Bedford Now Chatter

Community Chatter => General => Topic started by: BUZZARDCS on October 09, 2012, 09:46:13 AM

Title: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 09, 2012, 09:46:13 AM
If you are undecided yet as to how you're going to vote in four weeks or if you're an Obama supporter, please look at the front page of the Oct. 8th Toledo Blade. His Socialist agenda for the next four years is outlined in this abbreviated article and it gives an insite as to what he wants to do to our country. Need more info? Then you've got to see the documentary "2016".  This is a documentary, not a movie, or read the book "Dreams From My Father" written by Obama himself.  He's cocky enough to tell you what he wants to do to the United States.    Look, I voted Democratic in a lot of elections and I vote for who I think has the best policies to get the job done for our country, not the politician or his party. Obama has done nothing in the past four years except run up our national debt that our children and grandchildren will be paying for and creating a welfare state for all the lazy people out there who think they are entitled to my hard-earned tax dollars. He has no foreign policy agenda, wants to reduce our military  strength at a time when we need it more than ever to counter the radical elements who hate us, and didn't provide any protection for embassy  officials who were murdered after crying out for more protection. We need to send Obama back to Chicago November 6th or we all may not recognize our wonderful country in  four years. We do not need a Marksist/Socialist propagandist running our country!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 09, 2012, 09:53:48 AM
It's pretty obvious what he wants to do by his actions and the types of people he has surrounded himself with over his career.  The situation is that almost 50% of the people in this country are now dependent upon the government and will vote for him because they like the free stuff.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Hondo on October 09, 2012, 10:51:19 AM
It's pretty obvious what he wants to do by his actions and the types of people he has surrounded himself with over his career.  The situation is that almost 50% of the people in this country are now dependent upon the government and will vote for him because they like the free stuff.
 

Well said, and I have two brothers (neither of whom work by their choice any longer) that take advantage of every dime offered.  I don't even have to ask them who they are voting for, they tell me.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 09, 2012, 03:50:29 PM
Hondo,
Thanks for your opinion. I'm sorry your brothers feel that way, that we owe them "free" things,....... but those "free" things come out of working peoples pockets, and I resent the h... out of  that!  Apparently they didn't do too well in school either.

Stop The Burning,
This is exactly what people who are knowledgeable about these issues are talking about. These people are leaches on society that Obama wants to support so the votes come in. They are only supported by everyone who work for a living. I don't want anyone's tax dollars going to anyone who can't contribute to help you and make our country greater than it already is.  The rest of you leaches get off your a.. and get a job!     God Bless America
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: hmp on October 09, 2012, 11:17:28 PM
I'll take Obama over the chronic flip flopper any day. I'm sure you were just as concerned about the deficit under GWB.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: hmp on October 09, 2012, 11:28:28 PM
It's pretty obvious what he wants to do by his actions and the types of people he has surrounded himself with over his career.  The situation is that almost 50% of the people in this country are now dependent upon the government and will vote for him because they like the free stuff.

That "50%" includes seniors on SS, vets, and the poor. Stop getting your talking points from Mitt's secretly taped words to a bunch of rich donors, words which he has now conveniently disavowed.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: real american on October 10, 2012, 07:53:02 AM
we don't have much of a choice. wish there was someone else.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: johnnydollar on October 10, 2012, 08:02:43 AM
Freeloaders have been freeloading for decades. They freeload no matter who is President. The President is neither king or dictator. He can only propose legislation, sign legislation or veto legislation. Congress makes the laws, not the President. So even if he is a closet socialist, he needs the cooperation of the House and Senate to pursue his agenda.

And please folks, no matter who you support, do so intelligently. The recent books and movies are there for one reason - to make money for the authors and film makers. Look objectively at all sides and make an informed decision.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 10, 2012, 08:25:17 AM
We aren't talking about seniors and vets on SS.  They aren't part of the feeling entitled grou[p.  They earned what they are getting.  We are talking about almost all of the residents of the big cities that don't work and don't want to work.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: hmp on October 10, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
We aren't talking about seniors and vets on SS.  They aren't part of the feeling entitled grou[p.  They earned what they are getting.  We are talking about almost all of the residents of the big cities that don't work and don't want to work.

"Almost all of the residents of the big cities that don't work and don't want to work"? Ridiculous. Did you just make that up?

Please give me a source for your claim that almost 50% of the people (excluding seniors and vets) are dependent on the government.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Nikki on October 10, 2012, 10:38:37 AM
Buzzard, Obama didn't start the Welfare system, that was started a long time ago.  He also didn't cause this country to be in debt.  Your Georgie Bush did that!  The budget was balanced when Clinton left office and Little Bush decided to go after Suddam Hussein instead of Osama Bin Ladin.  The war in Iraq started our debt problems.  Now before you all scream at me and demand how I can back up my facts----this is my opinion, not facts! 
p.s.
I'm not supporting the Welfare system, that really needs a complete overhaul, just sayin, Obama didn't implement it.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 10, 2012, 10:47:57 AM
Well then how many more people are on welfare now than 4 years ago?
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: PackersFan on October 10, 2012, 12:06:17 PM
Excellent post, JD.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Nikki on October 10, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
STB there's more people on Welfare now because Romney and his other corporate bigwigs sent jobs overseas instead of keeping them here. 
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BedfordGPa on October 11, 2012, 01:21:57 AM
The 47 % includes seniors, that 1. have paid for years already and 2. usually living under 20 grand a year.  Includes all non working children, including my son, a college graduate and now in law school but does not pay a drop because there is no income.  All loans.  Also, our overseas military.  NO federal taxes on all of these but they do usually pay city, state, medicare, property, sales on everything they buy, etc.  You get the idea.  If I would have to guess, I would guess closer to 20 percent that really might be the non-contributators.  But this is true in every day life, work , church, kid's sporting events and etc.  JMHO

But are they part of the 47%?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49360274
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 11, 2012, 09:03:46 AM
Nikki, I never said Obama started the welfare system.  His agenda is to add to it.  And if you read and try to understand exactly what I said, you would know I'm NOT a George Bush fan like you portrayed me nor am I a die-hard Republican.  I said "I vote for the proposals that are best for our country, not the party or the candidate".  Got it now?  As for the rest of the guests to this forum who are still leaning towards Obama,  educate yourselves to the real issues of this election instead of just banging on your keyboards and you just MAY find out where this guy wants to take this country, then you can make a much more informed decision.  He has implimented ZERO policies since he's been in office, exploded our national debt, is creating a entitlement society dependent on the  government and your taxes to support, crippling our armed forces, etc. etc., and the list keeps growing.  As an independent voter,  I'm comfortable with my decision. Have a nice day!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: hmp on October 11, 2012, 09:23:51 AM
I support Obama, and I've done my research. I'm very comfortable with my decision too.

I doubt many people will be swayed by what they read on a message board, unless they haven't been paying attention. The only reason I responded to this thread was because of the inflammatory title and accusations made within it.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 11, 2012, 09:24:58 AM
I think we'll find out this election.  it will be a vote of the freeloaders vs the contributors.  Because there is no other reason to keep Obama other than to enjoy his socialist view of this country.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 11, 2012, 09:57:50 AM
HMMMM,         
                   As per Websters College Dictionary,

                          The word      accusation;       N
                           a charge of wrongdoing; imputation of guilt or blame, the act of accusing or the state of being accused

                         The word      fact;       N
                          something that actually exists, something known to exist or to have happened, a truth
                          known by actual experience or observation, something known to be true.

This information provided to you by a retired UAW skilled tradesman and independent voter                         
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: PackersFan on October 11, 2012, 12:34:39 PM
It'll be a lot easier to pick a candidate once Romney finally decides what he stands for.

He's gone from pro-choice to pro-life at least a half dozen times.  Even after the debate,
his campaign had to correct what he said.

Once Obama's re-elected, the Republicans won't hafta worry anymore about
making him a one-term President.  Then maybe they can work together with us
Democrats on getting things done for our country.

The last 4-years has been nothing but a blatant example of racial discrimination.
The good  ole boys are still at it.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 11, 2012, 02:23:42 PM
PF,  is that ALL you've got?  OMG!  Racial discrimination?  Pro-choice?  I learn from and appreciate folks like you and your opinions. You only work to enhance my points and I thank you for this.     Racial discrimination????   That isn't happening here brother.  If you had read any of my previous posts, you would know that I voted for Obama in '08.     "Hopie/changie",...... remember that?  I hoped he'd change things, and he did suceed on doing that, for the worse!   " Independent voter",.............  one not affiliated with a particular political party or agenda, who thinks for themselves and involves ones self in the studys of the issues at hand.  Try a little bit of that before your next condemnation and you may eventually be proud of yourself for helping to fix this counrty.
Gee, what will we be talking about after the election?   Maybe some day we can sit down and slam a beer or two.  If Obama gets back in for another four years,  I know I'll need a few!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 11, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
It's the economy.   All the other stuff is a smoke screen.  Do you want capitalism or socialism?
Again there is a large portion of citizens in this county  that like the socialism agenda of Obamas and there are those that work and have some money in the market and the bank that would like to keep it.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: johnnydollar on October 11, 2012, 03:51:46 PM
I work hard as does my wife. We save our money, pay our bills and our taxes. We live within our means. We are both voting for Obama. There are many "freeloaders" in the upper income brackets. Brats whose parents earned the money and it passed down to their spoiled kids who do not want to share. Romney wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains. That would effectively wipe out his entire federal tax burden. Do we really need the super wealthy
people who do not work to get even more tax breaks?

I do not like the idea of any freeloaders on either side of the income spectrum. I would hope that compromises could be reached to reduce the freeloading and increase the working.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Nikki on October 11, 2012, 04:04:50 PM
well said, Johnnyd!!!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 11, 2012, 05:13:38 PM
JD, I agree that super wealthy do not deserve more tax breaks just because they are wealthy.  But just because they are wealthy is not a reason to take their money.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Domestic Goddess on October 12, 2012, 07:06:54 AM
We have to pick the president who is going to have compassion for the poor.  I see so many family's on welfare and they barely have any joy.  Obama at least will make sure these family's have a little bit of luxury, everyone is entitled to that.  How can you ask a single mother with kids to leave her kids and go out an work?  I don't think that is very nice.  I know our nation is in deep debt and Obama will have to add to that to help our poor families but we should all be willing to have that happen to make sure they have a good life also.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: devilslakejohn on October 12, 2012, 07:56:15 AM
" How can you ask a single mother with kids to leave her kids and go out an work?  I don't think that is very nice."

DG, are you kidding?  There are a lot of married mothers with kids that would love to stay home with the kids.   But no, they go to work every day to help provide for the family and make ends meet.  And to add insult to the whole picture, they take that working moms tax dollars and give to the free loading mom that is not will to go to work and provide for her family.  To repeat your words, I don't think that is very nice.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Hondo on October 12, 2012, 08:05:53 AM
We have to pick the president who is going to have compassion for the poor.  I see so many family's on welfare and they barely have any joy.  Obama at least will make sure these family's have a little bit of luxury, everyone is entitled to that.  How can you ask a single mother with kids to leave her kids and go out an work?  I don't think that is very nice.  I know our nation is in deep debt and Obama will have to add to that to help our poor families but we should all be willing to have that happen to make sure they have a good life also.

Everyone in this forum feels for the poor and underpreviledged, I'm sure.  I feel for the single mother with kids, but she does need to find work.  She needs to work out arrangements for caring for them while she is working.  Resources are available.  It won't be easy for her.  She should be trying to break here cycle of dependence.  This is how she enjoys the luxury's in life.  This is how she breaks her level of poverty.   The current national debt for every citizen in the US is $51,531.89.  (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/).  We've got to reverse this.  The government providing services for everyone (socialism)  doesn't work.  It does not pull the poor out of poverty.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 12, 2012, 08:30:31 AM
Single moms with little ones and no job is a tough situation.  Somebody has to help but for how long?  There has to be some incentives to work.  I agree it makes no sense to find a job earning $300 a week and spending that much on child care so why work.  Sounds crazy but maybe if you find a job that doesn't pay much the government actually gives you more money than they did before you found a job.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: chartres on October 12, 2012, 10:12:24 AM
I like the concept of a "flip-flopper", I don't like someone who's views and policies are so entrenched in his ego that he will not change them even when good evidence is presented to the contrary. I hold all of my views to be right, but when presented with new facts, I will change them if the facts bear that out. So what is wrong with Romney changing his position on issues in relation to new evidence being brought to the table? I thought that is what "keeping an open mind" is all about. Everything Romney has had an involvement with has turned to gold, I do believe he will set this country on the right path to future prosperity once again, or would you rather have another four years like the last four, more giveaways, higher debt, more executive orders rather than laws passed by Congress. One comment stated that Congress introduces bills and passes them and that the President can do nothing without them, well this President has done more by "Executive Order" than any before him. Now before I get comments back about how many "Executive Orders" other Presidents signed, it's not about how many, it's about the content of those orders. Obama stated that if he can't do it with Congress, he will do it on his own, and that smacks of dictatorship.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Director29 on October 12, 2012, 12:18:58 PM
I agree with the government lending a helping hand for the first child out of wedlock so the single parent family can progress in society, however, I do not agree with upping the ante for the additional offspring. This only encourages further participation in the welfare state.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Buddy on October 12, 2012, 02:47:51 PM
I'm voting for Obama.  Perhaps those other 50% that are not "freeloaders", according to the Republicans, should spend that money they have and invest in this country instead of hiring people in other countries.  Romney says he can't do anything about his trust that has him invested in China, RIGHT!  How about getting out. 

As part of the middle class, I take advantage of all the tax breaks I can.  As long as they want to give it, I'll take it.  On the other hand, a flat tax is the only way to go.  However, no one will ever get voted in on that platform because we all refuse to give up what we have. 

As for the Dems, lets see.  The billboards don't want you to vote for them because of what unemployment is.  That problem started under JR and he had 8 years to fix it.  Obama didn't get it done in 4, so get him out of there. why doesn't he get 8 to try and fix it.  He didn't make the mess.  Dems say that same sex marriage is ok.  How does that really impact anyone.  A friend of mine said "they should get to be just a miserable as straight people."  While funny, how does being gay impact your straight relationship.  Unless you are worried that your partner may be looking at someone of the same sex! Dems kept the auto industry in business.  It wasn't just them, it was ll of the businesses that are supported by the auto workers.  Small manufactures of parts, the mom and pop shops near the factories and where all of the people who work at the support businesses spend their money.  The bankers had their own way out, the should have taken care of themselves.  That other 50%, the votes Romney wants, takes advantage of the tax breaks and loopholes there accounts find so they get just to keep their profits up.  Who wants to pay more to the oil companies for their gas, while they make millions in profit.  That's the 50% that Romney wants.  What has that group done for any of you lately?  He needs the middle class and is willing to say, like they all do, anything to get elected.  He could care less about middle class people because he has no idea what we really are.  We didn't get anything handed to us, we weren't born onto the upper class.  While I agree that some have a sense of entitlement, not everyone needing assistance feels that way.  I agree that some programs should be reviewed and perhaps overhauled.  We send people to congress that are supposed to represent us.  They only look out for themselves and their reelection. 

For the rest of you, you have forgotten your civics lessons from school.  The President can propose, veto and sign legislation, not make it.  Some of you should be a bit more concerned about who goes to the US Congress.  Does anyone have a clue how much the last several years in Afghanistan and Iraq cost?  Bet it added just a few dollars to the national debt.  Just think what it cost for Jr to get revenge for his daddy!   

Well anyway that is just a couple of reasons I'm voting for him.  In the end, you don't have to agree, or even respond.  Just my opinion, we all have one.

Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: randysehl on October 13, 2012, 08:58:45 AM
I have always voted pretty conservatively, but never straight party lines.  To be honest, I'm not sold on Romney or Obama and truly wish the reign and political control of the two-party system would disintegrate as this country looks for positive changes. Neither party has gotten it completely right for over 200 years.  How about a new political party comprised of Honest Concerned Tax Paying People of Faith.  Sorry...I was daydreaming there for a moment.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: KeepItPositive on October 13, 2012, 09:26:37 AM
I don't trust the republicans any longer, who seem to be led by the Koch Brothers.  It appears they only want two types of people in this country, the rich and then the rest of us.  They won't be happy until we all work for minimum wage so that the fat-cats can keep getting fatter. They would love all labor movement and progress made by unions and workers over several decades to die so they can have it all and the rest of us have nothing.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: 2012Bedford on October 13, 2012, 04:49:41 PM
I don't trust the republicans any longer, who seem to be led by the Koch Brothers.  It appears they only want two types of people in this country, the rich and then the rest of us.  They won't be happy until we all work for minimum wage so that the fat-cats can keep getting fatter. They would love all labor movement and progress made by unions and workers over several decades to die so they can have it all and the rest of us have nothing.

Thank You
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Time to talk on October 13, 2012, 05:13:15 PM
So 2012Bedford and KeepItPositive, you are both telling us that the Democrats are not a bunch of rich fat cats too? And that all of them that own businesses have never also taken any jobs out of this country? Only the Republicans do that.  So would you tell me why the federal government awarded a contract to a corporation in FL and all of our VA stuff ended up in India. And once they found out about it, wouldn't it get brought back into the US? Well it has not. Our guys and girls should not be dealing with anyone outside this country regarding their benefits etc.  That we make an 800 call and get sent oversees to discuss almost everything? Well there is a law that says you have a right to request to be transferred to a US representative and they have to. Stick up for your rights. And by the way if enough people do it, it puts more people back here to work. I am not being pro or con to either party. I personally think the road we are traveling on right now is a bad one. There is an intersection coming up and we need to make a good informed decision on the direction we take. GOD BLESS US ALL.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: chartres on October 13, 2012, 09:03:49 PM
Yeah, the Republicans are just a bunch of rich guys.  16 of Forbes top 20 wealthiest Americans are devout Democrats, among them...Bill Gates @ $56 billion, Warren Buffet @ $50 billion, Lawrence Ellison @$39.5 billion,  Jim Walton @ $20 billion, Alice Walton @ $20 billion, S. Robson Walton @ $20 billion (how many Chinese products are sold at Walmart??), Michael Bloomberg @ $18 billion, Larry Page @ $15 billion, Serge Brin @ $15 billion, George Soros @ $14.5 billion, etc, etc.  Tell me again about how the Democrats are for the poor. They use the poor to get votes, then do nothing for them but rattle their sabers and talk. Romney has given scores of millions to charity but is not given any credit for it by the left.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Nikki on October 14, 2012, 10:33:07 AM
If the middle class can't afford to buy at Walmart, Chinese products or not, where does that leave the Waltons? Getting poorer by the minute.  And then the upper class is going to have to do something about it. And, Buddy, you said what I've been trying to all along!  thank you!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 14, 2012, 11:07:00 AM
You can't say the democrats don't do anything for the poor.  They provide them with everything they need to survive without ever working.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: 2012Bedford on October 14, 2012, 11:28:13 AM
My grandmother once said, if you were starving and was offered a badly bruised old rotten apple or an apple that had a worm in it, which would you eat to stay alive. I will let you figure what the old answer was, but the point, both are not perfect and both don't have all the answers. I would preferred if we have no parties, but just the best qualified person.

Several years ago,  I had an employee that was making the wrong decisions in everyday business moves. I gave them ample chances, and many times, accepted their excuses for not achieving what I needed to have done running in a large company. One day, this person authorized a check for 100x the amount it should have been paid, and  before it was caught, the check was paid, and the company we wrote the check to filed bankruptcy. We lost a lot of money.

I fired, as I should have in the first place, and found the right person to fill the position, This person did the right job, beyond the call of duty, no pun, and we made up the lost money by the right decisions then on.

The moral of this story, get the current Administration out, and ANYONE THAT CAN DO THE JOB BETTER, NO MATTER OF RACE, CREED, RELIGION OR POLITICAL SEC. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

As far as these apples, These apples are not perfect, Once an apple starts to rot, there's no going back and there's nothing you can do about it, but the other one, with the worm, though not perfect, you can at least pick the worm out and still eat the apple..
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Time to talk on October 14, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
You can't say the democrats don't do anything for the poor.  They provide them with everything they need to survive without ever working.

Isn't that a nice statement? The Democrats " give " the poor everything they need to survive without working. You know that I see a lot nicer cars down in the neighborhoods where there is subsidized housing, lots of families on welfare, receiving foodstamps, special electric and gas rates etc. etc than I see out here where the working class live. How come? And why don't you watch what comes out of many grocery carts of those on food stamps. They are not working, they can stay home and cook. Why all the prepared foods and frozen pizzas etc And then when I see real meat etc. I see cuts that I am not willing to buy because of the price. You know what, when I was a kid, my dad cooked Sunday dinner. It was fried chicken. You know what, that fried chicken only contained necks and backs. That was what my dad could afford. We did not take handouts from any one. Oh and my dad was a die hard Democrat. What did they do for us? There were 9 of us all together and we worked for everything we had, we ate etc. Was life hard? Yes. Was it bad? No. What pride do you have in yourself if you do nothing to pull yourself up and out? None other than the ones who are so proud cause they know how to beat the system.

oh and as far as the Democrats doing that for them, it is our tax dollars doing that. Remember the government has no money, it is our money. And many of those poor, well it has been generations since many have worked. They know all the ins and outs of the system. And as someone mentioned having one baby and us assist is one thing, having another and another, what the heck, give us a break.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: signal on October 22, 2012, 12:13:25 PM
    Obama's Socialist Agenda?

1. Downsizing the military - the Joint Chiefs of Staff want the
military to be smaller, quicker, and smarter. Large conventional
forces were needed before drones, smart bombs, and better
electronic intelligence. None of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda leaders
killed in the last 9 years were taken out by regular infantry or
strategic bombers. They were eliminated by drones, cruise
missiles or small teams of Special Forces. This is NOT Pres.
Obama's idea, and it is supported by most of the generals and
admirals in our military.

2. Socialist domestic policies? Well, no more so than FDR or
LBJ. FDR's policies were eliminated by the huge upswing in
employment for WWII, and LBJ ran out of money because of
the spending for the Vietnam War.

3. Bad foreign policy? After 9 years of ground combat in Iraq,
where there was no threat to the U.S., Pres. Obama has our
troops out of there. Now we can focus all of our efforts on the
Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Some Republicans want to send Air
and/or ground units into combat in Syria and Libya. Do we
need a repeat of the mess we just had in Iraq? Do we want to
be embroiled in a ground war in yet another Moslem/Arabic
country? More nation building, more fruitless searching for a
pro-western leader to replace the current regime? More money
spent on an open-ended war with thousands of U.S. casualties?
Perhaps we should limit our effort to air strikes. Syria has one
of the largest air forces and also a very large air defense with
state of the art surface to air missiles. This is a recipe for our
pilots to become POW's and MIA's. No thank you. I'm a veteran
and a student of military history. Please note that those who want
to get tough with these countires would not be risking their family
members in these wars - only yours.

4. President Obama is a liberal. He makes no secret of this. Some
Republicans are trying to sound moderate while actually supporting
elimination of health insurance coverage for contraception, and
privatization of Medicare, and virtually eliminating organized labor.
The real deception seems to be on the political right.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: johnnydollar on October 22, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
It always seems to be the people that actually don't do any of the fighting that always want us to go to war.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: grhtex on October 24, 2012, 10:51:57 AM
"Obama's Socialist Agenda" is axiomatic and to not see it clearly means you have very little understanding of what he's trying to do. Once the short term sugar rush is over and everyone who wants or needs something from his giveaway policies has had their fix - then what?  How long do you feed the beast? Forever? Till we are like Greece and people are rioting in the streets for their next sugar rush?

The rest of this is long so you may have hit the yawn button and moved on by now but it's worth a read if not. I found it some time ago. I don't remember where but decided to save it because I have a hard time seeing where the author is wrong and wanted to refer to it later.   When I think about the political spectrum of Democrats and Republicans I mostly consider myself  leaning Republican because of republican ideals. I've always felt people who are all in for the Democrats are basically a kept people with very superficial thought into it and act out on the convictions mostly based on “feelings”. They fall in line with one of the many special interests represented and will always pull the lever for the big D no matter what. Then  the Republicans while saying things I agree with often act out a different way. Note that none of my republican leanings have to do with religion which I consider for me a personal matter.  Anyhow many who think  this way often end up in the Libertarian camp and  I find myself pulled between the latter 2  two camps.   So anyhow all amateur analysis aside here's the deal on national debt and monetary policy that should make you drop the partisan blinders and think a little bit. Is this author  on to something?  Tell us where He's wrong if you disagree.


If the budget was balanced and there was money (from taxes) in reserves, then over a period of time, in the absence of costly wars and
overspending by government, taxes would be lowered. At the very least by 50% since about 50% of all money collected as taxes goes to finance
interest on government debt - note: interest on money that never and does not exist, if you study the Federal Reserve System closely. Interest the government has to "pay back" to the Federal Reserve for issuing, not US dollars but "Federal Reserve" notes. Paper - fiat money that is not backed by anything.

As a result of less government spending and lower taxes - private capital formation would begin to take place. For example, people saving and or having the money to buy things they want (and a lack of government induced inflation, which is an indirect tax on existing wealth) and the need for borrowing from banks (Federal Reserve) would not occur on the same level it has in this country for decades and the ability for the government to release more "money" into the system by lowering interest rates (on non-existent capital/money) would not be as much of an issue.

This is a nation of debt. For every $100 that is in circulation, less than $10 actually exists somewhere and maybe not even that. The goal behind maintaining a debt-based economy for this government is to create a nation of indentured servants that almost have to borrow to maintain a lifestyle that in the absence of high taxes and fiat money (Federal Reserve notes - not dollars) would result in private savings rates increasing and private capital formation existing on a level it did prior to 1913.

Now with that said, why do we exist in a debt based economy. Social engineering through a tax code (remember 50% of all taxes service the existing interest on government debt) and debt based economy is a win/win for the economic elite and bankers. A millionaire might pay more in total taxes on his income, but pays a lower tax rate due to the tax code and myriad of maze-like loopholes that only the top 4% can use AND more importantly. . . . when artificial notes are issued into the economy and real wage rates and the standard of living of the average American does not increase as the result of private savings and increases in real production, borrowing becomes the norm and the cyclical boom and bust cycles (once again government induced) create a pyramid channeling of capital from the lower 80-90% up to the top.

In an economic downturn, the Federal Reserve (which is NOT federal but rather a private banking cartel) wins because the capital needed to pay off loans does not actually exist during the contraction and loans cannot be repaid so the economic elites maintain their order and acquire capital that is seized due to a debtors inability to pay. When the economy is good or in a boom cycle, they win because interest in paid on the money/loans that are out to finance the boom to begin with.

The Federal Reserve loans "money" that it does not have and does not exist that winds up as numbers on government accounting spreadsheets that the government owes with interest and it "pays" it all back with the help of the IRS, which if anyone has studied the tax code lately - those in the bottom 45% pay no federal taxes, those in the top 5% pay incredibly low rates considering their income level and the middle 50% is paid by the middle class. This entire country is financed by the middle class and working people that keep getting up every morning and have because they are convinced that they too can someday become wealthy and live the American dream. That dream is a facade of reality and we are all on the road to serfdom. Not only is the "Federal" Reserve not a federal entity, the fact that so much money is owed to foreign interests at this point makes it an outside invader that will take over this country without a single gun or tank. Real wars against advanced nations like the US are costly and not practical. Economic wars are easier and usually do not result in any blood. The cowards and frauds that designed the Federal Reserve system almost 100 years ago knew that as do their heirs and the current economic elites.

So should the US budget be balanced? With what? If ten people, hypothetically lived on a desert island and combined they had $100,000 in total debt but only $9,980 existed in circulation on that island - the debt would NEVER be paid off, ever. That is the goal of those in power. Enslavement through never-ending debt that can never be paid off, ever. More "money" has been issued on paper and put into circulation through loans on paper than can ever be paid off with actual existing dollars. More money would have to be issued, which would decrease the purchasing power of money that existed and if done on a mass scale would create hyper-inflation. Either way, those at the top win as they always had, but they learned after the bloody, costly wars of the 18, and 1900s that control through economics is far easier and more effective. We are living in it right now.

Wake up people. The threat is real. . . . .
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: grhtex on October 24, 2012, 11:47:31 AM
Hello Obama supporters,
Please read and refute this article.  Author is credited at the end of the article.


Collapse of Our Healthcare Financial System
October 23, 2012


We are on a path to the collapse of our healthcare financial system under Obamacare. Even if Obamacare is vacated then repealed this year, without major open-market reforms, healthcare's financial system will still collapse between 2015 and 2018.
 
Vulnerable to this financial collapse are many private-sector companies who transact the finances of the healthcare industry. This list is dominated by the health insurance companies, then hospitals, physicians and consumers, as well as a myriad of supporting companies that handle billing, cash management, etc.
 
How do I know that collapse in healthcare is coming? The financial collapse of any industry can be foretold by looking at single-industry, multi-year excessive inflation and related government legislative action. One example would be the housing "bubble" that built up due to lax mortgage regulation, which led to lax credit policies, which led to the 2008 collapse of the housing financial industry, which nearly bought down the global financial system overnight.
 
Another bubble has been forming for decades in the healthcare financial industry. Excluding higher education, healthcare's annual inflation has been rising much faster than any other sector of our economy. Since the 1990's, healthcare costs have been increasing at 2-4% per year more than average inflation. In any one year, this doesn't sound like a lot, but added up over the last few decades, we are fast approaching a situation where these growing costs can't be paid for by the rest of society. The burden is simply too great. Healthcare costs continue to grow at an alarming rate and are now consuming 17% of our entire economy and will reach 20% in just a few years. I believe it is at this point the healthcare house-of-cards will collapse and will likely bring down the rest of our economy with it.
 
Some may argue that providing financial support to Medicare recipients to help them purchase private sector insurance will solve this looming crisis. Yes, this will bring some economic efficiency to the overall healthcare industry, but it will not solve the underlying cause of excessive inflation in healthcare. And until that cause is addressed, healthcare's financial system will collapse in less than 6 years.
 
Some may argue that Obamacare has fixed healthcare and averted a collapse. Not true. Obamacare has actually shortened the time to collapse by 1 to 2 years because it never addressed the cause of excessive inflation and it adds financial burdens to the healthcare industry, which will impact all other industries. Obamacare increases taxes to healthcare companies and those costs will be passed on to the employer and then to the employee/consumer. This law also imposes thousands of pages of new regulations on nearly every business in healthcare, which will result in higher overhead costs needed for them to understand and comply with these new regulations. In fact, Obamacare has the potential to generate more pages of regulation than all other federal regulations combined. This law will certainly deal a fatal blow to the healthcare financial industry.
 
How is the private sector reacting to this crisis? Yesterday, Adecco, a global staffing company was quoted in a Reuters article titled, "Healthcare Costs Top U.S. Executives' Concerns: Adecco Survey." They polled senior executives and found that, "55 percent named healthcare benefits as their biggest current business challenge." It is this challenge that will drive more companies to move the cost-risk of health insurance to their employees. And as I wrote in my previous article, "A Seismic Shift in Healthcare Starts Today," major corporations have just started to limit healthcare cost-risk by giving their employees the cash to buy their own health insurance. In order to shed the risk of rising healthcare premiums, within 2 years, most companies in the U.S. will adopt a similar strategy forcing the health insurance buying decision to switch from employers to employees (consumers) who can then shop for lower-cost health insurance policies and drive down premiums.
 
Since health insurance companies cannot control medical cost inflation (as history has shown), this reduction in premiums forced by consumers will lead to an erosion of the income of private health insurance companies. They will be able to financially survive for a short time due to their strong cash positions, reorganizations and layoffs, but eventually an unrecoverable financial cascade and an eventual collapse of the healthcare financial system will result. In response, hospitals and doctors will see their incoming revenue sources move from insurance companies to consumer cash which will likely result in a growth of personal bankruptcies due to medical cost liabilities.
The major auditing companies who audit the books of all health insurance companies need to provide a sobering assessment of the risk of collapse and tell these companies and their shareholders what they could be facing.
 
Healthcare's financial collapse will devastate the health insurance industry to be sure, but the effect on the physician community will have decades-long consequences. The long-term effects on an economic system when the fabric of that system is reduced or removed cannot be overstated. Core to the fabric of our medical system is, of course, our doctors. The collapse of our healthcare financial system will cause thousands of doctors to leave their profession. Doctors are not easily replaced. They each have 6-10 years of post-college education needed for them just to begin practicing medicine along with tens-of-thousands of hours of experience treating all of us.
 
Physicians over the age of 50 are the most likely to leave their practices, resulting in the remaining physicians to become overworked. This will drive down the quality of care, drive up wait times for vital testing and surgical procedures and will create a spike in the demand for pain medications for those who have to wait months for treatment.
 
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has been granted a tremendous amount of authority in Obamacare (over 1,500 edicts) and many parts of Obamacare were vaguely written, allowing for further governmental takeover of healthcare. With declining reimbursement rates and increasing regulations, more and more doctors will be forced out of private practice and will seek employment through Obamacare-regulated Accountable Care Organizations. This will be the first major move to a government-run healthcare system where physician pay will continue to drop and wait times for exams and treatment will extend weeks to months, just as they have done in Canada, England and Russia.
 
It is my belief that there is only one way to avoid the collapse of our healthcare financial system. As I wrote in my book, "Saving Private Healthcare," we as a country must adopt major open-market healthcare reforms that will move all of healthcare to the open-market. The open-market has worked well for all other sectors of our economy for many decades. It will work well for healthcare if the reforms are written and implemented properly.
 
We must:
•   Repeal all of Obamacare
•   Remove all medical/financial contracts between physicians/hospitals, health
insurance carriers and the government
•   Remove all public and private-sector medical price controls
•   Stop all managed-care activities
•   Stop suing doctors personally for medical malpractice
•   Establish structures and remove obstacles that enable robust medical and
insurance competition based on direct consumer purchase, open pricing and
quality
•   Get our government out of the business of medicine
 
If we make these changes, as I have outlined in my book, then by 2022, we will bring down healthcare costs by $2 trillion per year, while increasing the quality of medical care, and enabling physicians to take home more of their hard-earned income.
Only bold and decisive action will save the day, not piecemeal, half-baked and overly complicated changes. True and sweeping reform is not easy but we must do it if we are to avoid certain collapse of our healthcare financial system.
 
Michael Kalthoff is the author of the book, "Saving Private Healthcare," available now on Amazon.com. This is the culmination of a 5-year effort that takes a critical look at our current healthcare system and describes a robust, forward-thinking plan and approach to actually fixing our healthcare system for generations to come.


Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: johnnydollar on October 25, 2012, 01:01:00 PM
Everybody has an opinion. Go vote.

By the way, the budget was balanced until George Bush was elected in 2000 and cut taxes while at the same time increasing spending dramatically. So please do not blame the democrats for budgets that are not balanced. Both sides spend more than we take in. However, Romney believes cutting taxes can lead to a balanced budget. Please show me when was the last time that happened?
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Drofdeb on October 26, 2012, 09:04:45 PM
grhtex,
You are the aspirin for the headache that I acquired while reading this thread.  Some of the posters need to do further research as to the opinions that they posted.  Several times in recent history a cut in Federal taxes have bolstered the economy and fueled a massive expansion expansion.  I love the argument for a bottom up approach.  If I understand the concept correctly, the mere fact that we suddenly create 5,000,000 educated and motivated workers will somehow stimulate an employer to invest his assets in order to create a product and jobs for them. This is contrary to the economic pressures of a world economy.  For the disbelievers I would suggest that you research the following; General motors is presently in negotiations for moving more of their production to China, Fiat was scolded this week by the White House for openly discussing moving the manufacturing of Jeeps to Italy before the election.   Food for thought: What car driven on American roads contains the largest % of American made parts?  The answer is a KIA!
We are about to revisit an economy that was the standard under Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover and we keep drinking the "Cool Aid".  I love the Health care Bill and its impact on most working contributors.  When will they be told that their employer's contribution to their families health care cost will suddenly appear on their pay stubs and they will have been taxed for that benefit as compensation?  When will they be told that if they change employers after 2013 that they will be denied the right to join the new employers health care program and must join the Federal plan or pay a harsh penalty?  When will they be told that any employer can shed their health care costs by simply paying a $750.00 fine per employ to the government?
I leave you with a plagiarized comment of our first Republican president. "Eleven score and 16 years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing weather that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: signal on October 27, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
    Having said that Pres. Obama is no more socialist than FDR
or LBJ, I thought I might add that although I voted for him four
years ago, this time I am voting for Romney. Don't get me
wrong, on most domestic issues I am liberal. However, I really
think that we could end up like Greece - needing a bailout, if
we do not curb Federal deficit spending.
    If Pres. Obama's policies had turned things around, with
6% unemployment or less, then most people would say it was
expensive, but worth it. Right now it's just expensive.
    Mitt Romney could be too conservative, but I'm taking a
chance that there will be a healthier business climate (and
therefore more jobs) with his policies than what we have now.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: BUZZARDCS on October 27, 2012, 06:41:50 PM
I simply can not understand how many "Guppies" are STILL out there feeding off of this Democratic propaganda.  I've been sitting back looking at all these posts trying to understand what you Guppies can possibly see that Obama has done for any of us.  It's been four years folks, HELLO!!!! But I DO see the majority of the posts are becoming aware and  informed in the past few months.  Number one above all things, Obama's a liar! He let our Ambassador DIE, he let our Marines DIE while begging for help, and then watched it all happen via a drone in  real time! He's not gonna tell you that now, but Hillarie and Obama will be held accountable for our people's deaths. And what's President Crybaby and his village idiot Biden been doing? Blaming this mess on everyone but themselves and going on talk shows, late night comedies, etc. etc. smoozing for the votes from people who don't know what they'd be voting for anyway, except to say that he's "one of us", and we're entitled to our "free stuff", so we'll vote for him. What??????   Obama, you've had your four freaken years to turn this around and have done NOTHING  except blame everyone else.  DUH?   And if  YOU still buy  into ANY of his crap over the last four years,  U  R  A  Guppie!  But be carefull Guppies, big fish eat you!  Swim fast little Guppies, swim fast!
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Buddy on October 30, 2012, 08:02:54 AM
BUZZARDS, Ok let's say you are correct.  How long did the Bush family get to screw it all up.  They had a chance to continue on with a balanced budget, but oh no we wouldn't want that.  Yet since the republicans control congress and refuse to vote for what Obama believes will work, why is it Obama's fault?  He only had four years to try and straighten out the mess left by that family, REALLY!

So let's say that Romney gets voted in, does he only get four years?  What if the democrats control congress if Romney wins?  He may not get his way either and then all of you who vote for him would say it was the fault of the congress, not Romney.

No one here has changed my mind, I'm still voting for Obama.  If Romney wins, so be it the people, or possibly the electoral college, have spoken.   
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 30, 2012, 08:36:27 AM
And people want to forget Obama had democrat majority in both the house and senate the first two years and could have rammed through anything they wanted.  But they didn't fix anything.  They just blamed republicans for saying NO.  Well their NO didn't mean anything because they were in the minority.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: Nikki on October 30, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
Amen Buddy!  and Buzzard, here's a guppie with a memory!  George W Bush got us into this mess!  4 years isn't enough time to fix what Bushie did.  WAKE UP! Obama isn't perfect but Romney is pretty scary and all he cares about is tax cuts for the wealthy. 
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: StopTheBurning on October 30, 2012, 10:45:25 AM
Well I guess i'll take tax cuts for the wealth over free everything for  50% of American that is feeling entitled under obama.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: hmp on October 30, 2012, 10:49:32 AM
I'm still voting for Obama. Romney has no convictions. He will do or say anything to get elected. No one knows where he really stands.
Title: Re: Obama's Socialist Agenda
Post by: chartres on October 30, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
HMP, you can't say "no one know where he stands", I know exactly where Romney stands and that why he has my vote. You have to stop listening to the Democrat lies, get on Google and do your own research. As for how you can increase spending while cutting taxes without raising the deficit, it's easy, a vigorous economy. Our personal income taxes account for a minute amount of Federal revenues, get the economy churning again and the tariffs, corporate taxes, excise taxes will roll in, these are the taxes that really account for the bulk of our revenue. A vigorous economy will never happen under Obama's regulation heavy administration. His intention is to kill incentive and get everyone under the governments thumb financially. He who controls the purse strings, control the person.