If Obama's critics would offer something coherent, I would listen to them.

[Kathryn]

Not all of them have to be vetted - it depends on the position.

That being said, yes, some positions DO have to be vetted. Please understand, my beef isn't just with Obama - it's with basically ALL of Capitol Hill.

Who are these corrupt, lazy, self serving "public servants?" How are they allowing these yahoos to assume these positions of power - on the public dole at that?

The level of government ineptitude and corruption is amazing - across the board, both parties, nearly equally.

THAT'S what I oppose and want to raise the public's level of awareness of.

Obama was right about at least one thing - we need change.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, I'm going to call it a day - at least for awhile. I know it's hard to believe, but I do have a real life - and I'd like to take a break from this depressing topic and watch "America's Funniest Home Videos."

I know - it's not all that intellectual, but it's refreshingly wholesome.

 

[mobious]

So actual criminal records and documented IRS investigations aren't objective enough for you? Well, I think that's a bit odd, but ok - you're the only one who can unlock your own mind, I guess.

As for Bush, as a matter of fact, I DID do the same investigation into his appointees and Cabinet members and czars. For many years, I have thought that Bush is an ineffective, rather dull puppet - but I better not say that, because I don't have my research notes in front of me and I'd hate to be accused of having unsubstantiated opinions.

The Obama administration's documented corruption levels (limited to criminal records and IRS investigations and findings) already exceed Bush's, by a LONG shot - and this is after just 8 months, not 8 years.

All of this information is public record. But I won't bore you with the details -anyone who is TRULY interested can research it on their own, just like I did.

And besides that, you've made it clear you'll ignore the information. Why should I waste my time?

In fact, why am I wasting my time right now???? I could be reading something actually edifying. I just bought five books yesterday - what am I THINKING of????

oh moma don't let the bad man hurt us. **** you!

 

[Smoke]

Where can you read these bills online? The whitehouse.com maybe?

You can find any current bill and many older ones at THOMAS (Library of Congress)

It's part of the Library of Congress website.

 

[Alceste]

So actual criminal records and documented IRS investigations aren't objective enough for you?

No, they're not relevant to the OP, which specifically requests verifiable policy positions. And also, they'd inevitably result in a completely pointless contest to see who can list more asshats batting for the other party's team. I know you Republicans love that kind of stuff, but we socialists tend to find it dull and fruitless.

Anyway, it's only relevant to the OP if you can demonstrate that it is an official policy to appoint criminals to public office - i.e. I can go read the "Obama Tax Evader Appointee Policy".

And besides that, you've made it clear you'll ignore the information. Why should I waste my time?

Yes, I'm glad you've seen the light.

 

[Alceste]

The level of government ineptitude and corruption is amazing - across the board, both parties, nearly equally.

THAT'S what I oppose and want to raise the public's level of awareness of.

How are you going to accomplish that goal by simply cheering on everything the Republican party does, and criticizing everything the Democrats do?

 

[McBell]

Well, you can't say that I have nothing, when so far I've presented specific bills and my own specific disagreements with them - disagreements by the way which have not been refuted successfully. In fact, the only half way refute so far has been your link to Snopes about FOCA (which, ironically, supported some of my concerns about this bill).

I did not say that you had nothing.
I said that if all you have is guilt by association you have nothing.
Please pay attention.

I've given facts, and my OWN opinions (nothing, NOTHING, cut and pasted from ANY conservative website - or gleaned from any). So far, I think I have given what the OP asked for - clear, concise answers and my own independent thoughts on the issues.

Until you presented that nonsense about the Freedom of Choice Act....
What, are we supposed to over look your fear mongering with that one because you seem to have done right by the first two?

Hmmm, who's fluffy now? You need to put a little meat on your bones.

Hmmm. You are.
You forgot to address a couple things:

Funny how your arguments all assume that this bill will somehow magically over write and make void all laws that have to do specifically with the areas you are using for your fear mongering.

And the one I am most interested in how you reconcile... your "guilt by association":

So you are a firm believer in the guilt by association?

So, how about Jesus Christ?
You do know that he went to great lengths to be amongst the sinners, right?
I cannot wait to hear your guilt by association in concerns with Him....

Let the mental gymnastics begin....

 

[shortfade2]

Has the stumulus package done anything yet? When is it supposed to start working?

 

[Sunstone]

Has the stumulus package done anything yet? When is it supposed to start working?

Most economists agree that the stimulus package has somewhat ameliorated the effects of the Recession.

 

[shortfade2]

meaning that it has somewhat helped?

 

[Sunstone]

meaning that it has somewhat helped?

Yes, the stimulus package somewhat helped -- according to the majority of economists.

 

[shortfade2]

hmmm...And I read in the Times Call that the health care would cost $900 billion...but it didnt say what for? To implement it? To keep it running? What does the $900 billion go to?

 

[Sunstone]

hmmm...And I read in the Times Call that the health care would cost $900 billion...but it didnt say what for? To implement it? To keep it running? What does the $900 billion go to?

Obama is proposing a health care package that would cost $900 billion over 10 years -- $90 billion/year on average. The money would go to funding several reforms he's proposed.

 

[shortfade2]

Of couse hes spending so much money. the government has lost all responsibility on how to save/spend money wisely. Liberals are tax and spend. Republicans are ,"Lets cut taxes" Then when elected, "Nah, its not worth the effort"

 

[Alceste]

Of couse hes spending so much money. the government has lost all responsibility on how to save/spend money wisely. Liberals are tax and spend. Republicans are ,"Lets cut taxes" Then when elected, "Nah, its not worth the effort"

You don't have any liberals in the US. The past several administrations have shown that Democrats are far better at managing tax revenue and reducing deficit than Republicans. Republicans cut taxes AND increase spending. In other words, they are either as stupid as a box of bricks, or they intentionally hope to undermine the financial viability of the federal government.

 

[shortfade2]

My point exactly. Republicans cut taxes, but still spend money like a 16 year old with a credit card. Democrats just want to spend a crapload honestly so they tax the hell out of us

 

[Alceste]

My point exactly. Republicans cut taxes, but still spend money like a 16 year old with a credit card. Democrats just want to spend a crapload honestly so they tax the hell out of us

How much more tax did your parents pay under Clinton as compared to Reagan? How much more are they paying under Obama as compared to Bush?

 

[shortfade2]

Reagan they payed less taxes, but he forgot to cut spending.
Clinton...idunnu he doesnt talk about that very much.
Bush....My dad hated him. He didnt cut taxes hardly at all. about 44% overall.
Obama....Hes paying about 44% overall..including property tax.

 

[Alceste]

Reagan they payed less taxes, but he forgot to cut spending.
Clinton...idunnu he doesnt talk about that very much.
Bush....My dad hated him. He didnt cut taxes hardly at all. about 44% overall.
Obama....Hes paying about 44% overall..including property tax.

So... since Reagan your dad's taxes basically haven't changed, but the graph shows Clinton managed to reverse the debt while Bush increased it. So, do you think the claim "liberals want to tax the hell out of us and spend like crazy" is valid now?

 

[shortfade2]

no. they just want to tax the hell out of us...being decently honest about the fact that they spend money.

Republicans WANT to cut taxes without balancing our budget. some suceed...most dont. FIRST THINGS FIRST!! BALANCE THE FREAKIN BUDGET!!!

Reagan basically cut the taxes pretty well, and then they pretty much sky rocketed.