• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outraged Liberals Say Obama Is About To Screw Over The People Who Got Him Elected

Bout damn time some true liberals and progressives got pissed over Obama... Took them long enough. A little shake up in the democratic party will be a good thing.
 
Once you are 65 your (personal, out of pocket) medical expenses are very low, much lower than before that age. So, that is no argument against these minuscule reductions in the rate of increase.
 
Some spending goes up, some goes down, overall my understanding is that it's supposed to trim 1 trillion off the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans raise spending plenty, they just don't think anybody should pay for it. It's either "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but spend anyway."

Its just kicking the can. 10 years from now we will have a new congress and President, so that should tell you Obama or congress don't give a rats ass about fixing anything. Rather than cut the fat, they just keep spending, then calling it balanced by raising taxes and counting on future gains as if they are a sure thing. Welcome to the slow death of America. We are too far in the wrong direction to turn back now. Similar to Japan, we will just sit here stagnant with no jobs.
 
Bout damn time some true liberals and progressives got pissed over Obama... Took them long enough. A little shake up in the democratic party will be a good thing.

A little shake up ???

All I see is MSNBC, Letterman, Stewart and Colbert cheerleading for these Council on Foreign Relations people - politicans and pundits - week after week, year after year. The same leaders like Hillary who voted for the Iraq war or like Angelina Jolie who is pushing for America to invade Syria. :thumbdown

You know - the CFR guys always pushing new wars for the Military Insutrial Complex, like the Clintons, John Kerry, or authors like: Tom Friedman, Condoleezza Rice, Dan Rather, James Zogby, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Paul Krugman, Angelina Jolie, Katrina vanden Heuvel,editor of The Nation, Joe Biden, Peter Bergen of CNN, etc. :2sick1:

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NWO SHILL AND LIAR
John_Stewart_911.jpg


Only 16% Think Government Telling the Truth about 9/11

WARNINGS

9/11 Omission Hearings - Paul Thompson Intelligence Warnings - 9/9/2004 - YouTube

WAR GAMES CONDUCTED OVER NYC ON SEPT. 11TH 2001

9/11 Omission Hearings - Michael Ruppert On Dick Cheney - 9/9/2004 - YouTube

...............................................................................................................

POLLS



There is a huge gap in what the world knows about 9/11 and what the 911 commission discovered and published. Without going into conspiracy theories, we are simply reporting the fact that 84% of Americans and more Non-Americans simply do not believe the official theory.

Only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: New York Times/CBS News poll | Rupee News


One in seven believe U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks in conspiracy

One in seven believe American Government staged the 9/11 attacks in conspiracy | Mail Online



Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew

Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew - 911truth.org

................................................................................................................

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...eally-surprise-attack-145.html#post1061435722

Only 16% Think Government Telling the Truth about 9/11 | 911Blogger.com

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-18/jon-stewart-trashes-911-truth

The Left Wing media has become so Elitist they can't tell what a warmonger is anymore. They're so busy leading the masses to knee-jerk, endless applause for war criminals, and the government stenograhers in the media, its worse than the army of gorillas in Planet of the Apes cheering on the enslavement of humans. I mean really, DemSocialist - you need to slow down and think before you write all these new threads. Try decaffeinated. Did you see that John Stewart episode where he was cheering America on to bomb Iran? :think:

It was disgusting.Thats why Stewart gets millions, for being a globalist shill and spokesmen for the NWO. And of course, he went out of his way to trash 9-11 Truth without ever giving anyone a chance to debate the issue.


 
A little shake up ???

All I see is MSNBC, Letterman, Stewart and Colbert cheerleading for these Council on Foreign Relations people - politicans and pundits - week after week, year after year. The same leaders like Hillary who voted for the Iraq war or like Angelina Jolie who is pushing for America to invade Syria. :thumbdown

You know - the CFR guys always pushing new wars for the Military Insutrial Complex, like the Clintons, John Kerry, or authors like: Tom Friedman, Condoleezza Rice, Dan Rather, James Zogby, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Paul Krugman, Angelina Jolie, Katrina vanden Heuvel,editor of The Nation, Joe Biden, Peter Bergen of CNN, etc. :2sick1:

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NWO SHILL AND LIAR
John_Stewart_911.jpg




The Left Wing media has become so Elitist they can't tell what a warmonger is anymore. They're so busy leading the masses to knee-jerk, endless applause for war criminals, and the government stenograhers in the media, its worse than the army of gorillas in Planet of the Apes cheering on the enslavement of humans. I mean really, DemSocialist - you need to slow down and think before you write all these new threads. Try decaffeinated. Did you see that John Stewart episode where he was cheering America on to bomb Iran? :think:

It was disgusting.Thats why Stewart gets millions, for being a globalist shill and spokesmen for the NWO. And of course, he went out of his way to trash 9-11 Truth without ever giving anyone a chance to debate the issue.



I keep saying: You want an example of a completely dysfunctional democracy, look no further than the best example---------The vote on the Iraq War................
 
A little shake up ???

All I see is MSNBC, Letterman, Stewart and Colbert cheerleading for these Council on Foreign Relations people - politicans and pundits - week after week, year after year. The same leaders like Hillary who voted for the Iraq war or like Angelina Jolie who is pushing for America to invade Syria. :thumbdown

I keep saying: You want an example of a completely dysfunctional democracy, look no further than the best example---------The vote on the Iraq War................

Well - I'd better watch it or I'll have the Mossad and the Jewish Mafia trying to bump me off. :)
 
They aren't even cuts. They are just slowing the growth.
 
There are a few truisms about Obama:
1. Liberals will never turn on him no matter what he does.
2. He is related to Dick Cheney and they are of like minds.

I don't know that #1 holds anymore, especially since he's in his second term and unelectable. As we get closer to the long ramp up to election 2016 I think you see more distance made between the current POTUS and those who wish to be candidates from the same party.
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

You've left out a huge part of the argument.

There is enormous disagreement over the validity of the uses for which Obama is cutting their final years of income. You're characterizing as selfish, people who have worked for this country and paid into our system their entire lives and now Obama wants to reduce the quality of their final years so that he can reward new arrival Mexicans with huge families, who have no loyalty to this country at all, buy off unions so that they vote for Democrats, reward other countries that Obama prefers over America, etc., etc.

Do not blame decent people as unwilling to participate in shared sacrifice, if they are disgusted with what they are being penalized to sacrifice for. Obama prefers to keep his programs secret because they would outrage decent Americans.
 
You've left out a huge part of the argument.

There is enormous disagreement over the validity of the uses for which Obama is cutting their final years of income. You're characterizing as selfish, people who have worked for this country and paid into our system their entire lives and now Obama wants to reduce the quality of their final years so that he can reward new arrival Mexicans with huge families, who have no loyalty to this country at all, buy off unions so that they vote for Democrats, reward other countries that Obama prefers over America, etc., etc.

Do not blame decent people as unwilling to participate in shared sacrifice, if they are disgusted with what they are being penalized to sacrifice for. Obama prefers to keep his programs secret because they would outrage decent Americans.

So what you're saying is, welfare programs are fine as long as I like them.

Seriously, you guys have been going on and on about "cut entitlements, cut entitlements." Now Obama proposes cutting entitlements and....this. With all the talk of "buying Democratic votes" you're sounding jealous that he's not out buying Republican votes.
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

It is not really a cut per se, it is a bit of a decrease in the amount of increase. Personally I would like to see the retirement age raised. From what it is now, 62-67 to 65-70. When FDR set the retirement age at 65 to draw full benefits, that was the average age an American lived to. In other words half of Americans would never live that long to collect SS. If that applied to day, what would the age be, 75-77 I think.

The increase in retirement age can be phased in like they did when the government raised the age from 65 to 67. What we are seeing now is the people wanting 100% of everything even if it means leaving nothing to their children and grand children. It seems some would be perfectly happy to bankrupt SS in the future as long as they gets theirs today. I also think raising the cap to $200,000 would be a good idea.
 
I don't know that #1 holds anymore, especially since he's in his second term and unelectable. As we get closer to the long ramp up to election 2016 I think you see more distance made between the current POTUS and those who wish to be candidates from the same party.

You may have a good point there. I seen it happen to LBJ in 1968 when most of the Democratic party turned against him, especially on Vietnam. In 1980 most of the democratic congressmen put distance between themselves and Jimmy Carter.
 
It is not really a cut per se, it is a bit of a decrease in the amount of increase. Personally I would like to see the retirement age raised. From what it is now, 62-67 to 65-70. When FDR set the retirement age at 65 to draw full benefits, that was the average age an American lived to. In other words half of Americans would never live that long to collect SS. If that applied to day, what would the age be, 75-77 I think.

The increase in retirement age can be phased in like they did when the government raised the age from 65 to 67. What we are seeing now is the people wanting 100% of everything even if it means leaving nothing to their children and grand children. It seems some would be perfectly happy to bankrupt SS in the future as long as they gets theirs today. I also think raising the cap to $200,000 would be a good idea.

Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

I agree, but using logic to make your argument seems so...I don't know...out of sync with the times, somehow! People just aren't sure exactly what to argue with you about.... :shrug: :mrgreen:
 
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

I agree, but using logic to make your argument seems so...I don't know...out of sync with the times, somehow! People just aren't sure exactly what to argue with you about.... :shrug: :mrgreen:

Thanks for the compliment Pol. What we have in Washington D.C. is each party too worried about the next election and not about America’s future. None of our presently elected officials can get past November of 2014. Well some can, but their horizon only goes to November of 2016. Anything past those two dates is someone else’s problem.

If both of the major parties would start to think of America’s long term future, you would have a plethora of ideas floating around to solve this deficit/debt crisis. Some would be way out there, but others would be in the common sense area. If both parties, either party was serious about trying to solve this problem, they would be looking at Simson/Bowles, heck if they were serious, they would have implemented it as a starter to America’s long term financial health and to its future.
 
You may have a good point there. I seen it happen to LBJ in 1968 when most of the Democratic party turned against him, especially on Vietnam. In 1980 most of the democratic congressmen put distance between themselves and Jimmy Carter.

Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

Can someone please explain to me why the Senate Democrats are holding up a resolution to honor former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher? Great Britain is an important ally, so what's the excuse! :thumbdown:

Queen Eliabeth and Prince Philip will be among the 2000 guests attending, and the last time the Monarch attended a Prime Minister's funeral was in 1965, when Winston Churchill died. I trust someone will have an explanation, since England so graciously welcomed the Obamas to their country when they visited...
 
What levels of hell have we dropped to when a slowing the growth of a program = betraying the voters? This is why I fight against socialistic programs. This attitude is what will lead to the financial failure of the United States.
 
as to the title....."About to" About to???? He's been doing that since before his first bumbled swearing in ceremony...

I've been saying for years, as the media and the masses were screaming, "Marxist!" "Socialist" "Rah, Rah, shish koom ba.."

These are Fascist policies he's implementing people, always have been, always will be...
 
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

Can someone please explain to me why the Senate Democrats are holding up a resolution to honor former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher? Great Britain is an important ally, so what's the excuse! :thumbdown:

Queen Eliabeth and Prince Philip will be among the 2000 guests attending, and the last time the Monarch attended a Prime Minister's funeral was in 1965, when Winston Churchill died. I trust someone will have an explanation, since England so graciously welcomed the Obamas to their country when they visited...

I hadn't heard of that, so I pulled up the article and here it is:

Report: Senate Democrats Blocking Resolution Honoring Thatcher

I haven't the faintest idea why the Senate Democrats would hold up the resolution, it probably has to do something with politics of the left and the right. It seems quite the common sense thing to do and passing the resolution takes no skin or money off anyone's body or pocket book.

With the Queen attending and PM's from both sides of the aisle over in England attending, it pretty says Churchill and Thatcher were the most revered and influential PM's over there since the beginning of WWII. It does seem to smack of petty politics.
 
I hadn't heard of that, so I pulled up the article and here it is:

Report: Senate Democrats Blocking Resolution Honoring Thatcher

I haven't the faintest idea why the Senate Democrats would hold up the resolution, it probably has to do something with politics of the left and the right. It seems quite the common sense thing to do and passing the resolution takes no skin or money off anyone's body or pocket book.

With the Queen attending and PM's from both sides of the aisle over in England attending, it pretty says Churchill and Thatcher were the most revered and influential PM's over there since the beginning of WWII. It does seem to smack of petty politics.

It makes me ashamed, Pero. This resolution has been held up since last Wednesday! :thumbdown:
 
It makes me ashamed, Pero. This resolution has been held up since last Wednesday! :thumbdown:

What can I say? Honoring people which has passed away happens all the time.
 
What can I say? Honoring people which has passed away happens all the time.

I know. Until I hear a good reason for this Senate action, I will wonder...but I will not forget. The woman is dead, and deserves recognition for what she accomplished. Isn't there a Protocol office in DC, or something similar, that handles things like good manners?

I was very pleased to read that the House overwhelmingly passed a Resolution, which is good, because the House represents the common people. Don't think that England doesn't pay attention to what's going on in the US...they're probably better informed that we are! :peace:
 
I know. Until I hear a good reason for this Senate action, I will wonder...but I will not forget. The woman is dead, and deserves recognition for what she accomplished. Isn't there a Protocol office in DC, or something similar, that handles things like good manners?

I was very pleased to read that the House overwhelmingly passed a Resolution, which is good, because the House represents the common people. Don't think that England doesn't pay attention to what's going on in the US...they're probably better informed that we are! :peace:

When it comes to politics, good manners need not apply.
 
Maybe a Eulogy tax is being considered.
 
I hadn't heard of that, so I pulled up the article and here it is:

Report: Senate Democrats Blocking Resolution Honoring Thatcher

I haven't the faintest idea why the Senate Democrats would hold up the resolution, it probably has to do something with politics of the left and the right. It seems quite the common sense thing to do and passing the resolution takes no skin or money off anyone's body or pocket book.

With the Queen attending and PM's from both sides of the aisle over in England attending, it pretty says Churchill and Thatcher were the most revered and influential PM's over there since the beginning of WWII. It does seem to smack of petty politics.

I would have like to have seen more vocal opposition to her when she was alive..................
 
I would have like to have seen more vocal opposition to her when she was alive..................

Good evening, Bonz. :2wave:

Oh, she had lots of vocal opposition, but managed to work with them to get things accomplished for the benefit of the Country. Read up on her fights with various factions, when you get a chance. They didn't call her the "Iron Lady" for nothing! :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom