Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Wallowers here only - celebrators start another post

America is doomed ... For real. I keep thinking, what is WRONG with people. Everyone just took a crazy pill!

You'd think after watching Greece's financial fiasco that we'd start addressing our own budget issues. I don't see that happening with Obama at the wheel.

That's a good idea, keeping these separate, Steph. In the interests of balance, I've done just that.

LabRat

I think People really are that crazy or that stupid. How can they pick a guy whose not fit to be commander and chief when he left a bunch of his own people out to be slaughtered In Benghazi? And his economic policies are abismal. I live in one of the worst economies in the country and it won't get better until the rest of the country turns around. There's huge construction projects some that cost over a billion $ just abandoned all over the city partly finished. I've got several coworkers who are so upside down on their houses that there's no point to keep paying on them and none of the banks with all of obamas new regulations are willing to work with them on refying so they're just walking away.
My health insurance costs have already gone up so much in the previous 4 years thanks to Obamacare that I switched to the cheapest plan my work offers which doesn't cover my sons doctor and I just pay his visits out of pocket. It's cheaper than paying for the insurance that would cover his doctor.
I'm considering leaving the country for the next 4 years just so I won't have to be a part of this mess. Plus I think the experience would be good for my 2 year old. He's at the perfect age to pick up another language and I could use some refreshing.

I have several family members who voted for Obama because they thought Romney would just use the office to line his own pockets since they believe that's all that Bush did. While that may be true, I don really know or care, at least his had a vision to put the country on track and exercise some fiscal responsibility and I don't see him giving orders to stand down when american lives are in danger. Obama will jut spend us into the ground and make the world forget about Greece while the middle east falls further into chaos.

Definition of Insanity - doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result.

I just thought this would be a good time for those Americans who wished President Obama to suffer a forced retirement (and I definitely include myself in that group) to reflect on the privileges we have been given.

Only a very small minority of people who have ever lived were able to choose their leaders. Not only do we live in a democracy, we live in a place where we can vote without risking our lives. (Many people who live in nominal democracies can not say the same.) We live in a country where we can criticize our leaders without having to fear our door being knocked down in the middle of the night and our being disappeared as a consequence. We live in a country where we know for a fact that any given president will NOT be in office for more than a decade.

So my message to all who are disappointed in how the election went is this: Be of good cheer. January, 2017 is coming.

Joy,
Lynn

The stated aim of this thread is to commiserate with those who share your opinion of the election result.

However, I would just remind you all that this is not a Republican forum. Any more than it is a Democrat one. We have FoLCs of both persuasions here.

So, in your disappointment, I would simply urge you to remember that those who disagree politically with you and voted differently from you are your fellow FoLCs and friends. And although it is perhaps easy to forget that in the adrenaline surge and tempting to repeat perhaps intemperate language being used elsewhere, you know these friends, who hang out here with you, are neither crazy, insane or stupid.

No one is calling you any of these things for your voting choices so - please - do extend the same courtesy to others on this forum.

LabRat :-)

OK. My wife had to talk me off the ledge this morning so please take this with a grain of salt --and realize that I've toned it down.

First, let me say that I have moral, Constitutional and legal issues with BHO’s administration. All that aside, in October there were 171,000 jobs created in the U.S. There were also 170,000 new unemployment filings (i.e. jobs lost) in October. At a net 1,000 new jobs created per month in a country of 325 million (and this wasn't the worst month, either) then it will take 20 YEARS before we make up the jobs lost during his presidency. Even as bad as things were if he had implemented policies that provided stability to businesses we would be well on our way to recovery by now.

How could anyone vote for this guy???!!! How is it that people can’t understand that a recovering economy will be worth more to them and their children in six months than a monthly welfare check that keeps them in dependancy? I read that Google fielded millions of “who is running for president” searches this week. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...now-who-is-running-for-president/264606/) Willful criminal ignorance ought to be a chargeable offense.

This is concrete and personal for me. Eleven years ago, my wife and I hatched a dream of a greenhouse business. Five years of study and planning followed. Six years ago, we sold our home and bought property to start a greenhouse business 85 miles away (135 Km). We have agreeable relatives so we worked on building the greenhouse on the weekends and making the house liveable. We stayed near our automotive jobs during the week and worked on our plan to have at least one of us supported by the GH in 3 years and both of us in 5.

We saved and paid our debts off and my wife was able to leave her job 2 years ago. She isn't supported by the business but she’s been working at a neighbor’s farm and feeding that money into the business while I continue to work in the automotive industry. I really enjoy what I do, but I’ve been trying to find a job closer to my home for over a year. Even paying our own insurance we would be fine if I could find a job that paid HALF of what I make now. I don’t make a fortune—but THERE ARE NO JOBS within 50 miles of home. And I mean searching on Monster or Careerbuilder and literally no jobs found. Not every time but often.

I’m tired of eating out of a bag, sleeping away from home, wondering if we’ll ever be able to get our business to make a profit (even though the IRS is getting taxes from us) and having my second largest expense be my monthly gasoline costs. I can’t help but think that if my President would do his job then this situation would be different. Maybe he’ll find time between talk show appearances, illegal weapon sales to Mexican drug cartels, multiple vacations, cutting our military, redefining terrorism as “workplace violence” and “man-caused disasters”, criminal neglect in our state department and blaming everyone instead of doing his job.

A wise man said, “Never ascribe malice where ignorance and apathy will suffice.” I’m not sure they do anymore.

On the positive side - at least this clown can never run for the presidency again after this.

Though there are those (in Congress) who oppose the two-term limit.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/third-term-for-obama/

Yeah... No. I'm sorry, I know too much when it comes to history of the world (and Rome in particular) to EVER think that's a good idea. Washington retired after two terms primarily because he didn't want to be a permanant ruler on par with a king and that's exactly what would happen. Even more- any president like that would actually have MORE power than the Queen (or later on, King) of England. There the royal family is essentially only head of State NOT Head of Government (the US president is both and we have to really think about voting with that in mind more than I think we sometimes do.)

Honestly, the fact that a former (two term) president can no longer serve actually serves to create a neat situation where there are essentially a group of former presidents that can also serve as advisors to the current one in a sort of "council do Elders" sort of fashion. They would be the only ones that can truly understand what it means to be president and would be able to give advise no one else would be able to. One of the things that I distinctly remember from an interview with Bush (and I think it was confirmed) was that the first call Obama made after the confirmed death of Bin Laden was to the former presidents and Bush Jr in particular. Would he have been able to do such a thing if he had still (potentially) been running against him?

Sorry about side-tracking this conversation but despite my opinion of ANYONE in presidential office, I don't think more than eight years is wise.

Let's hope that never comes to pass. No elected official should have the opportunity to be in power for more than 8 years. Though, in some cases, I could see some good coming from it, the potiential for *atrocious* abuses of power is far too great.

Look at Dictator...errr...Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. He changed the law so he could get a third term and he hasn't done a single good thing. He's too busy limiting the size soda people can buy. :rolleyes:

I think term limits should apply to all elected officials. We don't need career politicians. No matter what side they're on they all become to corrupt and either vote to get themselves reelected or line their own or their friends pockets, not what the people may want or what's good for the country.

Exactly my feelings, though way more eloquantly put.

I am in favour of term limits, as well, for the reasons others have described. I wish they would be extended to the Hill, as well. But of course, given who would have to vote for such term limits, I can't see that ever happening.

Joy,
Lynn

You know what I find interesting? That many of you say that Obama didn't do enough. I hope you did consider that his hands were bound - by an overly powerful opposition - namely the Republicans. Republicans who made it their goal from the moment Obama was elected to make his job impossible to do in the hope that he wouldn't get re-elected. Let's all hope that everybody in your parliament will come to their senses and collaborate on making things better.

Lara, I know you don't live in the USA so its understandable that you wouldn't know all the details of Obama's first term as Prez. That is not meant to be a rude or demeaning statement. The argument that Republicans kept O from getting anything done in his term is a little ridiculous bc the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate for two years of his term. That means he had two years to get a lot accomplished with little interference from the R's. It's only since R's took the House in 2010 that there has been some "interference" if you will. I think PMing is better for debating - these threads are for the wallowers to wallow together and the celebrators to celebrate together. /off my soap box now

I've been thinking a little askew on this. I don't have a problem with someone serving for any length of time but I agree with DC about the potential for abuse.

Congress was originally intended to be a part-time position. I think I'd like to see literal "term limits" for Congress--that is, limit the number of days they can be in session. Say, Congress can only be in session 100 days. Or mandate a minimum amount of time they must be in their district, meeting with their constituents. Combine that with a mandatory sunset clause on all appropriations, spending and entitlement bills and we'd be getting somewhere.

Why did Obama win? Largely, I think, because Mitt Romney was never able to coherently articulate his position to the voting public. He was never able to (or allowed to) explain that what Barak Obama wanted to do was not only unwise but downright stupid. Too many American voters have decided that the government does indeed owe them something more than an opportunity. I do not advocate killing all social programs, but some things must change, and soon. We as a nation just can't afford to do this for much longer.

I was a member of AARP until I got fed up with the liberal-atheistic-gimme-gimme-gimme bias they have, but they're still sending me their monthly newsletter. In the issue I received today, there's an article on "The Challenges Ahead" which states that in twelve years, Medicare won't be able to cover full hospital costs, fifty-six million people received Social Security benefits in 2012 (year's not over, so I don't know where that number comes from), and that by the year 2030, the number of Medicare beneficiaries will double from the forty million of 2000.

Not once in the brief article did they discuss ways to reduce costs or waste or fraud in any of those programs. That wouldn't fit the organization's mission to gouge all the money it can out of younger people to pay for the health and welfare of senior citizens. And let me tell you that I'm just a step to the left and a jump to the right from qualifying for the senior discount at IHOP.

The only way to keep that kind of outflow going is to increase taxes on everyone, not just on the rich. I've become convinced that politicians of all persuasions pass legislation not for the good of the country or even the benefit of their constituents, but to get re-elected.

The article also says that only thirty-four percent of younger people (it doesn't give the actual age limits) think that Social Security will exist for them. That's probably a valid expectation. European nations who have all-encompassing social insurance and health care reserve those benefits for their citizens, not for the general populace. The US makes health care available to anyone who needs or wants it just by visiting a hospital emergency room. Not all nations are that accommodating.

Please understand that I am not protesting this practice. I agree that an emergency clinic should be available to anyone who needs emergency care. But I do not believe that people who use the services should avoid paying the fees incurred. The Constitution does not guarantee us health any more than it guarantees us wealth, yet that's what a majority of voting Americans seem to believe.

The Preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(text taken from this website)

I think we the people have done a pretty poor job of that since 1945. And I don't know how many more chances we're going to get.

Not quite true. I don't know about the other European nations, but Germany sure does give not only its citizens, but also people hopying for asylum or newly immigrated people. It's part of our social security.