E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court, suddenly at the heart of presidential politics, is preparing what could be blockbuster rulings on health care and immigration shortly before the fall election.
The court, sometimes an afterthought in presidential elections, is throwing a new element of uncertainty into the campaign taking shape between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Sharply divided between four conservatives, four liberals and one conservative-leaning swing justice, the court already is viewed as being nearly as partisan as Congress. Within weeks it will rule on the contentious 2010 Democratic-crafted health care overhaul and a Republican-backed Arizona law that's seen as a model for cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Obama sometimes seems to be running against the court, or at least its conservative members. Whether that will sway voters in November is unclear. The public receives far less information and visual imagery of the Supreme Court than it does of the White House and Congress.
An anti-court strategy by Obama "will fire up his base, but I doubt it will make any bigger impact on swing voters," said Republican consultant John Feehery.
Recommended: House GOP set to curb college student loan costs
Meanwhile, strategists in both parties are hoping they can turn the upcoming decisions to their advantage — for instance, possibly boosting Democratic turnout among Hispanic voters unhappy with GOP immigration policies or emboldening the Republican base if Obama's landmark health care law is ruled unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court already has played a huge and direct role in U.S. presidential politics. Its 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore settled the bitter 2000 contest by barring a Florida ballot recount, which Democrats hoped would prevent George W. Bush's election.
And the 2010 Citizens United case, also decided 5-4, greatly eased political spending restrictions on corporations and unions. It gave birth to the "super PACs" that are reshaping campaigns by raising millions of anonymously donated dollars for TV ads attacking Obama, Romney and targeted congressional candidates.
By holding well-publicized hearings on the health care and immigration cases — and now writing keenly awaited decisions — the court is stirring passions on key issues in this year's elections. Less clear, however, is how the politics might play out.
Many court-watchers expect the justices to throw out most or all of the health law, which Republicans derisively call "Obamacare." During public oral arguments, the most conservative justices questioned Congress' authority to require all Americans to obtain health insurance.
Romney may be poorly positioned to exploit such a ruling, however. The similar "individual mandate" that he successfully pushed as Massachusetts governor was a model for Obama's federal plan.
"I don't think the Romney campaign will want to make health care a major issue," said Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway. "Every time Romney criticizes the president's health care reform, he opens himself up to the Etch A Sketch attack."
Hattaway was referring to claims that Romney switches back and forth on important policies, erasing and redrawing pages when convenient.
Republican strategist Terry Holt said a court decision overturning the health care law would be an unmistakable setback for Obama.
"It repudiates the singular achievement of this administration," Holt said.
Feehery agreed, saying such a ruling would make Obama "look like a weak president."
But it might help other Democrats, Feehery said. "It takes away a law that is unpopular," he said, "but puts health care back on the agenda for the Democrats, which has been a winning issue in the past."
In the immigration case, the Obama administration opposes Arizona's requirement that police check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.
The law, pushed by a Republican governor and Legislature, has angered some voters, including Hispanics, in battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado.
A number of court analysts predict the justices will uphold parts of the Arizona law but may overturn others. That could energize Americans who want tougher sanctions, including deportation, against millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
"This could prove problematic for Romney," Feehery said, because it would pit his conservative base against much-needed Hispanic voters in targeted states. "If Romney handles it right, by largely ignoring it, it could take out a major source of irritation for Hispanics and maybe help a portion of them see the good side of Romney," Feehery said.
Earlier this month, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, delivered what some considered a misleading warning to the court regarding the health care law.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example."
White House spokesmen tried to explain that Obama recognizes the court's power to review laws passed by Congress. His point, said spokesman Jay Carney, is that the Supreme Court traditionally has "deferred to Congress' authority in matters of national economic importance."
Leave a Comment:
Spin spin spin for the so-called, "constitutional lawyer," who doesn't seem to know what the U.S. Constitution says, or why the protections FROM GOVERNMENT tyranny were put in place. With NDAA Sec 1020, individual mandates, energy policies that take products consumers want off the market for more expensive & less functional products (by companies owned by Democrats no less), this is a President that is NOT in favor of the public having a choice. This is a President that just wants to dictate how we should live our lives and waves a hand so we don't notice he signed an expansion and extension of the Patriot Act, didn't close Guantanamo Bay, and fell far short of the hopey dopey change he promised. Sadly, if Romney does end up as the nominee, Americans will once again not have a choice of a leader, as from welfare to warfare, both the standing President and his challenger are almost identical in opinion and thought.
If Congress cannot force people to buy insurance, I don't see why it can force hospitals to treat those without it. If ACA gets repealed, I hope the health-care insurance companies files a lawsuit so they no longer have to pay to cover those without insurance.
Ruken, I'm with you. If a person gets sick for any reason without medical insurance or the ability to pay the bill then he should just be immediately transported to the morgue. If he gets better then fine...if not then he's in the right place.
Honesty though, when is this greed of the right wing going to stop? They call themselves the moral party with religious convictions yet they love money more than life. It's just doesn't seem very religious to me and I refuse to hoard money so others must die. I'll gladly pay my taxes for the privileged to be a patriotic American living in a country that has the freedom to travel from state to state without restrictions.
So the people that don't want to buy health insurance just want to go to the ER and not pay for their medical bills that can run for thousands of dollars, and let the tax payers pay. That is very responsible.
It really doesn't matter if the SC rules unfavorably on the individual mandate. There is already a viable alternative not to mention a single-payer system, which IMHO is where we should have gone in the first place. However with the likes of Grassley perpetrating lies of a death panel, and with Republican party obstruction and virile hateful propaganda, uninformed Americans vote against their own best interests. Its this GAME that has been perpetrated on an ignorant electorate for many decades.
Can you imagine what we could do if America were truly united? I agree with the fact there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay, but I am also my brother's keeper.
If you love this country you will stay the course and give this President what he needs to put the nation on a solid economic path to prosperity for ALL not just a few.
Obama in 2012
70+ Seats for Dems in the Senate (KILL THE FILABUSTER RULE)
Control of the House
Put John "i'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a scotch and soda today" Boehner, Mitch "Peabody" McConnell and Eric "Can't Do Anything" Cantor on a slow pink bus to China.
I must agree with ALL of the above. I pay through the nose for medical insurance. How about me, the tax payer and the one who has to pony up the non insured people.
...the court already is viewed as being nearly as partisan as Congress
Only by liberals who will stop at nothing until they get rulings going in their favor...
Ron in Seattle,
Ah I see. You want a "united" America...but only one that believes what you believe. Nothing like a little tyranny huh Ron?
I truly feel sorry for people like you. You think Obama could put this nation on a "solid economic path" and yet the man has proven time and again that he knows NOTHING about business or economics. His own comments prove that over and over again. Maybe you should study a little bit more about economics and how markets work and then listen to what the man has said again. You might actually learn something.
As for "being my brother's keeper", feel free to donate anytime you want, but don't demand that I do the same. I will decide whose keeper I am, if anyone's. Not you. Not the government. Don't you EVER demand that I help others, whether I want to or not.
I am the only one with that right.
My issue with the Supreme Court is the judge that acted insulted when expected to read the entire bill and actually understand what was being ruled on rather than blindly making a decision. Shouldn't we expect them to at least be informed? That doesn't give me much confidence on any decision they make on any issue.
dotsheriff...
Maybe the democratically controlled congress should have read it before they shoved it down our throats...
Remember Pelosi? "We have to pass it before we open it and see what's inside..." Good grief!
Well, dotsheriff, I assume then that you are equally perturbed at then Speaker Nancy Pelosi who admitted to voting for passage of the bill without actually reading it.
Gotta love Republicans that think they "know" the constitution when they don't have a clue.
Fine, if a mandate isn't legal then make it a tax. Anyway you go, everyone needs health care. Go to single payer.
This is NOT gonna work out like Romney thinks. Like the majority of the SCOTUS, the GOP is looking at this through rose-colored glasses. I propose:
1) If the SCOTUS were to overturn all or part of the AHCA, Romney would see this as a victory, Right? Well, not so fast. The last thing that Romney really wants is for health care to be a part of the debate given his record in Massacheustees and his long history of now-refuted statements on the issue. And if the mandate is overturned, the identical mandate in Medicare Part D will also be overturned, probably ending that program as well --- a GW Bush initiative passed over the objections of the Democrats but with the backing of the for-profit medical industry. This could be the worst topic that Romney could possibly face at election time and would absolutely distract from his economic message.
2) If the SCOTUS up[holds the Alabama/Arizona/Georgia/et alia laws, again, it woiuld appear to boost Romney. But it would also subject legal Latino voters, who don't currently bloc vote, to swing solidly into the Democratic column for as much as the next 40 years. This would deny the GOP nationwide election victories indefinitely. And if you don't think that legal Latino-Americans don't feel the pressure of such discriminatory laws, ask someone in Alabama. I know one couple who are academics from Colombia who sent their children back to Columbia to be schooled by their grandmother because the kids, American citizens, were being so badly harrassed in Tuscaloosa City schools --- not just by kids, but by administrators and teachers as well. The couple have been American citizens since the 1970's. They will never vote for a Republican again, even in Alabama.
Dotsherifff- Unfortunately Congress drafted such a long bill that they didn't read it before they voted on it, that the CBO initial analysis has been revised to more than double original projections, and lord knows how much pork provisions are within it, that the bill is unreadable to pretty much everyone and the Supreme Court. That's what you get with a Congress of self aggrandizing, power hungry people- very little done of value and huge bunches of unintelligible legislation. That's partly why they aren't even trying to do their Constitutionally mandated jobs of creating national budgets (none for 3 years), they are spending all of their time trying to get student loans into road bills, airport upgrades into defense spending bills, government control of banking in healthcare bills, etc. They just can't do an ethical job proposing reasonable things based on their individual merrits, they have to mash a bunch of garbage and spending onto any bill of public interest and turn them into political lobby points.
I think, if possible- likely should have been done at the appeals court level, the Supreme Court should impose a suspension of the implementation of the bill prior to their ruling. That way they could enjoy the insane read, give it a proper vetting via the Constitution, and decide on it's merits.
So far as the Supreme Court being a political issue- MSNBC that is precisely why it's supposed to be a separation of powers. The justices are supposed to be appointed for life (not until their 70th birthday as President Obama is looking for now), based on their knowledge of the Constitution and it's underlying premise, and apply that knowledge to controversies presented before them. That's it. Not a liberal judge and a conservative judge appointee so that you can piledrive your version of government to the next level. Leave the Supreme Court to do it's job- be the checks and balances to our government and laws.
The President should stand down and leave them alone- cut out the public political addresses telling the Court what it should think, stop your legal team from issuing public statements of how the Court should decide, and stop challenging their decisions when you don't agree with them. For God's sake- you are an attorney and were a "Constitutional" scholar/professor from Harvard. Try showing some respect for the Constitution, the laws, and the Supreme Court.
Larry, greed is wanting something that you did not earn and cannot pay for. If you want other people to pay for goods or services for you then you are greedy. Expecting people to be responsible and pay their own way is not greedy. It is merely expecting good citizenship. The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative will reach into his own pocket and give to those in need...a liberal will demand the government dip into someone else's pocket (never theirs) to help the less fortunate...somehow the conservative considers charitable giving his duty and liberal considers himself companssionate because he supports government theft.
JoeNY, you are right that the presidential thing to do is not engage in debate with the Supreme Court (especially when one of you own appointees is ripping your solicitor a new a-hole) But Obama was never a Constitutional Scholar or Attorney. He has never practiced law as a profession and his entire duties as a adjunct professor was, according to the dean of Chicago law, limited to giving first year students a one hour lecture on the Constitution. When I went to law school third year students gave that lecture. The title of Professor, like the title of President of Harvard Law Review, are ceremonial rather than substantitive. A westlaw search will show that Obama is not credited with either writing or editing a single law review article. He has not written any published works on the Constitution or any other area of law. He was groomed to be a politician. Titles were given to him as a way of lending the appearance of substance.
There is no question in my mind Obama knows what the Constitution says. The problem arises form his deep belief that it is no longer relevant and needs to be rewritten in a manner that he agrees with! OMG 2012
To "The Wizard of Wisdom" I totally agree with you. Obama knows nothing about economics or how businesses operate. I mean did he come from Mars or something? As for me I'll donate to whom I want to, and I will not be mandated to do so. Tyranny is not my best suit! If I find someone in need and I can help then of course I do. I'm a Christian. If only America could be united once more we might stand a chance. As it is we (America) are a snowball on it's way to hell on a fast train! Let's put GOD back in the picture here, like prayers in school, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Just for starters. As for Romney WTF? Will we ever get a chance to elect someone that knows something? The Supreme Court has a chance to do the right thing here. Let's see if they can do that. If not then WTF? We're all screwed! Presumptively it's Romney vs Obama and that's no choice at all because Obama based his Health Care Plan on what Romney focused on. So even if the SC rules the Obama HCP unconstitutional Romney will if elected and if not Obama will just twist it in a dfferent way. It's always the same crap every election year we turn over stones just to find the same old BS. Why not elect a veteran of the U.S. Armed Services to the Oval Office. Of course he'd have to know business and economics and foreign policies. Hey what's up with the Secret Service lately? Is it that they beleive Obama just doesn't need the protection because he's screwing up America better that any foreign spy network could? Hey let's give Obama a lttle credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden thru Seal Team 6. Then what happened to Seal Team 6 next was a suicide ride on a Chinook the slowest, and least manuveral helicopter in use by our Armed Forces! WTF? Did they know too much so they were sent out to be killed? That was totally warfare politics in play. So who's gonna win? Well it won't be us!
Soggy- Great piece on law school, writing/editing, titles, etc. I wasn't aware of that.
New comparison: President Obama is to law as Al Sharpton is to religion
Rationale: If President Obama received all of his "titles" as a means to become a politician, then Al Sharpton must have received his "Reverend" from his becoming a community activist. Neither actually mean anything more then a word on your resume, but each is loaded. I guess that's also why the President's college records are supressed (as are/were many other politician's are). They are packages of electability, not accomplished people.
Wizard of Wisdom (not): You are already "forced" to pay for something you don't want to pay for...who do you think pays for all those uninsured individuals who crowd the ER's on a daily basis? If the hospital doesn't get paid by an individual with insurance....they take it from those of us who DO have insurance by raising our prices, etc. Therefore, you ARE your brother's keeper in that your hard-earned taxpayer money is going to pay for those who don't feel responsible enough to purchase insurance, or can't afford to purchase insurance (which is what the healthcare bill is trying to solve by offering a low-cost insurance policy). You need to rethink your comments!
United States politics is becoming an entrenched "Catch 22." It really is becoming all about "power" based upon illusions of "service to the people." On the positive side, we still have a working system. On the negative side, it's about who can buy it. Hang in there, America.
Quote from Obama, “The only people who don’t wait to expose the truth are people that have something to hint.”
How lets just say that he should put everything on the table and be honest about it. I well not hold my breath on that ever happening but i sure would like if he would put his hole history out in public view so we could see it,
Eric...aka Constitutional Authority...
Please tell us, Eric, what makes this constitutional? If it were so, do you think it would be challenged by so many states? Let me ask you, Eric, if the SCOTUS votes it down, will you be satisfied? Will you accept their ruling? My suspicion is...no. Liberals will never accept "No" for an answer. They'll continue to bog down the courts with frivolous lawsuits...and if that doesn't work, hell, they just won't abide the law. How many liberal cities have stuck out their middle finger to laws they don't agree with?
Repeal and replace. Where are the replacement ideas? The right is pretty silent about that. I love hearing the right say "I will donate to who I want, when I want". Question is, do they? Maybe in their church, I will give them that, but is it enough? You are already paying for the uninsured through higher medical costs (your family doctor), ER room (adding cost to cover charity cases already mandated by law) higher insurance premiums and higher prescription costs. Those are the most obvious added costs. There is also the cost of your lower real estate values when someone in your neighborhood defaults on their mortgage because of medical bills and more lost of productivity caused by the ER only stabilizing the patient and not fixing the underline problems.
It is time for both sides to work together to fix the problems facing America. How does it help when our elected officials boldly declare their #1 job is making President Obama a one term president no matter how much damage is done to the nation? I wonder if the right has a plan to fix what the obstructionism created. I doubt it.
Questions: If all safety nets are eliminated, how much savings does that bring?
If the tax cuts to primarily rich people are made permanent, will it bring jobs? If so, why hasn't it worked yet?
Are we to have 50 separate sets of immigration laws? Are there any solutions that would be good for all 50 states?
There are big and bold solutions to these problems, but both sides has to work together to bring them for the good of the nation as a whole.
If the rights goal was to make Obama a one term president, wouldn't it have been better for them to actually craft sensible bills that work for the nation as a whole and take ownership of that instead of passing bills in the house they know have NO chance of passing in the senate or being signed by the president? The president has done nothing but to bend over backwards to work with the right and every time he agreed with them, the right changed positions.
We need bold leadership in the house and senate but you are not going to find it on the right. I even doubt it will be found on the left, but I will place my bets with the left.
Can someone please, with the numbers (cost of programs) explain to me how the deficit became so high? Before you place 100% of the blame on President Obama or Harry Reid, remember you all had control of the house for 14 of the past 20 years.
George please provide actual scientific proof your God exists before you impose it on other people. Until then, I have no problem with you continuing your religious ceremonies or whatnot. It is your choice. Choice being the key word.
I love the arrogance that some republicans on here have...I know plenty of hard working democrats that help out other people with their time or money. I also know some republicans as well who are great pople, but some republicans on here give all republicans a bad name.
Wizard, then don't make me pay for tax cuts for the rich, because I'm tired of being forced to pay for that charity (and redistribution of wealth).
Let me ask you, cantakenomore, if the SCOTUS votes it UP, will YOU be satisfied?
Soggy, I believe it's the conservatives demanding I reach into my pocket to pay for tax cuts for the rich. So much for your inane quote.
Ever since the Florida election law massacre, to me SCOTUS is made up mostly of political hacks!! Stopping the vote count leads directly to the Iraqi war. You really helped the country out with that decision. Thanks guys!!
Dotsheriff. Our elected officials who voted for this horrible piece of legislation didn't read it either. Don't you remember when demented Pitt Bull Pelosi said we had to 'pass it to find out what's in it'? None of them knew exactly what was in that monstrosity of a bill. The supreme court should just throw it out based on that fact. If the legislators, who are making it the law of the land, don't you think they should at least know everything in a bill and the consequences before voting for it?
I have always work in union places,since starting work.All of the companies, for whom I have worked have had their own Medical schemes.Most of my working life I was fortunate enough to be healthy,or saving up for something so I didn't need to use my Medical coverage,but was always assured that when I was older I would make up for having good coverage.Well now that I am retired I have to still pay for my medical coverages with taxes or for my medical supplement. We are inundated with adverts. Pay now or pay more ,later. Most other countries have a national health care program. Individually we can't control the costs. The insurance companies want to continue making their profits, otherwise they would be all for a government take over of their industry. Most of us pay into insurance. The ones that don't are young enough that they consider themselves immortal or cannot afford to pay for this insurance.The only possible reasonable system is the one that all countries that have a national scheme have found works.All citizens must be enrolled and pay into.Then you are truly into a possible National Health Program.
J.Heron
"George please provide actual scientific proof your God exists before you impose it on other people."
George was not imposing anything on anyone, and he does not have to justify his beliefs to you, just as you don't have to justify yours to him. George was just stating an opinion not imposing one.
If the Supreme Court, rules against O'Bama Care and for the Az. Immigration Bill (for which don't completely agree, then that's the law. The Supreme Court is the "Final Authority". I believe the threat against the Supreme Court is a Violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Federal & State Laws. If I were to use the same "threat" against O'Bama the Secret Service would be knocking at my door, and rightly so. If I made the same "threat" against the Supreme Court Judges, the Secret Service would be knocking at my, and rightly so. O'Bama's push for "MORE AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT" his ccreation of of population who depends on Federal Government Programs is a major push towards "Socialism". We all know that more than 50% of the legal U.S. Population pay NO TAXES, and are getting some kind of free Federal Assistance. So who do you think will be exempt from paying into this O'Bama Health Care, the 50+% that is getting free Federal Assistance. Those that are silly enough to continue working will have to pick-up the tab for O'Bama's deadbeats. The saving grace is that history has shown what happens to leaders who want more government intrusion, Germany & Italy had similar leaders, one was hung and the other died in a trench.
@cantakenomore,
It was a Republican invention, the mandate. So obviously, they thought it was legal then. They weren't against it until Obama was for it.
Now that the Supreme Court has become about politics, rather than the law, same suit follows.
Regardless of the decision, America's health care system is broken, and I'm not seeing Republicans coming to the plate to fix it.
Stopthecanibals...
It won't because it's Unconstitutional!
Eric...
Nice preemptive strike...you know it'll be shot down so now the story is...the SCOTUS is political also! Get a grip...and a life, why don't you!
I just don't see any upside for the Republicans no matter what the court decides on these two cases. If the Arizona law is upheld it will infuriate Latino voters and hurt Romney. If the law is struck down they still lose because they will no doubt launch a campaign to go after immigrants in some other even more radical way. Sure "Obamacare" is unpopular, following a sustained political campaign against it for years. Of course if you break so-called Obamacare into it's constituent parts the public absolutely loves it! If the law is struck down the insurance companies will kick young adults off of their parents health care, they will refuse to insure people with "preexisting" conditions again, the poor will again go with no health care, and everyone's health care premiums will go up on average of $1000/yr immediately. Not to mention we will be back at square one with a broken health care industry. No, I don't think that will be as great for Republicans as they believe. If Obamacare is upheld then the War on Obamacare may be lost.
This activist right-wing court has already tarnished it's reputation and respect by becoming an extension of the Republican party. Don't forget:
1. Supreme Court hands the presidency to George W Bush and he proceeds to wreak economic havoc on the country and start wars for profit.
2. Supreme Court declares corporations are people! Yeah, right.
3. Citizens United is ruled on by the court turning our democracy into a clown show circus.
4. Will they throw out health care reform? 5-4 vote?
5. Will they throw out Mexicans? 5-4 vote?
It won't look good....
The Republican assault started the day Obama took office. No matter what Obama does it will be spun to make him look bad. Just look at the Senate Republicans use of the filibuster. They didn't just break the record they destroyed it. Doubling the amount of filibusters during any other time in history.
Republicans will try anything to keep themselves and their corporate benefactors in office. They have politicized every news outlet, every organization including the Girl Scouts, every business. Bush politicized the SC and the DOJ, "ruled" by executive order and signing statements. For years a decade the Republican strategy is take everything that we do and blame it on Democrats. All they do is look in the mirror, find their abuses to democracy and blame the Democrats for doing it, Hypocrites.
Today's "Repub Outrage" is two fold. Obama appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show labeled as "Unpresidential", "beneath the Presidency" ignoring the fact that Richard Nixon appeared on Laugh-in in 1968 or GW on Deal or no Deal, or even Romney on the Letterman show. The second item is "all those tax dollars being spent to campaign on College campuses" like Obama is the first one to do it. Presidents have been doing this for decades.
Here are a few more in just the past week or two just by the right-wing "news"network 1)Obama's father and mentor are Marxist 2)Claims Obama is against middle class tax cuts (I guess this is true if you think individuals earning over 1mil a year is middle class). 3)There is no "War on Women". 4)"Women Have, You Know, All The Rights .... They Can Shop". 5)"Negros" need more guns because of the Democratic KKK 6)Accuses Obama Of Trying To Buy Votes With Student Loan Relief. 7)Defending Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law. 8)Conservatives Claim Google Endorses Obama/Ayers Book Conspiracy. 9)"This Idea That Americans Are Going To Bed Hungry" Is Not True -- "You Can Survive Off" Rice And Beans" 10)Poor People are Bankrupting the ENTIRE Nation! (Does the Billo consider the working class poor people?). 11)"National News Programs" That Mislead Voters, but Billo omits somehow omits Fox News. 12)Megyn Kelly Can't Find Time To Mention Catholic Opposition To GOP Policies but mentioned Catholic support only a few weeks ago about contraception. Who could possibly question the strong journalistic ethics of Fox News? Even the boss at Fox is GW Bush's 1st cousin, Roger Aisles. "We will decide you shut up and watch" would be a much more accurate for Fox Noise.
Following is just a piece of the crap said about Obama: Obama is a Christian who hates America, hates Christians, a Muslim, an Atheist, Kenyan, a terrorist, is soft on Muslims, killed Osama and American terrorist illegally, is not effective, is driving this country to socialism, is not a citizen, was not born in the United States, is a community organizer, is an elite snob, is ruining the constitution,is a snob constitutional lawyer, hates business, is a fat cat, bailed out the banks, took over GM, is not a leader, is a dictator, hates white people, is a half breed, is anti-freedom, is a baby killer, wants to make white women take contraceptives, wants to raise taxes, wants to abolish medicare and social security, will not work with congress, caves into congressional demands, is a dictator, can't control his senate, uses FEMA facilities as internment camps with gas chambers, apologizes, does not apologize, is a traitor, was illegally elected president.
Republicans have tried to block everything the President wanted to do. Hey Republicans explain these recent acts of hypocrisy:
1. Health Care Mandates: Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act by Democrats, Republicans widely supported the idea of an individual health care insurance mandate, Newt Gingrich being perhaps the chief supporter. Republicans have always preached about how people need to take responsibility for themselves, and now that a law exists that makes people take responsibility, the GOP is rejecting it simply on the grounds that President Obama and the Democrats passed it.
2. The Nuclear START Treaty: Republicans shamelessly filibustered the ratification of the Obama START Treaty for quite a period of time and criticized it tremendously and continue to try and find ways to circumvent the treaty today. What Republicans conveniently forget is that Ronald Reagan, the man that Republicans worship like a God, negotiated the very first START Treaty which was signed by yet another Republican, George H. W. Bush in 1991. That treaty expired in 2009 so President Obama negotiated a new one to continue the Reagan legacy. But since President Obama negotiated this treaty, Republicans retreated from Reagan's policy faster than the decade it took to create the START Treaty in the first place.
3. Dream Act: Immigration reform has been touted by Republicans for decades now. Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the 1980's. Most recently, Republicans worked on immigration reform under the Bush Administration and failed. President Bush and Senator John McCain both supported immigration reform and were willing to cross the aisle to work with Democrats, most notably Edward Kennedy. All of that work and bipartisanship ceased after the 2008 Election. Staunchly opposed to President Obama and anything his administration supports, Republicans turned their backs on immigration reform in favor of militarizing the border and laws that violate the civil rights of Hispanics. Obama's Dream Act would do much that Reagan would approve of, but Republicans refuse hear anything of it.
4. TARP: Republicans supported TARP when they helped pass it in response to the economic collapse in 2008. President Bush even signed the legislation into law. But since it's been up to the guiding hands of President Obama to deal with TARP, Republicans have since revoked their support and have been highly critical even as they take credit for it when presenting stimulus checks to their local constituents. The fact is, TARP is successful because President Obama oversaw it and Republicans hate that fact.
5. Bail Out of Auto Industry: Republicans once supported this too but abandoned it once President Obama called for it. The auto industry is a vital manufacturing sector that supports millions of American jobs and Republicans WANTED the industry to fail simply because President Obama wanted the bail out. If it had failed, Republicans would have blamed President Obama for not supporting the American auto industry. The bail out has been a resounding success with most of the money plus interest paid back to the taxpayers. Mitt Romney has since tried to take credit for the idea because it has been so successful.
6. Israel Going Back To Pre-1967 Borders: Many Presidents have suggested this, even George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. But once President Obama repeated it, Republicans immediately denounced the President and threw their support to Israel's President. This action by Republicans is totally unprecedented. It is reprehensible for American politicians to support a foreign leader more than the American President. Imagine if the Republican Party had overtly supported Hitler over FDR during World War Two. The only reason Republicans are rejecting President Obama's plan is because they cannot bring themselves to endorse any idea he suggests, even if it is a Republican one.
7. Gun Control: Republicans overwhelmingly reject any and all gun control measures today. Which is very strange considering Ronald Reagan himself supported the Brady Handgun Act. But, it's still true. Republicans did indeed support gun control measures in the past. It's different now. Today's intolerant, prejudiced, and extremist Republican Party is only against gun control now because they believe there needs to be a war against liberals and minority groups. It's all about fear and war.
8. Public Education: Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.
9. Infrastructure Spending: Republicans have always believed in strong infrastructure, until now. Republicans used the power of the federal government to build the railroads in the 1860's and 1870's, the Panama Canal in the beginning of the 20th century, and the interstate highway system in the 1950's. Yet when President Obama called for new infrastructure spending to improve America's crumbling roads and bridges and to improve our rail lines, Republicans immediately reversed their long-held belief in a strong American infrastructure. Why? Because they hate President Obama and oppose everything he believes in, even if it was once a part of the Republican platform.
10. Child Labor Laws: This one is surprising. Republicans were the ones that championed child labor laws in the first place. Starting in 1852, in the once Republican state of Massachusetts, child labor laws have been fought for by both parties. The only opponent of child labor laws has traditionally been big business. Republicans tried to pass a Constitutional amendment in 1924 and it didn't succeed. It wasn't until Democrats passed the Fair Labor Standards Act that child labor laws became federal law. Republicans oppose child labor laws now because of their deep ties with corporations. The goal of the corporate world is to find cheap labor and because President Obama is against huge corporations, Republicans must stand with the corporations, even if that means killing child labor laws.
11. Civil Rights: Republicans were once the champions of civil rights as well. They ended slavery and adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. They splintered over the Civil Rights Act in 1964, although it was a Republican led Supreme Court that ruled in the Brown v Board of Education case, and have become more and more opposed to civil rights ever since. President Obama has called for increased civil rights and because of that, Republicans now oppose civil rights for everyone except Christian white males.
12. Environmental Protection: Originally championed by Theodore Roosevelt, Republicans used to support efforts to protect the environment. Over the last century, however, that support has reversed. Republicans even once supported the environment in the 1970's when Nixon created the EPA, but no longer. Republicans are now in complete support of the irresponsibility of the oil and coal industry and want to open the entire American coastline and even federally protected lands to drilling and mining. Republicans even used to support cap-and-trade. The first George Bush signed legislation in 1990 that implemented the cap-and-trade system and many Republicans still do support cap-and-trade. But because President Obama supports it, most Republicans are now against it.
13. Deficit Spending: This one is big. Republicans have employed deficit spending since the Reagan years and abused it during the Bush administration to pass the conservative agenda and to fund wars. Reagan doubled the national debt and George W. Bush proceeded to double it again. But because Democrats controlled the White House and the Congress from 2008 to 2010, Republicans completely reversed their stance on deficit spending and still oppose deficit spending solely on the grounds that a Republican isn't President. If a Republican were President right now, you can bet the farm that they would abuse deficit spending once again to slam the destructive anti-middle class, anti-poor, anti-women, and anti-America agenda through Congress with no thought about fiscal responsibility whatsoever.
14. Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve is now a target for most Republicans, which is puzzling because it was a Republican idea. Proposed by Republican leader Nelson Aldrich to organize and regulate the banking system and to enforce monetary policy, and thus stabilize our financial system, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Republicans now want to dismantle or weaken the Federal Reserve because President Obama needs it to enforce Dodd-Frank which will make banks more responsible and accountable, and will protect consumers.
15. Women's Rights: The women's rights movement was born in and grew with the Republican Party in the mid 1800's. Many Republicans supported voting rights for women although to pass the 19th Amendment it took women threatening to cause Republican losses in the 1920 Election to persuade them to help pass it in Congress. As women gained more equality, they also demanded equal pay for equal work and reproductive rights. Ronald Reagan legalized abortion as Governor of California in the 1960's and a moderate conservative Supreme Court handed down the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Today's Republican Party is now waging a war against women and the harder Democrats and President Obama fight for women's rights, the harder Republicans will fight to eliminate them because of orders from white Christian extremists.
16. End Of Life Counseling: Republicans referred to this as "death panels" in 2009 in response to President Obama's Affordable Care Act. But Republicans wholeheartedly supported end of life counseling in their own 2003 Medicare bill. Both of the Bush Presidents supported end of life counseling and even Sarah Palin herself supported it before she suddenly turned against it. In fact, Republicans had supported end of life counseling for decades. So what happened? Easy. President Obama supports it, so Republicans are now against it. It's really that simple. And petty.
17. Financial Disclosure: Republicans were all for this in 2002 when they passed and President Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law. Campaign financing laws have always been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, until now. Because of their hatred of President Obama, who supports campaign finance laws, and their desperation for absolute power and authority, Republicans are now completely against financial disclosure. They have allied themselves with the corporate world over the American people in their effort to steer elections their direction and do that, campaign finance laws must not exist. That is why the activist conservative Supreme Court struck down the laws to begin with.
18. Minimum Wage: The way Republicans have been talking about abolishing the minimum wage, you would think they've always been against it, right? Wrong. 82 House Republicans and 39 Senate Republicans joined the Democratic majority in passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. President Bush signed the bill into law. It is only now that President Obama stands with the American workers that Republicans oppose the minimum wage on behalf of their corporate masters, most notably, Koch Industries. If Republicans were so against the minimum wage, they would not have voted to raise it. Three times.
19. Military Intervention In The Middle East: This should really convince you that Republicans are simply opposing policies because a black President supports them. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all supported military intervention in the Middle East yet when President Obama uses the military to intervene in Libya, Republicans all of a sudden become doves? They've really revealed themselves with this policy reversal. The fact that under President Obama, Libya successfully overthrew their dictator without one American life being lost must infuriate the GOP.
20. Abortion: It may sound really far-fetched but there are many pro-choice conservatives out there and some politicians are part of that group. Take Ronald Reagan for instance. He made abortion legal in California as Governor of the state. And most recently, it was discovered that extreme right-winger Rick Santorum's wife had an abortion to save her own life. In my opinion, that means Santorum is for the procedure when his wife's life is on the line, but every other woman needs to die rather than exercise their right to an abortion which was ruled to exist in Roe v Wade by a conservative leaning court in 1973.
21. Economic Development Administration: Never heard of this you say? This program provides grants to local projects which have created jobs. Republicans such as Susan Collins, Chuck Grassely, and even John Cornyn have supported it in the past. Cornyn stated in March 2010 that funds from an EDA grant "would pave the way for the creation of new jobs and business opportunities, which will strengthen the region's economy," according to a local East Texas NBC news affiliate. But now that the GOP plan to crash the economy on purpose is in full swing, Republicans are now calling for an end to the EDA.
22. Lower Taxes: Republican do support lower taxes, except they only support them for the wealthy, NOT the rest of us. Even as they crusade to eliminate taxes on corporations and the wealthy, Republicans fully support a new proposal that would actually raise taxes on the rest of us. And guess who opposes it? That's right. President Obama. Republicans usually crusaded for lower taxes for everyone, but since they support class warfare now, they have partly reversed themselves.
23. Medicare: I'm aware that Republicans initially opposed Medicare when it was passed, but since its passage into law, Republicans have largely defended it, especially when they try to pander to senior citizens for votes. But if Republicans really wanted to kill Medicare, they would have actually done it when Ronald Reagan was in office. Reagan opposed Medicare when it was created but then did something quite unexpected as President. He saved it. By saving Medicare, Republicans practically endorsed it. Even Theodore Roosevelt supported national health care. And now the GOP has come full circle once again by opposing it, and are trying to slaughter it and the millions of seniors that rely on the popular health care program. Why? Because President Obama is in favor of keeping Medicare around for a very long time and Medicare represents just how popular government-run universal health care can be. So technically speaking, Republicans were against Medicare before they were for it before they were against it.
24. Social Security: Social Security is popular with everybody, even the staunchest right wingers. Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman supported the New Deal programs of the 1930's and even Ayn Rand collected Social Security up to her dying breath. Ronald Reagan even saved this program too by raising payroll taxes. This action also saved Medicare as it is part of the Social Security Act. The idea to privatize Social Security has popped up many times but has been met with negative reactions by a majority of the people so those ideas usually die in infancy. President Bush wanted to privatize it, but never did. Republicans had control of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006. If they had wanted to kill Social Security, they would have done so. But now all of a sudden they feel now is the time to privatize it, even as big bankers have proven that they are untrustworthy with money. Oh, and President Obama supports Social Security. Just another reason for Republicans to hate it.
Undoubtedly, one could add even more to the list but now you know what policies Republicans once supported and why they are now against those very same policies. If we take Republican claims to love America and their claims that the Founders were Republicans seriously, we could also now say that Republicans were for America before they were against her.
How can you vote for a party that wants to destroy the federal gov't and then, when it is ineffective say "Look see how bad the government is they can't do anything right"? Republicans are sure to protect the corporate and big bank interests. Their definition of a small business is any business that employs 10K or less, not you mom and pop. More supply side trickle down economics. Mitt wants bigger loopholes for himself and his buddies to create jobs. Specifically lowering his LTCG tax. More deregulation, they are trying to gut the provisions of the Dodd-Frank banking bill as well as the clean air and water acts. They actually want to eliminate the EPA that Nixon set up. Continue tax breaks for the upper 1% and raise taxes on working class folks. The same working class who's real income has not increased since 1980. Working class should be renamed working poor. Then Repubs tell us that the poor are bankrupting this country. Continue to break up Unions. Continue to put up ridiculous barriers for women's choice while at the same time force them to work and cut food stamps. Destroy the public school system. Then the haves will never half to come into contact with the little people during their entire lives.
I voted for Reagan and it is sad what this Republican party has become. I'm sure that a vote for any Republican is a vote for a third term for GW Bush. The policies are the same including the arrogance of the chicken hawks. Romney has already brought back the neo-cons for his foreign policy advisers. Arrogance and war are sure to follow. Anyone who votes Republican federal, state, or local, all that can be said is that the government you vote for is the government you deserve.
Crazy,
You have too much time on your hands, get a(nother) hobby.
Crazy...
I'll take conservatives over liberal whack jobs any day of the year...so did many other Americans in 2010. We'll continue to sweep the floor of these democrats...you'll see. It's glorious, I tell you!
BO...one and done!
President Barack Obama ON 20 MAY 2010 ordered 1,200 extra National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border INCLUDING ARIZONA,President Obama own inisiatives to request another $500 million for tightening the border protection and law enforcement activities under him many illegal are DEPORTED to any standard sitting Republican President or Republican,Governor,Congress has ever done before him.
Now The Governor Jan Brewer and his Tea-Party starts to pre-empting Republican plans to try to force arizona votes on such a deployment on with its New SB1070?, pre-emptive logic,with the same FED ,but only a rasicist provision,which against the Consituation as added to clause,as what the fed law with against for?
What are these Re-bug trying prove the B.S to ?
But that's the rub isn't it,it may be their responsibility, but they're not fulfilling that responsibility to anyone's satisfaction, especially the state of Arizona. Consequently, Arizona has felt the need, based in public safety and budget concerns, to take matters into its own hands.?
President already added more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the nation's southern border. There are 344 U.S. National Guard troops also working along the border
Pearce, the architect of Arizona's law testified along with three Democrats including disgraced former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Tucson lobbyist on behalf of for-profit prisons who retired in the wake of the Keating Five Savings and Loan scandal from which the equally tainted John McCain was able to rally. DeConcini oddly "apologized to the Latino community for Arizona's actions ?.
The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.
But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.
PRSEIDENT OBAMA, If this GOP governor wants to do it and show with their trademark pandering and lies "NO PLAN" ,please Just Spent the Money on the Tax's Payer money on deserving "OTHER STATES".Please Pull all your good EFFORTS out of Arizona.
Let them LEARN being backward state as always.
PRESIDENT OBAMA ,RETRIEVE DONT RELOAD !!!!!!!!!!LET THEM PAY & RELOAD WITH THEIR OWN STATE FUND !
LOL..cant and living, you just can't HANDLE the truth can ya? Well done crazy and well researched. All you said is the full truth. I believe the American people understand this too. As cant says, We'll continue to sweep the floor of these republicans, you'll see. It's glorious they gave us all such a big wake-up. One great president once said "fool me once..fool me again...you can't fool me again.
Crazy,
Really fine job pointing out all the pointless attacks on this President. After awhile, this stuff just gets old. People in the middle are beginning to realize that the right wing just has its heart set on destroying this man in any way they can and simply can't resist one stupid, pointless and contradictory attack after another. I've been on the Vine for a while and I have been observing the tables turning. Early on the righties dominated the discussion and they pumped up all their insane comments, but in recent times they are in the minority. They are still very much here, but they don't get the backing they once did. After you tell lie after lie, sooner or later people figure out that you are a liar.
The hard core right isn't about to change their tune and they will vote the way they have to regardless of how distasteful that choice is to them. They will swallow hard and assure themselves they aren't really voting to elect Romney, but voting to defeat Obama. But for those in the middle, they can see that Obama really hasn't been given a fair chance. People in the middle can realte to Obama far more than they can relate to Romney. They can also see that Romney really isn't offering anything they can get behind.
The Republican debates just turned people off to any of these guys. The only guy who actually built a loyal following of people who shared true philosophical ideals with him, was Ron Paul. And when you look at people who support Ron Paul, how many of those can you really envision backing Romney? Not very many I think. Many of the things that appealed to people about Ron Paul are things that the other candidates and Romney run so counter to. In reality, Ron Paul has more in common with Obama than he does with Romney. No telling for sure what these quasi Republicans will do come November. Many won't vote but many may see keeping Obama as the better choice than electing Romney.
Romney is like one of those relatives by marriage that you really can't stand but you accept him as part of the family anyway. But you won't go out of your way to get behind him when he does something stupid.
Republican shoved in a bunch of Tea Party idiots last year and a lot of people that voted for them are feeling buyer's remorse. All these people have done is show everyone that they are even nuttier than they appeared. And their hardcore supporters aren't all that happy with them either because they aren't nutty enough! Even as much as many of the Tea Party hate obama, I can't see them getting behind Romney either. They know down deep that if they do, they are just being the hypocrites that they hate. These folks have no real use for the Republican party as a whole. What Romney represents is very much what they hate about the Republican party.
I have noticed since Romney has become inevitable and it has finally sunk in, that the righties have been particularly irritable. They aren't happy at all. many feel betrayed and it will be painful for them to vote for him. They know they can't trust him and they can't even find anything likable about him.
The election is still a long way off, but the tide is turning in the middle and the right isn't very pleased with their candidate. The real question is whether or not the Democrats all get motivated like they were in 2008. I think when you look at how few people actually support Romney, vs. those who support the President, the election should be a landslide. But this election may very well not be about who has the most support.
June will be a great month for conservatives.
1. Scott Walker wins his recall race in Wisconsin.
2. SCOTUS throws out Obumercare.
3. SCOTUS sides with AZ on immigration.
The court is going to slap down both Obamacare and Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.
Obama thinks he's a King, not a POTUS.
Sure.
And the voters are going to slap down Obama in November!
.
Both laws you refer to were passed by the legislative branches of the federal and state governments. The president and the governor signed those laws as written. The Supreme court is evaluating the Constitutionality of the laws, not the executive approval. It is ignorant to conflate the separate branches of government and their functions.
Keep dreaming John. anyone that would vote for a party that got this country in the mess it's in now needs to be committed. Oh wait, the right wing nuts say the recession is now Obama's fault. Yeah and so was WWI and WWII.
Democrats have had control for over 45 of the last 60 years. If you have ANY common sense at all, you can see the Democrats have done the damage! Read your history, it definitely supports this .
Congress usually gives the POTUS what he ask for and the deficit has risen the greatest percentages under Republican presidents. The president has the right to veto anything he doesn't like. Read your history, it definitely supports this.
Reagan tripled the deficit.
GHW Bush raised it a trillion
Clinton raised it a trillion
G W Bush doubled the deficit
Here's a graph of the budget and what could have been.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Affinity - The ACA was part and parcel from Obama, and only passed because Democrats had control of the legislature because of MoveOn.org's big money.
Larry,
And yet you conveniently left out the fact that Obama raised the deficit far more than any of the previous Presidents. Now, why is that I wonder? Please, don't blame Bush either. REAL leaders accept responsibility and work to fix problems. Weak, incompetent fools blame their failures on others.
Let's face it folks. Both parties are to blame for the mess we're in. Both parties are corrupt and both parties care more about their own power than they do about us. Time to grow up and face reality. Until we start trying to elect leaders instead of lawyers, we're never going to get any better.
Aw who am I kidding? Both parties' supporters will NEVER work to change their own party's faults. That would require maturity, intelligence and a real desire to make things better.
How Obama has affected the national deficit:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html
http://outsidethebeltway.com/national-debt-has-increased-4-trillion-under-president-obama/
Who wants four more years of that?
C'mon Larry...
We all know WWI and WWII were George Bush's fault...
Of course, he did Wizard; he's a lib....did you expect any less? I mean when it comes to pointing Obama's failures, the stock lib reply is "Oh, but that's different"!
The truth is the GDP has grown each and every quarter since Obama was elected. He has pulled us back from depression.
Republicans would have let it all fail and we would be in worse shape.
Obama saved the auto industry, is winding down 2 wars, was successful in Libya, got Bin Laden. None of that is failure.
@Larry,
I would add:
1) Reagan gave us the largest tax increase in American history and convinced a significant number of people that it was a tax cut.
2) Reagan made $1.1-1.3 trillion disappeat into the super-secret "Star Wars" (SDi) program whose major weakness was that iot violated all known laws of physics. No accounting was ever made of that money and it is not included in the deficit numbers you correctly cite.
3) Reagan's Budget Director, Dave Stockman, quit because Reagan was taking money from all the "lockbox" trust funds --- Social Security, Highways, Airways, Fisheries, etc --- and leaving an IOU in the place of the cash. But the "voodoo economics" as GHW Bush called it, was that Reagan counted BOTH the IOU and the cash as assets. I would call it "Enron accounting."
4) Reagan did cut federal income taxes --- mostly for the wealthy, no surprise there. But at the same time he stopped a federal program called Revenue Sharing which return considerable funds to state and local governments. To make up for the loss of revenue, state and local governments increases taxes 8 times the amount of the federal income tax cuts. Not only was it a tax increase, but it was extremely regressive, meaning that it disproportionally hit the poor and lower middle income folks --- who currently pay 70% of all taxes and fees.
Wow!!!All the jackboots are marching today!!! But before you gentlemen break into a victory dance over the ACA, I suggest that what may happen if the SCOTUS does strike down the ACA is that when the repugnicans are hammered in Nov., which is extremely likely, the congress will go back to the drawing board and go to a single payer system like Medicare which is nearly certain to be found constitutional.
To our resident constitutional expert,T-1236278, if the constitutionality of a matter was always simple and clear, why do you suppose that so few decisions are 9-0? The legality of a law is not always black-and-white, unlike the way you guys see our President.
Eric,
Way to give Obama credit for things he had little to nothing to do with. Here's a few facts for you:
Fact: The Libyan rebels are responsible for the success in Libya, not Obama.
Fact: The GDP has rarely ever NOT grown every quarter, yet it's growth is minimal under Obama. Not exactly a success.
Fact: Obama isn't exactly "winding down" 2 wars. First off, he's only following the timetable that was agreed to under the Bush administration where Iraq is concerned. That's been acknowledged more than once, even by the liberal media. Secondly, at the rate we're "winding down" in Afghanistan, we'll still be there for another decade. Again, not exactly a real success story there either.
Fact: Obama didn't "get" Bin Laden. Our intelligence agencies and our Navy SEALS deserve FAR more credit than Obama does. Sure, Obama actually gave the go ahead order, but what else was he going to do once it was verified where Bin Laden was??? C'mon, get real.
Obama is a joke. He displays a lack of leadership time and again by placing blame for his failures on others, attempting to claim successes that he has nothing or very little to do with and repeatedly proves himself to be a hypocrite and a liar.
Just another typical politician.
And by the way, I'm not a Republican. I don't like either party. I think both parties are a disgrace and are corrupt from top to bottom. I'm thoroughly sick of both sides.
ThomasBlue,
"jackboots" huh? Yeah, you're another real tolerant and compassionate liberal aren't you? Try not to choke on all that hatred you have inside of you parrot. Your political party would hate to lose another talking head.
And people wonder why I have little use for political ideologues. All you children ever do is hurl insults back and forth, while attempting to portray your side as the "virtuous" ones. What a joke.
Larry I love that graph because in part it shows that, even if you assume a perfect world, the budget deficits still climb radically under Obama. That graph though is kind of silly but it is useful for some purposes. It shows that following WWII we were able to generate a lot of tax revenue and pay back massive debt. This was in large part because the rest of the industialized world had been decimated by war. They had to buy our goods at whatever price we charged. High taxes on corps and earners could be absorbed because the world would pay anything we demanded for steel, cars, trucks, everything...we dont live in that world anymore.
I know some don't like the truth, but this is the truth! During the Bush years we did not budget for not one day of war--we spent mega-trillions. The reason no one knows how much is because no budget. Remember: Mr president, how much will this war cost us? We will spend whatever it cost. Notice he did not say we will budget for it. Obama, wanting to do things right and truthly, decided that there is no way in reality could we say we have a budget when whe are not tracking our biggest expenditures. We were spending about one billion dollars a month on that fraudlent and ill prosecuted debacle. So, even though you don't like it, and think it gets you some sort of political points, the truth is that going to war in Iraq was the cause of the preceived run up under this president. Here is another truth: if the President had not been willing to man up and say put it in the budget, even as an expenditure from the past, we would not have any idea how much money we were in the hole and owed to China. As much as the truth hurts, it is still true. By the way, most of the stimulas had been approved by President Bush, and with a republican controlled congress, at the time.
Fuzzy, who does your math?
Charles, your truth looks a lot like fantasy. We know exactly how much was spent on both wars...and it is less than a trillion dollars over 11 years. While 100 billion a year is not chump change it certainly is not the cause of our financial woes. In fact it is probably what has kept unemployment from topping 10%. While TARP I was approved under Bush...and TARP I is responsible for keeping us from a full on depression...TARP II and the Stimulus bill both occurred after Bush...The republican Congress of which you speak actually was a Democrat controlled house after the 2006 election and an split Senate. Our "biggest expenditures" has been for decades and remains spending on social programs. Look I dont have time to correct all your erroneous statements. Do a bit of looking into your assertions before you make them. It will save a both a lot of frustration.
it would be nice soggy if YOU also would check before posting - the cost of IRAQ was in the 2 TRILLION range (alone) and was kept off the books...get your own head out and do some FACT checking - it works WONDERS for "credibility"
oh, and WHY does the US spend as much on the mythical DEFENSE as EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD COMBINED??? Time for a big CHUNK out of this "defense" budget - 50% seems about correct... NO MORE NEW TOYS!
Quote from Obama, “The only people who don’t wait to expose the truth are people that have something to hind.”
How let’s just say that he should put everything on the table and be honest about it. I will not hold my breath on that ever happening but I sure would like if he would put his whole history out in public view so we could see it, of course this will never happen because of the Democratic Party which has become very much a socialist party like the Liberals want it to be.
@thewizardof,
Your facts are GOP lies:
Lie: The Libyan rebels are responsible for the success in Libya, not Obama.
Fact: Without the airstrike and logistical support they would not have been successful.
Lie: The GDP has rarely ever NOT grown every quarter, yet it's growth is minimal under Obama. Not exactly a success.
Fact: When the GDP doesn't grow, like during the Bush administration then you have a recession. Given the state the Republicans left the economy with their "starve the beast" policies I'm surprised its going this well.
Lie: Obama isn't exactly "winding down" 2 wars. First off, he's only following the timetable that was agreed to under the Bush administration where Iraq is concerned. That's been acknowledged more than once, even by the liberal media. Secondly, at the rate we're "winding down" in Afghanistan, we'll still be there for another decade. Again, not exactly a real success story there either.
Fact: Obama is the President, if he gets to inherit the economy then he gets to inherit the wars and gets credit for what happens there. Republicans don't give credit to anything Obama has done.
Lie: Obama didn't "get" Bin Laden. Our intelligence agencies and our Navy SEALS deserve FAR more credit than Obama does. Sure, Obama actually gave the go ahead order, but what else was he going to do once it was verified where Bin Laden was??? C'mon, get real.
Fact: Obama is the President and made the decision, thus the credit. When Steve Jobs was at Apple did he get the credit for Apple being a success or the employees of Apple. The leader gets the credit. Come on get real.
Opinion: Obama is a joke. He displays a lack of leadership time and again by placing blame for his failures on others, attempting to claim successes that he has nothing or very little to do with and repeatedly proves himself to be a hypocrite and a liar.
Opinion: Obama has shown great leadership in the face of the most obstructionist house of all time. Fact: Obama has kept 177 campaign promises to date. Go look at politifact.com and compare Obama's statement record to Romney and tell me who the liar is.
Will someone please explain for me how any President can raise taxes, increase spending, cause a deficit or increase the national debt?
Is it not still in the Constitution that the Congress has control of the purse strings and is the only branch of government empowered to enact laws, of which a budget is one?
Thank you Soggy for making it clear that the Republicans want to get rid of SS and Medicare. Did you forget to and in the spending for tax loopholes for the extremely wealthy or to the big corps. and banks?
Did you forget to note that tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest it's been since Eisenhower. Good facts to know when you're talk about spending.
Pay your share of taxes and quit whining. What a bunch of greedy little children.
Let me guess right now how the Supreme Court will rule: 5-4 against the people. Like they always do.
Will the SC do another "W" like in 2000 ? "Where is the Dept., of Justice ?
PS - 5 & 4 is unconstitutional, the rightwing conservative justices will vote as instructed !!!
Regarding the article. People have as much right to healthcare as others do to 1-12 education. We ALL pay for it. Clean air, clean water and healthcare. You who do not believe in this should then give me my tax money back and pay for your own kids' education - ALL OF IT. Healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
The Tenth Commandment Why the Supreme Court must Struck-Out Arizona S.B. 1070
(1) Supreme Court will strike down the heart of S.B. 1070. Arizona will be relying on De Canas v. Bica (1976) and Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011). Even state regulation designed to protect vital state interests must give way to paramount federal legislation. True, the Court in De Canas v. Bica and Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting would not presume that Congress, in enacting the INA, intended to oust state authority to regulate the employment relationship covered by [the state law] in a manner consistent with pertinent federal laws. Only a demonstration that Complete ouster of state power,including state power to promulgate laws not in conflict with federal laws,was "the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" would justify that conclusion.
(2) Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s no-renting-to-undocumented-immigrants ordinance present different questions. While those jurisdictions might offer an economic basis for the law, evidence is quite clear that the real purpose behind the laws is regulation of immigration, an area that is preempted by federal law. For example, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed and supports S.B. 1070 because the federal government "is not doing its job" of securing the border.
(3) S.B. 1070 is about the regulation of immigration for its allies and Brewer.
(4) When Hazleton, Pennsylvania, enacted its ordinance, its supporters made clear that their intent was the control of Latino immigrants:The consequences which this immigration disaster holds for our children [are] horrendous. Coloreds will take political control of more states, along with both houses of Congress and the presidency. Whites will quickly be stripped of their rights with our wealth confiscated for redistribution to non-whites as is taking place in South Africa. . . . Will America become the United States of Mexico?
(5) Unfortunately for lawmakers in Arizona and Hazleton, they do not have the authority to regulate immigration.Thus, in litigation challenging Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Hazleton’s ordinance, the federal courts have had little difficulty in finding that the laws are preempted. In the Arizona case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction of the primary provisions of the law on preemption grounds: the requirement that local law enforcement verify immigration status of all arrestees; the new state law making it a crime for failing to carry immigration papers; another new law that made it a crime to apply for work without proper documentation; and the attempt to authorize local police to enforce the civil provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(6) The court agreed with the federal government that its enforcement plan would be thwarted by Arizona’s law and was therefore preempted as an improper state attempt to regulate immigration.
(7) Although the Third Circuit’s decision on the Hazleton ordinance has been vacated for reconsideration in light of the Whiting decision, the court initially found that the no renting to undocumented immigrants provision was an attempt to "regulate which immigrants may live [here]."
(8) On December 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report documenting its three year investigation into Arizona’s own Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. The report, which was delayed due to a lack of cooperation from MCSO, alleges that Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO, the largest sheriff's office in Arizona, have systematically engaged in "unconstitutional policing" since 2008. Among the numerous allegations; the Sheriff and his Office regularly engaged in the profiling and racial discrimination of Latinos, denied "critical" services to non-English speaking inmates, failed to complete investigations of hundreds of sex crimes and unlawfully engaged a special anti-corruption team to investigate and intimidate the Sheriff’s critics. In one case, a Latino driver was jailed for "for 13 days for not using his turn signal."
(9) In other words, the ordinance attempted to regulate immigration, and was therefore preempted.
(10) Moreover, actions speak louder than words: Historically, Arizona had the full panoply of Jim Crow race laws and anti-immigrant legislation, and more recently opposed the Martin Luther King Holiday, championed English-Only laws, and recently passed laws aimed at ending Mexican American Studies programs in public schools. There is little in Arizona's legislative record to comfort those who suspect SB1070 is racially motivated.The Court should think of the future in terms of Brown v. Board of Education, not Dred Scott.
For these reasons, and others, the Supreme Court should overturn SB 1070.Anything less,eventually "hopping".
"You shall not covet . . . anything that is your neighbor's . . . You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's. [316]The tenth commandment forbids coveting the goods of another.
The thy your neighbor's atttitude.For your own prosperer.
Dear Fuzzy.0457,
Do you live on Earth? 50 years ago was 1962. So lets count, shall we? Nixon 7 years, Ford 3 years, Reagan 8 years, Bush Sr. 4 years, Bush Jr. 8 years. Now take your shoes off and count. 7+3+8+4+8=30 years. This means that, during the last 50 years, Republicans have had the White House. Now, would you like to compare the economies of 1962 up to 2008? Prior to 1968 we had had only one Republican, Eisenhower, for more than 30 years and most historians consider this to be America´s Golden Age. We had the best schools, respect world wide and the strongest economies. This is HISTORY Sport. Read it and weep.
You forgot Dems controlled Congress for most of that time.
Whatever happened to the idea that, first and foremost, the President should do what's good for the country?
Fomenting anger, divisiveness, and conflict between Americans's hardly lives up to that ideal. Candidate Obama promised to try to bring people together. He's only done the opposite with his actions.
Obama - Biden 2012
The only real choice for America.
If Obama gets another 4 years, people will be brought together, in the 600 camps around the United States. They hold anywhere from 100,000 to over a million people. These aren't much different from the camps in Germany. They are already manned and ready for people. Food and even 500,000 coffins are ready. So think before you vote in November, if we have a vote that isn't all ready fixed, for this want to be DICTATOR!
What actions? By not being a good boy and door map to the Republican Party?
It's all BS from the radical right.
Obama needs to go, He has created to much division in our Country, A vote for Obama is a Vote for four more years of Stagnation at best, We need to look ahead with a fresh start, Obama had his chance he failed, We need a leader for everyone, Not one that tells the other side to ride in back of the Bus or calls you the Enemy if you do not agree with them?
Candidate Obama immediately tried to bring people together. Republicans had already agreed to oppose everything the president wanted, even the passage of former Republican legislation such as the health care insurance mandate.
The second issue the president's very existence triggered is that he is the target of racism in all its forms. That was a preexisting condition that polarizes bigots from the POTUS.
I see that so many live in that low information GOP bubble in which the actual facts don't get through. It’s sad!
Wow Fuzzy,
I going to help you by re-posting your resent post. It is a clear indication of what information the GOP leaders have been feeding you folks. There is help for you.
I am not a Republican or do I care about a Canidates color, To tell you the truth I almost voted for Obama, I actually liked his original Campaign promises, The only reason I did not vote for him in 2008 was that I did not think he had enough Experience, Almost four years Later I now think a lot less of the Man and his policies, I do not like what he has done to our Country,I also do not think he is looking out for our best interests.
Obviously 701707 your opinion was biased and nonobjective.
You know, one of the things that is really tiring is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist.
Talk about a PC formula for strangling real debate in this country.
Those who suggest that are the ones who ought to evaluate their own motives.
The fact that Obama keeps spending is what worries me. I know that when I purchase something on my credit card at some point I have to pay the bill. Subsidizing student loans, Healthcare for all, 2 years of unemployment benefits etc. are all great but we have to pay for those things. When they are proposed, there must be a plan to pay for it.
I don't believe the ACA is all that bad. Preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is a great part of the law. The problem is that there are so many good things in the law mixed in with the bad. Obama if he had any management skills would not have put us in this situation. The laws would have been passed in part. This mess with the ACA is Obama's fault. He is proving each day that he is not capable of managing. This is a direct result of his inexperience.
Just a question, Rod_Father; exactly whose opinions are unbiased and objective?
Letusreason Jesus Christ also came to gather His church but caused the greatest divide between good and evil in the history of the universe. Was he also the wrong person for the job? You can lead people to water but you can't make them drink and it appears a minority of the electorate has made a conscious decision to vote their hatred instead of what's best for ALL.
To blame this president for divisiveness is a ridiculous assumption. The nation is divided IMHO because the far right snoozed and let a black american get elected to the highest office in the nation. How else can you explain that Republicans (the far right and blue dawgs...white men...) now obstruct that which they once supported not that long ago.
America pull your head out...your prejudice is showing. Why did I use the P(word) [prejudice]...., because I can see no other reason why people support position against their own best interests.
Obama in 2012
70+ Seats for Dems in the Senate (KILL THE FILABUSTER RULE)
Control of the House
Put John "i'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a scotch and soda today" Boehner, Mitch "Peabody" McConnell and Eric "Can't Do Anything" Cantor on a slow pink bus to China.
Obama in 2012
Letusreason,
I would never suggest that president Obama is a racist. However, if he truly believes that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a law passed by a majority of Congress that regulates interstate commerce, then he would de facto be supporting the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Fugitive Slave Act.
Job1, says you the radical left. Fortunately you aren't the majority as Obamacare will fall and so will he.
Ron, comparing a political debate with President Obama, with 'good versus evil and Jesus' is part of the reason that we can't have a reasonable dialogue in this country.
It's pure demagoguery, and designed to raise emotions rather than reason.
"Oh that I knew where I might find him!
that I might come even to his seat!
I would order my cause before him,
and fill my mouth with arguments.
- Job 23:3-4
The division in this country was the results of Republicans that decided before he was even signed in that they would obstruct anything he did. All to make him "a one term president". They hoped for his failure from day one.
That is what is dividing this country. NOT Obama.
@Ron in Seattle,
Making fun of Sen McConnell's use of Depends because of incontinence is a pretty low blow. He can't help it if he can't help it.
The level of ignorance that so many of you repeatedly show would be beyond comprehension if it wasn't for the fact that it's so predictable.
The division of this country is the result of BOTH SIDES. Not just Democrats, not just Republicans. BOTH SIDES are at fault. Each side attempts to portray itself as "looking out for you" or "working for your best interests" and yet they want their supporters to ignore their faults, while at the same time each side goes out of its way to portray the other side as "the bad guys".
Yes, Obama IS partly responsible for this divisiveness. He claims that he wants more civility in politics, yet he repeatedly blames Republicans for everything, attempts to portray them as the bad guys in everything and takes no responsibility for his own actions. He's a hypocrite, which is typical for any politician.
They kiss babies while trying to figure out ways of stealing their lollipops.
Yes, Republicans are also partly to blame for the divisions as well. They have repeatedly said they would attempt to block any of Obama's legislation, regardless of whether it was a good idea or not. This is NOT helpful, but again, this is what I expect out of politicians.
Until you all wake up and start attempting to elect individuals who actually WORK at working together, or at the very least, attempt to always be civil to their opponents and who DON'T consistently rely on insults, bad mouthing, etc....nothing will ever change.
It's time to put an end to the Blame Game and start holding your own sides accountable for their actions. For some reason though, I rather doubt that will ever happen. That would require a fundamental shift in people that most simply aren't capable of.
Ah well, I can dream.
Letusreason:
The President is the only one in this last three and one half years that has tried to bring people together. However, don't forget that while he was celebrating at the Inarguration Ball, The would be tea party, exrepublican congressional losers, and many of the current republican congressmen and senators, as well as many corporates heads was plotting how to ensure this president would fail. However, he did not fail, even though he was not supported by republicans one iota. No Waterloo for this magnificiant president, but republicans will learn the true difinition of Waterloo, with historic proportions!!!
Hey wizard:
So you expected that congressmen and senators woud go out of their way to to block the president from helping the country successeed? I have lived a long time, proably twice as long as you, and I never have expected that and it has not happened before. After all, they did not block President Obama, they blocked the American people--robbed them blind. All of you proud of that, please raise your hands--hold them up, want to get a count!!!
the lack of ability to control the border has made our american citizenship cheap as a hollywood marriage.
Charles,
In answer to your question, yes I DID expect it.
Considering the level of animosity that has arisen in this country between the political parties and their supporters over the last couple of decades, it did not surprise me one bit and I would have been surprised if it hadn't happened.
To be honest, the only thing that surprised me at all was that the Republicans openly admitted it. I wouldn't have expected that much honesty from any politician.
The vast majority of it has nothing to do with race (though I'm sure it does for a small minority). It has much more to do with politics and with the animosity and outright antagonism and hatred that has been building between the supporters of the two parties for a long time now. I don't think the actual politicians hate each other as much as they pretend, but that's just my opinion.
And yes Charles, it has happened before...just not as openly. Both sides have played this game for a long, long time and are just usually a lot more quiet about it. Just go back through Congressional records of votes on bills, see who sponsored them and who opposed or supported them. The VAST majority of bills submitted to a vote in Congress have been supported or opposed predominantly along party lines and also based on who was in the White House.
Politicians are predictable.
Wizard - The Democrats use a different strategy than the Republicans. When they want to attack, they send out Charles Schumer, who I liken to the Democrat junkyard dog. He's been conditioned to attack Republicans.
Denver Bill -
The Fugitive Slave Act was nullified again and again before the Civil War. The Civil War itself made it truely mute. The XV Ammendment buried it completely 142 yeas ago. Even a constitutional law professor like Barak Obama wouldn't try to raise that ghost.
Mario,
The facts of the matter are that the Supremes did uphold the Fugitive Slave Act, and then did overturn their previous ruling. You may call it a ghost, but the ghost once had flesh and blood, and your protestation doesn't change the truth of my post. If you disagree, find and cite a constitutional scholar to support your position.
It is a dead issue and Obama knows it, even if you don't.
If you want to blame anyone for the health care bill, blame Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried, who after all were in control of Congress when the health care bill was written. Obama decided to stay out of this and let Congress do its job. Unfortunately, what came out of congress was a pretty bad mix, largely because Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson threatened to join the Republican filibuster unless a public option was off the table. Furthermore, Nelso blackmailed the Senate into giving Nebraska 100% reimbursement for Medicare spending in perpetuity, although that would be removed from the reconciliation bill.
If Obama was willing to push for and get the kind of legislation he wanted, the individual mandate wouldn't even be a factor.
Sen. Nelson has quit. His constituency no longer supports him. His replacement on the Democratic ticket is a former Nebraska politican who spent the last ten years in NYC, buying salsa, I presume.
Many of the "Conservative Nuts" just parroting What the Faux new and his Politically Tea-Party GOP saying about National Deficit.
The Truth here many of those conservative commentors ,they either taking advantages of the complexcity,on how any single Country Economy works or having the thought that all americans are stupid enough to accepts spreading lies objectives as true or maybe they know "Nut" about anything at all,just politically parroting.
Government Budget is an itemized accounting of the payments received by government in taxes (The Fact Tax Cut to the rich of 1% that occured,which adding to deficit,financial corporation bailout,payment of national debt , other fees and the payments made by government purchases with (uncounted 2 WARS expenses) and transfer payments of Treasury Bond interest etc.
What is the United States government budget in year 2008-2010( -4.6%) without the "UNCOUNTED" balance sheet.The actual United States government budget with the "UNCOUNTED" balance sheet AS ADDED BE COUNTED -11.3 % DEFICIT year 2008-2010.
This What President Bush,United States government budget was spending.
President Obama took Office on 2009,BUT his Financial Year only starts october 2010-2012 fiscal year.
Since it carry the DEFICIT of -11.3% PLUS President Obama,United States government budget for the year 2010-2012 is what it now.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) must be balance with the United States government spending budget to be in black.
Economy 101,base on few factors
GDP alone that base on ,
GDP per capita.
GDP per capita PPP.
Government Debt To GDP.
There're many factors tied up with one another the likes,Initial Jobless Claims,Inflation Rate,interest rate,etc
But since now its Budget Deficit MUST be added to 2010-2012 United States government budget.
Who actually responsible for this accounted (-11.3 % ) President Obama?
A budget deficit occurs when an government spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus.
I would love to see the Justices actually base their Findings on a truly Constitutional basis for once, Not just another party line vote, It will be interesting though to see how they come to their decisions, I can hardly wait to read the rulings.
If they do that it will be 7-0 striking down Obamacare.
Cman, it will come down either 5-4 striking it down or 6-3 in favor.
There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, you moron.
There was talk of two of the Justices that might recuse themselves? One should of for sure? That is when you helped write Obamacare? It probably would of been good Idea to recuse yourself.
and thomas' wife received money from an organization that has skin in the game. so thomas definately should recuse himself.
Do people realize that if the AHCA mandate is struck down, that Medicare Part D, which is a GW Bush/Cheney initiative and is highly profitable (around 60-70% profits) for both the drug and health insurance sectors, will be struck down in its entirety since Part D is nothing except a mandate (with a huge fine and massive penalties) if you don't buy private health insurance. Part D is nothing except a mandate and a change from UCR (usual and customary rate) based costs to MRSP (manfacturer's suggested retail price) based. Part D increased prices across the board for all drugs for all Americans by over 15% and for some key drugs as much as 10,000%.
It will also endanger Medicaid and certain provisions of Medicare (such as restrictions on payments to physicians and for-profit hospitals.) States will find that their automobile insurance requirements will be challenged once again. They last challenge there came when the SVOTUS, by 5 to 4, allowed wealthy individuals to avoid car insurance laws by posting a bond instead. So they've already created a 1%/99% way of avoiding paying for car insurance (Mitt Romney is not required to carry car insurance, for example, and doesn't.) But the next step would be to eliminate the requirement altogether. If the federal government can't require everyone to buy insurance, neither can the states or local governments.
What a mess this Libertarianism is --- so far right it is radical leftist.
9 Justices yes but only 8 will be voting on immigration hearing...Kegan has recused herself...Calling someone a moron is funny when you are incorrect.
So instead I will call you a genius.
Nice try at slight of hand, but the conversation was about the health care law--not immigration.
Flood insurance is mandated by FEMA, the government. We need to look at home insurance too. If any government intervention, to insure the government recoup its subsidies, it should be struck down. Business health insurance for employees are mandated and susidised by the government, and would have to be struck down. A mess indeed!!!!
You people that are against us for heathcare make me angry. What makes you so special that others can not have healthcare? Ins co's are evil. Why is it so hard for you to believe that healthcare for all is as important as clean water and air? It is MORE important than taking tax money to send your kids through the 1 - 12 grades. Why is education so much more important than healthcare? It's not. Hospitals and doctors are charging so much money because ins co's have contracts and state laws only pay a % of the bill. The higher the bill, then state legislatures believe the state should pay more or the ins co thinks they should pay more. The bill is so inflated, it is surreal at this point.
Everyone has a right to healthcare just like your kids do to education. If you can't have one, then you can't have the other!
Reba if this health care plan is so great why are there so many waivers to be exempt from the law? And the majority of waivers are unions and democratic backed organizations. Why don't the President and Congress lead the way and officially drop their plan and use Obamacare.
Little by little Americans are realizing that Washington is not working for us...President Obama won in 2008 because he was not Bush. Hope and Change is kind of comical now. Are we better off than 4 years ago? Some would say President Obama saved us from doom, I think we wasted a lot of money on pure politics and both sides are quilty. Government was not set up to run our lives and make choices for us, nor can it force us to purchase something. Government's job is to protect our borders and prosecute Illegals. I don't care if they get their feelings hurt, we have a big problem and we need to start addressing it whether there are political ramifications or not.
Mexico DOES NOT let Americans in, like America does for Mexico. Mexico is very strict and upholds their immigration laws.
@fuzzy,
Good "fuzzy" logic. Upholding immigration laws is much easier if people don't really want to live in your country. And the contention that Mexico prevents immiagration is pure Fox nonsense. A significant proportion (almost half) of illegal immigrants entering through Mexico are from Central and South America. They come right in through the Mexican border as though it wasn't there. And they pass right through the Mexican-American border because Mexico does very little to guard it at all. Mexico has very lax immigration laws because it has very little immigration period. Mexico is not strict because there is simply no need to be strict. That is what is called a straw dog argument and is a rhetorical trick used when no valid argument exists.
Amen!
Watt 75. Wonderful post. I think we also need to answer the questions you are posing. I also believe that President Obama needs to stand by his record. I do not believe we are better off in 2011 as we were in 2008. I personally am not and I'm unsure of the future. I didn't vote for Obama as I did some research and took a look at his personal voting record both in the Senate and when in Chicago. He sat on the fence the whole time and when he took a stand it was purely based on his political agenda and to gain campaign monies. No real votiong record. I to believe he lacked the experience to be president and it's been a disaster for the US. Whether democrat or republican the emotion is on both sides and it's divided our country and has lead us into a very uncertain future. Republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, 99 percenters, Tea Party it doesn't matter. Instead of blaming we as US citizens need to find away to come together and meet in the middle or were going to let politicians destroy our very way of life. I'm not sure what the answer is but the discussion needs to began and I'm not hearing it from any sitting politician either democrat or republican. We need to elect statesmen(women) who can come together and make the hard decisions not ones who are only looking to win the next election to retain their status quo.
Chris-749391- Job1
No accounting for your senseless comments. No one agrees with you ignorant liberals.
Yep, get rid of the republicans in congress. They do not want anything to pass. Even if it is a great idea, and they even think so, republicans will shoot it down because a democrat thought of it. I live here in DC and it sickens me. Ride over towards Capital Hill and see all the limos parked there for the Senators and Reps. It's disgusting! That's were the tax money is going, limos and expense reports!
BEWARE of republicans. They are the anti-christs.
Reba You can't be that isolated, the democrats do the same thing when there is a Republican President. All those limos are for democrat sen and reps too.
We, the 99% American People, will get to see if corrupt corporates have INVADED our JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!
It's strange that they have to WAIT to tell the 99% Americans about their rulings JUST BEFORE ELECTION TIME!! What's the matter with RIGHT NOW! Or, better yet, AFTER ELECTION!
Vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, the lives you save WILL be YOURS & your CHILDREN!
Corrupt Corporates? Corrupt Government, mainly Democrates, but Republicans arent acting in our best interest either. Replace all the traitors, Politicians, in Government! ABO< ABO< ABO< ABO< ABO<
Obama has already put our children's future in jeopardy; they each "owe" the federal government thousands of dollars the day they are born, just so Obama can enforce his anti-American, socialist agenda.
Maybe you might look at huge tax cuts for the rich, two unfunded wars and multiple policies that destroyed the middle class and their tax contributions to the US Treasury. The conservatives destroyed the banking system as well as the housing market with lax laws and shoddy oversight. OR DID YOU CONVENIENTLY FORGET?
Republicans claim that they are trying to save the next generation's taxes. But, they still fight for tax cuts, loopholes, and subsidies that line the pockets of the rich and powerful with our tax dollars. The revenue shortfall effect is to pile up national debt.
Our grandchildren, under Republican ideas, would also face a poisoned environment, noncompetitive education, hunger, disease, and lack of affordable health care. The biggest threat to our grandchildren is the policies of the Republican Party. Did I mention endless wars and war debt?
Hi Fuzzy,
I re-posted on First Thought for you.
Here is an interesting post from a person named Fuzzy that needs some help in getting out of the low information GOP bubble.
Fuzzy-0457
If Obama gets another 4 years, people will be brought together, in the 600 camps around the United States. They hold anywhere from 100,000 to over a million people. These aren't much different from the camps in Germany. They are already manned and ready for people. Food and even 500,000 coffins are ready. So think before you vote in November, if we have a vote that isn't all ready fixed, for this want to be DICTATOR!
#3.2 - Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:55 AM EDT
Allen, you make absolutely no sense. The housing market was destroyed by Carter's CRA, which was enforced by Clinton. Clinton blackmailed banks into providing loans to those who otherwise would not have qualified. The oversight of Freddie and Fannie was done by none other than Barney Frank. The left has destroyed our economy and Obama has doubled down on the destruction with his socialist legislation.
This economic downturn, quite simply, is the fault of President
Bush.
It wasn't his tax cut, as the Democrats claim. The tax cut has not
had enough time to have any positive or negative effects it will have.
What caused this economic downturn goes back to when George W. Bush
was merely President-elect, waiting to take office, and continued on through his
first six months in office.
Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President, Bush talked about
how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest
continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock
market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential
election.
The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad"
economy.
You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal
experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and
said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things
don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this
pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time
being."
And you can see right there how simply the words of President George
W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.
This, of course, all snowballed. First, people held off on hiring
and purchases to see if the President's bleak prediction would come true. When
this happened, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Less hiring and corporate
spending created a measurable slowdown in the economy, which led people to say,
"Hey, maybe the President is right," and tighten up even more. Each report grew
worse and worse due to this, and a nation that was being told to expect the
worst slowly came to believe it.
So, to put it simply, President Bush's constant talk about the
economy being "bad" led it to be so.
The argument that Clinton is somehow to blame is the most comical
thing we at The Moderate Independent have heard to date. The people who make
this argument - partisan Republicans - invariably also claim that Clinton was
not responsible for the prosperity during his two terms in office. That, they
say, was just lucky timing.
Think about this: they say Clinton was not responsible for the
economy while he was in office, but is responsible for the economy when he is
not in office. Anyone with a basic grasp of logic knows these two things can
not go together. Either the fate of the economy is luck or someone's
responsibility. To make this argument, that Clinton, who presided over
prosperity, should not get credit for that, but should get blame for a recession
under President Bush is clearly unsupportable, illogical, and just childish
partisan nonsense.
What makes it even clearer that President Bush, and not President
Clinton, was to blame for ruining the economy, was that the downturn caused by
Bush's actions did not come without warning. Both President Clinton and Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman warned President-elect Bush that if he kept talking down the
economy as he was, he would create a bad economy.
"'What you're seeing is President-elect Bush and his team actually
talking down our economy, (and) injecting more fear and anxiety into the economy
than is justified,' said Gene Sperling, an economic advisor to President
Clinton." (BBC article - "US
'Recession' Row Deepens")
The article continued, "Analysts agree that the US economy has slowed
in recent months, but some warn that the Bush team risks turning a dramatic
downturn into a self-fulfilling prophecy."
"They say negative comments, which they believe have caused the
markets to fall sharply this week - can often feed on themselves."
Remember, these are not arguments being made now at the tail end of
things. These were warnings given to then President-elect Bush and Vice
President-elect Cheney before the economic downturn ever began. The market got
nervous, jumped downwards. CEO's and CFO's got nervous, and froze or cut back
spending.
Senator Lieberman warned, "The American economy seems to have a
slight head cold right now; if we take the medicine President Bush is offering,
I'm afraid we are going to have a bad case of pneumonia." (article from Digital Library And Archives from Virginia Tech)
To put it simply, if you go against someone's advice,
how can you blame them for the result? Answer: you can't, unless you are lying
and blaming inaccurately for political ends.
Why was President-elect Bush claiming the economy was bad if it
wasn't?
Simply, the American people, those that voted for him and those who
didn't, didn't support his enormous tax cut. So he set out to try and convince
people that the economy was bad - which in Republican terms means in need of
stimulation through tax cuts. If he could make everyone think things were
starting to go in the crapper, he believed he could justify his larger tax
cut.
Even better, since the President knew the economy was truly in
good shape, once he got his tax cut passed, he could stop pretending there was a
bad economy looming, and instead claim there would have been a downturn, but his
tax cut saved the day.
Problem was, that A) his constant "bad economy" claim
truly began to wreck the economy B) 9/11 came along, and furthered the
snowball.
9/11 in and of itself is in no way to blame for the
economic troubles. President Bush set
people on edge, put the economy in a downturn, and then, when 9/11 happened, it
simply cemented the damage he had set in motion. In his book, it gave him
something else to blame, as well, for the growing and growing economic
downturn.
Now, Clinton was to blame. And Osama was to blame.
Everyone except the man who clearly talked the economy into the ground to get
his tax cut passed.
President Bush and his downtalking game were the cause of the
economic downturn. President Clinton is responsible for the economic record of
his terms, not of President Bush's. And had President Bush not gone through
with his tax cut, the economy could have survived 9/11 in much better shape.
The deficits were looming while the Twin Towers still stood.
So, we at The Moderate Independent kindly request that
the President stop using the horrible events that killed thousands of our
innocent citizens to try and escape blame for the bad economy he caused. Those
people, their families, and all the good people of this nation deserve more
respect.
And to those who still want to blame President Clinton
or Osama for the mess that President Bush created, we say, you are clearly not
moderate nor independent, but caught up in partisan rhetorical nonsense. We who
could care less about party and care first about America lay the blame where it
is deserved. President Bush, this recession is on
you.
a very long commentary that again blames Bush for everything...I got a divorce during his administration and I really believe that the reason my marriage failed was because of Pres. Bush. Boring!!!
Let me tell you my CRA story. CRA started out as a voluntary pilot program in 6 or 7 cities only. Basically, it required banks to apply the same lending criteria to inner cities as to the suburbs. That was it. And when banks tried it they found that there were many more loan failures in the burbs than in the inner cities. (Could it have been because population density is so much higher in inner cities? Duh!) On that basis they ended the practice of "redlining" in which mortgages and business loans were only given to white people (though not Latinos) in most zip codes. In Alabama, where I live, there were only 17 zip codes that were not redlined.
My house was built in the 1970's by a local high school footbnall coach and former college and professional football player. The problem was that he had bought the remanants of a farm and wanted to build a subdivision and a large personal home on the land. Even with a stable job, a degree, and the appropriate business plan, he could not get a dime for a mortgage or a business loan. He was African-American. So, all he did was to get his parcel of land annex into the city, where its zip code was changed, and like magic he was able to get a mortgage and an endless supply of building loans because the house (and now his home) were now in a non-redlined zip code. Nothing else changed except the zip code. That's what CRA is about.
nd because it is Alabama, the post office refused to recognize the new zip code (even though city taxes were now being paid) and stopped all mail service to the house in 1974. When I bought the house three years ago, I had massive amounts of trouble getting mail service started. I finally went to the Postmaster and told him, "Either you start mail delivery tomorrow, or I will have your picture on the national news as a racist." Mail did not actually start for a week because the mail carriers would not approve the mailbox in an attempt to prevent delivery. But every day, the Postmaster's secretary brought me my mail personally. I am white, in case you're interested. And I heard the phrase "n-lover" many, many times during the "discussions." Racists are what they are. But if you mess ith me, I will always take you down for the simple reason that it is a stupid argument to use.
The CRA was only an attempt to stop massive economic racial discrimination that was hugely successful. Yeah, a lot of people hated the idea that an African-American could buy a house in their neighborhood. But, you know what, TOO BAD. Get on the moral and ethical side of issues or lose, thopse are your only options in the long run.
Sra. Dominguez -
Was Mr. Bush a respondent in your divorce suit? If so, in what capacity?
just watch. oboma will or has gotten to these folks families. last minute decision will go in favor of oboma. oboma is a bad man.
My guess is you failed spelling in grammar school.
RJ's point is well made, his spelling is intended to describe what a fraud Obama is pandering to every group he can desperate and failing.
An unfortunately slanted article. The Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore was a 7-2 vote to stop yet another vote recount. There had been numerous tallies, and Gore lost every one; he was determined to overthrow the will of the people even though he had conceded twice. The article states that Republicans derisively call Obama's "health care reform" Obamacare; Obama himself has embraced the term. For Obama to say that if the Supreme Court overturns this law that it would be unprecedented' is just plain false; the Court has found poorly conceived legislation unconstitutional in the past on more than one occasion. This article implies that the Court is venturing into politics where in reality, it is doing it's job. There are three branches of government, none with less authority than the other two, and once Obamacare is found unconstitutional, and once Arizona's law is found constitutional, to verify that a person is not in their state illegally, then justice will be served.
There was the issue of 5,000 missing votes from a Democrat majority county as well. Those Republicans that are passing voter ID laws, which effectively suppress the votes of minorities, students, and the elderly, have only to look into their precinct corruption to find the real voting fraud. Individual fraud is meaningless and scattered. Partisan fraud can change the outcome of an entire election.
When the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, certified the election, that should have been it. The State of Florida had spoken.
Affinity
If Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee Florida wouldn't have mattered. So why don't you blast you fellow Democrats in Tennessee. They are the ones who lost the election for Gore.
Affinity, you don't tell the whole story. Gore conceded and thousands of votes from the panhandle area, a strongly republican area, were never cast. Also, Gore's operatives disallowed thousands of military votes on a technicality. In reality Gore lost Florida by thousands and thousands of votes; he lost the election and forced America into a controversy which should never have happened.
@TheRealM,
Actually Bush lost every recount and was badly losing the one in progress. The right-wing Republican Secretary of State actually certified the Florida count BEFORE all precincts had been completed and certified in order to certify W as the winner.
Gore was under a great deal of pressure to not challenge the election (as was Kerry later) because the Democrats considered it "unseemly" in a Presidential election.
The fact remains that Gore joined a short list of candidates who won the popular vote, and even won the electoral vote, but were defeated by some other means. It didn't make it fair or right, but it made it final.
But is this the "democracy" that we lost 4000 troops and spend around $15 trillion dollars to bring to Iraq?
Bush vs Gore is now a long moot point. The voters won the election.
Oh yeah, Dubya in office we get 2 wars and financial institutions running amok. Oh yeah, we were better off those 8 years... You betcha! Dubya is living under a rock somewhere in TexASS. Hide low life, HIDE!
And what will all these super smart republican strategists say in November when BO wins a second term? NOT A PEEP! As usual...they have sh*t for brains. Throw the rascals out in November!
Only idiots would let that pos get a 2nd term, explain to me what hes done to deserve one, c,mon tell me.
Amvet,
1) Ended one war and is winding down another.
2) Killed Osama bin Laden and 23 od 30 top al-Quaeda leaders.
3) Passed the ACHA that about 62% of Americans approve of.
4) Put several trillion dollars of "off-budget" expenses, mostly military, hidden from the American public, back on the budget.
5) Managed to keep us out of conflicts in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria.
6) Attended to numerous natural disasters without a single "Katrina."
7) Not only saved the entire American auto industry, but returned it to profitability.
Should I keep going ---- there are about 400 items in the list ...... :)
Now, tell me what the Republicans have done for us since W left office. We all know what W and Cheney did to the country.
Chris: Can I get some of that Kool-Aid you are drinking? Your post is absolutely the funniest I have read. Obama did not get Bin Laden the Navy seals did. Any president would have made the same decision.
ACHA is an absolute joke. And you are sadly mistaken to think 62% of american approve. It is actually 32%. This is a no brainer and should never gotten to the supreme court. Should never have passed. Next thing Dumbo will tell us we all have to buy chevy volts, and put up a solar panel.
How in the hell can you morons say he saved gm and chrysler, they still owe the taxpayers over 7 billion dollars in unpaid loans. They should have gone broke, and restructured under bankruptcy..
The only thing I will give this POS credit for is screwing up this country for years to come, and being a bigot. And quite honestly a complete waste of time.
All most forgot he did just about wear out Air Force One on his vacation trips.
November will be here soon, and this crook can go back to Chicago where he belongs.
AmericanVeteran1- Obama has gone down in history, as the most incompetent, inexperienced, RACIST, President in History, even over Carter! He has accomplished one thing, DIVIDED this country for the worst. It will take 10's of years to get this country back together. We have become so looked down on and not respected by the rest of the world. America is a big joke to other countries as well as Obama not respected. Obama is the most dangerous person this country has had as President. And the most useless.
Fuzzy,
The worst President EVER is GEORGE W BUSH. It's going to be funny when Karma gets him and the rest of you.
What has Obama done? Bin Laden is dead and the war of aggression against Iraq is over. Vietnam, the sequel.
Fuzzy, where on earth do you get your information.
Well, if you Liberals would or could do your homework, and then be able to comprehend what was read, you wouldn't be and sound so ignorant on these blogs. Liberals need to get an education as well as having common sense before anything. This is why Obama has been able to destroy America very easily. He realizes that it is better to let the economy go to hell and win the liberals over by giving them Welfare and food stamps. You people follow Obama like loss sheep. You are going to be the downfall and destruction of America. Just like Germany was in WW ll. You don't have to be a Republican to see this, which is obvious.
Fuzzy,
You are a psycho and need to be locked up with Manson. Hate is what you love. Let's put it this way, republicans = Anti-christ. You are the reasons why people hate republicans. You are a Manson.
Fuzzy, I just read your last rant. Dude, are you a member of the Bush family? Or maybe Rick Perrys brother? I mean you cannot seem to string together a coherent sentence. Seriously Bro. Dude, just so you know, and as I stated in my last post, during the last 60 years, Republicans have held office 38 of them. And during the other 22, like the Clinton sex mess and Obama birther nonsense, they spent trying everything in their power to bring down the President. 24 straight months of private sector job growth under Obama and nearly 100 months of private sector job LOSSES under Bush. The man who was responsible for 9/11, the man who Bush said that he doesn't even think about much, is dead and his organization scattered. And finally our brave men and women are no longer dying in one of the illegal wars started by BUSH.
These FACTS are all out there for anyone to see, Fuzzy my man. But you do have to break away from Rush and Sean and Megan first. You do know about the study that found that Fox news viewers knew less about what was going on in the world than even people who DON'T WATCH NEWS!!!! When you discover that fact Fuzzy, you are supposed to ASK QUESTIONS!!!!
Draper's book is out and it reveals that the Rep power guys, Rick the prick Cantor, Turtle neck McConnell, Crybaby Boner, and others met on innauguration day to come up with a strategy to make sure that Obama was a 1 term President.
That is why you see the obstructionist House voting "no" on everything. For the pukes it is all about the party and not the country and it's people.
Gee Rod, what do you think the Dem's did on innauguration day, when Bush was elected President? Oh wait, they may have been too busy whining and inspecting chads, with microscope's.
Dave you FI reread my statement.
What a typical lemming, and a liar to boot.
The House has not blocked anything, and all of you commies know it. They have passed a budget and many other bills every year that are "blocked" or stalled in the Harry Reid, lefty looney majority Senate. And even if the Senate went along with the House, Oblamer would veto. Obstructionism is in the eyes of the brainwashed beholders.
Romney was right, since there is a failed record the other side will only present a campaign of distractions and distortions. Exactly the tactics of all leftist dictators and their minions in history.
marty pull your head out of your azz, the pukes have block voted no on everything.
Rod,
If not, we would most likely be another trillion in debt, because the doorknobs on the Left, obviously don't know how a balance sheet works.
Delusional One.
Name one piece of legislation that the House has blocked. If you can't, then STFU.
I know you can't, the House only proposes, votes on and passes legislation, then it goes to the Senate for votes there. The Senate either passes it, votes it down, tables it or it ends up in a joint conference with the House to retool the legislation and then the process starts over. If the bill does pass both H & S, then it goes to the POTUS for signing or rejection. With the current political climate, nothing the house passes will ever make it through the process. So tell me, who are the obstructors? Hmmmmm? Education for the ignorant ones.
On all legislation where Obama exercised Executive Power to overcome the obstructionism of the pukes.
Ahh, so now we have it.
I knew you couldn't name anything. What a pathetic response. Give it up.
The Republicans blocked nothing (as your response pretty much admits), but exercised their Constitutional responsibilities. Instead, the POTUS exercising arrogant (and perhaps unconstitutional) power, has acted like a leftist dictator and has bypassed the very process of checks and balances that has kept our republic safe and free from the likes of him (and his faithful comrades).
If you're going to post with the big boys, wear big boy pants and be ready for intelligent discussion.
The Tyrant had to get Tyrannical to push his Agenda's?
So tell me Marty, what has the House passed that could pass the Senate? Nothing, they have show votes but nothing else. If they really wanted to govern they would come up with bills that are made up of compromises, bills that encompass what both sides actually do agree on. They also would not have show votes on social issues they would focus on job creation something that the republicans ran on in the midterms.
The republicans keep pushing tax cuts, saying they create jobs, well where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? It has been 12 years, is that not long enough for the tax cuts to create jobs?
Also how can you blame everything on Obama when not one of his ideas nor democrat ideas has been passed the way they were created. In order to pass they become so watered down that they are not recognizable as what they started out to be.
Especially the health care law, even the mandate was a republican idea---do some research on what the republicans came out with against the Clinton administration when they tried to do health care reform. They claimed it would not work without a mandate. Their idea that now they are against because it came from President Obama. A lot of the present health-care law encompasses republican ideas but still they were against even those provisions. Why? Because it was Obama and the democrats.
Oh and Nancy Pelosi didn't say we have to pass it to know what is in it. She said we have to pass it so the people (the public) will know whats in it. And yes, I have read the entire bill, have any of the republicans? I doubt it, it's too long to hold their attention. Isn't that the complaint it is over 2000 pages.
When it comes down to it, conservatives are pretty stupid. Just this week on Wednesday, NBC broadcast a wonderful documentary of hospitals in the US and how much it is costing to care for a single uninsured patient whose employer offered no healthcare insurance. 3/4 of a million for a stroke. The program clearly showed the flaws in the US healthcare system in the last 4 decades. Gingrich and his honchos fought hard to avoid a showdown on what is now a major national crisis. But the conservatives are at it again...protecting HMO CEO wealth as they protect all wealth in this country as if they were the self-apponted wealth protection cartel. The man who had the stroke was paid minimum wage and the employer claimed he couldn't afford to offer healthcare insurance. Funny how he was able to afford that McMansion and that Silverado though, right? Enough with the BS from the right and conservatives.
Here's some math for you loonies. Right now, the tally for uninsured Americans is 43 million. What exactly do you think your healthcare insurance will cost you when 43 million becomes 100 million uninsured? Pretty stupid people if you ask me. But you didn't ask so I'm telling you. If I am paying for my healthcare insurance and that of 20% of that 100 million if and when it comes to that, how soon will I be one of those 100 million?
The Republicans don't want ANY healthcare reform because it will hurt the premiums HMOs use to sink into high risk investments instead of your claims. That's why President Obama put a cap on how much HMOs could claim is "profit". Prior to the ACA, HMOs tried to claim up to 80% of our premiums were profit, spent it on their salaries like that Healthcare South CEO and those 7 TX HMOs who bilked Medicare since 2006 were doing and then comes times to pay claims...out comes the HMO poor mouth routine. No more HMO BS. If we pay them, we have a right to know where they spend every dime they receive.
April 20, 2012
United States Congress
Washington, District of Columbia
Dear Senators and Representatives,
Please, once you read this, could you possibly forward or deliver this to the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. I have been a proud American, a father and a hard worker. I believed in this nation of truth, freedom, accountability and all that it stood for at one time. I have never conducted or committed any criminal activity in my entire life. I have paid my taxes; I have served my country as a federal employee and have given countless hours to help in my community. But, the terror and hell, that I have been put through has become too much for me to bear.
Some days, I remember as a nation we came together on September 11, 2001, no matter who we were, what we were or what color we were, at that time on that day, we were all Americans and we helped one another. I always felt dignity and praise for my country at that moment. But, now I only feel a deep hatred for this country, a country that stands for nothing and cares for nothing. And has no will to defend the injustices and the corrupt.
I see countries like Syria, Iran and Pakistan, and pray to God, how glad I am to be an American. But then the lies, the corruption and the terror that my state (Missouri), has perpetrated against me and I see that I’m already there. I had praised my country (America) and was so proud to be me (American). Now, I feel the deepest disgust and hatred not for my country but for this country that has put me through this unjustified hell.
Once an American,
Mark-Anthony Grady
St. Louis, Missouri
As the world crowned the St. Louis Cardinals as the number one champs, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon wants to applaud his administration for its’ number one rankings. Being first in homicides in the country, everybody dies here. Being first in meth labs, everybody gets high here. Being first in crime, we murder, rape and rob all kinds here. And finally, being first in an uneducated workforce, everybody’s dumb here. Prime example, this is what a state employee performs their job. Joy Latimer, MO Administrative Hearing Officer Testimony, below
Father testified he is employed at Magellan Health Services and earns an annual salary of 544,500.00. In addition, Father testified ~works fifteen to twenty hours per week at WaImart and cams $7.25 per hour. Thus. Father's monthly income is determined to be $4,258.00 {(S44,500.00 1 12 moutbs) + ($7.25 per hour x 17.5 hours per week x 52 weeks 1 12 months)}. Father is afforded a credit of S113.00 per month for health insurance costs for the subject children ($169.00 per mouth for Father and children 13 people covered x 2 subject children).
Mother's income is determined to be $2,223.00 per month based upon her testimony she works an average of fifty-four hours per week and earns 59.50 per hour ($9.50 per hour x 54 hours x 52 weeks 112 months). Mother is afforded a credit of$82.00 for health insurance costs for the subject children.
Form 14
6c. Health Insurance costs for children who are subjects of this proceedings.
Parent receiving support: ($82.00) Parent paying support: ($113.00)
All other 6a,6b, 6d, 6e are all zeros.
7. Total additional child-rearing costs( enter sum of lines 6a,6b,6c,6d & 6e)
Parent receiving support: $82.00 Parent paying support: $113.00 = $195.00, basic math rules it should = zero.
Ms Latimer being uneducated and dumb with no basic math skills. Didn’t know that a credit & debit of equal value calculates to zero. But this is what she her self calculated and her superior(s) Director, Family Support Division Alyson Campbell and Director, MO Dept. of Social Services Brian Kinkade, agreed with her findings, which confirms that they are as well uneducated and dumb to be overseeing an agency that relates to revenue and debits, credits and liability.
It seems that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, refuses to come in last on anything.
It amazes me that the blacks on here try to turn Obamas ineptitude into a racial thing, If the man was blue, pink, white, brown or mauve, he would still suck, still be inept, still a liar, still a usurper, so whats your point, just because hes black everybody should turn a blind eye to his incompetent handling of our affairs, if hes so good explain to me the need for the N.D.A.A, N.D.R.C, explain to me why he covered up fast and furious, why the bail out money he authorized went to foreign banks instead of mainstreet, why he spends trillions of money we dont have, illegal wars with out congressional oversight, intrusion into our daily lives, i could go on and on, but when you have blind dedication, its hopeless, open your eyes, and your mind, and take a good look around you and Think, maybe then you,ll see through the b.s and reality will slap you across the head, sheeple blind leading the blind.
@Amvet,
Racist remark. Period. You just went on ignore.
Wait Chris???? Please let him explain all of the illegal wars that Obama started that cost us trillions of dollars. If he can't do that, then I will agree with you. Okay Amvet, you have the floor!!!
An Untitled James Bond Film, starring Sean Conerey.
Act II, Scene 2
[Setting: Tropical foliage on hill above the Bay of Guanabara with Governor’s Island in the distant background. The camera pans left and we see Bond in black tie and tuxedo, having just left the Casino. He is aiming his Walther at your chest.]
You: “James?”
Bond: “Never say @!$%# again, you petty bickering racist!”
You: . . . ?
{As yet unfinished}
Obama isn't "running against the court", he's running against the U.S. Constitution. It had better be a battle he doesn't win.
You really ought to read the document instead of waving it about. It may not contain all your favorite myths, but is durable. Obama is, among other things, a constitutional law scholar and has taught constitutional law at the post-grad level in one of America's premier universities. (Yup, he's an African American and is regularly vilified and underestimated out of ignorance.)
Affinity1,
If Obama is such an expert on constitutional law, when why are so many of his Bill's and actions being disputed and reviewed by State and Federal courts?
....and as a side note, you can take your "African American" race rhetoric and shove it up your racist a..... The majority of this Nation is color blind, but for some reason you pigs keep throwing it out there. Why? He would not have been elected if your inane theory held true. If there is ignorance involved here, it is with you.
Wrong assumptions???? No one said the majority of Americans are racist, just that the minute minority is trying to drown out the voices of the majority. Why are so many of his policies (not bills--congress have bills--by the constitution)? Mostly because of the clandestine pacts that was made in that secret meeting on the night of his swearing in!!! Won't give any of this a name but feel free to call it what you want!!
@Dave,
Asleep in civics? "His" bills were written by Congress. The President with the record for bills challenged by state and local governments is Reagan, followed closely by Grant. It is not the courts that are disputing the bills, it is state attorney-generals. They can request a review and that's pretty much it. If a lower court doesn't want to deal with it for whatever reason, they can buck it up to a higher court. If the state attorney-general loses in a lower court, he can appeal to a higher court, right up to the Supreme Court. State attorney-generals are notorious for their political aspirations. Governors, for the most part, have spent time as either a Lt. Governor or as a State Attorney General prior to running for Governor. Most occupants of that office see it as a way to get their name out there and familiar to people so they can run for higher office. State attorneys general are probably the most politicized offices in the country because their power to do anything is quite limited while their power to oppose, delay, and confuse is almost limited.
Right on Dave! And if his race really is an issue, he should find another job, there is no time for the POTUS to be playing race games.
To Affinity...re-read Soggy post 1.15 above. Your admiration of the constitutional lawyer/president is akilter.
In 2010, the MO Department of Social Services, was found being neglect in following it's own policies & procedures, regarding Family Support Division. See news story below.
Inadequate documentation, payments potentially made to ineligible people, and missing documents - those are just some of the problems discovered by the Missouri State Auditor's office regarding child care payments in Missouri.
In 2010 the federal government spent 151 million dollars to provide child care for Missouri children. In Missouri those payments were made to 9 thousand different providers on behalf of 81 thousand children.
The Missouri State Auditor randomly pulled 60 case files and found some big problems with the way the program is administered. According to the auditor the DSS-Family Support Division lacked adequate controls to ensure that payments were proper and benefiting only eligible clients. Of the cases reviewed 50 percent lacked adequate documentation or were not in compliance with DSS policies. In six of those cases the files were missing completely.
According to a Missouri Department of Social Services employee who wanted to remain anonymous, "I would say 50 percent at least of these child care cases need to be really looked at and really investigated." The employee told News 4 fraud is rampant, and it's hard for investigators to keep up with new cases.
The unnamed employee also said child care payments made to parents attending college has lead to fraud. She says the department doesn't require a paid receipt, and in many cases parents only bring a class schedule to prove they are attending class. The Missouri Department of Social Services says verification of college courses can be one of the following:
1.) Fee Receipt for courses enrolled
2,) Official Letter of enrollment from school.
3.) Official Class Schedule from school that confirms payment.
4.) Student Income Verification Form (IM-108)
The Department of Social Services also said through an email they are "always looking for ways to improve and enhance the way we serve the people of Missouri." According to the department they are currently working to improve documentation and have recently developed a new case review system.
DSS also makes it clear they take fraud seriously, and if you suspect fraud you can email the unit at dls.reportfraud@dss.mo.gov or call 1-877-770-8055
Alyson Campbell
Director
Department of Social Services, Family Support Division
615 Howerton Court
PO Box 2320
Jefferson City MO, 65101
(573) 751-4247
Ms Campbell & All Politicians, Law Enforcement Personnel and News Reporters.
This letter is to ask for your assistance to investigate the embezzling, perjury charges, I am about to level against the following MO State Officials.
MO Governor Jay Nixon
MO Department of Social Services Director Brian Kinkade
MO Department of Family Support Division Director Alyson Campbell
MO Department of Administrative Hearings Supervisor Clifton Parker
MO Department of Administrative Hearings Officer Joy Latimer
Child Support Enforcement Modifications Worker Edith Davis
Child Support Enforcement Modifications Manager Samantha Walls
Child Support Enforcement Office Manager Downtown Valerie Taylor
These individuals, falsified my income, committed perjury in a court of law, withheld money illegally, tried to retaliate by having my employer, to fire me.
I have submitted to you the documented proof of the falsifying income, the perjury and the seizure of my funds illegally.
I have asked for help from the MO Attorneys' General office but was told they have no authority over any state agencies, same with the state representatives and senators, they have no authority, but they make the laws that these agencies are suppose to follow and adhere too. And the sad part of that is that they didn't share in any of the funds from the scheme.
I have did the research and have followed the money, it leads to CSE and to the FSD. When they say no assigned case workers anymore, so why is my case seems to handled by worker Edith Davis, when originally it given to a Ms Modrus.
Every time I request my file or documents thru the State's Sunshine Law, I'm met with resistence. I thought if you are innocent, then why would you ask me to produce a subpoena for my own records.
Attached, you'll find a letter that shows that the list of people above have agreed, and approve of the actions they have pertaken of and see no guilt in being crooks as they most commonly are.
The money they get in child support is not going to my children, it's going into pockets of state workers and agency department heads, while my children suffer and live in poverty. But, they expect that from blacks.
Mark,
I'd move, if I were you.
This is about MO money, isn't it.
corporatism thats what we have, when corporations buy the government, And government makes laws in their favor. Obamacare does nothing for the people that are forced into it, its all about the money, the insurance companies haul in around 63 billion, big pharmacy rakes in billions, since hospital workers and doctors have to join unions they make billions, while the covered person wont be able to find a doctor when they need one, this has nothing to do with the people but purely Obama paying back his friends that got him elected, doesnt take a rocket scientists to figure out these boys want their favors for getting the Kenyan King selected, end of story.
You guys on this board are freaks. You want a civil war? Man vs Woman. Guess what men... you are going to LOSE! You think with what's between your legs. Women know this and it is power over you. You are only needed for procreation and lifting heavy things.
You want Dems vs Republicans? No problem. Republicans have done NOTHING in DC other than to show they have money. When they are voted out of office I am going to laugh so hard.
Also, I am SICK of hearing about 9/11. IT IS FREAKING OVERRRRRRRRRRRR!! It is as old as Pearl Harbor! Rah rah.
This country had already gone to the devil with Bush. You blindly follow these idiot republicans and it will be YOU who suffer the consequences. There are 99% of us and only 1% of you. Take the hint pals.
I love that our President claims horrendous "partisan" politics whenever his ideas are not received by Congressional Republicans as viable. Then Republicans claim horrendous "partisan" politics whenever the democratic majority in the Senate pushes through a measure not in-line with the GOP garbage. Now, we have a President who claims that the Congress is "democratically elected" --- indicating that, somehow, for the consideration of the SCOTUS, that Congress is no longer partisan but acting on their responsibility to vote the conscience of their constituency. If there is anyone out there who actually believes that to be the case, please let me know who your Senators and representative are ... I will want to push my own to do the same ... The SCOTUS will do what the SCOTUS has always done: make a decision on an issue based on the majority interpertation of the Constitution y the justices in that particular area of law or social need. Period.
Whether partisian or not they are duly elected congress. And law are passed when a majority of lawmakers pass a law, not when all members agree.
Right,For that very reason the people are very determined to remove all the GOP House and Senate this time round.previously they aint aware clearly ,Who actually HOLDS the the Authority.As American thought the US President.
This same reason why IF the SCOTUS ignored them again ,they already know by now who ,they're going to elects this november for "BOTH HOUSE" by electing democrate and where the power lies to IMPREACH all of them out.
Whatever you want Romney is for, rhetorically. Certainly one of his eight positions on each issue is to your liking. He is the first liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary to run for president. But... which Romney would hold the office, or would it be one great big dither?
Well who is actually being divisive? It appears that on the day of President Obama's inauguration, a group of Republican leaders were having dinner plotting their strategy for taking down this president. What they determined at the meeting was to be against everything the President wanted to do and Karl Rove who was at that meeting said we now have a blueprint for 2012. So you tell me who is divisive? Additionally, if the Supreme Court strikes the HCA law as unconstitutional does that put both Social Security and Medicare in jeopardy of being challenged by some right wing nut as also being unconstitutional? Both programs require people to pay into them "unvoluntarily" and a senior once retired "must" go onto Medicare and can not have their own personal insurance even if they want to. Medicare must be their primary insurance.
laurie
SS and Medicare are a TAX. The Healthcare Mandate is NOT a TAX. See the difference?
slodon - Still a mandate and isn't the argument the government can't force people to buy something. Well...I see it as a fine line don't you. Social Security, Medicare and HCA are all insurance programs....if the only difference is one is "called" a tax and the other is not then it's a simple fix to call the mandates in HCA a tax. Somehow I think there's going to be a deeper ruling than that.
slodon,
Mitt Ronney,Massachusetts Health-care is Mandate Program and its both under commmerce clause and by legistrative means as legal Consitutionality Amendment .
The Massachusetts State and Fed the 2 parts are both with Consitutional Amendments through the house and senate ,Now you can see better why the scotus having the hard time to against it and try to understand why,the GOP always having the habits of wasting the tax's payer money for the losing cause.
If still Confused,
Check with IRS return,Its IRS who will be collecting this Health-Care"TAX" for this mandate Program,no insurance coverage ....thats must be the tea-party the one without teeth,as its always optional for them.
If the Supreme Court had not put GWB in the White House in 2000, I seriously doubt this country would be in the current situation it is in. And the Repubs keep saying Pres. Obama put us into this sorry situation. They believe that if something is repeated over and over again, everyone will begin to believe it........not! And the are just making themselves look silly. I've never seen such a transparent bunch.
Good post and very true
Obama and his policies have failed, Let's not repeat!
NOBAMA2012
Thank you. We have GWB, also known as the idiot MORON to blame for this mess. It took 8 years to get where we are, you think 3 is going to get us out? No. Look at the mess Reagan and the OTHER moron put us in?
Look at the candidates for the repubs - Romney - criminal. Gingrich - tried to impeach a president for a BJ? He was banging some chick that wasn't his wife and pointing the finger at someone else? Men who are angry about Clinton obviously can't get any on their own and are just jealous.
Get over yourself and go post to Fox News about us Dems on this board!
What no one seems to be paying attention to in the rush to paint Romney with the Obamacare brush it that, as Governor, Romney was clearly within his Constitutional rights to enact a law passed by the state legislature.
The germane text is easily found in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States clearly are intended to have powers specifically denied the Federal Government. What Romney did as Governor is legal, what Obama did as President is not.
You're talking nonsence
Can I ask you simple thing,do you think President Obama legistratively responsible for the drafted the Health-Care ?
Since when The FED has no authority?
The House & Senate have the Authority to appoint anyone they deems fit to hold the office of the Supreme Justice.It aslo the House & Senate that have the Authority to Impreach them all out, if they decided if these Scotus fails to fit the description as Supreme Justice.
The way Obama treats the Supreme Court is shameful.
He treats the way they should be treated, with contempt for creating another class of citizen: non-voting, anonymous but overwhelmingly influential entities.
The way the Supreme Court has treated the country is shameful: allowing the government to seize your land for redevelopment for pennies on the dollar, Corporations are People, etc.
I will believe that corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one.
Obama is a DICTATOR. He will not be removed in the future if reelected in November. We have too many ignorant, uneducated Liberals, that have their heads in the ground. They cannot comprehend how much of a disaster Obama is. He has not done one thing in Americas favor the past 4 years. And it is truly sad people still blame Bush when Obama has totally assumed and accepted the position of President. The country was in considerably better condition than it is now under Obama. The economy is in the sewer, Welfare has increased considerably, unemployment is actually over 22% total. More people are out of their homes, lost their bank accounts. America is heading towards a 3rd World Country the way we are heading. Don't try and explain this to the Dems, as they have done this damage for over 45 years of the last 60 by being in control of the government!
The way Obama handles EVERYTHING is Shameful!
Every member of the Supreme court should be impeached immediately.
What an idiot. Welfare check must hjave been late.
ROFL!!! FUZZY!!! Please stop calling people uneducated when you cannot even spell correctly. Its embarrassing dude, really.
I think the SC ruling on allowing essentially unlimited and unaccountable campaign financing will help Obama.
Most people would rather not have nameless contributors financing elections.
i live in Texas. my wife worked at the county hospital for 30 years. over 90% of the babies delivered at the county hospital were to blacks and hispanics with no insurance. recently the county commissioners voted to cut funding to the hospital pediatrics. if the birth rate to those two classes continue, the hospital will be broke in 6 months. the commissioners also reduced the money to school districts but mandated an increase in english s a second language classes. the county commissioners had a choice, raise taxes again, or cut programs. i live on a fixed income, social security and monthly pension payments. it is not enough to cover my own expenses let alone pay for those people to have more kids than they can afford or pay for their education.
gary,
the way the hispanic's procreate, spanish will be the first language, in another decade. We just sit by and watch it happening. They are uneducated, over half don't even graduate from high school. The have no respect for authority and little respect for non-hispanic's, as evidenced by the high crime rates against U.S. Citizens. They survive on U.S.entitilements, bleeding our system dry and then they have the audacity to waive their mexican flags and demand more respect. Why would they want to waive their Country's flag, when their Country is so corrupt they won't even live there?
Eliminate the anchor baby rule and deport the law breakers and the problem is fixed. That simple.
Sounds like the same coming from another minority in America, but doing the same for a lot longer. But at least the Mexicans do work hard and earn their keep. Not all Hispanics are like what you said. They take jobs that others won't. Others would rather be 3rd or 4th generation Welfare and Food Stamp recipients instead of working. The Democrats have given them everything free, so they can keep control over them. It is paying off for their vote for Obama.
BHO mocks the SCOTUS in a "State of the Union" address, and has had two cases apparently go against him. Regardless, this election is all about the Economy, and the Taxpayers are not Stupid, One and done!
He didn't mock them. He only correctly pointed out that the SC effectively made US election financing (and influence) open to the highest bidder, US citizen or not.
Most people think US elections should be about US citizens. SC disagrees.
Regardless, this election is all about the Economy, and the Taxpayers are not Stupid, One and done!
Dahly - I think you are going to be surprised with your assertion of "one and done". The American people are realizing the agenda of Republicans is not in their best interests as shown by the 21 Republican governors that have tried to dismantle the middle class by passing intolerable laws against workers, women, gays, and immigrants (of certain origin). The Republicans absolutely "can't" win this election without women and latinos and they will not get a majority of either and they can't win with the angry white male vote....so sorry about your delusion.
Laurie, I know that, as a Democrat, you think you speak for all the women, gay's and immigrant's, but you may be surprised, when you find out you don't. My wife is an Independant and she is offended by the Left's pompous assumtion that they represent and speak for certain ethnic or social classes. It just shows your ignorance and immaturity.
Laurie - you are dispersing typical liberal "broad brush" disinformation devised to scare the ignorant and embolden the delusional. Provide specifics to your rants, or stop posting. If you want to be relevant and not look like an emotional leftist hack, then answer the following questions:
Who are the 21 Republican governors? How do governors pass any laws in of and by themselves? What were the laws they "tried" to pass that were "intolerable" against workers? - state the legislation and the impact. What were the laws they "tried" to pass against women, gays and immigrants? - again provide specifics. "Intolerable" can be an subjective evaluation based on one's own worldview and emotions and not based on any objective "real world" facts.
Calm down and start thinking and maybe there can be realistic dialogue.
Gallup, poll of registered likely voters 50-46 Romney. The worm has already turned.
Mark,
Unfortunately, the politicians (both Dems and Repubs) only believe "US elections should be about US citizens" when talking about issues that will get them votes.
Republicans like the superpacs. Of course the Dems do too, at least the ones that have large special interests supporting them.
Democrats think anyone should be able to walk into a polling place with no proof of who you are and cast a vote.
Obama's online fundraising accepts donations from alliases.
My guess (I could be wrong) is you believe the SuperPacs are wrong, but asking someone to show some ID when voting is somehow "voter suppresion" and BO's online fundraising, which include donations from "Adolph Hitler" and countless other obvious alliases, is OK?
And BTW, calling a law that someone has to show an ID to vote "voter suppresion" is a slap in the face to anyone who fought for their right to vote in the racist past in our country.
There was no IDs shown at any of the republican caucuses, hmm, wonder why. This republican governmental official in New did not show an Id. Maybe he should have then he would not have created that voter fraud that got him removed from office an thrown in jail. If, as those that would try and use the voting laws to keep some from voting say would happen if no IDs, how would we keep these same distrusted persons from making fraudulent IDs and upping the fraud to nth proportions????
Wow Charles,
First, please clarify to what "republican governmental official in New" you are referring. I honestly have no idea what you are referencing. But that's not the point.
By your logic, we shouldn't have any laws because someone will try to break them and up the crime "to the nth degree". Why bother locking stores, banks, or even the federal mints, someone is just going to up the crime to the nth degree by commiting armed robbery, or kidnapping or murder. Better to just open the doors and let them loot instead. Oh wait, that the politicians job, to loot, I mean.
If you really want to, you can google voter fraud. Contrary to what most far left liberals will tell you, there have been dozens of confirmed voter fraud cases documented in recent years (mostly in the registration, because it is difficult to document or even investigate who is actually voting after they vote because there is no way to track that, short of taking a picture when they vote). Absence of a conviction does not mean agsense of a criem. That is exactly why we should be sure at the time they vote that they are who they say they are.
What is really concerning is the future. If someone is able to organize enough of a conspiracy to win the presidency using voter fraud, do you really think it would be investigated after they are in office? Do you think John Edwards would be on trial now if he had won the election? Anyone who believes politicians on either side of the aisle are above breaking the law to get elected, or even to keep quite while knowing someone "on their team" (i.e. in their party) is breaking the law to get elected, lives in a fantasy world.