PDA

View Full Version : By trying to punish G.W. Bush we have punished ourselves.



Mudderoy
03-01-2012, 02:08 AM
Look nothing against Prez. Obama, as a person, a family man but as a leader he hasn't produced. If he was a CEO of a company he would have been replaced and sent on his way with a multi-million dollar package.

The stock holders would expect a leader that can deliver on the bottom line. Obama simply has not delivered. Even with all the support of the majority of the media, and for the first two years the house and senate were dem controlled.

He's just not the right man for the job. Frankly the dems should have urged him not to run so the citizens of the U.S. could have two choices and a better chance of getting the right person in 2013.

Do you want ideology or a job? Freedom to choose your health care or federally regulated mandatory health care. Oh and as Jeep and off road enthusiasts, are you really willing to park your 4x4 simply because the leader of the free world can't figure out a way to keep oil prices steady and reasonable?

BlueXJ
03-01-2012, 07:53 AM
You sir, have hit the nail on the head. We as voters need choices and he does not figure into most peoples choices.

4.3LXJ
03-01-2012, 12:05 PM
I have to agree with all of that. But it goes further. Do you want to end life at age 70? Sara Palin warned of death panels, which the Dems said no way. Well guess what, the first one has just been formed about a month ago. Neuro surgeons have now been informed that if anyone over the age of 70 is admitted to a hospital with a stroke, surgery is no longer an option without a lengthy appeals process that only takes place on bankers hours. You are eligible for comfort care only. Hey, you can get that at home. You don't need health insurance for that. Heart attacks I am sure will be soon to follow. So how long do you want to live? Maybe a little marxist philosophy here about the productivity of the young? Also if you didn't know, the current budget before congress includes a tax increase on dividends. It will go from the current 15% to 48% in three years. It will not only affect you when your young, but any of your retirement that comes from 401Ks and private retirement funds. So the question is, do you want a retirement or not?

XJ Rat
03-02-2012, 12:06 PM
Big problem is most of the youth will vote for him because they do not know any better, and most all of the minority and inner city dwellers will vote for him simply because they want something for nothing - which he has promised.

All the above have problems envisioning what will happen to them in the future as they all live for today.

Hope I am wrong, but it sure is looking like were screwed!

LizardRunner
03-02-2012, 12:14 PM
As far as I can determine, The democratic party believes that no one is capable of making their own decisions so the democrats want to make them all for you. This started with Lincolon and continues today. The party stands for socialistic society. The Republican party wants the people to have choices that are their own. Both parties seem to think that it's ok for the lower wage earner to foot the entire bill for the federal governments spending. Congress is out of control because the people let it be so by continually voting in the incumbents. Nothing a democrat says about running your life in every way should be ignored, that's what their end goal is. Any one else up for a round of Anarchy?

Mudderoy
03-02-2012, 12:31 PM
As far as I can determine, The democratic party believes that no one is capable of making their own decisions so the democrats want to make them all for you. This started with Lincolon and continues today. The party stands for socialistic society. The Republican party wants the people to have choices that are their own. Both parties seem to think that it's ok for the lower wage earner to foot the entire bill for the federal governments spending. Congress is out of control because the people let it be so by continually voting in the incumbents. Nothing a democrat says about running your life in every way should be ignored, that's what their end goal is. Any one else up for a round of Anarchy?

Abraham Lincoln was a republican. :shocker:

LizardRunner
03-02-2012, 02:52 PM
I don't think I said Abe was a democrat, just the president that started us down the socialistic path (I should have put it in a different place). The republican's started out spouting what the democrats now spout and vice versa. If you look way back that is. Both parties have bastardized the constitution to make it mean what they want it to instead of what it actually says. I think we need to be able to have a vote of no confidence for all in congress as well as the president, that way we can oust them mid term. I won't get into how the congress has seperated itself from the people, that would take to long.

Mudderoy
03-02-2012, 03:09 PM
I don't think I said Abe was a democrat, just the president that started us down the socialistic path (I should have put it in a different place). The republican's started out spouting what the democrats now spout and vice versa. If you look way back that is. Both parties have bastardized the constitution to make it mean what they want it to instead of what it actually says. BTW there is a provision in the US constitution that allows for the people to revolt against a government shown to not be operating in the best interest of the people. not the right wording but that is the jist of it. I personally believe that we do not have enough parties in this country two just lets the elite swap back and forth. I also think we need to be able to have a vote of no confidence for all in congress as well as the president, that way we can oust them mid term. I won't get into how the congress has seperated itself from the people, that would take to long.

I believe it was implied...


The democratic party believes that no one is capable of making their own decisions so the democrats want to make them all for you. This started with Lincolon and continues today.

This could mean that Lincoln started making decisions for the people, or the democrats starting making decisions for people when Lincoln was in office. Since Lincoln was president, the leader of the country, I assumed you meant he was a democrat.

LizardRunner
03-02-2012, 03:18 PM
I agree, my placement of the statement implied he was a democrat. Now if we could just raise the interest of the sheeple to see what's really going on, maybe we would see that "change" that Osama Obama spouted on about when he was running the first time round. So far the only "change" I've seen him make is for the worse. Of course, it could be said that he did not specify what type of change he was talking about it being time for...

07Negative
06-28-2012, 11:37 PM
I think your mistaken about what socialism is and what democrats want. Cuba is socialist. Old Russia was Socialist. Where there is no such thing as free enterprise. The Democrats are moving this country towards a social democracy. Think Sweden and Norway. But there are moderate republicans that kinda tip toe around that ideology as well.

Mudderoy
06-29-2012, 08:41 AM
I think your mistaken about what socialism is and what democrats want. Cuba is socialist. Old Russia was Socialist. Where there is no such thing as free enterprise. The Democrats are moving this country towards a social democracy. Think Sweden and Norway. But there are moderate republicans that kinda tip toe around that ideology as well.

People often over exaggerate using the wrong words. Gives dramatic effect and maybe people will listen. I try to stay away from words I don't know the meaning of an Socialism is one of them. I was never much interested in history, or government, hence I really didn't pay attention. I have learned enough about the meaning of the word to understand that or current Whitehouse occupier may have socialistic tendencies, but isn't an out right socialist. Hell maybe he's holding back, I dunno.

What I know about what's going on now is that our individual freedoms are being taken away so that the majority can have a better life, or at least that's the sell. Personally I think it's more about creating a voter base that will have to vote democrat if they want their sub-existence to continue. I say sub, because there is nothing better than working for a living and making your own way.

4.3LXJ
06-29-2012, 08:58 AM
If you look at all the proposed legislation that hasn't made it, they are going beyond that. It is an attack on wealth, except the wealth of politicians of course.

XJ Rat
06-29-2012, 10:38 AM
I think your mistaken about what socialism is and what democrats want. Cuba is socialist. Old Russia was Socialist. Where there is no such thing as free enterprise. The Democrats are moving this country towards a social democracy. Think Sweden and Norway. But there are moderate republicans that kinda tip toe around that ideology as well.

This is all true, but I believe the country doing the best in Europe is Germany. There is one country that abandoned some of the socialistic (or whatever is the PC term today) ways...Germany. Any coincidence, like maybe capitalism works? Oh, and please point out the country that is having financial success with their state run healthcare. Last I saw every single country was in a financial crisis with their state run healthcare or will have a crisis in a few years.

I am not saying we do not need healthcare reform, but I do know Obamacare is not the reform we need.

As far as the Dems wanting to change our system. Yep, they sure do. And nope, that is not what America is about. We are a Republic. My feeling is if change to a social democracy is wanted, move to that country.

4.3LXJ
06-29-2012, 10:52 AM
I have to agree. Have you ever noticed how Europeans want to come here, but we don't seem to want to go there to live. The Europeans I know that have come here will tell you how great it is, but they don't want to go back. Much more freedom here, much lower taxes and one other important thing they will all tell you. Social mobility. Here you can make what you want for yourself. There, once past the age of 20, forget it. You are doing what you will do for the rest of your life. Only the young get into college. I remember talking to a gal in her 40s from Britain. I asked her if she wanted to go back once she finished her PhD. She became angry and said no, because they denied her an education due to her age. The thing about socialism of any type is government control. You are told what you can do and when. And social mobility is extremely limited. It is all for the good of the country of course. Right.

Mudderoy
06-29-2012, 03:37 PM
I have to agree. Have you ever noticed how Europeans want to come here, but we don't seem to want to go there to live. The Europeans I know that have come here will tell you how great it is, but they don't want to go back. Much more freedom here, much lower taxes and one other important thing they will all tell you. Social mobility. Here you can make what you want for yourself. There, once past the age of 20, forget it. You are doing what you will do for the rest of your life. Only the young get into college. I remember talking to a gal in her 40s from Britain. I asked her if she wanted to go back once she finished her PhD. She became angry and said no, because they denied her an education due to her age. The thing about socialism of any type is government control. You are told what you can do and when. And social mobility is extremely limited. It is all for the good of the country of course. Right.

There's another reason for the world (leaders) to hate America.

4.3LXJ
06-29-2012, 03:39 PM
There's another reason for the world (leaders) to hate America.

Yup, they all want what we have, but are unwilling to give up control to get it.

07Negative
06-30-2012, 11:08 AM
Britain sucks! I'd hate to live there. The pubs are good and the women are easy. But that's about all it's got going for its self. They still have this authoritarian like structure. I'm not sure about education there. But I dated someone from there. It was a good education at the least.

The German's, French, Swiss, Norwegians, and Spaniards that I've ever met. They wouldn't come to this country to live. Not even my friends from Argentina would stay in this country. And I think it's just a matter of what you value in life. Hens why even American's have such distinct differences between what they want out of it's politics.

The reason why other world leaders hate America is b/c we are arrogant and kinda bully like. But there are many reasons why we are disliked. Some for good reason others meh, not so much.

Carves
06-30-2012, 11:38 AM
Personally ... I think the lefts and rights are reaching a middle ground .... as they create their welfare dependant and minority groups, voting support.


But there are many reasons why we are disliked. Some for good reason others meh, not so much.


Over Sexed, Over Paid, .... and Over Here ....

.... was the general complaint down here during WW2 .... :D


You immoral lot, flashing your cash, silk stockings and chocolate - at the lonely wives club back then .... could well be the reason, over the years ...
.... for jeeps being as popular as blowflies at a bbq ... :p .. :smiley-laughing021:

07Negative
07-01-2012, 11:03 AM
Aside from not having a job. I've rather enjoyed this recession. I watched everyone that I damn well knew couldn't afford all the crap they were buying. American's have their entire lives on lease. So I can certainly see the flashing your cash thing.
America as a whole really isn't a welfare state. It's basically California and some southern states Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. They have pretty high unemployment rates.
I was looking at this chart which showed how much each state contributed to federal spending as to what they pay into it.
It's interesting b/c it makes many Republican politicians look like hypocrites. Like such idiots as Bobby Jindal who claims to refuse any Federal aid. But his entire state is reliant upon the federal government. They spend 3 dollars for every 1 they pay into the fed. And yet his state continues to be one of the worst educated.
It was a chart like this one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Both Bush's were crappy presidents. And GW Bush probably did just as many unconstitutional things as the next guy. His foreign affair relationships were horrible. Economy went down the toilet. I don't see how anyone could like Bush. And I'm not even a Democrap I mean Democrat.
And didn't Bush have a thing with the Christian Coalition while in office? Like the organization was influencing his choices for the country?

I also think Republican politicians are great at selling the public fear.
If you think Obamacare is taking away your rights. How about trying to get on a plane? I'd never had my balls cupped like that before. Or things like the Patriot act? The Real I.D act? NDAA? All that stuff is invasive. Takes away freedoms. But who ever bitches about that?

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 06:56 AM
Aside from not having a job. I've rather enjoyed this recession. I watched everyone that I damn well knew couldn't afford all the crap they were buying. American's have their entire lives on lease. So I can certainly see the flashing your cash thing.
America as a whole really isn't a welfare state. It's basically California and some southern states Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. They have pretty high unemployment rates.
I was looking at this chart which showed how much each state contributed to federal spending as to what they pay into it.
It's interesting b/c it makes many Republican politicians look like hypocrites. Like such idiots as Bobby Jindal who claims to refuse any Federal aid. But his entire state is reliant upon the federal government. They spend 3 dollars for every 1 they pay into the fed. And yet his state continues to be one of the worst educated.
It was a chart like this one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Both Bush's were crappy presidents. And GW Bush probably did just as many unconstitutional things as the next guy. His foreign affair relationships were horrible. Economy went down the toilet. I don't see how anyone could like Bush. And I'm not even a Democrap I mean Democrat.
And didn't Bush have a thing with the Christian Coalition while in office? Like the organization was influencing his choices for the country?

I also think Republican politicians are great at selling the public fear.
If you think Obamacare is taking away your rights. How about trying to get on a plane? I'd never had my balls cupped like that before. Or things like the Patriot act? The Real I.D act? NDAA? All that stuff is invasive. Takes away freedoms. But who ever bitches about that?

I was luke warm on Bush Sr. I was very happy the entire time G.W. Bush was in office, with two caveats. The borders should have been shut down on 9/12 and they spent way way too much. Either they were over spending to keep the economy going, or they cause the economic disaster because of it. I dunno, still less spending would have been better for the future.

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 10:10 AM
Spending is ultimately determined by Congress. So let't put the blame for that one where it belongs. The president submits a budget, Congress can approve it or pass a different one, or reject it. It has rejected Obama's last budget.

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 10:18 AM
Spending is ultimately determined by Congress. So let't put the blame for that one where it belongs. The president submits a budget, Congress can approve it or pass a different one, or reject it. It has rejected Obama's last budget.

Understood, but the president can use the bully pulpit to get the people behind what they want to do. President Reagan seemed to get his point across.

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 10:23 AM
Understood, but the president can use the bully pulpit to get the people behind what they want to do. President Reagan seemed to get his point across.

True. However a little known fact is that Dubbya went before Congress twice and told them it was irresponsible to have a housing loan program that was pushing "a house for everyone" in which loans were guaranteed by Congress. This of course led to bad investments by Wall Street on loans made to people that really couldn't afford to buy a house in the first place. Congress further pushed bad loan policies on banks, all the while telling them they would back them up. And remember this was a Democratically controlled Congress. So I blame Congress, where the blame should be for "Presidential" spending habits.

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 10:40 AM
True. However a little known fact is that Dubbya went before Congress twice and told them it was irresponsible to have a housing loan program that was pushing "a house for everyone" in which loans were guaranteed by Congress. This of course led to bad investments by Wall Street on loans made to people that really couldn't afford to buy a house in the first place. Congress further pushed bad loan policies on banks, all the while telling them they would back them up. And remember this was a Democratically controlled Congress. So I blame Congress, where the blame should be for "Presidential" spending habits.

No you're right, I remember several people on FoxNews talking about this. And I believe the downfall of Fannie and Freddy goes squarely in the lap of Barney Frank.

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 10:42 AM
No you're right, I remember several people on FoxNews talking about this. And I believe the downfall of Fannie and Freddy goes squarely in the lap of Barney Frank.

It goes even further than that. The policies I am speaking of were set in place in those agencies when Sen. Obama was on a highly paid board member. So again, let's put the blame where it belongs

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 10:51 AM
It goes even further than that. The policies I am speaking of were set in place in those agencies when Sen. Obama was on a highly paid board member. So again, let's put the blame where it belongs

It seems to me that the liberals what EVERYONE to have EVERYTHING that everyone else has, but they don't have to work for, or pay for it. This is so counter intutive. I just can't fathom how they think it will work. I mean these people can add and subtract, it's simple math.

You cannot take ALL the money from the people with money and give it to the people without, because there are so many more people without.

Lets say that 20% of the 250 million American's are poor, that is 50 million people. Now take Bill Gates net worth (at one time) 19 Billion dollars. Tax Billy boy at 100% and cut the checks to the 20%, that is $380 each!

What am I missing here? Are there that many billion/millionaires in the US that we could get this number up to 10,000 for each of the 50,000,000 American's that need financial help?

I think this is why President Reagan said the best social program is a job! Even $10,000 a year is well below the poverty line.

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 10:58 AM
Well that is the point. What liberal voters do not understand, and apparently liberal politicians also, is that in order for the lower classes to have wealth, you have to have a general prosperity. That means there will be rich people, because those people fuel the economy with jobs. Those people with jobs then take their money and spend it which makes someone else a little wealthier and in turn that person creates more jobs. So the money multiplies. I learned that in a basic economics class in college when I was all of 20 years old. The other way of doing it is to take all the money and funnel it into government, which produces nothing and grossly inefficient before making a paycheck out of it. This reduces the amount going back into the production portion of the economy and eventually suck the vitality out of the economy. One is a positive multiplier and the other a negative multiplier. Where politics comes into play is the short term promise of a free ride at the expense of the hated rich. So we run a huge deficit to make it look good

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 11:03 AM
Well that is the point. What liberal voters do not understand, and apparently liberal politicians also, is that in order for the lower classes to have wealth, you have to have a general prosperity. That means there will be rich people, because those people fuel the economy with jobs. Those people with jobs then take their money and spend it which makes someone else a little wealthier and in turn that person creates more jobs. So the money multiplies. I learned that in a basic economics class in college when I was all of 20 years old. The other way of doing it is to take all the money and funnel it into government, which produces nothing and grossly inefficient before making a paycheck out of it. This reduces the amount going back into the production portion of the economy and eventually suck the vitality out of the economy. One is a positive multiplier and the other a negative multiplier. Where politics comes into play is the short term promise of a free ride at the expense of the hated rich. So we run a huge deficit to make it look good

Oh this reminds me of what President Obama said last week, something to the effect that we've already proven that trickle down economics doesn't work, what we need is bottom up economics. WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!!?

This is like the chicken or the egg question, but this one has an easy answer.

Encourage wealth for hard work, personal risk, education, etc... not being poor. Hell everyone can be lazy, uneducated and poor, what's the motivator Mister President?

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 11:05 AM
All you need is a good orator with a good speech writer

Mudderoy
07-02-2012, 11:09 AM
All you need is a good orator with a good speech writer

And just lie enough times that people give up trying to make sense of it. Your supporters aren't going to care if you lie (apparently) and the ones that don't support you don't matter. Confuse the people on the fence it seems.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all these problems will be solved when I become King. :smiley-laughing021:

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Not if I become king first.

Carves
07-02-2012, 08:56 PM
Well that is the point. What liberal voters do not understand, and apparently liberal politicians also, is that in order for the lower classes to have wealth, you have to have a general prosperity. That means there will be rich people, because those people fuel the economy with jobs. Those people with jobs then take their money and spend it which makes someone else a little wealthier and in turn that person creates more jobs. So the money multiplies. I learned that in a basic economics class in college when I was all of 20 years old. The other way of doing it is to take all the money and funnel it into government, which produces nothing and grossly inefficient before making a paycheck out of it. This reduces the amount going back into the production portion of the economy and eventually suck the vitality out of the economy. One is a positive multiplier and the other a negative multiplier. Where politics comes into play is the short term promise of a free ride at the expense of the hated rich. So we run a huge deficit to make it look good


X 2

No point having having a govt funded population of paper shufflers and welfare recipients ... when the proper "workforce" is too small and underpaid to fund it.

Aust is a perfect example of that. :bang::bang:




...... I've said it before and I'll say it again, all these problems will be solved when I become King. :smiley-laughing021:


Not if I become king first.


I'd be careful of those dreams and aspirations if I were you two .. ;)

My limited knowledge of US history .... suggests that the general population,

... doesnt like the idea of Royalty, being in charge ... :smiley-laughing021:

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 09:01 PM
Interesting opinion Carves. I have a friend in Melbourne that just doesn't see what we are fussing about. But what can you expect from someone getting a PhD?

Carves
07-02-2012, 09:40 PM
hmmmm ... not being deliberately rude but ..... PhD ... probably explains the lack of concern .. ;)

Yeah its an an opinion and of course ... it is only my opinion too.

Just as an example tho ....alihdlgfcewbfhjkeblcvbewbvcb .......

oooops ... blasted 3day old lamb in the cables under the computer table ... I'll try again .. :D:D

Just as an example tho ....and excuse our bloated, weekly, wage structure ....


FEBRUARY KEY FIGURES

Feb 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREND ESTIMATES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private sector
Full-time adult ordinary time earnings 1 319.80
Full-time adult total earnings 1 383.90

Public sector
Full-time adult ordinary time earnings 1 439.90
Full-time adult total earnings 1 480.30


and it has to be remembered ... the private sector, real, "average" worker ... is not getting anywhere near ... the statistical "average" wage - the useless politicians base all their new taxes on.

... and our mine workers arent average ... damn good wages in that little sector of the economy.

I can take you round the district here .... and introduce you to hardworking families who get less ... than the welfare and benefit handouts the govt gives ... to single mothers with children to 4 or more fathers and who spend all day watching TV ... waiting for the liquor outlets to open or the new wacky weed delivery to hit town ... :bang:


Down here at election time .... they are out kissing babies ... AND - handing out rose coloured glasses(spectacles). :rolleyes:

4.3LXJ
07-02-2012, 09:42 PM
And your taxes are what, 50%?

Carves
07-02-2012, 09:48 PM
2012 Tax rates .... http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm


... and then you have all the "hidden taxes" that affect the actual, cost of living ... Fuel, GST, Carbon Tax, Public Service Sector "fees" for doing what they have already been paid to do. etc.

XJ Rat
07-03-2012, 05:26 PM
Pelosi and other dems from Congress were on TV stating that welfare recipients were part of the prosperity because they pay their share of taxes. I am still trying to figure out how welfare recipients 'pay' taxes. I guess instead of handing out $1.00, the government hands out $0.70 and calls the other $0.30 the taxes. But where does that money come from? Oh yeah, us working stiffs. Where the money comes from for the welfare and all the other social programs is a minor inconvenience that many liberals and dems seem to ignore.

As far as Germans not liking it here. I am 1st generation American. First born in the USA from my mothers side of the family. We all love it in the USA. Last time my Mom and Sister came 'home' after a visit with friends and relatives in Germany, they both said, 'Were glad to be home'. When my brother got pulled over for speeding in Erfurt, Germany, the cop did not give him a ticket. Instead the cop took his picture with the American and then shook my brothers hand. My sister belongs to a German club. The entire German club enjoys keeping their heritage alive, but love it here in America.They live in Dublin (just down the road from you 07Negative). I cannot find these Germans who hate America. But, I guess if you look hard enough they can be found.

4.3LXJ
07-03-2012, 06:48 PM
Pelosi and other dems from Congress were on TV stating that welfare recipients were part of the prosperity because they pay their share of taxes. I am still trying to figure out how welfare recipients 'pay' taxes. I guess instead of handing out $1.00, the government hands out $0.70 and calls the other $0.30 the taxes. But where does that money come from? Oh yeah, us working stiffs. Where the money comes from for the welfare and all the other social programs is a minor inconvenience that many liberals and dems seem to ignore.

As far as Germans not liking it here. I am 1st generation American. First born in the USA from my mothers side of the family. We all love it in the USA. Last time my Mom and Sister came 'home' after a visit with friends and relatives in Germany, they both said, 'Were glad to be home'. When my brother got pulled over for speeding in Erfurt, Germany, the cop did not give him a ticket. Instead the cop took his picture with the American and then shook my brothers hand. My sister belongs to a German club. The entire German club enjoys keeping their heritage alive, but love it here in America.They live in Dublin (just down the road from you 07Negative). I cannot find these Germans who hate America. But, I guess if you look hard enough they can be found.


If you want to find Euros that hate America, they are there. Bring them here and they love it. We have an Aussie friend that has been here for about 40 years now. Still trashing the US, but won't go back to Aussie under any circumstances. Not to trash Aussie, I think they have some good things going for them. But the fact is, once they get a taste of American freedom and prosperity, no matter how much they gripe, they won't go back.