• 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!

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

Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Yes I do. ...

Just wondering..... your have it highlighted like it really means provide not promote.

I see you prefer to ignore my comment 3 or 4 post above..... good thinking.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

I think it best you go back and read my post again... all apologies accepted, well..... most of the time. :mrgreen:

I'm sorry, my response should have been directed to USA-1 who is always wrong.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

He signed it.

No, GW Bush did not sign a budget with the Stimulus funding in it or the GM/Chrysler bailout. :spin:

By the way, the TARP bill wasn't in the budget either and he left 350 billion for Obama
 
Last edited:
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Of course the republicans had nothing to do with spending it.:roll:

Of course they did, but you make it sound like it was all Bush's doing..... it wasn't.

Now Obama's budget... this administration owns that….. All $500,000,000,000 more than the 2009 budget.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

I'm sorry, my response should have been directed to USA-1 who is always wrong.

10-4 on that. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Of course they did, but you make it sound like it was all Bush's doing..... it wasn't.

Now Obama's budget... this administration owns that….. All $500,000,000,000 more than the 2009 budget.

Yes he does.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

No, GW Bush did not sign a budget with the Stimulus funding in it or the GM/Chrysler bailout. :spin:

By the way, the TARP bill wasn't in the budget either and he left 350 billion for Obama

Bush had his own stimulus package in the spring of '08. Remember?
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

This is funny, Bush led us over a cliff, and for facts to back this up you quote his 2009 budget which is $500,000,000,000 less than Obama's 2010 budget that is saving the country.... :lamo

I forgot to look, are you by chance a liberal?

Liberal? Nope. More libertarian.
To tell you the truth I wish Obama hadn't done anything to try to save the country. Then you guys would really be whining.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35543310

pdated 12:54 p.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - The massive stimulus package passed last year to blunt the impact of the worst U.S. recession in 70 years created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The package boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period, CBO said.
 
Last edited:
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Bush had his own stimulus package in the spring of '08. Remember?

Yes, and that had nothing to do with the fiscal year 2009 budget nor was it anywhere near 800 billion dollars. Congress wasn't about to give Bush anything as they wanted the WH. We are paying the consequences today for that Congressional inaction.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Yes, and that had nothing to do with the fiscal year 2009 budget nor was it anywhere near 800 billion dollars. Congress wasn't about to give Bush anything as they wanted the WH. We are paying the consequences today for that Congressional inaction.

Most of Obamas stimulus was in the form of tax credits and a lot of it hasn't been spent yet.
I remember Bernanke saying he wasn't sure if Obamas stimulus package was big enough to make a difference.

pdated 12:54 p.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - The massive stimulus package passed last year to blunt the impact of the worst U.S. recession in 70 years created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The package boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period, CBO said.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

USA-1;1058581412]Most of Obamas stimulus was in the form of tax credits and a lot of it hasn't been spent yet.
I remember Bernanke saying he wasn't sure if Obamas stimulus package was big enough to make a difference.

pdated 12:54 p.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - The massive stimulus package passed last year to blunt the impact of the worst U.S. recession in 70 years created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The package boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period, CBO said.

LOL, ok, then what is the purpose of a stimulus plan that had to be signed before any Congressional Representative could read it?

as for creating jobs, tell that to the 15 million unemployment Americans and the millions more that have dropped out of the labor market. you call that a success?

As for economic growth find out where that growth occurred and then you will see it wasn't real growth at all. It is all a mirage that fools people like you.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

LOL, ok, then what is the purpose of a stimulus plan that had to be signed before any Congressional Representative could read it?

as for creating jobs, tell that to the 15 million unemployment Americans and the millions more that have dropped out of the labor market. you call that a success?

As for economic growth find out where that growth occurred and then you will see it wasn't real growth at all. It is all a mirage that fools people like you.

I really don't know if the stimulus was a success or failure. No one does, for we don't know what shape the economy would be in had nothing been done.
It's too bad the economy was in such bad shape that a stimulus was needed and recommended by the FED in the first place. A new president should not have to deal with a crisis like that the first days of his presidency.

You spout off your party spin, but you really don't know if things would be worse had no stimulus been implemented.

The growth may be a mirage just like the growth of Bush's terms that was created with debt.
 
Last edited:
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

I really don't know if the stimulus was a success or failure. No one does, for we don't know what shape the economy would be in had nothing been done.
It's too bad the economy was in such bad shape that a stimulus was needed and recommended by the FED in the first place. A new president should not have to deal with a crisis like that the first days of his presidency.

You spout off your party spin, but you really don't know if things would be worse had no stimulus been implemented.

The growth may be a mirage just like the growth of Bush's terms that was created with debt.

Seems that far too many people ignore the purpose of a stimulus plan and the way it was sold to the American people. I see that a lot with programs from both sides.

The fact is the Stimulus Plan was sold as emergency legislation that had to be passed immediately to keep unemployment at 8%. No Congress person read the entire bill and as of today billions haven't been spent. It was supposed to go for shovel ready jobs and yet it has turned out to be a slush fund for the President and the Democratic Party.

I have no party spin but I do know a POS legislation when I see it. The party spin is coming from Democrats who ignore the purpose of any stimulus program to defend this POS that has done nothing to prevent people from dropping out of the labor market and to employ the 15 million reported Americans unemployed.

Only in the liberal world is it ok to spend 800 billion plus dollars to stimulate spending to Democratic Constituent groups and ignore the affects Obama and the Democratic Congress had in creating the economic problems we have today.

Nothing is going to change your mind including facts, logic, and common sense.

Please explain to me how we have three equal branches of govt. as created by our Constitution yet only the President gets blame for the economic problems and the deficits?

Please explain to me how Obama can vote for all the spending in 2009 but not be responsible for it?

Please explain for me how Obama can spend time in the U.S. Senate, vote for all legislation, be able to submit legislation yet "inherited" the economy we have?

My point is stop placing all the blame on Bush and recognize it is the Obama economy and he has spent billions and the results are minimal at best.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Seems that far too many people ignore the purpose of a stimulus plan and the way it was sold to the American people. I see that a lot with programs from both sides.

The fact is the Stimulus Plan was sold as emergency legislation that had to be passed immediately to keep unemployment at 8%. No Congress person read the entire bill and as of today billions haven't been spent. It was supposed to go for shovel ready jobs and yet it has turned out to be a slush fund for the President and the Democratic Party.

I have no party spin but I do know a POS legislation when I see it. The party spin is coming from Democrats who ignore the purpose of any stimulus program to defend this POS that has done nothing to prevent people from dropping out of the labor market and to employ the 15 million reported Americans unemployed.

Only in the liberal world is it ok to spend 800 billion plus dollars to stimulate spending to Democratic Constituent groups and ignore the affects Obama and the Democratic Congress had in creating the economic problems we have today.

Nothing is going to change your mind including facts, logic, and common sense.

Please explain to me how we have three equal branches of govt. as created by our Constitution yet only the President gets blame for the economic problems and the deficits?

Please explain to me how Obama can vote for all the spending in 2009 but not be responsible for it?

Please explain for me how Obama can spend time in the U.S. Senate, vote for all legislation, be able to submit legislation yet "inherited" the economy we have?

My point is stop placing all the blame on Bush and recognize it is the Obama economy and he has spent billions and the results are minimal at best.
The problem with this emergency plan is that the money was infused into the economy late, and still hasn't been completely disbursed.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

My point is stop placing all the blame on Bush and recognize it is the Obama economy and he has spent billions and the results are minimal at best.

How do you know if the country would not be in worse shape without Obamas policies? You don't. Many economists believed we would have gone into a depression. And we still might.
I will stop blaming Bush when you acknowledge the fact that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

The problem with this emergency plan is that the money was infused into the economy late, and still hasn't been completely disbursed.

That is exactly part of the problem. It was sold as emergency legislation that had to be passed immediately and yet what emergency is there that allows for the legislators to pass legislation without reading it and then not spending the money?

There is no logic behind this other than the stimulus plan is doing exactly as Obama planned, building a slush fund for the re-election of Democrats in the Fall. It has done nothing to eliminate the 15 million unemployed and in fact has generated more "discouraged" workers who continue to drop out of the labor force.

This is the liberal definition of success?
 
To some of us it has been clear since the first days in office that Obama had no clue what he was doing and he surrounded himself with other amateurs with no practical experience at any real world executive Management positions.

He thought he could make things happen because he wanted them to. Unfortunately for the whole Nation he has done everything wrong and is continuing to try to spend his way out of a situation that requires fiscal restraint and lower taxes.

Someone needs to remind Obama that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

So far Obama is as crazy as they come and the Dims (no spell error) as a whole are just as nuts.

Maybe they'll get a clue in Nov. how wrong they have been.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

How do you know if the country would not be in worse shape without Obamas policies? You don't. Many economists believed we would have gone into a depression. And we still might.
I will stop blaming Bush when you acknowledge the fact that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Cannot do that since Obama and the Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007. He inherited what he helped create.
 
It is frustrating dealing with people who haven't a clue. This is the Obama economy and only in the liberal world can you blame the previous President for results generated.

Bush did not put this country into recession alone and got help from the Democrat Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for all the spending that Bush did and then Obama bailed out GM/Chrysler and proposed and signed the 800 billion stimulus plan so don't give me the bs that he had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit.



bea.gov says you are wrong. Interesting that the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 and the recession began in December but the Congress had nothing to do with the recession.
We have had some good and decent Republican presidents over the years. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush was not one of them. In fact, he was a disaster.[/QUOTE]

It is too bad that you buy what you are told by the media. Historians will judge Bush a lot differently than you ever will. I would take Bush back in a heartbeat compared to Obama[/QUOTE]

Yes it is very frustrating dealing with people that do not have a clue. Only a conservative (the people that talk personal responsibility, but never live it) would try to off load the mess of 2008 on the democrats in congress, or think that a president in office for 1 year could change an economy over night.

The economy is a system not an event. It is very complex and very slow to respond. There is nothing anyone can do to have an immediate positive impact on an economy. There is generally a two year lag between actions and policies and real outcome. For this reason, presidents often get far too much credit and blame for current economic conditions.... though presidents that have been in office for awhile (two years or more) certainly have their fingerprints on an economy.

Yes, you can improve leading indicators earlier than that, but not really change it. OTH, the elements of collapse were policies put into motion years ago.... not by a democratic congress that took "power" in 2007 (a discussion of how much power they really had, particularly over the budget, is another thread), anything they would have done... and they don't get things done very fast, and this congress did not get done much at all would have only nominal impact in the time allotted. The people responsible for the current mess were in power in the 2004 to 2007 time frame. It was a systemic problem: bad input years ago means bad output today.

The deficit doubled during the Bush years, largely with the unique combination of waging wars and cutting taxes (never before done... do one or the other, please).... there are other problems, most were related to lack of regulation or regulatory enforcement, which Bush can only bear the blame of neglect there.... but to suggest the current government has much to do with the snapshot of the economy shows a lack of understanding of economics. That said, the current government has responsibility for it, and should be accountable to current indicators.

Sorry, but the media did not tell me to bash Bush. In fact, I think the media has been deficient in their criticism of him. He was a very, very bad president. (Though I do actually give him credit for decisive and substantially correct response to the 2008 collapse), during his administration we created the idea of preemptive war, torture, wireless wiretaps, rendition (well, that has been going on, he just took it to a new level), mercenaries (see rendition), staffing the administration with foxes over the hen house (EPA, SEC, Interior... even Defense), he promised us Bin Laden, but never went after him... He was more interested in Iraq than Al Qaeda, and lied us into the CF of a war. He was a bad administrator, bad policy. He was arrogant and a intellectual lightweight. Though I think he was a good guy, he surrounded himself with some very bad people.

Did I mention that I did like his faith-based initiative concept (though it was politicized rather than followed) and the medicare drug-plan, though it was screwed up in implementation.

Sorry, I really doubt Bush will be remembered for too many positives.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy;1058583095]We have had some good and decent Republican presidents over the years. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush was not one of them. In fact, he was a disaster.

The economy is a system not an event. It is very complex and very slow to respond. There is nothing anyone can do to have an immediate positive impact on an economy. There is generally a two year lag between actions and policies and real outcome. For this reason, presidents often get far too much credit and blame for current economic conditions.... though presidents that have been in office for awhile (two years or more) certainly have their fingerprints on an economy.

Yes, you can improve leading indicators earlier than that, but not really change it. OTH, the elements of collapse were policies put into motion years ago.... not by a democratic congress that took "power" in 2007 (anything they would have done... and they don't get things done very fast, and this congress did not get done much at all, would have only nominal impact in the time allotted. The people responsible for the current mess were in power in the 2004 to 2007 time frame. It was a systemic problem: bad input years ago means bad output today.

The deficit doubled during the Bush years, largely with the unique combination of waging wars and cutting taxes (never before done... do one or the other, please).... there are other problems, most were related to lack of regulation or regulatory enforcement, which Bush can only bear the blame of neglect there.... but to suggest the current government has much to do with the snapshot of the economy shows a lack of understanding of economics. That said, the current government has responsibility for it, and should be accountable to current indicators.

Sorry, but the media did not tell me to bash Bush. In fact, I think the media has been deficient in their criticism of him. He was a very, very bad president. (Though I do actually give him credit for decisive and substantially correct response to the 2008 collapse), during his administration we created the idea of preemptive war, torture, wireless wiretaps, rendition (well, that has been going on, he just took it to a new level), mercenaries (see rendition), staffing the administration with foxes over the hen house (EPA, SEC, Interior... even Defense), he promised us Bin Laden, but never went after him... He was more interested in Iraq than Al Qaeda, and lied us into the CF of a war. He was a bad administrator, bad policy. He was arrogant and a intellectual lightweight. Though I think he was a good guy, he surrounded himself with some very bad people.

Did I mention that I did like his faith-based initiative concept (though it was politicized rather than followed) and the medicare drug-plan, though it was screwed up in implementation.

Sorry, I really doubt Bush will be remembered for too many positives.

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?

how did GW Bush hurt you or your family? What economic policy that he implemented hurt you?

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?
 
Last edited:
Yuk it up Conservatives and have a great time. What will happen in latter 2012 might just surprise you. Certainly you don't have any bright stars in your offstage assortment of perennial politicians.
 
Yuk it up Conservatives and have a great time. What will happen in latter 2012 might just surprise you. Certainly you don't have any bright stars in your offstage assortment of perennial politicians.

What is it that Obama has done to make this country safer and economically stronger? Did you ever take a civics and economics class? It gives me no great sense of happiness to point out the obvious. In fact it makes me angry that people like you didn't pay any attention to who you were voting for.

The direction this empty suit is taking the country is going to hold only the ideologues and he then could be beaten by just about anyone. The nation voted for a virtual unknown with a leftwing resume and the country is now paying the price for that vote. doubt they will make the same mistake again.
 
What is it that Obama has done to make this country safer and economically stronger? Did you ever take a civics and economics class? It gives me no great sense of happiness to point out the obvious. In fact it makes me angry that people like you didn't pay any attention to who you were voting for.

The direction this empty suit is taking the country is going to hold only the ideologues and he then could be beaten by just about anyone. The nation voted for a virtual unknown with a leftwing resume and the country is now paying the price for that vote. doubt they will make the same mistake again.

Sure we will..... we do just about once per generation, learn from that mistake, then do it again the next generation.
 
Sure we will..... we do just about once per generation, learn from that mistake, then do it again the next generation.

You are correct. The election of Obama has many similarities to the election of Carter. Back then, the country was tired of the Nixon scandal and blamed Ford for pardoning him.

Obama was elected by an angry electorate also and the country got the same incompetence as we did in 1976. Obama hasn't figured out that the president can't vote "present". He knows how to campaign, but not how to lead.

I predict Obama and Carter will have at least one more thing in common.... one term.
 
You are correct. The election of Obama has many similarities to the election of Carter. Back then, the country was tired of the Nixon scandal and blamed Ford for pardoning him.

.

It wasn't just that. The economy was in horrible shape, inflation was out of control and we had just gone through the first Arab oil embargo. Carter inherited a mess, but not as big a mess as Obama.
Do you people really believe a republican would be doing any better right now? After all they did get us into this recession.
 
Back
Top Bottom