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.

Luv ya too. :cus:

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?

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.

Aww, C'mon...
 

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.

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?

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?

Delusional.

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

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?