Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic?

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, Transformation baby. and just think...... some of you voted for it. yeehaaa

SNIP:
When I was growing up we used to make fun of countries in Central and South America for the flimsy governments that were run by two-bit dictators who made up the script as they went along. In fact, we made so much fun of these operations that Woody Allen made a movie in 1971 called Bananas which parodied the governments and their haphazard operations. It is probably considered insensitive today to even refer to our southern friends in such terms. More importantly, the question is: How much are we becoming a similar operation?

This is not to state that the root cause of this problem is President Obama. Presidents have been at odds with Congress regarding the powers of the presidency since time began (1789). Early on it was more a process of defining who could do what. In recent times, it has seemed to people and scholars on both sides of the aisle that executive power has expanded at the expense of the Congress with a short turnaround in the mid 1970’s in the aftermath of Watergate. However, the current president has exerted executive power to the 10th degree bringing us the edge of a constitutional crisis.

Since January 2011 when Mr. Obama no longer had a majority in both houses of Congress, he has told the Congress on too many occasions that he will do what he wants and they cannot stop him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a deal with the Republicans who very actively want to structure a multi-faceted immigration reform program, Mr. Obama told them to stick it in their ear and “legalized” five million people here in America illegally.

That caused 26 states to sue him and have the program put on hold. He followed that up by negotiating an agreement with a dangerous adversary, Iran, and made blatant he intends to circumvent the Congress.

ALL of it here:
Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic - Bruce Bialosky - Page 1

Instead of negotiating a deal on immigration?

lol, you daft cow, the deal was done. The votes were there. John Boehner ALONE prevented a vote.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

 

[Mac1958]

No, this is not Obama.

This is a culture war, a deep and real division that is growing by the day.

One guy can't do that.

could be I guess. I believe the article is talking more about him abusing his power as President

His presidency is essentially a symptom of the culture war.

.

true fact. I see what you mean.

I was just reading this if anyone is interested:
SNIP;


This Culture War We're In
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 43 Comments
How are wars won?

To win a war you don't need to kill every soldier on the other side. What you need to do is destroy the other army as an organized force. You destroy the ability of the officers to command and the morale of the men. You destroy their perception of the worth of their side and of their own self-worth.

All wars are culture wars. To win you must destroy the values of the other side. (That is one reason why we're losing to Islam no matter how many times we beat them on the battlefield.) You must destroy their sense of purpose and the values instilled in them to break them as an organization.

That is what the left has been doing to us.

ALL of it here:
Sultan Knish This Culture War We re In

I think this culture war is at the heart of most of our decay.

But there are two sides to every war, both sides commit crimes, and both sides think it's their way or no way.

Too many blind warriors, no peacemakers that I can think of.

.

 

[Stephanie]

No, this is not Obama.

This is a culture war, a deep and real division that is growing by the day.

One guy can't do that.

could be I guess. I believe the article is talking more about him abusing his power as President

His presidency is essentially a symptom of the culture war.

.

true fact. I see what you mean.

I was just reading this if anyone is interested:
SNIP;


This Culture War We're In
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 43 Comments
How are wars won?

To win a war you don't need to kill every soldier on the other side. What you need to do is destroy the other army as an organized force. You destroy the ability of the officers to command and the morale of the men. You destroy their perception of the worth of their side and of their own self-worth.

All wars are culture wars. To win you must destroy the values of the other side. (That is one reason why we're losing to Islam no matter how many times we beat them on the battlefield.) You must destroy their sense of purpose and the values instilled in them to break them as an organization.

That is what the left has been doing to us.

ALL of it here:
Sultan Knish This Culture War We re In

I think this culture war is at the heart of most of our decay.

But there are two sides to every war, both sides commit crimes, and both sides think it's their way or no way.

Too many blind warriors, no peacemakers that I can think of.

.

I think the people has bent over backwards over the years to try and keep the peace

but today we seeing what we got for it. You give them a inch they want a mile...

who's to say what's going to happen. but it's not looking good. They are out to bring us down

 

[Mac1958]

No, this is not Obama.

This is a culture war, a deep and real division that is growing by the day.

One guy can't do that.

could be I guess. I believe the article is talking more about him abusing his power as President

His presidency is essentially a symptom of the culture war.

.

true fact. I see what you mean.

I was just reading this if anyone is interested:
SNIP;


This Culture War We're In
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 43 Comments
How are wars won?

To win a war you don't need to kill every soldier on the other side. What you need to do is destroy the other army as an organized force. You destroy the ability of the officers to command and the morale of the men. You destroy their perception of the worth of their side and of their own self-worth.

All wars are culture wars. To win you must destroy the values of the other side. (That is one reason why we're losing to Islam no matter how many times we beat them on the battlefield.) You must destroy their sense of purpose and the values instilled in them to break them as an organization.

That is what the left has been doing to us.

ALL of it here:
Sultan Knish This Culture War We re In

I think this culture war is at the heart of most of our decay.

But there are two sides to every war, both sides commit crimes, and both sides think it's their way or no way.

Too many blind warriors, no peacemakers that I can think of.

.

I think the people has bent over backwards over the years to try and keep the peace

but today we seeing what we got for it. You give them a inch they want a mile...

who's to say what's going to happen. but it's not looking good. They are out to bring us down

Personally, I think it's over, but I guess we'll see.

.

 

[Conservative65]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

 

[jillian]

No, this is not Obama.

This is a culture war, a deep and real division that is growing by the day.

One guy can't do that.

could be I guess. I believe the article is talking more about him abusing his power as President

His presidency is essentially a symptom of the culture war.

.

you mean the way he's been treated? meh... its not excusable, imo. though i suppose if you extrapolate it out to it's barest essentials, you'd be correct.

Whatever works for ya.

.

you're the one playing semantics. *shrug*

 

[jillian]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

so you think deployed military and people on social security should pay taxes.

maybe you should do your homework, bubbie.

perhaps you should worry more about exxon mobil paying taxes.

 

[JoeB131]

Since January 2011 when Mr. Obama no longer had a majority in both houses of Congress, he has told the Congress on too many occasions that he will do what he wants and they cannot stop him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a deal with the Republicans who very actively want to structure a multi-faceted immigration reform program, Mr. Obama told them to stick it in their ear and “legalized” five million people here in America illegally.

Okay, here's sort of the problem with that. This sort of Executive Overreach didn't begin with Obama.

Hey, remember in 2006, when people were so fed up with the Iraq War that they voted Republicans out of both houses of Congress? Did the war end? Nope! Bush in fact escalated the war.

 

[Conservative65]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

 

[Conservative65]

Since January 2011 when Mr. Obama no longer had a majority in both houses of Congress, he has told the Congress on too many occasions that he will do what he wants and they cannot stop him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a deal with the Republicans who very actively want to structure a multi-faceted immigration reform program, Mr. Obama told them to stick it in their ear and “legalized” five million people here in America illegally.

Okay, here's sort of the problem with that. This sort of Executive Overreach didn't begin with Obama.

Hey, remember in 2006, when people were so fed up with the Iraq War that they voted Republicans out of both houses of Congress? Did the war end? Nope! Bush in fact escalated the war.

Hey, remember in 2006, when people like you said overreach was wrong. Suddenly, when Obama does it, it's "the other guy did it". If the other guy did it and it was wrong, you're admitting it's wrong now but OK because you're guy does it.

 

[JoeB131]

No, this is not Obama.

This is a culture war, a deep and real division that is growing by the day.

One guy can't do that.

again, who started the "culture war"?

I'd say it was Republicans who decided that they could get working class whites to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their racial, sexual and religious fears.

But Mac thinks it's because black people object to their children being gunned down by police.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Yawn, guy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do most minimum wage jobs even AT my current salary. Nor would most people.

If you are doing a hard day's work, you should get a fair day's pay. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

So you disagree with the conservative Republican tax policies that created a large class of Americans that pay no federal income tax?

 

[Conservative65]

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Yawn, guy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do most minimum wage jobs even AT my current salary. Nor would most people.

If you are doing a hard day's work, you should get a fair day's pay. Period.

If you're doing a job that is worth $7.25/hour and you get $7.25/hour, that's a fair day's pay. Your problem is you don't define fair based on someone getting an equivalent wage to their skills or job they do. You define fair on some intangible concept.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

 

[Conservative65]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

So you disagree with the conservative Republican tax policies that created a large class of Americans that pay no federal income tax?

I disagree with anyone paying zero income tax. You must be one of those that believes living in society means contributing to society yet supports the concept of certain people living here but not contributing.

 

[Conservative65]

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

What happened is those who continue to offer low skills now demand they be able to do what costs more although what they offer is still the same.

When income tax rates went down under Bush, they went down on ALL brackets fool. Now, the only ones people like you want going up are the higher ones.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.