Is Obama a Shoe-In for Re-election?

The economic nightmare we are just beginning to experience began long before Reagan, and while Wilson laid the groundwork with the Federal Reserve act, 16th and 17th amendments, FDR made use of the Great Depression to begin implementing those changes in a way that control of our government was gradually shifted from one requiring the consent of the governed into one in which the governed, both people and States, would now require the consent of the Federal government. Our economic woes are the result of allowing ourselves to become more and more dependent upon the Federal government in providing our means through the illusion of wealth redistribution, while distributing wealth which has yet to be created, resulting in the accumulation of enormous debt, and an even greater catastrophic event which may result in the total collapse of our form of government awaiting us as unfunded liabilities begin to require budgetary funding.
Were I 50 or 60 years younger I would be quite worried about my future, and if it can't be recognized that the real conflict is NOT between the rich and the poor, but instead between the middle class and the poor, then the consequences will have to be suffered the rich will not disappear but only take full control of the government. The result may bring about social and economic equality among the governed, and that may be appealing to some.

 

This sound just like Reagans failed trickle down economic policy. And we were on track to pay off our national debt until that idiot gwb came along, talk about accumulating enormous debt, he wrote the book. As far as conflict between the middle and poorer classes, sounds good if there still was a middle class, but the middle class has been reduced and has now become the working poor so yes the conflict is between the rich and the poor. And if you havent noticed the rich already have full control of the government, but thankfully not for much longer because we have woken up and will remain apathetic to the crimes of the corporate government no longer, just a matter of time now.

 

The wealthy will always have control of government, and even if money were to become absolutely worthless overnight, the wealthy would remain wealthy while all others would quickly become destitute. The real awakening has yet to occur, and as long as there are great enough numbers of those who can be put to use as 'useful innocents' and/or 'useful idiots' the emphasis will remain focused on manipulation of where blame should be placed rather than improving anything. The national debt is pocket change compared to the future liabilities yet to come due, and will likely at some point bring down the government as no amount of taxation will be sufficient to cover the costs. Have they ceased teaching arithmetic in schools today. It shouldn't take more than the ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide to clearly see that since the year 1913 government has put us on a path unsustainable economically. It matters not if government is under Democrat or Republican control, as those who we are given a choice of to represent us are for the most part controlled by the nearly 20,000 lobbyists who write the bills for our 'lawmakers' to present in Congress in return for the campaign contributions that resulted in their election/re-election. If it is conflict between the rich and the poor you wish to wage successfully, then the emphasis should be placed on removing all politicians who are beholding to large contributors, replacing them with representatives who are instead beholding to those who cast votes for them regardless of how much if any they contributed. We have allowed government to divide us between ourselves, each looking to government to become more authoritative in putting down our opponent, to the eventual demise of us all. Having experienced over 70 years of change, I see things getting worse although I at least had the foresight to adapt while I could. Will you be able to do the same?
If Obama is a shoo-in for re-election, then I can do little more than offer my condolences.

 

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

The 60's was a period of limitless optimism, causing policy over-reach in many areas. The whole Hope & Change thing was a triumph of optimism
over reality.
:window:


Can our magician President pull it off again? :lurk5:

 

And if he should what condition would the country be in at the end of 2016?

 

That would depend on whether the Republicans continue to block all his good ideas for improving the country.

 

I'm unaware of any 'good' ideas he's presented that would begin to solve any problems. And why are the Senate Democrats blocking all the job creation bills passed by the House from getting any attention, debate or a vote? If they're bad bills just present them, debate them, and defeat them by a vote. As the Democrats have a majority in the Senate they could easily put them to rest and allow the public to see just how irrational or unreasonable the bills are. Or are they?

"The true purpose of the Republican Party is to protect the interests of the rich."
What sense would that make, considering that the vast majority of the richest people support and contribute more to the Democrat party than they do to the Republican party? Not to say there are not some rich persons who vote and contribute to the Republicans, but they would be a minority.

 

Have Republicans provided any other ideas besides tax cuts and spending cuts?

 

As you know full well, in the Senate you need a super-majority to get anything done.

As for your second statement, please provide your reference. I don't believe it.

As to why some rich people support Democrats, I would say it's because some rich people actually want the world to be a better place and/or perhaps they follow the true teachings of Jesus regarding the treatment of the poor.

 

i hope that obama wins. and i think that hi has big chance that he is going to win

 

Not always, but at least get the bills out of the way, pass or fail.

Check Forbes for the latest list, minus about 13, and if you want them broke down by which party they support, you can get that info as well from another site that tracks donations to which parties and/or candidates by contributors names.

They could just as easily make the world a better place by putting their 'own' money where their mouths are, or do they need to be forced?

 

If you knew the things that Obama's done, you wouldn't be saying that.

Other countries are angry with us because the U.S. bombs and kills innocent civilians, and the army occupies their land. For every supposed "terrorist" killed, we gain many more enemies. Obama wants more war at the expense of the American taxpayer and our national security.

He set the precedent for assassinating U.S. citizens without capturing them and bringing them to court. He even assassinated Awlaki's 16-year-old son on "terrorist" suspicion when he was having a party with his friend in a backyard.

Obama has increased federal funding for the drug war, has been threatening medical marijuana states, and cracking down on California with federal raids.

He also allows the Federal Reserve to manipulate our currency, print money out of thin air and to bail out wealthy corporations. Our nation is in debt, and he won't make one cut.

Obama is Bush #2, and there are many others who have drawn that comparison, too. He may be a smoother talker, but he has continued down the path Bush has made, and he is a huge liar that has flip-flopped his positions.

Look up Ron Paul on YouTube. He is against all of that, and he has a huge number of supporters. The media doesn't like him, but his numbers from the 99% are growing. He's one of the top Republican candidates right now. His message has been consistent for many years. He also predicted a terrorist attack on our country a few years before 9/11, and he also predicted the housing crisis years before that happened. If things continue the way they are, the dollar will collapse.

Parties shouldn't matter at this point. Republicans = Democrats. If Romney becomes President, expect more of the same of what we're going through, just slightly tweaked. It's the candidate that counts, and Ron Paul is the only one who's taking all of this seriously, and knows how to fix it without sacrificing any of our freedoms.

 

After undergoing nearly 100 years of fundamentally changing our form of government, Ron Paul stands out as the ONLY ONE of the candidates who is willing to listen to the silent majority who are awakening and demanding the fundamental restoration of our form of government.

 

I'm quite sure that the majority in this country want the Federal government to continue to protect our air and water. They would never vote for anyone who would get rid of this.

 

I recall seeing the online Irish gambling sight Intrade recently believing that Obama had a 50% chance of being re-elected. My guess is it is going to be a close election. The economy has been slightly improving of late. It's a slow recovery, one of the slowest in history, but one has to think the trend helps the President's chances. What happens in Europe with their debt issues though change everything quickly. And despite the economy, the President has shown that he may not have much knowledge for successful economic matters, but he does know how to campaign.

Did read an article today that young students were not as enthusiastic for the President this go around. Not all that surprising considering it has been the youngest segment of the population hurt most with unemployment.

"Students Sour on Obama"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/15/students-sour-on-obama/

 

When the economy does begin to turn around, I think you're going to see some very rapid inflation, which is good for the government, but not so good for the population. Check out the money base, and don't be surprised if the Fed increases it even more.

 

Obama's seemingly primary goal was to create a universal healthcare program, indiscriminate to all Americans. Seeing as this has stalled, and been pushed back on numerous occassions, it's been quite difficult to maintain his appeal to the general public.

I mean, if he could accomplish just that - I personally would be considerably satisfied. At least some follow-through.

 

It would appear that the 'general public' is not in favor of universal healthcare, and it is Obamas voter base he is trying to appeal to, some of whom appear to have become disenchanted with many of his other actions.
2012 will be an interesting election cycle, and once the primaries are over it will be quite easy to take actions to profit from.

 

His original plan was quite different and better than what emerged from the Senate. I find it outrageous that people call it "Obamacare" -- when most of his good ideas were blocked by Republicans. It really ought to be called "Senatecare".

 

The Republicans had little to do with the bill that was passed, and neither did any of the Senators, Republican or Democrat. Not a one of them seemed to have even the slightest idea of what the bill contained, and even today I doubt you could find a single elected politician who knows what is in the bill, or could even understand it if they were to try and read it.
WHO wrote the bill?
WHEN was it originally written?
Anyone able to answer those questions?