Biden: Obama Has ‘Backbone Like a Ramrod’

Biden cited Obama’s gutsy decision to order a covert raid on Gibson Guitars.

“…People knew Barack was really bright, they knew Barack was straight…”

He forgot to mention the “straight” part awhile back when he said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

If the president does have backbone, he needs to present it differently to the American people and I do realize he will receive criticism regardless from the right, at this point I laugh at their lunacy of disdain of whatever our Potus does from the right, as this statement dates myself, it’s a tired out broken record. He appears weak at this point against the tea party people. IMHO, he is not going to sway the tea party people, they have carved themselves within the sands, people gradually wake up to idiocy of their dogma and sometimes never, he needs to impress the Independents, Republicans who vote both ways and dems who vote both ways, and his party who could vote for an Independent or alternative party candidate. I know he has what it takes, it just needs to get out there.

“Biden cited Obama’s gutsy decision to order a covert raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani compound as proof the president is a strong commander ”

If this is all they have then his administration is in serious trouble.

This was a call that any President could have and would have easily made. It required no more guts than deciding to eat a second piece of pizza.

PHANTOMNITER: “You don’t know what socialism is. You throw out the word as talking point that doesn’t make sense to most normal Americans.”

I know exactly what Socialism is, and I don’t need talking points from anyone to call it out when I see it.

For as long as Democrats desire to redistribute the wealth of their harder working neighbor into their pocket, they are Socialists — period.

Socialism has a negative connotation because it’s an unfair, inefficient system that redistributes the wealth of those who worked for it to those who didn’t. For this reason, it fails wherever it’s been tried and serves to distort and drag down free markets it gets injected into.

It also has the added bonus of incentivizing corruption in government through concentration and control of the people’s wealth and power. Freedom and free markets have proven to work much better.

The big flaw in the right-wing fringe definition of socialism is it makes the ridiculous assertion that working class Americans aren’t the ones actually doing the hard work

“For as long as Democrats desire to redistribute the wealth of their harder working neighbor into their pocket, they are Socialists — period.”

Somebody is hopelessly, hopelessly confused. It’s the GOP and its tea party that redistributes the wealth from their harder working neighbors into their own pockets, deeming themselves worthy and everyone else as not. Check out Matt Taibbi’s interviews with tea party GOP types sometime. And check the numbers. Republicans spend more money; that’s just a fact. They spend it indirectly on programs that “are biased towards workers who are White, full-time, in large companies”… But spend it they do. Everyone knows small and independent business or blue-ish collar guys and gals who work much harder. It’s not that hard sitting in an office all day, unless kissing someone’s tush is considered hard work.

SKIP: “Here on this planet mixed economies, a mixture of free markets and socialism, are by far the most successful by a very long way.”

It’s the freedom and the free market that makes us great. The centrally-planned Socialism is what causes our problems, like now. Not to worry, though, as they are going to plan us out of it.

SKIP: “The universal failure of socialism is only a mantra of the right-wing frontier. Just ask the AARP if they think Medicare is a failure.”

I don’t need to. All of the Socialist programs are currently unsustainable according to the very government that runs them. Not to mention your Socialist programs are propped up and made possible by the free market. Nice try taking credit. Socialism can never stand on its own, which is the same reason we need to avoid it where ever we can.

From the known king of clever metaphors.

We need to stop listening to absolute nonsense from the right-wing fringe when their real agenda is to further redistribute wealth away from workers and consumers to those who freeload on paying their fair share of taxes. These tax breaks and loopholes are what the Tea Party is really trying to protect..

Biden only knows how to suck up.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 31, 2011, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

Bush funded the American Dream Downpayment Initiative to provide down payment assistance to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn’t even afford a down payment on a house. This lead hundreds of thousands of people into mortgages they couldn’t afford. It was cooked up by him and a majority Republican congress.

“With the free market, hard work, innovation, and in-demand products and services are rewarded naturally.”– Anonymous

Define free market. Do you mean free of gov’t intervention, regulation and taxation, or free of unnecessary charges and interventions, or free of fraud, monopolies and price fixing, or free of foreign debt or freed from feudalism and serfdom/slavery? If you mean all of the above, explain in detail how that is supposed to work, given history. Can you account for why it hasn’t worked in the past and explain why you think our country isn’t good enough? We’ve been very successful. Why do we need an extreme makeover, what would that makeover look like, who would it benefit, and why should we turn our back on what has gotten us as far as it has? We’re a hugely successful country. Travel. Check it out.

Historically, what you say is untrue and as you’ve noted before, you can’t really point to numbers or data to back up these types of claims, they’re made on faith in ideology. Which ideology? Liberalism, maybe, which supports capitalism and the free market as an ordering principle of society, but with limited gov’t intervention to mitigate the underbelly of unrestrained laissez faire robber-baron type free market capitalism under which power and wealth accumulates and hard work isn’t necessarily rewarded, nor are a wide variety of products and services necessarily available (Look up “monopolies.” See also oligopoly, market power, price discrimination, and note there is? ) But you’re always denigrating liberalism, the ideology on which our great nation was founded.

Or is your brand more anarchist, libertarian or min-archist? Because the truth is there is no market in the real world which satisfies the conditions of perfect competition. And I don’t believe in blind faith just for the heck of it.

Many if not most people see the term free market as you use it as ideology which serves and protects the vested interests of the wealthy, allowing them to attack labor laws– which arose naturally from free people sticking up for themselves, not tyranny– and other consumer and worker protections . What’s interesting to me as I read your recited ideology is that classical liberalism was truly revolutionary and all about freedom. It broke us out of serfdom and the tyranny of the great landlords , but today’s “conservatives” and free market “libertarians” are so reactionary they actually use “free market” rhetoric to defend the current institution that most closely resembles landed lords: the huge corporation. It’s crazy.

Thank goodness the GOP and its tea party are so unpopular. Even Rasmussen– despite Scott Rasmussen writing a book to promote the GOP’s tea party– has been forced to acknowledge how very unpopular the GOP’s tea party is… and three of four frontrunners in the GOP field for president are tea party Republicans. “Looks like it’s a little more popular to be a liberal or a progressive these days…Being linked to the Tea Party is the biggest negative. ” (Tuesday, August 30, 2011; Rasmussen) Will the unpopular out-of-step far right and the GOP base have to rebrand again?

Lord knows we’re sick of the anti-America ranting from them.

socialism never leads to happiness only shared misery.

SKIP: “You’re correct, we feel no shame whatsoever in stopping the Tea Party from cutting benefits for senior citizens and working class Americans while protecting tax breaks and loopholes for their favorite constituents.”

Making an unsustainable program sustainable isn’t cutting benefits, even if liberals don’t like that we aren’t raising taxes to get there. Do you have any more liberal scams? That’s right, they all are.

Actually, with freedom and free markets, the people decide how much wealth they receive by how hard they work. Posted by: Anonymous | August 31, 2011, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm

You must have a strange definition for “hard work”. In my experience, the one’s working the hardest are paid the least.

NATURAL CURIOSITY: “You must have a strange definition for “hard work”. In my experience, the one’s working the hardest are paid the least.”

Must have been a union shop. The Socialism inherent in most unions fosters less work and less productivity. When you base pay and increases on seniority rather than merit, these artificial, counterproductive situations arise.

In a free market, those who work hardest by providing an in-demand product or service to the market are rewarded the most. You can work real hard digging a hole in the ground, but don’t expect someone to pay you a million dollars for it.

Annoymous: LOL, as I see it the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is becoming obsolete, hardly assume that to be redistribution of wealth. Throw out the word socialism, lol, is useless you have nothing to back it up.

I like to know which nations are socialist according to the right, because you folks on throw it out there as a lame talking point.

I think that Kimberly will continue the ” very unpopular tea party” nonsense until President Perry is inaugurated in 2013.

Must have been a union shop. Posted by: Anonymous | August 31, 2011, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
***************************
No – it isn’t. Try again. I happen to know that my experience isn’t unique. Again – those who work the hardest, receive the least compensation. Those who are more educated, work less, and receive more compensation. Those with the greatest “social” status work even less, and receive the greatest amount of compensation.

KIMBERLY: “We’ve been very successful. Why do we need an extreme makeover, what would that makeover look like, who would it benefit, and why should we turn our back on what has gotten us as far as it has? We’re a hugely successful country. Travel. Check it out.”

It is our freedom and our free markets that makes us great, not your central-planning Socialist government. Love the conservative message, but your application is wrong. Check yourself.

The “makeover” needed in government is only as extreme as the government interference into the free market. The “makeover” wouldn’t happen over-night, as it will take time to remove all of the unnecessary tentacles of government.

It is our freedom and our free markets that makes us great

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Name a country which has no major social programs that is great.

in a free-market, monopolies are created and destroyed by the people naturally

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can you list any examples? Or is this just another case of posting claims with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. My bet is you can’t, otherwise anti-trust legislation would never have gained traction.

Skill level is not the same as how hard work is…but when you have a weak point go to the strawman.

hard work will guarantee you nothing but the lack thereof will.thats the real free market system./

hard work will guarantee you nothing but the lack thereof will.thats the real free market system./

Posted by: catman | August 31, 2011, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm

that’s hot

it’s irrational to spend your days and nights obsessing about them.

Posted by: Chuck | August 31, 2011, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm

Taking the projection involved into consideration, I can see the merit of your basically conceding it’s irrational to spend your days and nights obsessing about what you imagine I’m obsessing about. What happened to tea partier Glenn Beck’s tv show, btw? On the replacement show, Bob Beckel said the polls show people reject the tea party by a 2 to 1 margin.

These people on the far right throw out the term socialism like its candy with nothing to substantiate it with. And to be honest, wth do they mean? Communism or Socialism which are two different entities of economic models. If they referring to countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany as being socialist, they also are some of the most competitive economies worldwide and have some of the lowest poverty rates on the globe.

The “makeover” needed in government is only as extreme as the government interference into the free market. The “makeover” wouldn’t happen over-night, as it will take time to remove all of the unnecessary tentacles of government.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 31, 2011, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm

Remove all? So here’s what that would look like ( a lot like Perry’s moratorium on all regulations, yeah?): the FDA would stop approving new drugs, preventing human experimentation and ensuring drug safety; the USDA would stop checking for food safety; the EPA would stop monitoring for poisons in drinking water; the National Transportation Safety Board would stop investigating airplane accidents; HHS would end Medicare payments; no more patents, copyrights, or trademarks would be issued; minimum wage and all worker rights and safety requirements would be abolished; the Department of Homeland Security would stop protecting chemical facilities from terrorist attacks; the Treasury would stop printing currency; financial sanctions on hostile nations like North Korea and Iran would end; the Federal Reserve System would shut down; the number of uninsureds would rise as in Texas.

I think that Kimberly will continue the ” very unpopular tea party” nonsense until President Perry is inaugurated in 2013.

Posted by: Nephron | August 31, 2011, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm

What will he be president of exactly? Texas? He’s a tea party candidate! And no matter how uncomfortable it may make you, I will continue to state the truth: the tea party is extremely unpopular. It is viewed more negatively than any other group that was asked about including liberals, progressives, atheists, etc. according to multiple polls– even Rasmussen, though Rasmussen has written a book to promote the unpopular and rebranded GOP base. Also unpopular are the tea party views expressed in Fed Up!, more the manifesto of a demogogue than a true story about the improbable rise of a D student.

The voices of the majority of Americans, who are not conservative and certainly not tea party conservative, must be heard.

ANONYMOUS: “Just because you discount the work it takes to bring an in-demand product or service to market doesn’t mean it isn’t hard work.”

NATURALCURIOSITY: “And just who exactly is doing the heavy lifting in bringing such a product to market? The idea guys? Probably not. Think about how the tasks are actually delegated – use sticky notes if you need – then get back to me.”

Heavy lifting doesn’t require skill, and without the “idea guys” there’s nothing to lift. When you become an “idea guy,” you can earn their wage.

SKIP: “If free markets are the what makes a country great and social programs are the cause of all our troubles it should be relatively east to name a country which is doing great by remaining unencumbered by all these supposedly detrimental social programs.”

America, the country with the free-ist market, is the most successful. The social programs you speak of were built on the free market, not the other way around. That’s how you can determine the source of our success. You really have to try to not understand this stuff. Liberals . . .

ANONYMOUS: “. . . if you understand how freedom and free markets work, you understand that, by definition, monopolies are not possible in a free market. People are free to buy and sell to who they want for the price they want. It’s only when government gets involved is choice removed.”

KIMBERLY: “Property rights (buying up all the property where a natural resource lies…).”

Yes, some properties have more amenities than others. The more resources, the more valuable the property. People should be free to buy the property they can afford.

KIMBERLY: “Collusion. Exclusive dealing. Mergers.”

Private people and entities should be free to work together.

KIMBERLY: “Limit pricing.”

People should be free to set a good or service at whatever price they deem appropriate. Free people in the market decide if the price is reasonable.

KIMBERLY: “After all wealth and power tend to accumulate and corrupt. Naturally.”

So, why put the power of the economy in the hands of the few? The collective wisdom of the people should be trusted over a smaller sub-set of government overseers given your anecdote. Because the wealth and power is accumulated in government they can inherently do it better? That’s the major flaw inherent in nearly every liberal argument. The government is to be trusted over free people.

“Just because you don’t understand…”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2011, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm

You crack me up. What you lack in detail, substantiation, evidence, facts, data, logic, real world application, historical accuracy, economic literacy, you make up for in sheer chutzpah and determination to repeat your ideology over and over, no matter how nonsensical and in contradiction to the facts it may be.

I understand the market, business, American history, the success of this country and a wide range of philosophies quite well, and I prefer my knowledge base to yours, as it is real.What matters to me is how to succeed individually and as a country in the real world in a manner that ensures we live up to our ideals as stated in the Constitution and its amendments, and prosper. I don’t think a radical, reactionary and misguided right wing makeover is necessary or in keeping with American values or what the vast majority of Americans want. Polling of Americans validates my view.

Our country was founded with a federal gov’t, and we emerged as a superpower, a world leader, during WWII, post the new deal. While the free market as it truly exists is an important component of our success story, laissez faire capitalism’s contribution was the Great Depression.

To Skip you wrote, “America, the country with the free-ist market, is the most successful. ” On what do you base your assertion that America is the country with the “free-ist market”? Source? Criteria? Logic? Typically if you’re talking about free markets and economies you’re looking at regulation, investment freedom, property rights, taxation and so on. WSJ (along with a right wing outfit, either CATO or Heritage, I believe) ranked America 8th after Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and either Switzerland or Denmark. Just sayin’

When you ask me, “So, why put the power of the economy in the hands of the few? ” I turn that question to you. That IS my question to you. Why do you want to overturn the progress made in favor of the present-day institution that most closely resembles the corrupt power holders under feudalism and serfdom: the huge corporation? And why do you want to take away the people’s power/options to do something about the corruption that can result from the accumulation of wealth and power? You concede all of the barriers to market entry that result in the formation of monopolies while continuing to claim monopolies can’t form in a free market. What are you basing your version of the free market on exactly? It’s nonsensical.

No wonder tea party conservatives and Republicans have been so crappy for business. they don’t understand it! Their unpopularity is unwarranted.

KIMBERLY: I don’t think a radical, reactionary and misguided right wing makeover is necessary or in keeping with American values or what the vast majority of Americans want. Polling of Americans validates my view.

Anonymous: It isn’t reactionary to return to our more free roots. I would argue it was the over-’reaction’ of government in the form of overbearing regulation that caused the Great Depression as well as most, if not all, of our other economic downturns, including the present.

— When you say our more free roots, what precisely are u talking about? Who was more “free”? Who wasn’t? When was this specifically? Also, if you “would” argue that it was solely the over-reaction of gov’t that caused the Great Depression, then by all means go ahead. Make the case. Claiming you would argue something isn’t an actual argument. The malinvestment theory of the Austrian school is held by very few economists. According to the theory, all business cycles are caused by government intervention in the market, which is what you seem to believe. In 1969 and again in 1993, Milton Friedman concluded that the theory was false. It was motivated by the political leanings of its proponents and never backed up by empirical analysis. There’s certainly room for debate on the causes: gold standard, deflation, a growing gap between the wealthy and poor (by By 1929, 1% of Americans controlled 40% of the wealth in this country), Smoot-Harley, hoarding money, international trade collapse, drought

—

KIMBERLY: “Polling of Americans validates my view.”

Anonymous: And, last year’s election validates mine. I’ll take the American people over your liberal polls any day.

It’s not just “liberal” polls, it’s all polling– the GOP and its tea party are very, very unpopular and the majority of Americans are not conservative; on the issues, America does not agree with the right’s extreme ideology and policy or cultural war positions. On top of that, Republicans lost two seats in Wisconsin, many new Republican governors are extremely unpopular, Congressional republicans are more unpopular than dems and dems have won the last two of three elections. A dem is in the WH and dems still retain a majority in the Senate. Rebranding can only hide so much for so long. People are catching on.

I’ll take the American people and their preferences and values also. But I find it worthwhile to actually provide references and backup for my claims. I want ALL American voices to be heard and accounted for. We appear to differ in that regard.

—

KIMBERLY: “Why do you want to overturn the progress made in favor of the present-day institution that most closely resembles the corrupt power holders under feudalism and serfdom: the huge corporation?”

Anonymous: And, how can you call corporations operating fairly and legally in a free market ‘corrupt?’ That’s anti-freedom, that’s anti-American.

Fairly? So, in your extreme view, corporations are NEVER corrupt? You’ve never seen it? Multinational corporations are potential tyrants in the same way powerful states are, and for heaven’s sakes, they dominate the power structure; they pore money into the state and get it back ; making a distinction between potentially coercive hierarchical powers and naming one as always bad and the other as always good seems overly simplistic, childish and black-and-white naive to me, as well as grossly misguided. On top of that, if your aim is free market capitalism and you want the tentacles of gov’t removed, it ought to occur to you that corporations receive rights from the gov’t . The courts give corporate entities the rights of persons, meaning they can propagandize freely, advertise and they have the same protection from inspection by state authorities that people do. Unlike gov’t, they’re mostly unaccountable to the public. Of course they are not real persons… they live longer and such. And in trade agreements, they are granted “national treatment” whereas the people, real people, are not. They can sue states, which we can’t do. Jefferson opposed the early development of corporations.

Ever hear of John Dewey? He said politics is the shadow over society cast by big business. “And that will remain true as long as power resides in “business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda,” Dewey said.

Being aware of the facts isn’t anti-American, though it may be unusual in certain circles. It absolutely isn’t anti-freedom. The truth shall set you free, anonymous. I’m equally pro-business, pro- gov’t elected by the people, pro-labor. America is an amazing country, very successful. I don’t see things in the black and white terms you do, and I don’t buy any ideology hook, line and sinker. Too practical. I think change on a national level works best when it’s ameliorative. I prefer sensible discourse between elected officials and representatives. I’m not a pollyanna about business or labor or state– they’re all complicated with good and bad involved.

—

KIMBERLY: “. . . the corruption that can result from the accumulation of wealth and power . . .”

Anonymous: Again, I’d risk the accumulation of wealth and power with the people over government any day. If you feel power corrupts naturally, then you must see that concentrated power corrupts more. Thus, the limited government our founders invisioned. And, you claim yourself a student of American history.

See above. Check out the history of business in the United States– check out well reasoned discussions regarding how the founders would view today’s power structure. Do it for yourself. I won’t expect you to concede anything as you obviously are politically motivated and regurgitating ideology ad nauseum but it will be worth your time just for your own knowledge base. For example, who said this and why?:

“I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

or this: ““There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”

Or this: “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

Whose idea was this for the bill of rights? ““By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline.””

Still wondering what you have to say about this: “To Skip you wrote, “America, the country with the free-ist market, is the most successful. ” On what do you base your assertion that America is the country with the “free-ist market”? Source? Criteria? Logic? Typically if you’re talking about free markets and economies you’re looking at regulation, investment freedom, property rights, taxation and so on. WSJ (along with a right wing outfit, either CATO or Heritage, I believe) ranked America 8th after Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and either Switzerland or Denmark. Just sayin’”