You Guys Ready for Sarah Palin Yet?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]steviebeast wrote:
what??? why dont you look up what percentage of the economy is now operated by the government and not free capitalism as compared with when he took office…What about the thousands of regulations which are killing businesses…of course he isnt going to come in and shut down capitalism in our face because everyone would recognize that…hello!? He is clearly gradually making government the control of our economy slowly and most surely. All his moves are designed to get rid of free market and individualism. Naturally its done skillfully and not so obviously. We are on a steady downhill course. Nothing he does helps our businesses…look at GM…all the money lost…even when GM tried to pay back and get out of the deal recently the white house said no…He wants control of everything. He is even more into this data tapping and secret espionage on us that bush was and thats hard to imagine. He is more secretive that Bush…The entire agenda he has is corrupt. All you Rachel Maddow lovers will come running someday and wonder what happened…just you wait.
this fiscal cliff deal isnt a deal…when will we ever stop spending??? when? does anyone on the left thing we spend too much???[/quote]

Government employment fell 2.6 percent in the first three years since Obama took office (compare with 2.2 percent for Reagan’s first three years).

Publicly held GM shares are being sold off in their entirety.

The rest of your post is pretty much meaningless hyperbole.

202

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Your post about Cloward-Piven is nonsense.
[/quote]

No it isn’t. And we’ve been over the rest of your post before. Obamadinejad was doing the bidding of his UAW unionists when he “saved” the auto industry with billions in taxpayer money then sold off the shares he bought at half their original purchase price.

You could use the same logic to argue Hugo Chavez is not a Commie:

“[Chavez] followed the economic guidelines recommended by the International Monetary Fund and continued to encourage foreign corporations to invest in Venezuela”

Why would a Commie do that huh? Hugo Chavez ain’t no Commie.

You’re missing the overall picture. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

203

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Government employment fell 2.6 percent in the first three years since Obama took office (compare with 2.2 percent for Reagan’s first three years).
[/quote]

Mostly military jobs. Reagan had the Soviets to defeat. Obama had beaurocrats, regulators and public union officials to unleash.

Great! The public loses billions, the UAW Commies get fat and Obama gets re-elected!

204

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There are plenty of ways to measure success. Palin is more financially successful than Obama currently. She’s probably making in the vicinity of 5 million per year between her FOX salary speaking engagements, radio shows and the many other financial ventures that she’s involved in.

[/quote]

Which is why she quit he job as Governor , right now the President makes about 400K. That is pretty easy to buy some one that measures their worth by dollars
[/quote]

She was going broke defending one frivolous lawsuit after another. It was impeding her ability to govern and she felt her position and her state were suffering needlessly.

But reality means nothing to an ignorant ass hat like you.

205

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There are plenty of ways to measure success. Palin is more financially successful than Obama currently. She’s probably making in the vicinity of 5 million per year between her FOX salary speaking engagements, radio shows and the many other financial ventures that she’s involved in.

[/quote]

Which is why she quit he job as Governor , right now the President makes about 400K. That is pretty easy to buy some one that measures their worth by dollars
[/quote]

No. She left because Democrats discovered that the governor must pay for their own legal defense when sued. They filed something like 75 frivilous lawsuits against her and her legal bills were aroung $500,000.

The law has since been changed so that the state of Alaska defends the governor and those who file such petty suits get sued themselves.
[/quote]

Sorry, I had not yet read this far. HH did a much more thorough job of explaining this.

206

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Your post about Cloward-Piven is nonsense.
[/quote]

No it isn’t. And we’ve been over the rest of your post before. Obamadinejad was doing the bidding of his UAW unionists when he “saved” the auto industry with billions in taxpayer money then sold off the shares he bought at half their original purchase price.

You could use the same logic to argue Hugo Chavez is not a Commie:

“[Chavez] followed the economic guidelines recommended by the International Monetary Fund and continued to encourage foreign corporations to invest in Venezuela”

Why would a Commie do that huh? Hugo Chavez ain’t no Commie.

You’re missing the overall picture. You can’t see the forest for the trees.[/quote]

He was also doing the bidding of the executive managers of the Big Three. And we all know how totally the Communist Party has infiltrated the corporate boardroom and executive’s office, right?

Anyway, I am neither defending Obama as a good leader nor contending that the UAW got what it deserved and nothing more from the bailout.

But: if Obama truly pined for the collapse of the American economy–and I would implore you to reconsider the gravity and implications of this kind of claim–he came into office in January 2009 and found himself in a fantastically unique position to engender that collapse. But then–and here’s where your argument runs into something of an obstacle–he didn’t.

Neither did he do so eight days ago, when his refusal to come to a fiscal cliff agreement would have plunged the US economy back into recession within months.

Here we have two golden opportunities to usher in the four horsemen of economic apocalypse. And, to the chagrin of Glenn Beck and his dwindling supply of acolytes, neither was seized. A logical mind can only conclude that Barack Obama, in fact, would rather see the American economy succeed than languish and fail. (Which is not to say that he’s done a spectacular job of it; he hasn’t by any means).

Either that, or we truly are headed for some kind of catastrophic event and/or elemental politico-economic transfiguration. My question to you is, if Obama leaves office without this having happened, will you revise your view on the matter?

207

Judging by the responses in the thread, we need Sarah more than ever.

Too bad the only way to get her into office is with an utter collapse of the country. oh well, the Lord does work in mysterious ways.

208

ok SMH I should revise my comment and clarify…sometimes we speak in general broad strokes painting a total picture of one color when in fact a different hue may have been intended…Yes you are right…I dont think he wanted a full on collapse immediately…of the economy…as in a sudden depression…I really meant…that he wants to transform it…as He said in the days leading up to his first election…the transformed final product is what is bothersome to me…Its the socialist type ( and this is a firestorm here, total socialism, an element of it ,etc its all not fine with me however you couch it)of government he really wants. And I do understand that clower and piven say as much… It would be basically impossible for any president to totally sink us…too many people would jump in…Its the slow death…the frog on the chip of wood concept which I believe is being implemented…and again…it may be knowingly or unknowingly but either way its happening. We are changing. And number like unemployment etc are being manipulated to make him seem better. There are fewer people in the workforce than 4 years ago. yet the unemployment is lower??? If 8 of out 10 had jobs before but now 7 out of 8 have jobs…the percentage looks better however the plumb line has changed…
yes, he doesnt want to sink us on purpose the way I had originally made it seem. Its a gradual shift in the tenor of our society he wants to change so we sort of fall into it without really knowing it…
so ,does that mollify you a bit more? you probably dont agree but at least you see where I am coming from now…

209

[quote]steviebeast wrote:
ok SMH I should revise my comment and clarify…sometimes we speak in general broad strokes painting a total picture of one color when in fact a different hue may have been intended…Yes you are right…I dont think he wanted a full on collapse immediately…of the economy…as in a sudden depression…I really meant…that he wants to transform it…as He said in the days leading up to his first election…the transformed final product is what is bothersome to me…Its the socialist type ( and this is a firestorm here, total socialism, an element of it ,etc its all not fine with me however you couch it)of government he really wants. And I do understand that clower and piven say as much… It would be basically impossible for any president to totally sink us…too many people would jump in…Its the slow death…the frog on the chip of wood concept which I believe is being implemented…and again…it may be knowingly or unknowingly but either way its happening. We are changing. And number like unemployment etc are being manipulated to make him seem better. There are fewer people in the workforce than 4 years ago. yet the unemployment is lower??? If 8 of out 10 had jobs before but now 7 out of 8 have jobs…the percentage looks better however the plumb line has changed…
yes, he doesnt want to sink us on purpose the way I had originally made it seem. Its a gradual shift in the tenor of our society he wants to change so we sort of fall into it without really knowing it…
so ,does that mollify you a bit more? you probably dont agree but at least you see where I am coming from now…[/quote]

Stop being rational. SMH and his kind can only think in absolutes.

“Latest Liberal talking point” or nihilism.

Stateism or anarchy.

Unfettered abortion or dead mothers and babies in back alleys and dumpsters.

All powerful EPA or Three Mile Island, acid rain and mutated frogs.

Abolishment of second amendment rights or the wild west run amok.

After all, they are all so very smart and are only out to rule us for our own good.

210

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Government employment fell 2.6 percent in the first three years since Obama took office (compare with 2.2 percent for Reagan’s first three years).

[/quote]
Another example of a “fact” being used to present a false narrative. This was accomplished through the draw down of the military due to the withdrawals in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not done buy reducing our federal bureaucracy.

I reminds me of all the liberals who scream that Bill Clinton balanced the budget. They gloss over the fact that this was done by decimating the military through forced retirements and buy outs that left us weakened and too lean in the aftermath of 9/11.

But it is much easier (and intellectually lazy) to blame it on GWB.

211

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Stateism or anarchy.

Unfettered abortion or dead mothers and babies in back alleys and dumpsters.

All powerful EPA or Three Mile Island, acid rain and mutated frogs.

Abolishment of second amendment rights or the wild west run amok.

[/quote]

I am a proponent of literally none of these things. The topic of this discussion is very specific; I don’t know how or why, for example, “unfettered abortion” came to you, but I’ve certainly never argued for it on these boards or anywhere else.

212

[quote]steviebeast wrote:

so ,does that mollify you a bit more? you probably dont agree but at least you see where I am coming from now…[/quote]

Fair enough. While I do not agree with you, I do indeed understand what you’re saying, and I don’t object to it in the way that I object to the nonsense about Obama seeking to catastrophically destroy the American economy and capitalism along with it (not that anybody should particularly care what I think of their beliefs).

213

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Government employment fell 2.6 percent in the first three years since Obama took office (compare with 2.2 percent for Reagan’s first three years).

[/quote]
Another example of a “fact” being used to present a false narrative. This was accomplished through the draw down of the military due to the withdrawals in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not done buy reducing our federal bureaucracy.

I reminds me of all the liberals who scream that Bill Clinton balanced the budget. They gloss over the fact that this was done by decimating the military through forced retirements and buy outs that left us weakened and too lean in the aftermath of 9/11.

But it is much easier (and intellectually lazy) to blame it on GWB. [/quote]

Source this.

Also: executive branch employees per 1,000 Americans under Reagan in 1982: 11.9; under G.W. Bush in 2002: 9.1; under Obama in 2010: 8.4.

214

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So Palin’s out then?[/quote]

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are in.

215

“In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” - Thomas Jefferson

216

good point about clinton and the military. Not too many remember that.
Also good stat about federal vs private sector…i wonder what the ratio of government pay vs private is over the last 30 yrs? the benefits and pay together also.?

217

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” - Thomas Jefferson[/quote]

I really like that!

Thank you for posting it.

218

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Government employment fell 2.6 percent in the first three years since Obama took office (compare with 2.2 percent for Reagan’s first three years).

[/quote]
Another example of a “fact” being used to present a false narrative. This was accomplished through the draw down of the military due to the withdrawals in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not done buy reducing our federal bureaucracy.

I reminds me of all the liberals who scream that Bill Clinton balanced the budget. They gloss over the fact that this was done by decimating the military through forced retirements and buy outs that left us weakened and too lean in the aftermath of 9/11.

But it is much easier (and intellectually lazy) to blame it on GWB. [/quote]

Source this.

Also: executive branch employees per 1,000 Americans under Reagan in 1982: 11.9; under G.W. Bush in 2002: 9.1; under Obama in 2010: 8.4.

There are actually three different methods used to get Fed employee numbers. All are flawed in one way or another.

For example, did you know that the CIA and other national security agencies DO NOT REPORT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THEY HAVE!

I makes me wonder whether after 9/11 and the subsequent shit storm if the CIA and SECURITY AGENCIES have smaller or bigger numbers on the payroll. What do you think?

But then again, no self serving government bureaucracy would ever come up with ways to justify and or conceal its growth from the general public.

Silly me. Never mind. Just drink the Kool Aid and enjoy the party.

219

Also of relevance, copied from another thread.

Makavali wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Naw…the government will just hire them. Does anyone know how many in our work force work for the Federal, State, County or City government?

About 4% last I heard.

Jeaton wrote:

Not even close. Nearly 18% actually (17.77%).

We have a population of over 311,000,000.

Our employment rate (percentage of working age population that is employed) is 58.7 percent.

Working age population is 239,616,000.

This means that we have 140,655,766 people that are of working age and are employed.

The total number of Federal, State, and local (public sector) workers is 25,000,000.

It also means that 115,655,766 people are driving the real economy while 195,344,234 are not.

Seems legit. Surely nothing bad could happen in a system like that.

220

those are great number…I rem hearing these types of numbers a few months ago on the radio…just didnt rem exactly or where to find them. It is true about government size…Ever seen the amount of taxes government employees owe on back taxes? its astounding last I read…millions… especially obamas cabinet members.
The sad fact is that with socialism, government increases while the private sector decreases…They bank themselves on our work…Someday we will run out of money and something drastic will have to happen. Like this constant hiking of the debt ceiling…will it ever stop? This Keynsian philosophy is a load of crap. Krugman lives by it…like to see when it has worked,and dont tell me about the depression…FDR just prolonged it with his spending.