James L

In photo blurbs about the Palestinian Nakba demonstrations, they said this...

Nakba, or catastrophe, marks Israel's founding in 1948 war, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes.

Had they stopped at... Nakba, or catastrophe, marks Israel's founding in 1948. It would have been simple, factually accurate reporting. They could have followed it up with an informational addendum that Arab nations launched a war against Israel in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes.

Ramming the two ideas together, they seem to be naming the event as "The Israel's Founding in 1948 War" a very cumbersome name for a war. Or they are saying that the founding of Israel was a war in an of itself. This remarkably biased view is hateful toward the State of Israel. I think Yahoo should be ashamed of this bias.

In photo blurbs about the Palestinian Nakba demonstrations, they said this...

Nakba, or catastrophe, marks Israel's founding in 1948 war, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes.

Had they stopped at... Nakba, or catastrophe, marks Israel's founding in 1948. It would have been simple, factually accurate reporting. They could have followed it up with an informational addendum that Arab nations launched a war against Israel in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes.

Ramming the two ideas together, they seem to be naming the event as "The Israel's Founding in 1948 War" a very cumbersome name for a war. Or they are saying that the founding of Israel was a war in an of itself. This remarkably biased view is hateful toward the State of Israel. I think Yahoo should be ashamed of this bias.

I hear the economic numbers on the news claiming that the economy is growing by 1% to 2%. Lets suppose that is true. The GDP is around $14 trillion. 2% of that is $280 billion. But the Obama is infusing $1.6 trillion in borrowed money into the economy every year. Without that made up money, spackling over reality, the economy is actually losing $1.32 trillion every year. That in an almost 10% shrinkage in total economic output. All that borrowed money has to be repaid, or a total monetary collapse will come sooner or later. How much worse will the damage be when we have to stop borrowing and start repaying that debt? Our debt currently exceeds GDP. Obama's chief advisor, David Axelrod, says their "goal" is to reduce deficit spending to 3% of GDP, which is still higher than the alleged rate of economic growth. They have no plan to repay the money they are borrowing. They just plan to pass the bill on to the next administration. Some might claim these numbers as proof that massive deficit spending has saved the economy. I think it is just plastering over a rotting foundation instead of repairing it. The extra weight of debt to keep things looking good will just bring the whole thing down faster and increase the damage when it falls apart.

President Obama claimed that every one penny increase in the price of a gallon of gas translates to a $200,000,000 increase in oil company profits. Logically if the government took away $4,000,000,000 from the oil companies by raising their taxes, they would need to raise the price on a gallon of gas by $0.20 to cover the extra cost. That sounds like the worst idea for lowering gas prices I've ever heard of. How does this mindset work for democrats? Do they actually believe that higher taxes on corporations will lower prices for the consumer? Or do they just think people are stupid and attacking those perceived as rich will rile up the uneducated masses?

When the president says that "income inequality" is the greatest problem facing America, he is just screaming "I am a Communist" I'm curious if the people that agree with him are smart enough to know they are communists or are they just useful idiots?

2 joke candidates came out in the top 3. No one should take these results seriously. Anyone who drops out because they didn't win this farce is a fool.

The constitution specifically forbids elected office holders at the federal level from receiving any compensation, gifts or other enrichment other than their salary while in office. However, for some reason, we allow them to accept money to "finance their campaigns". Why? If they did not receive those contributions they would have to buy those ads with their own money. So campaign contributions are used to buy things that they would otherwise purchase for themselves. It helps them protect their personal wealth from the cost of campaigning. As such, they are in real danger of losing money if those donations don't come in. Then there are corrupt politicians like Janet Napolitano who appropriate campaign funds for personal enrichment through accounting tricks. I suggest that there is really no way to keep campaign funds separate from personal funds. One has far too much influence on the other. So how can political office holders fund their re-election campaigns without taking contributions that violate the constitution? I don't think they can. I don't think they should.

What I propose is not to outlaw campaign contributions in total. After all, those who don't hold public office can accept whatever money they want. So only those currently in office would be forbidden to collect contributions. I think this is fair and it would free up their time to actually do their jobs and insulate them from corruption. Basically an incumbant would either have to not run for consecutive terms or let their record speak for itself. Wouldn't it be great if our president wasn't on the road begging for money for half his first term? We wouldn't need term limits if we just held them to the standard that the constitution demands. While in office, you can't accept money or gifts of any kind whatsoever. I think it would have a positive effect on our government.

James L

Your Resolved Question

Show me another »

Why did Obama trash the credit of the United States?

During his speech Obama said that the US economy was unsustainable and eventually foreign governments will stop lending us money. The he said we are already at that point and the party is over. He is basically telling all of our creditors that we are not good for the money anymore and they should not lend to us. This is quite possibly the most destructive thing he could say. This will create a run on the treasury to cash in bonds and T-bills. This guy is completely insane.

3 years ago

Additional Details

It doesn't matter what the truth is in economics. It matters what people believe to be true. Some may have begun to doubt America's credit, but they still bet that we will be good for what we borrow. Obama said in very clear terms that we are not. Nobody is going to place a bet they know they will lose. And he is not even trying to rebuild our credit with fiscal discipline. He is just spending even more money that we don't have. this kind of irresponsibility can destroy this country.

3 years ago

Thanks Brown

[Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that, if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?]

[Obama: You know, if -- if all we're doing is spending and we're not making things, then over time other countries are going to get tired of lending us money and eventually the party's going to be over. Well, in fact, the party now is over.]

3 years ago

.

Porkfore...

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Obama needs to be locked in his room with duct tape on his mouth and write 967Billion times I will keep my stupid mouth shut.

Source(s):

Reality Obama says we borrow to much lets borrow more.

You all are as stupid as Obama

3 years ago

Report Abuse

7 Rating: Good Answer

2 Rating: Bad Answer

Asker's Rating:Asker's Comment:I completely agree. If he's smart as everyone says, he's deliberately sabotaging the recovery. Or maybe he's just a complete moron who will destroy thr country by accident. I'll let other people pick which.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-con...

"This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process."

Seriously, if we are no longer represented, The constitution is null and void. This crazy idea cannot be allowed to be enacted. I would consider it a declaration of war against the people of the United States. I swore my oath to support and defend the Constitution, not this. If the Constitution is being thrown away, then so is the country. We are in uncharted territory if this happens.

If the federal government passed a balanced budget amendment, and actually balanced the budget without raising taxes, I think they could then ask the American people for voluntary contributions to retire the national debt. Right now, every time the government gets more money, they spend twice as much as they get. No one wants to give them more money only to see them use it to get deeper in debt. It is like giving money to a drug addict or a gambler. The more money you give them, the bigger the problem gets. But, if they go to rehab and prove they can live clean and sober, then you don't mind helping to put their life back together. So, I believe that with a balanced budget amendment, the government could restore faith with the American people. At that point, they could ask for voluntary contributions to paydown the debt. I think that once they were assured that the money wouldn't be wasted, the American people would be willing to help out. Perhaps this is a naive hope. I'd like your input on the matter.

This week MSNBC contributor Mark Halperin was fired for calling Barack Obama a "dick"

However the same network has had no problem with contributors using far more vulgar language to describe Conservatives and Tea Party activists. They routinely use the word "tea bagger" and at least once referred to them as "ball suckers". They also call republican politicians, racists, rednecks, bimbos, and whores. In light of all these vulgar attacks, is calling Obama a dick really that big of a deal? The fact is, they have no problem with vulgarity in politics as long as it is directed against the right. But any commentator who criticizes Obama is fired immediately. Obama called up his state run media channel and told them he was offended and the network fired the offender. Is it appropriate for a president to have that much control over a news outlet?

This week MSNBC contributor Mark Halperin was fired for calling Barack Obama a "dick"

However the same network has had no problem with contributors using far more vulgar language to describe Conservatives and Tea Party activists. They routinely use the word "tea bagger" and at least once referred to them as "ball suckers". They also call republican politicians, racists, rednecks, bimbos, and whores. In light of all these vulgar attacks, is calling Obama a dick really that big of a deal? The fact is, they have no problem with vulgarity in politics as long as it is directed against the right. But any commentator who criticizes Obama is fired immediately. Obama called up his state run media channel and told them he was offended and the network fired the offender. Is it appropriate for a president to have that much control over a news outlet?

Obama strongly objected to the execution of a convicted rapist and murderer because he was not told he could talk to his consulate. Obama also strongly objected to an Arizona law that requires determining the immigration status of all suspects. How can you alert the consulate if you don't verify immigration status?

The War Powers Act of 1973 says that the president can use military force without congressional approval for up to 60 days in an emergency. But must go to congress after 60 days to get authorization to continue using military force. The not-a-war in Libya has been going for 90 days. Obama says he won't ask for congressional approval and will continue the war without it. This is a clear violation of law and an over reach of his constitutional authority. Should he be impeached for it? Can an impeachment be successful? What can be done to hold him accountable to the law?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ap_on_bi_ge/us...

Naturalized immigrants who want to become American citizens have to take a test. If they don't pass, they do not become citizens and cant vote in this country. A recent study found that most Americans failed the test. I wondered if people in the politics section were better informed. I'd like you to take the test, post your scores, and tell me if you believe a basic understanding of the US government ought to be required to register to vote. Is it a good idea?

http://www.factmonster.com/quizzes/citizenship1/11...

...or does it still have pretty much the same meaning as always?

The War Powers Act of 1973 says that the president can use military force without congressional approval for up to 60 days in an emergency. But must go to congress after 60 days to get authorization to continue using military force. The not-a-war in Libya has been going for 60 days. Obama says he won't ask for congressional approval and will continue the war without it. This is a clear violation of law and an over reach of his constitutional authority. Should he be impeached for it? Can an impeachment be successful? What can be done to hold him accountable to the law?

I'm sure every afficianado of first person shooter, combat simulation games is itching to lead a SEAL team mission to gun down Osama. It's the ultimate modern warfare mission. How long do you think it will take to get the mission simulation ready for play on one or all of the various combat game platforms?