Thread: Obamas win

Bush signed the first bill sent to "help" businesses... That dumped billions...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Definitely. This new leader is trying to nationalize everything, and his "stimulus package" is not a stimulus at all. He won't even explain how in the %$#@ it's supposed to be a stimulus. It's just his way of using a slight of hand trick to make the country as government owned as possible. "Oh, we're facing another depression and mass starvation? Well, I have the solution. Let's get the government to pay for everything imaginable, including tattoo removal and projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the economy, aside from the fact that people will get taxed more and spend less money that could be stimulating the economy. See, a stimulus package. Get it? "

Yeah, just look at him nationalizing, that Socialist. He's nationalized all those...things. Lots of things!

The irony of the "GOP that cried wolf" is they're driving tons of attention and new recruits to the actual American Socialist party, doing more than any Socialist in history to make Socialism mainstream in America.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yeah, just look at him nationalizing, that Socialist. He's nationalized all those...things. Lots of things!

Good point.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The irony of the "GOP that cried wolf" is they're driving tons of attention and new recruits to the actual American Socialist party, doing more than any Socialist in history to make Socialism mainstream in America.

Oh, Republicans suck too. I guess that cancels out how much Democrats suck.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Bush signed the first bill sent to "help" businesses... That dumped billions...

He's a retard, but where did the money go exactly? Schools and tattoo removal?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, Republicans suck too. I guess that cancels out how much Democrats suck.

The whole "Socialist" chant is party line, and you're taking it up as dutifully as any Fox News snarking head. For every couple of slackjaws who join the chorus, someone else gets on these here interwebs and finds out what a Socialist actually is, usually resulting in less trust toward the people who told them Obama is a Socialist and less hostility toward actual Socialism.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The whole "Socialist" chant is party line, and you're taking it up as dutifully as any Fox News snarking head. For every couple of slackjaws who join the chorus, someone else gets on these here interwebs and finds out what a Socialist actually is, usually resulting in less trust toward the people who told them Obama is a Socialist and less hostility toward actual Socialism.

Wooo, you said "Fox News". You win. But, what were you saying about a party line chant? Well, Obama is a socialist. Distribution of wealth, nationalization of banks, etc. Instead of making empty comments that sound like they came straight off the MSNBC brainwash script, explain how Obama is not a socialist. Tell me about the capitalist philosophy wonders of Hussein Obama the Kid.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wooo, you said "Fox News". You win. But, what were you saying about a party line chant? Well, Obama is a socialist. Distribution of wealth, nationalization of banks, etc. Instead of making empty comments that sound like they came straight off the MSNBC brainwash script, explain how Obama is not a socialist. Tell me about the capitalist philosophy wonders of Hussein Obama the Kid.

Providing capital to private institutions so they can continue lending to and insuring other private instutions = nationalization like cow = duck. These measures are being taken to keep capital moving in the rest of the market, to keep businesses open, to keep people employed. The stimulus bill is likewise about getting projects done now that have languished underfunded, again to get and keep people working. It's all based on the radical notion that whether you expect to have an income next week influences spending more than what you expect to be taxed next year.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Providing capital to private institutions so they can continue lending to and insuring other private instutions = nationalization like cow = duck. These measures are being taken to keep capital moving in the rest of the market, to keep businesses open, to keep people employed. The stimulus bill is likewise about getting projects done now that have languished underfunded, again to get and keep people working. It's all based on the radical notion that whether you expect to have an income next week influences spending more than what you expect to be taxed next year.

I was not saying that "spreading the wealth" is nationalization. Making the biggest banks in the country property of the U.S. government is nationalization. That is not all he wants to nationalize.

Spreading the wealth is socialism, however. It might not be pure socialism in Hussein's case, but it is a major degree of socialism.

As for the stimulus package, throwing money in strange places is a highly inefficient method of creating jobs. He is not even giving it to business in most cases any way. You are thinking of the bail outs, I guess. Hussein needs to cut business taxes a great deal and cut everybody else's taxes. THAT is how you get businesses to expand, therefore hire, and therefore stimulate because it results in more private spending. It is called capitalism. It works. Check history.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was not saying that "spreading the wealth" is nationalization. Making the biggest banks in the country property of the U.S. government is nationalization. That is not all he wants to nationalize.

Obama is bending over backwards to avoid nationalizing the banks, while still keeping them solvent for the sake of the economy at large. What do you propose, a simple hand-out? Do nothing and let the economy crash to a halt when businesses find themselves overexposed to risk and unable to obtain credit, until the free market can sort things out?

What else is he planning to nationalize? He's flatly refused to take over healthcare, despite growing support for single-payer. He wants to cut farm subsidies and let the market right itself there. What's he looking to grab up, phone companies? Natural gas?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Spreading the wealth is socialism, however. It might not be pure socialism in Hussein's case, but it is a major degree of socialism.

"Spreading the wealth" is a catch phrase, not a policy or platform. Emphasizing that the president has a middle name that is common in Muslim nations is innuendo intended to inflame bigotry. Together with the repetition of "socialism," this rhetoric forms a pattern of borrowed ideas strung together without substance.

Make a case for how Obama's policies promote worker control of the means of production and democratic allocation of the proceeds or stop wasting everyone's time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As for the stimulus package, throwing money in strange places is a highly inefficient method of creating jobs. He is not even giving it to business in most cases any way. You are thinking of the bail outs, I guess. Hussein needs to cut business taxes a great deal and cut everybody else's taxes. THAT is how you get businesses to expand, therefore hire, and therefore stimulate because it results in more private spending. It is called capitalism. It works. Check history.

The biggest single element of the stimulus bill is a tax credit, putting a significant chunk of change in the hands of a large number of people, and there are a couple dozen targeted tax cuts for businesses and individuals. Some of the money is benefits like unemployment and health care, but again that puts money in people's hands. The bulk of it is funding which requires someone, somewhere, to do something: that's called employment. Much of that employment will be private contractors hired by the states. Even the money going to education and law enforcement is employing people; public employees spend money, too.

Seems like a pretty direct approach to me.

Cut every business's taxes to zero in a depressed economy and the sole effect on employment will be negative: they'll fire some accountants. Businesses are in siege mode right now, because consumers are in siege mode; one expense going down will just free up a finger to stick in another part of the dike.

Government always tries to bail out failing economies, and they always make things worse in the long term. Because government in general is stupid.

What is your first reaction when you find the economy is slowing down? You save money! What is the governments first reaction when they find the economy is slowing down? They spend money!

Its really common sense.

When the government spends billions and trillions of dollars at a time to bail out companies, what does it do? They cause inflation, they sucks out billions and trillions of dollars from the economy. And they give it to the companies which were failing, because they are unable to turn a profit. We take money from everyone in the US to promote bad businesses? It makes no sense at all.

the only bad thing about everybody saving money, is that these companies are losing it all and going bankrupt.

so in a sense, we're f*cked either way. we got these commercials about "saving money" but saving it is going to make our companies go bankrupt, but if we do spend, we might lose our homes.

we're so f*cked.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Obama is bending over backwards to avoid nationalizing the banks, while still keeping them solvent for the sake of the economy at large. What do you propose, a simple hand-out? Do nothing and let the economy crash to a halt when businesses find themselves overexposed to risk and unable to obtain credit, until the free market can sort things out?

What else is he planning to nationalize? He's flatly refused to take over healthcare, despite growing support for single-payer. He wants to cut farm subsidies and let the market right itself there. What's he looking to grab up, phone companies? Natural gas?

He is "considering" nationalizing banks (Don't be naive about that.), 401k's, oil, and whatver else he can. He is all about enormous government and control.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

"Spreading the wealth" is a catch phrase, not a policy or platform. Emphasizing that the president has a middle name that is common in Muslim nations is innuendo intended to inflame bigotry. Together with the repetition of "socialism," this rhetoric forms a pattern of borrowed ideas strung together without substance.

Make a case for how Obama's policies promote worker control of the means of production and democratic allocation of the proceeds or stop wasting everyone's time.

"Spread the wealth" is a policy, it is socialism, and the fact that people agree with me does not prove my point false. Try harder.

Socialism's supposed goal is worker control of the means of production and even peaceful anarchy, but it is not how it starts or even anything that ever happens. "Democratic" allocation of the proceeds? Yeah, that's how it always happens, considering the fact that the only full blown socialist governments in history have been totalitarian. How much bullshit do you want to add to this thread?

People use "Hussein" to name Obama because it is in fact his name and because it is also the name of one of the most ruthless dictators of all time. That is the joke. Cut out your dishonest political correctness absurdities.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The biggest single element of the stimulus bill is a tax credit, putting a significant chunk of change in the hands of a large number of people, and there are a couple dozen targeted tax cuts for businesses and individuals. Some of the money is benefits like unemployment and health care, but again that puts money in people's hands. The bulk of it is funding which requires someone, somewhere, to do something: that's called employment. Much of that employment will be private contractors hired by the states. Even the money going to education and law enforcement is employing people; public employees spend money, too.

The middle class tax credit you are talking about was not put into the bill even though the liar said it would be. A few jobs might result from the ENORMOUS spending the socialist is committing, but the debt and taxes that will result will make it all blow up in our faces unless somebody stop the nut.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Cut every business's taxes to zero in a depressed economy and the sole effect on employment will be negative: they'll fire some accountants. Businesses are in siege mode right now, because consumers are in siege mode; one expense going down will just free up a finger to stick in another part of the dike.

"To zero"??? Are you going for the strawman award? We need taxes, but private enterprise cannot be fucked with like you naive socialists want it to be.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He is "considering" nationalizing banks (Don't be naive about that.), 401k's, oil, and whatver else he can. He is all about enormous government and control.

So you believe he's out to nationalize the banks because you're convinced he's a Socialist because you believe he's out to nationalize the banks? Yes he's said he would consider temporary nationalization, but he's taking every imaginable step to avoid it, precisely because he's too sensitive to your partisan rabble-rousing (not that I'd prefer he nationalize the banks, I'd just rather he didn't waste energy trying to look "not Socialist")

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Spread the wealth" is a policy, it is socialism, and the fact that people agree with me does not prove my point false. Try harder.

Obama's not "spreading the wealth" as opposed to letting the free market reign; his policies constitute "spreading the wealth" only in comparison to the Bush agenda of cutting taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously writing enormous, tax-funded checks to their corporations.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Socialism's supposed goal is worker control of the means of production and even peaceful anarchy, but it is not how it starts or even anything that ever happens. "Democratic" allocation of the proceeds? Yeah, that's how it always happens, considering the fact that the only full blown socialist governments in history have been totalitarian. How much bullshit do you want to add to this thread?

So Obama isn't working toward the goals of Socialism, but he's still a Socialist because Socialism isn't Socialism :S mmmmmkay. What you're putting forward is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory built on circular reasoning. It's nothing but a repackaging of McCarthy's Red Scare.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

People use "Hussein" to name Obama because it is in fact his name and because it is also the name of one of the most ruthless dictators of all time. That is the joke. Cut out your dishonest political correctness absurdities.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with all that "Obama is a Muslim" "Obama is an Arab" "Terrorist fist jab" bullshit during the campaign. Conflating Obama with Saddam Hussein is totally unrelated to the conflating of Hussein's secular government with Al Quaeda, and neither relies in the least on anti-Arab sentiment. In fact, none of those things even happened, it's just dishonest political correctness absurdity to say they did. I mean, hell, it's his (middle) NAME.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"To zero"??? Are you going for the strawman award? We need taxes, but private enterprise cannot be fucked with like you naive socialists want it to be.

So is that dodge an acknowledgement that lowering business taxes would do fuck-all in the current economic climate?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So you believe he's out to nationalize the banks because you're convinced he's a Socialist because you believe he's out to nationalize the banks? Yes he's said he would consider temporary nationalization, but he's taking every imaginable step to avoid it, precisely because he's too sensitive to your partisan rabble-rousing (not that I'd prefer he nationalize the banks, I'd just rather he didn't waste energy trying to look "not Socialist")

Are you trolling? Straw Man Troll Man, I told you he is a socialist because he wants to play Robinhood on a major scale. He wants socialized medicine. He wants to nationalize 401K's and the other things I mentioned. He is spending money as if it grows like grass. He is a socialist! That crazy circular reasoning you just illustrated is something you made up. How convenient it must be to have no boundaries on your dishonesty.

What steps imaginable is he taking to avoid nationalizing the banks? Talking about not doing it while talking about doing it?

Partisan? And what party do you assume I belong to?

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...%27s+penis

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Obama's not "spreading the wealth" as opposed to letting the free market reign; his policies constitute "spreading the wealth" only in comparison to the Bush agenda of cutting taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously writing enormous, tax-funded checks to their corporations.

WTF????? Yes he is trying to spread the wealth. What do you think his plan of raising taxes and spending a jillion dollars is all about? He even said the words "spread the wealth" to a fucking plummer about stealing more of his money! Do you live in a cave?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So Obama isn't working toward the goals of Socialism, but he's still a Socialist because Socialism isn't Socialism :S mmmmmkay. What you're putting forward is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory built on circular reasoning. It's nothing but a repackaging of McCarthy's Red Scare.

Are you writing a song to your dog or something? Where have you gone in this conversation?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yeah, it has nothing to do with all that "Obama is a Muslim" "Obama is an Arab" "Terrorist fist jab" bullshit during the campaign. Conflating Obama with Saddam Hussein is totally unrelated to the conflating of Hussein's secular government with Al Quaeda, and neither relies in the least on anti-Arab sentiment. In fact, none of those things even happened, it's just dishonest political correctness absurdity to say they did. I mean, hell, it's his (middle) NAME.

Obama has a soft spot on his pussy for terrorists, so I call him Hussein, which is his middle name, because Saddam Hussein is one of the most famous terrorists of all time.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So is that dodge an acknowledgement that lowering business taxes would do fuck-all in the current economic climate?

A dodge? Your premise was something you pulled out of your ass, which is exactly your pattern.

Lowering business taxes expands business and therefore stimulates the economy... a Hell of a lot more than robbing the people who stimulate the economy more than anybody else.

Cutting taxes doesn't do anything, if you increase government spending. They say they want to cut taxes, but when you factor in inflation taxes are going up.

Our government has a lot of socialist influences at the moment. Acting like no one is a socialist is silly. Social security, national health care, all the bailout packages, farm subsidies, welfare are all socialist programs.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you trolling? Straw Man Troll Man, I told you he is a socialist because he wants to play Robinhood on a major scale. He wants socialized medicine. He wants to nationalize 401K's and the other things I mentioned. He is spending money as if it grows like grass. He is a socialist! That crazy circular reasoning you just illustrated is something you made up. How convenient it must be to have no boundaries on your dishonesty.

The name calling really sells it. I say your reasoning is circular because the only reason to view Obama's actions in this light is that you already assume he is a Socialist--or rather, based on your claims, a totalitarian acting under the guise of Socialism. You assign him aims exactly opposite his stated goals and propose that he is conspiring under false pretenses to institute a totalitarian regime. That's a conspiracy theory, and about a 7/10 on the batshit-crazy scale.

Originally Posted by UM

Partisan? And what party do you assume I belong to?

I know damn well what party you don't.

Originally Posted by UM

Are you writing a song to your dog or something? Where have you gone in this conversation?

I'm just pointing out that your stew of vague claims and invective is about 98% rhetoric and 2% reality. The people who made up the story you're telling just fling poo at the walls until something sticks, playing on people's worst instincts so that they can continue siphoning off money and power from the masses into their churches, PACs and thinktanks.

Originally Posted by UM

Obama has a soft spot on his pussy for terrorists, so I call him Hussein, which is his middle name, because Saddam Hussein is one of the most famous terrorists of all time.

Apparently, I've misoverestimated* you. You're clearly just applying words you find nasty and mean to people you think are bad, the meaning of the words being irrelevant and the people requiring nothing in common except they are bad. I'm not sure how to counter this purely associative reasoning, but I'll give it a try:

Universal Mind, Hitler Commie Nazi, Dubya. Dicknose! Commie asshat, Nazi.

*I can't believe this word passed spellcheck. That is some Newspeak bullshit.

Originally Posted by Alric

Cutting taxes doesn't do anything, if you increase government spending. They say they want to cut taxes, but when you factor in inflation taxes are going up.

That's a nice theory and may be true in a lot of instances, but our actual circumstance is that consumer behavior and market losses are reducing the capital in circulation and bringing about deflation, and staggering as current spending may seem, it doesn't put back half of what's evaporated or been locked down.

Originally Posted by Alric

Our government has a lot of socialist influences at the moment. Acting like no one is a socialist is silly. Social security, national health care, all the bailout packages, farm subsidies, welfare are all socialist programs.

The system we're operating under is welfare capitalism. It's not straight Capitalism, which proved unconscionable less than a generation into the Industrial Revolution, but it's a far cry from Socialism. There's some merit in citing "socialist influences" on our government programs, but none in declaring the proponents of those programs Socialists trying to build the Workers' Paradise. The vast majority in both parties are welfare capitalists engaged in a Butter Battle over minutiae.

If Obama wants to nationalize the entire WORLD I don't care. One government and all that jazz sounds good to me. Heard the expression "Two lions cannot live on one mountain"? Too many leaders are just that...too many. One world order, one world government and that's that. I put my faith not in God, but in Obama. I have faith that he'll take us in the right direction, whatever he chooses to do with Earth.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I put my faith not in God, but in Obama.

Lmao.

Obama won because he had more money for his campaign, and the media supported him much more. Give it 6 more months and the media will turn everone against him. Unless things get better. Then everyone will assume that Obama fixed everything.... But it was really me.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

If Obama wants to nationalize the entire WORLD I don't care. One government and all that jazz sounds good to me. Heard the expression "Two lions cannot live on one mountain"? Too many leaders are just that...too many. One world order, one world government and that's that. I put my faith not in God, but in Obama. I have faith that he'll take us in the right direction, whatever he chooses to do with Earth.

It kinda sounds like you're serious here

I'm really hoping this is satire.

Taosaur, I told you that facts behind why I said Obama is a socialist. Your post countered absolutely nothing I said.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Taosaur, I told you that facts behind why I said Obama is a socialist. Your post countered absolutely nothing I said.

The only fact I saw behind the spin was "he's spending money." None of his moves so far constitute "nationalization," nor indicate an agenda for nationalizing anything. To all appearances, he wants the banks to resume their independent role with greater oversight when the economy is more stable. He wants the government to guarantee health insurance and reform private insurance (and the insurers are moving to provide more comprehensive coverage ahead of legislation), but he's not planning to "take over" either hospitals or insurers. He's certainly not enacting a totalitarian regime or a planned economy.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The only fact I saw behind the spin was "he's spending money." None of his moves so far constitute "nationalization," nor indicate an agenda for nationalizing anything. To all appearances, he wants the banks to resume their independent role with greater oversight when the economy is more stable. He wants the government to guarantee health insurance and reform private insurance (and the insurers are moving to provide more comprehensive coverage ahead of legislation), but he's not planning to "take over" either hospitals or insurers. He's certainly not enacting a totalitarian regime or a planned economy.

That is way out of touch with reality. Are you reading my posts? You must be deliberately pretending.

If anything, he won despite the fact that he is black.

Hillary would have beat McCain by a far higher margin than Obama did. Just about any credible Democrat would have likely beat McCain.

As for all of the disingenuous outrage about Obama's spending from the right, they are going to attack him no matter what and given their own fiscal record over the past eight years (never mind the deficit spending of their political Jesus, Reagan) whatever criticisms they have about Democratic financial policies have absolutely no credibility.

Good post. (Y)

Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot

As for all of the disingenuous outrage about Obama's spending from the right, they are going to attack him no matter what and given their own fiscal record over the past eight years (never mind the deficit spending of their political Jesus, Reagan) whatever criticisms they have about Democratic financial policies have absolutely no credibility.

Why do you assume the outrage is disingenuous? Obama is a record breaking spender who is looking at becoming a record breaking taxer. The outrage is for real.

Even if you disagree with the criticisms, you are making a major leap by saying they have absolutely no credibility. Moves in the direction of socialism do in fact have their drawbacks. Some of them have even wrecked countries.