He simply has to end the war

[Againsheila]

Ducky;

I dont think he can get away with that...

He has to get stated the day aftre he takes office in january..


That mob in Grant Park in Chicago last night.

They know where he lives.
They can be his worst enemy..if he goes back ion everything he said..

Why not? Clinton went back on everything he said once he got into office.

 

[Againsheila]

Some companies are close to bankrupt, unable to solve liquidity problems because the banks aren't lending money and their customers aren't paying on time.

And that $700 billion bailout helped us how?

 

[WillowTree]

And that $700 billion bailout helped us how?

a very very very good question.

 

[tigerbob]

And that $700 billion bailout helped us how?

What are you driving at?

 

[WhiteLion]

Obama cant accomplish everything he proposed.
The GOP wont allow it. Some DEMs wont allow it.
Buy he can do 2 things...by himself.

First of all....You've got to allow the Bush tax breaks to lapse.
None of it trickled down, That was broken down theory.
As a country, we are hugely in debt and we cant afford tax breaks for companies , some of which are profiting at record rates...
He dosen't have to act. The cuts simply expire.


Secondly, he has to end the war as quickily as possible.
There was no purpose for the Iraq occupation and there still isnt.
It is making the USA a bad word world wide and bankrupting our economy.

Bush would never admit a blunder.
We have to save money and lives.
Obama dosent need anyone's approval. He can simply order the troops to come home and the Iraq governemnt will take care if itself.
What will happen when we leave? That's their problem. I dont care.

Those two acts will stabilize our economy and lift national morale.
A raise in the minimum wage wouldnt hurt either.

Get that done and we'll be better off in 4 years than we are now.

Our economy was bankrupted by Obama(citibank suit"subprime minority loans" and Acorn) and Billy Clinton(Strong arming Freddie and Fannie into subprime minority loans POP!!). However had Bush acted last year and open the federal oil reserve and drop gasoline prices back to what they are now, back then, the economy wouldnt appeared as bad a shape than it actually was, but Bush was thick in oil so that answers that question...
And all of congress with the exception of Obama and a few others voted to goto war in Iraq.. If we end the war in the middle east without some form of constitutional ratification between those middle eastern nations, we could wind-up with a wider chance of terrorist safe havens and terrorist acts on our soil than before, and conceeding to defeat will be worse than what exactly took place during the Vietnam war by the same propaganda machines today as then, look at Vietnam now....

 

[DiamondDave]

Sure, I bet she colors inside the lines.

Off subject... but I thought I had seen about every internet caption pic possible... never saw that one before... but I am STILL laughing my ass off....

bravo

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In other words, you know the guy lied to you but you don't care.

What could possibly make you think I don't care? I did not support and did not vote for Obama.

 

[Dr Grump]

In other words, you know the guy lied to you but you don't care.

A politician not telling the truth? Say it ain't so...

 

[dilloduck]

A politician not telling the truth? Say it ain't so...

Some people think the democrats were serious about hating liars---it just needed to be cleared up.

 

[glockmail]

What could possibly make you think I don't care? I did not support and did not vote for Obama.

OIC, so you're not just a leftie but an off the wall Nadarite leftie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OIC, so you're not just a leftie but an off the wall Nadarite leftie.

I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm a "leftie," but it's cute that you think so. I suppose it would have to be my opposition to the war that made you think so. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not just liberals that oppose this un-Constitutional and illegal war. I'm a Libertarian.

You know what they say when you assume things, it only makes an ass out of you and... well just you.

 

[glockmail]

I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm a "leftie," but it's cute that you think so. I suppose it would have to be my opposition to the war that made you think so. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not just liberals that oppose this un-Constitutional and illegal war. I'm a Libertarian.

You know what they say when you assume things, it only makes an ass out of you and... well just you.

OIC, a Liberalitarian. I guess you're just too cool to be a regular Liberal.

Wars are good as they give freedom to millions. We need more of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OIC, a Liberalitarian. I guess you're just too cool to be a regular Liberal.

Wars are good as they give freedom to millions. We need more of them.

Interesting, it's a rare person that would consider a Libertarian liberal. Or a person that doesn't actually know what they're talking about, which is what I'll assume you are.

Aboslutely, why don't we just declare war on the entire Middle East and attack them all? Of course that would go against our Constitution and our economy would probably collapse, but I'll be damned if it's not our God-given right to force Democracy on sovereign nations!

 

[glockmail]

Interesting, it's a rare person that would consider a Libertarian liberal. Or a person that doesn't actually know what they're talking about, which is what I'll assume you are.

Aboslutely, why don't we just declare war on the entire Middle East and attack them all? Of course that would go against our Constitution and our economy would probably collapse, but I'll be damned if it's not our God-given right to force Democracy on sovereign nations!

Libertarian social policies are indeed liberal.

War isn't against our Constitution. If we or our allies are threatened, I expect the feds to act per Art I Sec 8.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarian social policies are indeed liberal.

War isn't against our Constitution. If we or our allies are threatened, I expect the feds to act per Art I Sec 8.

Would you like to provide any examples of these "liberal" social policies?

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" - Constitution

Those are the powers of the Legislative branch of government. Congress did not declare war on Iraq, President Bush did. Thus, un-Constitutional. Not all wars are un-Constitutional, but war is not something to be thrown around lightly. As far as our allies are concerned I point out the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none..."

 

[Againsheila]

What are you driving at?

I think it's quite clear. Our government printed up $700 billion to give to the banks and they gave 10% of it off the top to the CEOs and are sitting on the rest of it. In a capitalistic society, businesses are allowed to fail. The banks that made the stupid loans should just go broke. If you're going to bail anyone out, why not bailout the homeowners? Then they can pay the mortgages, the banks can get the money and EVERYONE wins.

I believe that $700 billion bailout was just another way for the corporate elite to steal from the taxpayers.

 

[glockmail]

Would you like to provide any examples of these "liberal" social policies?

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" - Constitution

Those are the powers of the Legislative branch of government. Congress did not declare war on Iraq, President Bush did. Thus, un-Constitutional. Not all wars are un-Constitutional, but war is not something to be thrown around lightly. As far as our allies are concerned I point out the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none..."

You're the lib-tar-an. You name them.

Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940's. Were all later wars unconstitutional?

Besides, Iraq is Gulf War II. Bush 41 didn't have the balls to finish the first one. That doesn't mean that it was over. Now it almost is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're the lib-tar-an. You name them.

Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940's. Were all later wars unconstitutional?

Besides, Iraq is Gulf War II. Bush 41 didn't have the balls to finish the first one. That doesn't mean that it was over. Now it almost is.

It's the job of the one making an insinuation to defend their position.

Yes, they were.

Ok? We had no reason to invade Iraq regardless of "who didn't get the job done." The American people were lied to so that the Bush administration could continue it's un-winnable war on terrorism.

 

[tigerbob]

I think it's quite clear. Our government printed up $700 billion to give to the banks and they gave 10% of it off the top to the CEOs and are sitting on the rest of it. In a capitalistic society, businesses are allowed to fail. The banks that made the stupid loans should just go broke. If you're going to bail anyone out, why not bailout the homeowners? Then they can pay the mortgages, the banks can get the money and EVERYONE wins.

I believe that $700 billion bailout was just another way for the corporate elite to steal from the taxpayers.

OK, now I'm with you, and agree with you to a point. The banks are behaving appallingly. That said, not all that money is earmarked for the banks - I believe it's $250bn of TARP funds that is being used in the banking sector. Still a vast amount of money, I agree, but not $700bn. The remaining $450bn has gone nowhere yet because the incoming administration will undoubtedly want a say in how it is spent.

However, allowing the banks to fail is a recipe for anarchy, and that's where our paths diverge. I would far prefer the treasury to have stuck to the original plan of buying out ailing businesses rather that giving them cash injections, but if the banks collapse then capitalism collapses.

As for bailing out homeowners, that's crazy. Who makes the decision about who gets bailed out and who doesn't? How do you prevent the massive fraud that would accompany such a decision? What about people who have their life's savings in banks? If banks are sitting on money now, would they not continue to sit on it under your Homeowner Bailout Plan? Who administers the bailout? It would cost several billion dollars more just to administer, because you're dealing with tens of millions of individuals rather than at most a few hundred financial institutions.

Remember, banks are a critical link in a chain. If the banks go under, the financial undertow will be incalculable, along with the impact on businesses, jobs, savings and the American way of life.

The bailout was not a way for the elite to steal from taxpayers, but it may become a way for them to get away with mind-numbingly poor management and sharp practice.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Obama cant accomplish everything he proposed.
The GOP wont allow it. Some DEMs wont allow it.
Buy he can do 2 things...by himself.

First of all....You've got to allow the Bush tax breaks to lapse.
None of it trickled down, That was broken down theory.
As a country, we are hugely in debt and we cant afford tax breaks for companies , some of which are profiting at record rates...
He dosen't have to act. The cuts simply expire.


Secondly, he has to end the war as quickily as possible.
There was no purpose for the Iraq occupation and there still isnt.
It is making the USA a bad word world wide and bankrupting our economy.

Bush would never admit a blunder.
We have to save money and lives.
Obama dosent need anyone's approval. He can simply order the troops to come home and the Iraq governemnt will take care if itself.
What will happen when we leave? That's their problem. I dont care.

Those two acts will stabilize our economy and lift national morale.
A raise in the minimum wage wouldnt hurt either.

Get that done and we'll be better off in 4 years than we are now.

The first is going to happen.

The war is already over so no need to "end it". We won, in case you missed it, and the troop draw downs have already begun. Now a good portion of those are going to what Barak considers the real "front" in the war, Afghanistan, so the war will continue, only in a different venue...