Poll: Obama Re-Election Odds Roughly 50-50

Catawba · Dec 28, 2011

ualsdu7777 said:
While I agree that the government can do some to alleviate a recession, it is not the best alternative and definitely not as effective as letting the citizenry raise itself from the bootstraps. Time and time again, I see government spending figures that produce far less jobs than anticipated, making the net effective cost per job created from such policies horrendous.

The reason companies are not hiring is due to lack of demand because of the Recession and the record wealth inequality in the country.. So how do you create demand? By cutting taxes for those that spend the biggest proportion of their income, the working class, and by increasing spending which helps increase demand.

Why not create policies and legislation to encourage businesses to hire and expand? Lowering taxes is one way because it is all-encompassing. When taxes are lowered, the citizenry spends more money, and business will tend to hire more or even expand. All of Obama's policies that I hear over the news have been counter-productive. He comes up with Obamacare that increases the healthcare cost of businesses when hiring people, then he wants to raise taxes to further demotivate everyone even more. And to make things worse, he's driving up the debt with his failed fiscal policies with no end in sight. What the hell!?

I agree that lowering taxes for companies that create jobs is a good idea. I also agree with the tax cuts the president has provided for the working class as they spend the most of their income. What hasn't worked, and we've tried it now for 30 years, is giving tax breaks to people just because they are rich, even though most don't invest it in this country anymore.

The health insurance mandate was the conservative alternative to UHC, which we will eventually have to upgrade to as the rest of the industrialized world has done.

As we learned during the Great Depression, spending stimulates demand which is required to kick start a consumer economy. Without demand, a consumer based economy will fail/

Where is the common sense and sanity of the American people? I did give Obama a chance, but his policies just suck and are devoid of the simplest common sense. I feel depressed when I see Americans becoming more political rather than patriotic. We have to save our country, and it begins with replacing Obama with a president who has better economic know-how and common sense.

We are doing better economically now than we were doing before President Obama. However, its not realistic to think you can completely repair 30 years of mismanagement in just a couple of years.

upsideguy · Dec 28, 2011

ualsdu7777 said:
Have you been watching the news lately? Are you aware of what's been happening in Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal? These are countries implementing what Obama has been leading this country into, that of socialized healthcare, and socialized everything, and they are all FAILING. Their enormous amount of entitlement programs are driving them insolvent, is that where you want us to head towards?

I just find it incomprehensible how many people today can already see the failure of the European systems (which is Obama's vision), why are we going down that path?? Do these folks have a subconscious death wish for this country, is that it?

Your condescendence is lost in your shallow understanding of world economies and your desire to oversimplify things. Yes, these countries have socialized medicine, as does every industrial country in the world, except the US. They are not failing due to having socialize medicine. In fact, many of the countries, including those in Europe, have stronger economies than the US, including Sweden, Norway, Germany, Japan and Canada. One of the arguments behind Obama care is that our healthcare costs are the highest in the world and escalating (Total expenditure on health as % of GDP statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Health). You can not have a real economy where healthcare is your number 1 industry.

Now, since you claimed Obama wants "socialized everything", kindly submit three examples of Obama active policies designed to "socialize" key components of American life.... it should be an easy task since you claim he wishes to "socialize everything". Moveover, I do not remember one Obama campaign speech suggesting that the United States should be more like Europe (which you claim to be Obama's vision). If it his vision, it would have been articulated. so it will be easy to find that speech on YouTube. Please provide such a link.

This is Debate Politics. We ask you bring game; if you make an assertion, offer evidence. If I want unsubstantiated quips and shallow soundbites, I'll watch Sean Hannity.

LesGovt · Dec 28, 2011

upsideguy said:
Given what is referred to as "Obamacare" was substantially architected by a former Republican governor and the Heritage foundation, not to mention endorsed, at one time, but two of the leading Republican presidential candidates; well, that makes it a pretty poor example of "liberalism" and a good example supporting the assertion he is a centrist. Furthermore, given that EVERY other 1st world county has socialized healthcare, anything less than that (just as the US system) is to the right of mainstream.

The problem with most of the righties on this board is they are so far out on the wing that the fuselage looks too far to the left.

First, the United States can do better than the rest of the world and should, but the answer does not lie with the Federal Government. Second, conservatives who support a mandate are in error and that included the great conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation. Third, we know that Newt has a long record and has probably addressed more issues than any other politician and he had flipflopped on some issues. Mandates is one of those issues.

As for your last sentence, please allow me to make a counter statement:

The problem with most of the leftties on this board is they are so far out on the wing that the fuselage looks too far to the right.

I hope you can see that your equivalent statement is vacuous. Now, please go have a nice day.

LesGovt · Dec 28, 2011

Catawba said:
Unlike you, I provided documentation to back up my opinion.

Really? You showed that there were no agreements in the 80s and 90s between Dems and GOP members in Congress and signed by the Presidents that called for $3 in spending cuts for $1 in increase in taxes? Please show me that documentation again, as I did not see it.

But there were agreements as I have told you and if you want documentation, I can provide that too, but I thought all knowledgeable Americans knew about this lies of the Democrats. Perhaps, I was mistaken.

Ockham · Dec 28, 2011

Catawba said:
Perhaps in your imagination:

No imagination needed, just eyes to see.

Catawba said:
So it wasn't you that said this:

The EPA relied on other government entities - now they order their own. Hell, the Dept. of Education had orders for shotguns... and shells. Who are they going to shoot exactly?

Catawba said:
The president can only sign what the Congress passes.

Or veto what Congress passes... but really, any more Captain Obvious remarks? :lol:

Catawba said:
Yep, that's what prevented the Great Bush Recession from being the Great Bush Depression alright.

Reagan saved the world though - if he didn't destroy single handed with his words the USSR, we'd all be slaves right now. (Aren't claims of success based on hypotheticals fun!)

Catawba said:
"Immigration Deportations Under Obama On Pace To Far Exceed Those Under Bush Administration"
Immigration Deportations Under Obama On Pace To Far Exceed Those Under Bush Administration

Uhmm... it was 4.2%, and had no connection to Obama's Administration, like Politifact already said.

Catawba said:
Hardly the first time in history the Justice Department as sued against state violations of federal law.

No one's claiming it was the first time in history.

Catawba said:
All raids are armed, always have been.

Evidence of "ALL raids" please.

Catawba said:
Is that all you got!

Yeah, when bribes are for Democrats it's no big deal, but when they're for Republicans the world's going to end (like 2000-2008).

Peddle your spin somewhere where the IQ's are below 84 and the ignorant will swoon.

ualsdu7777 · Dec 28, 2011

Catawba said:
The reason companies are not hiring is due to lack of demand because of the Recession and the record wealth inequality in the country.. So how do you create demand? By cutting taxes for those that spend the biggest proportion of their income, the working class, and by increasing spending which helps increase demand.

Wealth inequality? I'm not even sure where that factors in. It's not like the more money rich people make, the less money there is in some "money pool" that the rest could make money from. I agree with you though when you say cutting taxes and even a little spending can increase demand. What you do not state though is that this "spending" has to be managed carefully. If this "spending" will end up causing us to spend more than we make, then it is "over-spending" and cannot lead to any good, no two ways about it.

Catawba said:
What hasn't worked, and we've tried it now for 30 years, is giving tax breaks to people just because they are rich, even though most don't invest it in this country anymore.

You seem to focus so much on the rich, just as Obama is doing. We cannot force anyone to spend if they don't want to. Just because we lower taxes, that doesn't mean every single middle class citizen will spend more because they might choose to save the money instead. We are betting on a basic human natural trait -- that when people have more money, the more likely they will spend. Why don't you go after the middle class people who might not invest or spend? Why are you focusing only on the rich? I find your assessment to be inequitable and disingenuous.

Catawba said:
As we learned during the Great Depression, spending stimulates demand which is required to kick start a consumer economy. Without demand, a consumer based economy will fail/

I never said government should not spend. I am saying government should NOT spend BEYOND its means. Again, what you conveniently omit is that Obama is OVERSPENDING this country, consistently outspending our revenue every month with NO END IN SIGHT. It's not that Obama hasn't tried his spendthrift policies, he has done so for the first two years of his administration when he had full reign over Congress. Isn't insanity defined as doing the same failed methods over and over again?

Answer me this -- how is it prudent to recklessly spend more than what we are making on methods that yield mediocre, if not pathetic results?

Catawba said:
We are doing better economically now than we were doing before President Obama. However, its not realistic to think you can completely repair 30 years of mismanagement in just a couple of years.

I do not know where you get off saying we are better off. Before Obama, we had less than 8% unemployment, and it's gotten worse. You seem to want to extenuate Obama's failures by attributing our current economic quandary to the past 30 years. True as that may be, the real question to ask is, what has Obama specifically done to make the economy better? Obamacare? I seriously doubt it. What else? Overspending by increasing our national debt by 4 trillion dollars? That did very little, if any, and it dug us a deeper hole that justified his printing more currency so our dollar could be devalued. So why would any rational-thinking citizen allow Obama to perpetuate his weak, dubitable, and failed fiscal policies?

ualsdu7777 · Dec 28, 2011

upsideguy said:
Your condescendence is lost in your shallow understanding of world economies and your desire to oversimplify things. Yes, these countries have socialized medicine, as does every industrial country in the world, except the US. They are not failing due to having socialize medicine.

I never said they were failing due to solely socialized medicine. What I was trying to say was that they're failing because of too much spending. At the end of the day, regardless of what they spent their money on, are they spending more than what they're netting? If the answer is "yes", that's the problem right there. You call my understanding on economics shallow? Yet you neglect to see this basic economic prudence of not overspending? Who's shallow now? Europe is failing due to overspending. That is EXACTLY what Obama is relentlessly doing.

upsideguy said:
One of the arguments behind Obama care is that our healthcare costs are the highest in the world and escalating (Total expenditure on health as % of GDP statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Health).

Having high healthcare costs is a problem, is it not? So Obamacare has led to HIGHER healthcare costs, how does that solve the problem? I had to downgrade my healthcare plan to mere catastrophic coverage because my premiums went from $2400/year to $4000/year since Obama took office. Tell me exactly how Obamacare is alleviating our healthcare.

upsideguy said:
Now, since you claimed Obama wants "socialized everything", kindly submit three examples of Obama active policies designed to "socialize" key components of American life.... it should be an easy task since you claim he wishes to "socialize everything". Moveover, I do not remember one Obama campaign speech suggesting that the United States should be more like Europe (which you claim to be Obama's vision). If it his vision, it would have been articulated. so it will be easy to find that speech on YouTube. Please provide such a link.

You actually want me to present quotations from Obama admitting he's a socialist? Are you really that naive? I judge the man by his actions, not his words. Obama wants more pervasive government power over the people, and he's racking up a mountainous debt in the process. Obamacare is one, his energy policies are another which will give him unprecedented control over the businesses in this country, not to mention the thousands of regulations he has created that are choking our economy. The only thing that prevents me from calling him a full-fledged socialist is that he still hasn't seized and re-allocated property. But his general tone is to increase the size of government and to redistribute wealth in this country, and I hope you hear that in his speeches.

AdamT · Dec 28, 2011

ualsdu7777 said:
Wealth inequality? I'm not even sure where that factors in. It's not like the more money rich people make, the less money there is in some "money pool" that the rest could make money from. I agree with you though when you say cutting taxes and even a little spending can increase demand. What you do not state though is that this "spending" has to be managed carefully. If this "spending" will end up causing us to spend more than we make, then it is "over-spending" and cannot lead to any good, no two ways about it.

That seems to be a common conservative talking point, but in fact there often is a "money pool" that gets divvied up between the rich and working class. Corporations, for example, have a certain amount of money that's allocated to employee compensation. A percentage of that pool goes to executives and another percentage goes to non-executives. In the 1960s the CEO to worker pay ratio was around 25:1. Now the CEO to worker pay ratio is around 300:1 in the U.S. Typically CEOs in the US make many times what their counterparts make in other industrialized countries. That's not a bad thing if it's based on performance, but as we've seen so often, these huge salaries and perks are often doled out even when the CEO drives a company into the ground.

Likewise, the government needs a "money pool" to operate, and the way that pool is filled affects income distribution. Is it a coincidence, do you suppose, that CEO pay has skyrocketed relative to worker pay since the 1960s, in inverse relation to the top effective tax rate? Could it be that a more progressive tax code also results in less pay disparity? It is certainly the case that wealth buys influence in Washington, and that influence is often exercised to extract additional tax and business advantages for the wealthy.

You seem to focus so much on the rich, just as Obama is doing. We cannot force anyone to spend if they don't want to. Just because we lower taxes, that doesn't mean every single middle class citizen will spend more because they might choose to save the money instead. We are betting on a basic human natural trait -- that when people have more money, the more likely they will spend. Why don't you go after the middle class people who might not invest or spend? Why are you focusing only on the rich? I find your assessment to be inequitable and disingenuous.

Economists do study these things, you know? It's clear that tax cuts for the working class generate more demand than tax cuts for the wealthy, simply because the middle class has far less disposable income.

I never said government should not spend. I am saying government should NOT spend BEYOND its means. Again, what you conveniently omit is that Obama is OVERSPENDING this country, consistently outspending our revenue every month with NO END IN SIGHT. It's not that Obama hasn't tried his spendthrift policies, he has done so for the first two years of his administration when he had full reign over Congress. Isn't insanity defined as doing the same failed methods over and over again?

You make that statement as if this was just an ordinary economy and Obama was blithely throwing money around as if he had no idea that this kind of spending can't be sustained. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The excess spending is specifically targeted to increase economic activity and thus avoid another recession, or a Japan-style lost decade. When the economy rebounds deficits will automatically come down due to increased tax revenue (this is already happening to some extent), and we will then have to reduce spending and raise taxes to pay for the stimulus spending and lost revenue of the last three years.

Answer me this -- how is it prudent to recklessly spend more than what we are making on methods that yield mediocre, if not pathetic results?

You're assuming that the economy wouldn't be much much worse without the spending, which unlikely.

It wouldn't hurt for you to study a bit of basic economics....

Catawba · Dec 28, 2011

LesGovt said:
Really? You showed that there were no agreements in the 80s and 90s between Dems and GOP members in Congress and signed by the Presidents that called for $3 in spending cuts for $1 in increase in taxes? Please show me that documentation again, as I did not see it.

You are the one that made claims about the 80's and 90's. I provided documentation for President Obama's offer to cut spending $3 for every $1 of tax increases.

But there were agreements as I have told you and if you want documentation, I can provide that too, but I thought all knowledgeable Americans knew about this lies of the Democrats. Perhaps, I was mistaken.

Yes, lets see your documentation and let's compare that with the 30 years of the Republicans promises to cut spending, which they never did.

LesGovt · Dec 29, 2011

Catawba said:
You are the one that made claims about the 80's and 90's. I provided documentation for President Obama's offer to cut spending $3 for every $1 of tax increases.

Yes, lets see your documentation and let's compare that with the 30 years of the Republicans promises to cut spending, which they never did.

Here you go again with the dodge and weave. We only need to compare your comments with what I said about $3 to $1. Your comment was that Obama was first to have the $3 to $1 and that is untrue. I don't even need to show you both. One is enough to prove it was before Obama and it will show that the Democrats lied about the bargain. I will get to it tomorrow. Nitey Nite!

LesGovt · Dec 29, 2011

Catawba said:
Obama is the first president to propose $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases.

I found many articles showing that your above statement is false. Here is one such source:

Say Anything » Democrats Are Taking Reagan Out Of Context In Debt Ceiling Debate » Say Anything

or how about a second one:

Reagan's regrets on taxes and 'spending cuts' | timesfreepress.com

Catawba · Dec 29, 2011

LesGovt said:
I found many articles showing that your above statement is false. Here is one such source:

Say Anything » Democrats Are Taking Reagan Out Of Context In Debt Ceiling Debate » Say Anything

Imagine that, an opinion from a right wing blog agrees with you.

Let's do a little fact checking shall we:

"Reagan Wasn't So Reluctant

In a campaign ad, Texas Rep. Ron Paul — no fan of raising the debt limit — falsely suggested that President Ronald Reagan was reluctant to increase the debt ceiling in 1987. But Reagan actually said he had "no objection whatsoever" to doing so.

Paul's ad quoted a New York Times article as saying, "'Mr. Reagan reluctantly agreed Saturday to sign the legislation, which also raises the government debt ceiling." … (The emphasis was included in the ad graphics.)

But Reagan's reluctancy in signing the bill had to with his objection to spending cuts that would be triggered under certain circumstances, cuts that he thought would hurt national defense. As we mentioned, Reagan didn't object to raising the debt limit. In fact, he signed legislation to do so 17 times during his eight years in office."

or how about a second one:

Well you better, because your last one was bust.

Reagan's regrets on taxes and 'spending cuts' | timesfreepress.com

That's just more right wing opinion. Lets take a look at the facts:

"Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion."

Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt

Gill · Dec 29, 2011

Catawba said:
Imagine that, an opinion from a right wing blog agrees with you.

Imagine that, an opinion from a dedicated Obama/Democratic supporter's blog that agrees with you.

LesGovt · Dec 29, 2011

Catawba said:
Imagine that, an opinion from a right wing blog agrees with you.

Let's do a little fact checking shall we:

"Reagan Wasn't So Reluctant

In a campaign ad, Texas Rep. Ron Paul — no fan of raising the debt limit — falsely suggested that President Ronald Reagan was reluctant to increase the debt ceiling in 1987. But Reagan actually said he had "no objection whatsoever" to doing so.

Paul's ad quoted a New York Times article as saying, "'Mr. Reagan reluctantly agreed Saturday to sign the legislation, which also raises the government debt ceiling." … (The emphasis was included in the ad graphics.)

But Reagan's reluctancy in signing the bill had to with his objection to spending cuts that would be triggered under certain circumstances, cuts that he thought would hurt national defense. As we mentioned, Reagan didn't object to raising the debt limit. In fact, he signed legislation to do so 17 times during his eight years in office."

Well you better, because your last one was bust.

That's just more right wing opinion. Lets take a look at the facts:

"Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion."

Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt

You cannot help yourself, can you? Let's look at only the relevant facts of this discussion and skip your dodge and weave:

1. The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
2. You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized.
3. Democrats lied.

Those are the facts.

Reagan's 1982 Deficit Reduction Compromise: Lessons for Today

Catawba · Dec 29, 2011

Gill said:
Imagine that, an opinion from a dedicated Obama/Democratic supporter's blog that agrees with you.

The CBO is a blog???

Catawba · Dec 29, 2011

LesGovt said:
You cannot help yourself, can you? Let's look at only the relevant facts of this discussion and skip your dodge and weave:

1. The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
2. You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized.
3. Democrats lied.

Those are the facts.

Reagan's 1982 Deficit Reduction Compromise: Lessons for Today

As per history, and noted above:

"Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion."

LesGovt · Dec 29, 2011

Catawba said:
As per history, and noted above:

"Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion."

Again, you dodge and weave. The comment you made was false. Obama was not the first to propose $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. And, the Dems lied. All the rest of your bovine excrement is just that. I thought you knew how to read English. Please stop proving that I am wrong about you.

ualsdu7777 · Dec 29, 2011

AdamT said:
That seems to be a common conservative talking point, but in fact there often is a "money pool" that gets divvied up between the rich and working class. Corporations, for example, have a certain amount of money that's allocated to employee compensation. A percentage of that pool goes to executives and another percentage goes to non-executives. In the 1960s the CEO to worker pay ratio was around 25:1. Now the CEO to worker pay ratio is around 300:1 in the U.S. Typically CEOs in the US make many times what their counterparts make in other industrialized countries. That's not a bad thing if it's based on performance, but as we've seen so often, these huge salaries and perks are often doled out even when the CEO drives a company into the ground.

Let me make my stance clear. I *HATE* politics. I do not like any political party. Fiscally, I am for COMMON SENSE and INTEGRITY, something so lacking in our government today in both Democrats and Republicans. Now if my argument seems to coincide with some political party, so be it, but I despise our politicians today because I believe they prioritize themselves over the American people. However, ever since I heard how ridiculous our national debt is growing, I got drawn in to investigate more on why this is so, and I was appalled to find out how Obama is a relentless spendthrift which, up to this day, I totally fail to fathom why he's doing this.

I was talking about the nonexistence of a "money pool" in the economy, and you bring the discussion to the economics within a business entity? How relevant. If you decided today to go out there a take a shot at wealth, there is NO limit to the heights of where you can go monetarily. You will only be limited by your talents, abilities, and ingenuity, and there will be NO monetary limit imposed on you that can be traced back to anyone's opulence.

AdamT said:
Likewise, the government needs a "money pool" to operate, and the way that pool is filled affects income distribution. Is it a coincidence, do you suppose, that CEO pay has skyrocketed relative to worker pay since the 1960s, in inverse relation to the top effective tax rate? Could it be that a more progressive tax code also results in less pay disparity? It is certainly the case that wealth buys influence in Washington, and that influence is often exercised to extract additional tax and business advantages for the wealthy.

Your argument is so flawed and judgemental. It is true that the wealthy do exert influence in Washington, but there are two problems here -- corrupt wealthy people using their money to corrupt politicans, then there are the corrupt politicians themselves who allow this to happen. How rational is it to wage war on all wealthy people? That's like condemning all poor people because some poor people have resorted to petty theft, and hence, all poor people must be condemned.

AdamT said:
You make that statement as if this was just an ordinary economy and Obama was blithely throwing money around as if he had no idea that this kind of spending can't be sustained.

How do you sustain his heavy spending? Higher taxes on the people? Print more currency?

AdamT said:
The excess spending is specifically targeted to increase economic activity and thus avoid another recession, or a Japan-style lost decade. When the economy rebounds deficits will automatically come down due to increased tax revenue (this is already happening to some extent), and we will then have to reduce spending and raise taxes to pay for the stimulus spending and lost revenue of the last three years.

Does spending help alleviate an economy? I made it clear early on I do not disagree with this point. But it becomes an altogether different matter when spending far exceeds our revenues. Obama has had the first 2 years to do whatever he wanted, and yet unemployment figures kept increasing. It wasn't until last month that unemployment figures actually fell a little, but that could be fleeting because of the Christmas season. Obama has accumulated more national debt in 2 years than all past presidents combined, and with the exception of whether or not he had prevented the economy to collapse with his stimulus bill in 2009 (which is debatable), I see nothing else he has done that made the economy better.

Now I want to be fair to Obama as well. I do realize he inherited a bad economy. When I judge Obama's performance, I look at the actual policies he has enforced. He wants to increase spending on infrastructure, hoping that activity will trickle down to the rest of the economy. He wants to tax citizens more. He wants to increase regulations more on businesses. Based on those, I say Obama doesn't know what he is doing. I say lowering taxes and reducing regulations is a far superior approach because it is more encompassing and does not depend on any trickling. When corporate and income taxes are lowered, it affects everyone in one fell swoop, and results will be more immediate.

AdamT said:
It wouldn't hurt for you to study a bit of basic economics....

Actually, I can say the same to you, and in addition, I would suggest working on your common sense. Your economics will send us grappling with insolvency fast, simply because it is rooted in imprudent thinking -- that of unrestrained spending and perpetual impedance towards job creators and consumers by way of higher taxes and regulations. It will be people who think like you that will bring this country down to its knees in the not too distant future, and the sad part is how you fail to realize that.

Poll: Obama Re-Election Odds Roughly 50-50

More options

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

LesGovt

LesGovt

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

ualsdu7777

New member

ualsdu7777

New member

AdamT

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

LesGovt

LesGovt

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Gill

LesGovt

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

LesGovt

ualsdu7777

New member