LOL!
republicans perfect?
hardly
obama's a disgrace---just look at his RECORD
have you SEEN his budget?
seeya in 12
that's in the FUTURE
Who's going to beat Obama? And please don't give a Palin answer!!
Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
SADLY the bible thumpers might not vote for Romney because his myths are not consistent with their myths.
Romney is clearly far more qualified than sham wow though
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
I think that the "bible thumpers" will hold their nose and vote for Romney just to get rid of Obama
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.
Who's going to beat Obama? And please don't give a Palin answer!!
If Obama inherited an economy as strong as Bush did and had the Twin Towers obliterated on his watch and invaded a country over WMD they didn't actually have, I absolutely would not vote for Obama again. As it is, I haven't decided on voting for him in 2012. It all depends on who's running against him and what state the economy is in at that time.Since obviously you believe I made a mistake in voting for Bush for a second term I would have expected you to learn from someone else's mistake and not make it by voting for Obama for a second term. Here are a couple of the reasons I voted for Bush, here are the GDP change by year along with the employment by year.
Once again, you confuse nominal dollars with real dollars along with the reason for using real dollars. In the real world, 2010 showed 2.9% growth, which is better than 6 out of Bush's 8 years:GDP
2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%
Hey, look at that ... you must think Bush was president only until January, 2008. Why did you stop there? Oh ... here's why ... over 4 million jobs were lost during Bush's final year ....Employment
January numbers, employment total. Let me know when Obama gets employment back to the level it was when he took office.
2000 136559
2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143142
2007 146032
2008 146421
:lol: Obama announces his re-election bid, but it seems we are still days later talking about Bush.....
As it is, I haven't decided on voting for him in 2012.
Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
quinnipiac, march 30: obama trails unnamed republican, 36 to 37
National (US) Poll * March 30, 2011 * Obama Gets Lowest Approval, Reelect Ever
I know he doesn't believe 3.5 million jobs were created/saved by the stimulus. That conundrum is his and all his. He believes each job cost $228,000 which he arrives at by calculating the cost of the stimulus, $787 billion, by 3.5 million. His problem is he's trying to eat his cake and have it too. He's trying to say each job cost $228,000, which is based on 3.5 million jobs ... but then he says there weren't 3.5 million jobs saved/created. Well then each job didn't cost $228,000 -- only his position is that they did.I'll try to break this down for you in simple terms, Conservative doesn't “believe” that there have been 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus, and neither does anyone else that has half a brain. What he is saying is that “IF” you believe that 3.5 million jobs were saved, the cost of saving those jobs was $228,000 each.
The figure, $228,000 per job did not come from the CBO. Conservative posted that number here. What the CBO said was that the stimulus saved or created anywhere between 1.1 million jobs and 3.5 million jobs. He could have gone with the lower number and claimed each job cost $715,000, but he didn't. He assumed each job cost $228,000, which was based 3.5 million jobs.Maybe in your jaded thinking, the CBO didn't give this number, but they did, ask any 5th grader the question “ if you created or saved 3.5 million jobs, and spent $787 billion to save or create those jobs how much did each job cost"?
If you can't understand where that number came from, then by all means, don't go on the show -Are you smarter then a 5th grader,- because you aren't!
I understand you don't read every post here, so I excuse you for assuming I neglected to fault Clinton's role, but I did. That by no means excuses Bush's actions which have been noted. Also, no law was needed because the regulations Bush sought were passed within the GSE's.While Bush may have been wrong for wanting to pass bills that would have allowed this, I'm not certain that he ever “did” get anything passed. At least I have found nothing stating that any of what you are stating ever did get passed. So while you are busy again blaming Bush for something, you seem intent on neglecting things like the Community Reinvestment Act and repeal of Glass Steagall in 2000? Both of which loosened restrictions on mortgage lending practices that were passed by Clinton, which was the beginning of the downfall of the crash of 2008.
Challenge time ... cite the two bills Democrats filibustered ...You also ignore that twice since 2003 bills to look closer into Fanny and Freddie, were filibustered by Democrats
Again, as late as 2006, Republicans were in charge. You can't blame a single member of the minority party for the Republicans failure to pass a bill.... or that as late as 2006 Barney Frank and Obama was backing him, that there was no need to look closely into what Fannie and Freddie were doing.
I never said it was all Bush's fault. I blamed Clinton for signing the bill which repealed Glass Steagall, I blamed Phil Gramm and the Republican Congress which gave Clinton that bill, I blamed Bush for pushing for riskier loans to increase homeownership without first establishing oversight, I blamed the Republicans who ran Congress until 2007 for not passing oversight of the GSE's and and blamed the Democrats who ran Congress since 2007 for the same.In spite of all this, you far left liberals insist, that it's all Bush's fault.
Well he says he did. I take him at his word.First off what Bush “may or may not” have wanted to do, has nothing to do with what he was able to do.
CRA was passed some 25 years before the housing bubble began exploding, and 30 years before it collapsed, and it didn't lead to the toxic loans that were the bulk of what led to the collapse. The vast majority of CRA loans were not subprime and CRA, if it contributed to the meltdown, contributed nominally.Next when you say the CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis you are stretching the truth, *The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group”
Such groups include Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Who boosted to the*New York Times*that they had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8*billion*from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.
Other groups like ACORN"community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give*them*millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
Now maybe in your liberal thinking, this isn't forcing a bank to make questionable loans, but when you can halt a banks expansion plans simply by forming a protest, if you don't agree to make these very same questionable loans, it can be considered "forcing" in the minds of those that think reasonably.
The CRA most certainly can have some of the blame put upon them, for some of the lending practices that the banks adopted to keep any community group from protesting them.
All it says it's based on the 2008 candidates' campaigns. If you have something which states differently, feel free to post it.this was when? the dem plan which he supported (before electoral reality bitch slapped him in the face on November, 2010) was treating dividends the same as other income(even though it is often taxed twice) btw still a massive hike
The tax policy center disagrees with that.Capital Gain and Dividend Tax Rates Poised to Rise
But the real change will be the increase in taxes paid on dividends. The maximum tax rate on dividends will head up to 39.6%. Even those in the lower tax brackets will pay 15% or 28% on dividends. For those folks, the change from 0% will be a pretty hard hit on real returns.
Which is the only poll that has him behind.
Job approval polls at this point couldn't be more meaningless in terms of an election 19 months out. Cases in point ... Ronald Reagan at 41% was even lower than Obama is and he was easily re-elected. GHW Bush had an approval rating of 83% at this point and lost his re-election.it's also the most recent
it also shows barack hussein's approvals at a new ALL TIME LOW
Too bad for Republicans that they're gonna have to put a name up against him, and so far, no one named can beat Obama.it's also the most recent
and it shows obama LOSING to a republican of UNNAMED status
Job approval polls at this point couldn't be more meaningless in terms of an election 19 months out.
Ronald Reagan at 41% was even lower
Too bad for Republicans that they're gonna have to put a name up against him
I know he doesn't believe 3.5 million jobs were created/saved by the stimulus. That conundrum is his and all his. He believes each job cost $228,000 which he arrives at by calculating the cost of the stimulus, $787 billion, by 3.5 million. His problem is he's trying to eat his cake and have it too. He's trying to say each job cost $228,000, which is based on 3.5 million jobs ... but then he says there weren't 3.5 million jobs saved/created. Well then each job didn't cost $228,000 -- only his position is that they did.
it's also the most recent
it also shows barack hussein's approvals at a new ALL TIME LOW
and it shows obama LOSING to a republican of UNNAMED status
LOL!
meanwhile, don't forget that RECORD---libya, afghanistan, unemployment, debt, obamacare, housing, cap and trade, gas prices, general inflation, iran, the middle east, the cartels, immigration, gitmo, transparency...
and that 2012 budget which INCREASES the deficit by THIRTY PERCENT
seeya at the precincts, poll watchers