Obama voluntary work force - Page 4

Krontak · 07-14-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

... do we own our country or are we just voluntarily playing king of the hill and happy to let someone knock us off at will? ...

With how low the dollar has remained, we are playing king of the hill. Foreign entities are buying up massive amount of real estate and infrastructure such as ports that are vital to this nation. China and Russia own our debt, Muslim extremists seem to dictate our national security and our every day lives.

Republicans have been asleep at the watch for too long. There needs to be a significant changing of the guard, and this includes party lines.

Illuminator · 07-14-2008, 11:54 PM

National debt isn't just a 2001-2009 problem, believe it or not! Listing a generic problem and saying it requires an urgent changing of the guard isn't exactly genuine.

Krontak · 07-14-2008, 11:57 PM

I don't have time to look up the figures but, it has more than doubled from around 5 trillion to something like 11 trillion in the last 8 years. That's pretty significant, no matter how you spin it.

Krontak · 07-15-2008, 12:01 AM

Here is a site I've used in the past showing correlations of who is control of the house, senate and executive branch to the national debt. I've found the charts invaluable.

United Stated National Debt

Illuminator · 07-15-2008, 12:02 AM

Bush isn't a fiscal conservative like we were hoping, I'm not denying that. But I'll always place more blame on entitlements than military or conflict spending, not least of the reasons being the actual dollar amounts.

Deson · 07-15-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krontak

Here is a site I've used in the past showing correlations of who is control of the house, senate and executive branch to the national debt. I've found the charts invaluable.

United Stated National Debt

Good article for the core numbers even if it is obviously biased.

How exactly does Obama intend to reduce the debt without serious cuts to entitlement spending while adding another major program all while ensuring long term solvency?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

Bush isn't a fiscal conservative like we were hoping, I'm not denying that. But I'll always place more blame on entitlements than military or conflict spending, not least of the reasons being the actual dollar amounts.

Odd, I don't really remember him selling being fiscally conservative. What I clearly remember from 1999-2000 was compassionate conservatism and the host of new spending that came with it. I'll give him the credit that unlike many politicians, he ran as exactly what he was and people who voted for him for other reasons shouldn't have been surprised when he did what he said he was going to do. The only outright lie he ever told was that he was a "uniter, not a divider" but I think that has more to do with Cheney and his mentors than his own instincts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aduros

That's too bad, it was nicely done. Old people are pretty slow when it comes to jokes anyways.

I should have elaborated...

They got the joke, they just didn't like it because it's a fairly easily spun image. Of course as he has done everytime so far, his campaign has denounced the cover instead of praising its brilliance and confronting the bigotry head on. I'm not looking for him to fight every battle but it would go a long way if he fought just one.

Laodaron · 07-15-2008, 01:19 AM

I say again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krontak

Bush/McCain believe in the same tax cuts of the wealthiest 2% and believe trickle down economics is somehow good for the lower to middle income classes that are in pain right now.
So wealthy should be taxed more than the non wealthy? Why exactly?

Bush/McCain are identical on a failed campaign slogan of the removal of Social Security.
SS is helping destroy this nation. Its a travesty.

Bush/McCain are not for providing tax cuts to companies that keep jobs in the U.S. and would rather give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs to Mexico.
LOL WUT? Linkies for this please.

Vizion · 07-15-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laodaron

What's funny is that Bush made it 2 elections in a row. McCain is different than Bush, in fact, if they didn't have the same party name, I'd believe they were on opposite ends.

Obama isn't that popular. He won't win in November. However, he's an appeaser and an asskisser. He's worthless and nearly every lifelong Democrat I know has switched to McCain, and that's a SAD SAD deal.

Wow, Obama isn't popular, thats news to me

Deson · 07-15-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vizion

Wow, Obama isn't popular, thats news to me

He said isn't that popular as in, he won't deliver the landslide popular victory everyone is looking for if at all. Remember, he beat Hillary on the margins yet, when it was all effectively over she was still killing him in primaries against ginormous pressure. Take away the lopsided black vote and an already close race may have gone her way. Heck, had she actually fought in caucus states, Obama very likely wouldn't be the nominee. McCain by his history is fairly well aligned with Democratic goals as well and unlike Obama has more than a few bi-partisan credentials. Those voters he's mentioning may well have switched because McCain is a proven palatable quantity vs. Obama who seems to either rescind an old position or dredge up somehting new every week.

Morara · 07-15-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laodaron

What's funny is that Bush made it 2 elections in a row. McCain is different than Bush, in fact, if they didn't have the same party name, I'd believe they were on opposite ends.

Obama isn't that popular. He won't win in November. However, he's an appeaser and an asskisser. He's worthless and nearly every lifelong Democrat I know has switched to McCain, and that's a SAD SAD deal.

Lifelong *insert party name here* = worthless piece of shit.