America Rejects Rule by Decree as Critics Lambaste Obama Speech
Americans overwhelmingly rejected bizarre threats from an increasingly unpopular Obama to rule by decree, surveys revealed after his State of the Union speech. Despite trying to artificially divide America into different collectivist classes in need of his supposedly benevolent protection and assistance â an age-old ploy used by statists sometimes referred to as âdivide and conquerâ â women, black leaders, Hispanic activists, small-business owners, and other members of collectivist categories rejected the narrative, too.
Instead, Americans at large and leaders among Obamaâs victim castes broadly lambasted the draconian and divisive schemes outlined in the presidentâs speech. Many called for the administration to be restrained and reined in before it unleashes even more economic damage on the nation. The real solutions to the problems plaguing America are respect for the Constitution and individual...
The actuaries for the trustees who run Medicare and Social Security acknowledge the systems are going bankrupt. (really it is already there technically as the funds are already spent (off budget) and given an IOU) It is fraught with fraud to the tune of billions of dollars and only getting worse.
Yet this (according to documented sources at Wikipedia) liberal political commentator who is a distinguished Vaid fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian task force, says the programs are highly effective???? and you call that accurate?????
It has been proven time and time again that had seasoned citizen's had been given money that went to this ponzi scheme called social security to invest, their investment return would be substantially larger.
Remember, Jim, no need to give any credit to the mean old GOP, for Obamacare, it was passed strictly by your favorite party who blocked all opposition efforts to amend it. Sadly premiums are already higher for most Americans (which is why I don't use the term Affordable Healthcare) and will go up even more (poor timing for dems) substantially right before next year's elections. (you know when renewal time comes up)
This woman isn't an office holder, and if I remember her comments, they had nothing to do with sexual orientation. Clinton did out GOP the GOP, however, perhaps that was because he was an immoral person. The Record of Republican Corruption (this should be updated of course) perhaps they should make Wild Billy Clinton and honorary GOPer? Chris Christie should welcome him to N.J. No, this woman, made many accurate comments, e.g., taken from the article, e.g.,
Sally Kohn wrote: As Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, âIt's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place.â
Because just like Republicans railed against Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare when they were first proposed, those programs are now highly effective and broadly popular parts of our social safety net â supported even by strong majorities of Republican voters
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah Mike of NY, what would this woman's sexual orientation have to do with her financial reasoning--which I didn't about in the first place? But now that you reminded me, five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-theyâregonnaloveitevenmore,soon Wow, she quite bright -- in the area of Obamacare! If one wanted to focus on The State of the Union Speech this would be a better topic .latimes.comObama's myRA: A good start, but not enough for retirement security ---
Ah Jim, you remind of the apologists who said of Clinton, "What does his sexual appetite have to do with his job as president?" Too bad you can't see a connection between who you are and what you do, but you're independent, right?
From the link: "The plan, as the President outlined it in his address and the White House fleshed out a bit more Wednesday, aims to give lower-income workers a way to start building retirement nest eggs in tax-deferred accounts, through regular payroll deductions made by their employers. The employers would have to agree to offer the service to employees"
Shades of Social Security! A new tax, but on lower incomers. A good start indeed. Where is that forest anyway?
Nobody cares what the American people think anymore,after 100 years of inertia at all levels they have lost all respect,signifigance and importance to government.....they are an open joke and object of contempt to those in power...and who can realy blame them or fault them when one considers the modern American mindset.
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, President hasn't done anything illegal, and I suppose that SA does put up articles that really do belong in the "Midnight Sun" or "National Enquirer," you know those rags that people can look at the front covers and get a good laugh while waiting in the checkout lines to get a good laugh? --for discussion sake. ---
Well Jim, as you are fond of pointing out when you post rubbish written by a leftist lesbian, what difference does the source make if they tell the truth? I'd trust the New American version of events over the left wingnut sources you primarily link to anytime.
Anyone who compares The New American magazine to the National Enquirer and says the latter is better obviously is the real "wacko bird". Why can't you admit the truth? The impostor from Kenya is a bigger liar than slick Willie ever was and just as criminal, if not more so. He should've been impeached in his first term, rather than re-elected to do more damage to the Republic. He is a godless socialist, an elitist, and an arrogant a__. His whole agenda has been to promote wickedness, child killing, and support sexual perversion. How can any true Christian support such a person?
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, President hasn't done anything illegal
When you by executive fiat, change the provisions of a law passed by congress (ACA) that is the executive branch illegally taking over the job of the legislative branch. (we could go to illegal fast and furious*) So, yes some of his executive orders have been illegal.
*no that was not started under Bush. it was ONLY under Obama
UPS, President hasn't done anything illegal, and I suppose that SA does put up articles that really do belong in the "Midnight Sun" or "National Enquirer," you know those rags that people can look at the front covers and get a good laugh while waiting in the checkout lines to get a good laugh? --for discussion sake.
Even assuming all Jim from Lincoln's info is correct, it is not btw, i.e. prez term not over, and he already surpassed first Bush, and we are not counting all his czars and what they have decreed, or orders from ETA, HHS, etc. But all that aside. If every President before our current President was rotten to the core and abused their power and oppressed the people, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The president is responsible for his own actions and his disdain for following laws or the constitution is HIS RESPONSIBILITY. Two wrongs do not make a right. This article is not a pat on the back for the previous administrations, it is an indictment of the CURRENT administration who is responsible for the choices he is making. It is reprehensible that for political reasons any would condone what he is doing. Especially considering the same individual would be crying foul and imperial presidency if some guy named Romney was in office and doing the exact same thing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1)Too bad a lot of GOP Presidents weren't reined in.
2) President Obama Has Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than Any President in Over 100 Years ---
1)You mean like Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Johnson, Clinton?
2)Candidate Obama when running for prez, criticized Bush 2 for use of executive orders, yet he has issued more of them than Bush. Doesn't that make the prez a hypocrite? Of course I realize he's a Democrat, so it doesn't count to the "independent" minded but historically forgetful.
I wonder if Satan was a Democrat if Jim would still bring up Republicans who have been out of office for 5 years in order to shift the blame from the current administration. Oh, wait a minute, I think Satan is a Democrat. That's why they were booing God at the Democrat Convention. Even some Democrats are starting to wake up to the unconstitutional and antichrist nature of the impostor from Kenya, but I think it may take another 5 years before some are willing to admit that this is the WORST president in U.S. history!
Jim, Obama is trying to use it in a manner that's unconstitutional. Maybe he's not the first to use it so tyrannically, maybe he is, I don't know. All I know is someone needs to hold him accountable for his unconstitutional actions before he does more damage to this country than he already has.
Me. Lincoln, how many of our past presidents have set out from day 1 to destroy Our country and trample not only on the constitution but upon the graves of those who gave all to protect, preserve and honor her?