"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
Barack Obama Will Only Serve 1 Term
President Obama Will Be Re-Elected
Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will be Re-Elected or will one term be all the American public will tolerate?
Debate Leaders
LIBERAL
(1 votes)
Neutral Fans: (0)
Side A Comment
CHOW - 4/9/10 @ 10:38 AM:
It is highly unlikely that my president will be elected a second term. He certainly would loose the election if it were held today. There are some who points to a possible move to the middle to preserve power ala bill clinton. But I don't think that will happen in my presidents case for two reasons. One: Bill clinton, for all his faults, is an excellent politician. And two: Bill Clinton was more concerned with holding power then enacting his agenda. Where as my president appears to be a leader driven exclusively by ideology.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 3/31/10 @ 8:05 AM:
Yes, I've noticed you're big on statistics. Congressman Duncan (who I've become acquainted with through calls and emails) just sent me an article from the Washington Post written by a very middle of the road economic columnist who also writes for Newsweek. It was published in the post on March 15, 2010. In the column he spouts some interesting statistics about health care that conflict with the ones coming out of Washington. You should check it out.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 3/29/10 @ 12:54 AM:
As unemployment rises the scale continues to tip in the direction of less people paying into social security. We are adding more debt and the only jobs that are being created are government jobs. Those jobs are payed for by us taxpayers. I am afraid for the future of this nation and I am not alone. The sky will always be there but I'm afraid it's looking down on a nation that is skating on thin ice. We've had hard times before but never with the amount of zero's we're looking at now. Now our leaders are trying to push through more programs that are going to add even more zeros to our national debt. When we can't pay our bills we start cutting back and stop spending. We work harder and learn from our mistakes. I see our leaders doing the opposite. How can that lead anywhere but straight to disaster? Just because China has never called in our debt doesn't mean they won't. I don't think the world sees us as the super power we used to be. I think they see our debt as weakness and they are right. Therefore, they are not as afraid of us as they once were. They act like the magic money fairy is going to come down and wave her wand and make it all go away. I hope for the best but I am preparing for the worst because I don't see anyone stopping the madness. Everyone should be thinking what they are going to do if they stick their atm card in the slot and nothing comes out. I have a plan. Do you? You can call it hysteria if you want but if I'm wrong I'll be Ok. If I'm right I'll still be ok because I'm prepared. If you're wrong, you could be in deep doo doo.
LIBERAL - 3/30/10 @ 10:52 PM:
Rival | Side B
Well mama kaz I can show you all kinds of statistics, figures, and numbers where we have recovered from previous recessions every time, just like we'll recover from this one. Now that health care reform has passed I'm sure the Congress and the President's attention will turn to the economy and unemployment. Hopefully they'll begin working on a plan for it too. You can worry for nothing if you like. I have no problem with that. Me, I'll be fine. I'm always prepared. :-)
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/28/10 @ 4:51 PM:
You're welcome for the support, but are you really serious about the statement of doubling the national debt within ten years? Seriously, take a look at the following page to see what I mean.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
Here's just a few examples.
1838 3.3 million
1839 10.4 million 3 times the previous year
1862 524 million
1863 1.1 billion 2 times the previous year
1982 1.1 trillion
1986 2.1 trillion twice the debt in less than 5 years
2000 5.6 trillion
2007 9 trillion almost twice the national debt in less than ten years
Not only has it happened Kaz, but many times throughout our country's history we have doubled, even tripled the national debt in far less time than 10 years. Now I'm not saying we should just forget about it, or that we shouldn't try to resolve the national debt any time soon, but clearly their should be a long term plan to reduce the deficit. Short term plans, like that of Clinton's have only led to future recessions. Trying to balance the budget the way a lion goes after his morning snack is not the way to ensure financial stability in this country. It has always had awful, sometimes catastrophic affects in the long run.
I would love to see every American soldier come home, but that's just not a realistic venture. Lowering the amount of troops across the globe would certainly help both morale and deficits for the United States, but we have to have some form of front line defense. Cutting certain items from the defense budget would certainly help for sure. I would really like to see that. As I would hope you would agree, and I apologize for using such an obvious Trekkie comment, but I believe Quark from Deep Space Nine said it worst. "War is good for business." Yet if you look at year by year comparison of the national debt during every year of any major war the United States has seen fit to enter you would see the awful truth. War is definitely NOT good for business. I don't care if the next president is white, black, asian, republican, democrat, or independent. So long as he is not another War-mongering idiot that wishes to sacrifice soldier's lives for no good reason and drive our national debt into the ceiling.
Sorry, but I do beg to differ when it comes to this fall and upcoming elections. Though some may TRY to make it about the health care reform, the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans are far more concerned about the financial stability, or lack thereof than those who are concerned about the health care reform. And those polls are current. As time passes people will lose interest in the health care debate and more will focus on the debt and unemployment of this nation. As well they should. Time will tell.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
Here's just a few examples.
1838 3.3 million
1839 10.4 million 3 times the previous year
1862 524 million
1863 1.1 billion 2 times the previous year
1982 1.1 trillion
1986 2.1 trillion twice the debt in less than 5 years
2000 5.6 trillion
2007 9 trillion almost twice the national debt in less than ten years
Not only has it happened Kaz, but many times throughout our country's history we have doubled, even tripled the national debt in far less time than 10 years. Now I'm not saying we should just forget about it, or that we shouldn't try to resolve the national debt any time soon, but clearly their should be a long term plan to reduce the deficit. Short term plans, like that of Clinton's have only led to future recessions. Trying to balance the budget the way a lion goes after his morning snack is not the way to ensure financial stability in this country. It has always had awful, sometimes catastrophic affects in the long run.
I would love to see every American soldier come home, but that's just not a realistic venture. Lowering the amount of troops across the globe would certainly help both morale and deficits for the United States, but we have to have some form of front line defense. Cutting certain items from the defense budget would certainly help for sure. I would really like to see that. As I would hope you would agree, and I apologize for using such an obvious Trekkie comment, but I believe Quark from Deep Space Nine said it worst. "War is good for business." Yet if you look at year by year comparison of the national debt during every year of any major war the United States has seen fit to enter you would see the awful truth. War is definitely NOT good for business. I don't care if the next president is white, black, asian, republican, democrat, or independent. So long as he is not another War-mongering idiot that wishes to sacrifice soldier's lives for no good reason and drive our national debt into the ceiling.
Sorry, but I do beg to differ when it comes to this fall and upcoming elections. Though some may TRY to make it about the health care reform, the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans are far more concerned about the financial stability, or lack thereof than those who are concerned about the health care reform. And those polls are current. As time passes people will lose interest in the health care debate and more will focus on the debt and unemployment of this nation. As well they should. Time will tell.
The Boss - 3/28/10 @ 7:11 PM:
Rival | Side A
Apparently I didn't think my question through very well. I could have gone many different directions that would have made my point a lot better. I'm going to pass the blame on my parents dog whom I was baby sitting at the time and he made it hard to even think.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/28/10 @ 1:48 PM:
Just something else for you to consider. I LOVE this site. It rocks. You and Mama Kaz keep me on my toes. I literally cannot wait to see what you guys post. :-)
The Boss - 3/28/10 @ 4:11 PM:
Rival | Side A
It's a love hate relationship Rick. Although I hate to admit it, aside from Dennis(should probably add Tom from 7daybuzz as well), the guy who developed this site, you are one of the only left(disgustingly left) leaning individuals who comes with tough arguments.
The debates me and you have are what I hope will be an everyday occurrence with many more people as the site progresses. We are about to start a significant marketing campaign so website traffic should be up in the week ahead. As always, Thank You for your support.
The debates me and you have are what I hope will be an everyday occurrence with many more people as the site progresses. We are about to start a significant marketing campaign so website traffic should be up in the week ahead. As always, Thank You for your support.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/28/10 @ 1:30 PM:
Kaz, you know very well that the CBO document is simply an estimate that does not take into account legislation that may be in the near future. As far as the GDP/GNI is concerned I know that it has fallen 3%. This is not a good sign for the current economy, but if you look over the years we have recovered from periods where the GDP/GNI had fallen by 26% (1929-1937 The Great Depression). In fact, we have recovered from countless recessions and a depression every time. Now, let me say that I don't believe that at some point we shouldn't try to figure out how to balance the budget somehow, but statistically this country has gone into several recessions soon after experiencing a lowering of the national debt.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001
Certainly I'm not saying we shouldn't address the issue of the federal budget at all, just that sharp decreases in the national debt over short periods of time seem to do more harm than good. We should act on the federal budget and national debt. Which by the way a Gallup poll shows is far more important to the American people by over 20% than health care reform. Come November of this year the American people aren't going to give a rat's behind about health care any more. The only figure that can hurt democrat's chances this fall will be that ugly 9.7% number. If they manage to bring that number down to around 8% or 7.5% before August I would say that the only change this fall will be republican strategies if they have any hope for taking Congress back. Basically you can argue about this percentage or that percentage where GDP/GNI is concerned because as time will tell it will increase over the next few years just as it has after every recession has ended. You can also argue the President's budget and the increases of the federal debt that are nothing more than estimates on a status quo Congress, but eventually new legislation will be introduced concerning the budget over the coming months and years that may very well decrease these numbers. Neither you nor myself carry a crystal ball that can ultimately predict the decisions of Congress or their lasting effects. Truth is that only time will tell if Obama's policies will work? I know where you stand, and you certainly know where I stand, and we can throw these figures around all day, but in the end I know our President is trying to do well. I believe in him, and always will. Only time can truly be a judge of a President's successes or failures.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001
Certainly I'm not saying we shouldn't address the issue of the federal budget at all, just that sharp decreases in the national debt over short periods of time seem to do more harm than good. We should act on the federal budget and national debt. Which by the way a Gallup poll shows is far more important to the American people by over 20% than health care reform. Come November of this year the American people aren't going to give a rat's behind about health care any more. The only figure that can hurt democrat's chances this fall will be that ugly 9.7% number. If they manage to bring that number down to around 8% or 7.5% before August I would say that the only change this fall will be republican strategies if they have any hope for taking Congress back. Basically you can argue about this percentage or that percentage where GDP/GNI is concerned because as time will tell it will increase over the next few years just as it has after every recession has ended. You can also argue the President's budget and the increases of the federal debt that are nothing more than estimates on a status quo Congress, but eventually new legislation will be introduced concerning the budget over the coming months and years that may very well decrease these numbers. Neither you nor myself carry a crystal ball that can ultimately predict the decisions of Congress or their lasting effects. Truth is that only time will tell if Obama's policies will work? I know where you stand, and you certainly know where I stand, and we can throw these figures around all day, but in the end I know our President is trying to do well. I believe in him, and always will. Only time can truly be a judge of a President's successes or failures.
The Boss - 3/28/10 @ 4:05 PM:
Rival | Side A
Where do I begin?
Can you pull up in history when the National Debt was doubled in ten years time?
It really is quite tough to argue with someone who thinks it's a negative to pay down debt. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure of it's that President Obama isn't going to be cutting spending thus will be increasing the debt as he's projected by more than a trillion dollars each (aside from one or two of them; in the billions) year for the next decade. The only thing I can see him doing to reduce expenditures would be to bring the troops home as he promised other than that it’s spending, spending, spending.
You mention that it is an issue that needs addressed yet there are no reductions to the debt projected in any of the next ten years; just record deficits year after year. Are we supposed to spend like drunken sailors (excuse the pun) without so much as an intention to balance the budget even for a single year?
The American people will not be forgetting about the health care bill by November and Democrats will see record losses in Congress. (Both Houses) The only concern I have is the strategy of the Obama administration in timing the negative effects of the Health Care Bill and the timing on the Stimulus spending. It really is sad to watch them play politics with the future of our nation.
Holding off on the individual benefits until 2014 as well as individual mandates. Spending drops in the bucket of the stimulus money in the first year and unleashing funding over a year later which happens to coincide with Mid-Term elections.(I thought Obama said we had to pass the bill or face catastrophic consequences: Not an exact quote.) The thing that liberals don't realize is that people like me who haven't paid much attention to what Washington does on a daily basis in the past are now evaluating every move they make. (We were busy living our lives, working hard, paying our OWN way.) More and more Americans are waking up every day. (Thank God) One of the biggest problems Obama has is his golden lie of the campaign; Change. He campaigned on changing the way Washington operates yet is continuing as he loves to put it; status quo of DC. This is killing and will continue to kill him with independent voters.
Let’s pray that there are more hard working Americans that understand personal responsibility than bottom feeders who have their hands out begging for a piece of Obamas stash.
Can you pull up in history when the National Debt was doubled in ten years time?
It really is quite tough to argue with someone who thinks it's a negative to pay down debt. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure of it's that President Obama isn't going to be cutting spending thus will be increasing the debt as he's projected by more than a trillion dollars each (aside from one or two of them; in the billions) year for the next decade. The only thing I can see him doing to reduce expenditures would be to bring the troops home as he promised other than that it’s spending, spending, spending.
You mention that it is an issue that needs addressed yet there are no reductions to the debt projected in any of the next ten years; just record deficits year after year. Are we supposed to spend like drunken sailors (excuse the pun) without so much as an intention to balance the budget even for a single year?
The American people will not be forgetting about the health care bill by November and Democrats will see record losses in Congress. (Both Houses) The only concern I have is the strategy of the Obama administration in timing the negative effects of the Health Care Bill and the timing on the Stimulus spending. It really is sad to watch them play politics with the future of our nation.
Holding off on the individual benefits until 2014 as well as individual mandates. Spending drops in the bucket of the stimulus money in the first year and unleashing funding over a year later which happens to coincide with Mid-Term elections.(I thought Obama said we had to pass the bill or face catastrophic consequences: Not an exact quote.) The thing that liberals don't realize is that people like me who haven't paid much attention to what Washington does on a daily basis in the past are now evaluating every move they make. (We were busy living our lives, working hard, paying our OWN way.) More and more Americans are waking up every day. (Thank God) One of the biggest problems Obama has is his golden lie of the campaign; Change. He campaigned on changing the way Washington operates yet is continuing as he loves to put it; status quo of DC. This is killing and will continue to kill him with independent voters.
Let’s pray that there are more hard working Americans that understand personal responsibility than bottom feeders who have their hands out begging for a piece of Obamas stash.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/28/10 @ 12:44 AM:
LOL, I've been called many things Kaz, but naive is not one of them. You need to read what I typed a little better. When I said billions I meant to each nation, not as a whole. I'm very well aware of our debt to foreign nations. As for the national debt, yes we are compounding it year after year, but the amazing jumps in recent decades can be attributed to just a few circumstances. One of course is overspending by the government on a number of programs that neither work anymore or are a flagrant misuse of federal dollars. The other circumstance, and perhaps the biggest reason, is simply inflation. The only person being naive about that little fact is you. Our debt would have increased just as much under McCain, Obama, or anyone else for that matter. To blame Obama entirely for our current debt is just plain silly and NAIVE. As for Social Security Kaz, just use a little common sense for God's sake. The fact we paid out more this year than the revenue we took in is because unemployment was not expected to exceed 8.2%, but we are currently holding at 10%. Not to mention the fact that people are just living longer than they used to. People are still drawing checks at an age that most of us never thought we'd see. Here's a suggestion. Quit trying to drum up a conspiracy where none exists. Obama does not plan to ruin this country. That's just ignorant to believe something that foolish. Do you honestly believe that every person around him wants the same thing you think Obama wants. To run this country into the ground? No. They do not, and neither does he. I am optimistic because I'm tired of being pessimistic. And here's another suggestion. I lived through 8 years of perhaps one of the worst presidents in our nation's history. If I can endure Bush Jr. you can endure 8 years of Obama. I'm arrogant about Social Security because unemployment will go down, people will pay more into the program and sadly enough, people will die. By the way, as far as the report from Wikipedia concerning the "estimate" of the debt/gdp, even Wikipedia has a disclaimer at the top of the page that doubts the neutrality of the report and some who contributed to it. If you're going to cite pages please read them in their entirety first. It helps with the credibility of your statements.
The Boss - 3/28/10 @ 8:13 AM:
Rival | Side A
First let me address the credibility of the source by providing one that should pass your credibility check. Here is a link to the CBO document: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/03-05-apb.pdf
Here's what the CBO said: Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from
$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent
of GDP) at the end of 2020.
Here's what the CBO said: Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from
$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent
of GDP) at the end of 2020.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 3/27/10 @ 4:51 PM:
Uuhhh, what check? So far all we do is pay in. We're not counting on getting social security because it will be bankrupt by then. I could be on medical disability but we chose to just lower our standard of living and survive on one income. That means no fancy vacations, very few trips to the movie theater, rarely eating out and generally doing without but we'd rather do that than be dependent on the govt. We have both worked since our teens and paid in a lot to social security so it bothers us to think we'll probably never see any of that money again. We don't mind helping the elderly and those who are truly in need but are sick and tired of being forced to extend a free ride to so many who just make it a way of life. People don't appreciate what they don't work for. That includes education, medical, and every day living. We have so many parasites out there that the life is being sucked out of this country. I'm also becoming concerned that if China calls in our debt, they may own much of our country pretty soon, including my property! Our government is not listening to the majority on the health care issue or anything else for that matter and they will pay the price in 2010 and 2012. I can't wait! I just hope we can get enough uncorrupted Independents to run so we can start a new way of life in this country. As my granny always said, "you want to eat you got to work my dear." We need to beg the evil rich corporations to come back and bring their jobs in exchange for lower taxes. Repeal the health care bill and stop pushing more programs we don't have the money for. We can bring them back to the table after we get our finances in order which will never happen until we stop spending.
LIBERAL - 3/27/10 @ 7:51 PM:
Rival | Side B
All right. I've had just enough of this apocalyptic, the world is gonna end attitude from every person who doesn't agree with Obama. Yes, we're in debt. Yes, we've got a long way to go, but NO... ...N-O are the chances of losing the benefits from collecting Social Security in your lifetime or mine. It's not just ridiculous any more mama kaz, it actually begins to border on hysteria. Or as my granny always said "That's just crazy talk!" We've owed BILLIONS of dollars to other nations including China, and NOT one of them have ever called upon us to pay any time soon. Not to mention the fact that that kind of thing would harm relations between our two countries, and they KNOW it!! I'm afraid that you can quit yelling "The Sky is Falling!", because it's quite clearly still there, and ALWAYS will be. You may not like what Obama says or does for that matter, but it does not mean that capitalism is dead, nuclear winter will ensue, or that the four horsemen are on their way. The United States has survived through 2 world wars, 1 depression, several recessions, and many Presidents whom frankly were not very well liked, but that goes to prove one thing. America is much bigger than the sum of its parts. It is a collection of people, ideals, and beliefs that cannot and will not die.
The Boss - 3/27/10 @ 9:58 PM:
Ally | Side A
Now Rick, one of the reasons I truly enjoy debating you is because you're a formidable opponent is quite intelligent but your naiveté regarding the status of our nations stability is worrisome. It sounds to me like you must be reciting Obamas speech attempting to gather support for the Health Care bill that they just forced down our throats.
First thing, billions owed would be wonderful, glorious days.
Foreign countries own 3.6 Trillion dollars of our debt. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt ) This doesn’t include unfunded liabilities.
Compared to Bush’s average of 5.9% increased debt/gdp for each term Obama is estimated to be increasing the debt/gdp to 31.6% in just his first term. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms )
In 2008 we paid nearly a half of a trillion dollars to the interest on our national debt alone. It has since dropped by about a 100 billion since then due to the artificially low interest rates and the artificial stimulus put in place by the massive spending. ( http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm )This isn’t play money.
If Moody’s does decide to lower our credit rating it would be catastrophic for our nation. It would be the equivelant of an adjustable rate mortgage moving from a fixed rate to an adjustable high interest rate and when you owe over 13 trillion dollars (currently) and will owe 22.5 Trillion by Obamas own estimates by 2019( http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2009/06/16/obama-on-course-to-double-national-debt.aspx ).
In ten years Obama plans on doubling what took previous administrations 200+ years.
These are legitimate reasons to be concerned and very legitimate reasons to get this ignoramus out of the white house. Bush was bad; Obama is Satan when it comes to spending. How anyone can be as optimistic as you is very troubling. It is very sad that you are so certain that you will be casting a vote for his reelection.
I realize Moodys is an American company and would be very pressed to lower our credit rating but if they did it would be the end of the US as we know it.
In regards to Social Security Rick: Payouts will exceed revenue THIS YEAR! How are you so arrogantly confident about the condition of our nation? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?partner=rss&;emc=rss
)
First thing, billions owed would be wonderful, glorious days.
Foreign countries own 3.6 Trillion dollars of our debt. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt ) This doesn’t include unfunded liabilities.
Compared to Bush’s average of 5.9% increased debt/gdp for each term Obama is estimated to be increasing the debt/gdp to 31.6% in just his first term. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms )
In 2008 we paid nearly a half of a trillion dollars to the interest on our national debt alone. It has since dropped by about a 100 billion since then due to the artificially low interest rates and the artificial stimulus put in place by the massive spending. ( http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm )This isn’t play money.
If Moody’s does decide to lower our credit rating it would be catastrophic for our nation. It would be the equivelant of an adjustable rate mortgage moving from a fixed rate to an adjustable high interest rate and when you owe over 13 trillion dollars (currently) and will owe 22.5 Trillion by Obamas own estimates by 2019( http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2009/06/16/obama-on-course-to-double-national-debt.aspx ).
In ten years Obama plans on doubling what took previous administrations 200+ years.
These are legitimate reasons to be concerned and very legitimate reasons to get this ignoramus out of the white house. Bush was bad; Obama is Satan when it comes to spending. How anyone can be as optimistic as you is very troubling. It is very sad that you are so certain that you will be casting a vote for his reelection.
I realize Moodys is an American company and would be very pressed to lower our credit rating but if they did it would be the end of the US as we know it.
In regards to Social Security Rick: Payouts will exceed revenue THIS YEAR! How are you so arrogantly confident about the condition of our nation? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?partner=rss&;emc=rss
)
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 11:59 PM:
It took the very end Mr. Kaz before most die-hard Republicans finally gave up on Bush Jr., and I in turn will do the same. I'm just not ready to give up on my boy yet. I know you don't believe in him, but I do. I expect good things from him and I won't be happy until I see them.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 11:29 PM:
I never said I loved this new law, or for that matter that I even really liked it except for a few items, but I will say this. As with almost every bill that has been passed into law since the early 1920's by our Congress they all have been earmarked by ridiculous amendments and "add-ons" that clearly helped no one but themselves or the group that lobbied for them in the first place. In other words you sometimes have to take the good with the bad. And the reason for that is that neither party will really work with the other, and neither one truly knows what the word "compromise" really means anymore.
The Boss - 3/26/10 @ 11:32 PM:
Rival | Side A
Holy %@!%% to some degree; we agree. That's not something that occurs often. However, didn't Obama run on Change? Transparency? What happened there? He's every bit of partisan as Bush and that makes him worse because Bush never promised any of that.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 11:24 PM:
LOL. Student loans are an unfortunate thing. Those I do not take issue with because clearly that is something that is now wholly owned by the government, but then again they are not a corporation or business I take issue or concern for except to say it's a good thing I didn't need one.
The Boss - 3/26/10 @ 11:27 PM:
Rival | Side A
On that note, I do sincerely thank you for your military service. You of all people (Being military) deserved a full ride.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 11:08 PM:
Mr. Kazinec if you believe for one moment that I don't know for a FACT that the person to whom we are both referring won't eventually use at least one of those three programs then you are sorely mistaken. And by doing so, like I've stated before and will state to my dying breath, it IS HYPOCRISY!!!!! Do not shout you do not want the government deciding health care when you clearly have no problem depending on it for a monthly check in the past, present, or future! By the way, I have several gripes about the law myself, but I will not chastise it entirely when it will do millions of people some good. And now I will take note with you concerning "Ownership". Ownership of shares of a company does NOT mean you make the decisions for that company unless it is more than 50%, and you know that. That argument is simply trash. You can try an argument like that with someone of low intelligence, but remember it is me you are messaging!!!
The Boss - 3/26/10 @ 11:20 PM:
Rival | Side A
Ouch Rick, Although dated it is one of the most liberal infested blogs on the net. If it's not valid let me know. That would be more than 50% and let me alter my previous comment a bit about student loans; not only do they own all of the student loans now, if you'd like a student loan it will ONLY come from the US government now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/government-motors-us-will_n_209578.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/government-motors-us-will_n_209578.html
The Boss - 3/26/10 @ 11:24 PM:
Rival | Side A
In regards to her collecting one of the above mentioned items it really depends; they live off of earned retirement that comes with medical so in reality. I'm not sure on the rules for collecting social security with that scenario but even if they did, they did pay into it. If any of us had the option, I for one wouldn't be contributing to Social Security, it would be going to my own savings or investment. Definitely not anything to do with the US government.
This bill is a joke and you know it, pretend otherwise and your mocking your own intelligence.
This bill is a joke and you know it, pretend otherwise and your mocking your own intelligence.
Side A Comment
The Boss - 3/22/10 @ 9:41 PM:
Not that I've ever considered Mr. Sharpton a credible individual but I did find this humorous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlJzTzemok
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 3/22/10 @ 5:10 PM:
I decided to let Merriam Webster speak for me on socialism. Sure sounds like our present administration to me... (See below) They hate private enterprise and want to control everything. They despise the rich and want to redistribute the wealth. I'm so sick of hearing about Bush, Bush, Bush. I wasn't a big fan of him in his second term anyway. Let's talk about Barney Frank for a change. He and his cronies were the ones pushing loans for people who could not afford them which was the biggest reason we are in the mess we're in now. And where is all the outrage about the war? Does it depend on who's waging it? Apparently. "President" Obama will not be re elected and it will be because of what he did to this once great country, not because he's black.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 10:23 PM:
Rival | Side B
First of all let me start by saying that everyone harped on Bush because he was a deplorable U.S. President. I can't say whether he was more inept as an American President than Coolidge, but he's pretty close. As far as Barney Frank is concerned with the lending fiasco that catastrophically helped move us toward this recession, he was not alone. His "cronies" as you call them included several Republicans as well. Both sides can take blame for the awful mess we ended up in to date. Now I will take note with your definition of the word "socialism". I have no problem with the definition as it is correct. However, your implication that somehow any of it actually applies to our own government is nothing short of a stretch of the imagination. Americans can choose to own their own land, and it IS known as private property. To date I know of no company that distributes goods like Walmart, Target, McDonalds, or otherwise that are owned and controlled by their respective states. Do you? And as for part 3 of the definition we exist under a CURRENT government that is NOT distinguishable by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to the work they accomplish. The only part of this entire definition that remotely applies to any law that has been passed by Mr. Obama is the current Health Care reform. I find it extremely hypocritical though of people who want to gripe about a legislative health care reform, when those same people have no problem using Medicare, Medicaid, or cashing their monthly Social Security check. All three of these programs were legislatively passed into law (by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). So if you truly want to prove to me that you despise "big government", then quit cashing those checks. Can you do that? Or do you still depend on them like millions of others? Quid Pro Quo, if you don't really like big government and truly wish to see Health Care reform overturned then send your next check back. Because to argue that you don't like this type of governed interference should mean that you wouldn't agree with it at any time. Anything less is nothing more than pure hypocrisy. And if you expect leaders to exemplify the best, then you should be willing to do the same.
The Boss - 3/26/10 @ 10:57 PM:
Ally | Side A
While our government is far from Chavez (Currently) in that they don't distribute the means of production and manufacturing they do however own premier shares (Ownership) in several MAJOR banking institutions, they own a majority of home mortgages, they own a majority of General Motors, and now thanks to a ###!!%# Health Care Bill they now own ALL of the @$#&$&@ student loans. Are you kidding me? How anyone with any intelligence can support this is beyond me. How do you feel about 16 thousand new IRS employees? How are they funded again? Oh that's right through tax payer funds. So let me get this straight, Unemployment continues to flirt with 10% and they're wanting to create so much new bureaucracy that it requires 16 thousand new tax agents?
And by the way, I know the person your reply is to and let me tell you that she doesn't collect Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security(Although she has paid into it and if the government hadn't been stealing from it for so many years it might be available). We want to be left the %@$! alone to live our lives. Charity is a beautiful thing when its the individual deciding who to give to; it's another thing entirely when it's the government taking form one class and giving to another. What's that called? Oh that's right, it's theft.
And by the way, I know the person your reply is to and let me tell you that she doesn't collect Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security(Although she has paid into it and if the government hadn't been stealing from it for so many years it might be available). We want to be left the %@$! alone to live our lives. Charity is a beautiful thing when its the individual deciding who to give to; it's another thing entirely when it's the government taking form one class and giving to another. What's that called? Oh that's right, it's theft.
Side A Comment
mama kaz - 3/22/10 @ 9:23 AM:
It doesn't matter what color his skin is. He is a radical who is doing radical things to this country and the majority of people are beginning to rise up and say ENOUGH! You will blame his unpopularity on his race when in reality people are saying they don't like his actions. I detest Nancy Pelosi and lay much of the blame on her, Bush, Barney Frank, and a long list of other WHITE people. Obama is going to lose in the next election but it will have nothing to do with his race. He is like a runaway train that will eventually derail because he's out of control along with the rest of them. He lies about everything and does it with a straight face. I want a leader I can really believe in. I want an honest leader who stands by the constitution, not destroys it. We need someone who will bring back the idea of personal responsibility, accountability, and integrity.
Tomegun - 3/22/10 @ 2:48 PM:
Rival | Side B
You obviously feel very strongly about your opinion and I can't really match your enthusiasm because my opinion is rooted in hundreds of years of actions. For someone who is black, this is just business as usual - November 8th 2008 was the shocker. I don't agree with everything President Obama does/says, but to criticize him for lying with a straight face after 8 years of Bush is hilarious.
If life was fair, President (you keep leaving that part off) Obama would be judged based on what condition the country was in when he took over compared with the condition after his term. However, we all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that will not be the case. He is judged on the decisions he has made in a tough situation which some people call socialism. Do people really think we are close to socialism? Again, hilarious.
If life was fair, President (you keep leaving that part off) Obama would be judged based on what condition the country was in when he took over compared with the condition after his term. However, we all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that will not be the case. He is judged on the decisions he has made in a tough situation which some people call socialism. Do people really think we are close to socialism? Again, hilarious.
Side B Comment
Tomegun - 3/17/10 @ 11:08 AM:
Nope, in America, if he is part black he is black period. The only way he could pass for being white in America is if he looked white AND didn't tell anyone he was part black.
You are right, we can only imagine what it must be like to be in each other's shoes. If you want to look at reality you must admit racism exists and the past election showed how much it still plays a part in how things are.
Can you show me a quote where someone, anyone, said Obama was just as much white as he is black?
You are right, we can only imagine what it must be like to be in each other's shoes. If you want to look at reality you must admit racism exists and the past election showed how much it still plays a part in how things are.
Can you show me a quote where someone, anyone, said Obama was just as much white as he is black?
The Boss - 3/17/10 @ 5:00 PM:
Rival | Side A
It's been quite some time since I've heard someone discuss this; Back during the campaign but I'll see what I can pull up.
Side B Comment
Tomegun - 3/16/10 @ 8:43 PM:
Ryan, let's get real - we view America from two perspectives. You can't see my perspective because you haven't had the same experiences I've had. Many people look at him as a black man who is president and they hate it to their core! Now, you don't have to believe that, but it is reality. Another thing that shows the blatant racism in this country is the fact that he is just as much the next white president as he is a black president yet it is never mentioned in the media. Nobody has EVER considered him a white president. How can you possibly explain that if a ton of racism doesn't exist?
The Boss - 3/16/10 @ 9:09 PM:
Rival | Side A
For the most part I'm not going to argue. The reality is that the both of us can only imagine what it's like to be in the others shoes, nothing more.
In regards to the perception of Obama, I mostly agree. However, most of the time I've heard anyone claim he's just as much white there's usually a black commentator who quickly defends the perception of him being black.
Here's a mind bender. What if appearance wise he appeared to be white yet had one black parent and one white parent as he does? Would you consider him white or black? This can go either way but to some degree we agree.
In regards to the perception of Obama, I mostly agree. However, most of the time I've heard anyone claim he's just as much white there's usually a black commentator who quickly defends the perception of him being black.
Here's a mind bender. What if appearance wise he appeared to be white yet had one black parent and one white parent as he does? Would you consider him white or black? This can go either way but to some degree we agree.
Side B Comment
Tomegun - 3/16/10 @ 3:04 PM:
A normal, large helping, of Obama hatred! I have two points: 1) Given the condition of the country due to Bush, there are people that would complain if he did nothing and people who would complain because of what he is doing. The only way he could win - according to those spewing hate - is if he did what the Republicans want, which brings me to 2) I firmly believe that the majority of the people lining up to vote against him will be made up mostly of two groups: Republicans and racists (I guess a person could be both). The fact that someone could follow a particular group of people all the time, Republican OR Democrat, is ignorant to say the least. The fact that so much racism, displayed more openly under the guise of something else is sickening.
Regardless of my vote on this rivalry, I don't think he will be re-elected and I don't think I will ever see a serious black candidate in my life again. For a large part of America, or larger part than some would like to think, the unthinkable has happened and they will make sure it never, ever happens again.
Please, understand where this is coming from. I'm someone who was born in 1970, after many of the worst hate crimes against blacks were committed. However, racism is still something I've endured; both open racism and overt racism. Until you walk in the next man's shoes...
Regardless of my vote on this rivalry, I don't think he will be re-elected and I don't think I will ever see a serious black candidate in my life again. For a large part of America, or larger part than some would like to think, the unthinkable has happened and they will make sure it never, ever happens again.
Please, understand where this is coming from. I'm someone who was born in 1970, after many of the worst hate crimes against blacks were committed. However, racism is still something I've endured; both open racism and overt racism. Until you walk in the next man's shoes...
The Boss - 3/16/10 @ 6:20 PM:
Rival | Side A
While I can see where you're coming from in regards to never seeing another serious black candidate, I don't agree. Sure there is a small group of people who hate the man because he's black but most of those who dislike him do so because of his policies and views of America. I don't see the masses persecuting a race because one man has failed as president. I'd vote for a black candidate next election if he represented my values and respect for our nation. I don't like him for what he's done, is trying to do, and believes in not because of what he is or isn't.
I guess what it boils down to is what you think of the average American. When the average American(That doesn't support Barack Obama) sees Barack Obama on the Television what do you think they think?
1.)There's that black piece of garbage that's destroying our nation.
or
2.) There's that man who is destroying our nation.
I know this is again focusing on me as an individual but race doesn't come to mind until the media brings it up or it's brought up in discussion. What does come to mind is his actions and beliefs.
You are right that he entered a no win situation, isn't that the norm for the presidency? You'll never please everyone as there are extremes on both sides but you can maintain your integrity (Lies, Following Bush's lead on a number of things Obama was against. Patriot Act, Holding prisoners indefinitely without trial, two wars, Reconciliation, etc...) and welcome opposing views with open arms instead of closed doors. (This obviously doesn't exist in Washington which is why REAL change is needed. Some people voted for that change which never came.)
I guess what it boils down to is what you think of the average American. When the average American(That doesn't support Barack Obama) sees Barack Obama on the Television what do you think they think?
1.)There's that black piece of garbage that's destroying our nation.
or
2.) There's that man who is destroying our nation.
I know this is again focusing on me as an individual but race doesn't come to mind until the media brings it up or it's brought up in discussion. What does come to mind is his actions and beliefs.
You are right that he entered a no win situation, isn't that the norm for the presidency? You'll never please everyone as there are extremes on both sides but you can maintain your integrity (Lies, Following Bush's lead on a number of things Obama was against. Patriot Act, Holding prisoners indefinitely without trial, two wars, Reconciliation, etc...) and welcome opposing views with open arms instead of closed doors. (This obviously doesn't exist in Washington which is why REAL change is needed. Some people voted for that change which never came.)
Side B Comment
Jeff - 3/15/10 @ 9:38 PM:
Not cause I agree in what hes doing,but just because I think it will happen.
Side A Comment
cutie122403 - 3/15/10 @ 6:13 PM:
Unfortunately some people are too stupid to realize the harm he is placing on our country. I hope by the time the election comes these people will have realized that he is not what our country needs. I am very much looking forward to his last day in office.
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 10:40 PM:
Rival | Side B
I can't say whether President Barack Obama will serve one term or two. That depends on whether the American public gives in to the ridiculous idea of the extreme right wing Republicans and Tea Partiers who keep crying "Socialism" as a means to hide behind their own party's failure to present any real solutions to our current problems. I too am looking forward to his last day in office, and God willing it will be January 20th, 2016. :-)
LIBERAL - 3/26/10 @ 10:54 PM:
Rival | Side B
I can't say whether President Barack Obama will serve one term or two. That depends on whether the American public gives in to the ridiculous idea of the extreme right wing Republicans and Tea Partiers who keep crying "Socialism" as a means to hide behind their own party's failure to present any real solutions to our current problems. I too am looking forward to his last day in office, and God willing it will be January 20th, 2016. :-)
