zip98053;1059070624]OK, so the President has nothing to do with setting policy and providing leadership. It is not his job to lead. Everything falls on the actions of Congress. I suppose that all of your dissatisfaction about the last two years is aimed at the Democratically controlled Congress and you attribute none of the wrong doing to Obama. Right?
LOL, that is your argument? Obama with a Democrat Congress implementing a far left agenda that has generated these results is the responsibility of both the Congress and the President, just like the deficits during the Bush term were the responsibilities of Bush AND the Congress. Results matter, not rhetoric and the Obama rhetoric doesn’t match the results. None of his policies brought us back from the brink and none of his policies have made things better. Make no mistake these are the policies of Barack Obama and he takes credit for them every day. He is out of touch with reality.
I also assume that you will attribute anything good that happened in the Reagan administration to the Democratic House. Right? Or are your rules more selective. Is it a two out of three thing?
If you were around during the Reagan years you would know that he went around the Congress to the American people and the American people put pressure on the politicians to pass the Reagan Agenda. Remember Tip O’Neill who said all the Reagan budgets were DOA? I would have given Congress credit if they had kept their word on Gramm Rudman and illegal Immigration but they didn’t. Reagan also wanted the line item veto but that request was rejected as Congress wanted to spend all that money that the Reagan economy generated.
OK, if it is not the job of government to create jobs, why are you blaming Obama and the Democrats for job loses? If you mean wealth redistribution, do you mean the kind of redistribution that is the topic of this thread? The fact that the the wealth in this country is increasingly concentrated in the hands fewer and fewer. I would say that if you believe that this something that government should try to address and that the government should not try to fulfill their Constitutional mandate to secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans, then sir, I would say that this makes you a part of the real problem. Also, while regurgitate Fox talking points, its not good form to say that someone else not thinking independently.
Because Obama claims he has created jobs and he brought us back from the brink and that is a lie. He continues to blame Bush and ignores his contribution. His agenda is far left and out of touch with the mainstream. This country wasn’t built on the principles of redistribution of wealth as our economy isn’t a zero sum game where someone wins and someone loses. I contend that Obama and the liberal agenda keep people dependent and thus unable to really reach that American dream.
There is a reason that the gap is widening and that is due to the elimination of incentive and the massive social agenda by the left. I used to believe there are no consequences for failure in the liberal world but now realize what we have today are the consequences of that liberal agenda, dependence. What is keeping poor people poor? Lack of incentive and initiative! There is plenty of room at the top but as long as liberals play the class warfare game nothing is going to change.
As Yogi said, "predictions are really hard, especially about the future." He did say that stepping in to help GM and Crysler was the right thing to do and, as it turns out, it was. We, the US government, actually has a chance of making a profit on that deal. He did say that we needed to have a stimulus package that cut taxes for 95% of the population. He got the Democratic Congress to pass that and I think that he was right as it had an immediate impact on slowing the decline of the GDP. He said that the other stimulus actions were necessary to stop the economy from shrinking and it stopped shrinking and is starting to grow again. Its getting better but I suspect that you aren't interested in admitting that he did anything right.
Obama has said a lot of things, unfortunately none of them have been correct. You continue to believe the rhetoric and ignore the results. Results matter not rhetoric. I would have let GM fail but Obama couldn’t let his union leadership fail. GM wouldn’t have gone out of business, but they would have broken the unions.
The slow decline of reduction of GDP according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis began well before the Obama stimulus plan had any chance to succeed, a fact that most liberals want to ignore. 95% of the people didn’t get a tax cut because you cannot cut taxes on people that don’t pay Federal Income Taxes. That is another Obama lie that you continue to buy.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong with the Obama tax cuts. You claim that tax cuts cause job growth. Yet, we had a tax cut, no job growth. Go figure. Maybe its because he's left handed and only tax cut legislation signed by right-handed Presidents cause job growth.
Sorry but there were one time rebates that amounted to a drop in the bucket. I suggest you pay attention to the actual Obama tax cuts and the strings attached. Compare that to the Bush tax cut and you will see why they didn’t work.
Tax cuts
Total: $288 billion
[edit] Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
Bush Tax cuts
Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
Look at the strings attached to the Obama tax cuts.
I'm sorry, what liberal lies about Iraq are you talking about? Yes, the Iraq Liberation Act was passed and signed under Clinton in 1998 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. As we have already established, you lay the blame for actions of the government on the party in control of Congress. That was the method you chose to avoid having to admit that Bush had any culpability in the financial crisis.
Clinton signed the Act so it was bipartisan. As for the financial crisis, both parties were responsible. Suggest you read the comments of Barney Frank regarding the sub prime mortgages and Fannie and Freddie back in 2005
Yep, I was guilty of exaggeration for emphasis in saying that the Iraq war cost trillions. In reality it is only about $900 billion. Mia culpa.
Thank you. So you take that amount and divide it by the number of years, almost 8, a little over 110 billion a year so that cannot cause nor does it constitute most of the deficits.
Your smugness is laughable.
Yes, it is hard to be humble when you are right most of the time.
Well, my state isn't a disaster. There are parts that are doing quite nicely and others, where the jobs are mostly unskilled and semi-skilled are not doing so good.
Your state has 9% unemployment, a huge deficit, and a liberal govt. that continues to promote more spending all in the name of compassion. That is a disaster. Cost of doing business in Washington is too high and if it wasn’t for Boeing you would be in much worse shape.
I didn't go to Iraq and I don't have many close friends who went there. I appreciate the sacrifice that those people made but I don't need to defer to their opinion of whether that was the right thing to do. I served in the military during war and, even though I never had to enter combat, I think that I, like every other American, is still entitled to an opinion on the Iraq war. Saddam was a really bad person who was basically conducting a genocide against the Kurds. However, there are dictators in parts of Africa that are much worse. We aren't doing anything about them. Of course, those other assholes aren't sitting next to the worlds largest proven reserve of petroleum. The justification for us to go into Iraq was a sham. Without the case for WMDs, Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz would never have been able to convince Congress to authorize ground actions in Iraq. I don't know if you have heard the news, but there were no WMDs in Iraq. It was a sham. Now, the major argument by the apologists is "well, Saddam was a bastard." BFD.
If it was a sham, then Democrats and Republicans both promoted it. Doesn’t really matter now as what is done is done. All this attention on the past simply diverts from the present.
I don't hate Bush and I'm mad as hell at Obama (but not for the reasons that you are). What I do hate is hypocrites who refuse to accept that their "side" is not blameless. I hate it when the self-righteous claim every problem is the fault of the other side and every success is because of their side.
I blame Obama and those that supported him. I read his resume and voted against him. I have been proven right. He was totally unqualified to be in that office as his resume shows zero management or leadership experience. He was and remains a community agitator. His claims that he will bring people together were more words as he has done the exact opposite. He has created and promoted two Americas and the results show that. Tuesday we will see what the rest of the country thinks.
I don't think that Bush was a very good President but I don't vilify him. I use him only to try to bring attention to the duplicity of your arguments. You seem to find nothing but fault in any action by a Democrat and you castigate liberals and seem to think that Republicans and conservatives are without fault.
Bush’s economic results were much, much better than they are portrayed. I find a lot at fault with Bush but I respect him, I respect his principles, and I respect his character. He stood by those principles and convictions and history will judge him accordingly.
