Speak Out: Obama needs to cut the cord on liberal programs and start acting like a leader!!!.

Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 10:47 PM:

Here is where we are standing. We are broke. Our Federal debt as a share of GDP will be 109% by 2021. (Ten years from now) In the year 2035 it will be closer to 190% of GDP. Are we going to wait until 2021 to do something?

When is Obama going to admit we have to cut the cord on programs that are not absolutely necessary. We are bleeding badly and the Dem's have no plans other that attack the Rep's when they do come up with something. The Dem's have not even tried to make a budget (as they are required to do) and I guess they don't plan on doing so..

Obama is a poor manager that needs to be fired.

Replies (68)

  • Never send a boy to do a man's job.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 10:57 PM
  • Definately time to cut some discrentionary spending. As well as social security, medicaid/medicare, and defense. But oh wait the conservatives, even YOUR SAVIOR Ron Paul won't do that.

    You are dillusional if you think this is an Obama problem. It is a systemic problem Obama walked into.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM
  • futile_rant wrote:

    "...Obama walked into."

    He was a United States Senator. If he didn't know what he was 'walking into', he is not smart enough to be president. If he didn't have a plan for dealing with it, he should not have run.

    President Bush tried to get him and Sen. McCain to sit down to discuss the state of the economy in 2008, ant do help draft a response to the problems, but Mr. Obama couldn't be bothered to stop campaigning long enough to discuss the issue.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:50 AM
  • You are delusional if you think this is an Obama problem. It is a systemic problem Obama walked into.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM

    He is slowly making the problem unfixable. After passing Obamacare (the big back breaker) the only thing he has concentrated on is unions and the auto industry.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:19 AM
  • It's the "pseudo-dichotomy of two party politics."

    It's not really a qualitative difference, merely a quantitative one. The Bush stimulus, GM/Chrysler bailouts, and the creation of TARP with authorization of the first $350 B were fine with the Republican chief executive and many Republican Rep's and Senators.

    So, the Republicans were driving the car toward a cliff, but the Democrats put a brick on the accelerator. Total economic annihilation is the result either way.

    Statistics say that a Republican politician is slightly more likely to slam on the brake, but only slightly. It has to be the right person.

    -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM
  • Our present two party system and the practice of using tax revenue to buy votes have created this problem. I believe it will take the voters turning to a third party to fix it. I hope there is one up to the task.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:11 AM
  • Timmy knows whats best. He says they must raise small business taxes so government doesn't shrink. Shrink is what we need.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:43 AM
  • From the CNS News link:

    "...federal spending has climbed from $2.89 trillion in 2008--the year President Obama took office--to $3.82 trillion this year, an increase of approximately $930 billion."

    CNS News _ought_ to know what year Presdient Obama took office. Such a glaring error casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of their other data.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:51 AM
  • Shap

    I think they are refering to the Whitehouse report.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:13 AM
  • For a look at our true national debt, go to

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/23/the-final-ticks-of-americas-bank...

    It is good that we are discussing solutions to our deficit spending, but this is just the tip of the economic iceberg we are rushing toward. While social security was operating at a surplus the money was put into the general fund and spent, replaced by IOUs. The government is unable to accurately calculate the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. There are also military pensions, veterans' benefits, and civil service pensions. Bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC; the FHA guarantees home mortgages. The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have trillions of dollars of liabilities on their books.

    My understanding is that the total of all these liabilities will exceed $100 trillion. There are also trillions of dollars in state and local debt. At the moment, our economic policy is to ignore these realities and hope that someone in the future will deal with them.

    The only solution to this is a booming economy, and it may soon be too late for that. Our government must end crony capitalism and adopt pro growth policies which will allow business to do what it does best.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/spending-to-fix-overspending/

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:25 AM
  • My take on the president's weekly address:

    The president's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership initiative will infuse government and union leadership via the creation of high technology green jobs to insure our industries are on the cutting edge in world competition while keeping America a leader in protecting our enviroment.

    Or the government with the help of unions will take over free enterprise and dictate all policies of industry.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:32 AM
  • stnmsn8

    The 'unfunded liabilities', while high, refer to 'promises' and not to actual debt. They can be altered, although not painlessly.

    For example, they assume that Social Security payments will continue to rise at about the same rate as they have risen historically, and that new retirees will continue to be added by the same rules. Cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or curtailing COLA's will all lower those potential liabilities. For this reason, they do not represent true 'debt'.

    To compare that to an individual budget. Let us assume that you purchase a new vehicle every three years, and take a two week vacation every year, with travel. When you figure your long-term budget, you will factor these in as liabilities. However, you can change your habits and buy a new care every four or five years, buy a used car instead of new one, or buy cheaper cars, and that will reduce that potential liability. Similarly, you can take shorter, cheaper vacations; travel less; or not travel at all to reduce the impact of those vacations on your budget. Just because you've promised yourself those luxuries, does not obligate you to fulfil those promises.

    Any Congress can undo the programs and promises of a prior Congress. They can modify, reduce, or eliminate such things as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc., if they deem the costs of those programmes to be too great a burden. The social costs would be high for doing so.

    That also applied to municipal, county, and state-funded (or underfunded) retirement obligations. Just because the state has promised its retirees payments in excess of the states' ability to pay, does not mean that that promise must be fulfilled by future generations.

    We can, in the Greek tradition, impose a Seisachtheia of sorts, casting off the burden of debt incurred by our fathers, and starting with a clean slate, should that burden become such that we no longer wish to carry it. The impact of doing so would not be minor, but then neither will the consequences of not doing so.

    The longer we 'pass the buck' on the debt issue, the more drastic the measures we take will have to be.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM
  • Regret,

    They refer quite clearly to 2008 as "the year President Obama took office". I don't believe it is possible to read that any other way. Mr. Obama was elected in 2008, but took office in 2009. Even if you figure the fiscal year, rather than the calendar year, he took office during the 2009 year.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:46 AM
  • Oh no Regret. This is going to stir up Ike, Theorist and CSM. Caddyman may even do a driveby posting.

    -- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 2:30 PM
  • Unfortunatly, this isn't a dem vs. Republican issue.

    Both parties are guilty.

    However, the social programs mentioned by the OP really mean nothing. Cutting social programs does not solve anything ans we are talking probably less than 1% of the national budge.

    The majority is spent on Social Security, Defence and Medicare.

    To actually make a dent, that is what has to be addressed.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 2:44 PM
  • Rick,

    It happens every election.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:01 PM
  • mandated Federal Laws do not happen every election

    -- Posted by Rick** on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:04 PM

    I am shooting from the hip, but I bet they probably do.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:39 PM
  • "You are dillusional if you think this is an Obama problem. It is a systemic problem Obama walked into."-- Posted by futile_rant.

    Yep, rant, he sure did walk into it and doesn't have a clue how to get out. Losing the election next year will assist him greatly in making the necessary exit but none too gracefully, we fear.

    -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:14 PM
  • voyager: I watched both campaigns closely but I can't remember what the McCain/Palin solution was to solve our problems.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:38 PM
  • Lumberg - "shooting from the hip", using your words, "makes you look like an idiot when regurgitating the stupid things not backed by any facts what so ever."

    Stick to the facts.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:21 PM
  • I can't remember what the McCain/Palin solution was to solve our problems.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:38 PM

    You just followed the left and never bothered to look.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:32 PM
  • Regret: with all your knowledge, tell me what I over looked. I am certainly willing to listen. I was actually considering McCain until he picked you know who. My feeling was he got her to neutralize the Hillary vote and that was the only reason. It certainly wasn't because of any pertinent knowledge she had or even has now. He sur did make a rich woman of her though.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 7:18 PM
  • 1. Stop wasting money sending our military all over the world. I'd consider that "unnecessary spending"

    2. Neither McCain nor Palin had any answers then, and still don't.

    3. No one who comments on this board has any real knowledge of the economy. You all just copy and paste what you see and hear on your favorite opinion channels. Nothing you say on here makes any difference.

    Everybody thinks they have all the answers...

    ENOUGH with the partisan crap. It's about time you all realized it's US against THEM.

    They (politicians) spend way too much money. They're ALL to blame.

    And we just sit back and take it while we argue with each other....

    -- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:04 PM
  • Howdy,

    Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which cost middle class families nearly $60 billion a year. This tax was originally designed to fall on the wealthiest but, thanks to inflation, each year it snags more middle-income taxpayers who claim a lot of deductions.

    Extend expiring tax cuts from Bush's first term, worth $100 billion a year.

    Approve the President's line item veto.

    Add personal accounts to Social Security.

    *More trade agreements.

    *More nuclear energy.

    *Tax credit of $2,500 per person / $5,000 per family towards health care insurance.

    *Reduce wasteful government spending, saving $18 billion per year.

    *Reduce Congressional earmarks, saving $60 billion per year.

    *Eliminate tax loopholes, saving $45 billion a year.

    *Control Medicare costs, reform unemployment training.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:12 PM
  • Rick: There is one big difference between Palin and Biden. He won. Like him or not he was on the winning team. I think what helped Obama was maybe not his appeal to the average voter, but the lack of McCain to pick a serious running mate. If I remember right, McCain was leading Obama in early Sept 2008.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:12 PM
  • No one who comments on this board has any real knowledge of the economy.

    -- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:04 PM

    So we should listen to the great one, (Obama) like you do? Many on here have the common sense to know Obama was a train wreck that is causing what I hope is not an unrepairable economic disaster.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:19 PM
  • voyager: I watched both campaigns closely but I can't remember what the McCain/Palin solution was to solve our problems.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:38 PM

    Howdy,

    Since you watched both campaigns closely... could you help me with something?

    What did Obama propose as a solution to our problems... other than "Hope and Change"?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:22 PM
  • the_eye. I just had to respond. Pardon me for not reading the replies after you posted. I am too busy working to support those who don't along with my family to read other's talking points. I stood in line in WM the other day waiting while 3 generations of a family used their WIC checks and food stamps to pay for what they had. While standing there waiting, I couldn't help but think that I am working to pay for their stuff and standing in line behind them waiting to pay for their stuff. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing if you are the recipient of my generocity. However, these are two programs that need to be cut WAY back. Every penny helps. We need to stop looking at how little we are cutting and start cutting everywhere. This is the only way this problem is going to be solved.

    -- Posted by Knoblickian on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:24 PM
  • eye-you know, drunken posting and all. I just want to say that I am an expert on the economy because I am living in it. I don't care what all the other "experts" have to say. I am working 60+ hours a week on my salary job due to the Obama economy. My dollars are not going nearly as far as they used to. It is a drastic change from 2 years ago. Live in the real world and you will see what the economy is really like.

    -- Posted by Knoblickian on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:36 PM
  • After seeing howdy's post I stated think about seeing the "old people" comments by the Obama clam during the election.

    The young people are setting back and watching their futures ruined by liberal politics and uncontrolled spending. The bad part they are helping it get worse by putting people like BO and Nancy Pelosi in office.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:46 PM
  • Eye,

    When you state that no posters on these threads know anything about the economy I can only assume that you skip over posts made by Shapley, Regret, and Wheels, to name a few.

    There are a few on these threads who cut and paste but there are also some who have run businesses and are willing to share the knowledge they have gained through experience. Those who demean anyone who expresses a differing opinion miss an opportunity to learn from another's experience.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:50 PM
  • EYE says "No one who comments on this board has any real knowledge of the economy". All I need to know is:

    Gas was $1.73 when Obama took office - now at $3.49.

    Unemployment was 7.7% when Obama took office - now at 9.1%.

    In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion

    You're just like lumbrg and spaniard. I looked these numbers up from reputable locations. A couple would even be considered "liberal". Looking up facts on-line to educate yourself is no different than reading a book or a real, printed newspaper. I guess I could survey everyone in the US and find out this information myself. It wouldn't make it any more reliable.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:46 PM
  • I'm no economist and know little about "the economy", but like others I know something about my economy. I retired allotting myself an amount of spending money, [walking around money as some say] and found that what I budgeted quickly became not enough with everything going up in price.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:21 AM
  • Rick wrote:

    "our military should be for the defense of the USA from the east coast to the west coast , the north coast to the south coast."

    We have a Coast Guard and a National Guard for that. The military is for fighting wars (and is supposed to 'stand down' between them, but we've kind of ignored that part for about the past century). My personnal preference is that we fight wars 'over there', not over here, so I prefer that our military (as opposed to the guard) be used beyond our shores.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:18 AM
  • I seem to recall that we were attacked on September 11, 2001. The tactics may differ from that which some think of as 'war', but the deaths are just as real.

    The purpose of the National Guard is not to assist in disasters. The Constitution prescribes the duties of the organized militia (i.e. National Guard):

    "...to execute the Laws of the Union,

    suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

    That's the militia, not the military. The Military is raised specifically to fight wars.

    The Coast Guard was a component of the Department of Transportation except during wartime, when it fell under the auspices of the Navy. President Bush moved them to the Department of Homeland Security which was, methinks, a mistake.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:48 AM
  • Lumberg - "shooting from the hip", using your words, "makes you look like an idiot when regurgitating the stupid things not backed by any facts what so ever."

    Stick to the facts.

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:21 PM

    i am. No Child Left Behind?

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:52 AM
  • McCain wanted to spind like the stimulus.

    However, his healthcare plan was better.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:53 AM
  • Rick: There is one big difference between Palin and Biden. He won. Like him or not he was on the winning team. I think what helped Obama was maybe not his appeal to the average voter, but the lack of McCain to pick a serious running mate. If I remember right, McCain was leading Obama in early Sept 2008.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:12 PM

    I can agree with that. I was and still am a big McCain supporter.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:55 AM
  • I have great respect for Sen. McCain, but he was not my first choice for the Republican nomination. I was a Rudy Guiliani man, myself.

    I still believe that Sen. McCain would have been a better choice than Mr. Obama. I also think Sarah Palin is no less capable than Mr. Biden, but that's not saying much. I have little confidence in Mr. Biden.

    As I recall, Sen. McCain was leading Sen. Obama in the polls, albeit by a shrinking percentage, up until about the time President Bush asked them both to come to the White House to discuss the economic situation: a meeting which Mr. Obama did not attend, and which resulted in the TARP bailout.

    Sen. McCain declared a unilateral suspension of his campaign to attend the meeting. Sen. Obama refused the Olive Branch, and continued campaigning. This was not the deciding factor, in my humble opinion, but it left Sen. McCain looking bewildered, and (again in my humble opinion) left the impression that Sen. Obama had an economic plan that was different from that of President Bush. My own opinion is that he had not a clue what was happening economically, but that he (or his advisors) thought that suspending the campaign and attending the meeting would highlight his ignorance. Better to keep his distance and appear in control than respond to the beckon call of President Bush, they reckoned.

    As it is, it left Sen. McCain looking like President Bush's lapdog, and Sen. Obama looking like his own man.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM

    I think the republican party made a mistake with Palin.

    She came out strong at first because nobody knew much a bout her. I think they wanted to try and capitalize on the dems not giving hillary the nod, but it backfired.

    I think part of McCains economic woes was that he supported Bush too much, so he was seen as a second comming of Bush (economicly).

    God I miss Phil Hartman. I would have loved to see him do a Joe Biden.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:25 AM
  • McCain didn't stir up the republican base. He was known to flip-flop on issues and the support was there but it wasnt' enough.

    Another factor in my opinion was Bush's retreat behind the walls of the white house. He and republicans were thrashed daily by the liberal press and he refused to respond in any way - discuss your accomplishments, refute the charges, do something! He did nothing. He looked like a guy that just wanted out. That really hurt McCain.

    Obama got the young and minority vote out and, with Bush's retreat, won the election. This next year will be interesting. Obama will be throwing around federal money like you never imagined. And more "jobs saved" numbers with unemployment at 9.1%.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM
  • -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM

    I agree with some of that. Obama really connected with the young and tech savy voters.

    Also, Carl Rove was a political genius. however, with out him, the republican party became fragmented between the ultra conservative religous republicans and the more liberal republicans.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:46 AM
  • Rick wrote:

    "[I] can't see how the USA military could have prevented 9/11 without the help of the failed internal USA Intellegence."

    Nowhere did I suggest they could, or should. That is not their role.

    "i humbly suggest the USA military would be better utilized along our southern border at this time to defend against Latino Cartel Gangs spreading into the USA and/or attacks on USA citizens .."

    As I noted, the Constitution specifically authorizes the use of the militia to 'repel invasions', of which the influx of violence across the Southern border would seem to qualify.

    There is a reason for having a militia, as opposed to a standing army, to do the dirty work at home. I think it is a good reason.

    I've been reading about the role of the military in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, which led to World War II in the Pacific. Japan's reliance on the military to handle too many problems - and the power it acquired in doing so - left the Empire of Japan more or less powerless to stand against them when they enacted their war of aggression. Those in government who opposed the power of the military were replaced by the military, or politically neutered to keep their opposition from having effect.

    Using our military for housecleaning could have similar consequences. If you believe 'it can't happen here', you clearly haven't studied your History lessons.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:47 AM
  • I do suggest that fighting 'over there' keeps them from coming 'over here'.

    Maybe, if President Clinton had sent them 'over there' after the Embassy bombings or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, there may have been no 9/11/01 attacks 'over here'. But, who knows.

    The Russian press, however, noted during the Beslan School crisis that there had been no more 9/11s in the United States after President Bush took us to war, whereas there were attacks happening in places that opposed going there.

    The main point is, you don't want the military operating theatres of war 'over here', as that invites things like Martial Law, miltiary occupation of private housing, and military oppression.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:15 AM
  • I agree with some of that. Obama really connected with the young and tech savy voters.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:46 AM

    Yeah, he knew how to tweet, twitter and text! Now if he only knew how to lead.

    I do not tweet, twitter or text if I can avoid it. I will respond to a text message but will not initiate one. Does that make me technologically impaired?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:00 AM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:00 AM

    I remember how many of the news outlets were calling it a gimick. Now they all have twitter and facebook feeds.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:06 AM
  • I remember how many of the news outlets were calling it a gimick. Now they all have twitter and facebook feeds.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:06 AM

    That's wonderful! But if I waste one more hour a day on tech gadgets, I will have to give up eating or sleeping or both.

    Don't get me wrong, I like tech gadgets... my first computer was a Model I Radio Shack TRS 80 or Trash 80 as they became known and I learned about spread sheets using Visi Calc on the same machine, cause I powered that sucker all the way up to 48K of memory.

    I have a smart phone which keeps me amused while my wife shops, so that is covered. And I have a GPS in my car that tells me how to find my way home should I forget, so that also is covered. I don't want to tweet to the world what my every move is, probably most people have very little interest in me reporting on all of my trips to the bathroom.

    It is just for me that Enough is Enough Already.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:27 AM
  • The entire Obama campaign was a huge success. The marketing and imaging was on a scale never before seen. "Hope and Change" - slogans don't get any better than that. Race was also a huge factor.

    His challenge next year is to overcome the promises he made to FIX everything. Instead, things are much worse now than in 2008 on every front except for the DOW which I believe is up 50% since he was elected. But the DOW is no economic indicator.

    There are a lot of college kids unemployed right now and a lot more to come. African Americans have been hit worse than any group since he became president. Evan an "unnamed" Republican beats him in the polls. But I don't underestimate him. I'll be doing all I can to see that anyone that runs beats him. I honestly, seriously believe that our country will be destroyed if we have 4 more years of his leadership(?) and socialist policies.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM
  • For the spelling police - I meant "even an unnamed" instead of "evan an unnamed".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:31 PM
  • Wait until the youngsters come out of their trance and realize why they will never have the lifestyle we had.

    I still remember when I thought Jimmy Carter was going to save us. Obama is another Jimmy but is worse.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:39 PM
  • I saw where any unnamed repub beats him, but when you put a name in there...guess what? Obama wins. So who will your candidate be? You can't put unnamed on the ballot...or can you?

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:43 PM
  • howdy - all that says is people haven't committed yet. I am committed to one thing - Obama losing. Can't take four more years of this. I am not committed to who I will vote for - Mitt Romney? Huntsman? Bachmann? Cain? Another? Pee Wee Herman? Can't say anything yet but I will vote for any of the above over Obama.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:48 PM
  • The entire Obama campaign was a huge success. The marketing and imaging was on a scale never before seen. "Hope and Change" - slogans don't get any better than that. Race was also a huge factor.

    His challenge next year is to overcome the promises he made to FIX everything. Instead, things are much worse now than in 2008 on every front except for the DOW which I believe is up 50% since he was elected. But the DOW is no economic indicator.

    There are a lot of college kids unemployed right now and a lot more to come. African Americans have been hit worse than any group since he became president. Evan an "unnamed" Republican beats him in the polls. But I don't underestimate him. I'll be doing all I can to see that anyone that runs beats him. I honestly, seriously believe that our country will be destroyed if we have 4 more years of his leadership(?) and socialist policies.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:30 PM

    And there is alot of truth to that.

    I don't think the country will be destroyed though.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:15 PM
  • Let's give'm the worst since Carter and then run our real new world order man!

    I just said that in case EOS is unable to post for some reason. He'll thank me later. :) :)!

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:25 PM
  • as you are fully aware , some posters will defend Mr.Obama til their death...

    -- Posted by Rick** on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:57 AM

    That is a fact!! Spaniard being one. I love those references made by some of the libs, sighing, rolling eyes, frowning, smiling.... all done in their superior manner.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:38 PM
  • "So who will your candidate be? You can't put unnamed on the ballot...or can you?"

    We're going to run Clint Eastwook, a.k.a. the Man With No Name. He's a shoe-in.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:39 PM
  • Rick,

    I thought Moe, Larry, and Curly were the current President's economic advisors.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:01 PM
  • I don't think the country will be destroyed though.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:15 PM

    True - not destroyed. Just not recognizable. I'm older now but in the 60's and 70's six of us lived in a 2 bed house, with a rope swing in the back yard and rode in the back of the pickup truck on the way to town. Didn't always have health insurance.

    Today we would be considered desperately poor and would receive more "free" money than my dad made in a year. After the gov't removed the rope swing and fined dad for letting us ride in the back of the truck.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:44 PM
  • God forbid if there was an old tire attached to the rope swing, the EPA may get involved

    -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 3:00 PM
  • Today we would be considered desperately poor and would receive more "free" money than my dad made in a year.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:44 PM

    That is a true statement.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:07 PM
  • So we should listen to the great one, (Obama) like you do? -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:19 PM

    I never mentioned Obama. I've also never called him the great one.

    My point was: Stop trying to blame one side for all your problems.

    You obviously didn't understand that.

    I have a job.

    And kids.

    And no matter who the president is, I'll still be broke.

    Gas will still be too expensive.

    I still won't make enough money.

    The government will still want way too much of my money for taxes.

    And politicians will still be wasting.

    Stop blaming the (other) party and get over it.

    Life sucks, then you die...

    -- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM
  • Stop blaming the (other) party and get over it.

    Life sucks, then you die...

    -- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM

    Now there is a positive and optimistic outlook.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:24 PM
  • I guess that hope and change thing didn't work for him.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:38 PM
  • Almost sounds like a disenchanted Obama voter.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 7:14 PM
  • The eye has a really positive attitude. He will go far.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 7:59 PM
  • This is a great country, but we are at a point of decision IMHO. We can continue to be a great country or we can destroy our children's future.

    If we do not face the economic facts now, bite the bullet, and do what is necessary to shore up the economic foundations of this country, our children and grandchildren will never have the opportunities we have had.

    It is time to forget class envy, political biases, racial bigotry, and ethnicity. We are all in this together. If this country's economy crashes we will all suffer (some to a greater extent than others).

    Many of the arguments I hear on this post come from the perspective of kids arguing over how to split up a pie when all that is necessary is for someone to fire up the oven and bake another pie. The economy is not a zero sum factor. At the moment it is deflated, like a balloon. Entrepreneurs are fearful of investing money because of the specter of higher tax rates, regulations, and healthcare costs hanging over them.

    More deficit spending will not cure the problem (the problem is overspending); higher tax rates on the rich will not eliminate the deficit. We have already been warned that continuing on the road we are on will result in lowered credit ratings and higher interest rates.

    The only answer is to create an atmosphere in which small business can prosper and expand. That will result in higher revenues to the government. Even that will not solve the budget deficit if we do not get government spending under control. We must cut government spending back to at least 2008 levels, and hold there until revenue catches up to and exceeds spending. (I would prefer to go back to 2004 levels of spending. President Bush started the growth in government; President Obama merely accelerated that growth)Politicians from both major parties will fight this tooth and nail. A constitutional amendment may be required to accomplish this.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:23 PM
  • stnmsn8

    The problem is the administrations have used liberal policies for votes. It is just like Obama fighting states that want to stop illegal immigration. He is not worried about the future cost as long as he can gain votes.

    As I said to many on here. You voted for him and you can pay for it. I'm retiring.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:04 PM
  • Stnmsn8, Well said.

    Rick, Wheels, In those days you were probably the talk of the town having a nice truck like that.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:49 PM

Respond to this thread