Early this morning controversial posters of President Barack Obama have been found posted throughout the highways and byways of Los Angeles. The posters depict Obama as the Joker – a character played by the late Heath Ledger in last summer’s blockbuster The Dark Knight – with a caption underneath which reads: Socialism. As to who is behind the Obama Joker Poster, no one really knows, but it’s not hard to guess — conservatives unhappy with the current policies of the president. Whether or not this is a real grassroots movement, however, or yet another example of conservative astroturfing, has yet to be seen.
While some are suggesting this to be a coordinated and nationwide political statement, so far the posters have only been found in Hollywood, with a few reports mentioning Atlanta as well. Then again, the day is young. I’ll keep this post updated as more news come in.
(photos courtesy of Newsbusters)
Comments
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:45:05 AM
nice looking poster, but the idea of Obama as some secret socialist is pretty absurd - even more absurd, in fact, than Obama as secret muslim or secret non-citizen. i mean, what policies, exactly, does everyone find so socialist? reforming health care? health care has been shit for decades, and have had presidents ranging from Clinton to Teddy Roosevelt to Carter to Truman trying to change it -- and those guys weren't socialists!
JD
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:46:01 AM
This picture IS worth 1000 words. It says it all.
Devin
August 3rd, 2009 - 12:15:49 PM
"Secret Socialist" Is that a serious statement? Cap and trade, government health care, plus the expansion of government in the guise of a 'stimulus package', and redistribution of wealth...is there anyone on the planet who still believes that he is NOT socialist...guess so.
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 12:25:39 PM
we've had government run health care for years (i.e. medicare, medicaid, etc.). in fact, the highest rated health care in America is the VA (government-run). so the idea that this is something "new" and "socialist" is, as I said, absurd. as to the stimulus package -- i guess you're one of those Herbert Hoover fans who like big Depressions. well, no thanks. and redistribution of wealth? umm, taxes are pretty much the same as they were throughout the nineties, that is when our economy was doing great! and much lower than they were in the seventies. So again, nothing "new" or "socialist". As to cap and trade, how exactly is that socialist? there's not exactly any big government take overs happening just cause the men on the radio say it's socialist, doesn't mean it is. read a book or two.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 2:05:41 PM
I'd be interested in you sharing your VA healthcare experiences with us Jessica. What war did you fight in? What battlefield were you wounded on? I'd like to know if you've gotten better treat that I have. You only hurt your cause by pointing to the VA healthcare system as some sort of template for success.
Bubba
August 3rd, 2009 - 2:43:37 PM
Jessica; so says the socialist. Socialism is when the Government takes away your choices (for you non-socialists that means Freedoms) and doles out only what the Government decides you deserve. "Freedom is not for Government to Give"
Texas Pete
August 3rd, 2009 - 4:01:49 PM
Jessica: You need to come in out of the sun. You're obviously not thinking clearly. You offer up the VA as an example of government healthcare nirvana??!? What planet have you been living on? Wake up!
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 4:30:57 PM
I'm a socialist? Huh. For people so enamored with the word, you sure don't seem to have a handle on what it means, do you? Here, I'll help you out. Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. When the government is involved in things, it's not socialism, it's called government. Socialism, rather, is when the government is control of the means, production and distribution (etc. etc.) of an industry. You want to give me an example of that in America? I'll give you a clue, it's not health care. It's not the postal office. It's not cap and trade. And it's not a stimulus package. Those may be liberal policies (well, not so much the postal office), but they're not socialist policies. There is a difference folks. As to the VA naysayers, here's a good article on the matter http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html And to Jim: No, I have not served in combat or ever been a part of the Armed Services, but I'm tempted to. If for no other reason than to get access to their great health care.
Dan S.
August 3rd, 2009 - 5:28:59 PM
TORT REFORM... How come the first reaction from a liberal is to oppose specific reforms such as tort reform, which will lower costs for all? How come the only liberal answer is government takeover of an industry? It seems to me that the liberal has contradictory goals. 1. No tort reform. 2. Government takeover of health care. I pose these questions: When health care workers are working for the government, how effective will suits for putative damages be? How often does the common person prevail against the government? Why not give up the liberal opposition to tort reform and give it a try prior to instituting a costly, bloated, bureaucracy?
Harold
August 3rd, 2009 - 7:05:07 PM
Accurate depiction.That eugenics madman suitable for framing at your local medicare disposal unit.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 7:06:54 PM
Can I get a T-shirt! Yes he is a want-a-be socialist/Marxist. Obama was mentored by a communist and has associated with Marxists all his life. He follows the teachings of Saul Alinski and we are the testing ground. Look at how many Dems belong to the progressive caucus (started by a socialist once headed by good old Nanci-The Socialist Party of America once host their website). These are only a few examples and they are facts--look them up. To say that the president and a good portion of the Dems are not socialist/Marxist or at least strive to transform our nation in that direction is complete ignorance. Just following history to see how ignorance has lead to the wonderful socialist societies lead by Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez (in progress)……and maybe…..Obama?
Mark Lorenz
August 3rd, 2009 - 8:02:24 PM
Calling Obama a socialist is a polite way of saying you're afraid of black people.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 8:13:27 PM
Mark your statement is a perfect example of ignorance.
theMage
August 3rd, 2009 - 8:31:07 PM
I guess Jessica is pro "medicinal marijuana" and she has a lot of "stress" to deal with. Control the means of production? Like how the govt. is a majority shareholder of GM, Chrysler/Dodge? Numerous banks? And who sets the "cap" and sets the rules for the "trading" in "cap and trade"? That would be the govt. Buy a dog, name him "Clue", then you will have one.
theMage
August 3rd, 2009 - 8:33:50 PM
Mark Lorenz, Calling B. Hussein Obama a socialist is a polite way of saying he's is a radical left loon drunk on the koolaid of his radical "acquaintances".
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 8:53:42 PM
Jim, Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist. Big difference. Likewise, neither Stalin nor Castro are (or were) socialists, they were communists. As to Chavez, sure he's a socialist. And Obama? He's a liberal. I mean really folks, do you even know what you're talking about. What a socialist even is? I'll give you a clue, it's not a one-size-fits-all word for people you don't like. It has, you know, like, an actual meaning and all. You know far out stuff... As to theMage, uh, no. I am not pro-marijuana, but thanks for playing. Personal attacks aren't the way to win an argument. Well, not unless you are without an argument, which judging by the rest of your post, looks to be true. First up, that numerous banks part? Yeah, that wasn't Obama. That was Bush. You know, the Republican. You think he's a socialist now too? As to GM and the rest, they're already on track to be handed back over to private investors. Plus, it was the CEOs of those companies that came begging to the government for help. So yeah, nice try again. Anyway, no one seemed able to answer my above question - that is, name one single industry, etc. in which the government has taken over the means, production and distribution? No answer? Ahh, too bad.
ahrcanum
August 3rd, 2009 - 9:02:31 PM
who is Obama? who is John Galt?
theMage
August 3rd, 2009 - 9:21:02 PM
Jessica you ignorant slut, Once BHO implements his spendulous package, the govt. will comprise over 50% of the US GNP. It will put us (by percentage) OVER France and Germany. Obama has been quoted saying he WANTS "single payer" AKA SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 9:25:29 PM
Jessica. The Nazis were socialist--look it up. Keep an open mind look up the facts and prove to me they were not socialist! --and not by quoting some left wing website trying to deny history. Communism is the ultimate goal of Cuba as it was for Stalin and the rest--but the countries were/are socialist. Marx said socialism is the path to true communism. Obviously there are different degrees of socialism. We have socialism in this country and it is increasing. Look at Europe. I respect the European left more because they can at least admit they are socialists. It is shear ignorance to say the left in this country are not socialist. I can at least respect leftist like Rep. Bernie Sander for not hiding his socialist agenda (look him up). He also started the Congressional "Progressive"Caucus. 1/3 of the Dems in congress belong to the caucus . It is a socialist organization. Nancy Pelosi used to head the caucus. Jessica prove me wrong about Obama's associations with Marxist/socialist throughout his life. Prove me wrong Jessica. Have an open mind to the truth. Don't let you bias blind you so. You sound like a bright person, but ignorant to the truth.
Mark Lorenz
August 3rd, 2009 - 9:38:28 PM
Right. People who argue with you are ignorant. You're regurgitating talking points that were sold to you, which is basically what the level of political discourse has fallen to, then are accusing other people of not thinking critically. There's going to be a 3% redistribution of wealth, which at no point qualifies as socialism. If you have any rational points, and not ad hominem or straw man arguments, make them, but until then, you're loons and an easy source of cash for people to exploit. And the Nazis were fascists. Anybody versed on political philosophy knows that. Even though they called themselves socialists.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:02:16 PM
The Nazi Party’s 1920 “Twenty-Five Point Programme” demanded: …that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens… the abolition of all incomes unearned by work… the ruthless confiscation of all war profits… the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations… profit-sharing in large enterprises… extensive development of insurance for old-age… land reform suitable to our national requirements…[70] ----go look it up on Wiki or a history book. The Nazi party considered themselves to be socialist and yes they were also fascists. With comments such as "Calling Obama a socialist is a polite way of saying you’re afraid of black people." How ignorant are you! It is not wonder this country is in trouble. Obama's blackness has nothing to do with this augment. It shows that you have greater issues to deal with. I don't look at the color of his skin. I look at who he is as a person. And he is a socialist....... I don't want my country going down that road. What I don't like is when people are deceptive about their true agendas. And it is mind boggling that people such as yourself are so ignorant and make such foolish comments trying to equate anyone who dislikes Obama's policies and philosophical beliefs as being a racist. People such as yourself are the cause of racial divide in this country. We are all God's children. But it doesn't make Obama or Bernie Sanders or Nanci Pelosi....ect any less a socialist. The truth is the truth no matter how ignorant you are..
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:04:53 PM
theMage, ahh I see more personal attacks? you admit defeat then? anyway, if you want me to take you seriously back up your allegations with substance, otherwise just stick to your third grade insults, seems all you're up for. but real quick, single payer is not socialized medicine. i know it gets real confusing as they're both forms of universal health care (aka, that horrible thing that the "socialists" want), but believe it or not, they're completely different things. as to Jim - I've proved you wrong on every point so far, and you haven't refuted a single one. but i guess i can do it one more time if you like. but first, tell me, who are these marxist/socialist friends he had his whole life? it's hard to argue with a straw man unless i actually know which one it is.
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:16:35 PM
Hey Jim, taken from Wikipedia (which you just asked me to read), it says this about National Socialism (i.e. what the Nazis were). "As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, Democratic Socialism and liberalism" read the entry yourself. it's not socialism. (oh! but it's in the name! it has to be! ...)
theMage
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:31:10 PM
And you jessie are arguing semantics. It would be like you saying "he's not a child molester, he's a member of NAMBLA". Please enlighten us with the vast differences between socialized and single payer. And while you are at it, please explain why you do NOT hear about the mass exodus of US citizens to the Great White North for their healthcare. Paul Krugman of the NYT was at a conference and asked for a show of hands: "how many here are from Canada" a voice in the background says "It looks like about 7". Then Mr.Krugman asks "and how many of you are unhappy with your healthcare system". The background voice: "looks like about the same 7!" None of us can afford BHO's policies. Unless, of course, you are unemployed.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:54:21 PM
Yes they where against many groups including other socialst, capitalist, and communist groups. But if you read everything else they believed they where socialist. Hilter believed the Nazi party was a Jew free socialist party. They also went by the name The National Socialist. They may have been against other socialists and also capitalist but they were socialist in ideology as well as facists.
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 10:56:32 PM
theMage, read both of their wikipedia's for the long-ish version, but here's it in a nutshell. Single payer refers to who's paying for the health care (as in there is only one payer). Now that payer can be the government (like Canada I believe) or it can be a private insurer (like Taiwan, iirc). However, that payer is only paying for the insurance. It doesn't pay the doctors. Own the hospitals. Or anything else. Socialized Medicine is much like England has. Or we have for our veterans (the VA). It is where the government actually owns the hospitals, pays the doctors and writes policy, etc. for the hospital. While it, in general, has a good track record, it has for one reason or another (lobbyists!) became the stand in for "evil horrible thing!! omg!". some people believe that too. For a better look, here's the definition of single payer from the National Library of Medicine: An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying health care providers. The scope may be national, like the Canadian system, state-wide, or community-based. The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs. make sense? as to Canada, they're not exactly the top of the class when it comes to health care - although they are certainly better than here! at least as far as lowering costs & insuring everyone (like every other Westernized nation). as to high class care, though, you'd be write in saying America does better than Canada - but at such a cost!. Anyway, that's a lot more nuance then I meant to put. My real point is, if you want to compare health care systems, look at France. (oh no! not France!). They have the world's best health care system. Or check Germany, or Belgium or Finland or Sweden (oh no! Europeans!). Hell, even check Taiwan. Final point, none of can afford not to change health care. read the papers. our health care issue has become a fiscal issue. that is, by the year 2025 - if nothing is changed - we, as a country, will be spending 25% of GDP on health care. That's insane! We'll all go broke. Furthermore, while Health Care may seem cheap to some (i.e. those with great medical plans), it's not because it is, it's because your job pays the bill. $13,000 a year (on average) of it. And they're not just doing it for free either. That extra $13,000 comes from what might have been your raise or bonus. Wages have been stagnating for years. A big reason? Employers are bogged down by expensive health care plans.
Jessica
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:01:56 PM
Jim, all right, i'll cede the point that in a wide stretch of the word, Hitler could be described as socialist. but, then you'd have to understand that that kind socialism and the kind used in Europe are at complete opposites of the political spectrum. so far, in fact, that they'd be completely different things (other than name!). But to restate my point, Europe's socialism - and the type of socialism Obama and every liberal supposedly secretly is - and the type of "socialism" Germany championed are completely different things. Not even close. I mean, please, name a Barack Obama policy that is in anyway similar to the polices of Hitler or Nazi Germany.
bus
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:03:45 PM
oops new controversy
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:22:27 PM
I was trying to point out that Obama is deceptive in his agenda and socialism has lead to loss of freedom through the shear ignorance of people who followed these leaders. The Europeans have lost many freedoms even though their form of socialsm is generaly called "soft socialsm." The Europeans at least admit their goals. Obama and other dems try to hide their true beliefs with the goal of slowing changing this country without the masses realizing they have accepted this "change." This is not some crazy loony idea. Their is plenty of video evidence of Dems and other leftists admitting as much. I got an ear full of it when I went to college from my Marxist professors just like Obama did. I have provided you proof that Obama is doing the same in his own words. And yes the Nazi believed in a similar form of government control that is similar to what Obama is doing right now. I'm not saying he is Hitler, but I am saying he is deceptive. And it has and will lead to a loss of freedom if we go down that path anyfurther.
theMage
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:28:32 PM
Jess, At what cost indeed. Your quote of $13000 is the average cost of a family of 4 ($12,700 according to the NCHC, single coverage was $4700 as of 2008), but by CBO numbers your socialist-in-chief wants to drop SIXTY THOUSAND PER PERSON to cover the 15 million that the CBO says will be covered under his plan. And, of course, if you figure in government cost over-runs (de rigeur in govt. history), massive inflation that always follows US borrowing of this magnitude, and you have insanity of the highest magnitude. THEN, I notice the complete lack of tort reform in any of the liberal "overhaul". As to your comment about Canada having better heathcare? REALLY? Quit getting your facts from Michael Moore movies. 16% higher cancer death rate, wait times of MONTHS from critical care treatments, then of course there are all the Canadians coming HERE for treatment and yet a lack of any media coverage of ANY US citizens going THERE for coverage.
Jim
August 3rd, 2009 - 11:36:31 PM
Keep an open mind Jessica--I have to go. i still want a T-shirt.
Mark Lorenz
August 4th, 2009 - 12:04:48 AM
You people are hilarious. Regurgitating talking points. Where the hell were you people when George Bush was restricting news outlets, throwing people in prison without trials, and arresting dissenters? Were you complaining about losing freedoms then? No. Guess what? Liberals aren't secret socialists. That's dreck that people feed you so they can sell books and get viewers or listeners. And you're buying into it.
Jessica
August 4th, 2009 - 12:40:32 AM
theMage, get some updated numbers - that CBO report from June is a couple reports old now. plus it was for a bill without Medicaid expansion or the employee mandate (i.e. it was an incomplete bill without the biggest cost-reducers and expansion drivers). check the one from last week. it shows health care decreasing our growth curves within the next ten years and expanding coverage. As to Canada, I just wrote a paragraph saying they're not the best, in fact they're pretty mediocre. You should read it. In it I also mention the fact that France (the horror!) has the best health care system at the moment. And tort reform? Do you know how much medical malpractice takes from health care? Here, from Wikipedia: "Including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of all US malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending" and then: "Other recent research suggests that malpractice pressure makes hospitals more efficient, not less so" Plus it's basically just another way to favor the business over the individual. No thanks.
Dave
August 4th, 2009 - 6:39:15 AM
These posters showed up yesterday in Presque Isle, Maine (04769) along Main St. I saw them there before reading about this happening in L.A., which is why this story caught my attention.
Todd
August 4th, 2009 - 8:16:00 AM
Funny when people screech about the eeevil Booosh. 'Throwing people in prison without trials'? That would be foreign terrorists. They don't have my constitutional rights. Get over it. 'Restricting news outlets'? What an assinine statement. The only ones I saw restricting anything as far as news outlets go were DemoKrats refusing to give statements to FOX news or to debate with a FOX moderator. The 'mainstream news outlets' do nothing but transcribe exactly what ObaMao wants them to transcribe. The only reason people know what's in the socialist Healthcare bill is alternative media (radio and the internet). 'Arresting dissenters?' Yeah, we sure saw American citizens being thrown in the slammer left and right for openly calling for assisination, impeachement, etc., and being personally targeted by statements from Bush himself. Oh wait, that was ObaMao investigating 'Joe the Plumber' and the Mainstream State-Run Media blackballing him. Or maybe it was ObaMao calling a cop 'stupid' on national TV without knowing any of the facts. Or maybe that is Glibbs trashing any news media personality that dares to question the 'dear leader'. ObaMao to everybod: Get Health care - Government Healthcare. Oh yeah, and if you actually work for a living - pay more so deadbeats can get health care too. If you don't get it, we sic the IRS on you and fine you. Can't or don't want pay the fine for forcing you into govt. healthcare? Well, the IRS solves that too - by jail time. Cap and trade? Bank takeovers? GovernMent Motors? Trillion dollar monopoly money giveaway? As far as the 'Whhyy soooo Socialist?' poster goes, can't wait to print a bunch out and plaster them up on a wall using a ladder so pinheads like Jessica can pound sand.
theMage
August 4th, 2009 - 8:54:38 AM
Jess Mcwrongenstein, now who is ignoring the bill and the facts? DO THE MATH: if the AVERAGE cost of malpractice insurance is TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR PER DOCTOR, you might want to add that cost into the cost of all of our treatments. And the way your socacrats want to "decrease our growth curves"? THEY WANT TO STOP ANY INCREASE IN PAYMENTS IN THE FUTURE. That's right, the government wants to tell what your doctor can charge 10 years from now, forget their increase in costs, research, new/more expensive equipment: THAT'S SOCIALISM. Are you willing to forgo any possibility of a raise for the next year? Even if it helps your fellow socialists?
JB
August 4th, 2009 - 11:14:26 AM
Jessica, take a look at this on why Obama is a socialist. It even has a picture so it's easier to understand for your ilk: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Though it has numbers and we know those make your sensitive parts hurt.
Mark Lorenz
August 4th, 2009 - 12:04:15 PM
Yes, they're all, "Foreign Terrorists." Only, they're not. And if you don't think "Foreign Terrorists" should have rights here, what's stopping other countries from detaining our soldiers and citizens who they feel the same way about? And if you're seriously comparing Joe the Plumber, whose own party labeled him a complete idiot, to arresting people at peaceful protests that the media never covered, your worldview is either incredibly insular, or you're very angry. I'm guessing both. And you don't know where to direct it. Annnnd corporations always receive more welfare than the poor. Always. So rail against those deadbeats. Put your rage to better use. A 3% redistribution of wealth, and putting money into government programs that you'll probably wind up using, doesn't equate to socialism. No matter how you try and spin it. Again, if you have facts, and not ad hominem attacks, fine. But you don't.
Jessica
August 4th, 2009 - 12:52:36 PM
theMage, not sure why you keep changing my name, but so you know I'm not an ignorant slut, a pothead or Irish-Jewish (McWrongstein? really?). Jessica works just fine. Thanks. As to your allegations, I'm not really even sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you could link to a news article or something that explains it better? You'd do well to follow JB's example. As to JB, you must be forgetting a few things. First, when Bush took office he inherited a large surplus (remember those? they were these cool things in the nineties) and a booming economy. Fast-forward to the day he left office, and we had rising deficits and an economy on it's knees. So yes, Obama has used funds to restart the economy. He had to - unless you wanted him to be another Herbert Hoover, cutting spending during a recession and turning it into a long, drawn out depression. However, even though Obama is spending a lot of money now, his budget is to be neutral within a 10 year time table. Which is much, much better than we ever got from Bush. The only time Bush was close to having a neutral budget was when he entered office (i.e. before he could change anything). Also, I've been using numbers, facts and news articles this entire time. You, it would seem, are actually the first conservative participant to do the same. So congrats I guess.
BHO
August 4th, 2009 - 11:12:24 PM
You guys do realize that your just being trolled by this jesica dude... right?
Jessica
August 5th, 2009 - 11:08:02 AM
Yes, JB, I looked at the numbers. And then I explained them. Do you want me to repeat myself? Furthermore, if the chart wanted to relay the full picture, it should expand past 2000. It'd be interesting to see the changes from when Clinton was in office to when Bush entered office. Or even better, to see what happened when both Bush Sr. & Reagan were in office. I'll give you a clue - the deficit didn't look pretty! But, of course, there was no conservative outcry back then. Why would there be? They were in power, who cares about the deficit. Anyway, my above point still stands (i.e. Obama needed to raise the deficit to recover the economy Bush had destroyed). Also, what exactly is Obama lying about? Post after post is accusing Obama of lying, behind dishonest, hiding things and of being socialist. Yet time and time again, conservatives aren't actually able to bring anything up. No actual examples. Or if they do bring up examples, they are dishonest ones, that are easily refuted. I mean, every time I answer (backed up with stats and facts), I never get a response, only a change in topic or repeated, but very vague, accusations. You keep saying he's a socialist, but HOW is he a socialist? What is he doing? And please, don't bring up an example I've already refuted, unless you're going to bring an actual argument backed up with stats or facts. As to BHO, by trolling do you mean owning? Cause, yeah, I agree.
theMage
August 5th, 2009 - 11:37:53 AM
Markymark, Put down the bong, quit reading DailyKos, and everything will start getting better soon. "Foreign terrorists": are you arguing that there are US citizens in Guantanamo? I'm gonna guess you think 9/11 was an inside job, and you believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. And where do you liberals get 3% weath redistribution? Obama is planning on making government comprise over 50% of our GNP. For you Marxist deniers: if we mostly "produce" government programs, that means we are mostly SOCIALISTS. All of you liberals seem to hate that word, but your desires sure do seem to be awefully socialist.
Jessica
August 5th, 2009 - 11:44:10 AM
theMage, show one news story that backs up what you claim. Or any source really. Because it appears to me that you are just making up numbers (especially as it appears you like to make up characteristics of those you talk to - i.e. pot smokers, socialists, and sluts - as well as who knows what else). However, I'm willing to be proved wrong. Just give me a source.
theMage
August 5th, 2009 - 11:52:59 AM
Comrade Jess, As I am SICK and TIRED of you uberliberals bringing up Clinton as your great savior, please spend a minute looking up a couple of terms: Budget Deficit: spending more tax dollars than tax income (reduced by conservatives by reducing spending, reduced by Clinton by JACKING UP TAXES MORE THAN AND ANY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER). National Debt: money owed by the US government to its investors. NOTE: CLINTON NEVER ELIMINATED THE US DEBT, EVER. Jesicka, I'm guessing you had no investments at the end of the Clinton administration. There was this little thing called the "DOT COM CRASH", or were you out off the earth at that time? Not only did I lose a bunch in the market, but I was also involved in retail sales and the economy was on an obvious downturn (read CRASH) before Bubba left office. Yes, Bush inherited a budget surplus (national dept STILL high), but then this little thing came along, perhaps you heard of it: NINE FRICKIN ELEVEN. Funny thing happens to the deficit when we go to war EVERY FRICKIN TIME! Or were you on a "brain sabbatical" at the time? p.s. Please don't confuse conservative and republican: There was ALWAYS outcry at govt overspending by conservatives, not so much always by republicans.
CarChasingDog
August 5th, 2009 - 12:09:25 PM
http://whysosocialist.blogspot.com Way better.
Jessica
August 5th, 2009 - 12:17:43 PM
theMage, Comrade now? Really? Anyway, read all my above posts, I'm referring to the deficit. In no place do I mention the national debt - in fact, you are the first one to do so. So thanks, but no thanks for the econ 101 lesson. But yes, we have a national debt. We've had one off and on - but mostly on - ever since the Revolutionary War. In no place did I ever say that Clinton had paid it off. That would be ridiculous. So I'm not really sure why you're bringing that up at all. What I did say, and still stand by, is that he decreased the deficit - inherited from Bush Sr. - and turned it into a surplus. That surplus was then turned back into a deficit by Bush Jr. As to the Dot Com Crash, I agree, it was a bad thing. And it was, in part, the fault of Clinton - or more specifically Greenspan, Clinton's Chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, the reason for that bubble - and its pop, cause all bubbles pop - was the capitalist policies of Reagan. You see, Greenspan was a firm believer in the free market, so much so that he openly spoke of his admiration for Ayn Rand. So yes, Clinton was part responsible, but it was because he was following the economic footsteps of Reagan. That is, no regulations. Which is unfortunate. And while I like things Clinton did, that is one that I didn't like. Anyway, if you look at that chart JB provided us, you'll see that the crash didn't cause a deficit. It was, Bush's tax cuts as well as his two wars. One of which we never should have started in the first place (I'll save that for another time, though). And finally, Clinton did not have the highest taxes of any administration ever - previous or future. Not even close. Carter gets that prize. In fact, Clinton was pretty close to what Reagan had. Oh, and under Clinton's "suffocating" taxes our country had unprecedented economic growth. So I'm not sure how that helps your theory out either.
theMage
August 5th, 2009 - 12:46:22 PM
Comrade Jessie, Actually, Clinton's tax increases (1993) came on the tail of a recession, so growth was expected. The real economic growth came after the 1997 tax cuts (written by a republican controlled congress). And percentage of increase, Clinton's 1993 WAS the biggest increase. In total percentage of income at the time, yes Carter was the highest, and the only reason the rates were still high under Reagan was his tax cuts were phased in over time (ie, Carter's fault).
Jessica
August 5th, 2009 - 4:01:35 PM
theMage, You're right that Clinton inherited a recession (guess from who), but his economic growth was actually very even throughout both terms (average economic growth of 4% each year in office). Also, just because one inherits a recession doesn't mean that growth is guaranteed. Especially immediate growth (see: Hoover, etc.). However, Clinton did get immediate growth. Especially with regards to jobs. Check out this chart: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/job-creation/ As to the percentage increase of Clinton's tax hike, maybe? I'm not sure, but I don't see how that is especially relevant. All it means is that he took over after three administrations had worked to cutting it down. So his modest tax raise may have seemed bigger than what it actually was. Anyway, we're starting to get way off topic. Your complaints against Obama were deficits. The only reason I brought up Clinton was to talk about how he decreased that (which he did). Here's a nice chart to look at to help: http://joejolly.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/national-debt-gdp.gif As you can see, the deficit soared each time a Republican was in office, starting with Reagan. Another interesting statistic - as Republicans like to think of themselves as fiscally responsible. Anyway, you're still avoiding how Obama is a socialist or being dishonest or what he's hiding. No more changing the topic, let's get a straight response this time. Otherwise I'll just assume you don't have an actual response. No need to waste my time.
theMage
August 5th, 2009 - 5:30:43 PM
Comrade Jesicka, Check my 1137am post for my belief that BHO is a socialist. Why do you have a problem being called a socialist? Your policies seem to be awefully socialist. And don't quote paul krugman to me, the man is a raving socialist (he wanted 25% more spending than what BHO proposed) and works for the socialst flagship paper: NYT. Unless you want me quoting Hannity...
Jessica
August 5th, 2009 - 5:43:43 PM
Oh right, I forgot that Hannity won a Pulitzer, my bad. I mean the NYT a socialist paper? Really? Not really sure I can argue with you anymore. You are beyond me. Besides, I wasn't quoting Krugman, I was pointing a chart in one of his posts. You may not like Krugman's analysis, but you can't argue with the numbers. But, as to your actual allegation in the above post (where government jobs will take over 50% of GNP), um again, where are you getting these numbers? Please state a source. Because I've never seen those numbers before and they sound made up. Prove me wrong!
Jessica
August 6th, 2009 - 12:26:38 AM
Oops, that should read Nobel not Pulitzer! My bad indeed.
Leandros
August 7th, 2009 - 5:32:55 AM
I find it both amusing and startling that so many commenters are actually buying into the bull these conservative talkshow hosts are spewing and believing propaganda placked on the road without critically thinking for themselves. I sure hope Jessica is the most representative of Americans here because if not it's extremely worrying for the rest of us.
JB
August 8th, 2009 - 1:22:04 AM
You are welcome to leave. In fact, I encourage it. Move to one of your socialist paradises. Freedom-loving people have nowhere to go so we will make our stand here vs ilk like you.
david
August 8th, 2009 - 6:29:47 AM
For all of you idiots that get their facts from the MSM, have you even read any of the Fracking bills that have passed? Probably not. U just want to keep fogging the waters so no one can understand what is going on. Keep spout rhetoric from news people like their facts. Fact-Obama and Dems have spent more in the past 2 (Bush did sign these bills) years than all of the last 5 presidents combined. Hear that or are your heads still buried in the sand? We do not like what Bush did either-should be shot for treason(after a fair trial) just as all the others in Federal government should be. They are passing illegal laws-what is not in the constitution is relegated to the states and the individual. So quit spouting your fracking rights to medical coverage-because it is not in the fracking constitution. Fine, go ahead and pass an amendment, good luck with that. As for you and our government believing that you can keep doing this crap you better fracking back off. The anger in these meetings is just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, one more thing, a little thing in the healthcare bill-old people will just be given pain pills for their problems because it is not in the interest of the nation to keep them alive. SOUNDS LIKE HITLER AND SOCIALISM TO ME. Oh and here is my email and name so you can turn me into the office of future people to be audited and thrown in jail. David Kramer dasexyboy@charter.net!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Russ
November 4th, 2009 - 6:01:57 PM
I'm just gonna comment on the Va as a template for healthcare. I spent two years in Iraq with the Marine Corps. I have two Purple Hearts, which I recieve constant care for at my local VA. First off there is absolutely no bedside manner. I was an inpatient for over a year and I saw many different doctors and nurses that acted the same across the board. Second: Appointments are extremely hard to get. Even with a dedicated program for OIF and OEF veterans. I recently called and asked for an appointment and was given one two months out. Granted no emergency, if I utilized my private insurance within a week I can see a doctor. Three: The facility is tired and the equipment old. Having more job security than a private doctor the VA doctors are not so intune with your care. Example: My doctors when I was an inpatient had finished their internship and a new group was coming in. The problem was that there was a gap of patient care of two days. No doctors saw patients. There were doctors available (it isn't that bad), however only on an emergency basis. Even worse is that neither the new or old doctors renewed my pain meds. Being it was the Fourth of July the doctors had extended time off. No doctors could renew my meds because my new doctor had not consulted with me. By the way I was in a body cast with a broken bone on every limb, I was not tryin to get a fix, I was hurting. So I went into withdrawls from the meds and had horrible pain, it was the worst experience of my life, especially when unable to move. No matter what me or my family said they insisted I was fine. Thank god my father is a doctor and realized what was wrong and fixed the problem. I know this got drawn out and I can name many more problems like dry blood on the arm rest when they take your blood etc. Every experience with the Gov't I have had besides serving the Country I love has turned out to be a horrible one. It took two years to get an answer on my disability rating, and another six months to get a check. And the new GI bill is a complete failure so far. The semester is over in five weeks and the only check I got was an emergency check the VA issued because they messed up. If you are not familiar with the VA system please talk to a vet young and old. That is the only way to get the real idea of a gov't run system. I strongly feel that the route the WH wants to take with healthcare will fail the people and put us into debt. The system needs work but not a new direction. Oh i'll leave out the time I woke up in surgery god I love the VA.
Horatio
December 19th, 2009 - 11:44:31 AM
If Hitler was a socialist as some deluded minds here claim, why did the only political opposition come from the social democrats and communists?