Town Square

Today is the day of International Worker Solidarity

Original post made by Wokers of the World Unite on May 1, 2013

Today is a great day. The United States is the latest county to become enlightened. Under the inspiring leadership of President Barack Obama, he and his leadership have kept President Obama's promise to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to transform the United States into a socialist country modeled after Scandinavian Socialism. We owe President Obama a great debt of gratitude and to his House and Senate Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed. Capitalism was well intended but there is too much concentration of wealth at the top. There needs to be a more equitable distribution and President Obama is seeing to that.


Posted by do not feed the troll, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm

"President Obama's promise ... to transform the United States into a socialist country modeled after Scandinavian Socialism"

Fringe freaks, trolling for a response. Do not feed the trolls.

But I'd love to see that promise! Show the quote?

Posted by Political Observer, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 3, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I doubt if there was a quid pro quo between President Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. The president is so committed to socialism that no promises needed to be made. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee was so elated that it found its foil that it knew Obama would serve up Socialism without any encouragement on its part. Obama is a man on a mission and that mission is to push the United States to Socialism as quickly as possible.

Posted by Gilbert, a resident of Atherton: other
on May 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm

The socialist has taken down capitalism and the free market and businesses have suffered SO MUCH!!!

DOW Breaks 15,000.

Yeah, business and captalism will never be the same....

Of course, political observer buys all his products from Communist China....

What a bunch of trolls.

Posted by There is No Free Lunch, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 3, 2013 at 6:52 pm

The only reason the stock market is doing so well is the Fed at the direction of Obama is keeping interest rates artificially low. That means there is a flight of cash from bonds to stocks because bonds are offering moribund returns.

Obama is doing this to monetize the debt. The U.S. Government is the largest borrower of money in the world so interest rates are are being kept artifically low by the FED (Has anyone bought T-Bills lately?) This is done to keep the interest paid on our national debt low. But the debt is so staggering the interest paid on that debt even at the unprecedented low rates is like a runaway train. So more and more budget is being allocated to pay off interest which crowds out needed spending.

The U.S. national debt is currently 16 Trillion 845.8 Billion Dollars. When Obama took office the debt was 10 Trillion 626.9 Billion Dollars. The debt has increased 6.2 Trillion dollars under Obama's watch (4 years and 4 1/2 months). By comparison the national debt increased $4.9 trillion dollars on Bush 43 over an 8 year period.

All those poor saps under the age of 30 who voted for him because he was so cool will be left holding the bag. The thirty and under generation will be the first geneartation with a lower standard of living than their parents and they have Obama to thank for that.

Posted by Gilbert, a resident of Atherton: other
on May 4, 2013 at 7:06 am

Poster No Free Lunch - please show the links to your posts complaining about Bush when he dounbled the national debt.

And kept artificially low rates.

Posted by There is No Free Lunch , a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 4, 2013 at 7:32 am


I am not your research assistant. But if you do the math you can easily see that Bush 43 did not double the national debt. You can also see that if Obama continues on the same course he will more than double the national debt and will come close to running up more than 3 and 1/2 times as much debt as Bush 43 did in his 8 years. In fact I am willing to bet you that Obama will run up 4 times or more debt than Bush did.

Posted by hypocrite, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm


He called you a hypcrite for not showing links to your posts objecting about Bush doubling thedebt from 5 to 10 trillion, fter being given a budget surplus from Clinton

Posted by Baum ECR, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 4, 2013 at 4:49 pm

Reagan tripled the debt from 900B to 2.7 trillion

Bush 1 added a trillion to 4 trillion

Clinton added a trillion to 5 trillion

But Clinton balanced two budgets and left a surplus for Bush (~$120 billion surplus for Bush)

Bush II doubled the debt from 5 trillion to ten trillion -- while giving America it's first trillion dollar deficit

If someone didn't make a post about Bush doubling the debt, then it's obviously hypocritical to be whining now. I looked in the 2008 posts and do NOT see any posts from poster No Free Lunch, nor any of the libertarian or conservatives who have moaned about Obama for the last 4 years.

Prove me and the above posters wrong about your hypocrisy --- share the link to your posts about Bush.

Hypocrites? or ahead of your time?

Prove it.

Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on May 4, 2013 at 5:57 pm

Oh Lordy -- clearly the local Republicans aren't very good at political satire or humor.
These attacks on Obama as a "Socialist' are pathetic and unsophisticated -- and not even a good cover for local racism.

Posted by There is No Free Lunch , a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 5, 2013 at 7:46 am

Slow to non-existent economic growth has become the new Obama standard thanks to his growth-stagnating policies that have produced an economy that consistently underperforms expectations. This is Socialism at it finest and an economy on life support.

When Obama first took office in January 2009, he forecasted 4% GDP growth for 2011 and 2012, as did most economists.

Unfortunately the actual results are a moribund 1.8% growth in 2011 and an anemic 2.2% in 2012.

Just last summer, Obama was bragging that Q4-over-Q4 growth in 2012 would be 2.6%. The result is a very disappointing 1.5%. The political Reverend Ike cons us once again.

Now with Obama's Socialism kicking in, stoked by gargantuan tax hikes, his regulators are once again dancing around the Maypole, while ObamaCare's ominous storm clouds are looming ever so closely over the horizon.

With Obama deficits expected to top $1 trillion for the fifth consecutive year, why should anyone be surprised if the economy underperforms again in 2013? And the Keynesian coma becomes ever deeper as our quality of life continues to diminish while liberals drink the Kool Aid in vain attempts to forget their folly.

Socialism is the last refuge of a liberal. It makes conservative "scoundrels" look rather respectable these days. Libs should just "roll another one just like the other one"

Posted by Baum ECR, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 5, 2013 at 9:33 am

Post removed. Lets tone down the rhetoric and stop the personal attacks.

Posted by Baum ECR, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm

@freelunch moves the goalposts from debt to GDP

Jobs are the key to GDP growth, as jobs are also key to increasing revenues and decreasing deficits; look at the jobs numbers for the last 8 Aprils:

April 2006: + 181,000 Bush

April 2007: + 76,000 Bush

April 2008: - 215,000 Bush

April 2009: - 704,000 Lingering effects of Bush Great Recession

April 2010: + 229,000 Obama policies take effect

April 2011: + 304,000 Obama

April 2012: + 112,000 Obama (numbers decline due to GOP debt ceiling threats)

April 2013: + 165,000 Obama (numbers decline due to layoffs from sequester)

Posted by Menlo Observer, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Heyward Robinson would be a much better president than Obama. Mary Jo Borak would be a great vice president. Paul Collacchi would be a great secretary of transportation. And of course having Gail Slocum heading up the EPA would be a no brainer. Menlo Park has some real talent.

Posted by that girl, a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on May 5, 2013 at 7:03 pm

Thanks to the posters who went back and searched the threads from 2008 and Jan 2009 looking for posts from all these moaners and whiners complaining about the national debt, and found that none of the hypocrites had actually posted any comments at all about BVush doubling the national debt.

So according to No Free Liunch, it's okay for Bush and the GOP to double the national debt after being given a surplus, but omigosh, if that ##### guy does it, he's a SOCIALIST!!!!

To be fair, it wasn't Bush alone that said Clinton's surplus' were paying the national debt off too fast, he had help from that fraud Greenspan: (Jan 2001) "The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade."

So Greenspan blessed Bush's policies of taking the annual surplus left by Clinton, and essentially doubling the national debt over the next 8 years.

When it could have been paid off instead. For No Free Lunch to blame Obama for the debt to be inherited by "the thirty and under generation will be the first geneartation" is grossly disingenuous, if not a flat out lie.

Bush not only left us with a doubled national debt (after getting a surplus) his recession left the next president with a -8% GDP and job losses of almost a million jobs lost per month.

The Under Thirties ought to be ticked off alright... and they are!

That's why Obama won in a landslide.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Obama's win had more to do with who he ran against than the other nonsense posted above. Had Romney actually been able to project something CONSISTENTLY as to who he was and what he was going to do, he might have had an actual chance. But he couldn't. So, sorry, Obama's win had less to do with what his policies might be and what Bush's policies were than who he ran against. Just sayin'...let's keep things honest. They both suck.

Posted by Nancy K, a resident of Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
on May 5, 2013 at 8:57 pm


Evidence and facts that Bush and the GOP were handed a surplus that would have in about a decade virtually PAID OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT, is called "nonsense"?!? Yet conservatives now moan about the big debt being handed to our grandkids?

Bush in 2001: "Last month George Bush told Congress that his administration would pay off as much of the public debt as it could, which meant paying off just over $2 trillion over the next ten years. The rest—the irreducible minimum—he said was $1.15 trillion." Web Link

Instead of reducing the debt to a paltry $1.5 trillion, Bush ballooned it to $10 trillion and left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression. How can someone call those damning facts "nonsense"?!? Bush was an unmitigated disaster.

Americans didn't cast aside Romney because he "sucked" (per Menlo Voter) or because he flip flopped; Americans cast Romney aside because he was just another Bush -- he used the Bush economic team in his campaign. America cannot afford Republicans and their phony trickle down economics.

Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm


we can't afford the Democrats and their "whatever" either. The Democrats and Republicans are opposite sides of the same coin. Neither party has the best interest of the county at heart. They are both beholden to special interests. They are BOTH screwing us. Be advised, those of you from either side that try to claim one is worse than the other are just blinded by your own partisan demagoguery.

Posted by Nancy K, a resident of Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
on May 5, 2013 at 9:51 pm

Menlo Voter: while some of your opinion is valid (campaign finance reform, giveaways to corporations, and of course, the recent mockery that was the FAA vote) I think you belittle the differences at our country's peril. Just off the top of my head, a few differences:

- A women's right to choose: huge differences between the parties
- equality: huge differences
- taxes: huge differences (Dems favor progressive, Repubs favor flat)
- fair pay protections for women: significant differences
- minimum wage and worker protections: significant differences
- environmental protection, clean water, clean air: significant differences
- economy: as outlined in posts above, just look at the differences between Clinton (surplus) and Bush (doubling the national debt after promising to virtually eliminate it)
- sensible gun legislation: significant differences
- feeding poor children so they stand a chance in school: significant differences

If I listened to your opinion, I'd think there is no difference. That doesn't mean I don't seek significant change in the party I favor, either.

Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 6, 2013 at 7:14 am


of course there are "differences." The differences are in what way each party is screwing us over. You're clearly a democrat, so I don't expect you to get it any more than I expect a republican to get it. You're too wed to the supposed "ideals" of your party.

Posted by SIMPLY FAAAAAAAAABULOUS, a resident of Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
on May 6, 2013 at 9:13 am

A Simply Fabulous Response!!!!!!!!!!

You're one of THEM, so You Clearly Don't Get It. (how did THAT ONE work in debate class?!!?)

Never mind actual history and factual evidence, "You're too wed to the supposed "ideals" of your party" to get what those of us who don't live in the reality based world know so much better than you sheep!!!

Mr/Ms Menlo Voter: are you saying Nancy is wrong about a woman's right to choose? That Republicans are the same as Democrats?

Are you saying that Republicans favor your closeted gay grandson's right to marry the person he loves?

Are you saying that WJ Clinton's surplus is the same as GW Bush's deficits?

Who's drinking the Koolaid now? How's it taste?


Posted by Sam Billings, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 6, 2013 at 9:40 am

"The differences are in what way each party is screwing us over." That bit of blindness glosses over some realities.

How is a budget surplus "screwing us over"?

How is equality and the right to marry "screwing us over"?

How is asking criminals, convicts and the insane to undergo a universal background check to buy a semi-automatic "screwing us over"?

How is funding Head Start and cancer clinics "screwing us over"?

Posted by Baum ECR, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 14, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Our first trillion dollar deficit was Geaorge Bush's.
Poster No Free Lunch lied with his statement: "With Obama deficits expected to top $1 trillion for the fifth consecutive year..."

From the CBO today:

"If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP."

$642 Billion.

The lowest since the start of the Bush Great Recession.

No Free Lunch lied about a trillion dollar deficit.

We need to invest in jobs, education and infrastructure to continue to enhance revenues and further reduce the deficit.