The Communist Party, Likes Obama's agenda, but doesn't feel he has gone far enough.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maple, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    What an endorsement of the agenda and the President who is attempting to radically change the direction of our free economy and from the communist party itself. :lol::lol::lol:


    Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling cpusa

    That agenda in a full-blown sense has yet to be articulated by him. If President Obama and the Democrats want to hail the private sector as the engine of growth, I wouldn't quibble too much as long as they recognize that the private sector at this moment (big or small business) isn't generating jobs and probably won't for a long time. In these circumstances, only direct and indirect government intervention in the form of a massive public works jobs program, infrastructure repair and renewal, aid for state and local governments, and special measures for the hardest hit communities, and especially communities of racial minorities and immigrants, stands a chance of lowering unemployment in any kind of meaningful way.
    In other words, the economy still has to be re-inflated and restructured along democratic, sustainable, nonmilitary, and worker-friendly lines, but the likelihood of the private sector doing that is zero. To a degree, the president is moving in this direction, but the pace and nature of the economic reforms that he prescribes is far too limited for the scope and depth of this crisis.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm does the above statement remind you of any of the current agenda, because it sure does me.



    I think we are already doing that with the 787 billion dollar stimulus bill and it does not appear to be working. This guy along with all the liberal dems don't think that private sector jobs are important. Neither does Obama- he did not talk about the private sector until they lost Massachusetts and then it became important. LOLOLOL

    The only question I have for this author is- Where the hell do you think that you are going to get the money to pay for all those public jobs if you are not collecting it from Private sector employers and employees in the form of taxes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
  3. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
  4. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Actually, this below--from the link in the OP--is probably what Massachusetts wanted to vote for.

    "That agenda in a full-blown sense has yet to be articulated by him. If President Obama and the Democrats want to hail the private sector as the engine of growth, I wouldn't quibble too much as long as they recognize that the private sector at this moment (big or small business) isn't generating jobs and probably won't for a long time. In these circumstances, only direct and indirect government intervention in the form of a massive public works jobs program, infrastructure repair and renewal, aid for state and local governments, and special measures for the hardest hit communities, and especially communities of racial minorities and immigrants, stands a chance of lowering unemployment in any kind of meaningful way."

    China, Australia, and the forward-thinking nations that arose from the global crisis, many months ago: did precisely the massive public works, and mega-level aid, being advocated. Mainly, the United States relied on the incompetent scum of the private sector--for example, in the banks and on Wall Street--to get the whole thing: Erupting with jobs and prosperity instead.

    And so they got what they paid for. A lot of rich people, getting giant bonuses, and a record $10.0 bil. box office for Hollywood! The employment gains are only coming in slowly.

    Commentators world-wide have noticed how incompetent the GOP, private-sector, reliant mantra really has shown itself to be. Mostly, this recovery originates of the Bush Administration, and going back to 2008 and before. The Obama Administration major stimulus--likely apparent even in the new Q4 GDP--has yet to become engaged in the field. That now happens this year.

    Massachusetts, even, seemed to want the faster, New Deal-based, public works expansion that originated of the United States--in the Democratic Party, under FDR, and even under Truman.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (GOP send in troops to Iraq, under orders of Betrayus, without sufficient protective clothing. Now Conservative GOP get Senator in Washington, with public record of having no clothes on at all(?)!)
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  5. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    One question-- If you do not have the Private Sector working and paying taxes both business taxes and personal taxes, where is the government going to get the money to fund public works projects??? Please answer that.
     
  6. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568


    :lol::lol::lol::lol:"If Massachusetts even, seemed to want the faster, New Deal-Based, public works expansion that originated of the United States--in the Democratic Party, under FDR and even under Truman."

    Don't you think it would have been smarter of Massachusetts voters to elect the Democrat Coakley who SUPPORTED Obama instead of Brown who OPPOSES Obama's agenda???:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::cuckoo:
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,204
    Alright, let's say Barrack Obama isnt a socialist for argument's sake. Which of his policies would he need to change if he decided to become socialist?
     
  8. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Hello, Maple Poster,

    Playmate of the Month was apparently not in the resume, so anyone would have had to suggest that stern measures, in a New England state, were probably called for!

    It might have made sense to try to unlock the doors of some professor's house in Cambridge, start with the bottle-shaking, and then start screaming epithets and obscenties--all the while downing some brewskis!

    Elections are not always that hard to win: Anyone notices!

    And anyone knows: The color of ketchup! There could have been a win, there!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Not forget, snappy light-skinned dialect, from Writer's Guild--like always! Anyone might suggest, "Really light-skinned dialect," in fact!)
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,204
    What on earth are you talking about?
     
  10. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,028
    Thanks Received:
    5,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,977
    Socialism is an economic theory that requires everyone involved to become socialist as well. Perhaps you meant Communist, which would require him to take over all industry, completely regulate the market, and take control as a despot.
     

Share This Page