Obama proves black people have not evolved enough.

To be able to handle the responsibility and pressures of high political offices. He is incapable of formulating his own thought process merely a slave still to his masters on the plantation.

Maybe another 5 or 6 decades from now they will do better next time.

 

Dang Joe, tell us how you really feel. You sure you aint from South Carolina???

I think he is a smart man. I also thinks he thinks he is smarter than anyone else. You can tell by the way he is easily agitated by questions about his decisions. If you dont agree with him, then you are of no consequence to him.

It is hard for a person with this personality type to have 'true' friends, and most people they hang out with are those that report to him, and really have no choice.

 

Well they gotta keep the niggas down cannot allow them to be conservative minded. Gots ta keep dem niggas on the plantation.

Haha! Check this out!

Obamanomics: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Pretty stupid.

Watching Fox News Sunday, I caught a panel on which Obama economic advisor Austin Goolsbee conceded that the administration had previously predicted unemployment would top out at around 8%, that it was now up to 9.4%, and that double-digit unemployment was a distinct possibility in the near future. Goolsbee didn't resort to the administrations's blather about "saving or creating jobs," but he did repeat its fustian about how last month's loss of 345,000 jobs (resulting in a half percentage point jump in the jobless rate) is somehow good news because it beat predictions (I don't recall him saying whose) of even more dire loss numbers. It made me wonder why, if those predictions either existed or were serious, the Obama administration would have previously predicted that unemployment would top out at 8%?

Goolsbee then laughably intimated that the steep jump in the jobless rate could be attributable to hopeful signs that the economy is improving. Huh? See if you can follow this: He says flashes of hope that we are on the verge of a revival have purportedly caused previously uncounted jobless people to seek (but not find) work — that is, they waited out prosperous times, deciding to leap into the job hunt only when hundreds of thousands of heretofore gainfully employed people got pink-slipped and began competing for a declining pool of jobs. Of course, why shouldn't Goolsbee think he can get away with these fables when the Obamedia has taken to repeating them verbatim? Witness the headline on page one of yesterday's Wall Street Journal: "Slower Job Losses Lift Hopes" — I'm sure that's exactly the headline Bush would have gotten after a half-point jump in an already sky-rocketing jobless rate.

If that weren't enough to make your head spin, Goolsbee also blamed Obama's handling (i.e., nationalizing) of the auto industry on . . . President Bush. Obama, you see, was saddled with this mess because Bush — over the objections of his own party — decided back in December to raid billions in public money intended for bailing out the financial sector in order to bail out the automakers.

Again, how stupid does he think we are? Bush's move came after then President-elect Obama implored him to take action to stave off the collapse of the auto-industry. This was one of the major topics of their meeting in the White House on November 11, covered here by the Wall Street Journal. Back then, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid were already urging Bush to study whether — regardless of how Democrat sponsored auto bail-out legislation fared — the president already had the authority to divert financial sector bail-out funds for Detroit. So it was that when Republicans defeated the auto bail-out bill December, Bush, at the urging of Obama and the Democrats, made one of the worst gaffes of his presidency by extending over $17B in government "loans" to GM and Chysler. For the Obama/Democrat line to now be that Bush foisted this mess on the new administration, and that Bush is to blame for Obama's geometric exacerbation of the problem, is breathtaking.

Finally, Goolsbee explained that it was unfair to accuse President Obama of a flip-flop just because he is now amenable to taxing employer-provided health benefits despite arguing during the campaign that it was shameful for Senator McCain to suggest taxing employer-provided health benefits. After all, Goolsbee elaborated, the initiative to tax the benefits is not Obama's idea; it is an idea of top Democrats (with whom the White House closely coordinates) to which Obama is listening because he's just that kinda open-minded guy. Uh-huh.

 

Hey stupid asses you do not have to hear "theory" anymore see liberalis in action

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead: Kevin Hassett

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.

I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

At issue is Obama’s policy to end the deferral of multinational taxation.

The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.

Tax Burden

U.S. firms have nonetheless prospered because our tax code allows a business to set up a subsidiary in a low-tax country. When that subsidiary earns profits, they are taxed at the rate of that country, and don’t face U.S. tax until the money is mailed home.

The economically illiterate partisan Democratic view is that this practice is unpatriotic and bleeds jobs from the U.S. The economic reality is that American companies use this approach to acquire market share overseas. The alternative is losing the business to foreign competitors.

Don’t just take my word for it. A recent paper by Harvard economists Mihir Desai and C. Fritz Foley and Berkeley economist James Hines and published in the distinguished American Economic Review, gathered data on American multinationals to explore the impact of foreign investments on domestic U.S. activity.

Encourage Overseas Sales

Their conclusion was striking. The authors found that “10 percent greater foreign capital investment is associated with 2.2 percent greater domestic investment, and that 10 percent greater foreign employee compensation is associated with 4 percent greater domestic employee compensation. Changes in foreign and domestic sales, assets, and numbers of employees are likewise positively associated; the evidence also indicates that greater foreign investment is associated with additional domestic exports and R&D spending.”

So when firms expand their operations abroad, taking advantage of the lower foreign tax rates, it helps their workers in the U.S. Higher sales abroad (surprise, surprise) are good for domestic workers.

It is worth noting that this study, which is confirmed by a boatload of evidence elsewhere, was coauthored by the same James Hines who recently wrote a sweeping review of international tax policy with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers. Summers has to know what the literature says.

Inexplicable Stance

So the question is, why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”

I have to admit I am at a loss. Maybe it is good politics to bash American corporations, and Obama isn’t really serious about making this change happen. But if the change is enacted, and domestic corporate taxes aren’t reduced to offset the big tax hike, the result will be a flight from the U.S. that rivals in scale the greatest avian arctic migrations.

If that occurs, the firms that stay in the U.S. will be at such a huge tax disadvantage that they will absolutely need a “rescue.”

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

 

Holy racism Bat-Man!

 

You liberals always want to scream racism *yawn* you're beginning to loose your credibility.

Imagine the outrage if Rush Limbaugh made jokes about Obama's daughters being raped by a basketball player.

It just becomes more and more obvious.

Next thing they will be saying they killed Osama Bin Ladin to distract from the obvious.

 

Why do you keep calling me a liberal?? I was just pointing out that you were being extremely racist, it has nothing to do with politics. Go and re-read the title of this thread then look up racism in the dictionary.

 

Schmed your liberal that is unless you are changing your positions in light of the obvious. But please explain specifically how my headline is racist?

Buck up muster some courage and point out specifically how and what was racist about it. BTW it was not racist, but I think it can easily be established that you and your fellow liberals are indeed racist.

 

Your title (try using your and you're correctly sometime) implys that you believe that black people are not as evolved as other races, and because you wrote it, that would imply your race. You obviously believe that you view yourself above black people, I mean really ,really obviously. And here is the definition of the word racism for you.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

You sir are a racist.

I am not liberal, I simply want my beloved country to work, and all this in house bickering (right vs left) keeps us from focusing on real issues. We need to work together if we want to get any where, and right now, whether you or I voted for Obama, he is our president and it is his turn to try things the way he sees fit And he has his work cut out for him, he didnt create the mess the country was left in, he is jsut trying his best to deal with it, and after 4 years, if the American public is not happy with his work he will be replaced. That is how our country has always worked, if you don't like it feel free to leave. The train is leaving the station, get on board.

 

Try using implies, just, and didn't correctly.

Black people having not evolved in the minds of racist liberals. The racists liberals are still keeping the black people on the plantation plain and simple. Show me a black person who stepped out of line getting outside the Socialist mindset and I will show you a black person viciously attacked. Obama is just an uncle Tom a "Magic Negro" to do the liberal bidding of people like Saul Alinsky Saul working behind the scenes pulling Obama's strings.

Being the Liberal that you are you were told like the rest of the sheeple that your rights were being entrenched upon by one George W Bush and his big oil cronies.

The sheeple did not noticed that big oil was not bailed out. The sheeple never noticed (they were not told) that their rights under Obama are infringed upon more then ever.

You Schmed are a Liberal sheeple you wailed, wined and cried like a baby throwing a temper tantrum about Bush obediently doing as you were told, just the same as now defending Obama just as you were told.

One day black people and their culture will evolve beyond the boundaries you liberals put them in and then we will have a successful Conservative Black politician. Of course that's because there will be fewer liberals to keep the black man pinned in at the Democratic plantation.

And why is it you liberals try to hide or deny who you are? When Condoleezza Rice was heckled with racist comments you never complained you or your liberal friends. Schmed you are a liberal and a racist. Admit it.

 

Now I have a few questions for you Joe.

You wrote "Obama proves black people have not evolved enough.
To be able to handle the responsibility and pressures of high political offices."


So who is evolved enough (I can't really believe you wrote that and defend it as not racist)? Who are the "more evolved" race(s) that should be running this country? And how, for the love of god, is that not racist?

I'm not reading in-between the lines, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am simply reading EXACTLY what you wrote. Its a very simple statement, It could not be construed in any other way.

It's okay that you are racist, I don't condone it but I understand that racism exists, but at least own up to your own words and stand behind your convictions.

 

I am simply a patriot. Also, not that it's any of your business , I didn't vote for Obama and I don't approve of his methods so far, but what I am is this... open minded enough to give him and his crew a chance.

 

Nope Schmed wrong again. A conservative Black person could handle the problems we have in our government by simply implying educated, proven conservative principals. And that would make him / our country a success. Instead you racist liberals have fenced the black man in to your failed belief system and doomed him to failure.

When the peoples mindset evolves beyond the "Idiocratic" state that it is in we can then have a successful Black president.

It's society Schmed that has not evolved.

 

No need to be snotty, I agree with you there. But your title was poorly worded at best, and you didn't answer my questions. Maybe you could muster up some courage?

 

A glimmer of hope.

However

You never gave Bush that chance and like the typical sheeple will not judge Obama the same because you will not be told to do so.

If you were a libertarian you would be standing on your rooftop sounding the alarm at the loss of freedoms in America the dismantling of the Constitution. The break neck speed at which America heads towards Socialism. When Obama appointed a judge who would gladly take your property from you and give it to a Democrat campaign contributor. You do not even sound a peep.

Why?

Because weather you know it or not you Schmed are a liberal.

 

I was just taunting you to give me a reply.

What was the question?

 

Oh this question or quazi question statement.

I tried to answer it but it's not really a question.

 

Just the ones up top, but I think you don't think the way the title makes..well you get what I'm saying (poorly worded i think). Also I did give Bush a chance I may even have voted for him the 1st time around. But hell Joe, even the conservatives have admitted he didn't do the best job, while the leftys are screaming bloody murder, its just extremes. But that is neither here nor there right now, we have problems, lets do our best to give the people in charge the best chance of success..makes sense right? NOw hows about you and I stop bickering and maybe find some common ground and maybe, just maybe, the people that visit this site wont think we are psychopaths trying to claw each others eyes out.

And please stop trying to to make me mad by calling me a liberal, I'm a middle of the road nice guy Wasn't always but I am now, with age comes wisdom...I hope.

 

Actually it was strategically worded.

You know people love to talk past tense about why something happened and place the blame on the viewpoint they are opposed to.

Why not debate the future rather then the past?

In the year 2012 what will be the cost of a gallon of milk? A pack of batteries for your camera? A gallon of gas for your car? The kilowatt hour rate for the electricity in your home?

Will prices be up or down?

Will average income be up or down?

Will employment be up or down?

And given the answer to these predictions please tell me why.

 

Also I have to go now, dinner plans, Sushi anyone? Have a nice evening Joe. (and anyone else who has read this far can feel free to have a nice evening also, but I think it's just you and I at this point Joe)