Rob's House Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 from your friends at CATO My link One sentence that sums it up nicely: The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.
....lybob Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 One sentence that sums it up nicely: One sentence that sums it up nicely: The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. well if you are saying Obama sucks almost as bad as president Cheney/Bush did then I agree with you.
Rob's House Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 One sentence that sums it up nicely: well if you are saying Obama sucks almost as bad as president Cheney/Bush did then I agree with you. I'd say he sucks a little more, but why split hairs.
....lybob Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I'd say he sucks a little more, but why split hairs. which is why I hope Ron Paul runs- and hopefully as an independent.
Rob's House Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 which is why I hope Ron Paul runs- and hopefully as an independent. I liked Ron Paul too, but now that you like him I may need to reevaluate that.
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2011 Author Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I liked Ron Paul too, but now that you like him I may need to reevaluate that. He's just blowing smoke. lyrbob positions do not match up with Ron Paul's positions or philosophy. Edited April 8, 2011 by 3rdnlng
Adam Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Are the decisions that we do or do not like supposed to be made in the context of what is going on in the country and world? Or should they just go with the political ideal. I really would love to live in a vacuum, like some of you.Be a realist, not an idealist.
Rob's House Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Are the decisions that we do or do not like supposed to be made in the context of what is going on in the country and world? Or should they just go with the political ideal. I really would love to live in a vacuum, like some of you.Be a realist, not an idealist. Would you pick a flower, just to watch it die?
....lybob Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Would you pick a flower, just to watch it die? Would you shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Peace Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I liked Ron Paul too, but now that you like him I may need to reevaluate that. Too old and would never win.
Adam Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 It really doesn't matter if the man in the white house changes is 2012. America will change when the demeanor of its people changes and not before. People have to stand up and do things, instead of thinking they deserve things because they are american. We can succeed with any party in office, but not until we focus on succeeding instead of making the other party fail. And by the way- both parties are guilty of all the above
Rob's House Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 It really doesn't matter if the man in the white house changes is 2012. America will change when the demeanor of its people changes and not before. People have to stand up and do things, instead of thinking they deserve things because they are american. We can succeed with any party in office, but not until we focus on succeeding instead of making the other party fail. And by the way- both parties are guilty of all the above I disagree. Americans, by and large, pursue their dreams and do what's necessary to get where they want to be. Opportunities are becoming scarce in no small part due to government being too involved in daily life, business, personal finance, etc. Playing with our currency like it's Monopoly money can have catastrophic consequences in a global economy because of the instability it creates. If the government can simmer down and operate within a reasonable scope there's no reason we can't get right back on track.
Adam Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I disagree. Americans, by and large, pursue their dreams and do what's necessary to get where they want to be. Opportunities are becoming scarce in no small part due to government being too involved in daily life, business, personal finance, etc. Playing with our currency like it's Monopoly money can have catastrophic consequences in a global economy because of the instability it creates. If the government can simmer down and operate within a reasonable scope there's no reason we can't get right back on track. I see the majority of Americans as people who want a constitutional monarchy, where the King doesn't make decisions unilaterally, but takes the blame for everything. The deficit started under Bush, but the democrats blaming him for it is ridiculous. He didn't cause 9/11 or Katrina, although they would have him thinking that he did. Some would have you believe that Obama is the culprit. Sure, it grew under him, but to take the steps to fix it would be political suicide. It is very popular to want to cut into the deficit, but once that gets painful, the fickle public will change their tune. Is that hypocricy? Maybe, but I say it is human nature. We have developed a lifestyle that is not sustainable and then we tell our politicians to do as I say, not as I do. Personally, I am for the said draconian cuts. People that think you can slowly pay off this type of deficit and remaon comfortable are in fairy tale land. Maybe economic theory says so, but that doesn't take problems like hurricanes and war into account. I see a very dim future ahead of us. One that makes the "out there" 2012 prophecies look bright
pBills Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I see the majority of Americans as people who want a constitutional monarchy, where the King doesn't make decisions unilaterally, but takes the blame for everything. The deficit started under Bush, but the democrats blaming him for it is ridiculous. He didn't cause 9/11 or Katrina, although they would have him thinking that he did. Some would have you believe that Obama is the culprit. Sure, it grew under him, but to take the steps to fix it would be political suicide. It is very popular to want to cut into the deficit, but once that gets painful, the fickle public will change their tune. Is that hypocricy? Maybe, but I say it is human nature. We have developed a lifestyle that is not sustainable and then we tell our politicians to do as I say, not as I do. Personally, I am for the said draconian cuts. People that think you can slowly pay off this type of deficit and remaon comfortable are in fairy tale land. Maybe economic theory says so, but that doesn't take problems like hurricanes and war into account. I see a very dim future ahead of us. One that makes the "out there" 2012 prophecies look bright Yes, there are some moronic democrats out there blaming Bush for 9/11 or Katrina. Let's face it Katrina could have had a better/faster response. Is that all Bush's fault? No. Is it all Obama's fault for the deficit? No. Yes, he also joined in with the bailouts that Bush started. Bailing out Wall Street as much as they did? Probably not a great idea. Bailing out GM I am sure people will say was a bad idea. From what I understand GM is well on it's way to have it all paid back 2015. Ahead of the timetable created. So yeah, saving GM and jobs for their employees and the suppliers employees a good thing. Plus it made GM wake up and finally do what was right and create better designs and trim down the line. Something that has been needed to be done for a long time. In regards to the cuts, I don't know anyone who says things don't need to be changed and that major cuts need to happen. Yet, there is something said to being responsible about it. Simply cutting programs ie: jobs is not a great thing. Things need to be planned a bit better than just saying EPA... don't like it, cut it. Planned Parenthood... don't like abortion so cut all of their funding even if they do other services. I think our elected officials need to think a bit more about it and truly throw EVERYTHING on the table. Defense spending, rewriting tax laws, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthiest few percent. Let's face it, being responsible also means being fair. If one group or class is expected to have a reduction in benefits/pensions and even their jobs if the area in which they works gets cut. Corporations and the wealthiest need to pay their fair share as well. Enough of this, give me every break or I'll take my company somewhere else nonsense. Fact of the matter is that most of them already are taking their companies or a good portion of them overseas. Be responsible. Be fair across all classes of people.
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 Be fair across all classes of people. Except to those making more than $200k of course.
Recommended Posts