• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Can you read the approval ratings? Do you understand the difference between having a pro growth economic plan like Reagan and a Micromanaging massive central govt. plan of Obama's? Apparently not thus you continue to be brainwashed by Obama. That 38% recent poll number for Obama is over 2 years after the end of the recession. Reagan ended up adding 17 million jobs. Think that Obama will generate those kind of numbers?
Reagan didn't start off losing 4 million jobs like Obama did because he inherited the worst recession in 80 years. Not to mention, by this point in his presidency, Reagan lost more jobs than Obama, despite not inheriting an economy as bad as Obama did.

Regardless, both had low JARS during their presidency, yet you somehow think that translates into negative leadership qualities for Obama but positive leadership qualities for Reagan, even though Reagan's job approval sank lower than Obama's :roll:

Your own sycophancy destroys your position without me having to lift a finger.


My standard has always been results
Exactly who do you think believes you when you bald-face lie like that? If it were true that results mattered to you, there's no way in hell you would have voted for Bush in 2004. Half trillion dollar deficits year after year, lost the Twin Towers, invaded a country over WMD that weren't there. The only reason you voted for Bush was because he was a Republican -- no other reason.
 
Reagan didn't start off losing 4 million jobs like Obama did because he inherited the worst recession in 80 years. Not to mention, by this point in his presidency, Reagan lost more jobs than Obama, despite not inheriting an economy as bad as Obama did.

Regardless, both had low JARS during their presidency, yet you somehow think that translates into negative leadership qualities for Obama but positive leadership qualities for Reagan, even though Reagan's job approval sank lower than Obama's :roll:

Your own sycophancy destroys your position without me having to lift a finger.



Exactly who do you think believes you when you bald-face lie like that? If it were true that results mattered to you, there's no way in hell you would have voted for Bush in 2004. Half trillion dollar deficits year after year, lost the Twin Towers, invaded a country over WMD that weren't there. The only reason you voted for Bush was because he was a Republican -- no other reason.

How long are you going to use that argument, Obama had total control of the Congress with overwhelming numbers and has generated the results we see today which have led to a 38% approval rating. Seems that you are part of the 38% that continues to blame Bush.

What you seem to not understand is it was the Reagan economic policy that I supported and led to the 17 million jobs after LOSING jobs in 81-82. The Obama economic policy is a failure and you cannot even tell what it is other than blaming Bush.

Results matter, Sheik, but you wouldn't understand that. Your use of percentage change is bogus and you know it.

Bush isn't on the ballot in 2012 to tell me again why with the results we have you will be voting for Obama?
 
Reagan didn't start off losing 4 million jobs like Obama did because he inherited the worst recession in 80 years. Not to mention, by this point in his presidency, Reagan lost more jobs than Obama, despite not inheriting an economy as bad as Obama did.

Regardless, both had low JARS during their presidency, yet you somehow think that translates into negative leadership qualities for Obama but positive leadership qualities for Reagan, even though Reagan's job approval sank lower than Obama's :roll:

Your own sycophancy destroys your position without me having to lift a finger.



Exactly who do you think believes you when you bald-face lie like that? If it were true that results mattered to you, there's no way in hell you would have voted for Bush in 2004. Half trillion dollar deficits year after year, lost the Twin Towers, invaded a country over WMD that weren't there. The only reason you voted for Bush was because he was a Republican -- no other reason.

"Your" President

The Mark of ZERO….. | Average Buck
 
How long are you going to use that argument, Obama had total control of the Congress with overwhelming numbers and has generated the results we see today which have led to a 38% approval rating. Seems that you are part of the 38% that continues to blame Bush.
What are you talking about? That argument never goes away. During Bush's Great Recession, there were 5 million jobs lost up until the time Obama was sworn in and another 3 million jobs lost between his inauguration and the end of the Great Bush Recession. You have to go all the way back to FDR to find a president who inherited a mess that bad.

Results matter, Sheik, but you wouldn't understand that. Your use of percentage change is bogus and you know it.
Not to you they don't, stop lying. Your voting record belies your bull**** claims to the contrary.

Obama, despite starting with 3 million increase to unemployment, has lost 2.3 million jobs for his first 32 months.

By this time in 1983, Reagan, without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce 1/3rd smaller than today, had added 2.2 million to unemployment. Even with those results, which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give him 4 more years.

By this time in 1991, Bush Sr., without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce 1/4th smaller than today, had added 2 million to unemployment. Even with those results, which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give 4 more years.

By this time in 1993, Bush Jr., without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce a bit smaller than today, had added 2.9 million to unemployment. Even with those results which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give 4 more years.

So don't sit here and lie that results matter to you. All that matters to you is that there be a Republican in the White House. That is the only result you care about and your voting history since you became a Reagan Republican proves it.


Bush isn't on the ballot in 2012 ...
His legacy will be.

... to tell me again why with the results we have you will be voting for Obama?
Actually, I already told you countless times, I will not be deciding on who to vote for in the general election until I know who all of the candidate are; and in the primary, I will be voting for Romney. You see, I'm not like you (thank G-d). I don't make up my mind 4 years in advance. Even worse, you won't veer away from the Republican party even when the president sucks, like the examples above.
 
What are you talking about? That argument never goes away. During Bush's Great Recession, there were 5 million jobs lost up until the time Obama was sworn in and another 3 million jobs lost between his inauguration and the end of the Great Bush Recession. You have to go all the way back to FDR to find a president who inherited a mess that bad.


Not to you they don't, stop lying. Your voting record belies your bull**** claims to the contrary.

Obama, despite starting with 3 million increase to unemployment, has lost 2.3 million jobs for his first 32 months.

By this time in 1983, Reagan, without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce 1/3rd smaller than today, had added 2.2 million to unemployment. Even with those results, which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give him 4 more years.

By this time in 1991, Bush Sr., without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce 1/4th smaller than today, had added 2 million to unemployment. Even with those results, which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give 4 more years.

By this time in 1993, Bush Jr., without being handed a 3 million job loss and with a workforce a bit smaller than today, had added 2.9 million to unemployment. Even with those results which were worse than Obama's, you voted to give 4 more years.

So don't sit here and lie that results matter to you. All that matters to you is that there be a Republican in the White House. That is the only result you care about and your voting history since you became a Reagan Republican proves it.



His legacy will be.


Actually, I already told you countless times, I will not be deciding on who to vote for in the general election until I know who all of the candidate are; and in the primary, I will be voting for Romney. You see, I'm not like you (thank G-d). I don't make up my mind 4 years in advance. Even worse, you won't veer away from the Republican party even when the president sucks, like the examples above.

Obama campaigned for the job and wanted the responsibility. He got that responsibility and now he wants to blame everyone else for his failures and you are among the 38% that support him. We are over 2 1/2 years into his Administration and the results are worse today than when he took office. It is what it is no matter how you try to spin it. Still waiting for what your civics class taught you about the legislative process and what the Democrats did to prevent Bush from acting like a King? Seems to most that the Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job preventing a recession. Then they got the WH and with overwhelming numbers generated the results we see today.

As for the election it is easy to make up your mind when you actually have managed something and are used to hiring people. Resumes matter and obama's said he lacked the experience for the job. We are now seeing that resumes don't lie, he lacked management and leadership skills thus the results we have today.
 
Umm, like it or not, unless you've renounced your U.S. citizenship, he's your president too.

"Your" means you voted for him, I didn't but he is the President of the United States. I was smart enough not to vote for this empty suit.
 
"Your" means you voted for him, I didn't but he is the President of the United States. I was smart enough not to vote for this empty suit.

But you voted for Bush twice.


Heck the guy couldn't even run an oil company three times over. Talk about an empty suit, LOL
 
Obama campaigned for the job and wanted the responsibility. He got that responsibility and now he wants to blame everyone else for his failures and you are among the 38% that support him.
Do you make up **** just for the hell of it? During 95% of his campaign, the Dow was still above 11K, the unemployment rate was between 4½ and 6 percent, the economy was slipping, but GDP was mostly postive and the NBER had not yet declared we were in a recession. That is the responsibility Obama was preparing to take responsibility for. It wasn't until about 6 weeks before the election that the wheels came off the bus and by then, Obama had already been nominated by the Democrat party. It wasn't until after he was elected that the NBER revealed we were in a recession and not until he was preparing top move into the White House when GDP fell to -6.8% (later revised to -8.9%). His campaign started in January, 2007. To claim he campaigned on fixing the mess that would ultimately unfold between mid September '08 and January '09, is beyond ludicrous.

We are over 2 1/2 years into his Administration and the results are worse today than when he took office.
So what? 2½ years into Reagan's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Bush Sr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Clinton's-D first term, his results had improved from when he began.

Conservative: "Kick Clinton out and let Dole in!!"

2½ years into Bush Jr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

Look at that, Con! You don't give a **** about results. All you care about is the letter that comes after the president's name.

It is what it is no matter how you try to spin it. Still waiting for what your civics class taught you about the legislative process and what the Democrats did to prevent Bush from acting like a King?
This coming from the civics genyass who thinks Democrats were in charge of the Senate when the recession began in March, 2001. :roll:

Seems to most that the Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job preventing a recession. Then they got the WH and with overwhelming numbers generated the results we see today.
Oh? And what do you suggest Democrats could have done in 2007 which would have saved us the from the financial meltdown from the toxic loans doled out years earlier?


As for the election it is easy to make up your mind when you actually have managed something and are used to hiring people. Resumes matter and obama's said he lacked the experience for the job. We are now seeing that resumes don't lie, he lacked management and leadership skills thus the results we have today.
WTF are you talking about now, Con? You think there's a person reading this who doesn't know you'd vote for someone with even less experience than Obama if they were running as a Republican??

You don't give a **** about experience.

You don't give a **** about results.

You don't give a **** about anything except the party they run for
.
 
"Your" means you voted for him, I didn't but he is the President of the United States. I was smart enough not to vote for this empty suit.
Cries a 4-time Bush voter. :lamo
 
i probably pay more taxes than you, so that's plain false.

What was your tax bill last year? Round numbers will do. or, did you get a nice juicy rebate?
 
He didn't get my vote nor the state of TX electoral votes and as history has shown the SC made the right decision.
Riiiight ... because the country was so much better off with without the Twin Towers and invading a country over WMD that weren't actually there and with the worst recession since the Great Depression.
 
Sheik, you absolutely nailed it. I tip my hat to you sir!
 
When will you learn? Interest rates are not an indicator of the economy.

You were challenged to show there were more foreclosures in 1981-82 and you backed down from that challenge.

Possibly because you knew you couldn't prove that...


Foreclosure Rate Hits Historic High

The percentage of U.S. mortgages entering foreclosure in the first three months of the year was the highest in more than 50 years, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
 
Do you make up **** just for the hell of it? During 95% of his campaign, the Dow was still above 11K, the unemployment rate was between 4½ and 6 percent, the economy was slipping, but GDP was mostly postive and the NBER had not yet declared we were in a recession. That is the responsibility Obama was preparing to take responsibility for. It wasn't until about 6 weeks before the election that the wheels came off the bus and by then, Obama had already been nominated by the Democrat party. It wasn't until after he was elected that the NBER revealed we were in a recession and not until he was preparing top move into the White House when GDP fell to -6.8% (later revised to -8.9%). His campaign started in January, 2007. To claim he campaigned on fixing the mess that would ultimately unfold between mid September '08 and January '09, is beyond ludicrous.


So what? 2½ years into Reagan's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Bush Sr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Clinton's-D first term, his results had improved from when he began.

Conservative: "Kick Clinton out and let Dole in!!"

2½ years into Bush Jr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

Look at that, Con! You don't give a **** about results. All you care about is the letter that comes after the president's name.


This coming from the civics genyass who thinks Democrats were in charge of the Senate when the recession began in March, 2001. :roll:


Oh? And what do you suggest Democrats could have done in 2007 which would have saved us the from the financial meltdown from the toxic loans doled out years earlier?



WTF are you talking about now, Con? You think there's a person reading this who doesn't know you'd vote for someone with even less experience than Obama if they were running as a Republican??

You don't give a **** about experience.

You don't give a **** about results.

You don't give a **** about anything except the party they run for
.
is con still claiming that 'results matter' to him? good grief
 
is con still claiming that 'results matter' to him? good grief
There's a word which describes people who say one thing but then act differently from their words. It escapes me at the moment but it rhymes with rip-a-zit. :cool:
 
Last edited:
He is not incompetent he merely wants to tax you more so you don't like him. He is not the sole responsible party for today's economy. He may have a VERY small role in it, but it is Bush whom is responsible.

If we have to blame someone or something it should be Bush/the current HoR/Senate. They have not budged on any of their policies and aren't getting anything done. Some of them even say I'm not signing ANYTHING Obama writes. Even if that anything is exactly what they want.

*(Yay, the thread isn't dead)*

Where is the link to the story?
 
Do you make up **** just for the hell of it? During 95% of his campaign, the Dow was still above 11K, the unemployment rate was between 4½ and 6 percent, the economy was slipping, but GDP was mostly postive and the NBER had not yet declared we were in a recession. That is the responsibility Obama was preparing to take responsibility for. It wasn't until about 6 weeks before the election that the wheels came off the bus and by then, Obama had already been nominated by the Democrat party. It wasn't until after he was elected that the NBER revealed we were in a recession and not until he was preparing top move into the White House when GDP fell to -6.8% (later revised to -8.9%). His campaign started in January, 2007. To claim he campaigned on fixing the mess that would ultimately unfold between mid September '08 and January '09, is beyond ludicrous.


So what? 2½ years into Reagan's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Bush Sr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

2½ years into Clinton's-D first term, his results had improved from when he began.

Conservative: "Kick Clinton out and let Dole in!!"

2½ years into Bush Jr's-R first term, his results had worsened from when he began.

Conservative: "Four more years!!"

Look at that, Con! You don't give a **** about results. All you care about is the letter that comes after the president's name.


This coming from the civics genyass who thinks Democrats were in charge of the Senate when the recession began in March, 2001. :roll:


Oh? And what do you suggest Democrats could have done in 2007 which would have saved us the from the financial meltdown from the toxic loans doled out years earlier?



WTF are you talking about now, Con? You think there's a person reading this who doesn't know you'd vote for someone with even less experience than Obama if they were running as a Republican??

You don't give a **** about experience.

You don't give a **** about results.

You don't give a **** about anything except the party they run for
.

My, my, my such passion for the empty suit in the WH and total igorance of history. What a waste of time but here goes again, 38% approval rating today 2 1/2 years after taking office and with ZERO economic plan in place to change the direction of the company. sounds like a brainwashed Democrat to me.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
Sheik, you absolutely nailed it. I tip my hat to you sir!

Nailed what? Sheik told you what you wanted to hear and like the 38% that still support Obama today you bought the rhetoric.
 
Compared to the alternative I chose wisely, still waiting for you to explain why I should have voted for Gore or Kerry?

Wouldn't of mattered if you had voted for Gore, Bush stole that election (Florida). IMHO that is.
 
Back
Top Bottom