Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425
Results 241 to 250 of 250

Thread: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

  1. #241
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Carter was to blame for the OPEC oil crisis and the ensuing inflation. Obama is to blame for the recession. Bush was no doubt to blame for the hurricane in NO.

    The president is always to blame for all disasters, natural and man made.

    right?
    yep, it is easier placing blame on an individual than it is on the legislative branch. Politicians do it all the time and now the partisans on both sides continue to do it.

  2. #242
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Since we have three equal branches of govt. are you telling me the legislative branch had no responsibility in the recession we have today? We do not elect a King and we had a Congress more interested in regaining the WH than in doing anything to help the economy and make Bush look good.

    Reagan did the right thing, focused on the private sector, Obama focused on the public sector. Reagan started getting results one year after his tax cuts went through, it has been over a year since Obama's stimulus plan went through and all we have to show for it is continued growth in unemployment and debt.

    Reagan wasn't in the Congress thus he inherited the Carter mess. Obama was and helped create it.
    You act like you're the expert here. What specific votes did congress have that created this mess? Can you point to any?

    Reagan pumped a lot of money into the military. Reagan didn't get results his first year in that's why unemployment went over 10.2% and didn't come down to where it was until 3 and a half years into his term. Reagan had to launch another round of tax cuts. The unemployment rate is going down. A fair amount of the debt we have is from Obama now putting the two wars into the budget and the hole left by Bush's tax cuts which ended up costing us money.

    If tax cuts were the solution we wouldn't have been in the mess we were in. Reagan had 3 a half years of continued problematic unemployment why didn't you complained back then?

  3. #243
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    PogueMoran;1058586142]You act like you're the expert here. What specific votes did congress have that created this mess? Can you point to any?
    Again, you miss the point completely like most ideologues. What vote does the President cast and what legislation did Bush create that caused the recession? You want to blame the President so since that is what you do, then tell me what he did to cause the recession?

    Reagan pumped a lot of money into the military. Reagan didn't get results his first year in that's why unemployment went over 10.2% and didn't come down to where it was until 3 and a half years into his term. Reagan had to launch another round of tax cuts. The unemployment rate is going down. A fair amount of the debt we have is from Obama now putting the two wars into the budget and the hole left by Bush's tax cuts which ended up costing us money.
    That seems to be a big misconception, Reagan grew the military from 150 billion to 300 billion in 8 years, hardly excessive based upon the mess he was left. Before Reagan we had planes and helicopters that wouldn't fly.

    Wrong, Reagan tax cuts went into effect in October 1981 and the benefits started about a year later. His tax cuts were 25 percent over 3 years. The first year he countered the Carter malaise, rising unemployment, 20% interest rates, high inflation. It took time. That wasn't the case when Obama took office. Interest rates were low and inflation was almost non existent. The right thing to do would have been what Reagan did, cut taxes to spir the private sector

    If tax cuts were the solution we wouldn't have been in the mess we were in. Reagan had 3 a half years of continued problematic unemployment why didn't you complained back then?
    Reagan understood what empowering the American people does to the U.S. Economy. His tax cuts created about 20 million new jobs and thus new taxpayers thus the govt. revenue grew.

    You can continue to buy the Obama and liberal rhetoric but the facts simply do not support your point of view. BEA.gov is a great site to go to. There you will find economic growth, revenue and receipts by category. then go to bls.gov for the employment and unemployment numbers.

    Obama empowering the Govt. will never generate those numbers. Notice how his economic growth didn't grow one dime of govt. revenue? That should tell you a lot but probably won't

  4. #244
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Again, you miss the point completely like most ideologues. What vote does the President cast and what legislation did Bush create that caused the recession? You want to blame the President so since that is what you do, then tell me what he did to cause the recession?
    I'm not missing the point at all. You haven't made a real point but to blame Obama without being able to point to anything he did to create the mess he inherited. Like most idealogues you make such broadsweeping statements but when called on it you can't back it up. I haven't made such statements in this thread Con. You made a statement back it up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    That seems to be a big misconception, Reagan grew the military from 150 billion to 300 billion in 8 years, hardly excessive based upon the mess he was left. Before Reagan we had planes and helicopters that wouldn't fly.
    Using your numbers he doubled the budget. That's quite a jump. However when he left office US military spending was at 427 billion. I thought spending was bad? Guess not.

    Before Reagan planes and helicopters didn't work? He just waved his hands around and said the magic words and they flew? Wow you're ridiculous

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Wrong, Reagan tax cuts went into effect in October 1981 and the benefits started about a year later. His tax cuts were 25 percent over 3 years. The first year he countered the Carter malaise, rising unemployment, 20% interest rates, high inflation. It took time. That wasn't the case when Obama took office. Interest rates were low and inflation was almost non existent. The right thing to do would have been what Reagan did, cut taxes to spir the private sector
    The magic benefits that he was still complaining about not working up until 1983 when he was still blaming carter. And there's the keyword there it took time. It took Reagan 3 and a half years to get unemployment under control. You've most likely been complaining since Obama entered office. Reagan's tax cuts didn't work for 3 years. Even then he had to increase military spending and increase taxes effectively taking back half those tax cuts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Reagan understood what empowering the American people does to the U.S. Economy. His tax cuts created about 20 million new jobs and thus new taxpayers thus the govt. revenue grew.
    If tax cuts were magical how come there weren't 20 million new jobs under Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    You can continue to buy the Obama and liberal rhetoric but the facts simply do not support your point of view. BEA.gov is a great site to go to. There you will find economic growth, revenue and receipts by category. then go to bls.gov for the employment and unemployment numbers.

    Obama empowering the Govt. will never generate those numbers. Notice how his economic growth didn't grow one dime of govt. revenue? That should tell you a lot but probably won't
    No I buy reality. You can continue claiming that BEA or BLS supports your view but you've never actually quoted anything from them. BLS shows me that Reagan had a continuing problem for 3 and a half years. Reagan empowered the government through increased military spending. He also helped welfare through the earned income tax credit which is a form of wealth redistribution.

  5. #245
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    PogueMoran;1058586198]I'm not missing the point at all. You haven't made a real point but to blame Obama without being able to point to anything he did to create the mess he inherited. Like most idealogues you make such broadsweeping statements but when called on it you can't back it up. I haven't made such statements in this thread Con. You made a statement back it up.
    You cannot point to anything Bush did either but the point still escapes you, we do not elect a King and with three equal branches of govt. there is enough blame to go around and that falls on Obama as well. Doing nothing is what caused this problem. Obama was too busy running for President than doing the job he was paid to do and to believe that the "top" Democrat didn't have any control is just being naive.

    Bush tried to reform Freddie and Fannie but was rebuked. Bush tried to reform SS but was rebuked. Bush tried to get his tax cuts made permanent but was rebuked. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2008 and the recession started officially in December 2007.


    Using your numbers he doubled the budget. That's quite a jump. However when he left office US military spending was at 427 billion. I thought spending was bad? Guess not.
    In 1989 BEA says the defense budget was a little over 300 billion dollars and to go from 150 billion to 300 billion in 8 years isn't big at all.

    Before Reagan planes and helicopters didn't work? He just waved his hands around and said the magic words and they flew? Wow you're ridiculous
    Tell that to those that lost their lives in the rescue mission for the hostages when their equipment failed. Carter ignored the military, Reagan put money into the miltiary to fix it. You are the one out of touch with reality. I lived and worked during that period of time. You weren't old enough then to even know what was going on.

    The magic benefits that he was still complaining about not working up until 1983 when he was still blaming carter. And there's the keyword there it took time. It took Reagan 3 and a half years to get unemployment under control. You've most likely been complaining since Obama entered office. Reagan's tax cuts didn't work for 3 years. Even then he had to increase military spending and increase taxes effectively taking back half those tax cuts.
    Reagan lost house seats in 1982 but his tax cuts went into effect in October 1981 and unemployment started dropping a year later after rising most of 1982.

    Again you missed the basic difference and why Obama is going to fail. We have a private sector that got the stimulus it needed under Reagan and under Reagan the stimulus went to the public sector under Obama. You cannot stimulate and grow jobs by stimulating the public sector.


    If tax cuts were magical how come there weren't 20 million new jobs under Bush?
    Job creation started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Not to the extent of Reagan but we had a lot further to go after the Carter malaise.


    No I buy reality. You can continue claiming that BEA or BLS supports your view but you've never actually quoted anything from them. BLS shows me that Reagan had a continuing problem for 3 and a half years. Reagan empowered the government through increased military spending. He also helped welfare through the earned income tax credit which is a form of wealth redistribution.
    I am not going to do the research for you. The Reagan record speaks for itself as well as the love and respect this country had for what he did. You weren't old enough to know therefore are hardly an expert. I would have thought that someone who thinks they are as smart as you apparently do would be able to do better research using bea.gov and bls.gov. Guess not.

  6. #246
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Again you missed the basic difference and why Obama is going to fail. We have a private sector that got the stimulus it needed under Reagan and under Reagan the stimulus went to the public sector under Obama. You cannot stimulate and grow jobs by stimulating the public sector.
    THIS is the key paragraph in all the postings on this subject. Reagan knew how to stimulate the economy, Obama doesn't.

    That's why Obama will fail and be a one term president.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  7. #247
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    THIS is the key paragraph in all the postings on this subject. Reagan knew how to stimulate the economy, Obama doesn't.

    That's why Obama will fail and be a one term president.
    Notice Pogue refused to address that as do most liberals. Almost 70% of our economy is consumer spending and the way to stimulate it is through tax cuts.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    USA-1;1058585985]Look at the numbers.
    Volcker set interest rates high to combat the out of control inflation that Carter inherited from the previous administrations. High gas prices were what fueled inflation and the first Arab oil embargo was during Nixons term.
    It amazes me how some people can ignore historical records and depend on spin to formulate their opinions.

    Nixon, Ford and Carter all experienced out of control inflation. It was so bad under Nixon he implemented The Wage and Price freeze that made things worse. You just seem to ignore that fact of history.


    Inflation
    969 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.2 5.5
    1970 6.2 6.1 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7
    1971 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.3 3.3 4.4
    1972 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.2
    1973 3.6 3.9 4.6 5.1 5.5 6.0 5.7 7.4 7.4 7.8 8.3 8.7 6.2
    1974 9.4 10.0 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.9 11.5 10.9 11.9 12.1 12.2 12.3 11.0
    1975 11.8 11.2 10.3 10.2 9.5 9.4 9.7 8.6 7.9 7.4 7.4 6.9 9.1
    1976 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.9 5.8
    1977 5.2 5.9 6.4 7.0 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.5
    1978 6.8 6.4 6.6 6.5 7.0 7.4 7.7 7.8 8.3 8.9 8.9 9.0 7.6
    1979 9.3 9.9 10.1 10.5 10.9 10.9 11.3 11.8 12.2 12.1 12.6 13.3 11.3
    1980 13.9 14.2 14.8 14.7 14.4 14.4 13.1 12.9 12.6 12.8 12.6 12.5 13.5

    1981
    11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9 10.3
    1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8 6.2
    1983 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.8 3.2
    1984 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.3


    You'll notice inflation dropped for awhile during Carters years before it peaked in 80. You'll notice both spikes in inflation coincide with the Arab oil embargos.
    The above highlighted area is an example of the problem we face as a country when an individual cannot admit when proven wrong by their own chart.

    High inflation during the end of the Carter years made recovery difficult and slower as inflation destroyed individual finances. It took more than one year for the Reagan tax cuts to reverse this problem but Reagan got it right and Obama never will. It is the private sector that will get us out of recession, not the public sector.

    We got supposed good news this morning that the 4th qtr GDP was actually 5.9% up from the orginal 5.7% growth reported. Now liberals will tout that as evidence that the Obama economic policy is working. Problem with that is these same liberals who claim the Reagan numbers were wrong but the Obama numbers right came from the same source.

    They will also ignore the big problem with this number as the numbers were created by the public sector as evidenced by NO growth in tax revenue. A true growing economy will increase govt. revenue through job creation and that isn't happening here.

  9. #249
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,144

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Why don't you think for a change instead of buying what are told and ignoring basic civics and economics.

    What the hell did the Democratic Congress do for the two years they were in control and had equal responsibility for the govt.? Do you understand equal branches of the govt?

    You want to ignore actual facts to buy the rhetoric. You want to blame Bush for the deficit yet Bush didn't sign the stimulus plan in February 2009 or the GM/Chrysler bailout? GW Bush didn't pass TARP by himself and Obama supported not only TARP but every spending bill Bush created.

    You want to blame Bush for torture, rendition, pre emptive wars but ignore the fact that we weren't attacked during the last 7 years of the Bush Administration and every action taken by our military was supported by the Judicial Dept. That isn't going to change the hatred you have for this country and our own freedoms.

    Now you can continue to make a fool out of yourself and hide behind your computer but the facts simply do not support your point of view.

    Obama is a disaster and trying to mold this country into a European socialist model that has been a failure. He has generated more debt in less than 2 years than Bush did in 8. His stimulus plan has not generated one additional dime in economic growth dollars to the govt. and has led to over 15 million unemployed individuals and more when you count the discouraged and others who have dropped out of the labor market and simply have given up looking.

    You are now part of the 6% that believe Obama stimulus has created jobs and you seem to be part of the Obama cult that ignores what he has done. Why don't you tell me what it is that Obama has done that has made this country safer and economically stronger?
    Where do we start with this mess? The poster consistently admonishes me for not thinking, for getting my ideas from liberal talking points; yet he is far more guilty of the crime than I.

    He suggests my hatred for this country, yet there isn't one statement in my post that would suggest that I hate anything other than the presidency of George Bush. In fact, I even suggested that I might personally like George Bush, I just hated his presidency. That just sounds like something you heard from Hannity or Goldberg: "Liberals Hate America." Not true! We love it as much and maybe more than you do. As a thinker, however, you surely can understand, tolerate and even respect those that see things different than you. You, of course, realize that differing points of view and debate is a big part of the "secret sauce" that makes America great.

    Speaking of Faux News, I noted another tired talking point in your tirade: "he kept us safe for 7 years because of his actions".... Of course, if you want to go there, then he really kept us safe for 7 out of 8 years (why is it we never count that "other year"). 7 out of 8, is a helluva a day at the plate, but not so good at the Oval Office. Don't worry, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 nor do I credit him for "keeping us safe." Al Qaeda is not army. They can't keep hitting one after another as the old administration wanted you to believe. They also wanted you to believe that the absence of attack somehow meant something. Again, Al Qaeda are terrorists... they don't have to hit you very often.... in fact, even failed attacks like the shoe and underpants bombers are highly effective (see below about over-reacting)

    Instead of crediting GW, I think his policies actually weakened us. Rather than of show leadership on 9/12 by announcing that America would be undeterred (unchanged) by 9/11, he lead the charge the charge to change America. That was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted. He showed weakness when America needed strength.

    The fundamental principle of 4th generation warfare (asymmetric war) is to find leverage points.... create a simple attack and then let the "enemy" implode. Al Qaeda played Bush/Cheney like a fiddle, and we went along.... we allowed ourselves to feel the terror and reacted in all the wrong ways. Bush/Cheney constantly talked about being hit again.... they worked to instill fear in America. In our terror, we were more than happy to sacrifice our values and our rights so that we would not be killed. We allowed warrantless wire tapes, renditions, torture, etc..... to "keep us safe". While we applauded our soldiers for dying for our freedoms abroad, at home we were more than happy to give up our freedoms so we would not die. Bush/Cheney were part of the problem, not the solution.

    Iraq was a grave distraction from the mission at hand: get Bin Laden. We never gave Bin Laden much attention at all, though he promised to get him "dead or alive". Instead, we used 9/11 as a convenient excuse to execute the Iraq plan. Now, Iraq might have been ok had we 1) raised taxes to pay for the war and 2) prosecuted the war fully... not with Rummy's expeditionary force.... that is what got us in trouble there.

    If you actually read my post before responding, you would realize that I had not blamed Bush for the deficit; I blamed him for the debt. I pointed out, the double wars and simultaneous tax cuts were a major reason a huge run-up in the national debt from 5.5T to $10T from 1/1/01 to 12/31/08. My point was about the debt, not the deficit. You (and curiously Faux News) continues to want to assign blame to the Dems on this... but the debt is the debt. It is the result of deficit spending BEFORE the Dems gained control of congress. Now we could have a interesting discussion about when, if ever, the Dems actually gained control of congress and to what extent they would have had an impact on the debt, but that would involve some nuance that seems above your pay grade.... but the doubling of the debt is almost entirely a Republican responsibility. The economy crashed in 2008... on Bush's watch. The reasons for the crash are very complicated. The debt is part of it, but there were other elements that would be a stretch to lay on the hands of the Dems, who, at best, had power for a year and few months, and did not have the time to do anything destructive. Sorry, the bad economy is a Bush responsibility.

    This brings us to the deficit. Now here an argument that the Dems have some responsibility holds a bit more water, but I for one do not buy it. The big components of the deficit remain the unfunded war (Bush) and the mess of an economy is passed along (Bush) which will result in diminished tax revenues... and there were some other unfunded programs along the way. Under Bush, the deficit went from non-existant to what $1.3T. Of course, now we have the economic bailout (of which TARP and GM etc are a subset) Yes, the Dems have their finger prints upon this. Much like, Katrina, however, the mess was created before, so the fact that the new guys have to work the clean-up into their budget and be blamed for it isn't exactly correct thinking. We are paying the cost of repair, not creating the problem.

    I do think Bush did the right thing initiating TARP, etc. (the bailouts BTW, will make the US money, so its really hard to call that real deficit), the arguments against it, however, are fair game.... but the cost of digging out isn't going to just disappear. It goes on Bush's tab in my set of books.

    As to whether I think the Obama bailout is working, you once again took liberties with what I think. I had made no comments on whether the existing bailout is working or producing jobs.... and as the saying goes, when you ASSume you are an _____. I actually think the Obama bailout is lame. It isn't big enough and too much of it (1/3) was tied up in tax cuts, which are woefully ineffective in a deep recession. Accordingly, its going to be slow going digging our way out, but the leading indicators speak for themselves. This is happening.

    Another favorite saying from Faux News.... Obama is a socialist leading us to European style socialist model that has been a failure. Now, as a real thinker, you understand that while that makes a great sound bite, Obama is not a socialist. Yes, he ran on universal healthcare. It was a big part of his platform and he won big. Having universal healthcare is not socialism, unless the US is the only non-socialist country in the 1st world (as it is the only one without universal healthcare). If that is case, then socialism works as there are many other economies that are doing quite well, thank you. Or, more directly, European style socialism has actually worked pretty well in Norway, Sweden, Switz, Germany, the UK and Canada, all of which enjoy standards of living that are equal to, if not better than, that of the US. Of course I will get the lame response to this that if I think they are so great, why don't I move there... which is a very lame response. As a thinking person, you look in the mirror every day and say "what can I do to be a better person, employee, spouse. dad.. whatever..." Where am I doing well and where can I improve? If you don't do this, you might as well be dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    how did GW Bush hurt you or your family? What economic policy that he implemented hurt you?
    Finally, as to point about what harm has Bush done to me or my family. Thanks for asking! The answer is NONE. In fact, Bush's tax policies were quite beneficial to me, thank you. We sold our business in 2008 and enjoyed my 15% cap gains on much of the sale... Of course I still had a very big tax bill (which paid the salaries of a congressional delegation from a small state and gave 10% away.) That all said, my political views are not all about whether I personally benefit, but what I believe is right or wrong for America and its people.

    That is enough of you, Conserv.... I think you are the one that should be doing more thinking. Your posts need to offer more original thought, relying less on the cliche, the trite and the assumption about what others think.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 03-02-10 at 09:40 PM.

  10. #250
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    upsideguy;1058596301]Where do we start with this mess? The poster consistently admonishes me for not thinking, for getting my ideas from liberal talking points; yet he is far more guilty of the crime than I.
    If you have any issues with me, address them to me. Until then your posts are nothing more than personal opinions. I based my on the facts I get from BEA.gov, Bls.gov, U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Census Bureau

    He suggests my hatred for this country, yet there isn't one statement in my post that would suggest that I hate anything other than the presidency of George Bush. In fact, I even suggested that I might personally like George Bush, I just hated his presidency. That just sounds like something you heard from Hannity or Goldberg: "Liberals Hate America." Not true! We love it as much and maybe more than you do. As a thinker, however, you surely can understand, tolerate and even respect those that see things different than you. You, of course, realize that differing points of view and debate is a big part of the "secret sauce" that makes America great.
    I love good debate but not debate where opinions are passed off as fact. I respect opinion but when someone passes off an opinion as fact when that opinion is hardly fact that can be verified by a non partisan source I am going to challenge them on that.

    Speaking of Faux News, I noted another tired talking point in your tirade: "he kept us safe for 7 years because of his actions".... Of course, if you want to go there, then he really kept us safe for 7 out of 8 years (why is it we never count that "other year"). 7 out of 8, is a helluva a day at the plate, but not so good at the Oval Office. Don't worry, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 nor do I credit him for "keeping us safe." Al Qaeda is not army. They can't keep hitting one after another as the old administration wanted you to believe and that the absence of an attack somehow meant something.
    It is Fox News, not Faux News.

    Instead of crediting GW, I think his policies actually weakened us. Rather than of show leadership on 9/12 by announcing that America would be undeterred (unchanged) by 9/11, he lead the charge the charge to change America. That was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted. He showed weakness when America needed strength.
    I respect your opinion but it is your opinion and hardly fact. Our enemies know only one thing, strength and GW Bush showed that strength. Thousands of terrorists and leaders are dead or captured including the mastermind of 9/11.

    The fundamental principle of 4th generation warfare (asymmetric war) is to find leverage points.... create a simple attack and then let the "enemy" implode. Al Qaeda played Bush/Cheney like a fiddle, and we went along.... we allowed ourselves to feel the terror and reacted in all the wrong ways. Bush/Cheney constantly talked about being hit again.... they worked to instill fear in America. In our terror, we were more than happy to sacrifice our values and our rights so that we would not be killed. We allowed warrantless wire tapes, renditions, torture, etc..... to "keep us safe". While we applauded our soldiers for dying for our freedoms abroad, at home we were more than happy to give up our freedoms so we would not die. Bush/Cheney were part of the problem, not the solution.
    Now my opinion, you are naive, gullible, and hardly credible in your assessment. Terrorists brought down the twin towers. Congress passed the Patriot Act and the Judicial Dept. authorized waterboarding. Doesn't matter however to some like you but your view is distorted and pre 9/11. You haven't a clue who our enemy is and what motivates them. You bought what you were told but too bad thinking doesn't appear to be a strength of yours.

    Iraq was a grave distraction from the mission at hand: get Bin Laden. We never gave Bin Laden much attention at all, though he promised to get him "dead or alive". Instead, we used 9/11 as a convenient excuse to execute the Iraq plan. Now, Iraq might have been ok had we 1) raised taxes to pay for the war and 2) prosecuted the war fully... not with Rummy's expeditionary force.... that is what got us in trouble there.
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Tell your concerns to the 9/11 commission who has a very good report on Bin Laden and Iraq's support for terrorism. Obviously that doesn't fit into your agenda. Saddam Hussein and his evil sons are no longer a threat to this country and removing him was the right thing to do. What makes you an expert on Iraq and quaifies you to claim we were wrong. A family member of mine was stationed at one of Saddam's palaces in Iraq and says you are wrong. Why would I believe you over him?


    As I pointed out earlier, the double wars and simultaneous tax cuts were a major reason a huge run-up in the national debt from 5.5T to $10T from 1/1/01 to 12/31/08. My point was about the debt, not the deficit. You (and curiously Faux News) continues to want to assign blame to the Dems on this... but the debt is the debt. It is the result of deficit spending BEFORE the Dems gained control of congress. Now we could have a interesting discussion about when, if ever, the Dems actually gained control of congress and to what extent they would have had an impact on the debt, but that would involve some nuance that seems above your pay grade.... but the doubling of the debt is almost entirely a Republican responsibility. The economy crashed in 2008... on Bush's watch. The reasons for the crash are very complicated. The debt is part of it, but there were other elements that would be a stretch to lay on the hands of the Dems, who, at best, had power for a year and few months, and did not have the time to do anything destructive. Sorry, the bad economy is a Bush responsibility.
    Tax cuts according to the Treasury Dept increased govt. revenue so the tired old argument that the tax cuts caused a deficit is a lie. Facts apparently have no place in your world.

    This brings us to the deficit. Now here an argument that the Dems have some responsibility holds a bit more water, but I for one do not buy it. The big components of the deficit remain the unfunded war (Bush), the mess of an economy is passed along (Bush) which will result in diminished tax revenues. The Dems responsibility is in the bailout. However, much like Katrina... the damage was done on the earlier watch, is it really fair to stick the new guys with the blame for the cost of repair. Bush did the right thing initiating TARP, etc. (the bailouts BTW, will make the US money, so its really hard to call that real deficit)
    Where do you get your information? Suggest going to the U.S. Treasury

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2008/receipt.pdf

    And get the facts. Change the date for previous years. You are going to find that like far too many you are clueless when it comes to govt. revenue. Tax cuts increased consumer spending, created jobs, and grew govt. revenue. That is an undeniable fact backed by the Treasury data as well as the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    As to whether I think the Obama bailout is working, you once again took liberties with what I think. I had made no comments on whether the existing bailout is working or producing jobs.... and as the saying goes, when you ASSume you are an _____. I actually think the Obama bailout is lame. It isn't big enough and too much of it (1/3) was tied up in tax cuts, which are woefully ineffective in a deep recession. Accordingly, its going to be slow going digging our way out, but the leading indicators speak for themselves. This is happening.
    I agree that that Obama stimulus plan has been a disaster but because the tax cuts weren't big enough and all the spending was directed to DNC constituent groups. We are worse off today than we were when he took office and it is amatuer hour in the WH. The GDP growth is unsustainable because it has been generated by the public sector not the private sector.

    Another favorite saying from Faux News.... Obama is a socialist leading us to European style socialist model that has been a failure. Now, as a real thinker, you understand that while that makes a great sound bite, Obama is not a socialist. Yes, he ran on universal healthcare. It was a big part of his platform and he won big. Having universal healthcare is not socialism, unless the US is the only non-socialist country in the 1st world (as it is the only one without universal healthcare). If that is case, then socialism works as there are many other economies that are doing quite well, thank you. Or, more directly, European style socialism has actually worked pretty well in Norway, Sweden, Switz, Germany, the UK and Canada, all of which enjoy standards of living that are equal to, if not better than, that of the US. Of course I will get the lame response to this that if I think they are so great, why don't I move there... which is a very lame response. As a thinking person, you look in the mirror every day and say "what can I do to be a better person, employee, spouse. dad.. whatever..." Where am I doing well and where can I improve? If you don't do this, you might as well be dead.
    Some on FOX News have claimed that Obama is a socialist and he indeed wants a European style economy. When you claim it worked pretty well in those countries where do you get your information. All European countries have lower GDP per capita and higher unemployment than this country. Where do you get your information. I have been to those countries and the taxation there is styfling with income taxes, VAT taxes, and high gasoline taxes. They aren't the Utopia that you seem to believe nor Obama wants to duplicate here.

    Finally, as to point about what harm has Bush done to me or my family. Thanks for asking! The answer is NONE. In fact, Bush's tax policies were quite beneficial to me, thank you. We sold our business in 2008 and enjoyed my 15% cap gains on much of the sale... Of course I still had a very big tax bill (which paid the salaries of a congressional delegation from a small state and gave 10% away.) That all said, my political views are not all about whether I personally benefit, but what I believe is right or wrong for America and its people.

    That is enough of you, Conserv.... I think you are the one that should be doing more thinking. Your posts need to offer more original thought, relying less on the cliche, the trite and the assumption about what others think.
    Have you thought about taking this fiction to a publisher to see if you can sell it.

    the point of asking how Bush hurt you is by design. Take your situation and multiply it by the population in this country because I see you as an average American. If Bush didn't hurt you how did he hurt anyone else with his policies?

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •