Seriously, folks... how can anybody still support this president's economic policies? How can HE justify continuing to do the same things he's done since taking office? Any other president would've cleaned house when it comes to his advisors... tried something else to change the tide. WTF is wrong with this man that he can't take responsibility for these lousy economic conditions???
Not to worry, last time we had a democrat president that was this bad, we had a victory that was this big:
Thx for bumping this one, PN. Obviously, the Obama-worshippers wish it would just go away. Wonder if voters have changed their minds since the 2010 mid-terms? You know, because things have gotten so much better? *koff*
With an eye to the US presidential election, Obama recently announced two initiatives: first, the declaration that the 21st century will be "America's Pacific century" and second, the formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Unfortunately, the full result of "America's Pacific century" could only be known by the end of the 21st century. By then, numerous US Presidents would have come and gone, and Obama would have held countless dialogues with God. Whether the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership could achieve anything is a big question mark. By the time if the slow-moving partnership could achieve any success, Obama will definitely not be around to benefit from it. If such partnership can really work wonder, I wonder why Britain makes no attempt to transform its so-called Commonwealth into a vast free trade zone. Please refer to the following links: 1. Obama declares U.S. a Pacific power http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111117000532 2. Trans-Pacific Partnership: Jumping on Sinking Ship http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00222.htm
Well he can't and that is why his numbers now are even below President Carters! ( Obama's Approval Plunges Below Worst-Ever President Carter ) Soon Obama will be exiting stage left, just like that other other Black Man, Herman Cain did!
Being a Libertarian and not a Republican or Democrat I'm faced with the question of whether a Republican adminstration would have done any better? We do know that prior to the 2008 election that McCain's tax and spending policies would have lead to larger deficits than what Obama was proposing at the time. We also know that the huge government bailouts began with Bush and TARP. I personally oppose Obama's economic policies because I realize that the economy belongs to the American People. Any proposition, whether by Democrats or Republicans, that states the government can "fix the economy" is false. Electing a Republican in 2012 is nothing more than electing the opposite side of the same coin. The American People are going to be screwed either way. There are only two Republicans that break this mold and that's Ron Paul and Gary Johnson but I simply don't see the Republican base supporting them. Most Republicans would support the run of the mill Republican that is similiar to former President Bush who was just as responsible for today's economic times as President Obama. Remember, it was former President Bush that doubled the national debt in just 8 years and involved the US in wars that we, the taxpayers, simply couldn't afford to pay for. I see more of the same from candidates like Romney and Gingrich. Candidates like Bachmann and Perry shouldn't even be a consideration of any intelligent person but then who's ever claimed that Republicans are intelligent.
This just makes me glad that I decided not to vote in that election. None of the canidates put up at that time would have done any better. At the moment, we need to remove ourselves from the "political party" idea and simply do what needs to be done to repair the damage already done to our country. Stop worrying about who is going to support you later! The point is that things need to be done and the anyone who ends up in control are so worried about getting re-elected that they cant focus on what needs to be done.
What about all the other statics? Like the ones showing that when Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and we were headed straight for a depression. But now the economy has been growing steadily for more than two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 85% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to j8.6%%, and about 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010. If you were going to make a fair assessment of Obama's performance, wouldn't you also consider those? Or was your objective to make an unfair assessment?
I seem to recall, that he recalibrated how certain key statistics are based, so who in the hell knows how bad the "Obama numbers" really are. The best word I can describe Obama, his admin (inclusive of czars) is flagrant. All Americans should not want this man, nor his administration anywhere near your Republic for another 4 years. Quite honestly, if it had been anyone other than Obama, I am certain impeachement proceedings would have been initiated.
I guess we need to compare some of these numbers to the prior Republican adminstration under President Bush. When Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4.7% and when he left office it was 7.8%. That's an increase of 66% compared to the increase of 17% under Obama. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html When Bush took office the national debt was $5.9 trillion and increased to over $10 trillion by the time he left office. That was an increase of almost 70% compared to 39% under Obama. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm While I certainly oppose Obama's economic policies it appears to me that the Republicans don't do any better. How about voting for anyone other than a Republican or Democrate in 2012? Both major parties are trying their best to destroy the American economy and one isn't any better than the other.
Because these conditions are exactly what he worked for and wanted. He hates this country and he is an arrogant POS.
Thanks for sharing. That's the kind of objective, fact based analysis we've come to expect from our conservative friends.
Obama's only been in office 3 years. Guess we oughta take that into consideration when making comparison's with Bush, too, huh?
I wouldn't disagree. At the end of either 4 or 8 years will Obama leave the country better off or worse off? We know that Bush left the country in a financial crisis with a soaring rate of increasing debt, with two wars that had cost thousands of American lives with literally tens of thousands of US casualities, the greatest infringments on individual liberty ever imposed on Americans and a human rights legacy that could only be matched by a tyrannical third world dictator. Can Obama top this record? Perhaps but he'd really need to get to work because he's no where near competely with Bush so far. As I've noted it's a case of one bad president following another so anything is possible.
Agreed. Fact is, it'll take us decades to recover... if we ever do. The important thing is to get on the road to recovery and quit digging the hole deeper.
Further, a link regarding unemployment statistics manipulation: http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-administration-manipulated.html Illegal Immigration, also in the news as some kind of great Obama record achievement, manipulated as well. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66805.html I'll keep putzing around. I know he is manipulating more than a few stats...flagrantly. The misery index might be as high as 33%, if going back to the previous "calculations" used.
I honestly believe that's true, CE. The numbers are worse than reported. But when it comes down to it, manipulating statistics is the least of our worries. Real numbers like these are what's killing our economy. Obama's legacy.
Absolutely correct but the American People need to realize that replacing Democrats with Republicans (or replacing Republicans with Democrats) is merely taking America down two parallel lanes on the same road. The problems we face are because of Democrats AND Republicans and not because of Democrats OR Republicans. Check the historical voting record for increasing the national debt and both Democrats and Republicans have traditionally voted to increase it. Republicans today are complaining about the national debt that they voted to increase and that is pure hypocracy. Are Americans so stupid as to not see this?
We haven't had enough conservative republicans since Newt was speaker to balance the budget. Now that we are gonna have house and senate in republican hands, and Newt as president, we could probably do it in a couple of years like we did last time.
Between 1979 and 1999 when Newt Gingrich was a member of the House of Representatives, and he was the Speaker of the House between 1995-1999, the national debt increased from $826 billion to $5.6 trillion. That is an increase in the national debt of 578%. Not once during that time period, including his term as Speaker of the House between 1995-1999 did Newt Gingrich ever take a stand against the increases in the debt ceiling. Newt Gingrich did not oppose increasing the national debt when in office. Newt Gingrich reflects the hypocracy of the Republican Party today as he was a part of the problem and is not a part of the solution. There is only one Republican that has voted against any increase in the national debt to my knowledge and that is Ron Paul. I believe Ron Paul voted against increasing the national debt every single time it has come up for a vote since he's been in office. I don't see Republicans flocking to support Ron Paul..... http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
The budget was balanced because of the big tax increase Clinton and the Dems passed, and because military spending was relatively cut back when the cold war ended. Newt and the Republicans did his best to force Clinton to pass big tax cuts, which Clinton resisted because the tax cuts would put us back on the course of deficits. The Republicans got their way in 2001 and passed huge tax cuts and squandered the rare opportunity from the surplus. Revenues fell hundreds of billions of dollars and the government was back in the red with new record deficits in no time. Remember in 2001 before the tax cuts the biggest budget problem we had was whether the surpluses would be too big? Hard to believe that was just over 10 years ago. As to spending, the Republicans showed what hawks they were, starting unnecessary wars, more than doubling the military budget, and passing a drug company profit enhancement bill. They increased spending faster than even Obama has, in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years he inherited. Giving Republicans credit for balancing the budget is a sad joke.
When have democrats ever lobbied for a balanced budget. Of course it was because of republicans. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKskm0YcZM"]Rush Limbaugh TV- Bubba's Budget Balancing B S - YouTube[/ame]
Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 That tax increase (combined with a much smaller tax increase by Bush1 in 1991), opposed by every single Republican, flooded the Treasury with additional revenues that turned a then record deficit into a (short lived) surplus. Republican have talked about deficits while running them up. Democrats have done something about it.
