Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Originally Posted by firebird77clone

Hussein Obama has had four years to unshackle the small business.

Somehow you expect it takes eight?

True...but there's been a global recession in the interim...look at the global situation eg Spain, Italy, the UK, Ireland, they're in a bad way, and even us right here in little New Zealand.

We're not as badly affected as some...but it's still not all sweetness and light.

.

The Gooberments way of thinking is that ?IF? they can't make a profit then they don't want anyone else to.
Figuratively speaking, I would think that they (USA) were the largest ?Company? in the free world (or at least close)
and their "deficit" is a shame and disgrace to it's Citizens. If any other Company in America was to operate that way - - well you know the answer to that one !

“…….For instance, lets start at the bottom, item 20. Do you disagree with any of the items to support Vets that was accomplished under his time at the helm? And how does that compare with Mitt Romney?........”

Let me start off by saying I have a hard time voting for any candidate who will become Commander in Chief who has not worn the uniform of this country. I don’t believe that anyone one who has not been there can fully understand the implications of sending our service men and women into harms way.

“……..20. Increased Support for Veterans ……”

Of course the while the present administration takes full credit for these reforms on one hand, his Department of Homeland Security issued a report that classified returning veterans as a potential terrorist threat. “…..the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups…..”

But I suppose that much like the results of the Libyan terrorist attack being the Secretary of States fault, this would have to be laid at the feet of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.



And while we’re on the subject, lets also mention number 4.

“…….4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011……”

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which set the withdraw of US forces from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administrations and signed by president Bush.


…………………………………OR

“…….5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year…….”


I can’t help but notice that the peak number of troops took place just last year under the current administration.

…………………………Finally

“…….6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered……”

Do you really think that if anybody else had been president at that time that they would have done things differently? Do you believe that Obama had made some great change in the intelligence community that led to our finally being able to locate bin Laden?


But then again Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Romney doesn’t. That’s something I’m sure that has made an impact on how the Muslim world in general and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in particular view the US.



.

Originally Posted by Mike P

“…….For instance, lets start at the bottom, item 20. Do you disagree with any of the items to support Vets that was accomplished under his time at the helm? And how does that compare with Mitt Romney?........”

Let me start off by saying I have a hard time voting for any candidate who will become Commander in Chief who has not worn the uniform of this country. I don’t believe that anyone one who has not been there can fully understand the implications of sending our service men and women into harms way.

So you are not voting for Mitt Romney then?

Originally Posted by Mike P

“……..20. Increased Support for Veterans ……”

Of course the while the present administration takes full credit for these reforms on one hand, his Department of Homeland Security issued a report that classified returning veterans as a potential terrorist threat. “…..the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups…..”

But I suppose that much like the results of the Libyan terrorist attack being the Secretary of States fault, this would have to be laid at the feet of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I believe that POTUS told us last night that he was responsible for that.

Originally Posted by Mike P

And while we’re on the subject, lets also mention number 4.

“…….4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011……”

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which set the withdraw of US forces from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administrations and signed by president Bush.

Yes, but the Iraqi's didn't want the Bush plan, when negotiations were begun, they figured that Iraqi's would just take what they were given. However after awhile the news got out that the American demands were infuriating Iraqi lawmakers, some of whom wanted to kick the US troops out entirely.

It was Barack Obama's proposal that the Iraqis adopted as their own. They wanted the Barack deal, not the Bush deal.

Originally Posted by Mike P

…………………………………OR

“…….5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year…….”


I can’t help but notice that the peak number of troops took place just last year under the current administration.

True, but they are being withdrawn as well, that was the accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Mike P

…………………………Finally

“…….6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered……”

Do you really think that if anybody else had been president at that time that they would have done things differently? Do you believe that Obama had made some great change in the intelligence community that led to our finally being able to locate bin Laden?

Quite probably, but we will never know. All we know is that our POTUS did pull that trigger. Again, he gets the nod on this one.

Originally Posted by Mike P

But then again Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Romney doesn’t. That’s something I’m sure that has made an impact on how the Muslim world in general and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in particular view the US.

Hmmmmm, not sure about that at all, but love the sarcastic bend!

At risk of being repetitive, this type of discussion can only happen in a free country, God Bless America and our Armed Forces!

Originally Posted by Hot Rod Surfer

Quite probably, but we will never know. All we know is that our POTUS did pull that trigger. Again, he gets the nod on this one.

Really?? I was not going to dive into this discussion again, but your statement about the killing of Bin Laden echoes the statements made by POTUS following the successful raid by Seal Team 6 - "I have killed Bin Laden!" and is one of the most offensive things any sitting President has ever said or done. This POTUS knows nothing about being a leader, and you can bet that he had speeches ready in the event that the raid was not successful, laying blame on the team, or their commanders for yet another botched attempt that "..I set up." It has been well documented that the statements made immediately after that raid, while we still had troops in harms way, with opportunity to leverage the events of that evening into a treasure trove of increased intelligence, put out front line team in danger. Those statements also put the families of Seal Team 6 in jeopardy, by publicizing the identity of the team involved. Did POTUS care? Apparently not, or if he even had a clue what he was doing he valued the continuing ,"I" statements more than he valued the men serving in the field, and the risk that he put them in by making his untimely announcements, claiming personal responsibility for the act itself.

As for withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan, once again POTUS is widely declaring that the justification for withdrawing the troops is that the job is done, and that the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been won! Uncle Bob posted an excellent link to a very recent presentation by Lara Logan, whose insight into the situation on the ground in the Middle East is based on her personal experience, something POTUS does not seem to value. If you did not listen to it I strongly recommend that you invest twenty minutes to do so, and then explain why the withdrawal of troops is a good idea. "They" don't want us there?? Who is this mysterious "they", and more to the point, why should we care? The issue here is that there is a very real, very current war on terrorism going on, and killing Bin Laden simply cut off one head of the Lernaean Hydra, and it has been made clear that it did not end the threat. Did you hear the chants during the recent attacks on our embassies? The crowds were making fun of Obama, and his statements that he had defeated Al Qaeda by killing Bin Laden. Listen to Lara Logan with an open mind. She's an unbiased journalist who states clearly that she has no concern with who is POTUS, or what party is in majority, the war on terror is real - here's the link, to speed the search, Post 1216 - This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

And this from today



“.......2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression.....”

Government-funded battery maker files for bankruptcy - Bottom Line


More Kool-Aid anyone?



.

Originally Posted by Mike P

And this from today
“.......2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression.....”

Government-funded battery maker files for bankruptcy - Bottom Line
More Kool-Aid anyone?

$249 mill ain't chicken feed, Y'all, great post and perfect timing, Mike !

14. ... expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.

The only thing Pell Grants and other education subsidies have done is made colleges richer and college more expensive. When I attended college (30 years ago), one could afford college without loans. I know because I did it. I was a full time student, worked nights and weekends and was able to pay for room, board, and college. And it wasn't even that much of a struggle. Therefore, I would conclude that anyone could have afforded to go to college as long as you had some type of a job and the ability to get accepted to a college.

Today, state schools (in VA) are $25,000 a year. I don't see how someone could afford to pay that working nights and weekends.

Health care is going the same way. Health care is expensive because of subsidies. Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obama care. I feel bad for my kids who are around college age now. Things are really going to suck in another 30 years.

Someone needs to go get a switch and head to the Rose garden

Just asking the questions, that's all... Read that article awhile back, some accuracy but still a bit opinionated. I'm in no way looking for the rich to pay everyone else's way, just wondering if the tax plan Romney has is going to be able to generate enough tax revenue, and still promote economic growth??? Just trying to fine something positive in this whole economic fiasco! Seems we get a lot of the "blame game", but no definitive answers from either candidate on what will work!

This whole campaign from both sides IMO has become so negative, that nothing seems to get said by either candidate about how things can be fixed! Maybe it's just the way of the world these days, the only way to make one guy look good is to make his opponent look bad??? President Obama's first four years have show improvement at a very slow rate, are we just sitting back expecting a miracle cure for this economic crisis that will fix everything overnight, or is there a way to hurry the growth along a bit? Jobs of course are the answer, but I still believe that removing a lot of the burdens the government has placed on small businesses would create more jobs then more tax breaks and incentives to the huge corporations...

The campaigns have also left out other issues I would deem important. Getting our troops the heck out of the Mid East where the countries were trying to help don't even want us there in the first place. Crime and the homicide rate in big cities. More efforts to keep drugs from pouring into this country from across our borders (and no, it's not just Mexico). Some sort of plan to give the poor an incentive to get out of the welfare life and become contributing members of society. Contrary to popular belief, the poor don't remain poor because they enjoy the life style!

Even on this forum, I'd sure like to hear something positive about Romney and his plans that actually makes him a viable candidate rather then just the same old "bad mouth Obama" stuff...... I'll never understand how complaining about the past and present has anything to do about making things better in the future!

“….So you are not voting for Mitt Romney then?....”

Just making an observation.

“….I believe that POTUS told us last night that he was responsible for that….”

He took responsibility for his Secretary of the Department Home Land Security classifying returning veterans as a potential terrorist threat? I must have missed that.

“……It was Barack Obama's proposal that the Iraqis adopted as their own. They wanted the Barack deal, not the Bush deal……”

And your reference for this is????


“…….Quite probably, but we will never know. All we know is that our POTUS did pull that trigger. Again, he gets the nod on this one……”

I couldn’t have answered this any better than Roger already has.


We do agree on one thing, it is a great country that allows open different view points.

Originally Posted by Mike P

“….I believe that POTUS told us last night that he was responsible for that….”

He took responsibility for his Secretary of the Department Home Land Security classifying returning veterans as a potential terrorist threat? I must have missed that.

No I was addressing the second portion of your comment "But I suppose that much like the results of the Libyan terrorist attack being the Secretary of States fault, this would have to be laid at the feet of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security."

Originally Posted by Mike P

“….“……It was Barack Obama's proposal that the Iraqis adopted as their own. They wanted the Barack deal, not the Bush deal……”

And your reference for this is????

Daniel Serwer, a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

Originally Posted by Mike P

We do agree on one thing, it is a great country that allows open different view points.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

Just asking the questions, that's all... Read that article awhile back, some accuracy but still a bit opinionated. I'm in no way looking for the rich to pay everyone else's way, just wondering if the tax plan Romney has is going to be able to generate enough tax revenue, and still promote economic growth??? Just trying to fine something positive in this whole economic fiasco! Seems we get a lot of the "blame game", but no definitive answers from either candidate on what will work!

I don't know if in our current media driven narrative if an honest question can filter through. It's tough enough here. But too many of our fellow citizens won't expend enough mental energy to grasp the scope of what we're dealing with. That's what makes them susceptible to the b.s. line of thought that taxing the rich is the solution. Taxing alone ain't gonna get it done. That's why silly argument points like " Romney wants to kill big bird...." flys. As pointed out earlier, PBS can do fine without government money.............letting them loose on their own shouldn't even be a matter of discussion/contention..................except it's a club to motivate the ignorant. I've been struggling to think of a way to frame the discussion in a way that might break through. The best I can come up with is a combination of ideas/information that float around separately an might work if joined in an exercise.

We borrow 40% of every dollar the government spends. That means the revenue intake covers 60%. Several analyses have calculated that "if" POTUS ever actually proposed the "Buffett Rule" against the "rich" (rather than just blathering in speeches) that that tax increase would fund the government for 6 days (that of course assumes the "rich" wouldn't change their behavior to legally minimize the new tax burden...............a behavior that, historically has always happened). So, our existing 60% covers 219 days of operation, the new tax adds 6 days for a total of 225 days. Since we have 365 days in most years, that leaves 140 unfunded days.............almost 5 months! As an aside, if we apply Obama logic to this formulation as he falsely applies to Romney's tax plan, the middle class is in deeeeeeppp doo doo! There's not enough taxing power on this continent to pull in those 140 days of operating cost. We MUST reduce spending. But anyone who proposes any cuts they are demonized mercilessly..................which leads to vagueness in an election process. The way the citizens let the media and some politicians play those games kills the opportunity for serious discussion. Again, I'll point out the Big Bird discussion here...............the loyal leftists, even when it's pointed out how little impact federal budget money has on PBS, STILL use it as a negative........................they are not serious about budget control on even the littlest item, much less move on to larger items.

Just a brief comment on the business starters discussion that sort of misses the point of business birthing. Ray Kroc may have failed at some business at some time, I don't recall one way or the other, but he was a shake machine salesman when he met the McDonald brothers. He probably borrowed a lot of that pile of money he gave them for access to their business model, plus he had ideas of his own to improve on what they developed. There was no guarantee he would succeed...........he was gutsy enough to take a risk with the hope it would prove successful. He probably had great confidence in himself, but he probably had moments of doubts when things didn't always work out. Dave Thomas was born into orphanhood by an unwed mother who gave him up. He worked himself up from the bottom, made a very good income, and save some modest wealth as he worked himself up in the Kentucky Fried Chicken enterprise. That's what gave him the experience, a small amount of seed capital, and the vision to start Wendy's. The courage to take the risk was from his heart. And that's the key commonality to almost all small business entrepreneurs..................willingness to take a risk where there is no guarantee to start a business. That's why so few step up, it's a rare trait in the human psyche, maybe less than 5% of people have that. That doesn't make them "better" than the other folks, but it does make them "special" in the context of business building. If an example helps, Michael Jordan possesses that "better" thing when it comes to basketball skill. Anyone of us can go out there and shoot some hoops, but he elevates it to art. He was highly rewarded appropriately for that "specialness" because people chose to pay to see him exibit his skills. Same thing for the entrepreneur, except there's more of a good or service involved rather than entertainment. So, how does that long blah blah relate to Dave's comment? POTUS has demonstrated that he doesn't get that whole idea at all. Yeah, the koolaid drinkers will argue, but I'm talking about actions, not words. The closest he comes is shoveling money to cronies who help him with campaign contributions. And before any lefty tries to feign angst or argue, read the article about the principles of Solyndra (Geo. Kaiser et al) in yesterday's WSJ about how they are now trying to transfer Solyndra losses to other of their profitable companies so they can REDUCE their tax payments. I know, some of you are wondering how that can be...........POTUS tells us how his rich buddies WANT to pay more in taxes...................yeah, right. Back to the point......at least Romney has an understanding of the entrepreneur, has financed many of them who he believed had a viable business plan. The mischaracterization of his business above is incomplete. Can he......will he......be able to create an environment in this economy that reassures entrepreneurs to create/expand their businesses rather than pull in their horns as they do under the current administration? There ain't no guarantees, but from that one point of view, he a better risk. This is the point where some do the "lesser of two evils...." thing. Well, every decision we make is a "lesser of two evils...." choice, it's just that we don't always couch it in negative terms.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Again, I'll point out the Big Bird discussion here...............the loyal leftists, even when it's pointed out how little impact federal budget money has on PBS, STILL use it as a negative........................they are not serious about budget control on even the littlest item, much less move on to larger items.

If you remember, Mitt Romney brought up the fact that he would curtail funds to PBS as a part of his program. Why would Mitt even start to talk about the one hundredth of one percent of the total budget as a part of the cure for the budget woes? He seems to be missing the boat with regard to the budget when he is only addressing this small savings. Can this type of micromanagement work at the level of the total budget?

More importantly why does anyone think that big business and the wealthy can cure our economic ills as we wait for the benefits? And at what type of social cost? I honestly believe that I have a moral responsibility to help those that need it, not by paying them to stay unemployed, but to quote Lao Tzu...

"If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime."

We can make a difference!

Originally Posted by Hot Rod Surfer

Why would Mitt even start to talk about the one hundredth of one percent of the total budget as a part of the cure for the budget woes? He seems to be missing the boat with regard to the budget when he is only addressing this small savings. Can this type of micromanagement work at the level of the total budget?

It was a test to see who's serious about ANY level of spending cut...................................all those that poo poo'd it failed the test. If it's so insignificant why have you and POTUS made it the center of your mockery for a couple weeks. You have no idea how silly it makes you sound to serious people. I don't know you very well, but I've seen a LOT of POTUS. He won't yield on anything..............it's his way or the hiway...............in his own words when offered compromise...................I won! That's why he can't work with the House.