Obama has failed the US

[The Silver Thong]

Yep, you are absolutely correct. If they government doesn't change things soon we may end up in a financial position we cannot recover from. We are close to that now.

The US is very close to crossing the point of no return and the only man I see that could possibly make a change is Ron Paul. I can see no other on the possible ticket that could make the big decisions that need to be made. In saying that you better believe big business and corprate sponcerd media will do what it can to keep Ron from the White House. It has to be time for the people to make the big move and make the big vote. Ignore the party and vote the man.

Obama was not ready or he was not willing. Ron Paul is and this is the last chance for the US to get a man in office that will shake things up. The shake up will be an eye opener for many as we now need to move back to move forward.

[questionmark]

How would pulling out of the middle east and shutting down bases around the world in order to save itself create an EU style government. The US needs to say it`s sorry`s we tried but failed and come home. Time to take care of the family, lick the wounds and move on with one agenda. America first. Can`t help anyone if your in the hospital right.

It was always America first, despite of what politicians want to make you believe. If somebody got helped wit a railroad the tracks, the locomotives and the rolling stock came from America ensuring employment and capital gains for the manufacturers. (And that is true for about every other country in the world). The "beneficiary" could then pay in monthly installments with goods and services (Not that that hurt the "beneficiaries" on average) plus interest.

But, if America wants to isolate itself and even fragment itself I don't know how it will fit with the general populace not being the top dog in the world nor having the strongest military. The stress that the unsatisfied paranoia will produce will be immense. Wild West comes to mind.

[The Silver Thong]

It was always America first, despite of what politicians want to make you believe. If somebody got helped wit a railroad the tracks, the locomotives and the rolling stock came from America ensuring employment and capital gains for the manufacturers. (And that is true for about every other country in the world). The "beneficiary" could then pay in monthly installments with goods and services (Not that that hurt the "beneficiaries" on average) plus interest.

But, if America wants to isolate itself and even fragment itself I don't know how it will fit with the general populace not being the top dog in the world nor having the strongest military. The stress that the unsatisfied paranoia will produce will be immense. Wild West comes to mind.

I`m not talking about American Isolation, far from it. I`m saying that US policy needs to keep it`s nose out of every nook and cranny. As we hear every day as the average Joe goes cut your spending so should the US. It can no longer be a do as I say not as I do policy. It should be a practice what you preach policy.

The US with the Trans Canada pipeline will no longer need to express it`s so called foreign policy on so called trouble spots using terrorism as an excuse to create work. All military funded spending anywhere is a form of wellfare.

[questionmark]

I`m not talking about American Isolation, far from it. I`m saying that US policy needs to keep it`s nose out of every nook and cranny. As we hear every day as the average Joe goes cut your spending so should the US. It can no longer be a do as I say not as I do policy. It should be a practice what you preach policy.

The US with the Trans Canada pipeline will no longer need to express it`s so called foreign policy on so called trouble spots using terrorism as an excuse to create work. All military funded spending anywhere is a form of wellfare.

Then read Mr. Paul's lips: America will be isolationist and fragmented. And his fans are cheering and applauding (either because they don't know what he is saying or because they don't know what it means).

[The Silver Thong]

Then read Mr. Paul's lips: America will be isolationist and fragmented. And his fans are cheering and applauding (either because they don't know what he is saying or because they don't know what it means).

No President has the power to just Isolate the US. He is talking about being more resposible in the actions used as far as military use goes. He is talking about cutting spending. The US need to cut back trim the fat. Where would you start.

[questionmark]

No President has the power to just Isolate the US. He is talking about being more resposible in the actions used as far as military use goes. He is talking about cutting spending. The US need to cut back trim the fat. Where would you start.

By raising taxes.

Every 1% spending cut will mean 2% more unemployed in this situation. The federal government is the only one, besides the infamous 1%, capable of maintaining employment. And yes, I would tax the 1%.

[aliengenius]

I see alot of accurate but incomplete analysis here. I'll put aside responding to the ever flawed 'liberal' perspectives for now just stating that they will always exist so long as fear and envy exist and these are the most effective tools a slavemaster will ever use against you, more than military might or any threat of violence. Those offering to help you need the most scrutiny of all because selflessness is rare...

Current America by definition is an Empire, however it is not necessarily relevant but more just a happenstance or side effect. As with most things our current 'Global Order' started with good intentions. As often happens with good intentions, you find yourself on the road to hell. As war capabilities grew astronomically and devastation along with it, many were afraid that we would not make it out of the 20th century with anything resembling a great civilization intact. When the 'good guys' came to this realization they decided to act. The Progressives had already created the Federal Reserve, stripping power away from the whims of the collection of 'peasants' and placing the fate and health of the financial system in the hands of the 'elite'. If you control the money you control the people. This would become the weapon of choice going forward post WWII.

As always, attempts to make us safe result in us being prisoners or in more danger than we otherwise would have been. The era of great interventionalism was born fueled by the Cold War with the Soviets. Because they were so afraid of the totalitarian regime the Soviets had built they decided to unwittingly lay the foundation for an even more powerful totalitarian regime. Because they were going into it with the best intentions, the results must be wonderful, right? Look around and see for yourself...or better yet wait 10 years and take a good look.

These so-called elites failed to realize that when you accumulate power you attract corrupt influence. This is just universal law and is independent of any prior intentions or goals. It simple is what it is. It is arrogance to think you can control or prevent it.

To make a long story short they sought to tie all the major countries of the world together economically. If we are all in the same boat any one of us is less likely to do anything to sink that boat since we will all drown. So we all tie into the dollar and trade and love each other peacefully and sing kumbaya...or so the theory goes. By the way, those other currencies are just 'subsidiaries' of the dollar and are kept to create tools of stability/manipulation. Its too hard to balance on a one legged stool...This is also why we have only 2 real political parties in the US but thats another story...The Federal Reserve, which is a non governmental agency by the way, goes well beyond the US. The same folks in control of the Fed are in control of all the European banks of significance and indeed they 'own' the Euro itself. You will most likely see the severing of that leg of the stool soon in order to prop up the dollar. Before you get all nationalistic over in the Eurozone, calm down..that was what it was created for in the first place. Sadly, you guys haven't been in control of your continent since WWII. All you disparate nations were coalesced under that banner of big government socialism to keep the sheep corralled and out of trouble. How else could you contain a large and diverse population over all these decades? The trouble is, that kind of system is expensive and it breeds laziness and entitlement and eventually leads to cries for communism. Ironic isn't it that they would use such a dangerous tool. Fight fire with fire anyone?

I think maybe they thought the Europeans were different and perhaps they forgot to calculate in the fact that they are human and that over generations people tend to forget certain things...like how horrible communism really is. The vast majority of the population is woefully uninformed at this point which is why so many are jumping on the communist band wagon.

What about China you say? China is part of the clique now. They are part of the Fed system. China had no choice. Having such an immense crush of people controlled by so few at the top, always teetering on the brink of disaster...Those in power made the logical choice so that they might stay in power. Pure self interest, but then thats what being a leader in a communist regime is all about. They could have chosen to rule with an iron fist like Kim in N. Korea but then they would have to slum down to his level. Its much more comfy in China. All the money flowing in from the 'capitalist' regimes means good times and hot women, how could you turn that down? Especially since all you have to do is play along?

The original good intention of keeping us from nuking ourselves into oblivion has given way to a rapidly expanding global totalitarian empire. We have a new central bank in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt...one coming on line in Libya. Iran will come shortly. As 'peace' breaks out in the middle east, Russia will begin to have 'problems' and depending on how these 'problems' play out they will either join the club or they will join the club.

What is my point in saying all this? We are too far in the hole to fight our way out. The only hope we have is that internal power struggles will bring down the system. Of this I am certain. The influence of corruption is in full effect. I believe there are still a few 'good guys' living within the system that have seen the error of their ways and now they are fighting for their very lives (and ours). I think two factions have emerged within the 'elite' and they are now in full struggle. One way or another this system will fail...eventually. Nothing built on such a foundation can survive in perpetuity. This is the one perfect weapon we have against evil. It consumes itself. If not for that we would have no hope. The 'good guys' are faced with a terrible dilemma. Complete financial collapse and chaos the world over, leading to famine, war and destruction..or try for a softer landing all the while your enemies are closing the vice grip on the world.

I think Ron Paul's ideas are great. I think Obama's ideas are the root of evil. I also think Obama's presidency was intentional, designed to root out the leftists, communists, etc...show their ideas to be complete bunk and hopefully get the people that have a fighting chance rallied to the cause. Obama has been far too woefully incompetent for it to be natural. I think his entire regime was orchestrated to wake people up to the evil of socialism/communism, draw out its supporters and discredit them. Remember this is a guy that came out of nowhere, with a background from childhood forward of being a communist. His entire family, his mentor, his friends. He's hopped from one elected office to another so quickly...no regular candidate could do that. Its almost like someone was writing a story...none of this information was hidden, just 'overlooked'. Oh, and he's black..which played on white guilt and created an historic candidacy. If you were writing a novel you would not have used such an obviously constructed character.

Now for the flip side. Obama was installed by the 'boys' to clamp down on the one society that could put up the most resistance, putting measures in place to help contain the upcoming insurrection and collapse in the US. He's attempting to grab power wherever possible and install people in all the right places so the grand plan can finally unfurl into the light and the communist utopia can finally be realized...total world domination and the end of free markets and freedom at large and the installation of an elite group of party leaders to lord over the planet. But hey, at least they are 'for the people' like all communists...

I tend to go with something akin to the former as I find it incredible that someone with such arrogance, charisma and apparent mental deficiency with such an obvious background could be anything other than a character playing out political theater on a grand scale. At any rate whatever the game, he knows exactly what he's doing. He's either a character or a true evil b******.

Should Ron Paul be the real deal I don't see him making it through his first term sadly, even if he was installed by the good guys. That said I would still vote for him as I'm sure he is aware of his situation. He'd be another JFK. JFK's big mistake was starting to print 'money' straight out of the US Treasury. He was hinting at folding the Fed into the treasury as it should be, rather than a private company. The powers that be can't have that now can they? It is interesting how so much can be effected by manipulation and coercion and influence of the public. It's all about hedging bets and playing around with that 1-3% you need to tip the scales and playing on human nature and fear and all the other negative aspects of our flawed characters. Whatever the case, we definitely live in interesting times.

(by the way, one could easily fit alien influence into either scenario to spice things up a bit) ;-)

[aliengenius]

By raising taxes.

Every 1% spending cut will mean 2% more unemployed in this situation. The federal government is the only one, besides the infamous 1%, capable of maintaining employment. And yes, I would tax the 1%.

The federal government is a non-productive entity. Using it as a method of employment means printing more money which means devaluing the currency everyone holds in their pockets. This hurts those with less even more as their basic survival depends on what little cash they have. You need to break out of your mindset that there is 'one pie' and everyone has to divvy it up. The pie can grow and everyone can have more. Stop worrying about knocking down the rich, and worry about how to bring up the poor. Giving the government more money is only going to perpetuate the problems we have, regardless of whether it comes from the 1% or elsewhere.

[questionmark]

The federal government is a non-productive entity. Using it as a method of employment means printing more money which means devaluing the currency everyone holds in their pockets. This hurts those with less even more as their basic survival depends on what little cash they have. You need to break out of your mindset that there is 'one pie' and everyone has to divvy it up. The pie can grow and everyone can have more. Stop worrying about knocking down the rich, and worry about how to bring up the poor. Giving the government more money is only going to perpetuate the problems we have, regardless of whether it comes from the 1% or elsewhere.

The few civil servants that the US has in this case don't count as an economic factor nor will it cause great savings to fire them all. I am talking about the civic improvements and productive employment caused by government spending. Those pork barrels we always complain about keep whole regions alive. As long as the 1% are unwilling or unable to create employment it is the governments damm duty to tax them to do so itself.

And I am not talking about making more debt, I am talking about generating more tax revenue to reduce the debt. America pays less than 60% of the taxes the government needs to keep up the services they demand. It is about time that the bill gets paid in full. And it is pretty difficult to stick your hand into a naked mans pocket, so it is time to get at those who have them well filled and who have been getting undeserved tax breaks for 12 years now.

[Mr_Snstr]

The US minimum wage is 7.25$ with 5% of workers at or below this level: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

For someone who doesn't get tips, this is far to low for anyone in the west to live comfortably on, and everyone who works full-time should be guaranteed comfortable living wages within reason. If increasing minimum wage increases cost of products and services, then so be it, you shouldn't be living cheap on the exploitation of your countrymen.

You seemed to have missed the point of what I said.

Increase minimum wage + increase cost of living = no benefit for those who's wages were increased.

[Mr_Snstr]

The federal government is a non-productive entity. Using it as a method of employment means printing more money which means devaluing the currency everyone holds in their pockets. This hurts those with less even more as their basic survival depends on what little cash they have. You need to break out of your mindset that there is 'one pie' and everyone has to divvy it up. The pie can grow and everyone can have more. Stop worrying about knocking down the rich, and worry about how to bring up the poor. Giving the government more money is only going to perpetuate the problems we have, regardless of whether it comes from the 1% or elsewhere.

[Doctor_Strangelove]

As far as safe work conditions go I imagine we'd agree more on that. There needs to be systems of liability and insurance in place. Safe working conditions should always be in the employers best interest to create; you do this by ensuring employees can hold their employers liable when they don't.

And how will they be enforced? By taking the word of an organization designed for profit?

[Mr_Snstr]

And how will they be enforced? By taking the word of an organization designed for profit?

How would you make a for-profit organization follow rules or regulation for worker safety?

By holding it liable for their own employees safety.

Company A cuts corners; employee gets injured; employee is now compensated by company A for recovery or for lifelong loss of earning if that bad; this cuts into bottom line.

Company B doesn't cut corners; has less or no major employee injuries; this company is more profitable/successful.

You can make a for-profit organization to do something by making it affect the bottom line if they don't. You do this by making it liable. When it is not liable is when it can run amok.

As well as discriminating rules on who exactly is limited in liability.

Though there is a line between being put into a dangerous situation through someone else's negligence, or deceit; and putting yourself into a dangerous situation through your own ignorance.

This is what I was trying to say with that. How would you ensure employee safety?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Doctor_Strangelove]

How would you make a for-profit organization follow rules or regulation for worker safety?

By holding it liable for their own employees safety.

Company A cuts corners; employee gets injured; employee is now compensated by company A for recovery or for lifelong loss of earning if that bad; this cuts into bottom line.

Company B doesn't cut corners; has less or no major employee injuries; this company is more profitable/successful.

You can make a for-profit organization to do something by making it affect the bottom line if they don't. You do this by making it liable. When it is not liable is when it can run amok.

As well as discriminating rules on who exactly is limited in liability.

Though there is a line between being put into a dangerous situation through someone else's negligence, or deceit; and putting yourself into a dangerous situation through your own ignorance.

This is what I was trying to say with that. How would you ensure employee safety?

What I am saying is the only reason that Company B would refrain from cutting corners and Company A compensates injured employee is because of labour laws requiring them to to do so. Laws that could be seen as government interference.

[Mr_Snstr]

What I am saying is the only reason that Company B would refrain from cutting corners and Company A compensates injured employee is because of labour laws requiring them to to do so. Laws that could be seen as government interference.

Ok, I'm a little cloudy on what you're trying to say exactly. I take it you agree with holding employers liable for their own negligence to worker safety.

There are laws directed at ensuring employers are held liable for their negligence, malicious intent, ignorance or etc. Just like you or I would be held liable for injuring someone out of one of those reasons.

I don't consider this part government interference. This came out of our common law based judiciary system.

Now there are laws requiring insurance for workers compensation be acquired for all employees. Not allowing employers/employees the option to opt out of this arrangement through variations on employment contracts/agreements. This is where interference ends up hindering the employee. Requiring it to be available is fine, good even. Some jobs you wouldn't do without a system of liability and insurance. But requiring it across the board is where interference hurts everybody.

If I had the option to opt out of the worker's compensation scheme for an increase in pay(funds that would normally be spent by my employer to insure me). I would, because I sit in a chair all day long.

Don't worry about writing me a long response. Some people may not want to read it, but I will, promise.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Farmer77]

I like Ron Paul's lip service but him being elected is kind of my worst nightmare. I don't believe he's any different than any of the other politicians out there (he wouldn't have lasted in office this long if he wasn't). My fear is that with the election of Ron Paul the slight of hand game being played in Washington will simply get 4 more years to divide Americans along false, non existent party lines.

[The Silver Thong]

I like Ron Paul's lip service but him being elected is kind of my worst nightmare. I don't believe he's any different than any of the other politicians out there (he wouldn't have lasted in office this long if he wasn't). My fear is that with the election of Ron Paul the slight of hand game being played in Washington will simply get 4 more years to divide Americans along false, non existent party lines.

Another 4 yrs of Obama or what. Ron Paul is the only republican canidate that I see as worthy of the title. As you say he has been a politician for some time and yet seems to be the least influienced by out side forces. He Truly understands the constitution and wants it to be put into practise instead of just a foot note mentioned by other canidates that have probably never even read it. Dr Paul is by far the least corrupt person for the job. America`s last chance to get a fairly honest man in office.

[Farmer77]

Another 4 yrs of Obama or what. Ron Paul is the only republican canidate that I see as worthy of the title. As you say he has been a politician for some time and yet seems to be the least influienced by out side forces. He Truly understands the constitution and wants it to be put into practise instead of just a foot note mentioned by other canidates that have probably never even read it. Dr Paul is by far the least corrupt person for the job. America`s last chance to get a fairly honest man in office.

You are correct about Dr. Paul's constitutional knowledge and I SOOOOOOOO badly want to agree with you about his true intentions and I SOOOOO badly want to believe that Dr. Paul really is different. I think I have simply lost faith in the entire system.

All that said come election day if he is a 3rd party candidate he will get my vote.

Edited December 4, 2011 by bigtroutak

[questionmark]

You are correct about Dr. Paul's constitutional knowledge and I SOOOOOOOO badly want to agree with you about his true intentions and I SOOOOO badly want to believe that Dr. Paul really is different. I think I have simply lost faith in the entire system.

All that said come election day if he is a 3rd party candidate he will get my vote.

That would only make sense if there are 3d party representatives in Congress and Senate. Else he would be a lame duck from day 1.

[Farmer77]

That would only make sense if there are 3d party representatives in Congress and Senate. Else he would be a lame duck from day 1.

At this point a lame duck might be the best option for America. I certainly can't vote for either of the major parties again - ever. They've proven they cant be trusted with this nation and we as a nation HAVE to stop "picking the lesser of two evils" in our elections.

[The Silver Thong]

At this point a lame duck might be the best option for America. I certainly can't vote for either of the major parties again - ever. They've proven they cant be trusted with this nation and we as a nation HAVE to stop "picking the lesser of two evils" in our elections.

The thing about Ron Paul is that yes he is a republican but he does not wave that flag. Third party will not serve Ron well, neither will it as most other republicans don`t like and fear him. The house will be divided no matter if Paul runs indipendant or not. He should however try to bring with him as much backing as he can if he does become a true contender for the white house. Third party would not be wise.

Same as you and most others. The two party system is corrupt beyond imagination and fear of them is just. There was a quote that I will get wrong here but it goes. When the government no longer fears the people then the people have failed.

[Farmer77]

The thing about Ron Paul is that yes he is a republican but he does not wave that flag. Third party will not serve Ron well, neither will it as most other republicans don`t like and fear him. The house will be divided no matter if Paul runs indipendant or not. He should however try to bring with him as much backing as he can if he does become a true contender for the white house. Third party would not be wise.

Same as you and most others. The two party system is corrupt beyond imagination and fear of them is just. There was a quote that I will get wrong here but it goes. When the government no longer fears the people then the people have failed.

Well said......I just wish you Canadians would hurry up with the global warming so I can migrate north!

[preacherman76]

Then read Mr. Paul's lips: America will be isolationist and fragmented. And his fans are cheering and applauding (either because they don't know what he is saying or because they don't know what it means).

Non-military intervention isnt isolationism. Not even close. Funny how you think he supports isolationism, according to you from his own words, when time and time and time again, he has directly said the exact oposite. Fully supports free trade. Fully supports diplomacy and friendship with other nations.

[preacherman76]

I like Ron Paul's lip service but him being elected is kind of my worst nightmare. I don't believe he's any different than any of the other politicians out there (he wouldn't have lasted in office this long if he wasn't). My fear is that with the election of Ron Paul the slight of hand game being played in Washington will simply get 4 more years to divide Americans along false, non existent party lines.

If anyone deserves the benifit of the doubt, its Dr Paul. He has been in office for along time, but you can match everything he has ever done or said with the constitution, bill of rights, and general belief in freedom. If he is another establishment con job, they have spent decades setting it up.

[preacherman76]

At this point a lame duck might be the best option for America. I certainly can't vote for either of the major parties again - ever. They've proven they cant be trusted with this nation and we as a nation HAVE to stop "picking the lesser of two evils" in our elections.

I felt the same as you regarding voting for anyone within this one party system. But this time, Im holding my nose, and re-registering republican so I can vote for Dr Paul. He is the real deal. Look into the man. You can watch interviews and speeches from him as far back as the 70's. He has never changed his tune. And has never done anything to make you think he will.