web analytics

Obama’s Transformational Change

By Patty On January 26th, 2012

Way back in 2008, Barack Obama promised  transformational change if elected.   Boy, oh boy!…did he ever deliver!   Government debt is now greater than 100% of GDP and the government welfare rolls have exploded thanks to deep and lasting unemployment.

 

 

Illustration from American Thinker site here.

25 Responses to “Obama’s Transformational Change”

  1. LOL keep singing that song Patty, its all Obama’s fault that Bush killed the economy and loaded the govt. with debt.

    We all know you want to believe, even if it is a great republican faerie tale

  2. Patty, you are posting anti-semitic images: “In Goy we trust” indeed!
    Could have been written by Allan.

  3. A bit disingenious Patty, and as for the GOP hopefulls they’ll simply ensure a second term for Obama. No wonder Obama is so relaxed. The GOP thats more worried about morminism than the economy…

    Did they never hear Bill Clintons slogan about the economy stupid….

  4. For two painfully long years, 2008- 2009, the Progressive Democrats controlled the Presidency , the Senate and the House of Republicans – they trashed the economy and the country.

    so get real, stop blaming Bush. The Bush years were ones of war and debt – but they pale in comparison to the Obama years.

  5. “In Goy we trust” haha!

    You can’t see it well but Obama is painting with a color called “Radical Red”

  6. Patty,
    Over here they (the politicians) are talking about “responsible Capitalism”. It sounds like the same kind of Capitalism I believe in, but perhaps I’m being naive.
    Anyway the point is that we need the wealth creators, but they still need to pay their taxes, same as the most humble worker does.
    It cannot be right that many struggle to make ends meet, whilst the rich flout/bend the tax laws.
    So I believe Obama is right to tackle them.

  7. If Obama sticks on that theme of all Americans paying their fair share and the superrich no longer getting an easy ride dodging taxes, he is on to a winner and will be re-elected.

  8. Maybe.
    If he were to encourage American companies to relocate back to America that would be even better.
    I would vote for him then.
    IF I were an American:
    which I’m not.
    I’m one of those Bloody English people….. ;)

  9. Agit8ed

    Well the one thing we can ALL (David, Patty, Noel, Pete, Daphne, Mahons, Phantom, etc. etc.) agree on is that Obama is the greatest and most succesfull US President since George W Bush ;)

  10. The Republicans are going to cause him to be re-elected.

  11. You may well be right there, Mahons.

  12. Agit8ed –

    “It cannot be right that many struggle to make ends meet, whilst the rich flout/bend the tax laws. So I believe Obama is right to tackle them.”

    Who’s Obama going to tackle? His major backers in 2008 were Goldman Sachs,, JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America et al. These people have no need to break the tax laws, they write them! There’s a revolving doors between Wall Street and the US Treasury and the City with the Treasury.

    If you want to know what Romney will do, consider that his major backers are Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc.

    It’s not government here, special banking interests over there; it’s one singular government/banking nexus.

  13. Fully agree with you, Patty.

  14. I did not vote Obama last time around though my daughter did (her first time voting and she was very involved). Unless something extraordinary happens soon, I WILL be voting him in November…I cannot bring myslef to vote for Newt or Mitt.

  15. Oh yeah…I’m an independent too…last week (I think) I read here that independents suck or some such thing…I’ll have you know (haha you thought I was going to say something dirty, Colm) that I’m no slagger…nobody AND I MEAN nobody has ever won me over (except A8 and Ernest ’cause I think they’re cute) and this is not different!

  16. eeeerrr this election is no different…;-)

  17. Pete – the main point from this thread is that somebody who visits this site regularly and has seen the statements showing how much backing Obama and the GOP-Establishment candidates get from banks/pharma/weapons corporations is still unaware of the fact. If that’s for somebody here, just think how ignorant the wider public is to the financing of the fake left/right axis.

  18. Allan,

    Sure the big industry boys back the candidates they figure will benefit them. It’s as natural as breathing.

    Tell me what’s wrong with the politicians and the engine, which drives the American economy entering into a symbiontic relationship?

    And, come on Allan; don’t fall back on that old Liberal, Socialist rhetoric about the poor working classes being screwed by the dirty, behind-closed-door deals contrived by rich politicians and industry.

    I was a “poor working class” lad, who toiled 40+ years and managed to stay away from the social welfare (what little was available) and amass and invest, through frugal living and wise choices, enough money to retire without depending on the government to give me handouts I didn’t earn.

  19. Where in Ireland do you come from, Eddie, may I ask?

  20. EDDIE –

    “Tell me what’s wrong with the politicians and the engine, which drives the American economy entering into a symbiontic relationship?”

    Allan@Aberdeen can speak for himself of course, but that symbiotic relationship is fascism and will inevitably allow for corruption.

    If you operate a hot dog stand in New York without a permit your feet wouldn’t touch the floor. One block down, Obama’s mate Jon Corzine bets his clients money, something which is clearly illegal, and loses $1.5 billion and he’s still a free man.

    When you have such a symbiotic relationship between government and banking that it’s impossible to distinguish them, you’ll pretty quickly become a banana republic. These firms operate illegally on a pretty much constant basis yet no-one is ever prosecuted. They’re untouchable. They’re mobs with qualifications.

  21. “When you have such a symbiotic relationship between government and banking that it’s impossible to distinguish them, you’ll pretty quickly become a banana republic.”
    Pete,
    If you believe that then you agree with me thast the whole thing is a nonsense. It’s just competing groups putting up their candidate for election, hoping that somehow they will hoodwink enough people to win the election.
    (Which of course is pretty much the same thing over here!)

  22. Agit8ed –

    Well, yes, in effect elections are competing groups in society voting over who gets looted and where the loot goes. The more intrusive and powerful the state, the greater the spoils up for grabs. As I never tire of reminding people, it’s what Han-Hermann Hoppe meant with his: “One-man-one-vote combined with ‘free entry’ into government – democracy – implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of – and is up for grabs by – everyone else.”

    The point of constitutions and the like is to restrict the spoils within reach of the state.

  23. The point of constitutions and the like is to restrict the spoils within reach of the state.

    That may be the point of the US and Anglophone constitutions, but some pretty heavy-handed states have had constitutions also

    Cuba, North Korea, and Putin’s Russia have constitutions now.

  24. Pete,
    But it seems to me that those power blocs in the USA have lost sight of the USA as a country, and view it as a market or brand to be exploited. The election process is like a sop to the people, an American equivalent of the Roman bread and circuses approach.

  25. Agit – there are no competing groups. The ‘left’ and right’ are owned by the same cartel and the idea that each are competing is simply to bamboozle the masses. Don’t look left or right: have a look above.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.