# Woman tells Obama she's exhausted



## ZECH (Sep 20, 2010)

YouTube Video


----------



## lnvanry (Sep 20, 2010)

his smirk was a little out of line IMHO


----------



## SYN (Sep 20, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> his smirk was a little out of line IMHO



I think he was just smiling at her statement of "defending him" I don't think he was being arrogant.  Would be nice if his answer wasn't chopped off.


----------



## vortrit (Sep 20, 2010)

How many vacations has Obama taken now anyway? He's worthless in my opinion. I agree with this lady.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 20, 2010)




----------



## LAM (Sep 20, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> his smirk was a little out of line IMHO



many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery.  you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics.  people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.


----------



## vortrit (Sep 20, 2010)

The Situation said:


>


----------



## lnvanry (Sep 20, 2010)

LAM said:


> *many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recover*y.  you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics.  people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.



couldn't agree more


----------



## MDR (Sep 20, 2010)

vortrit said:


> How many vacations has Obama taken now anyway? He's worthless in my opinion. I agree with this lady.



They all take a lot of vacations.  Nothing new here.


----------



## ZECH (Sep 21, 2010)

LAM said:


> people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.



Agree


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 22, 2010)

LAM said:


> many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery.  you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics.  people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.



Sorry.. but if people have unrealistic expectations, then that's Obama's fault. He campaigned on fixing the economy.. he campaigned on changing Washington, he campaigned on ending the stalemate between the parties, he campaigned on working with the other side.  All failures.

His stimulus/slush fund/union-payback was promised to keep unemployment under 8%. Fail.

His healthcare overhaul was "paid for" and will save us money... Fail... and 61% in the US want it repealed.

His policies have been immense failures, which is further shown by the announcement this week of the third (out of four) economic team member's resignation & the dramatic losses the Democrats will likely take in the November elections.

Sugar coat it if you want, claim "he needs more time"... but that's not why he won election.  Obama failed to deliver on his promises, simple as that.


----------



## LAM (Sep 22, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> Sorry.. but if people have unrealistic expectations, then that's Obama's fault. He campaigned on fixing the economy.. he campaigned on changing Washington, he campaigned on ending the stalemate between the parties, he campaigned on working with the other side.  All failures.
> 
> His stimulus/slush fund/union-payback was promised to keep unemployment under 8%. Fail.
> 
> ...



you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News.  it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 22, 2010)

LAM said:


> you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News.  it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...



I watch Fox News daily, but rarely O'Reilly.

Whether I did or not though, I don't see how pointing out where I may have gotten my information has any bearing on the points I mentioned.  But I get it... you're trying to make Fox News the issue instead of refuting the "info".


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 22, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> I watch Fox News daily, but rarely O'Reilly.
> 
> Whether I did or not though, I don't see how pointing out where I may have gotten my information has any bearing on the points I mentioned.  But I get it... you're trying to make Fox News the issue instead of refuting the "info".



Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts?  Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 22, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts?  Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.



If you want to challenge his statements then the onus is on you to come up with other numbers refuting that. His posts have been spot on in this thread. the lady was a CFO working her ass off and doesn't feel like she got her votes worth when she wanted "change"


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 22, 2010)

LAM said:


> you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News.  it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...



care to counter his talking points or just want to throw up a smoke screen defense?


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 22, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> If you want to challenge his statements then the onus is on you to come up with other numbers refuting that. His posts have been spot on in this thread. the lady was a CFO working her ass off and doesn't feel like she got her votes worth when she wanted "change"



I'm not disputing the video, I'm disputing his facts sourced from Fox news.

If I quote my facts from theonion.com or Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham", is it my responsibility to prove that my sources aren't bullshit or is it yours?

Considering Fox's credibility, those two sources I named might actually provide better information.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 22, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Do you have outside sources that corroborate those facts?  Forgive me if I don't believe anything that comes out of Fox.



You're just glomming onto the anti-Fox News sentiment.  While I accept & understand your distrust in Fox, the points I brought up are well known.

The unemployment rate is 9.6.

61% favoring health care repeal, which is from Rasmussen:

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports???

And do a search for "healthcare premiums going up"


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 22, 2010)

Obama Loses U.S. Investor in Global Poll With Approval Abroad - Bloomberg

_*More than three-quarters of U.S. investors view Obama as anti-business and are pessimistic about his policies*, while a majority outside the U.S. holds a more favorable view, a Bloomberg survey shows._


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 22, 2010)

LAM said:


> many people had very unrealistic expectations of what he would accomplish in terms of economic recovery.  you would think for a CEO she would have a better grasp of economics.  people don't realize how close we are to a depression at least for the bottom 50% of wage earners with families.



What could she possibly be CEO of and still be a member of the middle class?


----------



## OTG85 (Sep 22, 2010)

mid term elections in november hopeing obama falls on his nappy face


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 22, 2010)

Both candidates campaigned on fixing the economy and we would be no further along if McCain won.  We are looking at no less than a decade to fix this and, unfortunately, unless there is a complete change in how we do business, double it.  We are trained to accumulate debt and buy things we can't afford, that is the American Dream.  Why are we surprised a system like this went tits up?


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 22, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> Both candidates campaigned on fixing the economy and we would be no further along if McCain won.



It really doesn't matter.  I won't get into the semantics of who would have done what differently, but the point here is that Obama's the President & people elected him to do the job.  He didn't.

He dug his own grave.  He was vaulted to power out of obscurity on an impossible feat of meeting expectations that were ridiculous to begin with.  He voluntarily rode that wave with his "Hope" message & silly rainbow logo & was grossly arrogant in the process.  He set the standard of the "stimulus" that failed.  He set the standard of change in Washington & ending it's gridlock that was never realized.  From the start he never reached across the aisle.. responding to republican objections with "We won".  

Republicans are being branded as the "party of no", but it's bullshit.. the two sides have drastically different viewpoints on how to deal with the recession, and the Democrats with their majorities weren't compelled to work together, blocking them out of talks behind the closed doors Obama swore would end that involved paying off states & unions.

I know both sides play this power game, but it doesn't matter: The democrats are in control & when things go bad the party in control suffers.

George Bush SR's "READ MY LIPS" bit him in the ass.  Same thing's happening now to Obama. He didn't deliver on campaign promises.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 22, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> What could she possibly be CEO of and still be a member of the middle class?



CFO, and there are plenty of mid-size companies that would pay their CFO's middle income status


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 22, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> The democrats are in control & when things go bad the party in control suffers.



And they've been in charge long before Obama, they were just waiting on pins and needles for him to sign all their ridiculous ideas into law. It was so easy to blame Bush when he was only 1/3 of the gov't


----------



## MyK (Sep 22, 2010)

you could atleast post his reply 







YouTube Video


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 22, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> It really doesn't matter.  I won't get into the semantics of who would have done what differently, but the point here is that Obama's the President & people elected him to do the job.  He didn't.
> 
> He dug his own grave.  He was vaulted to power out of obscurity on an impossible feat of meeting expectations that were ridiculous to begin with.  He voluntarily rode that wave with his "Hope" message & silly rainbow logo & was grossly arrogant in the process.  He set the standard of the "stimulus" that failed.  He set the standard of change in Washington & ending it's gridlock that was never realized.  From the start he never reached across the aisle.. responding to republican objections with "We won".
> 
> ...



Oh, I 100% agree, i wasn't directing that at you or stating it politically.  I just think people in general are completely out of touch with reality.  At the end of the day, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not at fault, we all are.  

I like to think that I am a financial conservative/social liberal, but I am beginning to lean away from the GOP in the financial system despite believing the bullshit for years.  This economy is built on middle class spending.  The exuberantly rich are actually a drag on our economy for the simple fact that they use a large portion of their money to make more money.  This does nothing for our economy, the people making $50,000 a year who spend $45,000 of it are more of a benefit to our economy than the people who make $250,000 that spends $90,000 because that $250k person is going to eventually take more out of the pot by investing and making more of the total money.  This allows companies to do more, but eventually the system fails because about 98x more people are spending $45k a year than those spending $90k and when those people who spend their money lose their job the economy tanks.  I've said it before, are you going to sell more Ipods to 99% of the population or 1%?  Keep in mind that the top 1% have 42.7% of the wealth.  What do you think is going to happen when 10% of the people in the bottom 99% have no job?  Do you really think that is a formula for growth of a financial system?  If the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts were actually spending that tax savings on products and services at a similar rate as the 99% would we be in this mess?  If they were, based on trickle-down theory, small businesses wouldn't be laying people off left and right right now.  Based on trickle-down theory we should be in a boom right now.  Sure, the housing bubble was a major problem, but this was happening whether we liked it or not, the housing bubble just made it happen sooner by forcing a large chunk of financially irresponsible people in to bankruptcy and, therefore, lowering their spending on shit they don't need.  Does anyone know what would happen to our economy if that 99% spent money on only what they needed for 6 months?  It would be fiscal armageddon.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 22, 2010)

MyK 3.0 said:


> you could atleast post his reply
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just more side-step babble


----------



## maniclion (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm just remembering Lisa Lampanelli's HBO special when she was talking about Obama...

"That's all we need is another black man asking us for change..."


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 22, 2010)

YouTube Video


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 22, 2010)

Glad she had the guts to say that.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 22, 2010)

She'll probably still vote for him again.


----------



## LAM (Sep 22, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> What could she possibly be CEO of and still be a member of the middle class?



chief executive office is simply a title you can be CEO or President of a small company or your own LLC, etc. and still make a low wage or salary.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 22, 2010)

Meet the Depressed - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/21/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 22, 2010)

LAM said:


> you may want to get your "info" from other sources besides Faux News.  it sounds like you have paraphrased O'Reily's talking points...




That's a bullshit statement.  He posted up hard numbers and instead of refuting his post with actual debate or a source of your own, you simply attack his unnamed source.  

Shifting the attention from the issue at hand to that of media bias is becoming a standby of this administration and its (ever dwindling) supporters.


----------



## 200+ (Sep 22, 2010)

vortrit said:


> How many vacations has Obama taken now anyway? He's worthless in my opinion. I agree with this lady.


----------



## vortrit (Sep 22, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> Meet the Depressed - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/21/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central



The daily show rules.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 23, 2010)

Thanks for the OP.

If I was exhausted, why in the hell would I tell the President of the United States?

What's he supposed to be about it?

Amazing (and ridiculous) how peoples personal circumstances are now worth telling the President.

After all, "It's the President's fault" or Congress' fault for our little or big, aches and pains.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 23, 2010)

LAM said:


> chief executive office is simply a title you can be CEO or President of a small company or your own LLC, etc. and still make a low wage or salary.


 it looks like the dems ops got to her..she backing off the statement now


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Thanks for the OP.
> 
> If I was exhausted, why in the hell would I tell the President of the United States?
> 
> ...



got to disagree with you here. she feels exhausted because she feels his policies are preventing her from living the american dream.  she said why she voted for him, and then explained why she felt let down at his presidency. she was intelligent, articulate, and her question is one shared by a large group of the american people. that was a top tier, hard hitting question that many people want to know the answer to, and like always president obama sidestepped the real question and answered with a whole lot of verbal


----------



## vortrit (Sep 23, 2010)

The Situation said:


> it looks like the dems ops got to her..she backing off the statement now



Big surprise.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> got to disagree with you here. she feels exhausted because she feels his policies are preventing her from living the american dream.  she said why she voted for him, and then explained why she felt let down at his presidency. she was intelligent, articulate, and her question is one shared by a large group of the american people. that was a top tier, hard hitting question that many people want to know the answer to, and like always president obama sidestepped the real question and answered with a whole lot of verbal



The POTUS - President - has little if nothing to do with the status of the so-called middle class.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> The POTUS - President - has little if nothing to do with the status of the so-called middle class.


----------



## Rssmur (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm glad she said it, but people shouldn't be afraid to say these things after all.

What I dislike, and I don't trust this guy what so ever by the way, is that he is yet another figure that has to talk a load of rubbish and will lead himself on in his reply, to give such a simplified answer. How come none of these presidents have no heart or no emotion in what they say? I will tel you why, because they don't care and they don't mean anything they say.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2010)

Rssmur said:


> I'm glad she said it, but people shouldn't be afraid to say these things after all.
> 
> What I dislike, and I don't trust this guy what so ever by the way, is that he is yet another figure that has to talk a load of rubbish and will lead himself on in his reply, to give such a simplified answer. How come none of these presidents have no heart or no emotion in what they say? I will tel you why, because they don't care and they don't mean anything they say.



you seem to have pretty strong emotions for a guy who doesn't live in the US. whats up?


----------



## Rssmur (Sep 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you seem to have pretty strong emotions for a guy who doesn't live in the US. whats up?



Very true, I was going to mention that I didn't live in the US actually. I just thought I'd expree my feelings as I do follow some of this stuff, I don't like politics man, but it's a part of life. Besides the government in the UK does whatever the US tells them too so I guess we are one.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 23, 2010)

> I'm glad she said it, but people shouldn't be afraid to say these things after all.



That's the beauty of being American....freedom of speech.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> That's the beauty of being American....freedom of speech.



exactly. and that was good example of the proper use of it. the lady was intelligent and articulate about what her important question was. i loved it


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 23, 2010)

That Cunt Joy Behar says that the lady was planted by Republicans


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> That Cunt Joy Behar says that the lady was planted by Republicans


I don't believe she was, but even if she was it doens't change anything for me. president obama was asked a pertinent question that i wanted to see answered. he side stepped it. i want a president to answer the tough questions and make the tough decisions. i don't feel like president obama makes the grade


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 23, 2010)

Unfortunately he'll still proabably stay in office next election too


----------



## LAM (Sep 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I don't believe she was, but even if she was it doens't change anything for me. president obama was asked a pertinent question that i wanted to see answered. he side stepped it.



what's he supposed to tell her the "real" truth because that would be that a lot of Americans are on their way to poverty and there is no way to prevent it.  wages have not been keeping up with inflation, housing, energy costs, etc. for decades and this is not going to change. publicly traded companies like to see dividends on stock increase annually, it's all about the bottom line.  there is no way to "force" companies to pay their employees more and there simply aren't enough high paying jobs for the spending habits of many americans.  the costs of housing alone has increased over 1000% in the past 3 decades while wages have basically stayed the same.  doesn't matter who is POTUS these numbers aren't going to change.  if anything it will get worst with the next Republican POTUS and or Senate that favors deregulation as that leads to more M&A's which always lead to lay offs like we saw in the 80's.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Sep 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> i want a president to answer the tough questions and make the tough decisions. i don't feel like president obama makes the grade


And name me one that did?  They all made tough decisions.... right and wrong.  If you say Ronald Reagan, I will upchuck.


----------



## ZECH (Sep 23, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> That Cunt Joy Behar says that the lady was planted by Republicans



No, they were vetted by the democratic party. Another guy really spoke out against Obama also, which makes it even more amazing that vetted people spoke out and proves that people are upset with him.


----------



## ZECH (Sep 23, 2010)

Reagan had balls!


----------



## vortrit (Sep 23, 2010)

JerseyDevil said:


> And name me one that did?  They all made tough decisions.... right and wrong.  If you say Ronald Reagan, I will upchuck.



 Sy Sperling, President of the Hair Club for men.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm fucking exhausted, me and my manager have done millions worth of sales this year just the 2 of us because the PV industry is booming but prices are so low our margins are shit so we don't get raises and can't afford to hire help so we get busier and busier just to make the same amount of money...not that it's hard to just sell stuff but we have to play shell games with our stock because the manufacturers can't produce the shit fast enough because even though they knew a boom was coming they failed to plan for it because american business only plans quarter by quarter...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 24, 2010)

bio-chem said:


>



bio-chem,

Please explain your reponse to my post.

The US gov has promoted and implemented the SAME economic policies for the last 6 decades.

We are now reaping the result of it.

What can the President do?

Nothing.  

The POTUS is controlled largely by an oligarchy: Large corporations, oil, AIPAC, Big Pharma, "free trade" and the Military Industrial Complex.

The POTUS has power, yes.  But over the economy to such degree?  No.

Laws, rules, regulations, lobbyists groups special interests, and also, _Entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security._


----------



## readyformore (Sep 24, 2010)

Obama is about as worthless as a president than schwarzenegger being californias governor


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 24, 2010)

The president _signs_ them into law. It's the additional $6+ Trillion in debt that he's approved

He could do a lot.


----------



## LAM (Sep 24, 2010)

dg806 said:


> Reagan had balls!



Reagan added fuel to the fire with his "supply side" economics and the deficit tripled under his watch. In reality the deficit doesn't really matter as all industrialized countries have them and there is a direct relationship to the defecit and global economic power plus the federal government doesn't retire so policy can be made in the future to help reduce it.  But back to Reagan and thanks the many corporate tax loopholes which reduced their tax burdens putting more on the middle class and forces the Fed to print more money  Reagans  budget chief David Stockman wrote a tell all book called "The Triumph of Politics" where he stated that he knew nothing of economics and that supply side economics was nothing but a "trojan horse" to reduce the tax rate for the rich.  There is a reason that supply side economics is not taught in any university or followed by any other country because it's complete and utter bull shit.

Thanks to deregulation in the 80's under Reagan, record numbers of mergers and acquisitions helped to consolidate power and money into the hands of the few and helped to pave the road to where we are today economically in this country.


----------



## LAM (Sep 24, 2010)

however the democrats have their fare share of the blame for the economic policies and crisis of today.  the Dems controlled both the House and Senate when legislation was passed in the mid 70's which basically handed over the US government to the corporate special interest system.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 24, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> bio-chem,
> 
> Please explain your reponse to my post.
> 
> ...



you feel the president has very little to do with the middle class of the people in the united states? I find this statement not only ridiculous, but utterly offensive. the strength of america in my opinion is it's middle class. the middle class has been getting pinched for a long time now, but the idea that the president has little to do with this is a farce. president obama and his addition to the debt, or his new healthcare program as examples? these things have little effect upon the middle class? even saying that shows either severe stupidity (i don't think this is the case) or a feeling of intellectual elitism that in actuality only exists in your mind.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 24, 2010)

dg806 said:


> Reagan had balls!



I would much rather he had brains. The policies of Regan began the process which has led to the largest division of wealth between the middle class and the rich since the the 20s. He was popular because he was an actor pretending to be a cowboy, and dumb fuck Americans ate it up.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 24, 2010)

He wasn't Arnold. He ended up being one of the greatest presidents ever. There hasn't been anyone close since.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 24, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> There hasn't been anyone close since.



And how are you basing that? Based on most of your other observations lately, I assume you pulled that out of your ass. 

Bill Clinton had a higher end of term approval rating than Reagen, and that was even after the dick sucking scandal. Do you bother to look up anything you say? Is everything just Fuck Obama fuck Mexicans! Woohoo!


----------



## maniclion (Sep 24, 2010)

KelJu said:


> And how are you basing that? Based on most of your other observations lately, I assume you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> Bill Clinton had a higher end of term approval rating than Reagen, and that was even after the dick sucking scandal. Do you bother to look up anything you say? Is everything just Fuck Obama fuck Mexicans! Woohoo!


He is a shoot from the hip republican through and through, don't even argue with him....


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 24, 2010)

KelJu said:


> And how are you basing that? Based on most of your other observations lately, I assume you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> Bill Clinton had a higher end of term approval rating than Reagen, and that was even after the dick sucking scandal. Do you bother to look up anything you say? Is everything just Fuck Obama fuck Mexicans! Woohoo!



personal opinion works just fine in this regards.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 24, 2010)

KelJu said:


> And how are you basing that? Based on most of your other observations lately, I assume you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> Bill Clinton had a higher end of term approval rating than Reagen, and that was even after the dick sucking scandal. Do you bother to look up anything you say? Is everything just Fuck Obama fuck Mexicans! Woohoo!



Not to agree or disagree about the Reagan thing, but just pointing out that popularity really doesn't have much to do with anything.  Clinton was massively popular, and he was a key player in ushering in NAFTA, which was at minimum one of the top three worst mistakes in American history.


----------



## LAM (Sep 24, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> He ended up being one of the greatest presidents ever.



only according to his fans, to those that know the truth he's a total joke.

Reagan was truly the anti-Jefferson, a B-movie actor who decided once he got his it was okay to screw everyone else. A man with no compassion, no intellect, and no morals - The God of the Right.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 24, 2010)

How else to you base the value of an elected representative other than the general opinion of those he represented?  

Am I missing something? The personal opinion of one person doesn't mean dogshit, and since everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion than the next, you pretty much have to base the quality of the job based on the average of everyone. 

Aw fuck it. Nevermind! Raise the flag salute to Reagan, biggest dick and greatest ever! Woo fucking hoo!


----------



## maniclion (Sep 24, 2010)

I don't have a favorite president I only have least favorite....for me they are all liars, cons and crooks Nixon being the worst of them...  I feel it's only fair to rank the ones during my lifetime with GWB being my least favorite, followed by Reagan, Obama, George the 1st and Clinton...Carter was in while I was alive but don't remember any of it, I do rank him highly as a person though Habitat for Humanity being better than anything he did as Pres...


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 24, 2010)

LAM said:


> only according to his fans, to those that know the truth he's a total joke.
> 
> Reagan was truly the anti-Jefferson, a B-movie actor who decided once he got his it was okay to screw everyone else. A man with no compassion, no intellect, and no morals - The God of the Right.



I've always preferred adams to jefferson personally


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 24, 2010)

Just because Clinton was popular doesn't mean he was a good president. He was getting blow jobs in the oval office and then lied to congress. What a fuckin' dirtbag.


----------



## vortrit (Sep 24, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> Just because Clinton was popular doesn't mean he was a good president. He was getting blow jobs in the oval office and then lied to congress. What a fuckin' dirtbag.



Yeah, he lied about getting a blow-job. What a dirtbag.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 25, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> Just because Clinton was popular doesn't mean he was a good president. He was getting blow jobs in the oval office and then lied to congress. What a fuckin' dirtbag.


You get a blowjob you think you're King Shit, Clinton gets one and he is a dirt bag......hypocrite!


----------



## bmw (Sep 26, 2010)

bros, they're politicians...

none of them are worth a shit anyway.  They all set up their elite system to serve them and theirs and that's it.  None of them give two shits about any of you, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.


----------



## vortrit (Sep 26, 2010)

maniclion said:


> You get a blowjob you think you're King Shit, Clinton gets one and he is a dirt bag......hypocrite!



Maybe he don't like blowjobs.


----------



## TooOld (Sep 26, 2010)

bmw said:


> bros, they're politicians...
> 
> none of them are worth a shit anyway.  They all set up their elite system to serve them and theirs and that's it.  None of them give two shits about any of you, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.



Yup.

Why didn't Obama just give the rubber stamp response "it's all Bushes fault"? It least he's progressing from a crybaby to a bullshit artist.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 27, 2010)

vortrit said:


> Maybe he don't like blowjobs.


Any man who don't like a blowjob must enjoy giving them instead.....you can quote me on that...


----------



## TooOld (Sep 28, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I would much rather he had brains. The policies of Regan began the process which has led to the largest division of wealth between the middle class and the rich since the the 20s. He was popular because he was an actor pretending to be a cowboy, and dumb fuck Americans ate it up.



No, He was popular because the Carter years sucked. I remember my 19.5% interest payment on my first home and I was a lucky one with good credit and still it kicked my ass.


----------



## LAM (Sep 28, 2010)

TooOld said:


> No, He was popular because the Carter years sucked. I remember my 19.5% interest payment on my first home and I was a lucky one with good credit and still it kicked my ass.



thank God Reagan & Bush froze the minimum wage for almost a decade, that really "helped" people out while inflation kept rising.

And interest rates rose during the late 70's because the Fed refused to print more money so technically that had nothing to do with Carter's economic policies.


----------



## bmw (Sep 28, 2010)

LAM said:


> thank God Reagan & Bush froze the minimum wage for almost a decade, *that really "helped" people out while inflation kept rising*.
> 
> And interest rates rose during the late 70's because the Fed refused to print more money so technically that had nothing to do with Carter's economic policies.



wait...what?

Better check that again.  Inflation and high unemployment rates were rampant during the Carter years.  I remember my parents and the news talking about the high rates of inflation (and interest on loans as another poster pointed out).  When Reagan took office inflation went *down*.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 28, 2010)

Also the fed refused to print money because printing more money = more inflation.


----------



## LAM (Sep 28, 2010)

bmw said:


> wait...what?
> 
> Better check that again.  Inflation and high unemployment rates were rampant during the Carter years.  I remember my parents and the news talking about the high rates of inflation (and interest on loans as another poster pointed out).  When Reagan took office inflation went *down*.



the economy had slowed after many robust years post WWII.  we really weren't making anything new, mostly cars and construction still. remember the GDP is all about new goods and services, wall street, stocks, etc. are nothing but a distraction but most don't know that.


----------



## bmw (Sep 30, 2010)

LAM said:


> the economy had slowed after many robust years post WWII.  we really weren't making anything new, mostly cars and construction still. remember the GDP is all about new goods and services, wall street, stocks, etc. are nothing but a distraction but most don't know that.



Yeah, I was responding to the part of your post about inflation rising during Reagan/Bush.  When in fact, Inflation took a sharp upturn in the Carter era and a sharp fall when Reagan came into office.

Keeping it simple.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> what's he supposed to tell her the "real" truth because that would be that a lot of Americans are on their way to poverty and there is no way to prevent it.  wages have not been keeping up with inflation, housing, energy costs, etc. for decades and this is not going to change. publicly traded companies like to see dividends on stock increase annually, it's all about the bottom line.  there is no way to "force" companies to pay their employees more and there simply aren't enough high paying jobs for the spending habits of many americans.  the costs of housing alone has increased over 1000% in the past 3 decades while wages have basically stayed the same.  doesn't matter who is POTUS these numbers aren't going to change.  if anything it will get worst with the next Republican POTUS and or Senate that favors deregulation as that leads to more M&A's which always lead to lay offs like we saw in the 80's.




You've really bought into the class warfare bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

When corporations pay dividends, who receives them?  American investors, many of them being blue collar retirees.  "Publicly traded" means anyone can buy into the profits.  To listen to Democrats talk, you would think that all profit is evil, private corporations are evil, etc.  How many Americans do you think are employed by private corporations?  Without the private sector, there would be no wealth produced for your hero the obamessiah to leach off of and distribute to his entitlement-class supporters.  Government doesn't produce wealth, it only confiscates it from the producers.

And here is some harsh reality for your whining about what corporations will pay.  The value of your labor is quantifiable.  If you want to make more, invest in yourself and learn a more valuable marketable skill.  No one is going to pay you $20/hour to flip burgers, because it simply isn't worth that - it is a function of how many people are willing and capable to perform the job versus how many positions there are to fill.  We live in a country where literally anyone can become a nurse or engineer or accountant, shit you could even become a doctor if you want to get serious.  But the sad fact is most people would rather sit on their ass and then point their finger at the "evil" corporations.


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> only according to his fans, to those that know the truth he's a total joke.
> 
> Reagan was truly the anti-Jefferson, a B-movie actor who decided once he got his it was okay to screw everyone else. A man with *no compassion, no intellect*, and no morals - The God of the Right.






Reagan's intellect could literally demolish you and your race-baiting teleprompter addict.

Compassion?  Give me a fucking break.  One of the first things Obama did when he got into office was end a very successful voucher program which gave inner city kids in DC, most of the minorities, a pathway out of the abject abysmal failure which is the DC public school system.  Why?  Because Democrats oppose school choice, especially for minorities.  Vouchers are a threat to the lazy teachers union, which donates hundreds of millions a year to Democrats.  Plus, Democrats depend on the uneducated welfare-addicted ghettos of the inner cities for votes.  If those people were given an opportunity to become prosperous and self-reliant, they'd start voting for Republicans.  Keep them addicted to government handouts, and they'll keep voting for Dimwitcrats.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 5, 2010)

LAM has a good point.

Like Reagan or not, he was not the sharpest tool in the shed, and that's why aids had so much power over his decisions (e.g. sending troops to Beruit).

Reagan talked about small government a lot - but he practiced big government, and expanded government just like Presidents before and after.


----------



## LAM (Oct 5, 2010)

clemson357 said:


> Reagan's intellect could literally demolish you and your race-baiting teleprompter addict.
> 
> Plus, Democrats depend on the uneducated welfare-addicted ghettos of the inner cities for votes.  If those people were given an opportunity to become prosperous and self-reliant, they'd start voting for Republicans.



yea...I think you missed the short bus to school today..

electoral votes get presidential candidates elected to the office of POTUS not the popular vote, ..do you have ANY idea wtf you are talking about?

Did you read Reagan's Chief Budget Adivsor David A. Stockman's tell all book called "The Triumph of Politics"?  you may want to before you talk about Reagan's "intellect" but he did get that "great" liberal arts degree from Eureaka college which probably isn't even accredited


----------



## clemson357 (Oct 6, 2010)

LAM said:


> yea...I think you missed the short bus to school today..
> 
> electoral votes get presidential candidates elected to the office of POTUS not the popular vote, ..do you have ANY idea wtf you are talking about?
> 
> Did you read Reagan's Chief Budget Adivsor David A. Stockman's tell all book called "The Triumph of Politics"?  you may want to before you talk about Reagan's "intellect" but he did get that "great" liberal arts degree from Eureaka college which probably isn't even accredited



Short bus jokes, how original.

Funny, you don't substantively address a single point I've made.  That really says it all.  Care to actually discuss your allegations about the evil greedy private corporations and the oppressed middle class?  Of course not.  You are just another one of the sheeple tricked into class envy, regurgitating shallow and inaccurate leftist talking points.  The really funny thing is that the people who've tricked you into this BS are actually smart enough to know that it is BS, while you apparently aren't.


----------



## LAM (Oct 6, 2010)

clemson357 said:


> You've really bought into the class warfare bullshit hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> When corporations pay dividends, who receives them?  American investors, many of them being blue collar retirees.  "Publicly traded" means anyone can buy into the profits.  To listen to Democrats talk, you would think that all profit is evil, private corporations are evil, etc.  How many Americans do you think are employed by private corporations?  Without the private sector, there would be no wealth produced for your hero the obamessiah to leach off of and distribute to his entitlement-class supporters.  Government doesn't produce wealth, it only confiscates it from the producers.
> 
> And here is some harsh reality for your whining about what corporations will pay.  The value of your labor is quantifiable.  If you want to make more, invest in yourself and learn a more valuable marketable skill.  No one is going to pay you $20/hour to flip burgers, because it simply isn't worth that - it is a function of how many people are willing and capable to perform the job versus how many positions there are to fill.  We live in a country where literally anyone can become a nurse or engineer or accountant, shit you could even become a doctor if you want to get serious.  But the sad fact is most people would rather sit on their ass and then point their finger at the "evil" corporations.



exactly which "American's with families" can buy enough stocks to actually make a difference over decades in their retirement or network?  middle class families can barely afford to pay monthly bills let alone and put a little money into saving let alone buy a bunch of stocks.  you may want to check the raw data to see how much money the average american REALLY has after paying for housing, energy and medical costs.  the raw data doesn't lie the economic crap you here on tv is all politics.

due to the current rate of inflation if a person had 3million in cash right now in roughly 25 years it will be worth 1million

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

and small companies with less than 500 people are the highest employers of americans not the large global corporations raking in billions in profits annually that are mostly publicly traded on the NASDAQ


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 6, 2010)

clemson357 said:


> You've really bought into the class warfare bullshit hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> When corporations pay dividends, who receives them?  American investors, many of them being blue collar retirees.  "Publicly traded" means anyone can buy into the profits.



Who receives them?  The benefits?

It's a small club, clemson.

Sure, "blue collar" pensions funds have investments in the financial markets - and look where it's gotten them?

And who really does, benefit?  Who has the info?  Who control?

Credit Default Swaps: how many blue collar - or white collar stiffs - benefitted from them?

Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)?  Who benefitted?

Who got screwed?


----------



## LAM (Oct 6, 2010)

clemson357 said:


> Short bus jokes, how original.
> 
> Funny, you don't substantively address a single point I've made.  That really says it all.  Care to actually discuss your allegations about the evil greedy private corporations and the oppressed middle class?  Of course not.  You are just another one of the sheeple tricked into class envy, regurgitating shallow and inaccurate leftist talking points.  The really funny thing is that the people who've tricked you into this BS are actually smart enough to know that it is BS, while you apparently aren't.



lol...I grew up in the Philly suburbs and my neighbors had last names like Strawbridges, Gamble, Dupont, etc.  I knew when they were coming how when their Jet Rangers would land in the front lawn.. I grew up around old, old East Coast money so please don't even go there about class warfare.  I had neighbors who had separate swimming pools just for their horses.

I get my data from the federal agencies and read the books of the people in politics that did the things and created the policies that got us to where we are today.  maybe you should do the same vs reciting the politics of your parents and Faux News.  lol @ the GOP and their supply-side economic policies, name a higher learning institution anywhere in any country that teaches trickle down economics...and you talk about me buying into some bullshit!  

the GOP economic solution to everything..cut social services, deregulate markets and privatize everything..


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 7, 2010)

LAM said:


> lol...I grew up in the Philly suburbs and my neighbors had last names like Strawbridges, Gamble, Dupont, etc.  I knew when they were coming how when their Jet Rangers would land in the front lawn.. I grew up around old, old East Coast money so please don't even go there about class warfare.  I had neighbors who had separate swimming pools just for their horses.
> 
> I get my data from the federal agencies and read the books of the people in politics that did the things and created the policies that got us to where we are today.  maybe you should do the same vs reciting the politics of your parents and Faux News.  lol @ the GOP and their supply-side economic policies, *name a higher learning institution anywhere in any country that teaches trickle down economics*...and you talk about me buying into some bullshit!
> 
> the GOP economic solution to everything..cut social services, deregulate markets and privatize everything..




Harvard

JFK (arguably the most famous Dem in modern history) was the first to implement it...why does everyone forget this?  

Reagan just spoke about it more, b/c he wasn't part of the wealth club and didn't really understand its purpose and logic.  Might want to take the gov't metrics from the agencies/bureaus with a grain of salt.  The leadership is usually incentivized to fudge numbers.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 8, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> Harvard
> 
> JFK (arguably the most famous Dem in modern history) was the first to implement it...why does everyone forget this?
> 
> Reagan just spoke about it more, b/c he wasn't part of the wealth club and didn't really understand its purpose and logic.  Might want to take the gov't metrics from the agencies/bureaus with a grain of salt.  The leadership is usually incentivized to fudge numbers.



Come on, you have to know trickle-down doesn't work, right.  It is a nice theory and all, but the rich don't spend at the same rate as the middle class, they use a disproportionately large chunk of their money to make more money and save it.  Sure, fine and dandy to them, but this would destroy the economy if the middle class did the same.  If trickle-down actually worked we should be more prosperous than we have ever been after the Bush tax cuts, but look where we are.


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> Harvard
> 
> JFK (arguably the most famous Dem in modern history) was the first to implement it...why does everyone forget this?
> 
> Reagan just spoke about it more, b/c he wasn't part of the wealth club and didn't really understand its purpose and logic.  Might want to take the gov't metrics from the agencies/bureaus with a grain of salt.  The leadership is usually incentivized to fudge numbers.



my best friends father whose name is Richard Kelso (he was in the news many years ago for abandoning a young boy w/ cerebral palsy at a hospital on Xmas eve in the Philly suburbs) was the first person to graduate from Harvard Business School with a perfect score he he knows nothing about them teaching trickle down economics. so I'm not sure where you get that from.  There are folks from/at Harvard in support of supply-side economics that have written papers (most of which are not peer-reviewed) about it but it is not an actual economic course in any school anywhere in the world.

Trickle down economics was actually sold to Reagan by a bunch of journalists not economists because they told him what he wanted to hear.  Its' all in the tell all book written by his budget chief David A. Stockman called the "Triumph of Politics".  Reagan was an idiot.


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 8, 2010)

LAM said:


> my best friends father whose name is Richard Kelso (he was in the news many years ago for abandoning a young boy w/ cerebral palsy at a hospital on Xmas eve in the Philly suburbs) was the first person to graduate from Harvard Business School with a perfect score he he knows nothing about them teaching trickle down economics. so I'm not sure where you get that from.  There are folks from/at Harvard in support of supply-side economics that have written papers (most of which are not peer-reviewed) about it but it is not an actual economic course in any school anywhere in the world.
> 
> Trickle down economics was actually sold to Reagan by a bunch of journalists not economists because they told him what he wanted to hear.  Its' all in the tell all book written by his budget chief David A. Stockman called the "Triumph of Politics".  Reagan was an idiot.



You totally lost me on the personal story here...your buddy's dad was an HBS grad and horrible father, said he knows nothing about it, so therefore it doesn' exist?

BTW, econ isn't part HBS.  Its a separate school....and supply side econ was a school of thought created in Harvard public policy program.    

Its a documented fact JFK dropped the marginal tax rate for the country's upper income bracket which is the raison d'etre for supply side...with a sprinkle of Keynesian and voila = modern economic and with the same old school monetary policy.

When teachers publish papers...its indicative of their ideals, which are in turn seeded in their students (hence over half of our gov't since the 1940s....Harvard grads)


----------



## proxy10 (Nov 4, 2010)

he shouldn't have been elected President.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 23, 2010)

Well....the woman who was exhausted is back. 



> *Woman who told Obama her financial fears has lost her job*
> 
> By Michelle Singletary
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...



Entire: Michelle Singletary - Woman who told Obama her financial fears has lost her job


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 23, 2010)




----------



## maniclion (Nov 23, 2010)

proxy10 said:


> he shouldn't have been elected President.



Yes, because McCain has all the answers, but since he wasn't elected he's just going to keep his mouth shut and let us learn our lesson...  In my opinion it doesn't matter who was elected because none of them has a single clue as to how we are going to get out of this mess......


----------



## bmw (Nov 23, 2010)

maniclion said:


> Yes, because McCain has all the answers, but since he wasn't elected he's just going to keep his mouth shut and let us learn our lesson...  In my opinion it doesn't matter who was elected because none of them has a single clue as to how we are going to get out of this mess......



Of course not!  Politicians only know how to get us into messes bro!


----------



## bmw (Nov 23, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Well....the woman who was exhausted is back.
> 
> 
> 
> Entire: Michelle Singletary - Woman who told Obama her financial fears has lost her job



Maybe Obama can appoint her a white house staff position!


Of course, she'd have to have cheated on her taxes and owe back taxes.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 23, 2010)

LAM said:


> my best friends father whose name is Richard Kelso (he was in the news many years ago for abandoning a young boy w/ cerebral palsy at a hospital on Xmas eve in the Philly suburbs) was the first person to graduate from Harvard Business School with a perfect score he he knows nothing about them teaching trickle down economics. so I'm not sure where you get that from.  There are folks from/at Harvard in support of supply-side economics that have written papers (most of which are not peer-reviewed) about it but it is not an actual economic course in any school anywhere in the world.
> 
> Trickle down economics was actually sold to Reagan by a bunch of journalists not economists because they told him what he wanted to hear.  Its' all in the tell all book written by his budget chief David A. Stockman called the "Triumph of Politics".  Reagan was an idiot.



Yes, by god, if only we'd re-elected Jimmy Carter for a 2nd term!  That guy had all the answers.  Like every democrat before him and after him, he was the most brilliant guy to ever hold the office.  Everything he did while in office would have had this economy going gangbusters.  He just needed another 4 years, like the genius we have now.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 23, 2010)

Here is a comment by a man in his 60s, on this same topic of the thread

I'm posting because it's spot-on:
*
"I also remember back to my parents' generation, when employment meant that the husband could support his family on one salary and that at 5 o'clock the workday ended.

The "new reality" of two income households that barely meet the monthly mortage/family expenses has metasticized into the "newer reality" of no income households that cannot support a home that is designated "under water." All this newer reality misery is compounded by the amazing transfer of wealth further into the hands of less than 1% of the population. It out-Herods Herod."*


----------

