Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ravenchamp

‘Welcome to Obamaville’ Sign Marks Colorado Homeless Tent City

34 posts in this topic

‘Welcome to Obamaville’ Sign Marks Colorado Homeless Tent City

 

“Wastin’ away again in cold Obamaville…”. Just a preview of things to come for a whole lot more Americans. Has any thought been given to how many families will go bankrupt and lose everything just because they were unable to pay their Ocommiecare premiums? Between that crime, Crap & Tax and the obscene federal spending binge; by this time next year, the dollar will have achieved parity with Zimbabwe and our economy will resemble the Weimar Republic. And the NOrwegians bestow a Nobel prize on the head criminal perpetrators; Barrack Hussein Obama and his trusty sidekick Algore.

“From tiny ACORNs mighty Marxists grow.”

 

 

This land is your obamaland,

this land is my obamaland,

from bankrupt california,

to the wall street wasteland,

this land was stole from you and me.

 

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/welcome-to-obamaville-sign-marks-co-homeless-tent-city/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all things considered...

I prefer an administration that focuses on the real problems rather than on the PR efforts needed to avoid having this sort of place named after the wrong President.

 

Theater.

I especially like the professional sign shop work.

 

Theater and politics cuts two ways. But the utter ignorance of those who won't call the current organizers out to claim responsibility for this misnomer deserve a far harsher time than those who would (actually) be forced to endure such a place. At least the last time the depression was actually in effect.

 

Some historical perspective:

A Hooverville was the popular name for shanty towns built by homeless people during the Great Depression. They were named after the President at the time, Herbert Hoover, because he allegedly let the nation slide into depression. The term was coined by Charles Michelson, publicity chief of the Democratic National Committee. The name Hooverville has also been used to describe the tent cities commonly found in modern-day America.

 

Homelessness was present before the Great Depression, and hobos and tramps were common sights in the 1920s, but the economic downturn increased their numbers and concentrated them in urban settlements close to soup kitchens run by charities.

 

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this really fair. The list of names that are responsible for this economic mess is long.

 

But, the long term negative impact of the rampant spending disguised as a solution could doom us for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know if this really fair. The list of names that are responsible for this economic mess is long.

 

But, the long term negative impact of the rampant spending disguised as a solution could doom us for a long time.

 

This could have also been caused by the last administration doing nothing while everything crumbled around them. You are right, that it may be an act of futility of throwing money into a bottomless pit at this point. I would rather hang in there with the guy trying to do something, rather than the party that did nothing for 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RW--

 

I see we were thinking along the same lines as far as Hooverville. The story didn't mention it, but I wonder how many people today are familiar with that term.

 

At the same time, I don't think all the blame can be linked to the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

 

No, you're not pointing fingers at all. LOL

 

Funny, then, how Obama sold his $800B porkulus plan as a way to keep unemployment under 8%. If all economic policies take 4 years to have an effect, he must have been lying.

 

To see who had a hand in the recession, this is always informative

 

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could have also been caused by the last administration doing nothing while everything crumbled around them. You are right, that it may be an act of futility of throwing money into a bottomless pit at this point. I would rather hang in there with the guy trying to do something, rather than the party that did nothing for 8 years.

 

You sure give a lot of power to the office of the president, he doesn't write law, he can only sign, or veto. We had 6 years of razor thin GOP control and 2 of heavier democratic control of congress. Neither group did anything to slow the runaway cart as it headed toward the cliff until there was nothing but air under the wheels. Bush spent like a drunked frat boy, but Obama is making him look like a piker.

 

So, when money is tight, you feel it's better to triple down on the bet, tossing the money towards social engineering rather than directly addressing the effects and symptoms of the problem even if the expenditures turn out to be mostly useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

 

Shhhhhh. Dont do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
‘Welcome to Obamaville’ Sign Marks Colorado Homeless Tent City

 

“Wastin’ away again in cold Obamaville…”. Just a preview of things to come for a whole lot more Americans. Has any thought been given to how many families will go bankrupt and lose everything just because they were unable to pay their Ocommiecare premiums? Between that crime, Crap & Tax and the obscene federal spending binge; by this time next year, the dollar will have achieved parity with Zimbabwe and our economy will resemble the Weimar Republic. And the NOrwegians bestow a Nobel prize on the head criminal perpetrators; Barrack Hussein Obama and his trusty sidekick Algore.

“From tiny ACORNs mighty Marxists grow.”

 

Hey RavenChamp, if you are finding that Ex-Lax is not working for you, or doesn’t quite agree with your stomach, I would suggest you try either Dulcolax, or perhaps Senokot. You will feel a whole lot better by tomorrow afternoon. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sure give a lot of power to the office of the president, he doesn't write law, he can only sign, or veto. We had 6 years of razor thin GOP control and 2 of heavier democratic control of congress. Neither group did anything to slow the runaway cart as it headed toward the cliff until there was nothing but air under the wheels. Bush spent like a drunked frat boy, but Obama is making him look like a piker.

 

So, when money is tight, you feel it's better to triple down on the bet, tossing the money towards social engineering rather than directly addressing the effects and symptoms of the problem even if the expenditures turn out to be mostly useless.

 

The GOP held a majority in both the House and Senate for six of the eight years W was President and had absolute control over policy during that time. The GOP marched in lockstep and needed the Democrats for nothing it wanted to do.

They lost control of Congress to the Democrats in the last two years of W's administration. However, the Democrats margin of victory was narrow. W's administration was usually able to get what it wanted even during that time by getting a few of the conservative "blue dog" Democrats to go along.

I'm not happy about Obama running up the deficit even more, but respected economists like Paul Krugman says it is necessary at this time to prevent the economy from collapsing even worse than it has so far. It was the borrow-and-spend policies of the GOP during the Bush years -- tax cuts for the wealthy even as the war and occupation of Iraq drained the U.S. treasury -- that brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. Obama's trying to fix it. Whether he's got the right formula remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The GOP held a majority in both the House and Senate for six of the eight years W was President and had absolute control over policy during that time. The GOP marched in lockstep and needed the Democrats for nothing it wanted to do.

They lost control of Congress to the Democrats in the last two years of W's administration. However, the Democrats margin of victory was narrow. W's administration was usually able to get what it wanted even during that time by getting a few of the conservative "blue dog" Democrats to go along.

I'm not happy about Obama running up the deficit even more, but respected economists like Paul Krugman says it is necessary at this time to prevent the economy from collapsing even worse than it has so far. It was the borrow-and-spend policies of the GOP during the Bush years -- tax cuts for the wealthy even as the war and occupation of Iraq drained the U.S. treasury -- that brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. Obama's trying to fix it. Whether he's got the right formula remains to be seen.

 

Tax cuts did not bring us to the brink of economic collapse.

 

Cheap money, a housing bubble, weak lending standards, compliant borrowers, and Freddie/Fannie buying every mortgage to come their way is what led to this. Wall Street bought into this and made it far worse than it should have been.

 

Krugman is a far left winger and there are just as many economists who think this rash of borrowing will doom us in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

 

Four years to get out of a recession? Well then how did Bush turn around Clinton's recession? I'd say he did it with tax cuts, and unemployment was below 5% right up to the time Democrats were elected to Congress. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey RavenChamp, if you are finding that Ex-Lax is not working for you, or doesn’t quite agree with your stomach, I would suggest you try either Dulcolax, or perhaps Senokot. You will feel a whole lot better by tomorrow afternoon. :eek:

 

 

 

Admit the Obama failure, it's good for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Admit the Obama failure, it's good for you

 

If McCain had won the election, and up to this point had done note-for-note the same exact things that Obama has done, would you be labeling him a FAILURE as well???

 

Obama walked right into the door and prevented a total implosion of the Financial Sector, and saved hundreds of thousands of Automotive Industry jobs. Now if McCain would have won the election, and accomplished the same thing within his first 100 days in Office, he would have been hailed as the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread.

 

Everything Obama has had to deal with so far has been a la George W. – Iraq, Afghanistan, Unemployment, Banking Collapse, and Mortgage Collapse.

Let me point out also that he is the POTUS, not a Magician. He cannot just wave a Magic Wand and fix all of America’s ills in one rhythmic swoop.

 

Please enlighten me. What are all these failures that you continue to speak about???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RW--

 

I see we were thinking along the same lines as far as Hooverville. The story didn't mention it, but I wonder how many people today are familiar with that term.

 

At the same time, I don't think all the blame can be linked to the President.

 

Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

When you are out of a job you blame the guy in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can't be homeless. During Democrat administrations everyone is working and happy. These people must simply be indoor disadvantaged, and I'm sure the administration has a government program in the oven just for them.

 

Homeless people exist only during Republican administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

Then according to you, the dotcom bust that happened shortly after Bush took office was all Clinton's fault. Then the rebuilding of the economy was all Bushes doing, and since democrats took over in 2006, this current situation is all on their shoulders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can't be homeless. During Democrat administrations everyone is working and happy. These people must simply be indoor disadvantaged, and I'm sure the administration has a government program in the oven just for them.

 

Homeless people exist only during Republican administrations.

 

Indeed. The massive bridge construction projects completed under the stimulus package have already solved the overcrowding problems veterans suffered from in the previous administration. The promise of a bridge for every vet has been met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then according to you, the dotcom bust that happened shortly after Bush took office was all Clinton's fault. Then the rebuilding of the economy was all Bushes doing, and since democrats took over in 2006, this current situation is all on their shoulders?

 

Actually, the dot com bust happened during the last year of Clinton's term. The economy going negative arguably happened on Bush's watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does every one know that it takes a couple of years (sometimes up to four years) for the effects of any economic policies enacted by congress to actually show whether they are working or not?

 

What that means is that any economic actions that happen under Obama's administration may not show that they are working until 2012.

 

That means that what the US is experiencing now is a result of the last administration. As soon as you point that out then the conservatives try to blame it on the Clinton administration, but anything done during that admin would have shown up during the W's first term. If the conservatives noticed the problems that were caused by the Clinton administration during W's term, why didn't they try and fix them when they had the votes in the House and Senate to get those problems ironed out?

 

I'm trying not to point fingers, because that isn't going to help anything. I am just pointing out facts.

 

Would that be why the long delay on health care reform enactment and stimulus money; to disguise its effects until the next administration? Or to buy votes as it starts really hitting the ground? Both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites