America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 20 replies replies.
Screw You, Suckers!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
Obama To The Next Generation: Screw You, Suckers

14 FEB 2011 02:49 PM



The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut.

But the core challenge of this time is not the cost of discretionary spending. Obama knows this; everyone knows this. The crisis is the cost of future entitlements and defense, about which Obama proposes nothing. Yes, there's some blather. But Obama will not risk in any way any vulnerability on taxes to his right or entitlement spending to his left. He convened a deficit commission in order to throw it in the trash. If I were Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles, I'd feel duped. And they were duped. All of us who took Obama's pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.

The cynical political calculation is obvious and it is well put by Yglesias and Sprung. If Obama backs Bowles-Simpson, the GOP will savage him for the tax hikes, while also scaring the wits out of the elderly on Medicare. The Democratic left - just look at HuffPo today - will have a cow. Indeed, if Obama backs anything, the GOP will automatically oppose him. He has to wait for a bipartisan agreement which he can then gently push ahead. But that's exactly why we are in this situation today. Because no president has had the balls to deal with it, and George W. Bush made it all insanely worse. Sprung says the proposal on corporate taxes is a trial balloon. He argues that:

Corporate income taxes account for about 12% of the Federal government's revenue. Obama's core premise for reforming them is structurally similar to the Bowles-Simpson commission's approach to personal tax reform: reduce targeted tax breaks while lowering the overall rate, currently at 35%.

And that's fine if you think we have plenty of time. But in a mere nine years, entitlements will account for 64 percent of all federal spending. And Obama just punted on his promise to cut Medicare payments to doctors, as pledged under Obamacare as a core part of the case that health insurance reform would cut the deficit. So congrats, Megan. We can chalk that up as a cynical diversion (even though Obama pledges to find savings elsewhere in the Medicare budget to make up for this lie - a promise we now have no reason to trust or believe).

There is some hope, as David Brooks has noted. Those who want to save the useful things that government alone can do, while pulling back from the fiscal brink, have to

get behind an effort now being hatched by a group of courageous senators: Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, Tom Coburn, ****** Durbin, Mike Crapo and Kent Conrad. These public heroes have been leading an effort to write up the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report as legislation to serve as the beginning for a serious effort to get our house in order. They’ve been meeting with 20 to 40 of their colleagues to push this along.

They have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bull**** it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/obama-to-the-obama-generation-youre-on-your-own.html






Now, I know what you're thinking...Andrew Sullivan??? Yes, even Andrew Sullivan has joined in and voiced his opinions of the failed Presidency of the Kenyan King. My how the base has fallen. The marching orders are being issued. The Kenyan King is out.




Even when your were forced to "wonder" and use critical thinking on major issues about the Kenyan King...people voted for him anyways...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that-why-obama-matters/6445/
cbc812 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 4,222
Obama is a fool. Clearly the only way out of this crisis is to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, welfare, schools, and all taxes on individuals making more than $1 million annually and to eliminate all federal regulations.
HockeyDad Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
cbc812 wrote:
Obama is a fool. Clearly the only way out of this crisis is to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, welfare, schools, and all taxes on individuals making more than $1 million annually and to eliminate all federal regulations.



That is ridiculous. The current course of doing absolutely nothing is perfectly fine as long as we keep the military well funded and cause enough destabilization worldwide to keep US Treasuries looking like a good and safe investment.



You don't have to outrun the bear. Just outrun the other people also trying to outrun the bear.
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
HockeyDad wrote:



You don't have to outrun the bear. Just outrun the other people also trying to outrun the bear.






Poor CROS.... Sad
jackconrad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\ /)
-oo)-
(")_(") Trust me!

Outrun those BEARS !!!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
HockeyDad wrote:
You don't have to outrun the bear. Just outrun the other people also trying to outrun the bear.



You forgot that you're supposed to trip at least one person when attempting to outrun bears. Give the bears the easy pickin's.
Optimus_Prime Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 29
A president failed to live up to hype and his promises? My circuits are shocked and saddened. This has never happened before in the history of the government.
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Optimus_Prime wrote:
A president failed to live up to hype and his promises? My circuits are shocked and saddened. This has never happened before in the history of the government.



INVISIBLE POST!
snowwolf777 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Why all the consternation my friends?

It's the federal gum-o-mint. They have the money presses. Just fire 'em up and print lots and lots and lots more money. Crank the taxes to the moon for everyone. And by everyone, I of course mean the 52% of the country who still gets out of bed every morning, earns a paycheck, and doesn't get a refund of 130% of what they pay in each year.

And those evil corporations - tax the piss out of them. And Haliburton - shut that place down! Nationalize the oil companies, too. And free medical care - much as ya want - for everyone! Nobody pays anything. That's what the government is for. A windmill in every kitchen, and a solar panel in every pot field. Which everyone should be required to have. I mean the pot field.

And starting Monday, everyone gets paid a million billion dollars a week from the government. And if you're not interested in working for it, that's cool, man. Don't sweat it. 'Cause that's your right. Don't let them rich folks harsh your mellow. You'll still get your first place trophy each week just for getting out of bed.

d'oh!
cbc812 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 4,222
Corporate graft is a Family Value!!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
cbc812 wrote:
Corporate graft is a Family Value!!!!




You won't be saying that when your job is moved overseas.
cbc812 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 4,222
Au contraire, pere de hockey sur glace. I am eliightened enough to know that anything that puts more millions into the pockets of the outsourcing corporate chieftains that own my senators and Congressman is good for the country, and ultimately, for me.

I may end up jobless, but the increased profitability brought by outsourcing will surely trickle down to me and I'll be even better off than I was before.

It's no voodoo - I'll be Laffing all the way to the bank!
wtjvj Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 09-26-2006
Posts: 9,973
The sucks butt list gets bigger every day.
DadZilla3 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Everything's gonna be all right. The government is made up of the best and brightest among us...legislators who strive only to make the American people safe, productive, and happy. Let's all sing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ&feature=related
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/02/18/gps.soros.economy.cnn

The PuPPeTT MasTeR has cut loose his dummy.

GAME OVER KENYAN KING...GAME OVER
apachelm Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-26-2008
Posts: 8,549
HockeyDad wrote:


You don't have to outrun the bear. Just outrun the other people also trying to outrun the bear.


You forget that the POTUS is from Chicago and ROOTS for Da Bears
HockeyDad Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
He roots for whoever we globalists tell him to root for!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vv7ymiMWI




Let the tools that voted for this jerk defend this vid!Applause
Brewha Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrMaddVibe wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vv7ymiMWI




Let the tools that voted for this jerk defend this vid!Applause



You're a fool MDV.
Even as fools go . . . . .
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
"The Powers of This President - By Jack Curtis

Not all the powers President Obama has wielded or claimed seem clearly identifiable in the U.S. Constitution. Whether that is tolerable or even desirable appears to require consideration since the entire point of having a constitution is to limit government in the hope of fending off tyranny.


Our President wouldn't be the first to act extra-constitutionally; the pattern goes far back into U.S. history. The famous slippery slope describes that history; earlier events made smaller blips on the power horizon and later ones loom larger. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has stepped in, as exemplified by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.


President Obama though, may have outdone any of his predecessors in exerting such powers and in avoiding much juridical or public reaction in so doing. In effect, if that observation is correct, the Constitution might be decreasingly interesting history.


Some of the actions we'll examine have occurred with the formal support of a compliant Democratic Congress; others have been done by the President or his officers on their own.


The Constitution provides the President these powers:


1.To command the military (but not to declare war).
2.With Senate consent, to appoint U.S. officials and judges.
3.To appoint officials created in law as the law provides and to commission officers.
4.With Senate ratification, to make treaties.
5.To fill vacancies during Senate recess and to receive ambassadors.
6.To pardon convicts and convene or adjourn Congress in certain cases.
7.To demand formal opinions from department heads.
8.To faithfully execute the laws.
So, what has this President done to merit our attention? Here are a few examples:


•He orders the killing of selected individuals (and any others nearby) located in foreign countries at will, usually using drone aircraft. In a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Government challenging this, The federal attorney told the court that the Administration has the power to kill, without review, any American it decides is a threat, per the Center for Constitutional Government's November, 8th, 2010 news release.
•The President has appointed Czars in charge of a number of important functions. The questionable offices are those not established in law, causing critics to question the legality of both their considerable authority and their invisibility to Congress.
•Presidential and Congressional actions assuming control of GM and Chrysler and providing a pre-designed, non-standard bankruptcy that arbitrarily favored the auto unions at the expense of share and bondholders are considered by many to violate the Constitutional protections of property as well as Presidential authority.
•The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assumed regulatory authority over the internet and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed regulatory authority over greenhouse gases though Congress had not empowered either to do so.
Other examples are available but these will support discussion. Killing citizens at presidential will without review seems pretty far from constitutionally limited government; that claim appears absolutely scary. The fact that it originated with killings mostly located in the backwoods of Pakistan offers no assurance of future locations. This court case bears watching (and has received remarkably little news coverage). Is this power on the list above?


Czars have been appointed without Senate approval and provided substantial authority over large segments of the economy. Car Czar Steven Rattner was appointed in the Treasury, set up the disposal of GM and Chrysler in a few months before resigning ahead of the sheriff in a corruption investigation and was replaced by a career union representative. Critics say the empowerment of czars obscures government operation since they aren't vetted by the Senate nor must they report to Congress. A number of them hold positions created by the Obama Administration, not by Congress in law, so it's argued that those are extra-constitutional.


Various Presidents have seized businesses and industries during emergencies; President Truman intervened with the railroads and meat packers to maintain production during the Korean War. His nationalization of the steel industry for the same reason however, was ruled out by the Supreme Court as beyond his authority. Historically, such interventions have been very short term. The Obama Administration's intervention with GM and Chrysler arbitrarily nationalized the businesses then repeatedly changed the management, stiffed the bondholders who were owed money and essentially used the assets to protect the unions. The government maintains its influence two years later. Whether this falls under the: nor be deprived of ... property without due process of law and nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation of the Constitution is part of this issue along with presidential power. Is this on the list above?


Finally, it seems inarguable that the regulatory departments of the Obama Administration are in practice going well beyond existing authority by expanding their regulatory reach into fields that didn't exist when the laws authorizing regulation were passed. Some in Congress evidently share this view; legislative moves to block these actions are under way.


Until the Supreme Court speaks to these issues, we will have to form our own opinions of the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's various actions. The ObamaCare legislation demanded by the President and passed by Congress appears to be headed toward that disposition at the moment. President Truman was more popular during his railroad and meat packers actions; much less so when he reached for the steel industry. Often, that factor has done more to determine the level of opposition aroused by a presidential power grab than has its conformance to the Constitution.


Much of what is today accepted Presidential activity might horrify the Founders, particularly in Presidential use of the military. It's safe to say that many presidents have enlarged presidential power during their terms of office and halfway through his first term, President Obama may be headed toward leadership among them. Power being a zero-sum game, increases in Presidential power are losses to somebody and ultimately per the Constitution, to the citizens. In the end, it takes the citizens to reverse them."

HOPE AND CHANGE!!!


FOOLS!
Users browsing this topic
Guest