Pity Party! Obama, "I can't work with GOP Leadership." AW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rinata]

I'd love either Sharon or Christine to come to my house and teach me something.

How about Both?

Can you please explain this picture?? It's disgusting!! Is it some kind of cuckoo group??

 

[MaggieMae]

Interesting. (A) I agree that not all of the existing policies can fairly be laid at the feet of the Democratics. I am none too thrilled with Republicans who have foisted off so much of this problem on America.

(B) The changes I think we need (and the beginnings of which are inherent, I hope, in the Tea Party movement and its present electoral effects) will be difficult to achieve. I am not sure "monumental" is quite the right word, but I get your gist. My way of seeing it is the same either way. It takes concerted EFFORT. But nothing whatsoever will happen until we focus the political will on these politicians to compel them to exert that effort. If I happen upon a large boulder and try to tip it over by pushing on it with my index finger, it's safe to say that the boulder isn't going to move. But if I get myself a fulcrum, as Archimedes might say, I can move mountains. The Tea Party is the fulcrum.

(C) the "monumental" changes do NOT require that the middle class and the poor need to suffer. I just flatly disagree with you on that. Our PRESENT course guarantees endless suffering. Changing course does not, but it implies the possibility of very positive change and the avoidance of suffering.

(D) Change of the kind we need may not come all at once. But significant change can indeed happen right now. Get rid of the liberal Democrat majority in Congress, and their forward movement can be fully halted. When you are speeding off in the wrong direction at break neck speeds, the application of working brakes is a very positive change. And that changes happens quite fast. No bloody revolution required.

And btw, putting some of your snarky introductory comments (and innuendos) aside, it was refreshing seeing you engage in debate on a more mature level, too.

Ironically, the reason you suddenly got praise from me is because YOU were not being snarky...for a change. I see a lot of people backing off from harsh diatribes, and I think that's because one party doesn't feel backed against a wall at the moment, and the supporters feeling the constant need to be in a defensive (often ugly) position.

Back to the subject, though, I really would like to know how people expect everything can change and still not hurt huge segments of society without the infusion of money (funding) from somewhere. Do you honestly believe the private sector is going to be willing to step up and fill in the void when social programs get yanked? I don't.

Off topic portion of reply: It is the snarkiness of others to which you object. I have no problem with being sarcastic, obviously, and I don't care if others use that ad hominem type device on me. But I do find it amusing that others object to my use of it when they are just as willing as I am to resort to it. There's a word for that ....

Back ON Topic: I suggested that "change" is not the thing that will "hurt because it's the present COURSE that is setting everyone up for the great fall. There is no such thing as "infusion" of money; and I believe that kind of thinking (which you casually tossed-out-there) IS the very problem. The Government doesn't "give" AIG or CITICorp or welfare recipients money, etc. The government HAS no money. They make and sell no product. They do, however, REDISTRIBUTE money. They TAKE it (lawfully, but a clear cut seizure all the same) from OTHERS. They TAKE it from US. Then they play Robin Hood.

One of the reasons we need to stop this idiotic process is that it leads to dependence. The people start to believe that the government is there to provide this nanny-state largess. But it isn't. That is not the valid or proper function of government. Another reason we need to stop this idiotic process is because we fought for a Constitutionally LIMITED government for a lot of very good and sound reasons. Many of us strongly OBJECT to any practice that undermines that fundamental precept of our Republic.

And let's get real. You don't take a drug-addicted patient off of heroin overnight. You wean him off it. Doctors are very well aware of the problems of withdrawal. So they do the painful things slowly. Methadone maintenance is not a cure-all. But it does help sometimes to get a heroin addict off of heroin.

Similarly, nobody is going to just willy-nilly terminate Social Security or a Welfare Program overnight. But we had damn well BETTER get STARTED on it in whatever way or ways we can as soon as possible because there's one thing we already know for CERTAIN. Unless we act, PRONTO, we ARE going to be bankrupt.

And I am at a loss to see how national bankruptcy will end up being of any help to those in need.

Your heroine analogy is good. Any kind of dramatic change, especially lifestyle change, is a long process. But how many truly understand that? Many lives (lifestyles) were changed, some literally overnight, and they expected the government to do something about it overnight. That's the kind of irrational attitude that I've been defending against ever since the economy tanked. Government's fiscal policy needs major surgery--no doubt about it--and it's going to be painful--no doubt about that either. Unfortunately, there are a helluva lot of people who don't understand why. You can't take a butcher knife to it without the risk of slicing through some major arteries.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is though that no conservative thinks it can all be fixed overnight. I've not heard a single conservative say that it can.

What I do hear conservatives saying is that what Obama and company are doing is not fixing it but is making it worse. They are saying that we can stop making things worse. They are saying that we can reverse course and start going the other way back to sanity.

 

[MaggieMae]

Like I've said time and time again, the GOP doesn't know how to govern.

And the Democrats have been doing a bang up job of that? That surely explains why the Democrats in Congress have approval ratings in the basement and the President's own approval ratings continue to sink like a stone.

That is the whole emphasis of the Tea Party movement and spirit. Americans who are sick and tired of a government that thinks the American people want or need to be governed. That was never the intent of the Constitution. Our Founders intended for the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves.

If that's all the founders had in mind, The Constitution would have been a one-page document, saying just that. On the contrary, they were forward thinkers and anticipated dissention and debate as the country matured, which is why there are so many clauses that appear to be deliberately ambiguous.

 

[MaggieMae]

The thing is though that no conservative thinks it can all be fixed overnight. I've not heard a single conservative say that it can.

What I do hear conservatives saying is that what Obama and company are doing is not fixing it but is making it worse. They are saying that we can stop making things worse. They are saying that we can reverse course and start going the other way back to sanity.

The definition of INsanity is doing something the same way over and over again and expecting a different result. What did the Bush tax cuts actually do? Did you read the link I posted? It is a little long, but the facts in it are valid and sourced.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Like I've said time and time again, the GOP doesn't know how to govern.

And the Democrats have been doing a bang up job of that? That surely explains why the Democrats in Congress have approval ratings in the basement and the President's own approval ratings continue to sink like a stone.

That is the whole emphasis of the Tea Party movement and spirit. Americans who are sick and tired of a government that thinks the American people want or need to be governed. That was never the intent of the Constitution. Our Founders intended for the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves.

If that's all the founders had in mind, The Constitution would have been a one-page document, saying just that. On the contrary, they were forward thinkers and anticipated dissention and debate as the country matured, which is why there are so many clauses that appear to be deliberately ambiguous.

Wrong, because the rights had to be identified and expressly protected and the government prohibited from having any power to infringe on those rights. Which is exactly what the 4,543 words of the original unamended Constitution and the 1,436 words of the Bill of Rights accomplished. I've had college term papers wordier than that.

The Founders were quite clear on the intent of the Constitution and all our government leaders have been quite clear on that intent and didn't consider it the least bit ambiguous until the most recent decades. You start interpreting the Constitution as YOU want it to be, and it ceases to have any relevance or effect.

The Tea Partiers are not willing to hand it over to ambiguity, fluidity, or compromise.

 

[MaggieMae]

In all due respect Sir, that just won't wash. The European community had the same meltdown, the same kinds of problems, economies in as severe as distress as ours. But they didn't use the same tactic of blindly throwing massive amounts of money--money they didn't have--at the problem and most are all well on their way to economic health now if they have not already recovered. Those that are not are those who borrowed more than was fiscally prudent and are now paying the piper. Just as we are.

The Europeans counseled us to not do what the Obama Administration has done to deal with the problem. Their counsel fell on deaf ears. Not only has it failed, as the counselors knew it would, but the Administration has not learned anything from the failure. They want to do even more of it.

And THAT is why Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet and why so many Democrats are in danger of losing their seats in November.

And they should.

You can't compare the European economic struggles to ours. The rest of the world still thinks of this country and the U.S. dollar as safe havens for capital. As the world's largest economy and its only superpower, this gives us access to capital at rates that are less costly than borrowing from the IMF. Other countries are buying OUR treasury bonds at record rates because of low interest.

Obama is printing money so he can devalue the dollar.

Just like Hitler.

Almost too ignorant to respond to, so I'll ignore and address only the premise of the devalued dollar seriously.

As the Dollar falls, so do the price of US exports. As prices become more appealing, demand rises and exports increase, helping stimulate the US economy as a whole. America is a more appealing vacation destination than ever because of the relative weakness of the dollar, and visitors are not just spending on tourist attractions but picking up big-ticket items while they're at it. Lack of consumer spending is what has hamstrung the economy by a huge percentage. Who cares who spends it, as long as it's here? AND, the price of imported goods becomes more expensive with a declining dollar, making commodities produced in the US cheaper by comparison.

Right now, there's a delicate balance being played out with all eyes on inflation, the falling dollar, interest rates and a myriad other factors that all play a part in maintaining the right course.

 

[MaggieMae]

And the Democrats have been doing a bang up job of that? That surely explains why the Democrats in Congress have approval ratings in the basement and the President's own approval ratings continue to sink like a stone.

That is the whole emphasis of the Tea Party movement and spirit. Americans who are sick and tired of a government that thinks the American people want or need to be governed. That was never the intent of the Constitution. Our Founders intended for the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves.

If that's all the founders had in mind, The Constitution would have been a one-page document, saying just that. On the contrary, they were forward thinkers and anticipated dissention and debate as the country matured, which is why there are so many clauses that appear to be deliberately ambiguous.

Wrong, because the rights had to be identified and expressly protected and the government prohibited from having any power to infringe on those rights. Which is exactly what the 4,543 words of the original unamended Constitution and the 1,436 words of the Bill of Rights accomplished. I've had college term papers wordier than that.

The Founders were quite clear on the intent of the Constitution and all our government leaders have been quite clear on that intent and didn't consider it the least bit ambiguous until the most recent decades. You start interpreting the Constitution as YOU want it to be, and it ceases to have any relevance or effect.

The Tea Partiers are not willing to hand it over to ambiguity, fluidity, or compromise.

The necessary and proper clause in Article I came under debate not two years following the signing of the Constitution! It came about over the establishment of the first US Bank, which the strict Constitutionalists thought unconstitutional. So to say that it's only been in recent decades where amiguous clauses were the subject of debate is silly. It's been happening for over 200 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

If that's all the founders had in mind, The Constitution would have been a one-page document, saying just that. On the contrary, they were forward thinkers and anticipated dissention and debate as the country matured, which is why there are so many clauses that appear to be deliberately ambiguous.

Wrong, because the rights had to be identified and expressly protected and the government prohibited from having any power to infringe on those rights. Which is exactly what the 4,543 words of the original unamended Constitution and the 1,436 words of the Bill of Rights accomplished. I've had college term papers wordier than that.

The Founders were quite clear on the intent of the Constitution and all our government leaders have been quite clear on that intent and didn't consider it the least bit ambiguous until the most recent decades. You start interpreting the Constitution as YOU want it to be, and it ceases to have any relevance or effect.

The Tea Partiers are not willing to hand it over to ambiguity, fluidity, or compromise.

The necessary and proper clause in Article I came under debate not two years following the signing of the Constitution! It came about over the establishment of the first US Bank, which the strict Constitutionalists thought unconstitutional. So to say that it's only been in recent decades where amiguous clauses were the subject of debate is silly. It's been happening for over 200 years.

Hey I took Constitution in highschool and college too. I never said that it has not been debated. I said there was nothing ambiguous about the intent of the Constitution to secure and defend the rights of the people and prohibit the government from infringing on those rights. The great experiment of the United States of America was that for the first time in history the people would not be governed by a central authority but would be granted liberty to govern themselves. There will be always be issues that have to be debated, but as long as they are debated within the scope of the intent, we'll be okay.

It is only those who pretend the intent was something other than what it was that gets us in trouble.