• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Liberals Should NOT Vote For Obama

Bronson

Bronson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
3,195
Reaction score
1,192
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
index.cfm


Average (Mean) Duration of Unemployment (UEMPMEAN) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

UEMPMEAN_Max_630_378.png


latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M06_data.gif


Economy lost more than 200,000 small businesses in recession, Census shows | Fox News

Out of Business | NewAmerica.net

America’s entrepreneurial sector is in deep trouble. Although the mainstream media continues to promote the idea that the nation’s small and upstart businesses are either generally thriving or, at worst, recovering from the sudden blow of the Great Recession, a closer look at the data reveals the exact opposite to be true, with a long-standing decline in the numbers of independent startups per working-age American.

Our self-image notwithstanding, the number of new entrepreneurs and business owners has been dropping – as a percent of the working-age population – for more than a generation, declining by 53 percent between 1977 and 2010. The share of self-employed Americans, meanwhile, has been declining since 1991; by 2010 it had dropped by more than 20 percent.
Click to expand...

Household electricity bills skyrocket

Missing $4,155? It Went Into Your Gas Tank This Year - US Business News - CNBC

18 Staggering Charts On The Rise Of Government Dependence - Business Insider

slide-21.jpg


18 Staggering Charts On The Rise Of Government Dependence - Business Insider

LNS12300001_Max_630_378.png


PolitiFact Ohio | Betty Sutton says that on average, 15 U.S. factories close each day

How Your Dollar Got To Be Worth Just 3.8 Cents - Business Insider
 
an Obama voter wouldnt even understand your fine post Brother Bronson..

they know that "the man is keeping them down"...and Obama will divide and play class warfare..

logic and reality to them is a mystery that only Oprah has the keys to...they await her decision..LOL
 
Please compare to the last Republican president's opening and closing figures on the same metrics, and then we'll talk about "logic" and "reality."
 
So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.
 
Krhazy said:
Please compare to the last Republican president's opening and closing figures on the same metrics, and then we'll talk about "logic" and "reality."
Click to expand...

yes lets.. and then lets look at when Reid and Pelosi got into power.. take a look...
 
Deuce said:
So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.
Click to expand...

The Dems had 4 years of FULL control.. the final two years of GWB and the first two of Obama.. take a look at the stellar run of FAILURE....

this is like saying... lets replace Brett Favre, becasue sadly he didnt win a superbowl with Erkle..and then tell me that Erkle who he cant win a single game is BETTER...
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
Please compare to the last Republican president's opening and closing figures on the same metrics, and then we'll talk about "logic" and "reality."
Click to expand...

They can't and they can't explain without looking like partisan idiots HOW those "Obama policies" are somehow to blame for each and every one of those things.

These partisan hacks like to think ONLY the president affects all of those things. Not congress, the economy, etc.
 
TheNextEra said:
They can't and they can't explain without looking like partisan idiots HOW those "Obama policies" are somehow to blame for each and every one of those things.

These partisan hacks like to think ONLY the president affects all of those things. Not congress, the economy, etc.
Click to expand...

what year did Pelosi adn Reid get into power and start with Cap and Trade, No drilling and Unversal Health care.. that was in 2006/7.. the Libs had 4 years of full power.. the last two year of GWB. now look at the chart..
 
...Never mind that America is recovering from the recession better than any other rich country, however low that standard is.
 
Travis007 said:
yes lets.. and then lets look at when Reid and Pelosi got into power.. take a look...
Click to expand...
I have no problem replacing Reid and Pelosi. Unfortunately I can't vote in either of those elections. But we were talking about the presidential election, I believe...
 
I agree! Liberals should NOT vote for Obama.
 
Is Romney more Liberal?
 
Deuce said:
So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.
Click to expand...

Like James Carvell said, "It's the economy stupid."
 
Hmm, looking at those graphs, it seems that the vast majority of jobs were lost under Bush and the Republicans. That doesn't strike me as great reason to vote for Bush III (Romney).
 
Krhazy said:
Please compare to the last Republican president's opening and closing figures on the same metrics, and then we'll talk about "logic" and "reality."
Click to expand...

I'll compare the Conservative President's record that I supported. A president who cut taxes and cut domestic spending. Ronald Reagan.

Both presidents "inherited" economies that were in crisis. Conservative economic policies in direct competition with liberal economic policies in almost the exact same scenario. How do the numbers add up:

1. % drop in the unemployment rate during their first term? Reagan 3.6% Obama 1.8%

2. Deficits as a % of GDP? Reagan 4.3% (Massive tax cuts with a cut in domestic spending during the Cold War. Revenue to the Treasury doubled) Obama 9.1% (5 trillion borrowed and flushed down the toilet. 15% Real Unemployment)

3. GDP Growth.
072712gdp1-438x338.jpg


4. Jobs.
reagan-v-obama-jobs.jpg
 
Krhazy said:
I have no problem replacing Reid and Pelosi. Unfortunately I can't vote in either of those elections. But we were talking about the presidential election, I believe...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about.. I am talking about the reality of Pelosi and Reid slamming the economy to hurt GWB in 2006.. Pelosi has been replaced if you are following reality
 
Bronson said:
I'll compare the Conservative President's record that I supported. A president who cut taxes and cut domestic spending. Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...

Cut domestic spending? :lamo

Cut taxes? :lamo

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate, but also eliminated tons of deductions, so he didn't really cut taxes that much. But it was too much, as he realized -- following up his big tax bill with 11 tax hikes.

In any case, the economic conditions are not comparable and the tools available are not comparable. With tax revenue at a 60 year low, Obama can't tax cut his way out of this. And with $10 trillion in debt, 1/3 of which was attributable to Reagan and 1/2 to Bush II, he's hard pressed to spend his way out of it.

IOW, the Reagan/Bush legacy of deregulation, tax cuts, and out-of-control spending left Obama with a historic train wreck of an economy and nothing but a screwdriver to fix it.
 
AdamT said:
Cut domestic spending? :lamo

Cut taxes? :lamo

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate, but also eliminated tons of deductions, so he didn't really cut taxes that much. But it was too much, as he realized -- following up his big tax bill with 11 tax hikes.
Click to expand...

He cut the top marginal rates from 70% - 28%

In any case, the economic conditions are not comparable and the tools available are not comparable. With tax revenue at a 60 year low, Obama can't tax cut his way out of this. And with $10 trillion in debt, 1/3 of which was attributable to Reagan and 1/2 to Bush II, he's hard pressed to spend his way out of it.

IOW, the Reagan/Bush legacy of deregulation, tax cuts, and out-of-control spending left Obama with a historic train wreck of an economy and nothing but a screwdriver to fix it.
Click to expand...

Reagan actually inherited a worse situation with double digit inflation and interest rates. Revenues to the Treasury doubled under Reagan after he cut taxes. I laugh at your pathetic attempt at propaganda.
 
Bronson said:
He cut the top marginal rates from 70% - 28%



Reagan actually inherited a worse situation with double digit inflation and interest rates. Revenues to the Treasury doubled under Reagan after he cut taxes. I laugh at your pathetic attempt at propaganda.
Click to expand...
do your homework son, the truth may sometimes be painful, but it is what it is, and what adam said is fact.
 
randel said:
do your homework son, the truth may sometimes be painful, but it is what it is, and what adam said is fact.
Click to expand...

In another galaxy maybe..
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, looking at those graphs, it seems that the vast majority of jobs were lost under Bush and the Republicans. That doesn't strike me as great reason to vote for Bush III (Romney).
Click to expand...

buy some glasses.. its crystal clear.. your hero Ozero is a FAILURE...
 
Okay, so which candidate do you think better encapsulates a positive liberal platform that can make positive change? Or is this just a "lolobamasucks" thread?
 
Look... a tit for tat thread.

I particularly like this chart... it says so much.


latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M06_data.gif



What about we have no idea but it still says so much. It's like a picasso painting.
 

Attachments

  • latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M06_data.jpg
    latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M06_data.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
Okay, so which candidate do you think better encapsulates a positive liberal platform that can make positive change? Or is this just a "lolobamasucks" thread?
Click to expand...

I don't deal in hyperbole and false mischaracterizations of fact. There is no other possible conclusion that a logical and rational person can make, judging from the raw economic data under Obama's leadership, that his presidency has been a massive failure.

Tell us why we should vote for Obama with 15% Real Unemployment and 5 trillion in new debt.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He lied.

Obama promised we'd be at sub 6% employment right now if he was allowed to ram his stimulus down our throats. He lied

Obama promised to get the lobbyists out of WA. He lied

Obama promised transparency. He lied

Obama promised that Obamacare wasn't a massive tax increase on the poor and middle class. He lied

Obama promised that the costs of HC would go down if he was allowed to ram Obamacare down our throats using shady reconciliation tactics. He lied

Obama promised that there would be "Green Jobs". He lied

Obama promised that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans would cease and the planet would start to heal. He lied
 
Bronson said:
He cut the top marginal rates from 70% - 28%
Click to expand...

He did, and he was right to cut the top rate, IMO; it was too high. Unfortunately he went too far, since it was predictable that Congress would lard up the tax code with more of the deductions that he eliminated. Result: massive deficits over time. But even with the huge marginal tax cut, the wealthy ended up paying MORE in taxes under Reagan due to the elimination of so many shelters. Oops.

Reagan actually inherited a worse situation with double digit inflation and interest rates. Revenues to the Treasury doubled under Reagan after he cut taxes. I laugh at your pathetic attempt at propaganda.
Click to expand...

He inherited a very bad situation, but not nearly as the one Obama inherited in terms of GDP contraction, an asset bust, and unemployment. Reagan's situation was much easier to solve. Volcker smashed high interest rates by zipping up the money supply and Reagan offset the tightening with huge tax cuts. No such quick fixes are available to Obama; tax rates are already too low and interest rates can't go any lower. We have but two options, unfortunately: either stimulate the economy to boost aggregate demand -- further running up the debt, or do nothing and suffer a Japan-style lost decade -- while also further running up the debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom