Is anybody tired of Obama or the Democrats?

Post Reply New Topic

Haven't read the entire thread, so my apologies if I'm echoing something already said…

I was tired of Obama and the Democrats BEFORE the first election.

That said, I'm REALLY sick of the Republican party as well and their tail-between-the-legs tactics they've been prone to as of late. If Republicans want any hope of taking back congressional seats and the White House, they really need to stop pretending to being so defeated and worn-down by the Democratic party so conservative Republican voters will actually show up at the polls this time. As stupid as it is, most of us would rather not vote at all if our own party can't come up with better leadership than we have at the moment (I think Scott Walker is the last hope for the Republican party, but I've heard nothing about a potential presidential run from that camp). We don't really have the right to complain about it if our party is on the losing end all the time when we don't vote, but the Republican party is doomed for failure for as long as its candidates keep stabbing each other in the back. I'd like to see the Republican establishment step aside and see how well Tea Partiers (the REAL Republican party, in my opinion) could do in national elections rather than have to deal with being silenced by their own party.

At the risk of letting my ego get to me, I've often pondered heading up a local committee and seeing what I myself could do at the local level. I don't really have the "face" or personality of an activist, but I do have plenty of time on my hands and work well on a team. Might be a good opportunity to break into community organization. I think it's time for us to get rid of Boehner and elect candidates who will refuse under any circumstances to be cowed into submission.

It's like a crying bald eagle vomited a red, white, and blue rainbow directly into my corneas.

Excellent point. Slightly disagree with part in bold, though. Someone who marries early on in life and starts a family soon after is going to be more motivated to keep it together for the sake of his/her family rather than being wide open on their career situation.

I mean, nobody really has an excuse here. My wife and I have three kids. She got out of the paralegal business and got into banking. She did EXTREMELY well, earned a couple of promotions and several pay raises at her first banking job only to get bogged down under some really poor decisions from operations. After taking a temporary pay cut and resigning her position for about a month, she took the same position at a different bank and has really flourished there.

Without children there's not the same impetus to stay in the game and succeed. With most young people, it's just about keeping the lights on and making mortgage/rent payments. Not only that, but any respectable employer, while "technically" unable to take marriage/family status under consideration for hiring (i.e. they can't legally deny you a job based on family status), will tend to think generally that family men and women will do better work--in part because it takes a high level of responsibility to keep a family going AND because the stakes are higher with family people.

If you REALLY want to build wealth, start your family early on if at all possible. Anyone who has an issue with families isn't worth working for.

[Note: If you're on track for a Ph.D. program AND a doctorate is necessary for your career…i.e. you're planning to teach college for the rest of your life…then yes, you're going to have to wait because degree programs like that are so all-consuming that your kids will grow up and you won't even have time to miss them. I personally think if that's your life ambition, you do better to build successful career experience in your field, make significant contributions on your own as much as possible, and THEN enter a degree program later on so that you can teach college from the perspective of someone who has been active in that field independently AND has the academic creds to qualify for teaching it to younger students. I definitely want to complete and doctorate program, but I was plain tired of waiting to start a family and other things that were just more important. And at the moment I'm doing a LOT more of what I want to do than I ever would if I had to add teaching college courses to my list of things to do. I'm living my dream and hoping it will pay off in the next few months. I've got plenty of time to start a second career as an academic, and right now that's just not all that important, and certainly not enough for me to put everything I've got going on right now on hold. Education is important. But it's important to keep education in the right perspective when it comes to determining what you're going to do with your life. The MBA is probably the biggest crap master's degree there is. Possessing one doesn't guarantee either your success independently or your likelihood to get hired. There are a lot of MBAs out there playing video games in their parents' basements while there are probably a lot more high school graduates taking management positions and doing extremely well, having learned their trade right on the job. If you don't NEED the college degree or the advanced ACADEMIC training, don't waste the time. The reason I got my master's degree was more for personal enrichment, and it carried the side benefit of putting me on a different pay schedule in the public school system as well as qualifying me to take an adjunct position with community colleges to teach undergrads--I don't, but I could. But my master's degree has not made me rich or given me any kind of edge in the "real world." If I have any edge at all, it's because I've worked my tail off for it.]

Part of why it seems incredibly difficult to increase wealth with starting a family early is because so much of your paycheck does go to baby needs and feeding more than two mouths, plus housing costs more for larger families. And then there's daycare and, later on, private school if you feel the need to go that route (I've taught in public schools, btw). And it gets worse when they hit college. So from day one you want to get rid of debt as quickly as possible, start a plan for paying all educational expenses down the road for any kids/potential kids you have/think about having, save for emergency funds, and buy into long-term investment for retirement. You don't need HUGE budget to get started…you just need to be responsible with what you have. Don't assume your income will stay steady--if you're doing it right, you'll either be getting raises or you'll be transferring to other companies that pay more. Or you'll start your own business and take control over your own income by providing goods and services. Do a good-enough job and you can give yourself raises, which you can do because you're worth it and people you do business won't mind paying more if they've been with you for a while (though you want to do this in an intelligent way, of course. I lost a lot of business when I raised my rates, but I'm not the same professional I was starting out anymore, thus I'm attracting a different kind of clientele). Never, EVER assume the status quo is a snapshot of the rest of your working life, and work within a REASONABLE and MEASURABLE plan for increasing income over the span of your career.

What will happen is this: You'll finish making mortgage payments and own your house outright. Your babies will get out of diapers. They'll eventually graduate from college and you'll change the locks on the doors to keep them from coming back home and moving into your basement. You'll wake up one day with a $50,000 check and wonder where all the money came from and why you've never seen it before. You'll buy a Bentley just because you CAN, or at the very least a brand new car for $14,000 to get back and forth to work and you'll sell the $2000 rust bucket that burns oil. Or maybe give it to one of the kids, or donate it to charity, or something. Whatever, but if you start taking care of these things right away in your early 20s, you're going to feel like a million bucks by the time you're 50, and you've got a lot more of your life left to enjoy it and even start a second career just because you feel like it. You're free to live out your hopes and dreams, and by the time you turn 60 you're spoiling the grandkids.

You miss out on a TON of stuff just by waiting. It's our culture that tells us "we just can't." Screw that. Some things are just too important to wait for, and you might find you don't do as well in other areas of life without family pressures to motivate you.

It's an honor to post at your side, Governor Romney.

We need a new yet effective conservative party. Maybe a conservative party with a libertarian twist to it or even the other way around. ANYTHING but what we have now.


Hey, I resemble that remark!

GOP: A return to the classic Goldwater-era GOP would be good.

Social issues: This really is in the hands of the courts, so it would likely be a moot point party-wise, from a realist's point of view.

Economy: The economy is very complex, and many factors are at play. What happened in 2008 was a "perfect storm" of sorts. Many of the factors leading to the crisis were in play back in the 70s, and were like a volcano that had been dormant for decades. 2008 was when the volcano "erupted"--big time, a financial Krakatoa of sorts.

Obamacare: Wouldn't lowering the costs of health care make more sense, rather than mandating that everybody buy insurance? This could be solved by issuing grants to health care providers for lowering the costs of a hospital visit, and for upgrading existing equipment and buying more high-tech equipment.

*snort*
You ignore a hell of a lot about the founders that is inconvenient to your world view. They were largely deistic products of the enlightenment, which is (and was) left-wing. The cry of the Boston tea party was, 'No taxation without representation,' not 'No taxation.'

You're an naive fool.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvg4n8Txgdc[/youtube]


etc. Just google 'police beating protesters,' and you'll get hundreds or thousands of pictures. If they'll do that for marching (or sitting) and carrying a sign without a permit, what do you think will happen to organized domestic terrorists?

Yeah, that's why we stopped bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan... Oh, wait.

*snort* see above. How old are you, anyway?

The whole documentary is worth watching. 27:00---29:40 is particularly relevant. --some minor profanity.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdv08c0aiTE[/youtube]


Cointelpro-5:40
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpAKfAtPfps[/youtube]

Last edited by Stannis on 19 Feb 2014, 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Funny, this Obama "war on prosperity" seems to entail significantly LOWER top marginal tax rates than the under Republicans. Sometimes, it even involves helping out prosperous f*ckups (i.e. the Bush-Obama bailouts).

But I'm sure there's just such vicious class war going on.



Uh, not really. Especially given (at least before RomneyCare national) record numbers of families were falling into bankruptcy due to medical bills.



Uh, like the banksters who were bailed out by the American public and then started crying about "class warfare" when people were justifiably pissed?





YAWN.

If you really want to extend the stupid wingnut "apology tour" frame to early American history, than what Obama would've done is gone on a circuit telling Native American tribes that the US government made mistakes with respect to indigenous lands and sought a new beginning to the relationship, all the while continuing the American military's imperialist land grab policies.

It's funny that Republicans are projecting, btw, as they really do want the President to go on an apology tour.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWCyezbvF0o[/youtube]



Even if we ignore the Democrats on so-called "moral issues" (as if all issues aren't moral issues), social safety supports actually enhance the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of personal dependancies.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... swede.html

Boy, oh boy somebody just has to weep over how much "warfare" these "job creating", prosperous folks have suffered ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeNZAzRxIXk[/youtube]

Of course, I'm referring to any person or entity behaving in an irresponsible manner, bankers and unions included. Why would you infer otherwise? And when have bankers ever played the class warfare card? That would seem to be counterproductive even to the most casual observer. Oh, and another point, during the 2012 campaign, Obama raised more money for democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined. So from Obama's perspective, the bailout of Wall Street was taxpayer money that showed a significant return on investment.

Obama does not understand the founding fathers, as illustrated by his talk about the Constitution being too restrictive. They knew that less government meant greater freedom, which begets greater prosperity for all. This administration is the tyranny they warned us about.

It is apparent from your repeated and inapplicable interjection of the same liberal talking points that your indoctrination is complete.

It is not so much Obama and the Democrats that I am sick or (although they make me quite nauseous) as it is being am sick of the ALL the rich boys of DC who pass laws that always benefit themselves more than anyone else. Both sides ignore the majority of Americans (except when it comes to pandering and trying to get your vote by telling you what they want you to hear) and they do exactly what their wealthy sponsors tell them to. I currently lean a little more to the left on some issues, but that is more a result of the increasing radicalization of all flavors of the current Republican party.

I guess I just hate the Tea Party "Republicans" more than any other group, as their whole political ideology seems to consist of obstruction over action, publicity over policy, and condemnation over reform. The way I see it, the TP has been doing a good job of keeping things almost exactly the same as they are now, all while wasting massive amounts of taxpayer money just as fast as the rest of the DC political elite.

Obama and the Democrats are not perfect but the alternative, an utterly insane and dangerous Republican party, is just far too horrifying to contemplate. Thankfully, most Americans seem to agree.

Because pretty much all of the R talking heads and Faux News commentators talk about "job creators" vs. the low-life, lazy unemployed, living in a government 'hammock.' That's the default R position, not 'irresponsibility is bad.'

Are you serious?
I hate to say it, but dude: you need to watch more tv.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/26/investi ... tallnacht/

Obama also appointed pretty much no one who wasn't a bank flunky to any position having to do with money in his first term. Yellen might be a little bit of a change of pace; we'll see.
Obama is a Democrat, not a progressive. There is a difference.

*snort*
google 'Alien and sedition acts.' (<-note: signed by a right-wing president)
If Obama were as repressive as you think he is, you wouldn't be able to say so in a public forum.

What talking points? You're the one who seems completely ignorant of both current events and history.

Tyranny is having federal agents armed with automatic weapons raid a guitar factory in Tennessee two times for the purpose of government sponsored extortion.

Tyranny is having the NSA spy on every single American citizen.

Tyranny is using the IRS to target specific groups during an election cycle to hinder their effectiveness.

Tyranny is using the NLRB to punish a company for having the audacity to build a factory in a Right to Work state.

Tyranny is preventing State Department employees from talking to Congress about the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Tyranny is attacking a specific news organization and calling them an enemy of the state.

Tyranny is passing legislation without having read it.

Tyranny is allowing Black Panthers to intimidate voters.

Obama has a history of using the government to oppress his enemies, if a Republican had done this, the national media would be calling for impeachment. And Obama isn't a democrat, he only plays one on TV.