• 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!

Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

Obama did everything we expected of him. He announced a withdrawal while the fighting was still taking place both in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one he thought was the right war. How does a Community Organizer with no resume get to be able to make these decisions, and what does that say about the American people? They still have more sense than the Europeans but the growing similarities are worrisome.

Ain't it a shame.
 
Obama did everything we expected of him. He announced a withdrawal while the fighting was still taking place both in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one he thought was the right war. How does a Community Organizer with no resume get to be able to make these decisions, and what does that say about the American people? They still have more sense than the Europeans but the growing similarities are worrisome.

They same it has been with all presidents. We elected him. Now go back to the exaggerating. :coffeepap
 
They same it has been with all presidents. We elected him. Now go back to the exaggerating. :coffeepap

Yes, you elected him, well done, but that is not the point.

The point is the intellectual shallowness of the electorate who made this woeful decision. At one time the American people were among the most politically and economically sophisticated in the world. Now we have this.

Once is an experiment perhaps, but twice suggests there is a huge problem within the American education system.
 
Yes, you elected him, well done, but that is not the point.

The point is the intellectual shallowness of the electorate who made this woeful decision. At one time the American people were among the most politically and economically sophisticated in the world. Now we have this.

Once is an experiment perhaps, but twice suggests there is a huge problem within the American education system.

Nowhere near as bad as you pretend. You guys are so insecure in your arguments that you have to exaggerate. The truth should be enough.
 
You recognize this J-Mac but the pity is that the majority don't. Do you have any ideas where the problems lie?

Progressivism imbedded within both parties.
 
Yeah, yeah you didn't agree with Iraq. We get it. What does that have to do with Obama's dismal performance?

Nothing. It has to do with Bush's dismal performance, which is why both of them have similar approval ratings. Obama is the master of his own dismal performance.
 
The bizarre part is that it's only PROGRESSIVES (not democrats) that support him at like 90%.... Now lets factor the numbers... lol.

This is probably why the Duck Dynasty stuff is selling off the shelf...
 
Hey look at this way... at least the right stopped blaming Bill Clinton for everything...
 
Hey look at this way... at least the right stopped blaming Bill Clinton for everything...

Clinton allowed it to happen - I'll say that much..

That whole "force banks to lend" crap was a problem but there has been plenty of time between that and now - like 20 years.

At least we're making progress with the destruction of the clowns that claim "we can get you out of your $177,000 debt for only $9.99 every month" - no wait that's our federal government not the clowns - the FED just prints money to "ease" it down to nothing while making the general public eat it.

Clinton was the most economically reckless president ever.

If it matters Bush did hardly anything to correct any of Clintons stupid ****....
 
See Clinton just used banks as a stimulus program by forcing lending....

That lead to the bailouts.........

Our government forced banks to lend then made them look stupid when they defaulted - not that I don't believe the banks loved the interest rates. But the only problem was the interest rates didn't matter when they couldn't be paid.

That was the ****ing problem...

I don't know what anyone was thinking for about 20 years...

No all the collateral has been taken and everyone is crying "I'm poor" -- yeah well they should have thought about that when they bought the boat 10 years ago with 5% down.

Now who is stuck with this ****? oh guys like me in their 30's or even younger - guys who were 5-years-old when you bought that boat..... They pay for it...
 
Last edited:
You know what chaps my ass these days? the clown with a $100,000 house he RENTS while he has a $50,000 car parked in the driveway he claims he owns but you know he leases....... A lot of people are like that tho, and most of them are from the Clinton culture.....
 
Clinton allowed it to happen - I'll say that much..

That whole "force banks to lend" crap was a problem but there has been plenty of time between that and now - like 20 years.

At least we're making progress with the destruction of the clowns that claim "we can get you out of your $177,000 debt for only $9.99 every month" - no wait that's our federal government not the clowns - the FED just prints money to "ease" it down to nothing while making the general public eat it.

Clinton was the most economically reckless president ever.

If it matters Bush did hardly anything to correct any of Clintons stupid ****....

Actually it was Reagan that was the most economically reckless president ever, since it was he (and his cult) that started all the trickle down crap based on debt and not production.

All Presidents since Reagan are to blame for not stopping the rot, and yes Clinton should have rolled back decades of miss-management by the right, but he was being attacked constantly by the right so doing anything was not that easy. The same thing has happened in part to Obama. Obama could propose all the reforms you wanted, but you know just as I do, that the GOP in the House would never ever agree to to it, even if it was their own freaking policy!
 
Actually it was Reagan that was the most economically reckless president ever, since it was he (and his cult) that started all the trickle down crap based on debt and not production.

All Presidents since Reagan are to blame for not stopping the rot, and yes Clinton should have rolled back decades of miss-management by the right, but he was being attacked constantly by the right so doing anything was not that easy. The same thing has happened in part to Obama. Obama could propose all the reforms you wanted, but you know just as I do, that the GOP in the House would never ever agree to to it, even if it was their own freaking policy!

No it was not, the trickle down idea worked, the government and the bankers just got greedy with it...

They sponged it up and you let them when you agreed to 20% interest rates...
 
Sorry but you don't get "trickle down" when you're paying astronomic interest rates.... Yeah, you may be paying yours while others are just racking up debt and defaulting which impacts you - because you are paying for it either way the bank defaults or not for bad loans..

We wouldn't be in this mess if people just paid their debt and didn't default - because there would be no goddamn reason to buy debt..

Hence people don't want trickle down to work because they borrowed against it in the first place..

Trickle down only works when you put 20 or 30% down and reduce your interest or borrow from a lender that has a grace period...
 
Last edited:
No it was not, the trickle down idea worked, the government and the bankers just got greedy with it...

They sponged it up and you let them when you agreed to 20% interest rates...

The trickle down idea never worked, pretty much all independent analysis shows this. And the bankers got greedy already in the 1980s... remember the movie Wall Street?.. from 1987, based on what was going on in Wall Street... Just saying.

Reagan had his savings and loans scandal.. he should have then said.. wait a minute, but he did not. He and his people allowed the banking industry to run amok for decades and doing the same mistakes over and over again and that ultimately lead to the crash. Reaganomics was and is a failure. Blaming the other side for the failure of your policies is just lame.
 
You see - now my generation is buying all their ****....... Everything is cheap and you CAN get a loan if you throw 30-40% down (like it should have been in the first place).... We just have better interest rates...

Those who have the means in my generation understand trickle down (or don't trust banks)... Either way our economic ideas lead to prosperity.
 
The trickle down idea never worked, pretty much all independent analysis shows this. And the bankers got greedy already in the 1980s... remember the movie Wall Street?.. from 1987, based on what was going on in Wall Street... Just saying.

Reagan had his savings and loans scandal.. he should have then said.. wait a minute, but he did not. He and his people allowed the banking industry to run amok for decades and doing the same mistakes over and over again and that ultimately lead to the crash. Reaganomics was and is a failure. Blaming the other side for the failure of your policies is just lame.

You're basing your ideas on movies...

I have a pretty good understanding of free market economics - its nothing like Wall Street the movie - at least not in the sense you're thinking.

You ever see that movie with Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy and Jamie Lee Curtis??? does it work like that too where they sell corn like ****?
 
Sorry to tell you that you sold your privilege to "trickle down economics" when you sold it to interest -- yeah -- the banks bought it, and the US public agreed to it via consumerism...

18% interest rate....hahahahaha - yeah that's your trickle down going bye-bye...
 
Who inspired all this unhinged spending - or better yet forced banks to lend this money? Clinton..... You know what banks did? fire back with high interest rates -- people wanted the free money forced on them and now our economy sucks...

Clinton wasn't trying to subsidize the people with tax money he was trying to force the banks to subsidize people...
 
Progressives like to point to Clintons deficit - well he only made the banks subsidize the nation.......... Problem is that many didn't pay off their debt.

If it really matters so much republicans let him do it....
 
The best indicator will be where this country will be when Obama leaves office. GWB took a country with a budget surplus and drove this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. Obama took over a country in a mess...and hopefully he won't leave it in a mess....time will tell.

There never was a ****ing surplus, stop pushing your fancies on the other members. Keep them at Disney.
 
There never was a ****ing surplus, stop pushing your fancies on the other members. Keep them at Disney.
:lol:

fredgraph.png
 

That was all debunked years ago. Everyone of those surpluses was projected. It never materialized, and Bush started his presidency in recession.
 
Back
Top Bottom