• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Redress said:
The bigger problem is the cost per job is a phony number, and does not account for the value of the work done by those people in those jobs. For example, a road crew is hired. What he is doing is counting the cost of the actual roadwork they do as part of the cost of the job, so even if that crew creates several million dollars worth of road, he is still including that in the cost per job. He is also including the cost of material. The "cost per job" figure is entirely and completely dishonest.
Click to expand...
I've pointed that out as well. He doesn't understand that he has to apply 100% of the stimulus funds to job creation in order to reach the phony number he posted. Regardless, he believes each job cost us $228,000 -- that equals 3.5 million jobs ... or 500,000 more jobs than Obama's stimulus aimed to save or create.
 
LOL!

so now they wanna take on REAGAN

winner of FORTY FIVE and FORTY NINE states

the man barack hussein seeks to CHANNEL

Obama's Reagan Bromance: Admiring the Gipper's Vision - TIME

just how outta touch can the personality obsessed be?

meanwhile---libya, afghanistan, unemployment, debt, housing, energy, inflation, immigration, cap and trade, the STIM, obamacare...

and that BUDGET

remember november

what's changed since?
 
if you wanna campaign on americans' remembrances of the gip, have at it

meanwhile---libya, afghanistan, unemployment, debt, obamacare, the drill ban, the BUDGET which increases DEFICIT SPENDING an obscene THIRTY PERCENT over awful 11

after all we've been thru

in times like these

campaigns can be very repetitious

fast forwarding to NOW---why do YOU think anthony weiner wants a WAIVER

for NEW YORK
 
iran contra?

LOL!

THAT's why WEINER wants a WAIVER?
 
yup, Reagan raised taxes. it was a deal he made with the Democrats to solve the deficit; for every dollar he raised taxes they were supposed to cut three in spending. then he (naively, i guess) trusted them enough to go ahead and sign the tax increase into law before they passed the spending cuts.

and then (unsurprisingly) the cuts never materialized.
 
Redress said:
And it is one single poll.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And in every single poll against every single individual republican, he wins or, in the case of a couple with Huckabee, ties.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother you that we'll be stuck with that jackass for another four years? What the hell is wrong with you? Don't tell me you think he's a great president.
 
pbrauer said:
I'll agree there, most people remember Reagan for his one tax cut, they don't remember the 11 times he raised them.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the thread topic. Reagan isn't on the ballot, Bush isn't on the ballot but Obama and his results are. Tell the 15 million unemployed and the great grandkids that Obama record deserves re-election. All you have is demonizing Reagan and Bush to divert from Obama. The Obama record speaks for itself. Increasing jobs from the dismal 2009 numbers isn't a great record to tout especially at the cost created to generated those results. By the way, when did Federal Income Taxes go up under Reagan? His 10-10-5% tax cuts grew govt. revenue. Let me know when Obama actually grows revenue by increasing enough jobs to justify the expenses?
 
American said:
It doesn't bother you that we'll be stuck with that jackass for another four years? What the hell is wrong with you? Don't tell me you think he's a great president.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't bother a liberal that we are stuck with this jackass for another four years. Liberals have a vision for the govt. that is contrary to the Founders. A big nanny state is what they want and don't care about the cost as long as somone else pays for it. States have no role in the process and it is Federal Government's role to solve problems in the states.
 
Redress said:
The bigger problem is the cost per job is a phony number, and does not account for the value of the work done by those people in those jobs. For example, a road crew is hired. What he is doing is counting the cost of the actual roadwork they do as part of the cost of the job, so even if that crew creates several million dollars worth of road, he is still including that in the cost per job. He is also including the cost of material. The "cost per job" figure is entirely and completely dishonest.
Click to expand...

Tell me these costs are a phony number

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010 will give you the debt by fiscal year. Raising the debt over 4 trillion dollars obviously is a phony number to you.

Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
04/04/2011 9,650,003,952,066.04 4,593,927,612,150.53 14,243,931,564,216.57
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If Obama inherited an economy as strong as Bush did and had the Twin Towers obliterated on his watch and invaded a country over WMD they didn't actually have, I absolutely would not vote for Obama again. As it is, I haven't decided on voting for him in 2012. It all depends on who's running against him and what state the economy is in at that time.


Once again, you confuse nominal dollars with real dollars along with the reason for using real dollars. In the real world, 2010 showed 2.9% growth, which is better than 6 out of Bush's 8 years:

2000 11,226 4.1%
2001 11,347 1.1%
2002 11,553 1.8%
2003 11,841 2.5%
2004 12,264 3.6%
2005 12,638 3.1%
2006 12,976 2.7%
2007 13,229 1.9%
2008 13,229 0.0%
2009 12,881 -2.6%
2010 13,248 2.9%


Hey, look at that ... you must think Bush was president only until January, 2008. Why did you stop there? Oh ... here's why ... over 4 million jobs were lost during Bush's final year ....

2009 142201
Click to expand...

Yes, 4 million jobs were lost in the last year and Obama spent over a trillion dollars, 350 billion in TARP and 800 billion in Stimulus to lose another 2+ million.

All partisan rhetoric aside, what do you think the role of the Federal Govt. should be and where are the states in that vision? Your vision seems to be one of a large central govt. that creates a nanny state. Is that the vision that the Founders had? We can continue to post numbers until hell freezes over and nothing is going to change your mind or mine because it does appear we have a different vision. Wonder which one is closer to our Founders?

Like it or not, Obama is going to have to run on his record and objectively that record isn't very good especially when you compare it to a totally disasterous 2008 when Bush and a Democrat Congress were in charge
 
Conservative said:
What does that have to do with the thread topic. Reagan isn't on the ballot, Bush isn't on the ballot but Obama and his results are.
Click to expand...
If Obama's record is the topic then so is the record of past presidents who did not perform as well as Obama in various regards.
 
American said:
It doesn't bother you that we'll be stuck with that jackass for another four years?
Click to expand...
It's all relative and it depends on who's running against him.

American said:
What the hell is wrong with you? Don't tell me you think he's a great president.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think he's doing a decent job. Not great, but decent.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If Obama's record is the topic then so is the record of past presidents who did not perform as well as Obama in various regards.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out and even recognized by the Obama Administration officials, it is the Obama record, not past Presidents that is going to be on trial in Nov. 2012 and if the numbers stay as they are today, Obama loses. You keep comparing Obama's record to 2008 while ignoring what it cost to get worse results.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's all relative and it depends on who's running against him.


Personally, I think he's doing a decent job. Not great, but decent.
Click to expand...

Of course you do because that is what you want to believe. the results are quite different.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If Obama's record is the topic then so is the record of past presidents who did not perform as well as Obama in various regards.
Click to expand...

What is the logic here? We will vote in 2012 not 2004 so why does looking backwards count.
 
washunut said:
What is the logic here? We will vote in 2012 not 2004 so why does looking backwards count.
Click to expand...
We're not voting here, we're discussing if Obama deserves 4 more years. And for the sake of discussion, it's fair to assess the job he's doing just as it's fair to compare him against prior administrations.

For example, if Republicans don't think he deserves another 4 years because they feel he's failed with employment, you don't think it's reasonable to show that despite unemployment increasing 13% on his watch at this point, that's still better than every single Republican president, dating back to Herbert Hoover? I view that as a completely appropriate response.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We're not voting here, we're discussing if Obama deserves 4 more years. And for the sake of discussion, it's fair to assess the job he's doing just as it's fair to compare him against prior administrations.

For example, if Republicans don't think he deserves another 4 years because they feel he's failed with employment, you don't think it's reasonable to show that despite unemployment increasing 13% on his watch at this point, that's still better than every single Republican president, dating back to Herbert Hoover? I view that as a completely appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Using percentage change doesn't tell the story because percentage change ignores people dropping out of the labor market which is more than double anything Bush had during his first term or any other President. You cherrypick data to justify your support and fail miserably.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We're not voting here, we're discussing if Obama deserves 4 more years. And for the sake of discussion, it's fair to assess the job he's doing just as it's fair to compare him against prior administrations.

For example, if Republicans don't think he deserves another 4 years because they feel he's failed with employment, you don't think it's reasonable to show that despite unemployment increasing 13% on his watch at this point, that's still better than every single Republican president, dating back to Herbert Hoover? I view that as a completely appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Is this really the record you are proud of?

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463


14.463 million people unemployed in March 2011 vs 12.653 unemployed on January 2009 when Obama took over. Now you can post percentage change all day long but when you ignore discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force you are being disengenuous and a typical Obama supporter who will do anything to prop up the empty suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom