He has always shown his contempt for the common folk . During the 2008 campaign he told his Hollywierd elite buddies that we were a bunch of bitter people who "cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them" .

Now after all his domestic agenda has proven to be a flop ;and he has run out of ideas except more wasted spending on the same,he is back to blaming us for America's woes .

He has recently made a series of statements pointing fingers at the American people . In Sept. he said we "had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades".

His statements this month echo this sentiment .
"we used to have the best stuff. Think about it: The world used to say 'Let's travel to America. Let's see the Golden Gate Bridge. Let's see the Hoover Dam. Let's see the amazing things that America built.'"

"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge."

The Golden Gate ,Hoover Dam, yes even the Empire State Building was built in the middle of the last depression .I submit that under today's repressive regulatory environment it never would've happened.

It's not a lack of ambiton,imagination ;it's not a lack of funding Mr President . It's regulations and government interference that prevent and delay such projects . Who on 9-11-01 would've thought that a decade later a new even grander building would not be complete at Ground Zero?. that it would take a decade to dedicate a memorial to the victims ?

Who would've thought that the most productive agricultural land in America would be turned into a desert by the intentional intervention of the Federal Government .

The fact is that under his leadership the United States has fallen behind Rwanda in creating a business friendly environment for starting new business.
http://www.inc.com/ss/9-best-countries-start-business-right-now#0

Seeing that his anti-business rhetoric has not helped turn the economy around he now points his accusing finger at the American people . Need I remind him that in 1980 the American people rejected a sitting President who blamed his failures on the American people in favor of a President who celebrated the American spirit and believed in the possibilites of the American business unleashed of the restraints of excessive regulation imposed on them .

Tom like it or not it's your thinking. You actually think the world owes you a living. You complain that your president has the affrontary to tell you all you are not number one any more and you need to extracte digitardum,

Okay you built some momuments, very difficult engineering, but get used to it, others have learned your lessons and done better, even the towel headed arabs are doing better and more wonderous things. All it takes is money, something you preferred to spend on wars and battleships.

So throw off the yoke, stop trying to get something for nothing and pay the piper.

You actually think the world owes you a living.. . stop trying to get something for nothing

Not me. That would be the American left you would be speaking of. If there is a softness here it is from the left that has nurtured an entitlement mentality . I wonder if the President even knows that the next span connecting San Fran and Oakland is being built as we speak... in China .
New San Francisco bridge built in China to be shipped to US - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8602786/New-San-Francisco-bridge-built-in-China-to-be-shipped-to-US.html)

Now why do you think it was built there ? Why would it be a better deal for the municipalites ;the most progressive state in the union ,to outsource the construction of a bridge and have it transported across the Pacific for assembly rather than build it using American companies ? Do you think it was greedy American companies that turned down such a project ? Why would progressive NYC contract a foreign firm to build it's subway and bridges ? Don't the progressives trust their unionized workers to do the work ?
It's the government that has made American business uncompetitive.
So while the President bemoans the fact that such jobs aren't being done here ;he does nothing to change the fundamental reason why such jobs aren't being done here . Hint.. it's not a lack of government spending. It's a excess of government regulation.

We have met the problem. He has been living in Washington DC for 3 years, 1 more before Illinois again.

Not me. That would be the American left you would be speaking of. If there is a softness here it is from the left that has nurtured an entitlement mentality . I wonder if the President even knows that the next span connecting San Fran and Oakland is being built as we speak ...... in China .
New San Francisco bridge built in China to be shipped to US - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8602786/New-San-Francisco-bridge-built-in-China-to-be-shipped-to-US.html)

Now why do you think it was built there ? Why would it be a better deal for the municipalites ;the most progressive state in the union ,to outsource the contruction of a bridge and have it transported across the Pacific for assembly rather than build it using American companies ? Do you think it was greedy American companies that turned down such a project ? Why would progressive NYC contract a foreign firm to build it's subway and bridges ? Don't the progressives trust their unionized workers to do the work ?
It's the governement that has made American business uncompetitive.
So while the President bemoans the fact that such jobs aren't being done here ;he does nothing to change the fundamental reason why such jobs aren't being done here . Hint.. it's not a lack of governement spending. It's a excess of government regulation.

Tom I read your post with interest. Do you think your government legislates that foreign companies should undertake contracts within your shores? You keep telling us how wonderful the free market is, how we should abandon protectionism. This is the result. What you are whinging about is not an excess of government regulation, it is lack of it. You wanted access to our markets for your goods, this is the price

Nope wrong again . It's the layer upon layer of regulation that prevents American companies from competing in the domestic market .

nope wrong again . It's the layer upon layer of regulation that prevents American companies from competing in the domestic market .

And when did this regulation occur? In the last two years? Is it the consequence of your various free trade agreements? You are suggesting you have democratised and legislated yourselves out of existence. A true bureaucracy. You are telling us that your multinationals can't go home because there is nowhere to go. Strange that we see them withdrawing from our markets as your depression deepens. If they can't operate here and they can't operate there then the prophesy expressed in the movie "demolition man" is fulfilled, all restraurants are Taco Bell and you are living in the land of the Jolly Green Giant

You know I don't confine my critique to the last 2 years . The problems are the results of generations of a drift towards where we are today... I'd say it began in earnest with the Wilson Administration... so we are approaching a century of 'progressive ' policies.

Yes, war is such a progressive method of advancing economically.

No again you miss the point. The President bemoans we've lost the imagination and initiative that free enterprise encourages .

The Empire State Building ,in the middle of the depression took 1 year and 45 days to complete . These days we can't complete a highway overpass in that time .There were 16 plan changes during construction .

Do you think there is a chance today of that scenario playing out ? No ;each plan change would require a year's worth of hearings ,impact studies ,and law suits .

The Empire State Building ,built by capitalists John J. Raskob and Pierre S. du Pont ,is one that will last for the ages . It is majestic in part because it became part of a competition between du Pont ,and Walter Chrysler ;who almost simultaneously built one of the finers Art Deco Highrise buildings ,the Chrysler Building .

Contrast that with a typical Democrat led project... the Big Dig in Boston. That project began in the early 1980s with a budget of $2.6 billion, but ground wasn't broken until 1991 and the last ramp wasn't opened until 2006. The final estimated cost: $22 billion. $20 billion over cost.

So yes ,I say it's government policies the President should be belly aching about . But that would hit too close to home as he watches one "shovel ready " project not ready to begin. No doubt the Federal Money may help for the blue prints and the endless environmental impact hearings and studies... but it won't help any bridges get built .

So yes ,I say it's government policies the President should be belly aching about . But that would hit too close to home as he watches one "shovel ready " project not ready to begin. No doubt the Federal Money may help for the blue prints and the endless environmental impact hearings and studies ..... but it won't help any bridges get built .

Government policies? No Tom political appeasement, expediency and stupidity. You pandered to the environmentalists and you got environmental impact studies, still the scientists have to work somewhere. I still don't see how this means overseas companies are taking away the work of local companies because of regulation. Aren't they subject to the same regulation? You pandered to the insurance companies and trade unionists and you got workplace safety regulation. Fewer people get killed and the project takes longer. Is this what you are objecting to?

You want to build bridges consult the chinese they don't appear to have any problem building them. Mind you they might fall down in an earthquake. You are actually lamenting that industry is forced to take care and be responsible.

No you are lamenting that people have learned by their mistakes

Aren't they subject to the same regulation?
Absolutely not . As the government imposes standards on American firms they get around those same provisions by having the bridge built overseas .
It is of course typical lefty hypocrisy.
As California has passed some of the most intrusive regulations on it's businesses, it purchases from overseas to by-pass it's own regulations ,and to save money that it would otherwise pay to it's now uncompetitve industries.

The system has been rigged by the oligarchy that uses the politicians and judges we elected, but they buy, and command while we point fingers at each other.

Take away all the window dressing, and slogans, and chest thumping, and moral religious argument, titles, documents, and professions of freedoms, rights, we are a slave nation.

Money is the master, and we all do what it tells us. Money giveth, and money taketh. Opinions are nice, money is better. You talk of regulation, policy, utopia, none of these is in the realm of the slave, that's the masters choices, and he doesn't care if they are socialist protestants, or marxist, lazy, young or old.

All the master cares about is how much money you make him, and how cheap you sell yourself. When you stop being of value to him, he finds one who is.

Think I'm lying? Try to get elected without the masters money. Them poor protesters are to young to know and accept how it works, but they will. We did, and we sold ourselves cheap. Now they must sell themselves cheaper, so they can get a cell phone with all the apps, to at least tell others they are worth something.

Is that your malaise speech ? It sure sounded like Obama's .

Tal's right I have been trying to tell you you are just capitalist slaves but you don't want to listen. They sing freedom's song and enslave you with debt

No Tom, not malaise, just remembering the days of youth when I promised myself not to be a slave to the system, and feeling a lot of empathy to youth that still believe it can be changed and every one can pursue their own happiness, and freedom isn't a slogan.

Sure looked good on paper though. I thought I was free, because there were no chains and whips, but they beat my a$$ with a dollar, or the pursuit of it, and I admit, on payday it felt great have a few dollars, and I thought those lazy boobs with no job, are idiots. Then it hit me, they didn't want to be slaves, and had figured out, it was better to be a dependent than a slave.

What's amusing in all this, slaves work their a$$ off to be called free, and not be called lazy, but dependents don't give a crap what they are called. Whose free here?

Oh well, at least my resume says I am a more valuable slave than yours does. So I deserve a few more bucks than you do.

Oh well, at least my resume says I am a more valuable slave than yours does. So I deserve a few more bucks than you do.

Well so does mine but I became debt free ten years ago and coincidently threw off the yoke of slavery. Now my time is my own and I don't worry about how many more bucks I should earn than you.

No your time is not your own, only what master says is your own. When he says "be here", you better be. Try telling him you made other plans and let me know how that works out for you.

Makes you feel better to think you have thrown that yoke off, huh?

No your time is not your own, only what master says is your own. When he says "be here", you better be. Try telling him you made other plans and let me know how that works out for ya.

Makes you feel better to think you have thrown that yoke off, huh?

Tal I well remember the day my Managing Director invited me to dinner and I told him I had a prior engagement. I worked for that company for another five years. As far as the yoke is concerned, I have been my own boss for over ten years. I have never been a sicophant. As you should well know by now I have my own views, including many regarding the systems of government we live under.

No your time is not your own, only what master says is your own. When he says "be here", you better be. Try telling him you made other plans and let me know how that works out for you.



Yeah I bet your life sucks

I didn't say suck up, Clete, I said slave. As in a state of mind that controls behavior that perpetrate the system. As in slave to monied interest. Where self worth and value is measured in dollars.

And no Tom, my life doesn't suck actually, its just that I have no money. At least not enough to think I am above anyone else.

I didn't say suck up, Clete, I said slave. As in a state of mind that controls behavior that perpetrate the system. As in slave to monied interest. Where self worth and value is measured in dollars.

Sounds like a very secular progresssive view of the world . I believe Clete has values that transcend such basal views.

However ,I agree that it's that type of perception that the President has tried to exploit throughout his public career .
What I found interesting is that he is turning his accusing finger into the faces of those he used to champion . I think he is at an end game because his attempt at applying his philosophy to a workable governing system has inevidibly failed . It can't be he that is a failure... so it must be us.

The truth is that it is years of progressive policies that has led to the country you see. It's entitlement mentality that keeps people on the dependency plantation.

I didn't say suck up, Clete, I said slave. As in a state of mind that controls behavior that perpetrate the system. As in slave to monied interest. Where self worth and value is measured in dollars.

And no Tom, my life doesn't suck actually, its just that I have no money. At least not enough to think I am above anyone else.

Tal

I measure my worth not in money but in what I achieve. I have watched things inexplicably happen for a long time, and never once have I been worse off even though the days seemed very dark for a while. I understand what the slave mentality is and I understand how we are manipulated. You want money, learn to let go.

Sounds like a very secular progresssive view of the world . I believe Clete has values that transcend such basal views.

However ,I agree that it's that type of perception that the President has tried to exploit throughout his public career .
What I found interesting is that he is turning his accusing finger into the faces of those he used to champion . I think he is at an end game becuse his attempt at applying his philosophy to a workable governing system has inevidibly failed . It can't be he that is a failure ......so it must be us.

The truth is that it is years of progressive policies that has led to the country you see. It's entitlement mentality that keeps people on the dependency plantation.

Obama had a rude awakening, he wanted change but runs into a brick wall of opposition. There is no greater force in the world as the unified Republican party, but to his credit, he knows when to pivot, and go on the offensive, by unifying his own supporters.

You cannot acknowledge the progressive agenda, that's been happening for centuries, without acknowledging the counter balancing group that opposes that agenda, regressives. More commonly known as conservatives. They want nothing more than a submissive dependent population, under the guise of pulling ones self up by their boot straps. The problem is that they keep the masses bootless, and promote the idea that they know best who to pass boots too. That is the plantation mentality of which we are slaves too. The idea that the few know what's best for the many.

I will submit that the government of we the people should be dependable.

Tal I think that group you are referring to are called reactionaries, that is, they do nothing of themselves they just react against what others attempt to do, for such a group nothing is ever good enough, any change to the established order is too much, and any progressive idea must be vehmentally opposed.

It depends on your perspective. I would argue that the real progressive force in history was putting limits on the power of the prince.

You see ;these OWS people have it all backwards. You think the corporate fat cats on the 20th floor fear them while they terrorize the tellers on the 1st floor ?

No of course not ! What these people are promoting fits very well into the corporatists agenda . The more they demand government intervention the more they promote the agenda of so called 'crony capitalism' (which is actually crony socialism ).
That is the very reason why some of the biggest 'crony capitalists 'like GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt and Blackrock chief Larry Fink,and George Soros have spoken favorably of the movement.

Don't be diluded Tom. If the outcome of OWS is greater regulation these people don't want it, that is why it hasn't happened when the need was obvious. They know it takes more than grass roots shouting in the streets, it takes grass roots shouting in the ballot box. Socialist governments are on the nose at the moment in many places irrespective of what the "masses" in the streets say.

You are not reading it correctly . The part of the Roosevelt New Deal that was ruled unconsitutional was a series of regulations that would've codified into law ,through regulation, the consolidation of industry into monopolies and cartels ,into the hand of the few large corporations (NIRA). They would've gone on to fix prices ;and stifle competition .

Hugh S. Johnson ;the main architect of the NRA disliked what he called 'cut-thoat competition' in the market place and admittedly modelled the NRA after Italian Fascist corporativism .
[you will recall that the blue eagle Obama campaign emblem of 2008 was very similar in design to the blue eagle NRA emblem]

Don't dilude yourself Clete . It's conservative that want more competition in the market place .It's conservatives that argued against the bailout of so called 'too big to fail' . I assure you that it's limosine liberals that have created the current business environment .

Obama had a rude awakening, he wanted change but runs into a brick wall of opposition. There is no greater force in the world as the unified Republican party, but to his credit, he knows when to pivot, and go on the offensive, by unifying his own supporters.


Im having trouble understanding this. When Obama took office they (his own party) had majority rule and didn't need republicans to pass anything that they had wanted on their wish list. They had that advantage for 2 years. Are you saying his own party didn't support him and he had to go to extremists to get what he wanted ?

The truth is that the bucket list stimulus was loaded with crony favoritism. The truth is that the Dems courted all the major health care companies while crafting Obamacare . The truth is that Obama was the biggest beneficiary of corporate donations in the 2008 race.

The truth is that he got his agenda in the 1st 2 years and now he's scrambling because it was a bust.

The truth is that the bucket list stimulus was loaded with crony favoritism. The truth is that the Dems courted all the major health care companies while crafting Obamacare . The truth is that Obama was the biggest beneficiary of corporate donations in the 2008 race.

The truth is that he got his agenda in the 1st 2 years and now he's scrambling because it was a bust.

The truth is that the bucket list stimulus was loaded with crony favoritism. The truth is that the Dems courted all the major health care companies while crafting Obamacare . The truth is that Obama was the biggest beneficiary of corporate donations in the 2008 race.

The truth is ALL US politicians are guilty of this, they are all in the back pockets of corporations. You just refuse to accept that your side is involved as well.

You would only say that if you have not been reading my posts . I give the Republics no passes for that .

I give the Republics no passes for that .But rarely if ever do you start disparaging posts about them like you do the democrats. Link us up to a few republican corporate whores and your condemnation of them.

Im having trouble understanding this. When Obama took office they (his own party) had majority rule and didnt need republicans to pass anything that they had wanted on thier wish list. They had that advantage for 2 years. Are you saying his own party didnt support him and he had to go to extremists to get what he wanted ?

They had an advantage in the house, but republicans filibustered everything in the senate, including the majority of his judicial appointments. Protecting the one percent from any tax increases is what they are after, and making way for a return to republican control of congress and the white house is there only agenda.

Bills start in the house, and all the house has passed is 3 different abortion bills to defund woman's health. I watched many senate hearings on Cspan, and no matter what the agreements were the final bill was always defeated, or filibustered by republicans. Even when all the amendments they wanted were included in the final draft.

Sure it would seem with 60 democrats a bill would breeze through, but when dems had 60 votes, one republican filibusters, when they need a few republican votes, they got none. Conservative democrats, and Leiberman (I), almost always side with republicans, and a simple majority doesn't work in the senate.

Strange system where the majority doesn't rule. Certainly doesn't sound like democracy

It's a democracy with checks, and balances, to ensure that the majority can't run over the minority. Our democracy depends on consensus, which doesn't come easy and often gridlock is the result. The people have a two year window on which to decide changes of the officials. The more that vote, and the more who are informed, the more that we can move forward.

Tal I had often heard that congress is the opposite of progress but in this context senate is short for senile and obstinate

Yes it can be but its human nature to protect ones interest, be that right or wrong.

The Senate is the flawed construct of a compromise. It had some value when Senators were selected by the state legislatures ;before progressives got the 17th amendment passed.

Paraclete " It doesn't sound like a democracy" That's because the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). In some case we are a democracy, voting on local matters directly, e.g. local option sales taxes, liquor by the drink etc.

Paraclete " It doesn't sound like a democracy" Thats because the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). In some case we are a democracy, voting on local matters directly, e.g. local option sales taxes, liquor by the drink etc.

Interesting definion there, you may find then that Switzerland is a long standing democracy, but there are other forms of representative government other than a republic which is basically a form of government where there is an elected monarch.

The framers of your constitution were indeed fearful of many things including their own countrymen. In the light of today we cannot understand fully what they were attempting to achieve other than a nation that would not be subject to the whim of monarch or the whim of the majority. It appears they failed

Many nations on the earth would be glad to have our failures I bet. I wouldn't judge from the outside looking in, especially since history already has documented that we eventually get it together, and solve our problems. No doubt we will again. If China bends your arm too much, call us.

Shared power and responsibility is hardly a monarchy.

Tal as you say, from the outside, what is the difference between a monarch and an executive who is able to pass legislation without a vote? Not even in our democracy would our executive attempt such a thing, but then I suggest our process may be a little more open than yours despite the media coverage.

The use of executive orders has become increasingly abusive. The checks and balances only work if the Legislative branch chooses to exercise it's authority.
However ,for some time now ,the Legislative branch has chosen to defer to either the executive ,to bureaucrats ,or to ad-hoc super committees or 'gangs of 14 'instead of performing their constitutionally madated function.

In my view the much of the problem could be addressed with term limits .


I fully agree with ma0641 about 'democracy' . The Senate was constructed to represent the states ;and to temper the excesses of a legislative body constructed to act according to the whims and passions of popular will.

Obama is going to solve all our problems by appointing himself King shortly. He can't handle this government as it is so he's going to "show" us all he can. King or dictator shortly. He can hardly wait.

Just about every state is now recinding his insane universal health care legislation that took up all the previous time in the House and Senate last year to "force through". If some senators were not bought off they would still be voting on that stupid law to this day.

His grandstand ploy to get all troops out of Iraq by year's end is nothing but a ploy to send those same troops to Afganistan or to be used to invade Iran. We need more troops in Afganistan to guard the poppy fields!!

Tal as you say, from the outside, what is the difference between a monarch and an executive who is able to pass legislation without a vote? Not even in our democracy would our executive attempt such a thing, but then I suggest our process may be a little more open than yours despite the media coverage.

Our process is written, and there are checks and balances in place,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States),


Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it[9] or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

So you see, they can talk to the press, or do something about those executive orders, if they so choose. They don't just have to whine or complain.

How much more transparent did you want?

So you see, they can talk to the press, or do something about those executive orders, if they so choose. They don't just have to whine or complain.

How much more transparent did you want?

I think you miss the point of the whole process. If your president has the power to legislate by executive order he doesn't need a legislature. Look, we have a similar process called regulation where a bill in simple form is passed with a whole lot of attached unwritten regulation which the parliament may recind by failing to accept within a certain period. The reality is they rarely even look at it, we call it government by bureaucracy. I suspect your executive order process is similar, your legislature can recind the order but rarely does.

What you have is a system of negative government relying on enough people to be against something to stop it

But Clete, that's not negative government, that's weighting the options, and selecting the appropriate action. It's a part of the process. Now how, and how well that's works you can debate, but the opposition has to reach a consensus, and that's up to them. The executive order is but another tool of government, and not just the President has this tool, states have them also.

What then is the point of representative government?

If you don't like the job your servants do on your behalf, you fire them. That's why we have elections every two years.

More diversity in the menu would be nice.

Which menu is that? It's been a slow month and we have talked all the issues through and through

Personally I waiting for the next spill in the aussie leadership

I have to be honest, since the world series is over, my next big thing is the Super Bowl, and getting the grand kids some video games!

Well the football season is over here and next is the cricket season and that has become a bore, so I guess I will just have to sit in the sun and contemplate my navel.

What do you think of that fellow Khan in Pakistan telling the US he will help you to leave Afghanistan

I don't think of him at all. I have the republican primary to keep me entertained while I wait for the next game, search for videos, or wonder how my navel has been doing since I last saw it.

Oh you should Tal, he is interesting, he is rallying the youth, we may yet see an Occupy Islamabad movement to make not the capitalists but the politicians honest. Now if you just had politicians like him, eh? What a difference it would make.

He just had a meeting with 500,000, blocked the roads, I love to see a popular people movement arise

Well the football season is over here and next is the cricket season and that has become a bore, so I guess I will just have to sit in the sun and contemplate my navel.

What do you think of that fellow Khan in Pakistan telling the US he will help you to leave Afghanistan

The last popular Paki leader was Benazir Bhutto.

Imran Khan is a former cricket player... Hope his former skill serves him when it's time to duck.

Remains to be seen if the "parents" are patient with the youth, or strict, and rigid with them.

Of course they are strict and rigid Tal, it is an islamic society, but you know how it is with the unemployed in any place as your own youth demonstrate.

Khan is a charismatic figure with more behind him than a successful cricketing career. He talks a lot of sense. He also thinks the Taliban are primitive. I don't think he will be out for a duck
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/31/imran-khan-acclaim-pakistan?newsfeed=true