Bachmann vs Obama

[007]

So you believe businesses are suffering under President Obama's "rule" since you called him a Marxist?

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.html
Apple has more money than the US government - Yahoo! News
Forbes list of billionaires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fortune 500 2011: Top Performers - Most Profitable Companies: Profits

Yeah..lots of people suffering.

But it ain't America's top companies and wealthiest Americans.

Yeah... they are... United States Unemployment Rate

And at present, there's no end in sight.

 

[Si modo]

Businesses are booming, eh?

Corporations are at the very least. Or do you doubt that?

Nope. But as ~85% of businesses in the USA are small, the few large corporations doing well does not equate to businesses doing well under Obama.

And, most of those corps are doing well because they've moved so many ops offshore to save expenses here.

 

[Modbert]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

I'm not sure how many more talking points you could fit into your post there. That's not the definition of a Marxist even if what you believe about him is true.

Furthermore, the second part of your post is nothing but ideological talking points. Your wish for rampant deregulation is what helped get us into this financial crisis in the first place. Furthermore, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would have done what for the economy exactly?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.html
Apple has more money than the US government - Yahoo! News
Forbes list of billionaires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fortune 500 2011: Top Performers - Most Profitable Companies: Profits

Yeah..lots of people suffering.

But it ain't America's top companies and wealthiest Americans.

Yeah... they are... United States Unemployment Rate

And at present, there's no end in sight.

 

[Modbert]

Nope. But as ~85% of businesses in the USA are small, the few large corporations doing well does not equate to businesses doing well under Obama.

And, most of those corps are doing well because they've moved so many ops offshore to save expenses here.

Link to the second part of your post?

Furthermore, one must take Corporations into account when discussing how well businesses are doing.

U.S. Corporate Profits Hit Record in Third Quarter - NYTimes.com

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.

Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output.

From Feb 2010:

Health Insurers Post Record Profits - ABC News

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.

The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).

From May 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care.

From April 2011:

High Gas Prices Mean Record Profits for Big Oil - ABC News

Now if you can find some articles concerning the profits of small businesses, I would like to see them.

 

[Si modo]

Nope. But as ~85% of businesses in the USA are small, the few large corporations doing well does not equate to businesses doing well under Obama.

And, most of those corps are doing well because they've moved so many ops offshore to save expenses here.

Link to the second part of your post?

....

Ummm, YOU said business are doing well and I'm agreeing with it.

But, ~85% of businesses are much smaller and they are not doing well.

So, in my book, that does not equate to "businesses are doing well under Obama".

 

[mal]

I would vote for Osama bin Laden before Botch-mann.

Another Idiot Claiming "Libertarian"...

It's Trolls like this on the Internet who make "Libertarians" out to be Idiots.

Do you smoke Pot, Mr. Owl?...



peace...

Could you please be more specific on how exactly am I an idiot or a troll?

Your Post... It's Trolling and you are an Idiot.

I would never be so Blindly Partisan as to say I would Vote for a Terrorist like bin Laden over ANY DemocRAT, Obama bin Barry included...

Crawl under a Rock... You are making Libertarians look Worse with every post.



peace...

 

[Modbert]

Ummm, YOU said business are doing well and I'm agreeing with it.

But, ~85% of businesses are much smaller and they are not doing well.

So, in my book, that does not equate to "businesses are doing well under Obama".

I meant to highlight the whole sentence, including this part:

because they've moved so many ops offshore to save expenses here.

Well, I was wondering if you had some evidence about how well exactly the small businesses are doing and why.

Simply saying that small businesses are not doing well and then saying they're not doing well because of Obama's policies are two entirely different things.

 

[mal]

From April 2011:

High Gas Prices Mean Record Profits for Big Oil - ABC News

Now if you can find some articles concerning the profits of small businesses, I would like to see them.

The US Government makes the most Money on a Gallon of Gas...

Be Honest for once, Modbert...

Tell us how much the Producers of the Product make on a Gallon as Compared to the US Government...

Can you be Honest?...



peace...

 

[Sallow]

Could you please be more specific on how exactly am I an idiot or a troll?

Let me help. Probably when you send PM's like this to people, "Instead of debating your just gonna neg me you fuck dumbass. You're an idiot, a pussy, and ultimately a dick" is the reason why you have that reputation.

Neg repped for being an asswipe.

Warrior, what the hell is you're problem? If you disagree with me, TELL ME WHY!!!! Try it, instead of cowardly hiding behind the rep system. Your not a badass because you sit in front of a computer and press a little button. Do you do this to everyone? Obviously not, because if you did, you'd have less fans than liberal on Fox News!

Stop already.

Sheesh.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

I'm not sure how many more talking points you could fit into your post there. That's not the definition of a Marxist even if what you believe about him is true.

Furthermore, the second part of your post is nothing but ideological talking points. Your wish for rampant deregulation is what helped get us into this financial crisis in the first place. Furthermore, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would have done what for the economy exactly?

No talking points there that I'm aware of and I'm pretty up on official talking points from both parties. And if you think weaking the rich to strengthen the poor isn't Marxist, I really REALLY fear what manner of education you are getting.

So why do you think Obama chose Jeffrey Inmelt as his 'jobs czar'? Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China. And that is AFTER his appointment as jobs and competitiveness advisor. And which major U.S. corporation stands to gain the most if Obama's cap and trade initiative ever makes it through Congress? Ding, ding, ding--G.E. again, while most small business is clutching what investment capital they have left lest they lose it if that initiative passes.

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.html
Apple has more money than the US government - Yahoo! News
Forbes list of billionaires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fortune 500 2011: Top Performers - Most Profitable Companies: Profits

Yeah..lots of people suffering.

But it ain't America's top companies and wealthiest Americans.

Yeah... they are... United States Unemployment Rate

And at present, there's no end in sight.

Blew past the articles..
The point that "Yeah..lots of people suffering."

And right to the unemployment figures.

Which..by the way..we are in agreement on.

It's where to place the blame..that's the sticking point.

 

[Modbert]

No talking points there that I'm aware of and I'm pretty up on official talking points from both parties. And if you think weaking the rich to strengthen the poor isn't Marxist, I really REALLY fear what manner of education you are getting.

So why do you think Obama chose Jeffrey Inmelt as his 'jobs czar'? Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China. And that is AFTER his appointment as jobs and competitiveness advisor. And which major U.S. corporation stands to gain the most if Obama's cap and trade initiative ever makes it through Congress? Ding, ding, ding--G.E. again, while most small business is clutching what investment capital they have left lest they lose it if that initiative passes.

We both know that wasn't your entire definition of Marxist.

I find it interesting that you say President Obama wishes to weaken the rich to strengthen the poor and then go on a rant about Jeffrey Inmelt. If President Obama was trying to weaken the rich in the manner that you say, why would he bring Inmelt on board? Furthermore, why would he want to harm small businesses but prop up the major Corporations?

You're making the talking point that President Obama is a Marxist who wishes to destroy the rich to prop up the poor while making the same argument in the very same post that he's trying to prop up the rich Corporations like G.E over poor small businesses.

Doublethink if I ever saw it.

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

I'm not sure how many more talking points you could fit into your post there. That's not the definition of a Marxist even if what you believe about him is true.

Furthermore, the second part of your post is nothing but ideological talking points. Your wish for rampant deregulation is what helped get us into this financial crisis in the first place. Furthermore, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would have done what for the economy exactly?

No talking points there that I'm aware of and I'm pretty up on official talking points from both parties. And if you think weaking the rich to strengthen the poor isn't Marxist, I really REALLY fear what manner of education you are getting.
So why do you think Obama chose Jeffrey Inmelt as his 'jobs czar'? Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China. And that is AFTER his appointment as jobs and competitiveness advisor. And which major U.S. corporation stands to gain the most if Obama's cap and trade initiative ever makes it through Congress? Ding, ding, ding--G.E. again, while most small business is clutching what investment capital they have left lest they lose it if that initiative passes.

So you're saying the Founding Fathers were marxist? That takes the fucking cake.

Because that's exactly what they were involved in doing. One the the reasons for the war of independence was "Taxation without Representation". In other words..the Rich English Monarchy were stealing from the poor colonists.

And they wanted that stopped.

 

[Foxfyre]

No talking points there that I'm aware of and I'm pretty up on official talking points from both parties. And if you think weaking the rich to strengthen the poor isn't Marxist, I really REALLY fear what manner of education you are getting.

So why do you think Obama chose Jeffrey Inmelt as his 'jobs czar'? Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China. And that is AFTER his appointment as jobs and competitiveness advisor. And which major U.S. corporation stands to gain the most if Obama's cap and trade initiative ever makes it through Congress? Ding, ding, ding--G.E. again, while most small business is clutching what investment capital they have left lest they lose it if that initiative passes.

We both know that wasn't your entire definition of Marxist.

I find it interesting that you say President Obama wishes to weaken the rich by strengthen the poor and then go on a rant about Jeffrey Inmelt. If President Obama was trying to weaken the rich in the manner that you say, why would he bring Inmelt on board? Furthermore, why would he want to harm small businesses but prop up the major Corporations?

You're making the talking point in the very same post that President Obama is a Marxist who wishes to destroy the rich to prop up the poor while making the same argument that he's trying to prop up the rich Corporations like G.E over poor small businesses.

Doublethink if I ever saw it.

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

 

[toxicmedia]

I just realized that if Bachmann wins the presidency...she can appoint her husband as the "gay curing czar".

God I hope this brainless twerp wins!

 

[Foxfyre]

I just realized that if Bachmann wins the presidency...she can appoint her husband as the "gay curing czar".

God I hope this brainless twerp wins!

She could but I don't think she would. Tea Partiers are not into any form of social engineering and I can't imagine a dedicated Tea Partier would use the federal government to accomplish any of that.

 

[Modbert]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

 

[Luissa]

Bachmann could never win the independent vote.

 

[Luissa]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

When anyone says Obama's a marxist, I know for sure they have no clue what Marxism is.