Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Apparently, the idea of an "anti-vote", i.e., a vote AGAINST all incumbents has been around for generations. It wasn't practical for most of that time for the same reason Google and Facebook weren't worth billion$.The 2012 budget is a perfect reason why anyone should be ashamed to vote for either party.
Both sides agreeing $3.8 trillion is a good budget with the desperate need of americans for them to slash the budget and significantly decrease spending, yet instead they both agree to increase it.
Obama is a self absorbed simpleton, an intellectual featherweight with no gravitas. He is truly an empty suit with shit for brains. We on the right always suspected it (which is why we didn't vote for the boob) but now his actions have proven that he is a mindless moron without a clue.
March 21, 2012
"Obama often points out that hes had to contend with the gravest financial crisis of any president since Franklin Roosevelt. One difference, though, is that Roosevelt consistently took up sweeping new policies if he thought they could help, even risky or unproven ones. Bernanke himself has hailed the value of Rooseveltian resolve in helping damaged economies to recover. In a famous paper, he wrote, Roosevelts specific policy actions were, I think, less important than his willingness to be aggressive and experimentin short, to do whatever it took to get the country moving again.
Obamas major economic policy decisions were guided by a much different spirit, a cautious, results-oriented pragmatism that is the heart of Obamanomics. Like John Maynard Keynes, Obama believes government can and should act to alleviate downturns with higher spending and tax cuts. But hes disinclined to challenge political constraints, settling for what hes able to get.
His caution is a striking contrast to candidate Obama, who seemed to embody radical change. As president, hes steered an imperfect course that has nonetheless brought the U.S. to a position of economic stability and modest growth. Thats far from ideal. But measured against other countries, whose leaders made different choices, the results dont look half bad. Europe is a compelling validation of our financial strategy, Geithner says.
The choices Obama made helped bring about this result, even though he had help from the Fed, and even though they dont quite explain the recent strength of the recovery. But the business cycle operates by a logic all its own. It cursed Herbert Hoover and blessed Ronald Reagan. Obamas good fortune is that this sudden upturn is occurring just when he needs it most."
In the interest of charitable discourse, let's put aside Lefty anger over keeping Gitmo in operation, signing off and assassinations and torturing Bradley Manning, redefining US troops in Iraq as "support personnel" and reneging on his promise to try 9/11 suspects in legitimate courtrooms.
Let's charitably label ObamaCare as either a socialized health care deformity that has driven away the Reagan Democrat swing voters of '08 or as a right-wing sell out to corporations and wait for 2014 to start burning Obama in effigy.
Maybe we can extend our charity to Afghanistan and Libya?
"'The combination of Afghanistan and Libya could bring a bitter end to the romance between Democratic liberals and Obama,' Steve Chapman writes in Reasonmagazine.
"'Many of them were already disappointed with him for extending the Bush tax cuts, bailing out Wall Street, omitting a public option from the healthcare overhaul, offering to freeze domestic discretionary spending, and generally declining to go after Republicans hammer and tong.'"
But that still leaves the economy:
"Everyone--left, middle and right--is furious about his Herbert Hoover-like lack of concern over the economy.
"While the multimillionaire president blithely talks about a recovery as he heads off to golf with his wealthy friends, unemployment is rising and becoming structural.
"Obama will surely pay for the disconnect between reality (no jobs, shrinking paychecks, hidden inflation) and the rosy rhetoric coming out of the White House and U.S. state media."
Or will he?
Fool Us Twice? Can Obama Get Reelected? | Common Dreams
He doesn't need to fool us, he need only fool the rest of America...
Of course the curren tcrop of Republicans will go long way in aiding his ability to do so.
In the interest of charitable discourse, let's put aside Lefty anger over keeping Gitmo in operation, signing off and assassinations and torturing Bradley Manning, redefining US troops in Iraq as "support personnel" and reneging on his promise to try 9/11 suspects in legitimate courtrooms.
Let's charitably label ObamaCare as either a socialized health care deformity that has driven away the Reagan Democrat swing voters of '08 or as a right-wing sell out to corporations and wait for 2014 to start burning Obama in effigy.
Maybe we can extend our charity to Afghanistan and Libya?
"'The combination of Afghanistan and Libya could bring a bitter end to the romance between Democratic liberals and Obama,' Steve Chapman writes in Reasonmagazine.
"'Many of them were already disappointed with him for extending the Bush tax cuts, bailing out Wall Street, omitting a public option from the healthcare overhaul, offering to freeze domestic discretionary spending, and generally declining to go after Republicans hammer and tong.'"
But that still leaves the economy:
"Everyone--left, middle and right--is furious about his Herbert Hoover-like lack of concern over the economy.
"While the multimillionaire president blithely talks about a recovery as he heads off to golf with his wealthy friends, unemployment is rising and becoming structural.
"Obama will surely pay for the disconnect between reality (no jobs, shrinking paychecks, hidden inflation) and the rosy rhetoric coming out of the White House and U.S. state media."
Or will he?
Fool Us Twice? Can Obama Get Reelected? | Common Dreams
The fact is that what the left sees as nutters does not appear that way to those not on the left. Take the Black vote which is becoming a mostly southern vote.
Increasingly southern Black dems are towing a more right wing line on everything but Civil Rights. This is being driven by middleclass snowbirds fleeing liberal states. Obama and Oprah leaning more and more to the right is a general tendency. The black vote would not have turned out for a white D candidate in 2008. The Black political establishment, at least here in FL, is increasingly being challenged by what sure sounds like tea partiers with a D behind their name and a Yankee accent. Texas too would not be Republican without a lot of Black and Hispanic voters voting GOP. The Democratic party can no longer field electable white candidates in most of the country.
i know the difference between a "conservative" and a "wingnut". i could give examples of both from this board alone.
a wingnut is someone who doesn't understand that the president has almost a 50% approval rating and has remained pretty level given a point or two. a wingnut is someone who thinks that the american public wanted the goverment shut down. a wingnut thinks that when they shriek about planned parenthood, they are in the mainstream. a wingnut thinks that americans don't love social security and medicare.
the black vote is not becoming a mostly southern vote. the republican party is almost entirely lily white because they keep taking more and more positions which oppose social justice. what i will tell you is that the republicans would do very well to remember that most blacks are, in fact, conservative, church-going, religious people. they'd be a natural constituency for republicans
90% of blacks voted for obama for president. prior to that, black support for the democratic party was about 80%.. (maybe 75, I forget exactly). perhaps if repubs stopped running the southern strategy they actually would get the black vote, but they don't.
and the fastest-growing segment of the electorate is hispanics. if the repubs could stop sounding like crazed racists on immigration issue, they might get hispanics to vote for them too... aside from the anti-castro faction in miami.
the fact that you think tea party loons are electable and democrats aren't shows that you're incredibly unaware. the electorate is fickle. the repubs got their butts soundly kicked in 2006 and 2008. but after the show that the tea people put on this week, and thanks to extremists like walker who think they're voted in to bust unions, i'm figuring your luck won't be as good in 2012 as it was in 2010.
is that a given? no.
but anyone who thinks this country is anti-choice, anti-social secuirty, anti-union and anti-education is going to be in for quite the surprise.
Do you attribute the rise in welfare recipients to ACORN or Wall Street?
Millions of US jobs and homes have been lost over the last four years because the richest fraction of 1% of the US population have used elected Republicans AND Democrats to manufacture the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
Maybe we need another WPA?
"The WPA provides an empirical example of the impact of a work program in times of economic recession. It has also become a lightning rod for contention between the right and the left. The right charges that it was inefficient and a 'socialist' program.
"The left argues that it helped reduce unemployment from 25% to 10%, modernized our nations infrastructure, and provided jobs for people who otherwise would have gone hungry. Many economists argue that we need to have a similar program today in order to reduce unemployment until the economy can pick up again."
Works Progress Administration » New Deal 2.0
Do you attribute the rise in welfare recipients to ACORN or Wall Street?
Millions of US jobs and homes have been lost over the last four years because the richest fraction of 1% of the US population have used elected Republicans AND Democrats to manufacture the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
Maybe we need another WPA?
"The WPA provides an empirical example of the impact of a work program in times of economic recession. It has also become a lightning rod for contention between the right and the left. The right charges that it was inefficient and a 'socialist' program.
"The left argues that it helped reduce unemployment from 25% to 10%, modernized our nations infrastructure, and provided jobs for people who otherwise would have gone hungry. Many economists argue that we need to have a similar program today in order to reduce unemployment until the economy can pick up again."
Works Progress Administration » New Deal 2.0
You do realize that if a new deal type WPA program was started today, Union wages would have to be paid. There would be 1 supervisor for every 2 workers and the question I have is where does the government get the moneyto pay for what would be a gigantic clusterfuck?
How about Wall Street, the Pentagon and USAID for starters?Do you attribute the rise in welfare recipients to ACORN or Wall Street?
Millions of US jobs and homes have been lost over the last four years because the richest fraction of 1% of the US population have used elected Republicans AND Democrats to manufacture the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
Maybe we need another WPA?
"The WPA provides an empirical example of the impact of a work program in times of economic recession. It has also become a lightning rod for contention between the right and the left. The right charges that it was inefficient and a 'socialist' program.
"The left argues that it helped reduce unemployment from 25% to 10%, modernized our nation’s infrastructure, and provided jobs for people who otherwise would have gone hungry. Many economists argue that we need to have a similar program today in order to reduce unemployment until the economy can pick up again."
Works Progress Administration » New Deal 2.0
You do realize that if a new deal type WPA program was started today, Union wages would have to be paid. There would be 1 supervisor for every 2 workers and the question I have is where does the government get the money to pay for what would be a gigantic clusterfuck?
Who should take Obama's job?the democrats and socialist will do anytthing they can to get this failure re elected, out of pure ignorance. We the people had better get out and vote and do everything we can do remove him. If we do nothing, we are doomed and kiss your livelyhoods goodbye. This is the worst President I have ever seen and he is deliberately trying to make us into the same country he was brought up in. His thinking is not like the Americans. He has got to be removed and its up to us at election time to do it.
