Ten most corrupt politicians for 2009

[B_hijack]

[Obama is] A pathalogical liar and a fraud.

Examples please.

 

[toadstool]

All of them are crooked

 

[B_starinvestor]

Though Star has been consistent in his outspoken dislike of Obama, his reasoning has been fluid and changing and more emotional than rational (for instance: Obama's a "Socialist" when Star repeatedly showed ignorance of what the term actually means).

Ha!! Bbucko - where did I demonstrate ignorance with regard to the idea of Socialism?

FWIW, unlike many other Obama-haters here, I honestly don't believe that Star's negativity is racially motivated. Rather I think that he has false impressions regarding Obama's desire to reinforce and build upon America's welfare state until it reflects more of a Western European model, as if he's somehow a reincarnation of Francois Mitterand or something.

You are correct about everything here except for the 'false impression' remark.

I think that what he is most concerned with is a repudiation of the previous two administrations which, though now quick to criticize he was keen on defending even after they became indefensible (note his signature in support of torture as an element of American foreign policy).

The previous two administrations were poor, but not nearly as poor as most on this forum represent. A significant portion of the events that occurred (particularly in the last two years) during W's terms were largely out of their control. It is comical that people hold W responsible for the mortgage crisis. Comical.

The fact that Obama is a deeply pragmatic centrist does not play into his bogeyman and will never be recognized by Star, though it's obvious to (nearly) everyone else here.

He is NOT a centrist. Nowhere near being a centrist. I am pleased with a few (very few) decisions he's made with regard to foreign policy. His domestic policies have been atrocious and far, far left.

Doing so would betray Star's (now hushed and subdued) support for The Tea Party which he was bullish about following the election in 2008.

I still support the tea party.:smile: It is futile for me to discuss it on this site because of the bias and irrational hyperventilating from the liberals re: tea party, etc.

 

[dreamer20]

He <Obama> is NOT a centrist. Nowhere near being a centrist. I am pleased with a few (very few) decisions he's made with regard to foreign policy. His domestic policies have been atrocious and far, far left.

Please describe these far, far, left atrocious domestic policies starinvestor.

 

[B_starinvestor]

[/B]Please describe these far, far, left atrocious domestic policies strarinvestor.

• Allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire - effectively raising taxes on all taxpayers
• announcing we will not use nuclear weapons as a deterrent
• spearheading a trillion dollar healthcare bill with thousands of earmarks and jacking up gov't to run the healthcare system
• attacking small businesses with tax assaults
• attacking the wealthy with higher tax rates and more 'special taxes'
• turning a blind eye to illegal immigration
• attacking large banks with additional taxes
• spending gov't funds like a drunken sailor
• cranking up the national debt at record speed
• trying to fix every problem by throwing money at it
• flip-flopping on almost everything he ever says
• extending entitlements so people have no incentive to get out there and work

The list goes on. And on. And on.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

• Allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire - effectively raising taxes on all taxpayers
• announcing we will not use nuclear weapons as a deterrent
• spearheading a trillion dollar healthcare bill with thousands of earmarks and jacking up gov't to run the healthcare system
• attacking small businesses with tax assaults
• attacking the wealthy with higher tax rates and more 'special taxes'
• turning a blind eye to illegal immigration
• attacking large banks with additional taxes
• spending gov't funds like a drunken sailor
• cranking up the national debt at record speed
• trying to fix every problem by throwing money at it
• flip-flopping on almost everything he ever says
• extending entitlements so people have no incentive to get out there and work

The list goes on. And on. And on.

Are we talking ideology or reality?
Because I can name plenty of Republicans that have done the very things you're claiming right now. You can start with John McCain on the "flip flop" issue.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

I fail to see how calling a source into question is off topic or not adding to the discussion,

particularly when said source is the entire basis for the discussion as presented by the OP.

I agree. Always question the source. See the comment I just posted on another discussion: http://www.lpsg.org/187634-bankruptcy-101-why-arizona-did.html#post2811076

IMO, the source alone can sometimes indict the OP's "objectivity". What exactly was starinvestor's purpose in posting this list other than to provide legitimacy for his professed hate for the President?

 

[B_talltpaguy]

• Allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire - effectively raising taxes on all taxpayers
• announcing we will not use nuclear weapons as a deterrent
• spearheading a trillion dollar healthcare bill with thousands of earmarks and jacking up gov't to run the healthcare system
• attacking small businesses with tax assaults
• attacking the wealthy with higher tax rates and more 'special taxes'
• turning a blind eye to illegal immigration
• attacking large banks with additional taxes
• spending gov't funds like a drunken sailor
• cranking up the national debt at record speed
• trying to fix every problem by throwing money at it
• flip-flopping on almost everything he ever says
• extending entitlements so people have no incentive to get out there and work

The list goes on. And on. And on.

Yeah, none of those conservative talking points are actually 'liberal' in nature. They're all centrist solutions, or a continuation of what the Republicans did.

Plus, you're either flat out wrong or grossly mischaracterizing the reality of several of them.

 

[maxcok]

Yeah, none of those conservative talking points are actually 'liberal' in nature. They're all centrist solutions, or a continuation of what the Republicans did.

Plus, you're either flat out wrong or grossly mischaracterizing the reality of several of them.

Oh, let's just pick one:

attacking small businesses with tax assaults

The reality: "To address high unemployment and tight credit markets, President Obama has put in place more stimulus funded tax breaks for small business in his latest budget. The President is pushing Congress to use $30 billion that had been set aside from the TARP program to bail out Wall Street to start a new program that provides loans and tax credits to small businesses, which the White House calls the engine for job growth."

More Stimulus Tax Breaks and Hiring Credits in Obama's 2010 Budget ​

The list goes on. And on. And on.

As do you, doll. On and on and on and on . . . . .

 

[Bbucko]

Ha!! Bbucko - where did I demonstrate ignorance with regard to the idea of Socialism?

The entire Failure of Socialism thread, Star: real-life Socialists popped that balloon immediately. When you say "socialism", what you mean is "welfare statism". They are not synonymous.

You are correct about everything here except for the 'false impression' remark.

Please link one example of Obama's defense of or desire to expand upon the welfare state in terms of permanently expanding entitlement benefits.

It was actually GWBush and the Republicans in Congress who brought about the largest expansion of welfare-state entitlements (and unfunded, to boot) with Medicare Part D. Obama's done nothing of the sort. And that was accomplished during the first, not second term.

The previous two administrations were poor, but not nearly as poor as most on this forum represent. A significant portion of the events that occurred (particularly in the last two years) during W's terms were largely out of their control. It is comical that people hold W responsible for the mortgage crisis. Comical.

Holding GWBush wholly accountable for the mortgage crisis is as comical as holding ACORN wholly accountable: yeah, I'd agree. The deregulation of the markets started in the 1980s and 1990s and were the result of Wall Street greed.

And I doubt that there's a poster in this forum who'd agree in retrospect that GWBush's scheme to "privatize" Social Security would have been anything but an utter disaster for millions of American seniors and the working poor aged 50+.

And let's not forget that the first GWBush administration not only instigated two poorly-planned and unfunded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes (an historical first and without precedent). War requires sacrifice beyond the blood of young men and women.

He is NOT a centrist. Nowhere near being a centrist. I am pleased with a few (very few) decisions he's made with regard to foreign policy. His domestic policies have been atrocious and far, far left.

Far, far left? So where's our single-payer health care, or even public option for that matter? Where is the nationalization of aviation, for instance, or petroleum companies? The auto-maker bailouts don't count because they aren't permanent: they are being repaid with interest even as we speak.

I still support the tea party.:smile: It is futile for me to discuss it on this site because of the bias and irrational hyperventilating from the liberals re: tea party, etc.

I have never seen liberal hyperventilating prevent you from posting here before, on any number of red-button issues. From the admittedly cheap seats I'm sitting in it would appear that the Tea Party's splintering of Republican electoral efforts (and resulting Democratic wins) have taken some of the wind from your sails on the subject.

You were certainly more vocal about your involvement immediately following the 2008 election than you've been since. You sure that the Tea Party's close association with the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rand Paul aren't just a bit of an issue for you?

 

[B_starinvestor]

The entire Failure of Socialism thread, Star: real-life Socialists popped that balloon immediately. When you say "socialism", what you mean is "welfare statism". They are not synonymous.

Fair enough.

Please link one example of Obama's defense of or desire to expand upon the welfare state in terms of permanently expanding entitlement benefits.

Extension of unemployment benefits. Not permanent, but still a disincentive for people to go back to work or search for work.

It was actually GWBush and the Republicans in Congress who brought about the largest expansion of welfare-state entitlements (and unfunded, to boot) with Medicare Part D. Obama's done nothing of the sort. And that was accomplished during the first, not second term.

But he cut taxes significantly.

Holding GWBush wholly accountable for the mortgage crisis is as comical as holding ACORN wholly accountable: yeah, I'd agree. The deregulation of the markets started in the 1980s and 1990s and were the result of Wall Street greed.

And greed of our nation's people. Five out of ten people were buying houses they couldn't afford. They are adults.

And I doubt that there's a poster in this forum who'd agree in retrospect that GWBush's scheme to "privatize" Social Security would have been anything but an utter disaster for millions of American seniors and the working poor aged 50+.

The point is that the funds that are collected from your paycheck for SS are forked right over to those receiving SS payments. Under privatization, dollars would actually be retained and would be accumulated. I still think its a better solution than what we have. If you looked back at the dollars you've paid into social security, and calculated what they would have grown to if you had redirected those dollars into an index fund, you would probably choke. It would be a helluva lot better monthly payment than what you will ultimately get from SS.

And let's not forget that the first GWBush administration not only instigated two poorly-planned and unfunded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes (an historical first and without precedent). War requires sacrifice beyond the blood of young men and women.

There is no way we couldn't retaliate @ Al Qaeda. I'll pass on commenting on Iraq because I don't have the time or inclination to go down that road again.

You were certainly more vocal about your involvement immediately following the 2008 election than you've been since. You sure that the Tea Party's close association with the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rand Paul aren't just a bit of an issue for you?

Palin and Beck have set the movement back. No doubt.

 

[Bbucko]

But he cut taxes significantly.

There is no way we couldn't retaliate @ Al Qaeda. I'll pass on commenting on Iraq because I don't have the time or inclination to go down that road again.

Cutting taxes significantly with engaging in two wars and expanding the welfare state on a level unseen since The Great Society of the 1960s is hardly fiscal conservatism. And I needn't remind you that Bush repeatedly railed against "nation building" during the 2000 campaign.

Had he remained focused on Afghanistan instead of misleading the world about Saddam (of whom I was no fan, BTW), "yellow cake", aluminum tubes and WMD (that "mushroom cloud" quote was obviously meant to terrify), then there's the chance (however slight) that we'd have captured Osama and decapitated Al Qaeda once and for all.

I will agree, however, that debating the relative merits of a world freed from Saddam's brutality is this forum's proverbial dead horse.

And greed of our nation's people. Five out of ten people were buying houses they couldn't afford. They are adults.

High-risk lending was win/win for the mortgage companies at the time, though there's no denying that many people who had no business applying for mortgages were approved. There's blame enough for everybody.

The point is that the funds that are collected from your paycheck for SS are forked right over to those receiving SS payments. Under privatization, dollars would actually be retained and would be accumulated. I still think its a better solution than what we have. If you looked back at the dollars you've paid into social security, and calculated what they would have grown to if you had redirected those dollars into an index fund, you would probably choke. It would be a helluva lot better monthly payment than what you will ultimately get from SS.

Bush's plan was to integrate the stock market into privatizing SS. Considering the pulverization mutual funds experienced in 2008, I think we can all agree that the suffering would have been tremendous.

Palin and Beck have set the movement back. No doubt.

When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas

 

[austinstace]

judicialwatch is the conservative, non-profit tool Richard Mellon Scaife uses to legally funnel money from a family trust he managed into a vehicle to serve his political agenda. The actions of judicialwatch can be closely tied to his own conservative views. Although republicans occasionally appear to be targets of criticism, a closer look at the underlying issues will reveal a personal, not civic, motivation.