Originally Posted by DaleMN

Great things all. But Obama could find a cure for cancer and he could broker world peace and you know what?......the Repubs would say NO!

I guess when you lack the intellectual capacity to debate the facts of the positions posted that conflict with your own ideology and dogma......you retreat and resort to the patently absurd. Very Alinskyesque. Have a nice day in The Villages.

Cabo,

I must apologize to you since you obviously are one of the 9% who approve of how Congress is working.

Originally Posted by cabo35

I guess when you lack the intellectual capacity to debate the facts of the positions posted that conflict with your own ideology and dogma......you retreat and resort to the patently absurd. Very Alinskyesque. Have a nice day in The Villages.

Luv ya too.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Cabo,

I must apologize to you since you obviously are one of the 9% who approve of how Congress is working.

Buggy........outside of hijacking the thread to deflect criticism from the 4th best president ever..........what is your point?

Your sarcastic apology and presumptions of who I approve of or don't approve of seem a bit desperate and sophomoric.

Back on the point of the OP pre-hijack.......where do you believe Obama ranks in the roll call of our Presidents?

Originally Posted by cabo35

Buggy........
Back on the point of the OP pre-hijack.......where do you believe Obama ranks in the roll call of our Presidents?

First, I have not seen the piece you referenced, but would be willing to bet that obama was being tongue-in-cheek, if he suggested he was the fourth best president in history. Just like that type of humor is often misinterpreted on a message board, it is often misinterpreted in sound bites. Like most attempts at humor that politicians make, it was probably ill-advised.
As to where he ranks, no one knows at this point. His term or terms are not yet complete, and where some of his programs and decisions wind up in the context of history are yet to be determined. Right now, his presidency would not rank highly with most Americans, but then Truman's presidency was deemed a failure by most at the time he left office. I realize that your post was probably meant to elicit jabs at obama, which is fair I suppose, but the truth is that no one really knows at this point how history will judge him.

Originally Posted by cabo35

...European style Marxist redistribution of wealth plan Obama is tenaciously pursuing to pay for them...

C'mon, Cabo, wealth IS being re-distributed. Tack whatever name on it that you'd like, but our current tax and regulatory policies have resulted in the rich getting materially richer and the middle class is getting poorer as the result. And the "poor" class is growing at an alarming rate. Did you see the article last week that now over 50% of all Americans have income at or less than the defined "poverty" level?

Any economist will tell you that the vibrant growth of the U.S. economy in the years following WWII resulted from the growth of the middle class, both in numbers as well as in middle class family income. The growing middle class were the ones that spent, with the resultant vibrant economic growth.

What we have now is the wealthiest class controlling a greater and greater proportion of the nation's income and wealth. Because they don't spend as big a proportion of their income as the middle class, all that wealth is sitting on the sidelines waiting until the wealthy see a profitable investment opportunity. For whatever reason all that wealth is frozen, not contributing to economic activity and growth here in the U.S. The soundbite we hear all to often is "why would we tax the job creators?" In fact, a surprising amount of that capital is being invested by the wealthy outside the U.S.--creating jobs outside the U.S., not here. Why have "emerging markets" investments become so popular? Or foreign sector fund investments? Or straight investments in companies outside the U.S.? Why do most competent investment advisors tell their clients to allocate a greater and greater amount of their investments to opportunities outside the U.S.?

I'll admit that I've contributed to that pattern myself. As of this morning, over one-third of my investment portfolio is allocated to investments outside the U.S. Would I like to have a greater allocation to U.S. companies participating in the U.S. economy? Absolutely! But economic growth is so much more vibrant in some countries or regions outside the U.S. that it would make no sense to sacrifice and take the risk of investments in U.S. companies or industries that are stumbling along in a slow-growth state, often sadly uncompetitive with companies providing the same products or services outside the U.S.

You can use all the soundbites and inflammatory terms you'd like, but wealth is being re-distributed because of government policies--from the poor and middle class to the rich. And until our government policies are changed--tax policies, business regulations, and even our investment in education and healthcare--which will put more income in the hands of those who will spend it here in the U.S., our rate of economic growth will be limited, most often to the benefit of foreign countries and companies who present more attractive investment opportunities for capital controlled here than any such opportunity here in the U.S.

Kahuna, alas........I must reconcile myself to the fact that the theme of this thread is destined for perpetual hijacking. Of course you are correct about wealth being redistributed. It started in earnest after WWII when Social Democrats implemented it through state welfare and taxation. The influence of Karl Marx is self evident. Marx believed that socialism will eventually displace capitalism and precede the ultimate wealth distribution as envisioned by him, with some help from Fredrick Engels. He created a new economic system and called it "Communism". That system called specifically for the redistribution of wealth. I'm sure you don't need a refresher or tutorial on Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto and redistribution of wealth.

Semantics can cloud the issue and we can parse the definitions of redistributing wealth or redistributing income. In either case, for Marxism to prevail, a requirement must be the destruction of capitalism. Are you comfortable with that? Brings to mind the often TOTV hashed Cloward-Piven theory that calls for the systematic bankrupting of America by making entailments so burdensome our economy implodes and sets the stage for the "new" system. I challenge you and the liberal but loyal opposition to connect the dots by reading this brief piece on Cloward-Piven followed by googling it til your hearts content.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...tegy_of_e.html

I posted this on TOTV in 2009.

Originally Posted by cabo35

In order to make any sense out of the bizarre spending policies of the Obama administration, you have to take time to study the Cloward/Piven strategy. Cloward and Piven were radical political scientists at Columbia in the mid-60's.

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6967 Search Cloward-Piven.

The Cloward/Piven Strategy advocates forcing change through crisis. What do you think TOTV posters, beginning to sound familiar?

The radical duo called for bankrupting the welfare system by forcing more and more entitlements. Cities were targeted to "flood-the-rolls", break the public coffers and create chaos. The idea was to collapse our entire system of government and pave the way for pure socialism.

Activist groups pushing the Cloward/Piven scheme popped up in cities across the country. One such group, the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, was successful in the bankrupting of New York City in 1975. Other groups were formed led by guess who?????? Would you believe a cult called A.C.O.R.N

These movements rely heavily on financial support from...guess who?????
Would you have guessed George Soros?

In its earliest form, the Cloward-Piven strategy applied Alinsky's principle to the specific area of welfare entitlements. It counseled activists to create what might be called Trojan Horse movements - mass movements whose outward purpose seemed to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real purpose was to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers.http://cloward-piven.com/

Oh... it doesn't stop there. The mobilization of the masses to over burden government resources provided a perfect storm that was parlayed into "voter rights" movements in urban areas. These movements are identified with voter registration campaigns, aided by unions and are tainted with corruption, fraud, bullying and intimidation by union thugs and other despicable un-American tactics. Hmmm....do you remember recent elections and tea parties tainted by Black Panther Party intimidation and union bulls beating a black man? Of course the Republican Party was the beneficiary of all this mobilization. Just testing to see if you are paying attention.

TOTV posters, do not assume that the economic blunders of the Obama administration are the product of inexperience. That is what they want you to think. Try viewing them through the prism of the Cloward/Piven Strategy tempered with Sal Alinsky and Karl Marx.

The bank busting, economy destroying Obama Healthcare Plan, Cap and Trade (TAX) suddenly makes more sense when connected with the Cloward/Piven Strategy. In one swoop, the goal of bankrupting and collapsing the system will be achieved. Call me crazy but from my abstract, minority perspective, there seems to be some insidious logic in the process.

Hmmmm.....(thinking out loud) How does the Great Global Warming Fraud fit into this equation?

Any defenders of Cloward/Pivens who care to make their case....by all means...go for it. Opposing views always welcome and on occasion, intentionally provoked.

There are copious references to Cloward/Piven on line. I've paraphrased a few and supplemented them with my own views and words. I like one that appears, although I am not certain, to come from A.C.O.R.N. http://cloward-piven.com/

Other references, some previously cited, include:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6967

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...tegy_of_e.html

Google is a wonderful thing. Have fun with Cloward/Piven

I could get into one of my epic filibusters here, but we have so much to do before Christmas.

Kahuna, we're really not far apart on a point by point basis. I agree with a great deal with your thoughtful post. We differ on what's driving the redistribution. I suspect it's more sinister than you suggest.

Thanks for a thought provoking post. It is refreshing.

By the way......where do you rank Obama in the list of Presidents?

Originally Posted by buggyone

You got that right!

So you just ignore factual posts as CABO and I presented concerning the payroll tax cut and just continue on with the infantile little snide remarks.

Seems that you and DALEMN just make these comments with total disregard for facts and when shown how wrong you are, you just march off as if it never happened.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss our current President seemingly putting himself in a really elite class and in his words in only TWO years, taking full credit for getting al queda on the run and various other things that are just flat not true and that is ok with you folks.

If so, what chance do we have...you will adore this man not matter what and defend whatever he says, no matter what !

President Obama's record beats Junior Bush's record seven ways to Sunday.

Just WHO are the 9% who think that Congress is doing a good job?

Originally Posted by buggyone

President Obama's record beats Junior Bush's record seven ways to Sunday.

Just WHO are the 9% who think that Congress is doing a good job?

Delusional.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Delusional.

At least, on that, we can be in 100% agreement.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

First, I have not seen the piece you referenced, but would be willing to bet that obama was being tongue-in-cheek, if he suggested he was the fourth best president in history. Just like that type of humor is often misinterpreted on a message board, it is often misinterpreted in sound bites. Like most attempts at humor that politicians make, it was probably ill-advised.
As to where he ranks, no one knows at this point. His term or terms are not yet complete, and where some of his programs and decisions wind up in the context of history are yet to be determined. Right now, his presidency would not rank highly with most Americans, but then Truman's presidency was deemed a failure by most at the time he left office. I realize that your post was probably meant to elicit jabs at obama, which is fair I suppose, but the truth is that no one really knows at this point how history will judge him.

You tell me if it was tongue-in-cheek: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE[/ame]

Regarding Obama, Cloward-Piven Strategy, Karl Marx and redistribution of wealth.....the silence from the left is deafening. Does the silence mean the libs know it and accept it? Perhaps reading or debating anything that is not consistent with the liberal mindset of the loyal opposition is not part of their programming. The snipers post hit and run Democrat talking points and call it a discussion. Where is the intellectual defense from the left on the above invitation to participate in THAT dialog? Where are the Obama cheerleaders? Maybe you would prefer the discussion to have it's own thread?

Having fun in The Villages.....have a great day whatever you do.

Nietzche, "God is Dead;" "Nietzsche is Dead," God.

what the heck is the big deal? So he thinks in 2 areas his presidency is as good as most past Presidents for the first 2 years. So what!

cabo,I am confused. I do know that Karl Marx,Cloward-Piven and redistribution of wealth are terms used by some on this sight. Are you claiming that Obama and his economic policies is somehow using all 3 of these to undermine the USA?