Obama Election, The End of Sovereignty

[Ravi]

Here you go, PC:

Fact check: Romney's welfare claims wrong - CNN.com

I know you aren't stupid and I have to wonder why you rely on the stupid opinions of stupid people instead of exploring the truth for yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

It's amusing isn't it?

Conservatives picking and choosing when they like or don't like the globalists imposing their will on sovereign nations.

The Globalists who move factories to third world countries to exploit child labor are "good" Globalists.

The Globalists who insist that our leaders be held to a standard of international justice are "bad" globalists. (of course, we had no problem with international tribunals at the end of WWII to try the Axis leaders.)

Got it?

I mean, damn, dude, you got to have your priorities straight.

 

[Mac1958]

You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?

Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.

What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.

And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.

Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.

Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.

Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Good post.

Although to be fair to her, PC isn't a bad kid. Just a bit misguided.

Reminds me of me about 20 years ago. Before I knew any better.

 

[jgarden]

Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.

To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?

The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here you go, PC:

Fact check: Romney's welfare claims wrong - CNN.com

I know you aren't stupid and I have to wonder why you rely on the stupid opinions of stupid people instead of exploring the truth for yourself.

No, Ravi, here YOU go:


1. Why the palpable fear of you Obama voters that your idol has feet of clay...and that you might have made a terrible mistake....Oh, that IS the reason for posts like yours?



2. Let's try logic....the Clinton welfare bill, dragged as he was to sign same by Republicans, was a unmitigated success because it demanded actual work. The Republicans put in strict rules to require actual work.


a. Need proof of the motive for Obama to remove the work requirements?
Sure:

….the dramatically larger increase [in welfare rolls] also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
Casey B. Mulligan: The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program - NYTimes.com
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




3. From your link:
"The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.

In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same."


"waivers...." "some small way...change....work"
I know your reading skills are of a high enough level to understand both what that says....and what it means.
It means exactly what I said it meant.

...Or, should I say, you would see the meaning if it were about a Republican President.



4. And, here is an OP documenting that CNN takes orders from the Obama/Democrat/progressive/liberal crime syndicate.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265654-get-your-truth-from-cnn.html



"I know you aren't stupid....." and...
I'd much rather that you be hostile and direct than pretend that you are oblivious to the facts.


Admit it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.

To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?

The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!

The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....

....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."

A Pod.


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.

Do you know what surplus means?

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office



Easily led dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?

Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.

What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.

And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.

Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.

Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.

Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.

.

"...your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate."


My 'tactic' is simply: I provide truth.

In order to avoid same, folks like you will do anything but confront the facts. I haven't seen so many contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


"narcissism, flamboyance and condescension..."
Guilty as charged.

 

[JoeB131]

Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.

To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?

The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!

The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....

....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."

A Pod.


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.

Do you know what surplus means?

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

.

Except that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds. In short, those funds collected more funds than they paid out, so they were "surpluses".

Now, two issues. ONe is that these funds are paying out more than they collect now, because of lack of people paying into them. Second, we gave huge tax cuts to the rich on the promise they'd produce jobs, and those jobs never materialized.

Supply side doesn't work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good post.

Although to be fair to her, PC isn't a bad kid. Just a bit misguided.

Reminds me of me about 20 years ago. Before I knew any better.

Where is the old 'pit bull Joe'????


I simply cannot deal with this 'kindlier, gentler Joe."


I want the old Joe back!!!! NOW!!!!

 

[Mac1958]

You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?

Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.

What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.

And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.

Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.

Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.

Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.

.

"...your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate."


My 'tactic' is simply: I provide truth.

In order to avoid same, folks like you will do anything but confront the facts. I haven't seen so many contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


"narcissism, flamboyance and condescension..."
Guilty as charged.

Yes, I know, The Truth. I hear that one from both sides.

So I think we have a deal: I'll keep hoping that our "leaders" in DC will work together in the very best interests of our country, and you -- well, you keep doing what you do.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?

The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!

The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....

....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."

A Pod.


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.

Do you know what surplus means?

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

.

Except that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds. In short, those funds collected more funds than they paid out, so they were "surpluses".

Now, two issues. ONe is that these funds are paying out more than they collect now, because of lack of people paying into them. Second, we gave huge tax cuts to the rich on the promise they'd produce jobs, and those jobs never materialized.

Supply side doesn't work.

"that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds."
Just not there, huh?

Nice attempt at spin.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.
Adjective:
More than what is needed or used; excess.
Synonyms:
noun. excess - overplus - overage - superfluity - redundance
adjective. redundant - superfluous - spare - excessive

 

[JoeB131]

Good post.

Although to be fair to her, PC isn't a bad kid. Just a bit misguided.

Reminds me of me about 20 years ago. Before I knew any better.

Where is the old 'pit bull Joe'????


I simply cannot deal with this 'kindlier, gentler Joe."


I want the old Joe back!!!! NOW!!!!

Actually, that has always been my position.

I used to be as RW as you are. Maybe a little worse.

But I'll be a bit meaner in the future, promise.

 

[JoeB131]

"that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds."
Just not there, huh?

Nice attempt at spin.

1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700



That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

YOu talk like that's a bad thing. I personally consider it a good thing when we aren't involved in a war, having been in the military during one myself.

But let's give Clinton some Credit, in the 8 years he was in, he kept the growth of debt to a mere 41%, most of that during the first years of his term, when we were still shaking off the effects of the 1990 recession.

Compare that to Reagan, who increased the size of the Debt by 200% in 8 years, or Bush, who increased it by 80%, I'd consider that pretty good work.

Now, yeah, the whole "Converting into bonds" thing is a bit of chicanery, but it's been going on since the 1960's... and was made worse with Reagan and his bill that "saved" social Security by raising taxes on working folks and employers while throwing a lot of people off of it and making them work longer. And when he did it, they all predicted 2013 would be the year that those bonds would have to be made good on. But 2013 was a long way off, and everyone was happy dancing the crisis had been adverted.

It'll be 2013 in 28 days.

 

[Old Rocks]

why is it when repubs lose elections the sky is falling?

There is the possibility that you aren't intelligent enough to understand what is at stake...and what has been lost.

Oh, we understand the loss

You lost the election. You fruitloops were all over the board telling us how the left was going to be on suicide watch come 7Nov12. Then reality kicked you right in the chops. Well deserved kick, too. Hubris is best served crow.

So grow up and accept reality. The world is not going to end because your concept of the Way Things Oughta Be is not accepted by most Americans. And the nation is better served by the rejection of the poisonous ideologies spewed by the far right.

Nor are most going to be impressed by your Chicken Little rants. The economy is still gradually getting better, in spite of the obstructionism by the Teabaggers. Home prices and sells are starting to recover. Consumer confidence is increasing. And people are once again beginning to find good jobs.

Americans See Best Job Climate Since the Financial Crisis

 

[NYcarbineer]

[1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

4.35 trillion going to 5.62 trillion is a 1.27 trillion increase.

That is not a 41% increase. 1.27 is 29% of 4.35.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, NYC, the guy has caught you clearly committing a lie of omission. By not mentioning Libya in your original comment, you played your hand. You really don't have a problem with the Obama administration's actions in Libya.....but if it were Bush doing it, you would.

Why fight it? The guy can read your mind.

There was a short time last year when I got so sick of people insisting that I did NOT oppose intervention in Libya that I put a statement of my position in my sigline. These people are frighteningly stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans gave up our sovereignty to Grover Norquist

 

[NYcarbineer]

The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling in everyone else's affairs, getting entangled in all sorts of military alliances that mainly serve your allies' purposes, fighting wars for the 'good' of someone other than yourself, at great expense,

borrowing money from foreign nations to fund it all, because you don't have the resources and/or the stomach to pay for it yourself,

and in the process ending up neglecting your own domestic interests, your REAL interests.

But complain about this and be sure that the perpetrators of this crime will label you as unpatriotic.

Unpatriotic because you care more about the fate of your own country than the fate of other countries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.

To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?

The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!

The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....

....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."

A Pod.


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.

Do you know what surplus means?

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office



Easily led dunce.

Bush justified his 2001 tax cuts on the grounds that we had a surplus,

and according to Bush, that surplus (which you claim never existed) meant that American taxpayers were being overcharged.

So, according to your 'logic', Bush was very very very very very WRONG.