October 14, 2009 - 10:14 a.m. EST
Let’s start out by stating how Obama got elected. Obama got elected by the 21-40 age group plus some others. That’s how Adolph Hitler got elected also. After Hitler got elected, one of the first things he did was nationalize Germany’s industry. “The German people said that’s probably good for the economy.” Obama did the same with General Motors, Chrysler, etc.
Next, Hitler took over the banks and financial institutions. They were owned or run by some of the Jewish families. “The Germans said it doesn’t involve me so why get excited?” Obama bailed the banks out in the United States and had them conform to his policies.
Obama picked a group of people to answer only to him, he calls them “czars.” Hitler picked a group of people to answer only to him, he called them the “Gestapo.” The Germans started getting a little nervous. Now Obama’s working to change the health system. I’ll make this short because it’s 1,100 pages long. One of the things Obama’s trying to do is take away a lot of the Medicare for the elderly, developmentally disabled and handicapped because of the cost to take care of them. He wants to have a panel, picked by him, to see if they’re worth it. Hitler had a similar program to kill the ones with health problems.
If health care is given to the millions of illegals, guess what will happen? I doubt if there will be anybody left in Mexico except the very rich. We will be flooded with illegals to get in on the gravy train.
Also, it’s in the bill to have your tax dollars pay for abortion.
Obama had his education secretary send videos to all schools in the U.S. to indoctrinate his views. Hitler did the same thing by indoctrinating all kids from fifth grade on up. We all know it was very successful. The kids even turned their own parents in to the Gestapo.
The Germans finally woke up, but it was too late. Let’s not let this happen in America, so wake-up, America.
Bob Elbers
Reese
Home
Discuss story 
iPod friendly version
October 14, 2009
12:13 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Bob come on....GM and the bank bailout was started with Bush, not Obama. Comparing Obama with Hitler is asinine. Get off Fox news and get a grip.
October 14, 2009
12:50 p.m.Report inappropriate content
I would like Mr. Elbers to tell me where he got his information regarding President Obama having his education secretary send videos to all schools in the U.S. to indoctrinate his views. I am unaware of any such video and I hardly live beneath a rock -- I would be amazed if I missed that announcement somewhere. Was he speaking of the President's address to our students, shown on national TV? That particular address proved to be something every student should have watched. It was not political in nature. This particular Letter to the Editor appears to be nothing more than another misguided and uninformed individual who gets his news from the Enquirer or the local coffee shop.
October 14, 2009
1:33 p.m.Report inappropriate content
If Obama finishs his term it will be the first job he ever had that he saw till the end. It will take him that long to pay back all the crooked people that put him in office. I would never have believed that the American public could be so stupid to elect such an unproven man. His has already did more harm to this country than all ahead of him. But don't worry he will have the weekend off.
October 14, 2009
1:58 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Anyone that refers to Hitler is just admitting they're both scared and irrational. Don't worry, Bob, we won't let the boogieman get you :)
October 14, 2009
4:08 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Sounds like a bunch of sore losers.
It's great that we finally have a president with a brain instead of the idiot that we had to endure for the previous 8 years.
tomthumb, i helped put obama in the presidency and I'm not crooked. The American people voted him in and we're not all crooked. It is our legislators that are the crooked ones. Every law that has been passed by our legislators over the past 50 years is corrupt. Our politicians take in millions in bribes from special interest groups and pass corrupt laws.
October 14, 2009
8:05 p.m.Report inappropriate content
I agree with woodb55.
I've said it several times before, until we make them pass a law that outlaws non-voter contributions we are subsidizing the corruption. Why does someone in South Carolina need to pay your senator? What do they get for their money?
It's a simple law, if you can't vote for the candidate, you can't contribute.
October 15, 2009
9:31 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I just watched a documentary on F.D.R. ,what Obama is trying to do is just what F.D.R. did.
During F.D.R. presidency the Federal Government took over the banks .Stopped foreclosures,set a minimum daily wage ,
Established the NRA this was the National Recovery Act.
Of course F.D.R. had his critics,just like Obama has.
I am convinced that without the actions by Congress and F.D.R. the United States would not have recovered from the Great Depression.
We know that it took the second world war to finally pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression .
Things have changed now where it makes it so much more difficult to make change in the U.S. financial well being.
The number one change from F.D.R'S presidency is we no longer have a robust manufacturing base in America.
And we now have 24-7 news and the Internet . This gives the obstructionist an avenue to stop any progress that is helpful to all Americans.
I do not see how anyone in Washington can make progress that is positive.
What I do know is that a steady drumbeat from the far right is not helping the working man.
Also someone in their infinite wisdom in Washington better come to the realization that without a U.S. manufacturing base America will never have a robust economy.
In 1928, 33 % of the population made a living off the farm . Now it is less then 2% . This makes it that much harder to get the county moving again without a manufacturing robust manufacturing base.
Also we Americans must take the blame for the demise of America's manufacturing base. We all want a cheap product even if that product is from a country that uses unfair trade policies to low ball the price. We all will run to Wal-Mart and buy that product made in China. This causes American's to become unemployed.
I will add one more comment,the Supreme Court reversed all the NRA Act in F.D.R.'S 5th year in office throwing the U.S. back into another depession.It took a world War to put America back to work
October 15, 2009
11:33 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Bob,
The problem with your article is that all the people disagreeing with you studied "revisionist history".. Also, he did not just purge Germany of Jews and the infirm. He murdered millions of healthy Germans also who did not share in his dream of the Third Reich. As far as I can tell nothing in your article was wrong, yet the people opposed to our way of thinking are so intrenched in the way of the left you might as well be talking to the wall. They refuse to admit that Hitler was also a hard core socialist. That's what he was preaching in the Beir Gartens. "Socialism" ie. "Wealth Redistribution" Take it away from the rich Jews and give it back to the people.. Sort of what Obama is pushing in his Robin Hood aproach to government.
I lived in Augsburg,Germany for 39 months, walked through the Dachau concentration camp a couple of times, drank beir and talked to many German people there about the war and all of them basically told me the same story you laid out here. The same could be said about Joe Stalin. Only comrade Stalin killed quite a few million more inocents than Hitler did. I guess that's the minor difference between Facist Socialism and Communism.
October 16, 2009
4:36 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Bob and Patrick,
Did you two miss that Hitler in mein kompt and in practice made the main article of Nazism the Ayrian supremacy? Nazis put mulatos thru forced sterilization and imprisoned or executed them. And you claim Obama is a white supremist, are you color blind? The Facist of Japan were not socialist, but were for racial purity also. Many countries are sociaist but oppose Nazism and Communism.
Which party and groups are closer to Nazism with racial purity, the right wing (the old, white, and southern party) or the left wing (with liberals, blacks, hispanics, youth, unions, gays and women)? Read Mein Kompt it is almost all about right wing racial and sexual supremacy and anti the very groups you attack.
Now tell me are you closer to the liberals with their minority allies or closer to the Nazis with their right wing allies?
Talk about revisionist history, but you two sure have nerve.
October 16, 2009
4:47 p.m.Report inappropriate content
"If health care is given to the millions of illegals, guess what will happen? I doubt if there will be anybody left in Mexico except the very rich. We will be flooded with illegals to get in on the gravy train."
I love this quote and believe it patently true. Ergo, Mexican citizen's are a hell of a lot smarter than Mr. Elbers and those that agree with him. They would uproot their families and abandon their country, leaving it and absolutely everything to the rich, in exchange for U.S. government run health care and it's risks, something he and those who agree they want nothing to do with. Most intelligent argument I've heard to date!
October 16, 2009
6:18 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Seems to me we contributed significantly to the democratization of much of Europe during and after WWII. Now look what they've all gone and done. Completely ruined their economies and decimated their middle class making most European citizen's of third world countries living in desperate poverty. How you may ask? By mandating either government run health care or cost restrictions on health care. I pity them all!!
Hey shouldn't they be beating the Mexican citizen's by all coming to the U.S.A. right now?
October 16, 2009
7:17 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Wkoper,
The main reasons why they don't flock here are the fact that they would have to be dropped off shore and swim in to avoid customs and imigration and secondly there really isn't much difference these days between Europe and the US.
The Mexicans have nothing and we have no border restrictions. So they all flock here. Instead of spending my tax dollars on welfare programs for them here why not concentrate on improving the way of life in Mexico so they wouldn't need to come here in the first place. I suggest the first place to start is with the drug cartels which basically terrorize the Mexicans so why not include them in our war on terror? Oh yea, I forgot. The US government would never do that as it would mean that we wouldn't need such a large DEA force. Illegal drugs = big government and isn't that what the left loves? Big Govt.? Besides. Napolitano doesn't call it a war on terror anymore. It's referred to as an "Overseas Contingency Operations". Now all terrorist actions are now termed "Man Made Disasters".
October 16, 2009
7:21 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Wkoper,
So it's just a coincidence that France and Germany are now realizing the mistake of embracing socialism and are now moving to the right? Their economies were in shambles because of socialism. Before the big recession hit too.
October 16, 2009
8:18 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Warren
Here's something to think about.
Obama has told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with.
This guy makes me think of the Nazi's
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar.
Back in 1977 He co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, a 1000 page book called "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment"
Here's where he sounds just like a Nazi from 1940 and this is what they had to say..
"To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
To accomplish this goal this is how they wanted to go about it. They wanted to force single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implant sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. Also to help speed things up they wanted to develope a "world government scheme" they called the "Planetary Regime", which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty. (Could this be the well funded "Civilian Force" Obama advocated during his campaign speeches?)Makes me wonder where Obama got that idea.
Yea, I know. Now that he works for the Messiah he denounces all that stuff, but don't you find it odd that Obama would surround himself with such a man and then tell you to judge him by who he surrounds himself with? sure makes me wonder.
Don't believe it? Get the book and read it.
Here's another one that worries me.
Anita Dunn, White House Spokes Person. Who states that one of two of her favorite political philosophers is good old Chairman Mao. No, I don't think she's a Marxist. She's a Maoist and one of the communist's most "Useful Idiots".. Does she not know that Mao murdered tens of millions of poor Chinese to gain and maintain power? This was after the war against the Nationals... Just another one of the people I judge Obama by.
How many actual people with "GOOD WHOLESOME" histories does he have surrounding him? Find one for me and maybe I'll start judging him differently.Until then my mind is made up. No doubt, I'll end up in Obama's gulag for thought retraining after Congress funds his new "Civilian Force" He talked about during his campaign.
October 16, 2009
10:42 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick and Bob, I think you both ought to move to Canada or Mexico or somewhere safe. You both are obviously wise beyond your years and should use that great vision and knowledge you both have to save yourselves before it is too late.
October 16, 2009
10:44 p.m.Report inappropriate content
BREAKING NEWS!!! THIS JUST IN!!!
Obama wins Heisman trophy after watching one college football game.
October 17, 2009
12:33 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick,
Real clear politics has an article saying Holden was a co author, meaning there was more than one author and which of those authors wrote the comments you refer to is not clear. The article also says "When I called Holdren's office, I was told that the czar "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility." The article also said the book was from the early 70's.
So you went back to quotes from 35 to 40 years ago from a source that may or may not be Obama's science czar to use comments that are not relevant to establish that Obama is a Nazi? Did you miss the point that Nazis sterilized mulatos and Obama is not supporting a movement that is based upon the superiority of the ayrian race?
October 17, 2009
1:39 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Yes The president was elected by the people. Omaha was broke 9 years ago and now he is rich? Was the Bush years that bad or only the lame duck years? Knowing our past mistakes will help shape us into a stronger country,this will be done by level headed honest US citizens, it takes a clear thinking person to solve a problem, with the help of alot of other clear thinkers, those without other motives.
October 17, 2009
6:36 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Warren,
Since it was from the 70's it doesn't matter? By the way it was 1977 By my calculations 77 was not early 70's. The friggin' book was published! Check it out for yourself before you dismiss it as right wing propaganda.. He was an author! It exists! For one second, if possible, open your mind to the possibility that things just might not be as you are told by the talking heads at MSNBC..
By signing on as a "co-author" You are a contributor to the book as a whole. I didn't see where he only signed on to just 1 chapter. So evidently he agrees with the premis of the book.
I never said that Obama was a Nazi.. So stop with the Mulatos crap.. I said there are parralels forming of actions/philosophies between them. Socialists are nothing more than communists that act a little bit nicer in general. Both idiologies are basically a good idea, but in both cases they need to be evil to come to fruition. To socialize a society you will need to first purge it of all opposition. ie. People who think like I do. Stalin ,Mao and Hitler all murdered to achieve their goals. The question is this. What wil lyou do to help the left achieve their goals??
I want to keep what is mine and do not want to donate my labor to the cause. My labor is mine and mine alone. The fruits of my labor are for my immediate family and anyone else of MY repeat MY choosing. Not some czar appointed by the messiah.
October 17, 2009
6:40 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Hey Vito,
I thought the New York Family had you "Whacked". Something about a pool que. You know, after your little escapade with the firefighter/Johnny Cake cook at the diner upstate?
October 18, 2009
10:03 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick,
Socialism is an economic system as opposed to capitalism.
Communism is a political system as opposed to democracy.
There are many socialist democracies like Sweden, Finland, Norway and Brazil that are democracies and have not purged the opposition through violent means as you claim.
Most countries have a combiniation of socialism and capitalism for their economic system and socialism was a very important part of turning America into a super power. For example Hoover Dam, rural electrification, public schools, police and fire protection, social security, medicare, public land/parks are not capitalism.
Can you tell me even one great country that was pure capitalism? There has never been even one has there?
As for purges, I am part Indian and it is not lost on me that there were 100,000,000 Indians in America when Columbus arrived, how many are there today?
You tell me I need to open my mind whole you say you would never vote for a liberal, now that is open minded?
October 18, 2009
8:31 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Warren, I don't even know where to begin.
Are you trying to tell everyone here that Socialism is an economic system, yet capitolism is not??? Get real.. What has more to do with an economy than capitolism?? Where does socialisim exist with out some form of capitolism, no matter how limited, first to generate the CAPITOL that SUPPORTS the redistributive mindset of socialisim???? You are soooo wrong.
Now you are trying to tell us that Communisim is a political system yet Democrocy is not??? How many people in a communist society have the priveilege of a secret ballot to elect their leaders? Right. NONE.. By what do you come to that conclusion?? What school did you learn that in?? MSNBC's school of whatever??
I doubt you could attend any of todays far left universities and ever hear either of those statements from even the most leftist profesors anywhere! Even they are not that dumb. Socialisim cannot even exist without some form of capitolisim. You need capitolisim to make the money that socialisim redistributes... Use your head.. Communist China is really not totally communist anymore. Bill Clinton, by granting China "Most Favored Trade Status" turned it into a communist/socialist/capitolist dictatorship. Now they use western style capitolisim to generate money to fund their socialistic society ruled under an iron dictatoristic fist.. Yes, China purges the free thinkers.. Remember Tienemin Square? How many of those students are still in prison or dead?????
Even the Chinese understand that they need capitolisim as part of their economic system to survive. Socialisim is not economic at all. It's an ideology.. A way of redistributing the capitol. Capitolisim by definition = economy.. Capitol is money.. Money is what any economy is based upon.. You are way out there and need to stop smoking so much dope and start thinking straight.
October 20, 2009
3:38 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Definition of Capitalism
"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com
This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Source: Capitalism.org
In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable.
October 20, 2009
3:46 a.m.Report inappropriate content
socialism
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
October 20, 2009
2:40 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Well Vito if what you say is correct then it would seem that we are trending towards communisim/socialisim. Obama has nationalized some of the bigger banks, two of the big three car companies, The mortgage industry and now he wants to nationalize the health industry. All of which takes freedom away from the people.
October 20, 2009
10:55 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd....you are an idiot......there is no way to argue with stupidity.....please learn to read the entire post....
October 21, 2009
11:46 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Vito,
How's Johnnycakes? Still got that pool stick?
October 22, 2009
5:21 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd, I have no idea what you are talking about but then more than half the time you don't know what you are talking about either. Somewhere in that sick twisted mind of yours I'm sure there is a logical explanation, but I'm really not interested in hearing it.
October 23, 2009
10:01 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Vito,
You're the typical liberal. You guys can dish it out, but you can't take it..
It was a reference to the Vito on the HBO series, The Sopranos.. You know, the misguided mobster who fell in love with the fireman / short order cook at the local diner and was subsequently "whacked" by his mobster brother in law for disrespecting the "Family".. You'll have to ask one of your liberal buddies where the pool stick comes into play.
Lighten up.
October 24, 2009
1:37 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd, you're sick and stupid
October 25, 2009
1:09 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick,
Go back and read my post again, it says the opposite of what you claim.
1-It says Socialism and Capitalism are both economic systems. Think of it as a line with capitalism at one end and socialism at the other end. My point is that countries that are at the extreme end of the that line, too socialist or too capitalist have not done well. The more sucessful countries have had a combination of socialism and capitalism.
2- Communism and democracy are political systems not economic systems. You continue to lump communism and socialism together as an economic system. This is like apples and oranges.Socialist countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Brazil are generally quite socialist but are democracies and definately not Communists.
3- You claim Clinton turned China and it is not really communist any more by giving them most favored nation status.
A- China was granted most favored nation status in 1980, Clinton took office in 1993 as shown in the AllPolitics link below. Would you to explain how Clinton did anything 13 years before he took office? Clinton did the annual renewals.
B- China is still very much a communist nation with no signs of a democracry, they have not changed their political system at all.
What you should have said is that China has abandoned pure socialism and is now a blend of socialism and capitalism which is the economic system.
AllPolitics - Most Favored Nation? - June 23, 1997WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 23) -- Few people expect Congress to ... China was first granted most-favored-nation status in 1980, a trade status ... After Clinton's statement, Congress had 90 days to pass legislation revoking most-favored-nation status; ... Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N. ...
www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/23/china... - Cached - Similar -
Now let the world see if you are man enough to appologize for your veral abuse which was just plain wrong.
October 25, 2009
10:38 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Warren,
I just reread your post. The first sentence was this "Socialisim is an economic system as opposed to capitolisim." Explain that to me
Second setence.
"Communisim is a political system as opposed to democracy."
To the average person that sounds as though you are stating that capitolisim is not an economic system whereas socialisim is and that Democracy is not a political system, yet communisim is.
Forgive me if I misunderstand your terminoligy.
October 26, 2009
4:08 p.m.Report inappropriate content
just the facts:
From 1946 to today, Democratic presidents pushed the deficit up by 3.2 percent per year. Meanwhile, Republican presidents increased the budget deficit by 9.7 percent. In other words, since 1946, Republican presidents have outspent Democratic presidents by almost 3 to 1. So much for the party of fiscal discipline.
October 26, 2009
4:11 p.m.Report inappropriate content
just the facts:
Job Growth Rates under recent(last 8)Presidents.
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
Bush-II (R) 0.3% in 8
No difference between parties?
Democrat = Jobs Republican = No jobs
October 27, 2009
10:02 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I'd say your job facts are highly suspect. By what source did you get them?
How many jobs created by Democrats use private money? Remember that any and all jobs created in the government are funded through tax collections from the private sector and thus are dependent upon those filthy, dirty capitolists you despise so greatly and seek to destroy.
How many has Obama created and where are they?
October 27, 2009
5:18 p.m.Report inappropriate content
source = Bureau of Labor Statistics
Statistics for the current administration obviously cannot be compiled until thier term is complete, however, some statistics will be available after the 1st year is completed.
October 27, 2009
6:28 p.m.Report inappropriate content
It's just that we are all still waiting to hear about those 3 million new jobs generated from the stimulus package we were all supposed to be so exited about. I guess Michigan is not one of the stimulated states.
Today I read that all the rich people in New York City are being taxed so hard that they are leaving in droves. 1 in every 7 people who lived there last year have now left.
Wonder who they plan on taxing now?
October 27, 2009
10:14 p.m.Report inappropriate content
" I guess Michigan is not one of the stimulated states."
Everyone in every other state is SCREAMING about the auto bailout, Obama has taken tremendous political damage for his decision to stand by the auto workers and you have the audacity to whine...I'm speechless.
October 28, 2009
2:35 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Do any of you liberals not care for your sons and daughters ? Then tell me this ... How much of the money Obama is borrowing will be paid back during his administration ? hmmmm ... oh ! I get it ! saddle the next administration with the debt who will have no choice but to inflate the economy and raise taxes even more ... how old will your children be then ? Will they old enough to bear the burden of Obama's choices ? " Ask not what your country can do for you , ask what you can do for your country....." Whatever happened to that ? The man who wrote that was a great American and a Democrat .... Why is it that today , all your party wants to do is take ?
October 28, 2009
8:46 a.m.Report inappropriate content
greglest - perhaps you would like to read the facts again....
From 1946 to today, Democratic presidents pushed the deficit up by 3.2 percent per year. Meanwhile, Republican presidents increased the budget deficit by 9.7 percent. In other words, since 1946, Republican presidents have outspent Democratic presidents by almost 3 to 1. So much for the party of fiscal discipline.
The liberals are not your (our) problem, its conservatives. They have never been able to stop spending your money. You sat by and watched the republicans, year after year, spend the wealth of nations for years into the future, and now suddenly, the light bulb comes on after they've literally broke the world. Greglest, direct your anger at the problem, not the result.
October 28, 2009
11:47 a.m.Report inappropriate content
This article is pathetic. Let's look at the inferences Bob makes:
Inference: Hitler and Obama were elected by the same demographic and therefore will govern similarly.
Fact: Hitler was not elected; he took office after the death of the elected President Paul von Hindenburg.
Inference: The Obama Administration prevented the complete collapse of the American auto industry, and this is bad because...(I'm going to have to go out on a limb to find a way in which this is bad) in doing so he instantaneously created a socialist USA, which is of course, evil.
Interesting thoughts: How would you have reacted if the American auto industry had been allowed to fail? Is moderate socialism an evil thing? (Here let's think about whether or not you like Medicare, Social Security, National Parks, the Hoover Dam, etc.)
Inference: Hitler seized control of banks, the Obama Administration saved the biggest banks to prevent the collapse of the financial system and then instituted regulations to prevent bankers overcome by greed from bringing our entire economy to the brink of collapse again. Therefore...(bear with me, I'm really having to stretch again here) it would have been better to let the economy collapse?
Interesting thoughts: Raise your hand if you would rather have had the financial system collapse. If your hand is up, you might want to investigate what that collapse would entail.
Gestapo: murderous secret police who stole political dissidents from their homes in the middle of the night
Czars: established part of American political system (Obama's is NOT the first administration to use czars, see Bush, George W.)who serve as departmental leaders and advisers.
Interesting thoughts: no connection whatsoever
All of Bob's statements regarding healthcare are completely false, and textbook examples of fear mongering. And yes, I have read the bill. The Medicare cuts proposed are to the Advantage prescription program (which my grandparents just mentioned to me the other night costs them more than before), THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS!! I really don't know how to make that more clear. That is a lie perpetuated by fear caused by blatant and pervasive ignorance. Healthcare WOULD NOT apply to undocumented immigrants, so that one was a boldfaced lie Bob, but even if it did data shows that undocumented immigrants contribute about 3 times more in taxes than they draw even from those programs where they are allowed to. Please don't just regurgitate ignorant racism, think for yourself. Regarding abortion's role in the healthcare bill, I encourage everyone to actually read the language of the bill to see what it says. If you then have a problem, contact your representative and tell them to amend it. That is how the democratic process works, its called compromise. Simply scrapping every piece of legislation because there is one clause everyone can't agree on IS NOT DEMOCRACY, it's stupid and childish.
October 28, 2009
11:49 a.m.Report inappropriate content
The last bit that didn't quite fit:
Seriously Bob, did you watch that video Obama made for the students? He encouraged them to work hard and reinforced the idea that America is a land of great opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve the American Dream. I guess now that I write that it does sound awfully Socialist/Communist/Fascist...
I hope everyone could catch the sarcasm there. In closing, I would challenge Bob and everyone else who may read this to grow up and do your civic duty to become informed before you try sticking your nose into the democratic process.
Sorry this was so long, but there was a lot of misinformation in this piece that needed to be clarified.
October 28, 2009
2:06 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Well as far as the auto bailouts go there are not that many people here in Mi that actually work for GM or Chrysler. He only bailed out the UAW.
The stimulus should be spent on small business which employ over 70% of ALL Americans. Take the town of Caro for instance. The only business here that actually is not a small business is Wal Mart. Literally every other business here is classified as a small business. How much stimulus money have any of those business's recieved? Either through an outright bailout to a tax break?
Granholm is an idiot. While it's a good idea to push for extended unemployment benefits. I see no clear vision for JOBS! Instead she dreams up more taxes on the companies operating here. That's no way to get them to expand and hire the unemployed. They would rather relocate as many have already done. The answer to all our problems are self sustaining jobs. Not government jobs as they are only funded as long as a self sustaining (private sector)job is in operation and paying the taxes to finance the government.Put all those people back to work and guess what? The healthcare problem deminishes, the state no longer needs to borrow from the Fed. Govt to pay unemployment benefits and the list goes on and on.
Road repair jobs are a good thing, but they are not the answer to a failing economy. The money spent on them first has to be borrowed from China and paid back with intrest and what happens when the road is built? What job do you send that worker to? As far as that subject goes. Can anyone here tell me how it has been literally ALL summer that the Cass River bridge on Chambers road is still not built? Tell me they aren't milking that job for all it's worth.
It shouldn't take over a month to build a bridge of that size. For all you feel gooders out there. How much extra carbon emissions are spewed into our atmosphere from having to detour the extra miles? Better get that bridge built and open before the planet bursts into flames...
Lastly,
Yes the Republicans have spent too much money. WAYYYY TOOO MUCH. However, you cannot use that argument to justify the fact that Obama is doubling down on it. If it was wrong for the Republicans to spend so much that it surely is wrong for Obama to spend even more.
October 28, 2009
9:36 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd's world -
"Well as far as the auto bailouts go there are not that many people here in Mi that actually work for GM or Chrysler. He only bailed out the UAW."
Autoworkers - 47,000
Suppliers - 18,800
Vehicle & Parts Dealers - 54,400
Basically 120,000 families patrickd feels are insignificant. Fortunately, President Obama thought they were important to our economy and our communities.
"Yes the Republicans have spent too much money. WAYYYY TOOO MUCH."
Enough said. They have not learned a single thing and can not be trusted ever again. For last 60 years, Republicans have mismanaged the economy at every given opportunity, don't ever let them get in that position again.
October 28, 2009
10:47 p.m.Report inappropriate content
54,000 out of millions of others who do not. Do the math. That's a lot of cash to temporarily sustain 54,000 jobs. A lot of good it will do them when as the economy travels further south and fewer people have the ability to buy new cars. Like I said. It was a union bailout. Why should the rest of us be forced to fork over increased taxes to maintain some saps sweet union contract when most of us have none? There should have been some major concessions from the UAW and it's members. Do you think those UAW members care about Obama's health care plan? Hell no. They already have Blue Cross paid for by me, the bail out tax payer. On the other hand their union boss's are pushing for it so they can dump their members from that expensive Blue Cross contract and put that money in their own coffers and will justify the continued charge to the employer as an "administrative cost"
October 28, 2009
10:49 p.m.Report inappropriate content
And yet you trust the Democrats as they continue the policy of over spending..
Enough said...
October 29, 2009
11:44 a.m.Report inappropriate content
WOW! A whole 30,000 jobs saved! All for only 700 billion dollars!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029...
October 29, 2009
12:23 p.m.Report inappropriate content
This is how much the Democrat Party respects the United States of America..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/100...
October 29, 2009
4:10 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick,
You must realize the 30.000 jobs is not the full picture.
The attached link says 330,000 jobs saved in 33 states by the fed stimulus just in state and local government, add the effect of the reduction in payroll taxes and remember that most of the money has not yet been spent.
Further your claim that they are holding the money back to get the votes next year shows a lack of thought. Much of the money will not be spent early enough to help with next years election, but will yield the most results in the long run.
Think about what you are posting Patrick, you are smarter than some of your posts would show. Aren't you a construction worker benefiting from jobs created by stimulus money that came to Michigan and which the state is spending on construction. Did you not benefit by unemployment extentions or lower payroll taxes?
http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/...
October 30, 2009
12:05 a.m.Report inappropriate content
In my book there are no jobs being saved.
How in the world can you say that we saved 330,000 jobs when every month for the past 6 or 7 months there has been a report put out by the U.S. Labor Dept. stating that we have lost anywhere from 1/4 mil to 1/2 million more jobs??? This is each and every month for the past half year..I may not be a math expert, but according to the math teacher I had at the Caro school you are still dealing with a net defecit... There is no + So unless you can explain your insane belief that Obama is somehow creating jobs or that somehow my teacher was wrong in explaining simple addition and subtraction to me I just can't buy into it. Even if you took only one month's report of 500,000 jobs lost. Add 330,000 back to it you still are at -220,000 jobs. What do you say about the other 5 - 6 monthly job loss reports? We have lost millions of jobs this year alone.
October 30, 2009
12:27 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd without any doubt you are not a math expert, 500,000 minus 330,000 is 170,000 not 220,000.....another question I hope doesn't show up on your GED test.
October 30, 2009
10:47 a.m.Report inappropriate content
yea Vito ya got me there! Must be that damned public school I went to. Damn I hate it when a lib is finally right about something.
since you are good at math and can see to correct my subtraction. Why don't you correct Warren's fuzzy math too?
Jeez. you libs are so predictable. I just knew one of you would pipe up correcting that simple subtraction problem postd by a conservative and make my point! Point is you only can add and or subtract when you try to debunct something a conservative puts out there, yet you refuse to debunct Obama's fuzzy numbers.
October 30, 2009
12:52 p.m.Report inappropriate content
WASHINGTON -- About 650,000 jobs have been saved or created under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, the White House said Friday, saying it is on track to reach the president's goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.
New job numbers from businesses, contractors, state and local governments, nonprofit groups and universities were scheduled to be released publicly later Friday. White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein said the figures will show that, when adding in jobs linked to $288 billion in tax cuts, the stimulus plan has created or saved more than 1 million jobs.
October 30, 2009
2:10 p.m.Report inappropriate content
You guys are just too much! If the government put out a statement saying Obama has destroyed all terrorist operations around the world you'd blindly believe that too!
Why do you continue to spout out what they tell you from the Obama administration? How can he have created so many jobs yet the unemployment rate is still pushing 10% If it was 7.5% before the stimulus was enacted to save or create jobs and Obama the messiah has created over 600,000 more jobs since. Explain to us all how it is that the unemployment rate has gone up and not down?? Which is it? You libs are hopeless. You only see the side that you want to.
Yes it may possibly be true that over here 600,000 people got hired to do what ever, but over there you've lost over a million more jobs. You are still in the negative! There were NO jobs created in the net whole which is the only thing that actually counts..
The only thing he did was borrow a trillion$ from the communists and impose a greater tax burden upon my children and grand children. He and Bush both were / are wrong. What will we do when they start squeezing us by refusing to continue to finance our debt? How will you fudge those numbers?
Next November can't get here soon enough. I can't wait to read the posts here after the next election.
October 30, 2009
2:59 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd - Why do make comments? People can turn on their favorite Cluster Fox propaganda anytime they want, no need for you to regurgitate on this forum.
October 30, 2009
7:11 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd....who are you calling the Messiah? You seem to the be the only righteous one, at least according to you. The jobs figures are easy to explain, unemployment would have been higher yet had it not been for the stimulus. The Obama administration claims that they saved or created 650,000 jobs. Without the stimulus you would have to subtract those number (which I realize is hard for you) and thus the unemployment rate is 11-12%. If Obama was the Messiah that you like to refer to him as, I'm sure he would have found jobs for everyone by now. I realize it's hard for someone like you to see things in a positive light when you and your real Messiah, Rush Limbaugh are busy rooting for the President to fail. Just hang in there and maybe devote more time honing your math skills and give your propaganda spreading a rest.
October 30, 2009
8:33 p.m.Report inappropriate content
It's the left who refers to him as a messiah
They key here is the wording used by the administration. Created or Saved. Which is it? As long as there is a net loss there is no creation. As far as you saying you saved 650,000 jobs because of the stimulus you'll have to come up with an explanation as to where that happened. There is no way to say exactly which jobs were saved strictly due to the stimulus let alone exactly how many. So as far as I can see it is nothing more than a number pulled out of their ass at the white house trying to justify their excessive borrowing and adding to the national debt..
October 31, 2009
2:34 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick,
If you had 10 cookies and your mother made 4 more cokies, but you ate 6 cookies, thus you would only have 8 left. Would that mean your mother was telling a lie and did not really make 4 more cookies?
You say the math is fuzzy so maybe we need to lower the math to your level and ability. Sorry we got up into 3rd grade math and confused you.
October 31, 2009
7:54 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Some of the stimulus money was used to save police and teaching positions can you comprehend that? That would be saving a job and I think even a moron like you could count that.
October 31, 2009
2:33 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Police and teraching jobs should not be counted as both are paid from taxpayers and not the private sector which fuels the economy that we are trying to save. The private sector finances those police and teacher jobs through tax revenues taken from workers.
Even a moron like me can see that so why can't you? Government jobs do not exist without private sector jobs to fund them. Why is that so hard to understand? Both those were nothing more than union paybacks..
you two keep pushing those government jobs. Tell me something. If all tax revenues from the private sector suddenly stopped flowing into the government. Where would the government get $ to pay govt workers? I guess Obama would go where he went for the stimulus money. He'd have to borrow it from the Communist Chinese.
The answer is SELF SUSTAINING JOBS.
For you guys that means jobs that pay for themselves. Government has no money it first does not take from someone who has worked for it in the private sector.
So if a moron like me can see this it doesn't say much for your level of intelligence.
October 31, 2009
3:23 p.m.Report inappropriate content
The jobs were saved by the stimulus money because there wasn't enough tax dollars to cover the positions. Who decided that YOU could deem what jobs count and what jobs don't? You seem to be lost in all your hypotheticals. Better check back in with Rush and Sarah.
October 31, 2009
5:41 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrick
I am not going to engage in a duel of wits with you, I don't duel with the unarmed.
November 1, 2009
11:49 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Vito,
I'm just thinking objectively and not emotionally as you are.
The whole thing in Bill Clinton words is.. "It's the Economy Stupid." Where The WHOLE premis of the stimulus was to save the ECONOMY not police and teacher's jobs. Spending such a dispraportionate amount of money to save a government job which is dependent upon a private sector job for it's very existance is simply foolish. Like I said. It was a union payback.
The proper way to think about this if saving a governmet job is your objective is not to borrow money with intrest to temporarily fund such a job, but to invest in the small bussiness sector where the majority of ALL people (taxpayers) work. If you liberals want government jobs to survive you need to support and create the taxpayers whose taxes paid are not first taken from another taxpayer, but are generated through a job that earns it's own way in the economy.
You made my point for me.
October 31, 2009
3:23 p.m.
Report inappropriate content
vito (Anonymous) says...
The jobs were saved by the stimulus money because there wasn't enough tax dollars to cover the positions.
Vito,
Since you obviously see the problem, put away your partisanship and intelligently think about the solution.
Yes I may be a moron as you have previously stated, but in essence, what this and the previous administration has done was use one credit card to pay off another. If that actually worked I'd have a million of them and no worries in life.
What we need are more taxpayers which equates to JOBS JOBS JOBS. When those cops and teachers spend the rest of that money that was allocated to saving their jobs we will be right back where we were before the stimulus. Nothing will be solved, but one thing is a sure thing and that is the Chinese will be wanting their money back and with intrest.
ctober 31, 2009
5:41 p.m.
Report inappropriate content
warren (Anonymous) says...
Patrick
I am not going to engage in a duel of wits with you, I don't duel with the unarmed.
Warren,
Don't get all pissed , take your ball and go home. Step up and give us your counter.
Like I said there were NO jobs created or saved. We are still at a net loss of private sector jobs which are really the ONLY jobs that count in evaluating any economy. Govt. jobs do not generate capitol. Economies run only on money. Without the private sector there would be 0 government jobs to save.
November 1, 2009
9:49 p.m.Report inappropriate content
PatrickD You are not thinking objectively. You are simply a puppet of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and all the other half wits that want this President to fail. The police and the teachers were not the entirety of the stimulus bill they were examples of jobs that were saved or created. You like to change the focal point of all these discussions into something else totally off the subject. We were discussing the number of jobs saved or created. The point you are trying to make about the jobs being lost two years from now is valid, only if the stimulus program fails to rally the economy. You are assuming that everything will be exactly the same two years from now. Your comment to Warren is not accurate either. I think people with government jobs still purchase food, and clothing, drive cars and purchase gas and oil. The economy is based on spending as well, and the more people you have making money and spending that money, the better off the economy becomes. Those government workers that are spending money are saving and possibly creating jobs. The more people working and spending the better the economy.
According to your thinking the construction workers that are making a living from repairing the roads and repairing the infrastructure are not part of the private sector? You have to take into consideration the entirety of the Stimulus Program, whereas you prefer to just focus on certain areas and pass them off as the entirety. I agree with Warren, it's exhausting to argue with someone that has such narrow vision and pessimistic views.
November 2, 2009
11:44 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Vito you are just an idiot.
Yes those construction workers spend money in the economy. What you fail to understand is the fact that they are merely spending BORROWED MONEY. Not money generated by our economy. You are ignorant to the fact that sooner or later we will need to fire up a whole lot of tax payers to pay the loan off. You simply cannot continue to borrow the money to sustain the economy.
If you as a person went to the bank to borrow money to live on. Sooner or later you will come to a point where you must start earning your own money. You could not continue to borrow as eventually you would be so far in debt that you would lose your good credit rating and no longer be able to borrow.
Another thing you fail to realize it the FACT that when the government has to borrow money it is just that BORROWED. That translates to the fact that we must print the greenbacks. They did not exist before we borrowed them. Printing money that is based upon debt devalues the currency as a whole. That translates to inflation. which to bring it down to your level = your dollar loses purchasing power..
Why do you think the world wants to drop the dollar? It's because it aint worth crap anymore because we keep devaluing it..
Why do you think oil costs so much these days? No there is no shortage. It's because oil is traded on the world market in US DOLLARS. It costs more of our devalued greenbacks to buy a barrel of oil these days.
I suggest you consult an economist. An independent economist. Not one of Obama's.
Here's an article written by an African American professor of economics ar Georgetown University. He has been a professor of economics for over 40 years and I'd bet knows far more about the subject that you or I will ever understand. Try reading it with an open mind if you can.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWi...
November 2, 2009
7:28 p.m.Report inappropriate content
It's a waste of time posting to an idiot like you. You are just a puppet for Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Keep spreading your crap and hope you suck some other fool into taking you seriously.
November 2, 2009
10:39 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Well Vito I sure hope you don't run your personal finances the way you seem to think the govt should. There's no doubt I'd be bailing your dumb ass out too.
Did you take the time to read the article by Dr Williams? Or did you simply dismiss all the facts because they are contrary to your leftist/socialist thoughts? I'm getting my facts from a 40 year professor of economics at a major university not pulling them out of my ass. If I'm wrong I suggest you write Georgetown University and demand that they fire Dr Williams immediately. You say I'm an idiot for repeating his teachings than he must be stupid too. Right? Go ahead. Write the letter and show your ignorance of simple economics.
you are obviously too inept to post a rational intelligent counter. All you do is call me a Limbaugh mouthpiece. Stop sounding so idiotic and open your mind. if I and Dr Williams are wrong tell us where, why and show something to back it up. Don't just call me stupid. Point out exactly where in my last post I was wrong and list a reference proving it. Otherwise you just make yourself sound immature by the name calling. As far as Rush Limbaugh goes. I'd say any man who can get a 400 milion dollar contract for talking 3 hours a day 5 days a week must be pretty smart. Sounds like his economic model is working pretty good for him.
November 3, 2009
8:33 a.m.Report inappropriate content
Yes Patrickd I read the article that was written January 30, 2008. Guess who was in the white house then? The article is in response to Bush's tax cuts and I really don't see any points in there to get excited over. I'm not impressed as easily as you seem to be but then I can use a thought process of my own without resorting to ordering people to write to a college to fire someone I don't agree with? What was that? You think anyone actually listens to you? You think your bullying tactics are going to work on adults? What are you five???? I'm done posting on this thread with you if the best you can do is refer me to articles almost two years old that have no relevance to the discussion topic. Rush is laughing at you all the way to the bank too. He's getting rich off guys like you, but what do you get out of it? You get to puppet his thoughts on a blog where very few people actually read the posts. Who's the smart one there?
November 3, 2009
10:48 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I guess your just a hopeless idiot
Vito. Your reading comprehension is lacking greatly. You saw one tiny portion. Tax cuts. Not the big picture.
First it was Fox News was the mouthpiece for the conservatives. Now you claim Georgetown University is. you're just plain laughable.
November 3, 2009
11:34 a.m.Report inappropriate content
How much are you willing to pay for your free healthcare?/ This is from Obama's own CBO.
Right now you can buy a "Caddy" policy for a family for less than Pelosi's plan.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_heal...
November 3, 2009
3:37 p.m.Report inappropriate content
You'll be posting stories from the National Enquirer next.
November 3, 2009
11:09 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Patrickd - you're off in your own world again!
Today, right now, I pay $24,000/year for a family of 4 which consist of your basic 80/20 with $500 deductible, $1500 out-of-pocket with BCBS (nothing near a "caddy" plan). You see paying $10,000 as high? I'd LOVE it.
Tell your medicaid doctor to up the doses.
November 4, 2009
11:28 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I'd say you're getting ripped off then cause for myself and wife with $250.00 ded. we pay roughly 8500.00 yr.
Tell your Dem buddies to fight for interstate competition and maybe we all can save even more.. What do you think of that idea?
November 4, 2009
11:30 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I think that if it cost me 24,000.00 a year I'd just save that money and take my chances on getting sick.
November 6, 2009
7:58 p.m.Report inappropriate content
I am in the middle of purchasing a policy for a family member right now, hard choices there. I am not getting the Caddy policy, more like the Chevy with nice wheels policy.
Still is going to be just under 10 grand a year. I am getting it a bit cheaper because it adds to my existing policy.
I had a $215.00 a month policy last year on him and it ended up costing me a bundle,
between the deductibles and the caps and the co-pays.
CT scans get expensive.
But I figure that the insurance companies need the money for their special interest groups to keep the costs up.
I have an idea, why don't we start our own special interest group/insurance, call it America.
November 8, 2009
4:59 p.m.Report inappropriate content
Source CNN
October 2009 190,000 more Jobs lost.. Unemployment up.. 10.2% was 9.8% in Sept.
Now. How many jobs has Obama created???
November 13, 2009
2:31 a.m.Report inappropriate content
I can't make up my mind who is responsible for voting Obama in, the 6.5% of republics who normally vote but didn't because they would rather not vote for a black dem. and knew that their candidate was useless or the people who actually voted for him. Neither has ant right to complain.
November 13, 2009
1:04 p.m.Report inappropriate content
I voted. I did not vote for Obama. Therefore, I reserve the right to complain..