What s your view on Obama?

[space-ace1]

When Obama was elected president, I was a little upset.
But I tried to be optimistic and look at the bright side of ******** it, there is no bright side.
As he said, he was going to change. WHERE THE ******** IS THE THE CHANGE?????

He hasn't done anything yet!!!

And, by being a fat man myself, I take offense to what Michelle is up to.
Being fat isnt a disease, its a choice of life, and I love my fluffiness.
I'm not sure if it's true, but I heard on the radio that either Barack or Michelle even claimed their children to be considered obese.
(chances of it being true are like 3%, but if they did actually say that, I'm gon be PISSED!)  

[DanskiWolf]

space-ace1

When Obama was elected president, I was a little upset.
But I tried to be optimistic and look at the bright side of ******** it, there is no bright side.
As he said, he was going to change. WHERE THE ******** IS THE THE CHANGE?????

He hasn't done anything yet!!!

Kind of hard to do something if Republicans block it. Whether that's good or bad is another matter for discussion, but the Presidency does not give one dictatorial powers to get things done immediately.  

[Servant Reborn]

I think he should stop being on tv and start doing his job properly. In my short life, I've probably seen him on tv more than any of his predecessors.  

[PIrategirl30]

The only thing Obama is is a good speaker. I dont know if any one else can see it, but he is a socialist. Obama is trying to force healthcare on the people when HE wont even use it. What happened to the PEOPLE rule???honostly, if this country is going to turn around, he needs to STOP spending money and get big coperations back in. If that dosent happen, we should just impeach him.  

[DanskiWolf]

PIrategirl30

The only thing Obama is is a good speaker. I dont know if any one else can see it, but he is a socialist.

No he's not. He's economically to the right of every Western conservative party outside the US.

Quote:

Obama is trying to force healthcare on the people when HE wont even use it. What happened to the PEOPLE rule???

How is he forcing healthcare when the Republicans are blocking it? If he wanted to force it, he would have steered clear of any pretense of bipartisanship.

Quote:

honostly, if this country is going to turn around, he needs to STOP spending money and get big coperations back in. If that dosent happen, we should just impeach him.

Err, the big corporations went away? Obama is in their pockets, which is why the healthcare bill is so piss weak.

And I think the President has to do something illegal to get impeached.  

[Lord Bitememan]

DanskiWolf

Quote:

Obama is trying to force healthcare on the people when HE wont even use it. What happened to the PEOPLE rule???

How is he forcing healthcare when the Republicans are blocking it? If he wanted to force it, he would have steered clear of any pretense of bipartisanship.

The bill has compulsory components that are very poorly structured. I was very glad to see this bill dealt a death blow. In particular, the structure of the universal mandate is just asking for a public disaster. The problem is, by and large, nobody in the GOP opposed the individual mandate. Remember, many congressmen are, themselves, insurance salesmen. Now, if they created a single-payer system that regarded health care as a right, that would be no more forced on anyone than one's right to speak freely is forced on them. But, there's no danger of that happening.  

[Lord Izaran]

I think Obama is a tyrant, and a monster.

The man was elected simply because he is black, and that is NO reason to vote for someone. If any of you know the Republican Party you understand the 3-legged stool concept. Fiscal leg, N. Defense leg, and Social leg. The last one to use as a tie breaker is the Social leg. NEVER vote with Social as a key. People voted for the Obama-sama on that leg.

Obama supports Truthers...remember Van Jones? He surrounds himself with Unions, and people who will do catastrophic damage to our nation. These are men and women who should never be within 10 miles of the Football (Nuke briefcase).

Obama is a raw ended self-absorbed narcissist. This is made clear by his speeches. He won't SHUT UP ABOUT HIMSELF!

Obama is a corrupt political machinist. Observe the kicking out of Republicans when they talked to the Unions. Clearly hiding something, but without proof....no case.

I hate him. Simple, I hate him.  

[DanskiWolf]

Lord Bitememan

The bill has compulsory components that are very poorly structured. I was very glad to see this bill dealt a death blow. In particular, the structure of the universal mandate is just asking for a public disaster. The problem is, by and large, nobody in the GOP opposed the individual mandate. Remember, many congressmen are, themselves, insurance salesmen. Now, if they created a single-payer system that regarded health care as a right, that would be no more forced on anyone than one's right to speak freely is forced on them. But, there's no danger of that happening.

Ah understood. Personally, I think there should be a move to a single-payer system in the US, but anyway.

Quote:

I think Obama is a tyrant, and a monster.

The man was elected simply because he is black

Are Republicans still in denial over how unpopular Bush was? Any mainstream Democrat would've been the front runner.  

[Lord Izaran]

DanskiWolf

Lord Bitememan

The bill has compulsory components that are very poorly structured. I was very glad to see this bill dealt a death blow. In particular, the structure of the universal mandate is just asking for a public disaster. The problem is, by and large, nobody in the GOP opposed the individual mandate. Remember, many congressmen are, themselves, insurance salesmen. Now, if they created a single-payer system that regarded health care as a right, that would be no more forced on anyone than one's right to speak freely is forced on them. But, there's no danger of that happening.

Ah understood. Personally, I think there should be a move to a single-payer system in the US, but anyway.

Quote:

I think Obama is a tyrant, and a monster.

The man was elected simply because he is black

Are Republicans still in denial over how unpopular Bush was? Any mainstream Democrat would've been the front runner.

I didn't say say anything bout Bush, and and I personally think Bush and Obama have a similar problem. They don't know how to put a plug on the money drain.  

[DanskiWolf]

And would McCain/Palin have been any different?  

[Lord Bitememan]

DanskiWolf

Quote:

I think Obama is a tyrant, and a monster.

The man was elected simply because he is black

Are Republicans still in denial over how unpopular Bush was? Any mainstream Democrat would've been the front runner.

That's not necessarily the case. McCain was sunk more than anything else by the economic meltdown in late Sept. of '08. Coming off the heals of the convention McCain was actually consistently leading in the polls, and in the summer beforehand Obama's leads were small to non-existent. Bush was very much president during these periods as well. So, Bush may have been unpopular, but the extent to which that actually conferred onto the GOP nominee is debatable, particularly given that McCain was the anti-Bush of the GOP.

Quote:

And would McCain/Palin have been any different?

To some degree. McCain is a big anti-earmark crusader. So while it would have totaled a single-digit percentage of our actual deficit, it at least would have been a move in the right direction. We need to reduce spending, this much is clear. The problem is you can only cut so much, and where the GOP really shoots itself in the foot these days is it's absolutism on the anti-tax stance. Yes, you do in general want to keep the size of government small and cut the fat. But once that's done, and you're still facing deficits, you HAVE to start considering raising revenue. Our deficit in FY 2010 is projected to be $1.4 trillion. Non-defense discretionary spending after that is only projected to be $553 billion. Even if you eliminated discretionary spending, you're still stuck with eight and a half billion dollars of deficit. After that you have to start scuttling carrier groups to cut the deficit. You can't cut your way out of the deficit. On the other hand, here's something to consider. Our economy in 2000 was fairly robust, and we collected 20% of GDP in revenue. In FY 2010 we've only collected 14% of GDP in revenue, yielding revenue for FY 2010 that is only $175 billion more than than total revenue collected in FY 2000, even though US GDP in FY 2010 is more than 50% larger than it was in FY 2000. If we raised taxes to a level sufficient to collect 20% of GDP in taxes, rather than revenues of $2.1 trillion in FY 2010 we would collect $2.9 trillion. This would reduce the US deficit from $1.4 trillion in FY 2010 to $700 billion. From there, significant cuts in discretionary spending to the tune of $120 billion, coupled with reductions in defense spending of about $80 billion (approximately 10% of the projected military budget in FY 2010, bringing the total expenditure to $760 billion for the year, nearly identical to what it was in FY 2009), and we could cut the deficit down to about $500 billion. That puts it in the ballpark of the deficits we saw in 2004 and 2008.

So, maybe the GOP ought to take a page from Reagan's playbook and swallow some tax increases for the good of the nation (most people don't know, Reagan raised taxes while in office. . . twice). Tax increases coupled with spending cuts could actually do more to reduce the deficit than cuts will ever produce. That is not to say cuts don't have their role, they do. But taxes have a role in this too. And a good place to start are the entitlement taxes. Social Security is projected to pay out $703 billion in FY 2010, but only to take in $635 billion. A 10% increase in this tax would bring the shortfall nearly into balance, and likely go unnoticed on most people's paychecks (my personal Social Security withholding last week was $26.60, the addition $2.66 in taxes wouldn't exactly break the budget). Now, if you coupled this increase with a cut to services of $5 billion, you've balanced the Social Security budget.

But, in the current Tea Party climate, this isn't likely to come out of the GOP. So, while I would love to give the GOP solutions a chance, I know that they won't solve the problem.  

[Lord Izaran]

Lord Bitememan

DanskiWolf

Quote:

I think Obama is a tyrant, and a monster.

The man was elected simply because he is black

Are Republicans still in denial over how unpopular Bush was? Any mainstream Democrat would've been the front runner.

That's not necessarily the case. McCain was sunk more than anything else by the economic meltdown in late Sept. of '08. Coming off the heals of the convention McCain was actually consistently leading in the polls, and in the summer beforehand Obama's leads were small to non-existent. Bush was very much president during these periods as well. So, Bush may have been unpopular, but the extent to which that actually conferred onto the GOP nominee is debatable, particularly given that McCain was the anti-Bush of the GOP.

Quote:

And would McCain/Palin have been any different?

To some degree. McCain is a big anti-earmark crusader. So while it would have totaled a single-digit percentage of our actual deficit, it at least would have been a move in the right direction. We need to reduce spending, this much is clear. The problem is you can only cut so much, and where the GOP really shoots itself in the foot these days is it's absolutism on the anti-tax stance. Yes, you do in general want to keep the size of government small and cut the fat. But once that's done, and you're still facing deficits, you HAVE to start considering raising revenue. Our deficit in FY 2010 is projected to be $1.4 trillion. Non-defense discretionary spending after that is only projected to be $553 billion. Even if you eliminated discretionary spending, you're still stuck with eight and a half billion dollars of deficit. After that you have to start scuttling carrier groups to cut the deficit. You can't cut your way out of the deficit. On the other hand, here's something to consider. Our economy in 2000 was fairly robust, and we collected 20% of GDP in revenue. In FY 2010 we've only collected 14% of GDP in revenue, yielding revenue for FY 2010 that is only $175 billion more than than total revenue collected in FY 2000, even though US GDP in FY 2010 is more than 50% larger than it was in FY 2000. If we raised taxes to a level sufficient to collect 20% of GDP in taxes, rather than revenues of $2.1 trillion in FY 2010 we would collect $2.9 trillion. This would reduce the US deficit from $1.4 trillion in FY 2010 to $700 billion. From there, significant cuts in discretionary spending to the tune of $120 billion, coupled with reductions in defense spending of about $80 billion (approximately 10% of the projected military budget in FY 2010, bringing the total expenditure to $760 billion for the year, nearly identical to what it was in FY 2009), and we could cut the deficit down to about $500 billion. That puts it in the ballpark of the deficits we saw in 2004 and 2008.

So, maybe the GOP ought to take a page from Reagan's playbook and swallow some tax increases for the good of the nation (most people don't know, Reagan raised taxes while in office. . . twice). Tax increases coupled with spending cuts could actually do more to reduce the deficit than cuts will ever produce. That is not to say cuts don't have their role, they do. But taxes have a role in this too. And a good place to start are the entitlement taxes. Social Security is projected to pay out $703 billion in FY 2010, but only to take in $635 billion. A 10% increase in this tax would bring the shortfall nearly into balance, and likely go unnoticed on most people's paychecks (my personal Social Security withholding last week was $26.60, the addition $2.66 in taxes wouldn't exactly break the budget). Now, if you coupled this increase with a cut to services of $5 billion, you've balanced the Social Security budget.

But, in the current Tea Party climate, this isn't likely to come out of the GOP. So, while I would love to give the GOP solutions a chance, I know that they won't solve the problem.

I like you.

And you make a lot of good points. Part of Trickle Down calls for a cut in unnecessary spending to reduce stain on the annual budget, and part of it is to raise taxes at a reasonable rate, without adding new taxes. Combine several taxes, and increase notable revenue making taxes, but not by much. The problem with the Democrats is they keep making new taxes, and exponentially hiking existing taxes, without cutting spending, or closing worthless Federal programs. They instead make more worthless programs, begin digging into State rights, and private rights. Take the HCB for example. Particularly in a massive budget crisis, they keep trying to push something that just cannot work. Instead it will quadruple our national deficit, and no tax hike that wouldn't ensue widespread rebellion could pay for it. Bush spent billions in the DoW budget (I am sorry, I do not prescribe to PC by calling the War Department the 'Defense' Department, or ANY PC period. the DoD IS the DoW), and it created a finger game for the Dems to play. My single greatest concern for the GOP is that they might cave to Obama's invite for 'bi-partisanship'. Aside from the obvious, major GOP supporters are screaming 'NO'. Not so they can avoid getting anything done, but because if Steele falls into the bi-partisan game...when the HCB crushes our Federal government into 100% inescapable debt, they Dems will blame the GOP, and people being the idiots they are, will listen. That is pretty obvious. Obama is looking for a scapegoat when his buddies run with the money they grabbed and leave the GOP with the mess of the failed HC system. Pure Chicago Machinism. The budget here in Cali is almost dead. I mean, California has the 12th largest ecnomy in the world...larger then dozens of entire countries, and look at it!? This is gross! I don't even know how far in debt we are, but the state is nearly bankrupt. I just hope we can give the boot to Boxer, and replace Arnnie...IDIOT...with someone who takes a leaf outta Reagen's book. But I agree with you on the budget, with one question. Are you for or against DoW budget? Cause I do not agree with scuttling a carrier group, I am a Navy Brat, and I grew up around squids, and I know how they operate. Those ships are key to our ability to fight in air and sea. And even land. I think we need to scrap our remaining warhead supply and inject the chemical mixtures to convert the reactive material into power reaction safe states.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Lord Izaran

Are you for or against DoW budget? Cause I do not agree with scuttling a carrier group, I am a Navy Brat, and I grew up around squids, and I know how they operate. Those ships are key to our ability to fight in air and sea. And even land. I think we need to scrap our remaining warhead supply and inject the chemical mixtures to convert the reactive material into power reaction safe states.

No, the bit about scrapping carrier groups was a polemic to demonstrate the limitation on cutting discretionary spending. We have grown the defense budget substantially in the past couple years. What I proposed was merely making another point; at $80 billion less than in FY 2010 we would be funding the military at the same level as we did in FY 2009. The military wasn't any less dominant in 2009 than it was in 2010. Often times the military is a sacred cow when it comes to cuts vs. spending, but if we reduced funding to levels seen only one fiscal year ago we would still maintain capabilities and at less cost. As with all matters budget I obviously think there's pragmatic cuts, and then unreasonable cuts. I'm for pragmatic cuts, not unreasonable ones. So no, I would very much prefer to see those carrier groups remain afloat and well stocked with men, supplies, and weaponry. I just think some areas of the military's budget are worth review. Whether $80 billion in cuts turns out to be feasible or not would depend on honest review.  

[Lord Izaran]

Lord Bitememan

Lord Izaran

Are you for or against DoW budget? Cause I do not agree with scuttling a carrier group, I am a Navy Brat, and I grew up around squids, and I know how they operate. Those ships are key to our ability to fight in air and sea. And even land. I think we need to scrap our remaining warhead supply and inject the chemical mixtures to convert the reactive material into power reaction safe states.

No, the bit about scrapping carrier groups was a polemic to demonstrate the limitation on cutting discretionary spending. We have grown the defense budget substantially in the past couple years. What I proposed was merely making another point; at $80 billion less than in FY 2010 we would be funding the military at the same level as we did in FY 2009. The military wasn't any less dominant in 2009 than it was in 2010. Often times the military is a sacred cow when it comes to cuts vs. spending, but if we reduced funding to levels seen only one fiscal year ago we would still maintain capabilities and at less cost. As with all matters budget I obviously think there's pragmatic cuts, and then unreasonable cuts. I'm for pragmatic cuts, not unreasonable ones. So no, I would very much prefer to see those carrier groups remain afloat and well stocked with men, supplies, and weaponry. I just think some areas of the military's budget are worth review. Whether $80 billion in cuts turns out to be feasible or not would depend on honest review.

*whew* Good, I would hate to think of seeing a non-N.Def person hanging around. I make it a clear point to educate those kinds. but I do agree on that mark. For being such a peace lover, Obama seems to not understand the importance of the War Department. But I think thats a lie. Anyway, i think we could reduce th budget perhaps back to FY 2008 if we have to, whats worse is we need to PRIVATIZE Social Security. That program is a monster that is growing out of control.  

[Vampi_rocks-3006]

I agree, he acts more like a rockstar than a president. First did anyone notice when he first go elected that he wouldnt were the flag pin or ties to meetings! First he didnt were the pin then it was a tie then he didnt have one a jacket, sooner or later he's gonna come to a meeting in a redsocks t-shirt ripped blue jeans and a afro!

A Lonely Leaf

I think he should stop being on tv and start doing his job properly. In my short life, I've probably seen him on tv more than any of his predecessors.