both parties like a bad case of cholera. All that comes out of DC is the result. Verbal diarrhea.

We can spend time pointing fingers at who screwed up YESTERDAY, but it is a clowns that are screwing up today that concern me.

reply to post by beezzer


Where do I accuse you of defending the Republican Party? Can you quote that section for me, because apparently I'm missing it in what I wrote.

So, back to my question, which article were you responding to in your previous comments or in these comments? Or were you just evangelizing in general?

A Democratic Senate that has been utterly stymied by a Republican House? A Democratic President who barely accomplished anything with BOTH HOUSES under his tentative political aegis and nothing since? Please. I think the Republic will endure.

Progressives, Beezer, they are not. I can't think of one except maybe Bernie Sanders and he's Independent. The President and the Congress? Corporatists, every last one of them, bought and paid for.

reply to post by Gryphon66


You can call them grilled-cheese sandwiches for all I care.

They are against the Constitution, against the American people, and pissing away the futures of over 300 million people.

reply to post by beezzer


... but I like grilled-cheese sandwiches ... I don't like the folks in Washington.

Just for clarification, you are including both political parties in the anti-constitutional, anti-American, future-away-pissers rhetoric, right? Or just the Dems? Because then, er, you know ... it might seem like you were defending the Republicans or somethin' ...

Gryphon66
reply to post by beezzer

 

... but I like grilled-cheese sandwiches ... I don't like the folks in Washington.

Just for clarification, you are including both political parties in the anti-constitutional, anti-American, future-away-pissers rhetoric, right? Or just the Dems? Because then, er, you know ... it might seem like you were defending the Republicans or somethin' ...

Oh good god!

Yes! (rolling eyes) the GOP (who aren't in the White House but still) are stupid stinky butt-heads also!

beezzer

Gryphon66
reply to post by beezzer

 

... but I like grilled-cheese sandwiches ... I don't like the folks in Washington.

Just for clarification, you are including both political parties in the anti-constitutional, anti-American, future-away-pissers rhetoric, right? Or just the Dems? Because then, er, you know ... it might seem like you were defending the Republicans or somethin' ...

Oh good god!

Yes! (rolling eyes) the GOP (who aren't in the White House but still) are stupid stinky butt-heads also!

Wow, that sounded like it actually hurt you to say that, Beezer. I thought we were kidding about any Republican bias on your part ... but in your attempt to reduce your own argument about Washington to the absurd ... because you know the Republicans ARE and HAVE BEEN in control of the House of Representatives for most of the Obama Presidency ... not to mention ...

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

So, uh ... yeah. I guess both "sides" are stupid stinky butt-heads, indeed.

reply to post by Gryphon66


No-one is innocent.

But the blame sits solely in the lap of the president. A democrat. One I consider a progressive hater of America.

beezzer
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

No-one is innocent.

But the blame sits solely in the lap of the president. A democrat. One I consider a progressive hater of America.

I agree with your summary statement about lack of innocence, I surely do. But Obama cannot simultaneously be both an ineffective do-nothing and the tyrannical love-child of Genghis Khan and Ming the Merciless. To "blame" Obama for what? Everything bad in the world? I really thought that was a joke that Jon Stewart made, but, wow. Sounds like it's a real thing.

To blame the President for "everything" is merely, in my opinion, to cop to the ludicrous partisan rhetoric promulgated by whorish media outlets on all fake "sides" of the handbasket we're all sliding to hell in ... frankly, a stance which does nothing to advance truth.

It is bread and circuses ... stale bread and boring circuses. But whatever. Blame the "progressives" whoever they are.

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

No-one is innocent.

But the blame sits solely in the lap of the president. A democrat. One I consider a progressive hater of America.

I agree with your summary statement about lack of innocence, I surely do. But Obama cannot simultaneously be both an ineffective do-nothing and the tyrannical love-child of Genghis Khan and Ming the Merciless. To "blame" Obama for what? Everything bad in the world? I really thought that was a joke that Jon Stewart made, but, wow. Sounds like it's a real thing.

To blame the President for "everything" is merely, in my opinion, to cop to the ludicrous partisan rhetoric promulgated by whorish media outlets on all fake "sides" of the handbasket we're all sliding to hell in ... frankly, a stance which does nothing to advance truth.

It is bread and circuses ... stale bread and boring circuses. But whatever. Blame the "progressives" whoever they are.

I blame what he represents.

And he is the representative of the progressive movement. Social justice. Redistribution of wealth. He represents the movement to fundamentally transform America.

Want me to say something nice about Obama?

He's got nice shoes.

there.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I'm terribly sorry and I see I have made a mistake here in how I read your post. The wording on the top seemed extremely partisan and some words these days, in some context, is loaded in ways it never used to be. Most often, it's used with that well in mind, so it's usually taken that way.

I'm not one to back a bad position tho, and I misunderstood your point. Especially since I've often argued myself about the futility and actual counter-productive nature of arguing some specific things like the b/c issue or his actual biological parentage for the other far less talked about half of that. Neither matter in the day to day bad the individual is doing and should be held to account for by the media and public. (Nixon would have called Media like this, Mana from Heaven I think. ...regardless of party politics)

Obama's an odd duck to consider and figure out what is best to focus on, frankly. In almost all previous Presidents, they have been members to their party first, in so far as being interested in the individuals and personalities that helped them get elected to the White House, staying elected and viable in Congress. The parties are very much flip sides of the same rotten wooden nickel, but still sides in some real ways. Obama's moved away from his own party in modern action in many ways and very much away from either party or general politics in the historic sense. Historic here, only needing go back 15-20 years, too. None of this in good ways. (To say he's done some good things is true enough...the whole package hasn't been worth it, IMO)

reply to post by beezzer


No, I don't require anything "nice" to be said about the President. I've been clear about Mr. Obama.

He is, at least in his public persona, a shill for the moneyed, privileged interests in this country. Period.

Last I checked though, Obama's a Democrat not a Progressive. The Progressive Party was dissolved in what, the 20's. That was Teddy Roosevelt's crew, wasn't it? Yeah, pretty sure I've got that one right.

Bully.

Weren't they for women's right to vote? Eight-hour workdays? Limits on political contributions and lobbyists? Weren't they basically considered populists, in favor of the rights of We the People over the powerful and entrenched interests in Congress and the Government?

Didn't they suggest the establishment of recall elections to get rid of dirty politicians? And referendums (citizens decide laws), initiative (citizens make laws) and judicial review (citizens get rid of bad laws) ... all designed to put more political power back in the hands of the Public? (spins the Wiki machine ... yep, I'm right - Progressive Party 1912-1916).

Sounds like pretty sound stuff to me. Sounds like the complete opposite of communism and totalitarianism.

Today, the term progressive is used almost exclusively among right-wingers as synonymous with liberals and of course, the inevitable Frankenstein-conflation of socialist/communist/fascist/terrorist, etc. etc. etc. Whatever sounds bad in Middle America, that's what it means.

In other words more pejorative, partisan BS. But using railing about "progressives" is like wearing a membership ring, ain't it?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No worries here Wrabbit. It's fairly unusual to find folks who aren't either "fer us er agin' us" in the US anymore. And I'm really not, although my jousting with Mr. Beezer may seem to indicate something different.

I'm not liberal or conservative and certainly not a Democrat or Republican. I refuse. I prefer not to. I try to hold the most reasonable positions on political items that I can arrive at with as much logic as I can apply. I see the world in terms of a strong, ridiculously-moneyed elite at the top of the pyramid that have had and will have control over most of the worlds resources. They need sandwich-makers and caddies and doctors and mailmen ... and that's what the rest of us are for. I have nothing against people who have earned their money either by sweat, by smarts, or by merely makin' a better mouse-trap. I believe that government is a necessary evil that should be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure and basic support systems for the People. No one should get to live off hand-outs. Everyone should be educated as far as their will and abilities will take them. Government should stay out of people's bedrooms and churches and pocketbooks. Etc. etc. etc.

I usually hold my tongue because, really, there's little to be gained in political debate. It just slips sometimes.

I'm still hopeful for the Martians and their solution for all governmental parasites a la Mars Attacks! ACK ACK! Youtube Video "They Blew Up Congress"

reply to post by beezzer


Both parties have sold out to the UN/NWO and Bilderberger bunch . If they want to get elected it takes money and big money Globalist require submission to their cause . The Democrats are all for the UN Agenda 21 Socialist/Communist way of life and the Republicans are resisting it because they are Capitalist . But they have to play the game or get a real job .
That is why not once did the Republicans challenge Obamas birth certificate . The Powers that be have no problem with destroying anyone and from the looks of it nothing is off the table getting it done . The agenda never changes no matter who is office . The Globalist Giants own all the dogs in every race .The best money can buy .

reply to post by SimonPeter


I never said the republicans weren't culpable.

But Obama is president. He is a democrat (I think a progressive).

He is in charge.

NOT republicans.

When there is a republican sitting in the Oval Office, we can all jump on republicans.
When a republican lead senate and House passes an unconstitutional law, we can all pile on the republicans.

But until then, the progressive liberal democrats get the bulk of my scorn.

If you and others want to rail against the republicans, be my guest.

But the president isn't a republican.