do you want obama to succeed?

[rosenherman]

The government is already involved in my girlfriend's healthcare. Four years ago, she got a crippling unknown progressive disease. It got to the point that she couldn't work anymore... So she lost her income and her insurance because of the disease that she needs an income and insurance to fix. Now she's on AHCCCS. She uses foodstamps to get food. She's been jumping through hoops with paperwork to start receiving Social Security.

The disease continues to get worse. She can no longer speak. Her medical bills before she got on AHCCCS were bad enough that, three years ago, her plan was to declare bankruptcy after the disease was treated.

I'm truly sorry your friend is suffering so much.

This just illustrates the trouble we'll face if obama is successful in having the government in charge of anything more than they already are.

 

[ScottBot]

Since he was inaugurated, the stock market has lost one quarter of its value. It's down a thousand points in that 7 week period. Last month's unemployment jumped more than it has since World War II and he's still playing with stem cell research, education. Education is not in trouble, stem cell research is not in trouble. As the economy continues its slide obama keeps doing exactly what he's been doing. Even he should be able to see by now that he needs to focus on the economy, ignoring it is obviously not working.

We all know that Obama is a religious believe in the work of Sal Alinksi's Rules for Radicals. One's of these rules is that you have to completely rdestroy something before you can rebuild it. Take a guess what is in the process of being completely destroyed. I don't listen to that man's rhetoric anymore, I watch his actions. Obama is intentionally zeroing out this countries economy so that he can rebuild it on the socialist/marxist model.

 

[rosenherman]

Not quite like Dems. More like the brain-dead army of ditto heads.

Gee, I rather liked the name Democrats. If y'all want to be called brain-dead, so be it. It's certainly more accurate but it doesn't have the same je ne sais pas.

 

[ScottBot]

Gee, I rather liked the name Democrats. If y'all want to be called brain-dead, so be it. It's certainly more accurate but it doesn't have the same je ne sais pas.

I prefer to call them Sheep myself. They go wherever the good shepherd George Soros tells them to go.

 

[rosenherman]

... and consequences bedamned!

Those are the consequences! geeze louise

 

[missjasmine]

As a young conservative, a young Christian, and the wife of a soldier.......

I don't want our president to fail, and I pray that the Lord will guide him and that he would allow the Lord to guide him while he leads this country.

That being said, I think that some of the moves that he has made thus far in his presidency are somewhat proof that I don't think he is allowing the Lord to guide him while he runs this nation... (One example being the abortion issues)

I will say on a side note that I think too many people have made Obama into a "rockstar president" and because of that, he isn't held accountable for his actions in the same sense that say Bush was held accountable for his actions.

So do I want him to fail, no? Do I want people to think he's our savior? No, because only Jesus Christ is our one true savior. Do I want him to help this nation recover? Yes.

But the truth of the matter is until this nation, President included, rebukes this world and turns their eyes back towards the one true living God and gets our Nation centered back around HIM and HIS WORD, we're going to fail no matter what.

 

[romanov]

Why is that? What are you basing that on, considering he has only been in office 7 weeks.

He gives us a mammoth spending bill which is suppose to put people back to work by repairing infrastructure. Only about 30 billion out of about 800 billion goes to roads and bridges. And no clause to keep illegal aliens from taking those jobs.

A Treasury Sec. who has no clue what he is doing. He can not seem to find a way to fix the banks, or do his own taxes.

Lobbyist in his cabinet when he said there would be none.

If he dose not have a teleprompter he says things that make the Dow plummet.

He said he would have the most transparent administration in history. Yet, everything gets passed in the middle of the night and no-one gets to read the thing before it is passed.

Another 400 billion spending bill.

A 3.6 trillion dollar budget. Almost 5 trillion dollars in spending and yet we are sinking further into a depression.

Yea this guy is great.

 

[romanov]

We all know that Obama is a religious believe in the work of Sal Alinksi's Rules for Radicals. One's of these rules is that you have to completely rdestroy something before you can rebuild it. Take a guess what is in the process of being completely destroyed. I don't listen to that man's rhetoric anymore, I watch his actions. Obama is intentionally zeroing out this countries economy so that he can rebuild it on the socialist/marxist model.

Bingo, you win an all expense paid trip to the poor house then slavery.

Tell him what he has won Johnny.

That is right Bob. Our contestant has won a tax cut for 95% of Americans, what-ever that means, and higher energy cost due to carbon credits. But, no worries. With out a job he will being staying at a park bench within walking distance of a government run soup kitchen. Where he will dine on the finest gruel made from only the best gruel grown in a sustainable way as to not upset mother earth. He will also be able to shop at the finest dumpsters and enjoy the table scraps of the political elite who work hard every day to meet the needs of the common man. And to top it off, he will be able to tuck his children in at night using only the best government approved non-biased newsprint.

Wow Johnny, is that just too much? I mean won't some-one have less?

Do not worry Bob. Every-one will have the same. Just like the former Soviet Union. Every-one will be equal. Of course some will be more equal than others, like hard working politicians, scientist (who are useful and support the government aims,) entertainers (who are useful and support the government aims,) doctors (who are useful and support the government aims,) industrialist (who are useful and support the government aims,) military leaders (who are useful and support the government aims,) their family members (who are useful and support the government aims,) and maybe one or two others (who are useful and support the government aims.) Every-one will have the same health care, unless you are old or infirmed, mentally retarded, mentally ill, or just any-one who are not useful and support the government aims.


Wow, that is some prize Johnny?

 

[Saving Hawaii]

You wrote ALL that just because we're returning to Reagan-era taxation policies? The Republicans are so terrified of Barack Obama returning to their own hero's policies that they've declared their own hero's policies to be communism now?

Romanov; was Ronald Reagan a communist when he set that top marginal rate at 50%? Is Obama more of a communist now that he's setting the top marginal rate at 39.6%?

As we can see here, the United States has enjoyed three periods of prosperity over the past 100 years—there was the late-1920s, the late 1980s, and the 2000s. For the rest of our history, the entire period from FDR through to early Reagan, and then again in the dark days of Bill Clinton, we suffered from cataclysmic stagnation because “soak the rich” policies left businesses without incentive to invest. Our talented citizens unfortunately, but understandably, dediced to “go Galt” en masse and the economy stagnated.

And yes, please pay no attention to the fact that the three periods of ultra-low taxes were followed by a budget crisis (Reagan) and catastrophic global economic collapse (Coolidge-Hoover, Bush).

 

[romanov]

You wrote ALL that just because we're returning to Reagan-era taxation policies? The Republicans are so terrified of Barack Obama returning to their own hero's policies that they've declared their own hero's policies to be communism now?

Romanov; was Ronald Reagan a communist when he set that top marginal rate at 50%? Is Obama more of a communist now that he's setting the top marginal rate at 39.6%?

Oh my, do mean to say he raised the top marginal rate to 50%. Your revisionist history is showing. You might want to really look at your chart agian.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Oh my, do mean to say he raised the top marginal rate to 50%. Your revisionist history is showing. You might want to really look at your chart agian.

My eyes are good; contacts, you know? Go for it and take a look. Reagan set the top marginal rate at 50% for quite a few years. He later reduced it further, but that had the effect of causing huge deficit spending in his budgets and unnecessarily tripled the national debt... but if you want to, we can gloss over that part of history because it's not very fiscally conservative.

 

[romanov]

My eyes are good; contacts, you know? Go for it and take a look. Reagan set the top marginal rate at 50% for quite a few years. He later reduced it further, but that had the effect of causing huge deficit spending in his budgets and unnecessarily tripled the national debt... but if you want to, we can gloss over that part of history because it's not very fiscally conservative.

He dropped the top marginal rates twice. He did not write the budgets. That job belongs to Congress. He had a Democrat controlled House and Senate. The president recommends spending but congress has the finial say. Congress uses zero baseline budgeting, Reagan threatened to shut down the government at least twice attempting to lower spending. Your revisionist history is showing.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

He dropped the top marginal rates twice. He did not write the budgets. That job belongs to Congress. He had a Democrat controlled House and Senate. The president recommends spending but congress has the finial say. Congress uses zero baseline budgeting, Reagan threatened to shut down the government at least twice attempting to lower spending.

Once again; Obama's not raising the top marginal rate anywhere near levels that Reagan had set it to. While it's true that for a short period at the end of Reagan's presidency it was set at much lower rate, Reagan's economic recovery from the Ford/Carter recession was achieved at a top marginal rate of 50%. Much like Roosevelt's recovery from the Great Depression was achieved with a top marginal rate of 63%.

And I've gotta laugh about the whole "lower spending" and Reagan in the same sentence. The guy was a classic cut-and-spender and nearly tripled the national debt. He never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. I hesitate to speculate if he ever thought about it; rhetoric aside.

Your revisionist history is showing.

Coming from a guy who keeps insisting that the Great Depression didn't even start until the economy was already in recovery.

 

[ScottBot]

You guys need to learn about Kondratieff Wave Cycles. This stuff has happened before in our economy and it will happen again. I find it funny that political parties are trying to take credit for or place blame on the natural cycles of expansion and contraction of the market economy.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Once again; Obama's not raising the top marginal rate anywhere near levels that Reagan had set it to. While it's true that for a short period at the end of Reagan's presidency it was set at much lower rate, Reagan's economic recovery from the Ford/Carter recession was achieved at a top marginal rate of 50%. Much like Roosevelt's recovery from the Great Depression was achieved with a top marginal rate of 63%.

And I've gotta laugh about the whole "lower spending" and Reagan in the same sentence. The guy was a classic cut-and-spender and nearly tripled the national debt. He never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. I hesitate to speculate if he ever thought about it; rhetoric aside.



Coming from a guy who keeps insisting that the Great Depression didn't even start until the economy was already in recovery.

Yes, KIck em when they are up, kick em when they are down.
Raising taxes always helps prolong a recovery.
It would be one thing if we were raising rates in order to balnce a deficit, but this stuff going on now is only prolonging the recovery.
On our babies backs even!
Reagan did not raise rates to start trickle down economics, he unleashed the power of the people to produce.
Today, there is this mindset of Government trickle down from Government of money taken from the producer.

 

[LUColt27]

Once again; Obama's not raising the top marginal rate anywhere near levels that Reagan had set it to. While it's true that for a short period at the end of Reagan's presidency it was set at much lower rate, Reagan's economic recovery from the Ford/Carter recession was achieved at a top marginal rate of 50%. Much like Roosevelt's recovery from the Great Depression was achieved with a top marginal rate of 63%.

And I've gotta laugh about the whole "lower spending" and Reagan in the same sentence. The guy was a classic cut-and-spender and nearly tripled the national debt. He never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. I hesitate to speculate if he ever thought about it; rhetoric aside.



Coming from a guy who keeps insisting that the Great Depression didn't even start until the economy was already in recovery.

To be fair, Reagan could only play with the hand dealt to him by the worst president in history, Jimmy Carter. He had to do something to finish off the Soviets, and lo, and behold, increasing defense worked. Imagine that: a nation strong enough to defend itself can simply bankrupt its enemies. It also bears mentioning that the Soviets used an economic system disturbingly like the one Obama seems to be trying to bring in. Is he expecting something different to happen this time?

As for the Depression, the recovery didn't truly get underway until the war economy took over in the early 40's, and even then, conditions didn't improve right away. The New Deal didn't help at all, and now we have to live with the consequences of what happens when somebody spends too much government money on foolish schemes, like Social Security.

 

[romanov]

Well this should be fun.

 

[JustOneWay]

Well this should be fun.

It was. I mean there have been at least three threads on the topic.

 

[romanov]

Once again; Obama's not raising the top marginal rate anywhere near levels that Reagan had set it to. While it's true that for a short period at the end of Reagan's presidency it was set at much lower rate, Reagan's economic recovery from the Ford/Carter recession was achieved at a top marginal rate of 50%. Much like Roosevelt's recovery from the Great Depression was achieved with a top marginal rate of 63%.

And I've gotta laugh about the whole "lower spending" and Reagan in the same sentence. The guy was a classic cut-and-spender and nearly tripled the national debt. He never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. I hesitate to speculate if he ever thought about it; rhetoric aside.



Coming from a guy who keeps insisting that the Great Depression didn't even start until the economy was already in recovery.

He did not raise the top rate to 50%. He fought the democratic controlled congress to lower it to 28%. He was able to get 50% with concessions on what was and was not deductible. He was able to cut the top rate to 38%, I think, latter on. Which lead to the largest expansion of the private sector since WWII which lasted until 2001.

The President can not balance the budget. No president can. Only the people who write the budget can balance it. Congress writes the budget. Obama can not balance the budget. Reagan could not balance the budget. The president can and does recommend spending, he even presents a budget to congress. They throw it away and do what they want to. The president can get certain spending measure into the budget, but for the most part all he can do is sign it or veto it. He can pocket it, but that comes with some political risk as it will shut the government down as Reagan did at least twice. He was trying to get congress to cut spending.

 

[romanov]

It was. I mean there have been at least three threads on the topic.

Really, oops. Oh well I laughed for some time when I heard about today.