Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/30/2012 5:53:29 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

The Republican fear is unfounded for a simple reason.

They fear that if they refuse to fund Obama’s spending spree, they will be vilified in the press and punished in the next elections. Not necessarily the case.

To start with, they will get huge pressure for a month or two. But then the pressure will shift, big time, onto the Democrats, from all those reliant on the government teat. At that point, all the Democrats and MSM finger pointing will be ignored, because of the anguished cries of the 47%.

At that point, the Republicans can just retreat into their shells, leaving the Democrats to get viciously pounded. Then when the Democrats have had enough, the Republicans can extend a spending cuts olive branch.

No more money for you to waste, but you can maintain *some* spending, and you must agree to tax cuts for everybody.

At first the Democrats will bitterly refuse, but it will cause some major cracks in their dam, individual members will start to jump ship, and their party discipline will crumble.

And it will be a very, very long time until the midterm elections.


2 posted on 11/30/2012 6:03:32 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

This is what happens when you let stupid people’s votes count the same as the intelligent votes.


3 posted on 11/30/2012 6:05:24 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Politicians (most, but not all, Democrats) noticed that homeownership was associated with a number of social goods -- steady employment, social engagement, high test scores for children -- and decided that the homes were causing the other benefits. Make home ownership more broadly available by making mortgages easier to get, ran the logic, and everyone would benefit.

False assertion. Libs aren't concerned whether lower income Americans can benefit financially and socially, other than as a means to sell the idea. The real intent is to derive and maintain political power from the masses through institutional graft, bribery and fraud under the guise of "fairness". Even the republicans couldn't resist getting in on the scheme. When it all collapses, libs blame it on the fat cat bankers and the old rich white guys and retain power from the same financially unstable people who had no business taking on a home mortgage in the first place. There is no immediate down side for libs in this scenario.

5 posted on 11/30/2012 6:16:46 AM PST by TADSLOS (No need to watch the movie "Idiocracy". We're living it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 (the actual cut off for those Mr. Obama refers to as "millionaires and billionaires")

The traditional meaning of "millionaire" was someone with $1M in assets, not someone with an annual income of $1M or more.

6 posted on 11/30/2012 6:21:44 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The Repubs could come up with an immortality elixir and they would be vilified for putting doctors and morticians out of business - no sense in worrying about it and it should serve to free them from caving even when they know it’s bad for the Nation. Sadly, they don’t care about the Nation near as much as they claim...


7 posted on 11/30/2012 6:32:30 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
"The president, the article tells us (not that we didn't surmise this already), is determined to reduce income inequality."

He can't reduce the gap by making the poor richer, so, he's just trying to make everyone poor.

8 posted on 11/30/2012 6:45:36 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Obama's jihad on the "wealthy" is simply his Marxist point of view. He actually believes that everyone who makes "too much" money is doing so by exploiting the workers. This is pure Marxism if not communism. Unfortunately at least 47% of the population has been brainwashed by the media and Democrat propaganda into believing this crap and a sizable number of other people who should know better have swallowed the lie too. That is why Obama was re-elected.

Perhaps the only way to jolt people back to reality is to let Obama take us further down the road to serfdom. It is a dangerous plan because we as a nation may slip too far to come back. However, I think there will come a point when most of those who expect free health care, free birth control, free phones, free college education etc. will realize these freebies come with an awful price. When the US starts to look like the former East Germany, shoddy, drab and hopeless, but with the few inner party members enjoying the good life, they will wake up. Remember that when people in East Germany reached a point where they could not stand conditions anymore they fled and the country would have been emptied except for building the infamous wall. Maybe that is what it will take to get America back on track.

9 posted on 11/30/2012 7:02:55 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
He'd still favor an increase in the capital gains rate, he explained, for the sake of "fairness."

This from the man who shamelessly lets his fellow citizens pay for his and his family's entertainment to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars a year.

11 posted on 11/30/2012 7:23:29 AM PST by Texas Eagle (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Come to think of it, if we are paying 1.2 billion dollars a year to pay for Ubama's family's recreational activities, how much are we paying to pay for EVERY Congressholes family's vacations?

And then there's all the "conventions" for sundry bureaucracies and vacays for Cabinet members, Czars, etc.

I'll bet that number comes close to the same 80 billion.

12 posted on 11/30/2012 7:26:48 AM PST by Texas Eagle (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
From the article:

"... Despite budget pressures, he (Obama) made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college."

This is total BS and feed-trough politicking. No one should be offered publicly funded higher schooling if proof has not been shown that the applicant has taken advantage of that which has already been provided at no cost to him/her.

For most employers, candidates who have attained competence by means of public education, with standards prevalent in -- say -- the 1950s (prior to federal intervention), would be adequately prepared for most non-professional jobs of this day.

We now have fifty years of history since government-backed student loans were instituted. These loan programs have ruined the quality of both public and private institutes, education standards, and competence of typical class-room instructors, IMHO.

We've gone from zero unpaid student loan debts and nearly all graduates able to select a choice from several offers, to 1 TRILLION negative balance, with "college graduates" unable to find jobs today -- is this misplaced compassion that has benefitted only those providing "educational services"??

(From personal experience and observation through that half-century of student "loans" theft of public funds.)

13 posted on 11/30/2012 7:51:11 AM PST by imardmd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Mona’s not helping.
Obama’s not a socialist. Real socialists don’t take 20 day vacations in Hawaii. Real Socialists don’t go golfing. They’re too busy trying to implement socialism for wasteful things like vacations. Obama’s just a grifter.....a con man....a pickpocket......a loud-mouthed thief. He throws this act out of “Ohhhhhh.....be afraid of me! I might want to put you in a collective! Boo!” And the Republicans wet their pants. Is Harry Reid a socialist? How about Nancy Pelosi? Not one real socialist in the whole stupid bunch. Boehner should introduce a bill saying that the President and all nationally elected officials and all public employees in the D.C. Area have to grow and eat their own food. Man, don’t get in Pelosi’s way when she resigns and high tails it back to Frisco. See how socialist those old grifters are when they have to start pulling weeds and milking cows.


14 posted on 11/30/2012 9:23:55 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson