• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Why Obama is a good president.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
It's an old blog from worldnet, but something I ran across that still seems relevant to me.


“I believe four years of Barack Obama will be terrible for America – in the short term. But the suffering we will experience as a result of his governance could prove to be very positive – in the long term. Why? For the same reason the Jimmy Carter years were terrible in the short term and positive in the long term.

Obama's policies of taxing and spending and clamping down on freedom in health care and other areas will prove massively unpopular when Americans see them fail as these discredited ideas always do. Obama and the Democrats will try to blame past administrations for the problems, just as Jimmy Carter tried to do. They will try to blame the people, just as Jimmy Carter tried to do. But with Democrats running Congress and the White House, it will be easy for Americans to see who is to blame.

I can almost promise you Barack Obama will not be elected to a second term. He will, in all likelihood, just like Jimmy Carter, pave the way for a real Republican president in 2012 – if indeed there is one in the wings.
On the other hand, let's pretend John McCain wins the presidency in 2008. In all likelihood, there will still be a Democrat-dominated Congress. While U.S. policies under McCain and a Democrat Congress will be nearly equally disastrous, it will be the Republican president who bears the brunt of the blame in 2012. Guess what we'll get then? We'll get Barack Obama anyway. Or, perhaps, Hillary Clinton.”

As the Democratic convention concluded last night, with Obama’s speech painting McCain as nothing but more of the same, Obama stressed his mission to help the little guy by expanding government programs and increasing the tax on the rich.

Obama’s ideas feed off the vicious cycle of victim mentality, begins with convincing a large segment of the populace that they are victims. This policy buys votes, as the newly anointed victims support those who champion their cause of "get me more money."*

Yet, throughout history time and time again socialism has failed while capitalism has succeeded. *The entire global expansion of the last decade in emerging nations like China, India and Japan, have been a direct result of global competition and free market enterprise. The nations that have expand their socialistic ideas, like Europe and France; have seen the least amount of growth while there debts have swelled.

I’m not sure about this idea to let Obama win just to prove a point. The fact of the matter is that globalization has run its course and America has to compete with the rest of the world for jobs and resources. The government cannot change that and changing to socialism is only going to increase our economic problems. This is not the change that we need.

The change we do need is America to cut back on consumption and debt. We need leaders that understand this and can effectively communicate it.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,236
Reaction score
547
Points
198
Location
U.S.
when it comes to relations with other nations, he's very effective. He's managed to repair most of the damage bush did going into Iraq ignoring the UN, but he's been ineffective in DC. He has good intentions, but he avoids confrontation like the plague. He's gotta learn to man up if he wants to stay in office.
 

dude_007

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,847
Reaction score
97
Points
133
Location
California
What is the point of trying to make a rebuttal? You're obviously set in your opinion.
 

vince

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,275
Reaction score
1,607
Points
258
Location
Canada
Website
www.XTube.com
That blog was written before the Republicans and their friends in NYC drove the world economy right off the cliff. No. I take that back... They started down that road when they took over a government running budgetary SURPLUSES and proceeded to lower their revenues by cutting taxes for those who most afford to pay them. Then they not only started a war they didn't need, they completely fucked up the prosecution of said war wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. THEN, to pay for the wars and the tax holidays, they had to borrow record amounts of money from foreign investors. It was only after that they crashed the world economy.

Some of you have bloody short (or selective) memories and seem expect the Democrats to wave their magic wands again and fix the so-call "conservative's" mess in less than 3 years. Well, it was a doozy the Republicans left this time and it will take multiple and consecutive Democratic admins clean this one up. It may just be beyond redemption. I for one have sold up everything I owned in the USA.


Give me "Tax and Spend" over "Borrow and Spend" any day.
 

sargon20

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
22,157
Reaction score
31,233
Points
343
Location
Atlantis
^ And inexplicably Americans want more. Every major disaster (9/11, Savings and Loan disaster, Enron, the financial collapse, the Iraq War) has happened during a Republican presidency thanks to republican conservative ideology. When George H. W. Bush I raised taxes to stem the red ink and attempt to balance the budget they thanked him by giving him the boot.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,241
Reaction score
251
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Website
thespincycle.blogspot.com
That blog was written before the Republicans and their friends in NYC drove the world economy right off the cliff. No. I take that back... They started down that road when they took over a government running budgetary SURPLUSES and proceeded to lower their revenues by cutting taxes for those who most afford to pay them. Then they not only started a war they didn't need, they completely fucked up the prosecution of said war wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. THEN, to pay for the wars and the tax holidays, they had to borrow record amounts of money from foreign investors. It was only after that they crashed the world economy.

Thank you for posting this, Vince. You took the words right out of my mouth...er...keyboard.

ETA: I wish the OP had included a link. Quoting from a blog out of any context isn't playing by the rules.
 

TexasC0wb0y

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Posts
448
Reaction score
113
Points
178
I liked first term George W Bush and not 2nd term, I don't care for Rick Perry, so this isn't a Texas thing for me. But it doesn't matter Republican/Democrat...at all. It doesn't even matter who is in the White House. Its the Congress, and when they start actually caring about their jobs and not getting money under the table/cutbacks/free rides, then things wouldn't be as messed up as they are.
 

dude_007

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,847
Reaction score
97
Points
133
Location
California
Actually, I think I will make a rebuttal.

Even if Obama is a one-term President, which I hope he is not, but if he is -
even then his administration will not go down in history as being as big of a failure on the US economy as the G.W. Bush administration.

I realize that conservative blinders prevent many people from acknowledging that the economy has improved....slowly, yes, to be sure, but at least it has slowly improved since its downfall of 2007 and utter collapse of 2008. One of the main factors of why the economy is not recovering faster is because Uncle Sam's old white money is so threatened by this new breed of president that he is willing to bring down millions of his own people to maintain the status quo.
 
Last edited:

TexasC0wb0y

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Posts
448
Reaction score
113
Points
178
fun graph

Someone will always have the same old argument with me. Things are bad because the last president and his policies. Until, their president was the one before and they say "well, it wasn't like that when he was in office." It will always have the same result because there will always be corruption on both sides of the fence.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,694
Reaction score
62
Points
133
That blog was written before the Republicans and their friends in NYC drove the world economy right off the cliff. No. I take that back... They started down that road when they took over a government running budgetary SURPLUSES and proceeded to lower their revenues by cutting taxes for those who most afford to pay them. Then they not only started a war they didn't need, they completely fucked up the prosecution of said war wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. THEN, to pay for the wars and the tax holidays, they had to borrow record amounts of money from foreign investors. It was only after that they crashed the world economy.

Some of you have bloody short (or selective) memories and seem expect the Democrats to wave their magic wands again and fix the so-call "conservative's" mess in less than 3 years. Well, it was a doozy the Republicans left this time and it will take multiple and consecutive Democratic admins clean this one up. It may just be beyond redemption. I for one have sold up everything I owned in the USA.


Give me "Tax and Spend" over "Borrow and Spend" any day.
Agreed. However, Democrats certainly rub shoulders with the same folk - Chuck Schumer and the SEC's Mary Schapiro being prime examples (related story: Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? | Rolling Stone Politics).

Certainly one of the biggest missteps President Obama made after his election was doing anything but investigating Mr. Geithner, a man whose allegiances lie with the financial sector, for his culpability in the collapse. If there's one thing that I am absolutely clear about, very few hands are clean in this debacle.

Having said that, Mr. Obama's portion of the blame is rather small when set against the decades of fuckery. In essence, the system is rotten.
 

atlclgurl

Lurker
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Reaction score
0
Points
51
Agreed. However, Democrats certainly rub shoulders with the same folk - Chuck Schumer and the SEC's Mary Schapiro being prime examples (related story: Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? | Rolling Stone Politics).

Certainly one of the biggest missteps President Obama made after his election was doing anything but investigating Mr. Geithner, a man whose allegiances lie with the financial sector, for his culpability in the collapse. If there's one thing that I am absolutely clear about, very few hands are clean in this debacle.


My BIGGEST problem with Obama is Giethner. His fuck ups and his allegiance to Wall Street and his multiple assists to the Banks have all been exposed, and yet... Obama begs him to STAY... even after the first ever credit downgrade for us. WTF??!!!???
 

TexasC0wb0y

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Posts
448
Reaction score
113
Points
178
Agreed. However, Democrats certainly rub shoulders with the same folk - Chuck Schumer and the SEC's Mary Schapiro being prime examples (related story: Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? | Rolling Stone Politics).

Certainly one of the biggest missteps President Obama made after his election was doing anything but investigating Mr. Geithner, a man whose allegiances lie with the financial sector, for his culpability in the collapse. If there's one thing that I am absolutely clear about, very few hands are clean in this debacle.

Having said that, Mr. Obama's portion of the blame is rather small when set against the decades of fuckery. In essence, the system is rotten.



My BIGGEST problem with Obama is Giethner. His fuck ups and his allegiance to Wall Street and his multiple assists to the Banks have all been exposed, and yet... Obama begs him to STAY... even after the first ever credit downgrade for us. WTF??!!!???

Well said ladies! I agree with you both
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,185
Reaction score
14
Points
123
Obama will be remembered as ineffective, but better than Bush but only marginally since he's continued so many things Bush began.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Actually, I think I will make a rebuttal.

Even if Obama is a one-term President, which I hope he is not, but if he is -
even then his administration will not go down in history as being as big of a failure on the US economy as the G.W. Bush administration.

I realize that conservative blinders prevent many people from acknowledging that the economy has improved....slowly, yes, to be sure, but at least it has slowly improved since its downfall of 2007 and utter collapse of 2008. One of the main factors of why the economy is not recovering faster is because Uncle Sam's old white money is so threatened by this new breed of president that he is willing to bring down millions of his own people to maintain the status quo.

Conservative blinders? Way to wave away anything to the right of you has to say.

Old white money? You sound very bitter. Just sayin....

What new breed of president is BHO? He is the same ole shit in a slightly different bag. He is not progressive, he is too conservative for the democrats, too liberal for the republicans. He lacks backbone, he will go down in history as a worse president than Carter. As much as the Bush haters will disagree, time will tell.

Im going to assume that you are calling him a "new breed" because of his skin color, and I'll tell you the same thing I have told others; Do not forget that he is just as much white as he is "black." And voting for a "black" president does not make you enlightened, progressive, or open minded, voting for someone because of their skin color would make the voter more racist than any klan member.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
LOL . . . the ineffective guy who accomplished more in his first two years than just about any president in history.

It's a world full of contradictions. :smile:
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,185
Reaction score
14
Points
123
LOL . . . the ineffective guy who accomplished more in his first two years than just about any president in history.

It's a world full of contradictions. :smile:

Really? More than any President in history?
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
LOL . . . the ineffective guy who accomplished more in his first two years than just about any president in history.

It's a world full of contradictions. :smile:


Most people do not brag about "accomplishing" detriment.

ie, more debt in his first two years than Bush in 8. I know, "Its all Bush's fault"

Shoving "Obamacare" down our throats while 73% of Americans were against it.

...
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,185
Reaction score
14
Points
123
Most people do not brag about "accomplishing" detriment.

ie, more debt in his first two years than Bush in 8. I know, "Its all Bush's fault"

Shoving "Obamacare" down our throats while 73% of Americans were against it.

...

Where do you get these statistics?

Also the quote in your signature about freedom is kind of funny considering the war I'm guessing it came from.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,185
Reaction score
14
Points
123
Yep . . . there it is . . . found it. I see that "just about" I put in there . . . am I the only one? :smile:

Semantics, and you'd have to define accomplishments. People can pass 5,000,000 pieces of useless legislation.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,694
Reaction score
62
Points
133
My BIGGEST problem with Obama is Giethner. His fuck ups and his allegiance to Wall Street and his multiple assists to the Banks have all been exposed, and yet... Obama begs him to STAY... even after the first ever credit downgrade for us. WTF??!!!???
:shrug: Maybe lack of confidence or his beliefs actual mirror those of Mr. Geithner? Impossible to know, but to paraphrase a friend's adage, "the king's the power", and at the end of the day Mr. Geithner acts on behalf of President Obama. :(


Most people do not brag about "accomplishing" detriment.

ie, more debt in his first two years than Bush in 8. I know, "Its all Bush's fault"

Shoving "Obamacare" down our throats while 73% of Americans were against it.

...
The legacy of policy that contributed to the debt is as important as the fact of the debt itself. Being reasonable in an assessment of this issue involves taking the longview, and there are more than a few pit-stops on that road, one being the most recent President Bush. But, no need to stop there. Personally, I like to begin in 1968.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Here it is relative to the GDP:


Percent of GDP

Debt Held by the Public as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

Bush 2 year increase in debt =========== - 6.9% (at 32.5% in 2001)


Obama 2 year increase in Percent of GDP =========== 21.8% (at 62.1% in 2010)
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,185
Reaction score
14
Points
123
Here it is relative to the GDP:


Percent of GDP

Debt Held by the Public as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

Bush 2 year increase in debt =========== - 6.9% (at 32.5% in 2001)


Obama 2 year increase in Percent of GDP =========== 21.8% (at 62.1% in 2010)

You do realize a good chunk of that is the stimulus right? And the continuing wars started under Bush? And the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts causing less revenue?
 

B_enzia35

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
866
Reaction score
10
Points
53
Location
Texas
Oh stop it with your numbers Horrible! Bush was a bad bad man. And he was white too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.