Previous 21 - 30 Next
This is simply anecdotal - one person's story. Of course, the politicians thrive on those. The WH will invite some schlub to sit in at the SOTU on less merit. Anyway. At the time Obama took office, I was making in the mid-100K range. True, times were good in the engineering and construction business at the time, but nevertheless it was a HUGE windfall. Then the economy cratered. Granted, this was due to events before Obama came into office, but they WERE tied closely to the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006, and Bush basically rubber-stamping everything they threw his way. You can see the GDP, economic growth, etc., curves from that time to this, and there is a marked slump from early 2007 onward. Bush gets blamed for the economic mess, but it was the Democrat Congress that was to blame. Obama just made things worse. Before Obama's first term I had never been out of a job, working as an engineer. From 2009 until 2011, I was out of work a total of about 14 months. When I finally gained employment again in late 2011, it was at a salary 26% less than what I had been making in 2009. In fact, I am only now beginning to reach the level of salary that I made ten years ago - and that's not counting the comparison between 2004 and 2014 dollars. Since I returned to work, my wife was also laid off and decided to stay home rather than go back into the workforce - so she's one of those "permanently out of the work-force" statistics that Obama's regime never counts in their statistics. We in effect are making about 55% of what we were making in 2009 - again, NOT adjusted for inflation - and that's not going to change owing to the nature of the marketplace and the fact that I'm now in my late 50s. We're doing okay, but our dreams of a cushy retirement are GONE. We will do well to have around 60% of my present income available to us when we retire. Again, this isn't JUST Obama, but it IS a direct result of anti-consumer, anti-prosperity policies of the Democrats, and the parallel failure of the Republicans to counter them in any way. Republican politicians in general simply don't care that much, so long as they are elected and reelected. I do believe there are a few such as Ted Cruz who, if they were able, would change that, but they are in the deep minority. the GOPe sees them as more of a threat than Democrats.
"Obamacare isn't a "mess" or a "disaster" of a bill, but rather a brilliant, well structured piece of legislation with very deliberate language and components." Those of us not "LoFoVos" always knew this. They had some of the most brilliant minds in Leftard academia working on this FOR YEARS against the chance when they'd be able to cram it down our throats whenever they got the power to do so. This is the difference between "The Evil Party" - the Democrats - and "The Stupid Party" - the GOP. Those of you who claim there's no difference are clueless. The Democrats plan things carefully years in advance, for when they stumble into the opportunity to have unfettered power to act without any of that stupid "bipartisanship," and they were ready this time. If the GOP had half those brains they'd already know what they were going to do come January 2015 or January 2017, to get this country back on track. But too many Republicans are just pleased as punch to have the TRAPPINGS of power without any real intent to use it for good. They think they are "successful" when they do nothing more than thwart the latest Democrat gambit - even though it's only temporary. The Democrats and the Republicans sit at the same game board, but the Republicans play checkers while the Democrats play chess.
In response to:

Selling Sex (Allegations)

Illbay Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 5:16 PM
"Marriage is rape." - Andrea Dworkin
In response to:

Selling Sex (Allegations)

Illbay Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 5:14 PM
'“I don’t believe I am to blame,” Dunham said after all the facts indicated that the individual who she describes in her book as “Barry” is not a rapist in real life. More on that momentarily.' What is it about Leftards and their consistent drive toward complete freedom from responsibility for their actions, coupled with their insistence that if they are miserable, it must be someone else's fault - probably a Republican?
In response to:

Sony. All Baloney.

Illbay Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 5:10 PM
"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Mars)...led a partial shutdown of the government by holding up spending bills because of Obamacare. "This year he tried to hold up spending bills because of President Obama's executive order on Immigration." Yeah, what a nincompoop. Can you imagine, actually OPPOSING Obama's illegal, unconstitutional acts as a member of the Legislative branch? Sounds like...you know, that crazy, wacked-out, radical "checks and balances" thingy again!
"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Barack Obama Cairo Speech Where is that in the Constitution? ------------------- You've just committed a hate crime. You can forget about the Constitution; just just gave up all your civil rights.
Okay, I thought that in Australia, like most of the "superior" western countries (superior to US, at least according to Leftards), dealt harshly with crime and had a zero tolerance policy for violent criminals, which is why not a single solitary SUBJECT (to the British Crown, that is; Australians aren't de facto citizens of a republic) needs to even THINK about carrying a firearm of any kind. The State protects it's citizens from people like this Sheikh - and of course there is NO political correctness ever observed in Australia with regard to criminals. Just because he is a foreigner and the practitioner of a religion known to produce a great deal of violent radicals has no bearing on the fact that he's apparently been free to run around killing, maiming and wounding at will. It's all a coincidence.
I don't share Sen. Levin's hopeful outlook. There are some things that are quite different now as compared to the past century or so. Perhaps only the divisions that led to the Civil War are comparable to now. At present we have a major political party that is dedicated to "fundamentally transforming the nation" no matter what that transformation does to the safety and welfare of the country. They are doing this not because they believe the changes to which they're dedicated will leave the country better off, but because they believe it will leave their PARTY better off, in permanent power with a massively ignorant, poverty-stricken and subservient plurality of the "citizens" (say rather "subjects") that will continue to vote to sustain what little the reduced nation can give them of the earnings of others as "entitlements." In short, the Democrat party went from sustaining slavery among Negroes, to serfdom among those of every color and creed, so long as we remain dependent on them and so will ensure their continued power. With that in mind, how can anyone expect anything other than continued strife?
In response to:

A Republican Alternative to Obamacare

Illbay Wrote: Dec 13, 2014 6:55 PM
They don't. But they will. If they will, what do you want it to look like? If I had my way, we'd be strict-Constitutionalist all the way down the line. The States would handle this sort of "social engineering" as was intended. (Yes, it was intended. "The laboratories of democracy" and all that. The States are not under nearly the Constitutional constraints as the FedGov, no matter what most "conservatives" want to think). But the REALITY is, we long ago let the camel's nose, head, neck, hump and nearly everything but his tail into the tent. You can't put that genie back in the bottle too readily. So if we're going to have federal laws governing health care - and we have, for a long time: Medicare, Medicaid, VA and a whole host of mandated programs - then it ought to be governed by free-market principles, NOT the GOVERNMENT per se. So this is a damn good crack at it.
In response to:

A Republican Alternative to Obamacare

Illbay Wrote: Dec 13, 2014 6:51 PM
"People would get this subsidy so long as they obtained credible private health insurance, no matter where they obtained it—at work, in the marketplace, or in an Obamacare exchange." Here's what a Democrat would say to that: "Hell, no. This isn't about you keeping your own money, it's about you giving us all of it, and then we dole back to you what we think you should have - contingent upon your being a friend or an enemy of the Party. We're about punishing enemies and rewarding friends. Or don't you take Obama at his word?
Good to know SOMEONE is confirming SOMETHING.
Previous 21 - 30 Next