# Obama and communist party in US



## BobF (Jul 14, 2015)

Obama has never stood and called himself a communist that I know of, but the Communist Party United States America sure thinks he is fully a communist.

He grew up among communist believers, leaders, followers since in his youth in Hawaii.   He moved to Chicago to be with some of his communist friends.   He was an organizer and leader, but still never used the term in his public life.

If you don't belief these comments then please use these links to refresh your minds.

http://www.keywiki.org/Barack_Obama_and_the_Communist_Party

Barack Obama's involvement with the *Communist Party USA*

[h=2]Communist leader on "friend" Barack Obama[/h] On November 15, 2008, Sam Webb, National Chair of the Communist Party USA delivered an address to the Communist Party USA National Committee. During his address, he noted the following concerning the party's relationship with Obama, 


_"The left can and should advance its own views and disagree with  the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Its tone should be  respectful. We are speaking to a friend."_ 

[h=2]Marable on Obama and Chicago communists[/h]The late marxist academic Manning Marable claimed that Barack Obama has read some of his books and "_understands what socialism is._"  


Marable, writing in the December 2008 issue of British Trotskyist  journal Socialist Review, also claimed that Obama worked in Chicago  with socialists with _backgrounds in the Communist Party._[SUP][1]

[/SUP] 

_What makes Obama different is that he has also been a community  organiser. He has read left literature, including my works, and he  understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are,  indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as  independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who  have worked with him for years..._  [h=2]Frank Marshall Davis[/h]And another link:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/obamas-platform-is-eerily-similar-to-the-communist-party-usas/

 		[h=1]Obama’s Platform Is Eerily Similar to the Communist Party USA’s[/h]  		[h=2]by Guest Post • April 20, 2014[/h]
Have you noticed the similarities between Barack Obama’s platform and  that of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)? The correlations are  undeniable to anyone who is being honest.
 Americans voted for this man not once, but twice! Al Sharpton did say  that the American people knew they were voting for socialism when they  voted for Barack Obama.

(I did not listen to the film.)

And another article I kept when Obama was first elected.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99104


WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Obama: Top Red's dream come true
Communist Party official shares White House's ambitious agenda
Posted: May 24, 2009
7:54 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Sam Webb


With Obama as president, health care and the economy can be "reformed," U.S. troops can be evacuated from the Middle East, a second stimulus bill can be passed, the criminal justice system can be overhauled and union rights can be expanded – in other words, it's a Christmas list come true – declared the leader of the Communist Party USA.


"All these – and many other things – are within our reach now!" exclaimed Sam Webb in a New York banquet speech for the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. 

.......................

Obama won't say it, but the US communist party sure does.    One year and a half and then hopefully we can get someone less fanatical about destroying this country and ignoring our Constitution.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 14, 2015)

I did not think that Communism was legal in America. Here in Canada where it is an accepted, although minute political voice, the party members consider President Obama far too moderate in his views to be considered even a "soft" socialist, never mind a Communist. Interesting. Perhaps someone could clear up my confusion re this matter?


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 14, 2015)

I've come across a few communists in my time (not personally) that I have admired for their commitment to building a better society. Their names are Frank Hardy, novelist who wrote Power Without Glory, Phillip Adams, no longer a communist and now a radio presenter on our ABC and Jack Mundey, organiser of the Builders Laborers Union during a period when developers were knocking down heritage building in Sydney. He led the campaign of opposition and was an ally to the conservative matrons attempting to preserve inner city parklands. 

The Communist Party in Australia is now pretty much defunct although it was never banned. It just fell out of favour with its members after the tanks rolled into Hungary. I'm surprised that there seem to be branches of the Communist Party in so many states, but I wonder how many members they actually have. 

I seriously doubt that President Obama is a member or even a fellow traveller. It is not uncommon for people to be labelled a communist when they are not nor never have been one. History shows that that has happened to several high profile Australians in the past.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 14, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I did not think that Communism was legal in America. Here in Canada where it is an accepted, although minute political voice, the party members consider President Obama far too moderate in his views to be considered even a "soft" socialist, never mind a Communist. Interesting. Perhaps someone could clear up my confusion re this matter?



This Wiki give some info on the American Communist Party: http://www.keywiki.org/Communist_Party_USA

These are the state groups listed
[h=2]State Affiliates[/h]KeyWiki has in depth information on the following state affiliates and Party clubs of the CPUSA: 



Arizona District Communist Party USA
California District Communist Party USA - Northern Region
California District Communist Party USA - Southern  Region
Communist Party of Eastern Pennsylvania & Delaware
Communist Party of Illinois
Communist Party of Indiana
Communist Party of Maine
Communist Party of Maryland
Communist Party of Massachusetts
Communist Party of Michigan
Communist Party of Minnesota and the Dakotas
Communist Party of New Jersey
Communist Party of New Mexico
Communist Party of Ohio
Communist Party of Oregon
Communist Party of Texas
Communist Party of Washington State
Communist Party of Western Pennsylvania


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 14, 2015)

My best response without my usual candor in politics is how irresponsible to post this.


----------



## BobF (Jul 14, 2015)

Not at all Jim.   It is part of the US political machine and no reason to deny it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

*Communist Party USA*


The *Communist Party USA* (*CPUSA*) is a communist political party in the United States.[SUP][5][/SUP] It is the largest communist party in the country. Established in 1919, it has a long, complex history that is closely related to the U.S. labor movement and the histories of similar communist parties worldwide.


 For the first half of the 20th century, the Communist Party was a  highly influential force in various struggles for democratic rights. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. Historian Ellen Schrecker concludes that decades of recent scholarship[SUP][6][/SUP] offer "a more nuanced portrayal of the party as _both_ a Stalinist sect tied to a vicious regime _and_ the most dynamic organization within the American Left during the 1930s and '40s".[SUP][7]
[/SUP]

 By August 1919, only months after its founding, the Communist Party claimed 50,000 to 60,000 members. Members also included anarchists and other radical leftists. At the time, the older and more moderate Socialist Party of America,  suffering from criminal prosecutions for its antiwar stance during  World War I, had declined to 40,000 members. The sections of the  Communist Party's International Workers Order organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.[SUP][8]
[/SUP]

 But the Communist Party's early labor and organizing successes did  not last. As the decades progressed, the combined effects of the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 Secret Speech denouncing the previous decades of Joseph Stalin's rule, and the adversities of the continued Cold War mentality, steadily weakened the Party's internal structure and confidence. The Party's membership in the Comintern and its close adherence to the political positions of the Soviet Union  made the party appear to most Americans as not only a threatening,  subversive domestic entity, but also as a foreign agent fundamentally  alien to the American way of life. Internal and external crises swirled  together, to the point where members who did not end up in prison for  party activities tended either to disappear quietly from its ranks or to  adopt more moderate political positions at odds with the Communists' party line. By 1957, membership had dwindled to less than 10,000, of whom some 1,500 were informants for the FBI.[SUP][9]
[/SUP]

 The party attempted to recover with its opposition to the Vietnam War during the civil rights movement  in the 1960s, but its continued uncritical support for an increasingly  stultified and militaristic Soviet Union increasingly alienated them  from the rest of left-wing America, which saw this supportive role as  outdated and even dangerous. At the same time, the party's aging  membership demographics and noticeably hollow calls for "peaceful coexistence" failed to speak to a new Left in the United States.


 With the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev  and his effort to radically alter the Soviet economic and political  system from the mid-1980s, the Communist Party finally became estranged  from the leadership of the Soviet Union itself. In 1989, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union cut off major funding to the CPUSA due to its opposition to glasnost and perestroika. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the party held its convention and attempted to resolve the issue of whether the Party should reject Marxism-Leninism. The majority reasserted the party's now purely Marxist outlook, prompting a minority faction which urged social democrats to exit the now reduced party. The party has since adopted Marxism-Leninism within its program,[SUP][5][/SUP]  In 2014, the new draft of the party constitution declared: "We apply  the scientific outlook developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others in  the context of our American history, culture and traditions."[SUP][10]
[/SUP]
 The Communist Party USA is based in New York City. For decades, its West Coast newspaper was the _People's World_, and its East Coast newspaper was _The Daily World._[SUP][11][/SUP] The two newspapers merged in 1986 into the People's Weekly World. The PWW has since become an online only publication, called People's World. The party's former theoretical journal, Political Affairs Magazine, is now also published exclusively online, but the party still maintains International Publishers as its publishing house. In June 2014, the Party held its 30th National Convention in Chicago.[SUP][12][/SUP]


----------



## Debby (Jul 14, 2015)

I would be inclined to think that in a true democracy, we are all allowed to have and speak different opinions, hold to different viewpoints......and is discussion of these differences as bad as forcing them into silence?  Exposure and discussion is how we hash out which way to go, which is the better direction.

Personally, I can't have too much of an opinion because I've never researched this issue.  Just off the top of my head, I'd say that I'm all for equality and respect for us all and taking care of those of our brethren who have need of a hand up.  Do those ideals have anything to do with Communism or its manifesto?  

Maybe one of these days I'll do a bit of reading....or maybe not!  I'm already trying to keep up with a bunch of reading that I want to do and the summer weather is so nice and the garden needs care!  Hard to find a time to squeeze in more reading.


----------



## tnthomas (Jul 14, 2015)

It's a little late for any attempts to smear and label Obama a communist, as he's well into his 2nd term as president of the United States of America.

Similarly, any noise from the "birthers" regarding Obama's citizenship is really just a little too late, and not relevant to the upcoming elections anymore than the [very lame] "Obama's a commie" assertions are.

bir·ther
ˈbərTHər/
_noun__informal_

plural noun: *birthers*



a  person who doubts the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency because  of a conspiracy theory that Obama is not a natural-born US citizen.

Interesting Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

http://www.birthers.org/
*
The Birthers: Who Are They and What Do They Want?*


----------



## mitchezz (Jul 14, 2015)

Why are so many Americans intent on demonising Obama? His Presidency seems to have been good for the country and he's leaving next year anyway. Seems to be a case of personal dislike by sore losers.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 14, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> Why are so many Americans intent on demonising Obama? His Presidency seems to have been good for the country and he's leaving next year anyway. Seems to be a case of personal dislike by sore losers.



Bingo!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 14, 2015)

Barack Obama has to be a communist!  Just like the other 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party are members of the communist party. We know it's true because Allen West said so!












> Another Allen got into hot water when the Republican congressman from Florida got caught on video, during a Florida town hall meeting, saying he believed "there's 78-81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party."
> 
> When West was asked to name them, he said, "It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
> 
> ...




And what about that Michelle in China, huh?!  Waving those red Commie flags like that!













> During her visit to China, Michelle Obama was photographed holding red banners (as shown above), an image that was later widely circulated via social media out of context, accompanied by criticisms that it portrayed the First Lady "waving red communist flags."
> 
> Although red flags





> have been used as symbol of communism since the 1870s, and the national flag of China (like that of the former Communist USSR) is predominantly red in design, the red banners that Michelle Obama was pictured waving in China were not Chinese/communist flags or other overt political symbols but rather accessories employed by a troupe of traditional Chinese folk dancers whose performance the First Lady joined:





> Michelle Obama gamely joined in with a troupe of folk dancers as she visited the Chinese city of Xi'an.
> 
> The First Lady swayed to the music, having earlier accepted an invitation to jump rope and tested out her shuttlecock-kicking skills.
> 
> Crowds three or four deep strained for a glimpse of the first family, according to a pool report.




image: http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/redflag2.jpg




*Last updated:*   1 April 2014 

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/redflag.asp#ivdOsYccgcMSM53M.99


Honestly, I'm surprised Obama is still such a target for the losers of the two Presidential elections, you would think they'd be more focused on bashing Hillary now.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 14, 2015)

I would think after the Bush fiasco, most Americans would elevate President Obama for his accomplishments in spite of/because of the vicious antics of  certain Republicans determined to smear his presidency at all costs, regardless of the damage at home or abroad.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 14, 2015)

I think most Americans respect the President and his many accomplishments while in office.  It is so pathetic to continue this hate campaign against him but one only look at who the attackers are to understand.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 15, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> Why are so many Americans intent on demonising Obama? His Presidency seems to have been good for the country and he's leaving next year anyway. Seems to be a case of personal dislike by sore losers.



I don't think too many realize how radical Obama's and the current Democratic party's politics are. Throw in some Libertarians and Socialist like Sanders it's a lot different than in decades past. Republicans got their extremists too. But one could very easily associate things like Obama Care or increased & encouraged use of government benefits like food  stamps as being communist or actually socialism. The federalization or over use of the federal government could also be considered communism-federal government equals big government which socialism is. Good or bad those politics are associated with communism. Obama should not get a free pass on his politics because he is the first black president. He is leftist Democrat, not a Democrat but an extreme left leaning Democrat worthy of criticism. 

I'm more worried about biased judges as much as anything. Judicial activism is not good for anyone. The law is the law and should not be open to that much interpretation. Split supreme court decisions are scarey and not a good sign. One should always know what the law is and that it will be enforced equally and based on the law, the system and not a personal bias. If one doesn't like it challenge it or push for change. The courts should not be arbitrators of which way the wind is blowing but rather is it legal or not. The courts are part of the system of checks and balances so one branch of government can't ram through an illegal and/or personal agenda. Communist governments usually don't have a strong court system or they are a puppet of their leader.

As far as a communist president I think the communist party used to run the same candidate for a couple of decades-Gus Hall, no one made a fuss and he was there for many elections.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 15, 2015)

My responses in blue so that I can answer point by point.



WhatInThe said:


> I don't think too many realize how radical Obama's and the current Democratic party's politics are. Throw in some Libertarians and Socialist like Sanders it's a lot different than in decades past. Republicans got their extremists too. But one could very easily associate things like Obama Care or increased & encouraged use of government benefits like food  stamps as being communist or actually socialism. The federalization or over use of the federal government could also be considered communism-federal government equals big government which socialism is. Good or bad those politics are associated with communism.
> 
> Maybe in your world, whatinthe, but not in other English speaking countries such as the United kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. These countries all have some form of socialised medicine and income support for the unemployed, the sick and very low income families and these countries are nothing like communism.
> 
> ...


----------



## mitchezz (Jul 15, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> I don't think too many realize how radical Obama's and the current Democratic party's politics are. Throw in some Libertarians and Socialist like Sanders it's a lot different than in decades past. Republicans got their extremists too. But one could very easily associate things like Obama Care or increased & encouraged use of government benefits like food  stamps as being communist or actually socialism. The federalization or over use of the federal government could also be considered communism-federal government equals big government which socialism is. Good or bad those politics are associated with communism. Obama should not get a free pass on his politics because he is the first black president. He is leftist Democrat, not a Democrat but an extreme left leaning Democrat worthy of criticism.
> 
> I'm more worried about biased judges as much as anything. Judicial activism is not good for anyone. The law is the law and should not be open to that much interpretation. Split supreme court decisions are scarey and not a good sign. One should always know what the law is and that it will be enforced equally and based on the law, the system and not a personal bias. If one doesn't like it challenge it or push for change. The courts should not be arbitrators of which way the wind is blowing but rather is it legal or not. The courts are part of the system of checks and balances so one branch of government can't ram through an illegal and/or personal agenda. Communist governments usually don't have a strong court system or they are a puppet of their leader.
> 
> As far as a communist president I think the communist party used to run the same candidate for a couple of decades-Gus Hall, no one made a fuss and he was there for many elections.



Your entire post is based on the assumption that Right is right.........it's not....it's just a political stance.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Hmm, and I thought that he was a Muslim...


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 15, 2015)

Ralphy, that is silly.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Well, he has a Muslim name, so one could think that he is one.  Some guy named O'Malley I would suspect to be an Irish Catholic...nthego:


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 15, 2015)

Well, my first name if Irish, middle name Scandinavian (Viking?) and surname English. I'm not any of these. I'm Australian. I was born here, of an Australian mother.

Here are the origins of the names Barack Hussein Obama.



> The 44th President of the United States is named after his father, who was a Kenyan economist. Barack is an African name meaning “blessed.” It is a form of both the Hebrew name Baruchand the Arabic name Mubarak, which also mean “blessed” and relate to the Arabic _barakah_. Another common spelling of the name is Barak.
> 
> Obama is an ancient Kenyan surname. The name is found frequently among the Luo, the third largest ethnic group in Kenya. It is believed that the name derived from the root word _obam_, which means “to lean or bend.”
> 
> Obama’s middle name Hussein is the first name of his paternal grandfather. The name, which is of Arabic origin, means “good” or “handsome one.”


Obama in neither Kenyan, nor a Hebrew or an Arab. He is not Muslim either. He's an American in the same way that I am an Australian.


----------



## Debby (Jul 15, 2015)

> I don't think too many realize how radical Obama's and the current Democratic party's politics are. ........... But one could very easily associate things like Obama Care or increased & encouraged use of government benefits like food  stamps as being communist or actually socialism. The federalization or over use of the federal government could also be considered communism-federal government equals big government which socialism is. Good or bad those politics are associated with communism...........
> 
> ........ Communist governments usually don't have a strong court system or they are a puppet of their leader.




So now trying to make sure that anyone who isn't rich or at least 'comfortable', doesn't face sickness and/or death as a result of no medical care, or starvation because the jobs are not there for the average person, is a terrible thing? Why is it considered radical and terrible to help one another?  Is there something that I'm missing here?   If nothing else, maybe one should consider food stamps for example as a nod to the wrong of government allowing a countries corporations to ship jobs to China or Taiwan or wherever.  Sort of a 'well we let your jobs go so you don't have one now, but at least we can quiet the empty rumble in your stomach by giving you access to some food, here have a book of food stamps'.

Or another question, is everyone still connecting the word communism to horrible despots like Stalin or Mau and that's where the fear comes from (because you don't want to be like they were) or is it a case of not wanting to help out those who need help as in 'sharing' a little bit of their wealth? 

 I read an article a while back that said Finland was one of the 'happiest' countries in the world and when I looked into it, I found out that they have an extremely high tax rate, but that makes sure that every child can get a university education if they want it, old people will never live in substandard housing, food for all, etc.  Is that the picture of 'success' or is it what you (had) in America, where an illness either went untreated or could bankrupt you, poor families didn't have enough food or only well off people could ever hope to see their children go to secondary education and thereby raise their standard of living and on the 'happiness' meter, we were disappointingly in the middle of the pack?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world#media-2
According to that Bloomberg study, out of a field of 20, the US is 14th on the 'happiness scale'.  

One thing I do find interesting is that in that Bloomberg study, Canadians featured up at the top (5th) even though our old folks are less protected (I think but am not positive) than the Fins and our kids have the same problems with that university education that American kids do, i.e. so expensive that it becomes exclusionary to many.  Maybe that just means that we're more inclined to settle or are ......  Don't quite know what to make of that.


Also, if you don't think your court system is at the behest of 'government' than I think you might need to rethink that position.


----------



## Debby (Jul 15, 2015)

This is a documentary about that two decade old Stella Liebeck case where that woman got scalded in her lap by McDonalds hot coffee.  I'm sure you remember that case.  This link:   is a trailer to an HBO documentary about it (can't find the actual documentary, sorry) in which it talks about how corporate America bought the legal system as a result of that case.  And we all know how corporations in the US have lobbyists interacting on their behalf, with the decision makers of the country.  
[video]http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp[/video]

And if you can't find the documentary, here's an article in The Atlantic that discusses what the HBO piece shows.  Personally, I watched the documentary when it first came out and I remember being quite shocked.


http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/hot-coffee-and-the-scalding-of-the-american-jury/241787/

'_HBO's new documentary sheds light on the misconceptions surrounding tort reform, and how civil justice already has been sold, in some cases lock, stock and gavel, to the highest corporate bidder......_It's a tale of how corporate interests, and their dutiful tribunes in political office and on the bench, have stripped the American jury of much of its authority to dispense justice to civil litigants.....'

So is it really possible to point the finger at Communist governments and say:  'Communist governments usually don't have a strong court system or *they are a puppet of their leader.*', and still feel superior to their example?


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 15, 2015)

Well, I don't think too many realize that socialism and communism are not the same thing, they need to 'refresh their mind' on this. It is just too sad that there are those that spend so much time twisting the facts to show their hatred for this president.


----------



## BobF (Jul 15, 2015)

My post was intended to speak of US politics and our current President.    Seems some felt I was attacking or pointing to their country.   Not intended at all.   Also some felt it was poor to point to Obama as he is so late in his 'successful' terms.   It does not matter as what I was intending was to widen the knowledge of our communist party and how happy they are with the way Obama has been doing so many things they, CPUSA, wants things to be done.   

Obama is definitely a far far left socialist.   Pretty obvious the way he works and also pretty obvious is the way he has damaged the US economy with his failures to balance the budget even once in his 6.5 years so far.   Obama's adding of 8.5 trillion additional debt, so far, will be a major problem for many years to come.

Some of Obama's non Congressional happenings will be challenged as soon as he leaves, and rightfully so.   One big effort that has some good ideas also has some rather scary ideas and will be challenged.   That will be the medical system.   Another area needing challenge is the 'green' ideas like solar panels and wind machines.    Who is paying for all this effort that allows the companies to offer free installations of the solar panels.   Big bucks behind all that 'free' stuff.   Question on private money or taxes going wild.   Not all the Obama things will survive any new administration, Dem or Rep, when trying to put money to where it would do the best job and get our budgets balanced once again.

Surprise in a way about how some took my post as threatening Obama.   He has done just about as much as he can, his term is essentially over.   His health care program will remain his big thing.   Still some tweaking and explaining till the public really knows how it works, is working correctly, and will remain in place.   Lots of information was never publicized and Obama did some tweaking as time went by.   It still needs a good review and fixing.   My success in the Obama care program.   I pay more now and really don't have a clue as to what should be paid, charges paid, just several pages of paper each month that tells me what I have received and any owed. 

  Doctors getting $7 for a visit?   Not so.   I would like to know more about how much charged, how much medical services got paid, how much I must pay to close that charge.   Open and honest statements is what I prefer,

So much for now.    May have more later.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Com'on!  He is in cahoots with the One World Order group and everyone knows it who is paying attention.  The end of the Republic is near...


----------



## Don M. (Jul 15, 2015)

Obama is part of the same "Club" that most of our politicians belong to.  They are All ruled by those with the "Big Bucks" that finance their campaigns.  They all "talk" a good story...especially as election time nears...but then, once in office, they bend to the wishes of their wealthy "Masters".


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 15, 2015)

BobF said:


> My post was intended to speak of US politics and our current President.    Seems some felt I was attacking or pointing to their country.   Not intended at all.   Also some felt it was poor to point to Obama as he is so late in his 'successful' terms.   It does not matter as what I was intending was to widen the knowledge of our communist party and how happy they are with the way Obama has been doing so many things they, CPUSA, wants things to be done.
> 
> Obama is definitely a far far left socialist.   Pretty obvious the way he works and also pretty obvious is the way he has damaged the US economy with his failures to balance the budget even once in his 6.5 years so far.   Obama's adding of 8.5 trillion additional debt, so far, will be a major problem for many years to come.
> 
> ...




Can you say convoluted?

convoluted


----------



## BobF (Jul 15, 2015)

Only as convoluted as Obama's days in office.   He has avoided the Congress as much as he could and just had his special agencies do as he wished.   That is why our government has not had to explain anything to the Congress or public.   When he is gone, maybe then we will return to an honest US government that works with the Congress and the people get to know where all our money has gone, and why.


----------



## ~Lenore (Jul 15, 2015)

*Yes, if there is any money left; or will there just be paper IOUs and cyber electronic money!*


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 15, 2015)

It's amazing how the Obama Derangement Syndrome can, seemingly, destroy common sense.  So much garbage by the original poster in that top post and in later posts.  The two things that stand out...

The poster suggests that the POTUS has read communist publications and personally knows some members of the U.S. Communist Party.  In answer to that, I would not want a President of the United States to not be familiar with, well read on, and having an idea of the leaders of the Communist Party.  To close one's eyes and try to make believe they don't exist would be neglect in a President's duties.  But, just as with everything from 'birthers' to those suggesting he's a Muslim... those who hate the President will find fault.

A later post by the same person suggests "his health care program will remain his one big thing".  They quickly overlook how our economy was in the tank as a fault of our last President.  That economy, though slow to recover, has.  Housing starts are on the rise.  Employment is much better than in January 2009.  They quickly overlook how world-wide crisis like Ebola have been met and conquered.  Even though the Party that will forsake the Nation in order to not see one win by this President will fight to detract the Iran Agreement, if that Agreement stands it will be one of the high points of history.  That Agreement will be as large as previous President's agreements with the USSR, with Red China, with North Korea, etc.  

It still mystifies me why those who constantly and consistently seek means and lies to take down this President, even if it means taking down the United States of America, would refer to themselves as American.  Instead of spending our time attempting to take down the POTUS, we should be spending our efforts to champion the positives and work hard to overcome the speed-bumps.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 15, 2015)

:applause2:Nice post GOM.


----------



## BobF (Jul 15, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> It's amazing how the Obama Derangement Syndrome can, seemingly, destroy common sense.  So much garbage by the original poster in that top post and in later posts.  The two things that stand out...
> 
> The poster suggests that the POTUS has read communist publications and personally knows some members of the U.S. Communist Party.  In answer to that, I would not want a President of the United States to not be familiar with, well read on, and having an idea of the leaders of the Communist Party.  To close one's eyes and try to make believe they don't exist would be neglect in a President's duties.  But, just as with everything from 'birthers' to those suggesting he's a Muslim... those who hate the President will find fault.
> 
> ...



Place the blame on me?   For what?   I only posted the facts as the Communist Party United States America posted.   I said Obama never called himself to be a communist and I did not say that of him either.   Your entire post is wrong as I see it.   No reason for me to make lies as I am not about to take down this President.   He has done enough already to give folks big concerns about his presidency.   His popular vote is below 50%.   Even in the elections he never showed big at all.   He played electorate states in order to get elected.

I did not say anything about the President but did comment on what the Communist party said.   That he grew up in Hawaii with communist friends and that he later moved to Chicago to join in with some of his communist friends.   Not sure you even read the  items I had posted.   Your clarity is pretty ragged.

*A later post by the same person suggests "his health care program will  remain his one big thing".  They quickly overlook how our economy was in  the tank as a fault of our last President.  That economy, though slow  to recover, has.*

Our economy was having problems, but Obama has not fixed it at all.   Our national debt back then was only 7.5 trillion until the last two years of Bush when the Democrats took over the Congess, then the national debt zoomed up to over 10 trillion.   Just some facts, no lies.   Now with Obama the national debt has grown to 18.5 trillion so far and still climbing.    Obama has added over 8 trillion to our national debt.   A fact, not a lie.   We will all be trying to pay that down over the next many years as we can not exist like this.   We are not intended to live in a far far left socialist way of living in the US.   We should be working to maintain things on a paid for basis.   Pretty hard for some folks to do for sure.

Iran agreement?   Why support or deny it.   We have not had any real information about it yet.   Just some more news type of comments, both for and against.   Anyone seen a print out of the contents and agreements?    Highest point in history?    Or a total disaster?    Only time will tell.    In the mean time I hope we make sure the Iranians will not just pull another twist as they have done to the US more than once over many years now.   Very good reasons to not trust those folks at all.

Ebola?   My my, I guess it was not the job of the medical folks.   Was the US the only country involved with the Ebola fight?   I did not even know it had been declared a dead issue these days.

Enough is enough.   Let Obama finish his term.    We have a lot of work to complete after he is gone.


----------



## drifter (Jul 15, 2015)

I wish we could give this President another term or two.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 15, 2015)

drifter said:


> I wish we could give this President another term or two.



So do I but the way they beat this man I doubt he'd accept.  A good and honorable man smeared with lies and innuendo from day one.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 15, 2015)

History will document the accomplishments of this Administration... not the constant and consistent bashing, name calling, conspiracies, etc.  The accomplishment will live on.  The hate and discontent will be turned to the next person Faux News tells their minions to despise.  Those same documentations of facts will also tell of a President who contrived a war which cost thousands of American lives.  That same President will be remembered as one taking us into a recession nearly equaling the Great Depression.  That is, unless the same corporations who are allowed to purchase politicians since the Citizens United decision are not those authoring history books.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 15, 2015)

Shades of Joseph McCarthy.


----------



## drifter (Jul 15, 2015)

I like Sanders and the Socialist angle.


----------



## BobF (Jul 15, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> History will document the accomplishments of this Administration... not the constant and consistent bashing, name calling, conspiracies, etc.  The accomplishment will live on.  The hate and discontent will be turned to the next person Faux News tells their minions to despise.  *Those same documentations of facts will also tell of a President who contrived a war which cost thousands of American lives.*  That same President will be remembered as one taking us into a recession nearly equaling the Great Depression.  That is, unless the same corporations who are allowed to purchase politicians since the Citizens United decision are not those authoring history books.



It does not appear that you read what I posted a few days back.   Bush did not create the second Iraq war as you claim.   One of the big pushers was a English General Sir Mike Jackson.   Bush was part of the pushing group but so were several other countries.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html[/FONT]


 [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.


[/FONT]


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 15, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Those same documentations of facts will also tell of a President who contrived a war which cost thousands of American lives.  That same President will be remembered as one taking us into a recession nearly equaling the Great Depression.



Review of the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush.  https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...-of-the-Iraq-Invasion?highlight=iraq+invasion


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

For some, facts just do not have any truth.   English Gen Sir Mike Jackson was the lead in this pact to attack Iran.   

Much of what you folks think were lies does not have anything to do with this decision to do a second attack on Iran.    That group of countries that decided to end Saddam's attacks on his people in Iraq did not consider such to be lies at all.   The UN inspectors did not consider those stories to be lies.   They were still trying to find proofs when this decision was made to remove Saddam.

Ending Saddam's rule brought new hope for the thousands that he was jailing, torturing, killing, every year.    A very worthy cause.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> For some, facts just do not have any truth.   English Gen Sir Mike Jackson was the lead in this pact to attack Iran.
> 
> Much of what you folks think were lies does not have anything to do with this decision to do a second attack on Iran.    That group of countries that decided to end Saddam's attacks on his people in Iraq did not consider such to be lies at all.   The UN inspectors did not consider those stories to be lies.   They were still trying to find proofs when this decision was made to remove Saddam.
> 
> Ending Saddam's rule brought new hope for the thousands that he was jailing, torturing, killing, every year.    A very worthy cause.



There is no doubt that Sadaam Hussein was a despot, and ruled accordingly.  However, events since his demise have pretty much shown that sometimes the "Cure" is worse than the "Illness".  He maintained some sort of order among the Muslim Radicals in his midst...generally by killing them.  Now, these Radicals have gained power, and are making a total mess of Iraq, and Syria.  Getting rid of Sadaam laid the foundation for the rise of ISIS...which threatens the entire region...and is causing increasing numbers of problems for the authorities all over Europe, and even here.  

If is often wise for people to be careful about what they wish for....they may Just Get It.


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

This current situation is the result of the invading countries to carry on for many years as we did in Europe and Japan after the end of WWII.   We stayed, we protected, we blocked bad efforts, and over time we had new friends and trusting folks.   Far too much of the sit at home and do nothing stuff going on nowadays.   We do build our own problems.

Now I would like to know how my original post has turned into such a mess about Iraq?   I started out about how the Communist Party of the US was so happy with the path Obama has taken.   Now after several attempts to change the subject we are discussing all this crap about how Bush lied about Iran.   A total lie to begin with as the war was organized and decided by several nations with Gen Sir Mike Jackson making the justification to proceed with out the UN's additional authorizations.

Just what in the world was wrong with the CPUSA's comments about Obama.   Why are so many of you afraid to discuss things and instead try to totally change the subject into some other far left lies about our government?   Why not  stick with the general topic or just move on as you should have.   No need to argue with poor old Bob as some of you think it is.  Stay on topic or move on.   Far better tactic than trying to change the subject with lots of lies and distortions.   No wonder so many not far enough left folks have stopped posting here.   I am still here and you will hear from me even over all the lies being posted.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 16, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> Your entire post is based on the assumption that Right is right.........it's not....it's just a political stance.



It is a bit of a "political stance" opposite that of a extreme left leaning Democrat. It's not about what is right or wrong. All comments or criticism are not politically bias. Big government is much closer to communism than a smaller conservative government simply because of the amount of control/influence one has over the economy alone.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> It is a bit of a "political stance" opposite that of a extreme left leaning Democrat. It's not about what is right or wrong. All comments or criticism are not politically bias. Big government is much closer to communism than a smaller conservative government simply because of the amount of control/influence one has over the economy alone.



No... big government is closer to SOCIALISM....  there is a huge difference.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 16, 2015)

I wish people would learn the difference.  It's night and day.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 16, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No... big government is closer to SOCIALISM....  there is a huge difference.



...the economy alone

Communism is usually associated with the economics and socialism with the policy. Compared to conservative smaller spending government big government is closer to communism from a spending/money standpoint. This is why communism and socialism frequently go hand and hand. Small government spends frugally relying on a free market big government requires big money which comes from taxes and price & wage controls high/low which essentially controls the economy. One could say taxes are a basically around about way of taking private sector a communist government would simply take. Communism is basically economic control and socialism is government control of policy, policy should it includes the services it provides or mandates.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 16, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I wish people would learn the difference.  It's night and day.



And one must learn to read carefully and focus on the subject of a statement. 

"...control/influence one has over the economy alone."


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

WhatInThe, you are  going right along with the way I feel about socialism and communism.   Pretty much identical except in communism the government has absolute control over every thing.   Socialism still has some control over the government.   All else seems to be the same.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> WhatInThe, you are  going right along with the way I feel about socialism and communism.   Pretty much identical except in communism the government has absolute control over every thing.   Socialism still has some control over the government.   All else seems to be the same.



Communism and socialism need each other or are symbiotic because of the amount of control involved. Once one is in place even in theory the second isn't far behind or is very easy to install. The leap is not that far.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

Ok...  lesson 101...  Socialism promotes social safety nets for all the citizens.. public education, universal healthcare,  as well as repair and maintenance of the "commons" which promote the common good. But it allows for individual wealth and advancement. It allows for social classes. A progressive income tax system is used to pay for the safety nets..  Those making a lot of money pay more taxes.. but STILL have more than those who are helped by the taxes.  

Communism... states" From each *according to his ability, to each according to his need .".   which means... no social classes... everyone has the same..  A very simplistic example..    YOU are very smart and energetic.  YOU earn $100.    I am lazy... I earn $50..   the government gives me $25 of your $100 so we both have $75.  THAT is communism..    It is very different from socialism  indeed. *


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

What you just said is exactly what I said.   Communism is government in complete control where socialism is the same without the complete control.   So we are not all equal in a socialist country but that would be the goal.  The two are the same in goals but not in the government level.

Forutunately the communist governments have mostly failed or converted to less demanding ways.   China being the largest and in the process of loosening up from its hard days a few year back.


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

Now why was the CPUSA so happy with Obama's work?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

Communism does not work... BUT neither does pure unfettered capitalism..  eventually, all the money moves up to the top and there become only two classes... the VERY rich.. and the VERY poor.   The middle class disappears..


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 16, 2015)

There is a small island.  12 of us are stranded there.  One has a fishing outfit, one has a rifle, another brought seeds and has grown some veggies.  They meet and talk the guy who hunts admits he has too much meat, the guy who fishes is tired of fish, the gardener has and idea.  Why don't we put all our food together and all could enjoy a meal including those who had no contribution and the one who is disabled? They vote and guess what?   SOCIALISM is born.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

Our system of government and economics is Democratic socialism...or better defined as Capitalistic socialism.. which I believe is the best system in that it allows for personal gain, while caring for the less fortunate..

Medicare is socialism...   Social Security is socialism.


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

Why do you call Social Security as socialism.   It is but a savings forced on the workers for their eventual retirement uses, if they live that long.   It is a tax on the employee and his employer for his personal use, nothing more.   When he retires the pay off will be determined on his 10 best years and expected remaining lifetime.   It is money taken and money returned, hardly socialism by design.   Non workers have no real way to gather this money for any reason I know of.   Any left over after the workers death is then set aside and allocated as reserves for future workers paybacks if they over live their lifetime allotment. 

Socialism would need to divide all that money equally with ALL  residents who are retired and not working.   Social Security does not meet that requirement at all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> Why do you call Social Security as socialism.   It is but a savings forced on the workers for their eventual retirement uses, if they live that long.   It is a tax on the employee and his employer for his personal use, nothing more.   When he retires the pay off will be determined on his 10 best years and expected remaining lifetime.   It is money taken and money returned, hardly socialism by design.   Non workers have no real way to gather this money for any reason I know of.   Any left over after the workers death is then set aside and allocated as reserves for future workers paybacks if they over live their lifetime allotment.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism would need to divide all that money equally with ALL  residents who are retired and not working.   Social Security does not meet that requirement at all.



There is a huge misconception that when we contribute to SS that there is a neat little account somewhere with our names on it..and that is our money that we will get back..   That is simply not true..    FICA payments pay the SS checks of those currently retired..   OUR SS is paid by those working.  So since I am still working, my FICA contributions are paying for your SS..   When I retire..my working sons will be contributing to MY ss and that of every other retiree.    The amount of the payment you get is based on a formula taking into consideration your best years of working.  that is true..   My mother never worked a day in her adult life.. yet still collected SS, because even with my father alive, she collected based on HIS contribution.. Yes..  SS is definitely socialism. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/financi...s-you-probably-believe-about-social-security/




> Myth #1) Your contributions are going into an account with your name on it.





> Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. Social Security isn’t like a 401(k) or even a traditional funded pension plan. Your contributions are immediately paid out to current beneficiaries.
> So where will the money come from to pay your benefits when you retire? Future taxpayers




Your last statement defines Communism.. Not socialism..


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

Contrary to your beliefs, there definitely is a trust fund created just for the SS services and no one else.   And now it appears it also works for the medical insurance folks too.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1860D-16.htm


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> Contrary to your beliefs, there definitely is a trust fund created just for the SS services and no one else.   And now it appears it also works for the medical insurance folks too.
> 
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1860D-16.htm



Absolutely untrue.  At one point it was but then changes made it possible that the receipts were put into the general fund.  What did you think Gore was talking about with his "lockbox" speech?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 16, 2015)

Bob.. there is NO special account anywhere with your paid in FICA tax in it..    


http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2015/myths-of-social-security.html

*Myth 1: When you work and pay Social Security taxes, Uncle Sam puts your tax money in an account under your name. When you retire you get your money back with interest.*
*Fact: The fact is that Social Security is based on a "pay-as-you-go" system. The taxes that are paid by people who are working today provide the benefits that go to people who are retired. The Social Security taxes I paid during my career helped pay for the benefits received by my retired mother and father. And today, the Social Security taxes paid by my children are helping to pay for the Social Security benefits I receive each month.*


----------



## mitchezz (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't think anyone has mentioned this...........with Communism there is only one political party.....no matter who you vote for you get the same government.


----------



## BobF (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't know why you folks do not believe the SS system comments that I posted.   And where are you finding these ideas that the money is saved under names.  Never said to be that way in the commissions papers so just more of the twisted comments used too often.

Now for a rather long and to me, confusing article about SS funds and where they are counted you need to read this link.   It tells all about SS funds and how and who counts them and it mentions the years that something change.   They even include the changes made during Reagon's years.   But no where do they say the funds are just mixed in with the general funds and they do speak of measures to always keep SS funds isolated and accounted.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

[h=3]Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office[/h]  *Research Note #20: 
        The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget* 



*THE FINANCING PROCEDURES*
       In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was          to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were          to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as          such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits          were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January          1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account          on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law. 
...........................

Skip to 1983 changes and Reagan at about three quarters done.   It states that changes made by Reagen were to be taken off budget in 1993.   It then goes on to explain the changes.   So after reading this material, I don't see SS still as part of the general fund anymore.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 18, 2015)

> I don't know why you folks do not believe the SS system comments that I posted. And where are you finding these ideas that the money is saved under names. Never said to be that way in the commissions papers so just more of the twisted comments used too often.



My apology.   I thought that was what you were saying..


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

SS funds are kept just like in a bank.   Some accountant keeps records of your deposits and when you claim, they reach into their record and verify.   Then they allow you to have your due.

For the story about children paying for retirees, not exactly true at all.    In days of full employment and not too many retirees they build funds into a RESERVE amount.   But when, like today, we have a very high level of unemployed and a high level of retirees, then maybe the children will be working for their parents retiring after the RESERVE is distributed out.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> SS funds are kept just like in a bank.   Some accountant keeps records of your deposits and when you claim, they reach into their record and verify.   Then they allow you to have your due.
> 
> For the story about children paying for retirees, not exactly true at all.    In days of full employment and not too many retirees they build funds into a RESERVE amount.   But when, like today, we have a very high level of unemployed and a high level of retirees, then maybe the children will be working for their parents retiring after the RESERVE is distributed out.



Many areas are at full employment.  Our small town newspaper's Sunday edition will see three to four pages of help wanted classified ads.  We're sitting at just under 4%.  Full employment is considered somewhere between 5% and 6%.  Employment numbers dipped dramatically during the 2008 recession.  It's been a slow recovery, but there are jobs for anyone who really wants one.  Employment may require relocation or other hardships.  That's part of staying gainfully employed or not.

The real problem with Social Security is that the baby boomers are retiring en masse.  As the number grow exponentially on the receiving end, there's just not enough coming in to keep the pot solvent.  One of the other problems is that wage growth is stagnant.  The Republicans fight tooth and nail against raising minimum wage.  So, since your contributions to Social Security is a percent of your wages, the revenue stream has trouble growing.

We need those working to see their wages grow.  We need to move the full retirement age reducing the payout and motivating people to remain in the workforce longer.  And, we need to impose a duty tax on goods manufactured overseas in order to encourage moving jobs back Stateside.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

Two charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show where our Unemployment  was high and low and job creation under Bush and Obama.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

A group of workers not being considered are those no longer collecting unemployment but still unemployed.   They do not show up in the comments being shown.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/20/40-percent-of-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs.html

*40 percent of unemployed have quit looking for jobs*
Jeff Cox                                                    | @JeffCoxCNBCcom 
 Wednesday, 20 May 2015 | 12:29  PM ET                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           At a time when 8.5 million Americans still don't have jobs, some 40 percent have given up even looking.

The revelation, contained in a new survey  Wednesday showing how much work needs to be done yet in the U.S. labor  market, comes as the labor force participation rate remains mired near  37-year lows.  

A tight jobs market, the skills gap between what  employers want and what prospective employees have to offer, and a  benefits program that, while curtailed from its recession level, still  remains obliging have combined to keep workers on the sidelines,  according to a Harris poll of 1,553 working-age Americans conducted for  Express Employment Professionals. 

On the bright side, the number is actually better  than 2014, the survey's inaugural year, when 47 percent of the jobless  said they had given up. 

(and more)


----------



## BobF (Jul 19, 2015)

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec20055.35.45.25.25.15.05.04.95.05.05.04.920064.74.84.74.74.64.64.74.74.54.44.54.420074.64.54.44.54.44.64.74.64.74.74.75.020085.04.95.15.05.45.65.86.16.16.56.87.320097.88.38.79.09.49.59.59.69.810.09.99.920109.89.89.99.99.69.49.49.59.59.49.89.320119.29.09.09.19.09.19.09.09.08.88.68.520128.38.38.28.28.28.28.28.07.87.87.77.920138.07.77.57.67.57.57.37.27.27.27.06.720146.66.76.66.26.36.16.26.15.95.75.85.620155.75.55.55.45.55.3


George Bush was President from 2001 until Jan 9, 2009.   Notice how the unemployed stayed rather low until his follow on took over.    Then it started going straight up.   The reason it started going up in 2007 and 2008 was because the Democrats had taken over the Congress with Reid in Senate and Pelosi in the House.   Bad times for our economy started as those two years our debt rose from 7.5 trillion to 10 trillion.   Now with our current government debt has risen to 18.5 trillion and still rising.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 19, 2015)

The problem with statistics....and how they relate to a given Presidency...is that the full effects of a Presidents Policies aren't felt until some years down the road.  Much of the rise in the National Debt in recent years can be traced back the Unfunded Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....indeed, GWB even passed a tax cut while he was preparing to spend untold billions on these wars.  That, plus the economic collapse in 2007/2008 cost vast numbers their jobs, and reduced the governments intake of revenue, even further...while spending continued unabated.  

I'm no big fan of Obama, and we will be living with his legacy for the rest of this decade.  Keep an eye on soaring health care costs in the latter part of this decade, and how they relate to the ACA....THAT will punch a big hole in the Obama Legacy.  Some of the biggest and most costly provisions of this legislation will not take full effect until 2017...After Obama leaves office...Coincidence???  Just imagine if he is successful in ramming the TPP down this nations throat, and destroying even more good American jobs.  

Every Presidents administration seems to screw something up...Big Time...and these two certainly Won't be any different.


----------



## BobF (Jul 19, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war

    Monday 11 March 2013 08.30 EDT

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn  to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government.  This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.
........................................
The actual cost of war was $823.2 billion and Bush's charts to show that those costs were in the Debt Charts which I will show below.

I see these figures to be real as can be and they do show up in the DEBT Charts under Bush's term as President.   His portion of the debt was more than 3 trillion while he was in office.   So I don't see how he did not show the cost.   This may be the way our current government has gotten their medical program going.    All on the debit card just like Bush did.   Just not in the open Congress with debates and authorizations as they should be.


*Table 7.1—FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 1940–2020*
 


20026,198,40120036,760,01420047,354,65720057,905,30020068,451,35020078,950,74420089,986,082200911,875,851
 .......................................

and

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif







  © Copyright 2015, Advisor Perspectives, Inc. All rights reserved.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 19, 2015)

The cost of these "questionable" wars often depends upon which source you are looking at.  Here's another perspective.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629

And, yet another....

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...iraq-and-afghanistan-pricetag-over-4-trillion

With all the Smoke and Mirrors that comes out of Washington, who knows what the real figures will eventually turn out to be.  One thing is for sure...the costs are in the Trillions, and Washington has taken NO steps to pay for these wars.

If you notice, on the chart you posted, our National Debt skyrocketed in the years of WWII.  However, the government, back then, raised income tax rates to as high as 92%, and paid this debt off.  What do you think the odds are of this current Washington bunch acting in such a responsible manner?  All they can do is point fingers at each other.  

These wars are only One of the major reasons why our National Debt has gotten out of control.  If you and I ran our personal finances the same way Washington oversees this nations finances, we would be homeless.


----------



## 3horsefarm (Jul 19, 2015)

At the rate things are going, "homeless" may not be all that far off, when Mexico and China divide up the country.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 19, 2015)

3horsefarm said:


> At the rate things are going, "homeless" may not be all that far off, when Mexico and China divide up the country.



That's for sure!  It appears that the majority population in California is already Mexican, and the ramblings on the La Raza website indicate that they will not be satisfied until California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Southern Colorado are returned to Mexican control....which they claim were taken illegally from Mexico.  China seems determined to do everything in its power to undermine all our industries, and steal away ever good job in this nation.  We may have won the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but we are slowly being eaten alive by the Chinese.


----------



## Debby (Jul 19, 2015)

Is China responsible for undermining your industries or is that entirely the fault of corporations looking for cheap labour and China has merely reacted to a prospective growth situation for them?   Maybe look at your government (and mine) and you and me for wanting cheaper and cheaper 'stuff' and free trade agreements that made it possible for our industries to abandon ship with no penalty for doing so.


----------



## BobF (Jul 19, 2015)

Debby, I think your are right.    If it was up to our industries to build and sell computers we would still be paying $3,000 to $4,000 for our home computers.   When people want it all done here in the US they forget the industries and dealers will have to pay full wages to the employees with vacation and benefits also to be paid.   These companies and businesses all want, and need, profits to stay in business.   Too much of the whining just does not consider how lucky we are in today's markets.   The solutions demanded are just not going to work as some think.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 19, 2015)

Debby said:


> Is China responsible for undermining your industries or is that entirely the fault of corporations looking for cheap labour and China has merely reacted to a prospective growth situation for them?   Maybe look at your government (and mine) and you and me for wanting cheaper and cheaper 'stuff' and free trade agreements that made it possible for our industries to abandon ship with no penalty for doing so.



Its a combination of Both.  China operates is manufacturing base using virtually Slave Labor, paying its workers barely a subsistence wage, and virtually No Environmental regulations, freely polluting the entire planet.  Our manufacturers have to pay a decent wage, and adhere to thousands of pages of State and Federal regulations.  Plus, China maintains a huge electronic hacking operation whereby they have been able to shortcut their R&D process by stealing corporate secrets from the Western manufacturers.  Naturally, under such conditions, their products are going to be far less costly than ours.  

The corporations care little about nations...they are all becoming Global.  Apple, for example, has a "shadow" headquarters in Ireland...so as to escape paying any US Taxes, then farms its manufacturing out to a huge slave labor manufacturing facility in China called Foxconn, owned by a Tiawanese company called Hon Hai.  Apple is probably one of the Worst examples of a corporation whose Only motivation is Profit.

Then, the US consumer has to share the blame.  The vast majority of people can only see "price" when they go to the store.  That is why companies like Walmart have gotten so huge.  People pay lip service to "Made in America", but when it comes time to open their wallet, they invariably chose the cheapest product, and don't even look to see where it is made.  

Our Government is just as bad...with its international trade agreements, like NAFTA...and now the push for the TPP.  Everyone decries the decline of the Middle Class, but no one wants to support the industries that have generated the Middle Class.  It's no wonder that there is such a growing disparity of wealth all over the world.  At the rate things are going, it won't be long before the world consists of a few Ultra Rich Royalty, and masses of Peasants.


----------

