Obama and Democrats not living up to what they said

[T.Beck]

Ok, I know most of you don't like Ron Paul, but what he is saying here I think most of you lefties would agree with. Its about how Obama campaigned as an anti war leader, yet he now funds the war, and how democrats who last year when Bush was in office continually voted against the war spending bills, now with Obama vote for them. Also how a lot of the money is going to the IMF, which I know you lefties don't like. See this is where the likes of Ralph Nader are actually better than the mainstream left.



Ron Paul: Obama 'Goal' Is Economic Collapse


Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:08 PM

By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/minus.jpg (javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('default ');) http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/plus.jpg (javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('largeFo nt');)
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says he was dismayed that Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill so easily last week.
“An economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration,” Paul said during his weekly radio address Monday.
“Washington spends with impunity, domestically bailing and nationalizing basically everything they can get their hands on,” Paul said.
Mocking the idea that Obama was a “peace candidate,” Paul pointed out that hisadministration will be sending another $106 billion it doesn't have "to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq without a hint of a plan to bring American troops home."
Paul noted that many of his congressional colleagues who previously voted with him in opposition to every war supplemental request under the Bush administration seem to have changed their tune. He maintains that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war.
“Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse,” Paul said. “As long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight: that is until we face total economic collapse.”
Paul noted that, as Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the foreign aid and International Monetary Fund appropriations in the spending bill passed last week can be called an international bailout:
The emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends:
$660 million to Gaza

$555 million to Israel

$310 million to Egypt

$300 million to Jordan

$420 million to Mexico

$889 million to the United Nations for so-called “peace-keeping” missions

$1 billion overseas to address the global financial crisis outside U.S. borders

$8 billion to address a potential pandemic flu, which he said could result in mandatory vaccinations “for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies.”
Perhaps most outrageous, Paul said, is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the IMF.
“These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas. Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help.”
Paul said that IMF loans require policy changes called “structural adjustment” programs, which amount to “forced Keynesianism.”
“This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees,” Paul said, “and IMF loans act as the Trojan horse to inflict it on others."
Leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international needs than the needs of their own people, he said.
“Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluations to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over.”
Paul noted a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populaces with staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.
The continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make America safer at home but, in fact, undermines national security, he said.
“We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending [our] taxpayer dollars to the IMF — not to mention there is no constitutional authority to do so.”










© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[adrena_line]

I didn't read any of this -

but I did chuckle at the title, and the irony, of its author.

;D

[KC Meat]

Yea, it's really common for politicians to live up to what they said during their campaign. Obama and all of the Democrats are out of line.

[Blacksunshine]

I too didn't read this thread, I am not going to involve myself in the political nonsence of judgement and critisism when I feel both candidates have the same final goal in mind...what is best for this earth....not america, not you, not me...but this planet in a whole. I truly and honestly feel this.

Now, for RP and Obama, I belive there is some fate rolled up in this. As we move into the planetary changes, I do feel that both actually add a positive light on this progression, and both are very influencial. I feel that the right person is in the white house for this particular event as well. I will not think that there was/is a single thing wrong with this. As it's a hard place to be. But with RP also in a spot light adding in a positive shift, this will really help us as we move into the adjustements of 2012.

With how many negative entities out there, it's good to know that there are two positive entities out there as well.


Try, for a moment to take it further then the war, further then the white house, further then america, and even out of this world. You cant complain that we have such amazing entities out there leading us. Just think of how it COULD be...and you will find a peace in how it is...I feel that way anyway.

I feel that very good things are in the brink, but i dont think, and never will say it's going to be an easy ride...and ya know what, it wouldnt' be with RP in the seat either.

Positive love and positive light,

[KC Meat]

You're full of shit. RP would have already had this country fixed, fulfilled every campaign promise, and healed cancer. The man shits gold bricks and can turn water into wine.

[Blacksunshine]

^^See, KC, that's why he couldn't have won...the people aren't ready for that kind of progression yet ;) hahahaha.

[stingray]

This was fun to watch.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

[dkyfuglihjliko/.]

Meh

[myownboot]

i dont care if its obama, democrats, republicans, or bush's mom who's responsible for it; i personally think outrageous gov't spending, social healthcare, and shoving bailout money down companies' throats to gain control in the banking industry is all a part of their attempt to become more powerful and slowly lose the voice of the people. it reminds me alot of v for vendetta(although in this movie, the gov't of interest was conservative politically)-the recession has put alot of fear into americans, and i think in our desperation to be safe, we have put all our hopes in one man, and have become willing to give up our freedoms and voices to obtain a little safety.

**imo, we have more power as consumers which i think was evidenced by bush's poor approval ratings... but even as powerful as opec may be, a 5% drop in driving in california and more conservative driving last summer pulled gas prices down to a shocking low- point being i think we should be completely worried about gov't push for socialism (giving power of the market to the gov't, and taking it from the consumer).

[Third_Eye]

Obama was pretty up front during his campaign that he wanted to scale things back in Iraq and escalate things in Afghanistan. I do not recall him saying he was anti-war, he just thought Iraq was the wrong war. I think both are unnecessary, one reason I didn't support him. I think his actions have been fairly consistent with his stance on that issue though.

I haven't been a fan of the way the bailouts have been handled, I am absolutely furious at his "prolonged detention" that is no better than Bush, I wish we were going to a single payer health care system but that has been taken off of the table, I think Obama is embarrassingly wrong on the issue of gay marriage and he should be held to flames for that one. There are many things I have disagreed with.

However, he is a very intelligent person and he works with both sides. He is a moderate. The right likes to label him "the most liberal president of all time" which is a joke. He was a moderate candidate, and is a moderate president. I wish he were more liberal, I am outraged at some of his decisions, but I think he has been pretty much "as advertised" so far. A move towards the center is much better than a move further right. One annoying thing is that many of his supporters who crucified Bush for the things he did (justifiably so) have blinders on and do not go after Barack for doing some of the same things. He not only kept the domestic spying without a warrant, but has even advanced it and taken it even further. Some of the media, like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, have acknowledged it. Others are still kissing his feet

[Third_Eye]

Today was a good day though. The clean energy bill passed the house and is moving to the senate. Cheers to that

[TWD]

I actually think he's been fairly consistent. Many of the complaints people have were simply them beliving what they wanted to hear when the campaign was still going. Just about the only thing he's surprised me with so far is his health care plan, and which I view as a huge positive over what I thought it would be.

In all honesty there's not much to complain about yet. Any of the policies that have the potential for real damage haven't happened yet.

[Third_Eye]

I actually think he's been fairly consistent. Many of the complaints people have were simply them beliving what they wanted to hear when the campaign was still going. Just about the only thing he's surprised me with so far is his health care plan, and which I view as a huge positive over what I thought it would be.

In all honesty there's not much to complain about yet. Any of the policies that have the potential for real damage haven't happened yet.

I would have to raise the "prolonged detention" issue up as a counterpoint. Not to be argumentative, but simply to be fair. Obama did rail against the Bush administration for their treatment of detainees at Gitmo and other places. Bush passed the military commissions act, which suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus. So anyone could be detained for any amount of time without receiving a trial. If they were found to be an "enemy combatant" by his military tribunal, again they needed no evidence or court precedings to make a ruling, they could simply be locked up indefinately. Sadly, Obama has continued this horrid policy citing that some detainees would be freed if they had a trial because there is no evidence or the case against them was tainted, so those people receive no trial and remain detained under the assumption that if they were released they could potentially commit a crime. Very Minority Report type of logic, they cant be found guilty for things they have done but are still in prison because they could do something at a later time if they were released. I think it is those kinds of policies that put us in serious danger, and Obama should be ashamed of himself.

[T.Beck]

Third eye, way to be open minded and tell the truth about Obama, so many people seem afraid to do this(other than conservatives who just attack him and no one takes seriously anyways) but I am taking about criticism from the left, where it needs to be. You point out some great points about him just continuing Bush policy and even making it worse. Ending the writ of Habeas corpus was such a terrible thing.

During the debates Obama all the time would say he voted against funding the war, I remember that was a big thing, Biden would always support funding the war, Obama would be kind of middle against it, Kuccinich and Gravel would be super against it and Clinton would be in between. It looks like Clinton and Biden on staff have won over Obama on this issue. Paul points out that many democrats who last year always voted against war funding under Bush, won't now, its like Democrats are afraid to go against Beloved Obama.

Also I think the point about the IMF is a great one, I thought Lefties were supposed to be way against this, the problem is you guys always criticize capitalism when its not capitalism thats the problem, its corporate wellfare and the world bank and IMF that are the problem.

anyways, another thing I fund kind of ironic is how in Kerry's campain a big criticizm of Bush was deficit spending, and that democrats were supposed to be more fiscally responsible, and Obama comes along and spends more money in one year than Clinton did in an entire term, and outs us into MASSIVE Debt

[Third_Eye]

Ending the writ of Habeas corpus was such a terrible thing.

There should have been far more uproar in this country when Bush did that. Millions of people marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks perhaps. No such luck





anyways, another thing I fund kind of ironic is how in Kerry's campain a big criticizm of Bush was deficit spending, and that democrats were supposed to be more fiscally responsible, and Obama comes along and spends more money in one year than Clinton did in an entire term, and outs us into MASSIVE Debt

I think traditionally the democrats have been labeled "tax and spend", not really seen as the fiscally responsible party. The republicans have always claimed that, but when Bush turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit (I know some blame has to be lobbied at prior administrations as well) they lost that credibility. Bush spent more than any President in history. Its easy to take a shot at Obama because of the money he is spending now, but the reality is something needed to be done to fix the mess he inherited. I certainly have opposed each and every bailout so far, but I think its unfair to throw this solely on the democrats shoulders. Its not wise to accumulate the kind of debt we are stockpiling, but it would not have been wise to leave things "as is" either. The old "you have to spend money to make money" adage does have some merit. I am hoping it pays off in the long run. A lot of the money has been wasted though, much closer tabs should have been kept on how the money is spent

[myownboot]

anyways, another thing I fund kind of ironic is how in Kerry's campain a big criticizm of Bush was deficit spending, and that democrats were supposed to be more fiscally responsible, and Obama comes along and spends more money in one year than Clinton did in an entire term, and outs us into MASSIVE Debt[/QUOTE]

historically, republicans were supposed to be in favor of smaller government which includes reduced federally spending and programs, and democrats were in favor of a larger federal government which would include more government spending (ie roosevelt and his new deal). However, I am convinced this is not a position either party holds anymore. I agree, i think it's entirely ironic, but both parties are basically the same imo.

[T.Beck]

I totally agree with the above comment. Both parties are big government spenders, they just have slightly different opinions on how the money should be spent.

[T.Beck]

There should have been far more uproar in this country when Bush did that. Millions of people marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks perhaps. No such luck
A lot of the money has been wasted though, much closer tabs should have been kept on how the money is spent

Yes to the uproar on Czar Bush ending Habeas corpus, average Joe 6 pack doesn't know what that even means though, thats the problem.

I agree that Bush's deficeit spending in good economic times was terrible and got the spending ball rolling but you are exactly right on that it needs to be paid closer attention as to what the money is being spent on. Problem is with Obama, his first economic stimulus Bill could not even be seen by those in congress until midnight the morning before it had to be voted on, and it was like 800 pages or something, and everyone was told that they had to pass it, now tell me where the checks and balances in that are???

Also, the ways Obama is trying to stimulate the economy have in the past been proven to fail, as can be read about in this BOOK (http://www.mises.org/store/Failure-of-the-New-Economics-The-P337C0.aspx).

Currently there is a Bill gaining support by both parties to Audit the federal Reserve, and have a bit of oversight as to where the Nations money is being spent, and frankly when it is being spent to fun corrupt women beating police forces, like in this story (http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w99.1.html), that is NOT GOOD.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vio2CaMW3og

[myownboot]

i think ron paul's idea is more for completely ridding our country of the federal reserve. which... if you could find stats somewhere on their quarterly profits, you might feel the same (they are not government run, but rather a private bank that loans money to the u.s., and THIS is our national debt. as it has been explained to me, all our tax money does is pays the interest on these loans.)