Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[Leilin]

Leilin, would you rather the federal government violate our rights, all our rights? Seriously, we have more control of the state government if we push it, but we have almost no control of the federal government. So explain why allowing the states to have individual laws is so horrible compared to what we have now?

1. Strawman.

2. Name one situation where the supreme court has fought against the states for tighter restrictions on individual rights. If you can't, your point is completely moot. It doesn't matter if the federal government can restrict "all our rights" (and they can't. This is why courts exist) if they don't.

[Alexandra]

All right first of all just think back to the Artical of confederation, that gave almost all power to the states and the little powers given to the federal government couldn't even be enforced so it quickly develoved into chaos which is why we now have the Constitution. there were alot less states, and americans for that matter, so how do think that kind of plan would go over now. the federal government may not be perfect but at least it uniform and structered making it possible to change nation wide pollicy if need or just state legislation made that goes against the constitution. plus the national government is under much more scuteny so they have to care more about individual rights than a state government which can slide under the radar more often than the federal with bad legislation.

[Diapered Jason]

If Rick wins the Republican endorsement, then we're completely screwed. Lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The voters have a chance to change things, for better or worse, we know we've been picking lesser of two evils for so long and we need to stop allowing them to give us only those choices.

Sorry, but, Ron Paul will probably be out of the race by the time we reach the Washington caucus, so no, our votes will not matter. No one is taking him seriously, which is strange because I thought he was the most respectable candidate out of the pool, despite the fact I disagree with him on many issues. Remember, they boo'ed his golden rule, "don't do to other nation what we don't want to have them do to us.," during a Republican debate.

[Diaper Mike 05]

2012 is a bad year for the two major parties candidates. Obama is no good for me, and the Republicans don't have anybody worthwhile. I'm just waiting for the third party candidates to become known.

[sarah_ab]

washington has a caucus? lol just kidding, its just its held soo late in this state it basically doesn't matter!!! lol

[BoTox]

I liked Reagan more than any of the last half dozen presidents because he saw America as a great country that just needed to realize that fact. This country was founded on personal liberty and freedom from oppressive government. Bush meant well but did poorly on several fronts. Obama, on the other hand, means to usurp personal freedom and choice and has made good on his efforts to steal my money through taxes and redistribute them in the name of fairness. There is no fairness in the world. Period.

Justice and equal treatment under the law are not code for take what you need from someone else. It is not proper to take from one because he has more and give it to another simply because he has less. Nobody owes anyone else a living. Period. I am not against charity, I donate mightily throughout the year. What I despise is those that want to pick what I contribute to against my principles. I oppose planned parenthood and liberal agendas in general yet I'm forced, under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for all of the above at the expense of my preferred charities that are closer to home.

Government has grown too large and has expanded beyond its constitutional boundaries. Every president has helped errode it, some more than others, but Obama has encroached well beyond the realm of incremental reductions in freedom with so many of his initiatives while keeping us from achieving a recovery by allowing domestic oil and gas production. He is funnelling money in the hands of people that despise us at the expense of our allies. How is that a smart thing?

[Leilin]

Justice and equal treatment under the law are not code for take what you need from someone else.

Quite honestly, both parties need to learn this very much.

[Diapered Jason]

I liked Reagan more than any of the last half dozen presidents because he saw America as a great country that just needed to realize that fact. This country was founded on personal liberty and freedom from oppressive government. Bush meant well but did poorly on several fronts. Obama, on the other hand, means to usurp personal freedom and choice and has made good on his efforts to steal my money through taxes and redistribute them in the name of fairness. There is no fairness in the world. Period.

Justice and equal treatment under the law are not code for take what you need from someone else. It is not proper to take from one because he has more and give it to another simply because he has less. Nobody owes anyone else a living. Period. I am not against charity, I donate mightily throughout the year. What I despise is those that want to pick what I contribute to against my principles. I oppose planned parenthood and liberal agendas in general yet I'm forced, under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for all of the above at the expense of my preferred charities that are closer to home.

Government has grown too large and has expanded beyond its constitutional boundaries. Every president has helped errode it, some more than others, but Obama has encroached well beyond the realm of incremental reductions in freedom with so many of his initiatives while keeping us from achieving a recovery by allowing domestic oil and gas production. He is funnelling money in the hands of people that despise us at the expense of our allies. How is that a smart thing?

Hey, why did you ignore my post? I already explained to you why you are wrong on so many levels. Now I have to add that Obama has actually cut taxes. Remember the stimulus bill you probably did not like. Yeah, half of it was tax cuts for everybody. Now, he is trying to cut payroll taxes. I do not understand why everyone thinks Obama has raised taxes. The only thing he has really asked for is the Buffett Rule, and I doubt that effects you nor has it passed yet anyway.

On the issue of welfare, the economy has survived in large part due to programs such as unemployment, food stamps, etc. Since there are people out there starving in the streets, giving them money to buy food is actually some of the best direct stimulus the government can buy, since they have to spend it in order to survive. So many people were unemployed after 2008. Without unemployment benefits, I ask you, who would have spent money besides the senior citizens on social security? This is called Keynesian economics, look it up, because it actually works well during as well as after a recession or a depression. Is the system perfect? No, but I would rather than critize its existence, point out how we can make it better and less burdensome on the tax payers.

[Diaper Mike 05]

To address an old point, Obama's election was bad for my sector of manufacturing because we do work for a lot of segments of energy production, including coal and oil, which we need a PotUS friendly to those areas. The company I currently work for is only now getting back some work from a customer we lost when mining slowed, and it has been nearly 4 years since my company has seen anything from this company. The company I got laid off from had the same problem with a major customer cutting back in the coal and oil areas and the alternative energy customers kept cancelling orders when their projects failed.

And the problem with the current payroll tax cut is that it takes from the Social Security portion. They should cut from the federal portion of your income taxes without touching SS. I'm willing to pay my 6.2% portion if it means keeping a vital program in place. Even if they dictate tax brackets to reduce the rate by 2%, it's better than what is happening now.

[Diapered Jason]

To address an old point, Obama's election was bad for my sector of manufacturing because we do work for a lot of segments of energy production, including coal and oil, which we need a PotUS friendly to those areas. The company I currently work for is only now getting back some work from a customer we lost when mining slowed, and it has been nearly 4 years since my company has seen anything from this company. The company I got laid off from had the same problem with a major customer cutting back in the coal and oil areas and the alternative energy customers kept cancelling orders when their projects failed.

And the problem with the current payroll tax cut is that it takes from the Social Security portion. They should cut from the federal portion of your income taxes without touching SS. I'm willing to pay my 6.2% portion if it means keeping a vital program in place. Even if they dictate tax brackets to reduce the rate by 2%, it's better than what is happening now.

Ah, I see your problem. Coal production went down significantly. That is a bad sector to be in. There is a really weak market for it right now and this will probably continue to get worse. It is reasonable to assume there will be no increases in the use of coal for energy prodcution in the future. After all, you have to compete with natural gas, which is much more efficient and can be used for fuel cells (I am sure the oil companies will enjoy this as a possible replacement for gasoline in the future, though they may just go with batteries). That also seems to be the direction government is trying to push things too as most of the energy incentives are with natural gas.

Crude oil has been in a steady decline since about 1985, but has only recently started to increase in 2009. New drilling techniques have helped make this increase possible allowing us to reach previously untapped reservoirs here in America. I already talked about this in a previous post.

As for the payroll tax, yeah, I agree, which is why I hope it will be temporary. Still, my orginal point remains valid.

[Alexandra]

I liked Reagan more than any of the last half dozen presidents because he saw America as a great country that just needed to realize that fact. This country was founded on personal liberty and freedom from oppressive government. Bush meant well but did poorly on several fronts. Obama, on the other hand, means to usurp personal freedom and choice and has made good on his efforts to steal my money through taxes and redistribute them in the name of fairness. There is no fairness in the world. Period.

Justice and equal treatment under the law are not code for take what you need from someone else. It is not proper to take from one because he has more and give it to another simply because he has less. Nobody owes anyone else a living. Period. I am not against charity, I donate mightily throughout the year. What I despise is those that want to pick what I contribute to against my principles. I oppose planned parenthood and liberal agendas in general yet I'm forced, under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for all of the above at the expense of my preferred charities that are closer to home.

Government has grown too large and has expanded beyond its constitutional boundaries. Every president has helped errode it, some more than others, but Obama has encroached well beyond the realm of incremental reductions in freedom with so many of his initiatives while keeping us from achieving a recovery by allowing domestic oil and gas production. He is funnelling money in the hands of people that despise us at the expense of our allies. How is that a smart thing?

I give up clearly you are too bitter and thick headed to convince if this is your honest opinion, I will say this much though to believe America is great or has the potential to be great is not unique to Regan every president has believed in it and to claim others wise for any president, like your claims about Obama, is just hatefull and spiteful and it shows just how little thought you put into your political decisions no president has ever planed to usurp personal freedom to my knowledge and if anything you want a president who was more into usurping personal freedoms look to Regan he came much closer than Obama but then again I doubt you'll even consider the possiblity that a republican could ever be worse than a democrat so I guess I'm just wasting my breath.

[sarah_ab]

pretty sure the patriot act usurped a lot of personal freedoms.... oh wait.. but obama didn't pass that.. so it MUST have been a great law.

[Diaper Mike 05]

pretty sure the patriot act usurped a lot of personal freedoms.... oh wait.. but obama didn't pass that.. so it MUST have been a great law.

He did re-up roving wiretaps and the "Library Records Provision".

The Patriot Act didn't make me feel better about anything, that's for sure.

[Leilin]

He did re-up roving wiretaps and the "Library Records Provision".

The Patriot Act didn't make me feel better about anything, that's for sure.

I agree and was and am disappointed with his decision to continue that precedent. It is very much too bad that there's not any realistic candidate who is against the Patriot Act who isn't equally for allowing states to violate those selfsame rights unfettered.

[sarah_ab]

sarah_ab 2020!!!!!

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Alexandra, you raise a lot of excellent points. Although I've personally been avoiding this thread, I did want to touch on one thing that Leilin mentioned.

The guy renounced his citizenship quite vocally. While he hadn't done much on paper I'm not sure this is like picking a random guy off of the street and murdering him for governmental purposes. If anything, it follows a precedent of treating people who moved to the other side of a war as enemy combatants in WWI and WWII, mixed with precedents set with the War on Terror by the previous administration (which I vehemently disagree with).

As Leilen mentioned, Al Awlaki renounced his American Citizenship, and did so in an incredibly vocal and public fashion. Furthermore, upon renouncing his citizenship, Al Awlaki allied himself with the Taliban. Al Awlaki's actions amounted to treason, and as Leilin has already noted, we have a precedent in this country for executing traitors. There's certainly an argument to be made against executions as a whole, but that's another debate entirely.

[KittenAB]

Sorry, but, Ron Paul will probably be out of the race by the time we reach the Washington caucus, so no, our votes will not matter.  No one is taking him seriously, which is strange because I thought he was the most respectable candidate out of the pool, despite the fact I disagree with him on many issues.  Remember, they boo'ed his golden rule, "don't do to other nation what we don't want to have them do to us.," during a Republican debate.

I know, and that's what's bothering me about this election. People will have a clear picture of how the government manages to prevent anyone with an iota of honesty from entering office yet they will still deny it in the end, or pretend it's still "big corporations" or some other such nonsense. Many of the right sheep will blame it on something like gays. I had hopes for this election, but we'll see. If Ron gets the nomination then I'll know enough USians have woken up, if not then I'll know this is still a country where people don't care about honesty.

[Horndog]

I've been gone for a short while, and caught up with the posts.

Obama is not the devil. He's not usurping anyone's personal freedom and choice. That, quite frankly, is bullshit.

Here's the thing. We live in an economically disproportionate society, meaning that we have classes of citizens that pay different tax rates. Obviously, "fairness" to correct the rates is in the eye of the beholder.

Because of the Bush tax cuts, the burden is lifted on income-earners who make $250,000 a year -- but then taxes are increased for the middle-class, the majority of Americans who can kickstart the economy if they had enough change in their pocket to spend. Taxes for the middle-class increases when their tax cuts and tax breaks are not bankrolled by the top one percent or supported by legislation (appropriated from another revenue stream). Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts, but they want to eliminate the payroll tax cut extensions. If you look at it like a giant scale, extending the Bush tax cuts eliminates revenue tips the scale to the side of the top income bracket. Eliminating the payroll tax cut would result in employees seeing increased payroll taxes -- and more money lines the pockets of their employers. The scale is now heavily tipped in favor of the "one-percenters." The middle-class get no relief.

People falsely equate "fairness" with Socialism. When Obama talks about "fairness," he talks about having a balanced scale. That said, to say that Obama is merely "taking what you need from someone else" -- as a means of establishing "fairness" -- is to not understand the principles of taxation. To say that Obama is "tak[ing] from one because he has more and give it to another simply because he has less" is to not understand economics. You increase taxes on those who are able to offset both the middle-class and the federal deficit, not merely because the people experiencing increased taxed are rich or that we are somehow envious of their success. Increasing taxes on the "one-percenters" does not constitute owing anyone else a living. You could make that argument if our federal budget consisted almost entirely of spending for entitlement programs -- but much of that budget goes toward defense and infrastructure spending. In other words, your taxes go toward the roads you drive on, and body armor for soldiers that conservatives often claim they care about more than liberals.

Making sweeping statements does not show intelligence.

I will grant one thing, and that's the fact that Obama's focus on green energy has impacted manufacturing jobs in the energy production field. Cap and Trade legislation does also take a big chunk out of that industry. The problem, in my opinion -- and this is only my opinion -- is that our country is naturally going toward green energy production because coal and oil production is being phased out to make way for newer, more innovative energy solutions that consume fewer natural resources. Over the past 10-15 years or so, we've seen a steady decline in traditional energy production employment, which obviously started before Obama took office.

FYI, some facts for BoToX: a man who probably should stick to writing stories and not opine about things he doesn't understand:

The Solyndra loan was $535 million, not $500,000,000,000. That's a lot of zeroes, but a few too many -- and yes, that loan did not work out too well.

The President never "played the race card at the drop of a hat."

The President did not let guns escape into Mexico. The operation you're referring to was called Operation Fast and Furious (2009-2011). Interestingly, the President did not sign off on this. The operation was, in fact, the brainchild of the ATF. The Justice Department, who oversees the ATF, is conducting an investigation to find out who approved the operation and why. Unless you're savvy to classified investigation documents, you're wrong there.

The President has not circumvented the constitution "as any dictator in a third world country." Comparing Obama to third-world dictators is far-fetched, to put it politely.

BoToX, stick to writing stories. Thanks.

[KittenAB]

Horndog, some of what you say has merit, though there are people who will blindly oppose it, however your concept of taxes is a bit skewed. We are still, in fact, the wealthiest of nations. Not in dollar amount, mind you. But even our lowest "class" of citizen (such as me) lives a lot better than the upper class of some other nations. That's quite good actually. We always have food here, there are many opportunities for housing for even the most depraved criminals and downtrodden poor. I get less than $800 a month and have a computer, thinking of buying another one, this would make my fifth computer, though I donated one to the junk shop recently because it borked. But .... I don't remember all the numbers off hand anymore, when looking at the whole picture, the wealthy pay a lot more than their fair share, just not all in taxes. Many make rather sizable contributions to social services and charities, most of which would be closed if not for those private donations. So it's not the amount of money that's the problem, it's how it's being utilized.

The amount of money for the Solyndra project is also inconsequential, it was a scam from the start, we knew it was, scientists knew it was .... so yeah, at the very least it demonstrates that Obama doesn't care to read what he's signing ....

... which leads to the NDAA thing, and one of the anti-Internet bills (though I admit I forgot which one it was). He signs (or agrees to) such things as caving to pressure from someone, and that's the optimistic possibility. I would hope he doesn't sign such things because he agrees with them.

Basically it points to his best being inept, which is why Bush was such a horrible president as well.

Oh, and to the "race card" thing, yeah, he didn't, it was many of his followers that did though.

[Horndog]

Skewed?

I'm not sure about how the $250k income bracket "pay a lot more than their fair share." What I think you're saying is that the wealthy do, in part, pay their dues in the form of charity and contributions to social services. Okay, I'll bite. GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney has what's called a "tithe," in which he donates 10 percent of his income to the Mormon church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, gave more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. That's charitable, sure, but his income tax rate is still at 13.9% when that's considered low and disproportionate to how much he earns. In his case, like many others, the charity contributions benefit the charity, but not the American people.

I studied the Solyndra controversy, and yes, the President did not do his homework on that one. Given how shaky Solyndra's finances were to start with, I would have never authorized the loan. $535 million is a lot of money to waste. As an Obama supporter, it felt like a kick in the gut to me.

Obama has stated his opposition to SOPA and PIPA. With the NDAA, he signed the bill with concerns expressed in his signing statement. He signed the bill because it contained additional provisions that he wanted to adopt, not for the NDAA's core principles.

A lot of Obama's followers did play the race card, but so did Republicans. So did Birthers. So did the Tea Party.

[Alexandra]

ok then you not the lowest class the lowest class is the poor people living on the streets getting they're meals from the soup kitchen, maybe your lower class but I kind of doubt it with having enough money for 5 computors your probaby middle or upper class but lets say for the sake of argument you were the poorist class of Americans what do you think gets you your better life than the poor of other countries taxes. and while charity is definately good and something everyone should do but unlike taxes it doesn't trickle back down and recycle back around so in economic terms its no more helpful than hording all of your money in the bank.

[Diaper Mike 05]

The problem with "green" energy is that the left wants to crash right into it when the correct move is a transition into it. For now, we need to open up oil and drilling so we can bridge the gap with our own resources. That is what Obama and the left aren't doing, and that is why "green" energy won't take off - because it can't fill our needs at once like it's being sold as being able to do. Once "green" energy catches up with traditional energy, you can scale back on the traditional energy in favor of "green" energy.

And public sector growth isn't the best it doesn't fully trickle down and recycle back around. Yet that is being pushed too.

[Alexandra]

Green energy will definately take off you can be sure of that the question is wheter or not the people currently opposed to going green will be draged to an environmentaly friendly future kicking and screaming or wheter we as a society will band togather to make this transition less rough.

[BoTox]

I do understand the economy quite well. Having been in successful businesses and working for others. The fact is the government has been usurping our rights from day one but like snowball rolling down hill, it has gained momentum and Obama has renewed the patriot act and doubled down on bogus green economy and climate change like we were afraid Gor would do.

The Buffet rule is a joke. Buffet gets his money by not drawing a salary, which would be taxed at a much higher rate. His actual rate, were he not to game the system, would certainly be higher than his secretary's.

Romney gets most of his income from investments that pay dividends and are taxed at a much lower rate. The lower rate is because they've already been taxed at 35% as business income by the company that paid them and then the 15% dividend rate is taxing already taxed money.

We have a punative and progressive tax in the US. Every dollar you earn could potential cause less and less money to go into your account and more and more to go into the government's. Nearly half of people in the US pay less in taxes than they receive back from the government. Charity is not the federal government's mandate. Protect our borders, regulate interstate commerce and safeguard our freedom. Everything else is an overreach of the constitution and deserving of repeal. Government has no business in healthcare, mortgages or student loans.

I've been to poor countries. I've seen them living in shacks made of old road signs and scrap tin. The poor in the US are not that poor. I've been poor, homeless and with few prospects. I succeeded despite the lack of all these programs that are in place today. Say what you will but I've lived it. Personal experience tells me this system is broke and Obama doesn't know how to fix it just like FDR made the depression so much worse than if he'd done absolutely nothing. FDR gave us many of the programs that are sapping the life out of our economy today.

[Leilin]

bogus green economy

Citation please. Keep in mind that Solyndra being a sham doesn't mean all green companies are.

The lower rate is because they've already been taxed at 35% as business income by the company that paid them and then the 15% dividend rate is taxing already taxed money.

By that logic, all people in sales should be taxed at 0 percent because the company is already paying taxes on that gross income.

Oh, but that would be stupid. Because personal income is different from business income.

Government has no business in healthcare, mortgages or student loans.

That's right. Screw the poor people who can't afford to pay those because primarily of the massive businesses that can afford to pay a living wage, but don't. Who cares if preventative care has been readily demonstrated to actually cost less to the economy than Emergency care? Let em die in the streets. That'll save WAY more money and then we'll have a new jobs for the privatized corpse cleanup business! Screw those people who were taken advantage of by ARMs too! They were really just dumb so they deserve it. The invisible hand will fix it all anyway and if it doesn't, well then thank Ayn Rand we got rid of that cultural filth and it's in the streets where it belongs. That'll teach those poor people to try to own homes! And, really, only rich people should go to college. Screw those poor kids who want to get an education. They should have had some sense and been born rich. It's not like there are any economic benefits to allowing students who wouldn't be able to otherwise to get a higher education, right? It's not like students who had loans ever amount to anything, pay those loans back, or add to the economy anyway? Am I right? High five, brah!

For your next one, tell us how tax cuts for the rich really create jobs! That one is ALWAYS hilarious, because companies totally hire people based on just how much money they have, rather than primarily looking at how much they need to fill positions to maximize profit. This is why the oil companies, GE, and Apple are the biggest employers in America, and totally NEVER pay below a living wage or ship jobs overseas, amirite?

You plainly don't know as much about the economy as you think.