PDA

View Full Version : Romney, GOP hammers Obama over sluggish economy



BAMAPHIN 22
06-04-2012, 11:32 AM
"The problem with this administration and this president and policies are hostile to job creators, asserted Romney senior advisor Ed Gillespie, on Fox news. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57446400/romney-gop-hammer-obama-over-sluggish-economy/?tag=stack

CedarPhin
06-04-2012, 01:53 PM
I don't know how you can put all of this blame on one person. There is a Congress, too, not to mention the last Retard in Chief we had didn't do us any wonders on that front. They're all bad, and the yokels blaming Obama with their slack jaws are just doing it because they don't want to face the fact that their hero George was a bigger Socialist than they act like Obummer is.

LANGER72
06-04-2012, 02:48 PM
I don't know how you can put all of this blame on one person. There is a Congress, too, not to mention the last Retard in Chief we had didn't do us any wonders on that front. They're all bad, and the yokels blaming Obama with their slack jaws are just doing it because they don't want to face the fact that their hero George was a bigger Socialist than they act like Obummer is.


As you said, both were/are bad. Why continue with a bad president? Since we only have 2 choices, the one with the bad track record with the public's money must go.

Tetragrammaton
06-04-2012, 03:16 PM
As you said, both were/are bad. Why continue with a bad president? Since we only have 2 choices, the one with the bad track record with the public's money must go.

But Romney has promised to continue to increase the deficit, so why elect him?

CedarPhin
06-04-2012, 04:55 PM
You guys that all want Romney as President and will "stop at nothing" to get Obummer out of the White House are like the guys stuck in unhappy marriages, so they go to the bar to find a new target to replace the wife with, and you end up with the fat chick missing half of her teeth at the end of the night. By that time though, you've gotten so drunk and told yourself so many times that your wife is awful, so therefore, this hideous toothless wildebeast will be an "upgrade".

LANGER72
06-04-2012, 08:50 PM
You guys that all want Romney as President and will "stop at nothing" to get Obummer out of the White House are like the guys stuck in unhappy marriages, so they go to the bar to find a new target to replace the wife with, and you end up with the fat chick missing half of her teeth at the end of the night. By that time though, you've gotten so drunk and told yourself so many times that your wife is awful, so therefore, this hideous toothless wildebeast will be an "upgrade".

Funny, that same argument could have been made about Obama 4 years ago. "Stop at nothing"? I didn't know I had that kind of power posting my opinions on this political forum. The liberal friendly media seems to be turning on Obama now. That is bad news for him.
Using your analogy, the guys hypothetical wife is Rosanne Barr and the chick at the bar is Mila Kunis IMHO...:brewskis:

LANGER72
06-04-2012, 08:55 PM
But Romney has promised to continue to increase the deficit, so why elect him?


meh

Dogbone34
06-04-2012, 09:23 PM
it's really just as simple as romney is more qualified to create a better environment for job growth

Locke
06-04-2012, 09:45 PM
it's really just as simple as romney is more qualified to create a better environment for job growth

How so? Obama went to the most prestigious Ivy league school in the country...

Tetragrammaton
06-04-2012, 09:46 PM
meh

You've said countless times that you would rather ignore his stated positions on all economic topics and instead hope he turns out differently. Most of us don't have that faith, especially since the last two Presidents veered so far off what people hoped for.

Locke
06-04-2012, 09:48 PM
meh

:lol::lol::lol:

Right? Who cares if he is the exact same candidate fiscally. Damn that (D) in front of Obama's name, he must be destroyed...!

Dolphins9954
06-04-2012, 09:55 PM
Romney would have done the same exact thing don't let him fool you. Keynesian republicans and democrats.

phins_4_ever
06-04-2012, 09:57 PM
You guys that all want Romney as President and will "stop at nothing" to get Obummer out of the White House are like the guys stuck in unhappy marriages, so they go to the bar to find a new target to replace the wife with, and you end up with the fat chick missing half of her teeth at the end of the night. By that time though, you've gotten so drunk and told yourself so many times that your wife is awful, so therefore, this hideous toothless wildebeast will be an "upgrade".

OMG!!!!
I am laughing so hard that I am peeing in my pants. Can I use that post as tag line?:lol:

JamesBW43
06-04-2012, 10:17 PM
Funny, that same argument could have been made about Obama 4 years ago. "Stop at nothing"? I didn't know I had that kind of power posting my opinions on this political forum. The liberal friendly media seems to be turning on Obama now. That is bad news for him.
Using your analogy, the guys hypothetical wife is Rosanne Barr and the chick at the bar is Mila Kunis IMHO...:brewskis:

You're right in the sense that President Bush was so unpopular any Democrat would've won but President Obama was an attractive presidential candidate, particularly to left wing voters. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney to right wing voters, or at least most right wing voters. Do you really think Romney is Mila Kunis or is that the "beer goggles" talking?

Dogbone34
06-04-2012, 11:16 PM
How so? Obama went to the most prestigious Ivy league school in the country...

The last guy went to one of those ivy leagues

Locke
06-04-2012, 11:26 PM
The last guy went to one of those ivy leagues

That doesn't answer my question...

Dogbone34
06-04-2012, 11:52 PM
That doesn't answer my question...

According to Bill Clinton, Romney has a "sterling" business record.
He does have strong private sector business experience coupled with a governorship of a liberal state. he knows the process.

Obama is a good activist president but he has no practical economic experience. Romney is more of a natural fit for job growth.

SnakeoilSeller
06-05-2012, 09:21 AM
The ironic thing with the Obama supporters, your argument is Romney will be just as bad. Really? What happened to Hope and Change? What happened to ending the partisan fighting? What happened to healing the oceans? Your argument is you are pretty sure that Romney will suck too, so we should stick with 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of horrible unemployment? 4 more years of exploding debt? 4 more years of incompetence. Obama had no experience, no track record, no clue. Now he has a record, which is so bad he can't run on it and he still has no clue. So let's reward him?

The country cannot afford to give him 4 more years.

Tetragrammaton
06-05-2012, 04:04 PM
The ironic thing with the Obama supporters, your argument is Romney will be just as bad. Really? What happened to Hope and Change? What happened to ending the partisan fighting? What happened to healing the oceans? Your argument is you are pretty sure that Romney will suck too, so we should stick with 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of horrible unemployment? 4 more years of exploding debt? 4 more years of incompetence. Obama had no experience, no track record, no clue. Now he has a record, which is so bad he can't run on it and he still has no clue. So let's reward him?

The country cannot afford to give him 4 more years.

What does campaign slogans have to do with actual human beings? What oceans are you talking about?

phins_4_ever
06-05-2012, 06:01 PM
The ironic thing with the Obama supporters, your argument is Romney will be just as bad. Really? What happened to Hope and Change? What happened to ending the partisan fighting? What happened to healing the oceans? Your argument is you are pretty sure that Romney will suck too, so we should stick with 4 more years of Obama? 4 more years of horrible unemployment? 4 more years of exploding debt? 4 more years of incompetence. Obama had no experience, no track record, no clue. Now he has a record, which is so bad he can't run on it and he still has no clue. So let's reward him?

The country cannot afford to give him 4 more years.

He may not win on his record but I can tell you how they will campaign:

a) he will point out what he has prevented by bailing out GM i.e. Suddenly unemployment numbers of 8% or 8.1% sound pretty good.
b) he will assure that he took over a country which was near a collapse and they stopped it and made progress. If anybody wants to point out the 8% unemployment rate they will point out that the previous administration put the country in such a hole that they couldn't stop unemployment until October 09 because since then unemployment went down by almost 2%.
c) he will smother Romney as the President for the few trampling on the rights of the many, just like he did at Bain Capital.
d) he also will point out what could have been if the Republicans would have played by the rules as the Constitution intended. There was once a time where above 50% considered a majority. The Republicans managed to block bills in the Senate which had the required 51% but threatened with filibuster.

The Republicans will pay bitterly for their child's play the last 3 1/2 years. Because the Obama administration knows that this will be their last election campaign and I expect a vicious campaign.

This election is a no brainer for Obama. The only problem I see is that those who expected more such as public option, tax hikes for the upper 1% etc will have to be hauled in. They may steal something from the Carl Rove playbook which Cheney so publicly announced after their re-election in 04: We now have a mandate.

The reason why the reps hat a bunch of nuts as candidates is: no serious candidate in the Republican party wanted anything to do with this election. If it is such a no-brainer to beat Obama the caliber of primary candidates would have been much higher. But just the fact that Obama took a country in the middle of a free fall and prevented the free fall to continue would have meant defending the Republican past.

Locke
06-05-2012, 07:55 PM
He may not win on his record but I can tell you how they will campaign:

a) he will point out what he has prevented by bailing out GM i.e. Suddenly unemployment numbers of 8% or 8.1% sound pretty good.
b) he will assure that he took over a country which was near a collapse and they stopped it and made progress. If anybody wants to point out the 8% unemployment rate they will point out that the previous administration put the country in such a hole that they couldn't stop unemployment until October 09 because since then unemployment went down by almost 2%.
c) he will smother Romney as the President for the few trampling on the rights of the many, just like he did at Bain Capital.
d) he also will point out what could have been if the Republicans would have played by the rules as the Constitution intended. There was once a time where above 50% considered a majority. The Republicans managed to block bills in the Senate which had the required 51% but threatened with filibuster.

The Republicans will pay bitterly for their child's play the last 3 1/2 years. Because the Obama administration knows that this will be their last election campaign and I expect a vicious campaign.

This election is a no brainer for Obama. The only problem I see is that those who expected more such as public option, tax hikes for the upper 1% etc will have to be hauled in. They may steal something from the Carl Rove playbook which Cheney so publicly announced after their re-election in 04: We now have a mandate.

The reason why the reps hat a bunch of nuts as candidates is: no serious candidate in the Republican party wanted anything to do with this election. If it is such a no-brainer to beat Obama the caliber of primary candidates would have been much higher. But just the fact that Obama took a country in the middle of a free fall and prevented the free fall to continue would have meant defending the Republican past.

You're wasting your breathe my friend...

Locke
06-05-2012, 07:58 PM
According to Bill Clinton, Romney has a "sterling" business record.
He does have strong private sector business experience coupled with a governorship of a liberal state. he knows the process.

Obama is a good activist president but he has no practical economic experience. Romney is more of a natural fit for job growth.

That sterling business record involves buying out then gutting numerous businesses in order to fatten his pockets. I'm not saying Obama is any better, but to try to paint Romney as some sort of business mogul is disingenuous.

This is a bad time to be a Republican candidate. Obama has presided over a recovering economy, has taken out several prominent terrorists, and has shown the best international relations out of any President in recent memory. phins_4_ever is absolutely right, there is a reason that candidates like Huckabee chose not to run this election: the odds are heavily stacked in Obama's favor...

Dogbone34
06-05-2012, 09:14 PM
That sterling business record involves buying out then gutting numerous businesses in order to fatten his pockets. I'm not saying Obama is any better, but to try to paint Romney as some sort of business mogul is disingenuous.

This is a bad time to be a Republican candidate. Obama has presided over a recovering economy, has taken out several prominent terrorists, and has shown the best international relations out of any President in recent memory. phins_4_ever is absolutely right, there is a reason that candidates like Huckabee chose not to run this election: the odds are heavily stacked in Obama's favor...

gutting is an emotional term to avoid the real issue. in most cases those companies would eventually go bankrupt without a restructuring. it just a business reality.

this will be a close election.

Spesh
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
gutting is an emotional term to avoid the real issue. in most cases those companies would eventually go bankrupt without a restructuring. it just a business reality.

this will be a close election.

Every election runs on emotion, especially this one. People are angry about the shape of our country.

Logic dictates that those businesses would have gone under. But then again, youd think logic would dictate that the "birther" controversy would have died down by now. As unemployment goes up both sides are going to be dropping haymakers into that fight. While people will blame Obama, the last thing they will want to hear is how Romney helped businesses out by firing employees. Obama and his super PAC will be more then pleased to play up that fact.

Dolphins9954
06-05-2012, 10:28 PM
Every election runs on emotion, especially this one. People are angry about the shape of our country.

Logic dictates that those businesses would have gone under. But then again, youd think logic would dictate that the "birther" controversy would have died down by now. As unemployment goes up both sides are going to be dropping haymakers into that fight. While people will blame Obama, the last thing they will want to hear is how Romney helped businesses out by firing employees. Obama and his super PAC will be more then pleased to play up that fact.


If I was Romney I would challenge Obama and all the Democrats to give back all their BAIN money.


Democrats and Bain

Executives at Romney's old private-equity firm have donated more to the Democratic Party than the GOP.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/democrats_and_bain_2/singleton/


The whole thing is a cesspool. It's funny to me watching Romney attack Obama on the economy when Romney would have done the same exact thing from massive bailouts to massive stimulus bills too. But "he would have done it better" :). None of these guys have the answer. Even if Romney does better with the economy the debt and deficits will still continue with the military spending and war policies not including all the kickback corporatist bills that must be paid.

phins_4_ever
06-05-2012, 11:14 PM
gutting is an emotional term to avoid the real issue. in most cases those companies would eventually go bankrupt without a restructuring. it just a business reality.

this will be a close election.

I am always fascinated when people say a company is bankrupt and without firing the company will go under yet CEOs or liquidators like Bain Capital still make millions. Firing and liquidating does not show business sense and/or knowledge.

This is one of these typical 'oh we are so poor' companies: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/hospice-cuts-staff-as-exec-pay-rises-2388817.html

Greed...greed...greed....just like Bain Capital and Romney.

Romney would be an excellent President for the top 1%.

Dolphins9954
06-05-2012, 11:49 PM
I am always fascinated when people say a company is bankrupt and without firing the company will go under yet CEOs or liquidators like Bain Capital still make millions. Firing and liquidating does not show business sense and/or knowledge.

This is one of these typical 'oh we are so poor' companies: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/hospice-cuts-staff-as-exec-pay-rises-2388817.html

Greed...greed...greed....just like Bain Capital and Romney.

Romney would be an excellent President for the top 1%.

Obama's good enough.

SnakeoilSeller
06-06-2012, 01:04 PM
He may not win on his record but I can tell you how they will campaign:

a) he will point out what he has prevented by bailing out GM i.e. Suddenly unemployment numbers of 8% or 8.1% sound pretty good.
b) he will assure that he took over a country which was near a collapse and they stopped it and made progress. If anybody wants to point out the 8% unemployment rate they will point out that the previous administration put the country in such a hole that they couldn't stop unemployment until October 09 because since then unemployment went down by almost 2%.
c) he will smother Romney as the President for the few trampling on the rights of the many, just like he did at Bain Capital.
d) he also will point out what could have been if the Republicans would have played by the rules as the Constitution intended. There was once a time where above 50% considered a majority. The Republicans managed to block bills in the Senate which had the required 51% but threatened with filibuster.

The Republicans will pay bitterly for their child's play the last 3 1/2 years. Because the Obama administration knows that this will be their last election campaign and I expect a vicious campaign.

This election is a no brainer for Obama. The only problem I see is that those who expected more such as public option, tax hikes for the upper 1% etc will have to be hauled in. They may steal something from the Carl Rove playbook which Cheney so publicly announced after their re-election in 04: We now have a mandate.

The reason why the reps hat a bunch of nuts as candidates is: no serious candidate in the Republican party wanted anything to do with this election. If it is such a no-brainer to beat Obama the caliber of primary candidates would have been much higher. But just the fact that Obama took a country in the middle of a free fall and prevented the free fall to continue would have meant defending the Republican past.

A) His own numbers stated that without his porkulous bill unemployment will not go over 8%. Stimulus was passed and 800+ billion dollars later we have had 35 straight months of unemploymnet rate being over 8%. Call it a projection, a promise or whatever you want, it still is a failure. Trying to move the golaposts after the fact will not help.

B) He will assure us, how? Everything he has tried has failed. Everything thing he has promised has failed. Further, it are his policies that are causing the problems at this point. That will not change with him winning an election. Businesses are not hiring due to the fear of regulations and taxes coming down the pike, that is not going to change until he is out of office

c) Obama and his supporters continue to show they have no idea what private equity is all about. Luckily, lots of Republicans, Independents, and conservative democrats do. No rights were trampled. That is just pure spin coming directly from the Obama campaign. It is a losing argument. An argument that the regime spent months if not longer planning and is DOA.

D) Obama got everything he asked for and then some. Obamacare, Dodd / Frank, The GM / Chrysler bailouts that he wanted, not to mention QEI & QEII and operation twist. He had a democratic Congress and Senate and a blithering media for 2 years - blaming stall tactics on the Republicans will not work and quite frankly is ridiculous.

The only true statement in your post was your first "He may not win on his record..." Because he cannot. With exploding debt, horrible unemployment, poverty at all time highs, more people than ever on food stamps, and the US about to fall off a fiscal cliff, how could he run on that record. If the election were held today, Romney would win in a landslide.

SnakeoilSeller
06-06-2012, 01:07 PM
What does campaign slogans have to do with actual human beings? What oceans are you talking about?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvpL2rpO7NA

SnakeoilSeller
06-06-2012, 01:13 PM
You're wasting your breathe my friend...

You are absolutely right, it is a waste of breathe. I am intelligent enough not to believe the lies and the bull****. I live in the real world. I am not foolish enough to believe that 3 1/2 years after taking office that it is all George Bush's fault. Or why the absolute tragedy of the last 3 1/2 years should be replayed for another 4 1/2 years.

SnakeoilSeller
06-06-2012, 01:34 PM
I am always fascinated when people say a company is bankrupt and without firing the company will go under yet CEOs or liquidators like Bain Capital still make millions. Firing and liquidating does not show business sense and/or knowledge.

This is one of these typical 'oh we are so poor' companies: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/hospice-cuts-staff-as-exec-pay-rises-2388817.html

Greed...greed...greed....just like Bain Capital and Romney.

Romney would be an excellent President for the top 1%.

You do realize that the company you use as an example is a non profit correct? And though I cannot guarantee it, I'll bet it may be run by libs. Why? A majority of non profits are and look at their CEO's Bio:

David C. Fielding joined Hospice of Palm Beach County as President and Chief Executive Officer in December 1998. Under Mr. Fielding’s leadership, Hospice of Palm Beach County has grown by more than 300 patients on a daily basis. Prior to his current position, Mr. Fielding served for two years as Executive Director of United Hospice Incorporated of Lilburn, Georgia, one of the largest hospice companies in the southeastern United States, with eleven offices in Georgia and South Carolina. Previously he spent seven years with Vitas Healthcare Corporation, the largest hospice organization in the country. During this time he worked in Miami and Boston, and served as Director of Development and Managed Care in Chicago and General Manager in Lombard and Skokie, Illinois. Mr. Fielding has a bachelor’s of arts in organizational behavior and management from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and a master’s of science in health systems management from Rush University in Chicago. He is a member of the National Hospice Organization, Florida Hospice & Palliative Care, Inc. and the National Association for Home Care.

He got his bachelor's degree at Brown and then his master's degree at Rush University in Chicago. Now I cannot prove that, but from my experience, I would bet that what you are upset with is the greed . . greed. . . greed of liberals in this instance. But dont worry. Once youy realize that liberalism is a lie, it get's easier.

CedarPhin
06-06-2012, 01:43 PM
If Liberalism is a "lie", what is conservatism? A bad joke?

LANGER72
06-06-2012, 06:22 PM
Wisconsin had a recall election yesterday, and the voters decided to keep their republican conservatives in place and rejected the liberal democrats. A surprising victory..I was expecting some dirty tricks by the liberals. Their best effort fell short. Even in a union state the leans liberal democrat, the people can see the results in only two years. WI may not be a gimme for Obama.
Balancing a states budget is small potatoes compared to running the country, but conservatism is the right approach...
Spending your way out deficit spending is no way to run the country.

tylerdolphin
06-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Wisconsin had a recall election yesterday, and the voters decided to keep their republican conservatives in place and rejected the liberal democrats. A surprising victory..I was expecting some dirty tricks by the liberals. Their best effort fell short. Even in a union state the leans liberal democrat, the people can see the results in only two years. WI may not be a gimme for Obama.
Balancing a states budget is small potatoes compared to running the country, but conservatism is the right approach...
Spending your way out deficit spending is no way to run the country.

What about the republican liberals and the conservative democrats?

Tetragrammaton
06-06-2012, 10:03 PM
Wisconsin had a recall election yesterday, and the voters decided to keep their republican conservatives in place and rejected the liberal democrats. A surprising victory..I was expecting some dirty tricks by the liberals. Their best effort fell short. Even in a union state the leans liberal democrat, the people can see the results in only two years. WI may not be a gimme for Obama.
Balancing a states budget is small potatoes compared to running the country, but conservatism is the right approach...
Spending your way out deficit spending is no way to run the country.

I think you better look at the election results again.

Locke
06-06-2012, 10:26 PM
You are absolutely right, it is a waste of breathe. I am intelligent enough not to believe the lies and the bull****. I live in the real world. I am not foolish enough to believe that 3 1/2 years after taking office that it is all George Bush's fault. Or why the absolute tragedy of the last 3 1/2 years should be replayed for another 4 1/2 years.

Well get ready for 4 1/2 more years of tragedy then. No matter how much you whine, cry, and pretend like it isn't so, the economy is recovering, the unemployment number is decreasing, and the stock market is stabilizing. The only chance Romney had, and even then it was a small one, was that a bad economy into 2012 soured voters on Obama. A recovering economy pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin for Romney. Looks to be 4 more years to me, short of something drastic happening in the next few months...

irish fin fan
06-06-2012, 10:46 PM
For over a year we have been on the verge on multiple Lehman type melt downs due to Europe. Yet all I hear are clowns proclaiming so called Obamacare is the cause of no hiring. Idiots.

It never ceases to amaze me how people in this country think the outside world has no impact on anything in this country. Mind boggling ignorance.

SnakeoilSeller
06-07-2012, 07:57 AM
Well get ready for 4 1/2 more years of tragedy then. No matter how much you whine, cry, and pretend like it isn't so, the economy is recovering, the unemployment number is decreasing, and the stock market is stabilizing. The only chance Romney had, and even then it was a small one, was that a bad economy into 2012 soured voters on Obama. A recovering economy pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin for Romney. Looks to be 4 more years to me, short of something drastic happening in the next few months...

Where is the economy recovering? You can keep saying it, but just because the WH says it and the media repeats it, it is not true. Unemployment is not decreasing, it is increasing. If we used the same measurables today as we did when Obama took office, unemployment would be listed at 10.9% not 8.2%. GDP was revised down for the first quarter to 1.9%. !.9% GDP is not growth. The market dropped 10% from the April highs, so that's not true either. Obama cannot spin the truth, and only the naive will believe the lies he is pushing.

SnakeoilSeller
06-07-2012, 08:07 AM
For over a year we have been on the verge on multiple Lehman type melt downs due to Europe. Yet all I hear are clowns proclaiming so called Obamacare is the cause of no hiring. Idiots.

It never ceases to amaze me how people in this country think the outside world has no impact on anything in this country. Mind boggling ignorance.

Ignorance comes from sticking your head in the sand and not knowing what is really happening on mainstreet. At least 25% of small businesses say that impending policy's and impending taxes are stopping them from hiring or investing in their business. The country is less than 7 months away from a huge tax increases. Those are facts and that is what is happening in communities all across this country.

Obama and his supporters want to blame the economy on everything, but themselves. So far it has been because of George Bush, high oil prices, corporate greed, Wall Street, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsnumai's, the Arab Spring, global warming and now Europe. In reality, it are his policies that are hampering job growth. Blaming it on everything else is the true ignorance.

Dolphins9954
06-07-2012, 08:24 AM
The last jobs report shows the exact opposite of a recovery. Plus what's happening in Europe will only add to our woes. Obama is in real trouble when it comes to the economy.

LANGER72
06-07-2012, 12:24 PM
Well get ready for 4 1/2 more years of tragedy then. No matter how much you whine, cry, and pretend like it isn't so, the economy is recovering, the unemployment number is decreasing, and the stock market is stabilizing. The only chance Romney had, and even then it was a small one, was that a bad economy into 2012 soured voters on Obama. A recovering economy pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin for Romney. Looks to be 4 more years to me, short of something drastic happening in the next few months...

Strongly disagree. The majority of the folks(both D & R) in this country are tired of the results of the presidents policies. Your thoughts and opinions are representative of a hardcore minority.
The economy will recover eventually, but right now it is stuck in neutral.

Tetragrammaton
06-07-2012, 12:27 PM
Strongly disagree. The majority of the folks(both D & R) in this country are tired of the results of the presidents policies. Your thoughts and opinions are representative of a hardcore minority.

No.


President Obama's job approval rating (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx?ref=interactive) averaged 47% in May, unchanged from April, and exactly the same as George W. Bush's and Gerald Ford's ratings in May of their re-election years. Bush ended up winning by three percentage points in 2004, while Ford lost by two points in 1976. Obama's average is well below the May re-election-year averages of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both of whom won, but above the May averages of George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, who lost.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155042/Obama-Averages-Job-Approval-May.aspx

LANGER72
06-07-2012, 12:35 PM
Ignorance comes from sticking your head in the sand and not knowing what is really happening on mainstreet. At least 25% of small businesses say that impending policy's and impending taxes are stopping them from hiring or investing in their business. The country is less than 7 months away from a huge tax increases. Those are facts and that is what is happening in communities all across this country.

Obama and his supporters want to blame the economy on everything, but themselves. So far it has been because of George Bush, high oil prices, corporate greed, Wall Street, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsnumai's, the Arab Spring, global warming and now Europe. In reality, it are his policies that are hampering job growth. Blaming it on everything else is the true ignorance.


Agree. Just look at most shopping malls...a lot of the stores are closed or going out of business. Retail space has a surplus. Small companies, that replied on banks to float them along...are gone. Increased corporate taxes and regulatory fees preventing start up's. The specter of Obamacare mandates. Uncertainty everywhere.
There are so many visible signs of poor economic health you would have to be blind not to see them..
Relying on politically excreted stats..

LANGER72
06-07-2012, 12:38 PM
No.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/155042/Obama-Averages-Job-Approval-May.aspx


Yes

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

irish fin fan
06-07-2012, 08:54 PM
Ignorance comes from sticking your head in the sand and not knowing what is really happening on mainstreet. At least 25% of small businesses say that impending policy's and impending taxes are stopping them from hiring or investing in their business. The country is less than 7 months away from a huge tax increases. Those are facts and that is what is happening in communities all across this country.

Obama and his supporters want to blame the economy on everything, but themselves. So far it has been because of George Bush, high oil prices, corporate greed, Wall Street, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsnumai's, the Arab Spring, global warming and now Europe. In reality, it are his policies that are hampering job growth. Blaming it on everything else is the true ignorance.

Oh, so now it's, according to you, 25%. What about the other 75%? They don't count, right? Who extended the tax breaks before? Who is to say he won't expand them considering the state of the economy.

You are right, when has high oil prices ever impacted a domestic economy. Why would financial system that ran wild and almost caused a depression have any impact on an economy when the result is severely reduced spending and lending. A tsunami that cripples Japanese exports and severely impacts key components needed by car companies etc. in the US. Multiple Lehman scenarios potentially unfolding in Europe. The last Lehman impact had little impact on the US economy as I recall.

Yes, the remote risk of a tax increases vs wiping out the banking system, high oil prices etc. is a much greater risk.

SnakeoilSeller
06-08-2012, 07:03 AM
Oh, so now it's, according to you, 25%. What about the other 75%? They don't count, right? Who extended the tax breaks before? Who is to say he won't expand them considering the state of the economy.

You are right, when has high oil prices ever impacted a domestic economy. Why would financial system that ran wild and almost caused a depression have any impact on an economy when the result is severely reduced spending and lending. A tsunami that cripples Japanese exports and severely impacts key components needed by car companies etc. in the US. Multiple Lehman scenarios potentially unfolding in Europe. The last Lehman impact had little impact on the US economy as I recall.

Yes, the remote risk of a tax increases vs wiping out the banking system, high oil prices etc. is a much greater risk.

Your responses show a total lack of understanding on how the economy works. I will try and help explain economics to you.

If 1 out of every 4 business cite that the #1 reason they are not hiring or investing any money into their business is because of impending taxes and regulations, that automatically slows the economy. That does not mean the other 75% (3 out of 4) are hiring or spending money. They may have their own reasons not to, like a slow economy. That number is non partisan, btw. It just shows that 25% of the job creators in our country are not hiring because of the Presidents policies. Ouch! Also, it then cripples the amount of new start up businesses. Being hostile to job creators and capitalism is bad.

You are correct that high oil prices hurt the economy. Since you can figure that out, why can't the President? You would think then the Keystone pipeline, which would bring in more oil lowering the price (supply and demand) plus it would add thousands of jobs (something the President has only been able to destroy),would have made common sense for President Obama; it didn't. Not to mention, that the Presidents spending policies weakened the US dollar causing oil prices to go higher. And then in turn, hurting the economy. It is a vicious cycle, especially when you have a simpleton in the oval office that has no idea on how an economy works.

There have been earthquakes, tornados, tsunami's , locust and zombie attacks before that have effected the global economy. Yet never have we had a President, to my recollection, use so many excuses to why he has failed.

CedarPhin
06-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Yes

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Rasmussen's usually in the foxhole for the GOP, it's like taking Chris Berman's approval index of the Dolphins seriously.

LANGER72
06-08-2012, 04:04 PM
Rasmussen's usually in the foxhole for the GOP, it's like taking Chris Berman's approval index of the Dolphins seriously.

And Gallop is the beaming light of objectivity? I see.
If the source is not in the proverbial foxhole, then they are deemed OK. The problem is that puts them in the oppositions foxhole.
Someone needs to publish a Po/Fo approved list of sources...
Whatever :lol:

LANGER72
06-08-2012, 04:07 PM
Your responses show a total lack of understanding on how the economy works. I will try and help explain economics to you.

If 1 out of every 4 business cite that the #1 reason they are not hiring or investing any money into their business is because of impending taxes and regulations, that automatically slows the economy. That does not mean the other 75% (3 out of 4) are hiring or spending money. They may have their own reasons not to, like a slow economy. That number is non partisan, btw. It just shows that 25% of the job creators in our country are not hiring because of the Presidents policies. Ouch! Also, it then cripples the amount of new start up businesses. Being hostile to job creators and capitalism is bad.

You are correct that high oil prices hurt the economy. Since you can figure that out, why can't the President? You would think then the Keystone pipeline, which would bring in more oil lowering the price (supply and demand) plus it would add thousands of jobs (something the President has only been able to destroy),would have made common sense for President Obama; it didn't. Not to mention, that the Presidents spending policies weakened the US dollar causing oil prices to go higher. And then in turn, hurting the economy. It is a vicious cycle, especially when you have a simpleton in the oval office that has no idea on how an economy works.

There have been earthquakes, tornados, tsunami's , locust and zombie attacks before that have effected the global economy. Yet never have we had a President, to my recollection, use so many excuses to why he has failed.

And he still blames Bush 2. No accountability or second guessing is allowed.

Dolphins9954
06-08-2012, 10:37 PM
lNxslGdBf74


JyB8zrNbO18


Q6utKxrh3Bs



Don't believe this man.

irish fin fan
06-08-2012, 11:11 PM
Your responses show a total lack of understanding on how the economy works. I will try and help explain economics to you.

If 1 out of every 4 business cite that the #1 reason they are not hiring or investing any money into their business is because of impending taxes and regulations, that automatically slows the economy. That does not mean the other 75% (3 out of 4) are hiring or spending money. They may have their own reasons not to, like a slow economy. That number is non partisan, btw. It just shows that 25% of the job creators in our country are not hiring because of the Presidents policies. Ouch! Also, it then cripples the amount of new start up businesses. Being hostile to job creators and capitalism is bad.

You are correct that high oil prices hurt the economy. Since you can figure that out, why can't the President? You would think then the Keystone pipeline, which would bring in more oil lowering the price (supply and demand) plus it would add thousands of jobs (something the President has only been able to destroy),would have made common sense for President Obama; it didn't. Not to mention, that the Presidents spending policies weakened the US dollar causing oil prices to go higher. And then in turn, hurting the economy. It is a vicious cycle, especially when you have a simpleton in the oval office that has no idea on how an economy works.

There have been earthquakes, tornados, tsunami's , locust and zombie attacks before that have effected the global economy. Yet never have we had a President, to my recollection, use so many excuses to why he has failed.

There is a little economic principle called supply and demand. No demand means no hiring. Now despite you believing that we still live in an 18th century, we are in fact live in a global economy where other countries buying our goods leads to jobs in this country. I shouldn't have to explain that if demand drops in those countries what the impact will be here.

The Brent crude oil price sets the price of gas. You can have a pipeline going to every house in the USA and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the price which is set by world demand. As for your nonsense about the dollar, whats the current exchange rate tend for the Euro vs the dollar, economists saying Chinese currency is grossly undervalued by currency manipulation and the yen strength crippling their exports. More garbage by the extreme right for ignorant people to lap up.

I don't believe a President has been left such a shambles of an economy since the great depression. Any financial lead recession typically takes 5 to 8 years based on similar occurrences worldwide for people to get their personal debt down to size.

SnakeoilSeller
06-09-2012, 08:22 AM
There is a little economic principle called supply and demand. No demand means no hiring. Now despite you believing that we still live in an 18th century, we are in fact live in a global economy where other countries buying our goods leads to jobs in this country. I shouldn't have to explain that if demand drops in those countries what the impact will be here.

The Brent crude oil price sets the price of gas. You can have a pipeline going to every house in the USA and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the price which is set by world demand. As for your nonsense about the dollar, whats the current exchange rate tend for the Euro vs the dollar, economists saying Chinese currency is grossly undervalued by currency manipulation and the yen strength crippling their exports. More garbage by the extreme right for ignorant people to lap up.

I don't believe a President has been left such a shambles of an economy since the great depression. Any financial lead recession typically takes 5 to 8 years based on similar occurrences worldwide for people to get their personal debt down to size.

So new excuses for the Incapable In Chief. Global economy is bad, and so everything else needs to be bad = not Obama's fault. Chinese currency manipulation, because it is suddenly a new problem? No just a new excuse. That's all it is - is more excuses. You are just parrotting the same ridiculous barage of excuses and blame on why the Administration is failing. 3 1/2 years after Obama's porkulous bill was passed and the economy still sucks.

It's either parrotting excuses or you have absolutely no clue on everything that effects our economy. You blame supply and demand for our sluggish economy, but then argue against supply and demand working for oil prices and the Keytone pipleline. And you conveniently forgot about the jobs the pipeline would create (Dont worry, obviously Obama forgot too). And if it was such a "shambles", then why, acording to the CBO, did we come out the recession in summer of 2009? And what about the recession in 2000 - 2001? That did not take 5-8 years? How about the one in the early 90's? Just more excuses to cover for Obama and his train wreck economy.

The reality is that job creators will not expand and will not hire with an overhang of new taxes, new expenses, and new regulation. You can keep finding excues but they are not going to change the facts.

Ilovemyfins4eva
06-09-2012, 11:44 AM
So new excuses for the Incapable In Chief. Global economy is bad, and so everything else needs to be bad = not Obama's fault. Chinese currency manipulation, because it is suddenly a new problem? No just a new excuse. That's all it is - is more excuses. You are just parrotting the same ridiculous barage of excuses and blame on why the Administration is failing. 3 1/2 years after Obama's porkulous bill was passed and the economy still sucks.

It's either parrotting excuses or you have absolutely no clue on everything that effects our economy. You blame supply and demand for our sluggish economy, but then argue against supply and demand working for oil prices and the Keytone pipleline. And you conveniently forgot about the jobs the pipeline would create (Dont worry, obviously Obama forgot too). And if it was such a "shambles", then why, acording to the CBO, did we come out the recession in summer of 2009? And what about the recession in 2000 - 2001? That did not take 5-8 years? How about the one in the early 90's? Just more excuses to cover for Obama and his train wreck economy.

The reality is that job creators will not expand and will not hire with an overhang of new taxes, new expenses, and new regulation. You can keep finding excues but they are not going to change the facts.
its very simple for the obama admin/obama lovers. anything good that happens during his tenure( not much to speak of) is all due to obama, but whenever something is going bad, its all bushes fault. its never obamas fault.

Locke
06-09-2012, 11:53 AM
its very simple for the obama admin/obama lovers. anything good that happens during his tenure( not much to speak of) is all due to obama, but whenever something is going bad, its all bushes fault. its never obamas fault.

Come one man, don't go down this path. We already have enough partisan hacks, we don't need another. I've seen enough of your posts around the forum to know you're a smart dude. It's OK to not like this administration, but starting the obama lover line is going to do nothing but start partisan junk...

SnakeoilSeller
06-09-2012, 12:17 PM
It seems to me the "partisanship" comes from those who continually make excuses for the Obama Administration. That in reality, it does not matter what your affiliation politically, people are tired of 3 years of excuses, 3 years of blaming everyone and everything other than themselves, tired of 3 years of leading frombehind or showing no leadership at all, tired of 3 plus years of wasteful spending, 3 years of apologizing for America, 3 years attacking our way of life and attacking our freedoms. The Obama WH has been the most partisan WH ever.

LANGER72
06-09-2012, 12:47 PM
Come one man, don't go down this path. We already have enough partisan hacks, we don't need another. I've seen enough of your posts around the forum to know you're a smart dude. It's OK to not like this administration, but starting the obama lover line is going to do nothing but start partisan junk...

If someone posts something that you don't like..it is partisan.
You are partisan hack too, but you like to cover yourself with a greasy thin coating of objectivity.
The last 4 years have been terrible. No if's, and's, or but's....and a lot of it is Obama's fault.

Dolphins9954
06-09-2012, 01:08 PM
What would the Big Government, Pro-Massive Bailout, Pro-Massive Stimulus, Health Insurance Mandate King Romney have done different?

Oh I know. Attack Obama for doing the same thing he would have done.

SnakeoilSeller
06-09-2012, 01:37 PM
What would the Big Government, Pro-Massive Bailout, Pro-Massive Stimulus, Health Insurance Mandate King Romney have done different?

Oh I know. Attack Obama for doing the same thing he would have done.

I understand your argument, and that is exactly why he had problems with the conservative vote, but assuming or guessing isn't doing. I feel confident that Romney would not have pushed for a "National Romney Care" a la Obamacare instead of concentrating on jobs first. Whether it would come later or not, idk? Argue what you will, unemployment rate in Mass during his time was 4.7% (I believe), that is better than we have now, lots better. I think Romney would have put country first, not ideology.

Dolphins9954
06-09-2012, 02:34 PM
I understand your argument, and that is exactly why he had problems with the conservative vote, but assuming or guessing isn't doing. I feel confident that Romney would not have pushed for a "National Romney Care" a la Obamacare instead of concentrating on jobs first. Whether it would come later or not, idk? Argue what you will, unemployment rate in Mass during his time was 4.7% (I believe), that is better than we have now, lots better. I think Romney would have put country first, not ideology.

Here's Romney calling for his version of National Romneycare......

2M9gGwW2gCs

There's plenty more videos of this. It's funny how the GOP and Romney pushed Romneycare as a great example while advocating a national version of it. But now it's not politically acceptable because Obama did it. Believing this notion that Romney would have "put the country first" is wishful thinking borderline denial of the facts. Romney would have put Goldman Sachs and the Banks first just like Obama did. The man is bought and paid for.

Here's Romney with his version of big government stimulus spending.......

JyB8zrNbO18


Fact of the matter is that the top 2 politicians of all time that have taken more money from wall street, banks, special interests, lobbyists, MIC and all those involved in the cesspool that is Washington are..........Obama and Romney.

Thinking that any of these sell-outs will "put the country first" is either naive or classic partisan BS.

SnakeoilSeller
06-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Again, if you read what I said, I don't think he would push Romney Care first, jobs first. Do I agree with any more spending, no. I wouldn't mind upgrading necessary military equipment, if it were balanced with base closings globally. Again I said I understand your argument, I think most if not all conseratives would agree, but I know where Obama's sinking ship takes us. I guess some hope, even if it is fools gold, is better than no hope at all.

Tetragrammaton
06-09-2012, 04:03 PM
3 years attacking our way of life and attacking our freedoms

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/lolwut-1.jpg

Let's not get hysterical here.

Dolphins9954
06-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Again, if you read what I said, I don't think he would push Romney Care first, jobs first. Do I agree with any more spending, no. I wouldn't mind upgrading necessary military equipment, if it were balanced with base closings globally. Again I said I understand your argument, I think most if not all conseratives would agree, but I know where Obama's sinking ship takes us. I guess some hope, even if it is fools gold, is better than no hope at all.

Romney wants the military to be even more of the policeman of the world so I don't see any bases closing unless it's to move them to fit his "World Police" agenda. Fools gold and hope is what gave us Obama. I look at the policies and with Romney's economic policies you don't see much difference. He would have done the bailouts along with the stimulus while being a big supporter of the FED and it's policies. So I really don't see how he would be any better. He also on many occasions advocated nationwide Romneycare. This election is a choice between 2 forms of big government, anti-liberty Keynesian candidates.

LANGER72
06-09-2012, 06:27 PM
Romney wants the military to be even more of the policeman of the world so I don't see any bases closing unless it's to move them to fit his "World Police" agenda. Fools gold and hope is what gave us Obama. I look at the policies and with Romney's economic policies you don't see much difference. He would have done the bailouts along with the stimulus while being a big supporter of the FED and it's policies. So I really don't see how he would be any better. He also on many occasions advocated nationwide Romneycare. This election is a choice between 2 forms of big government, anti-liberty Keynesian candidates.

A very clever...but tired mantra. Too bad it will not get any traction. The bottom line is that Romney will be the next president. He is clearly a better man and the better leader. If I want to drink a beer and shoot some hoops, then I will give obama a call.

Dolphins9954
06-09-2012, 06:47 PM
A very clever...but tired mantra. Too bad it will not get any traction. The bottom line is that Romney will be the next president. He is clearly a better man and the better leader. If I want to drink a beer and shoot some hoops, then I will give obama a call.

Lead us where?

irish fin fan
06-09-2012, 10:04 PM
So new excuses for the Incapable In Chief. Global economy is bad, and so everything else needs to be bad = not Obama's fault. Chinese currency manipulation, because it is suddenly a new problem? No just a new excuse. That's all it is - is more excuses. You are just parrotting the same ridiculous barage of excuses and blame on why the Administration is failing. 3 1/2 years after Obama's porkulous bill was passed and the economy still sucks.

It's either parrotting excuses or you have absolutely no clue on everything that effects our economy. You blame supply and demand for our sluggish economy, but then argue against supply and demand working for oil prices and the Keytone pipleline. And you conveniently forgot about the jobs the pipeline would create (Dont worry, obviously Obama forgot too). And if it was such a "shambles", then why, acording to the CBO, did we come out the recession in summer of 2009? And what about the recession in 2000 - 2001? That did not take 5-8 years? How about the one in the early 90's? Just more excuses to cover for Obama and his train wreck economy.

The reality is that job creators will not expand and will not hire with an overhang of new taxes, new expenses, and new regulation. You can keep finding excues but they are not going to change the facts.

I've criticized Obama in the past for doing stupid stuff so he is far from perfect. In regards to your comments about China's currency manipulation, that was in response to your Obama devaluing the currency nonsense. However, for someone who's posts are about Obama losing or not creating American jobs it strikes me as a bit odd as you basically ignore one of the major countries that benefits from outsourcing our moving manufacturing jobs from America. However, your posts don't want to deal with facts just some right wing economic nonsense.

As for the rest of the post just the same old nonsense. Comparing the recession of 2000 with this just goes to show how completely out of your depth when talking about economics.

irish fin fan
06-09-2012, 10:18 PM
I understand your argument, and that is exactly why he had problems with the conservative vote, but assuming or guessing isn't doing. I feel confident that Romney would not have pushed for a "National Romney Care" a la Obamacare instead of concentrating on jobs first. Whether it would come later or not, idk? Argue what you will, unemployment rate in Mass during his time was 4.7% (I believe), that is better than we have now, lots better. I think Romney would have put country first, not ideology.

But but but I swore fox news said that the economy in Mass dived after the Heath care bill there was introduced. Now we are conveniently saying economic growth during his time was 4.7%.

Now we are saying that the guy who first brought in the health care, similar to what conservatives label as Obamacare wouldn't do it nationally. Are these posts coming from the twilight zone or what?

irish fin fan
06-09-2012, 10:19 PM
its very simple for the obama admin/obama lovers. anything good that happens during his tenure( not much to speak of) is all due to obama, but whenever something is going bad, its all bushes fault. its never obamas fault.

Hey genius, let's hear your great ideas.

irish fin fan
06-09-2012, 10:19 PM
What would the Big Government, Pro-Massive Bailout, Pro-Massive Stimulus, Health Insurance Mandate King Romney have done different?

Oh I know. Attack Obama for doing the same thing he would have done.

Well said.

irish fin fan
06-09-2012, 10:21 PM
If someone posts something that you don't like..it is partisan.
You are partisan hack too, but you like to cover yourself with a greasy thin coating of objectivity.
The last 4 years have been terrible. No if's, and's, or but's....and a lot of it is Obama's fault.

What's Obama's fault. Break it down for me. Let's see how much of your list matches with mine.

JamesBW43
06-09-2012, 10:51 PM
So new excuses for the Incapable In Chief. Global economy is bad, and so everything else needs to be bad = not Obama's fault. Chinese currency manipulation, because it is suddenly a new problem? No just a new excuse. That's all it is - is more excuses. You are just parrotting the same ridiculous barage of excuses and blame on why the Administration is failing. 3 1/2 years after Obama's porkulous bill was passed and the economy still sucks.

It's either parrotting excuses or you have absolutely no clue on everything that effects our economy. You blame supply and demand for our sluggish economy, but then argue against supply and demand working for oil prices and the Keytone pipleline. And you conveniently forgot about the jobs the pipeline would create (Dont worry, obviously Obama forgot too). And if it was such a "shambles", then why, acording to the CBO, did we come out the recession in summer of 2009? And what about the recession in 2000 - 2001? That did not take 5-8 years? How about the one in the early 90's? Just more excuses to cover for Obama and his train wreck economy.

The reality is that job creators will not expand and will not hire with an overhang of new taxes, new expenses, and new regulation. You can keep finding excues but they are not going to change the facts.

The facts are that this past recession was worse than either of those. The facts are that the majority of businesses aren't spending because of a lack of demand. The facts are that the economy is a $14 trillion monster with a plethora of forces acting upon it, and the executive branch of the federal government can only do so much.


It seems to me the "partisanship" comes from those who continually make excuses for the Obama Administration. That in reality, it does not matter what your affiliation politically, people are tired of 3 years of excuses, 3 years of blaming everyone and everything other than themselves, tired of 3 years of leading frombehind or showing no leadership at all, tired of 3 plus years of wasteful spending, 3 years of apologizing for America, 3 years attacking our way of life and attacking our freedoms. The Obama WH has been the most partisan WH ever.

I'm not surprised that it seems that way to you since you cherry pick which "excuses" you try to rebut, completely ignoring the ones you can't.

JamesBW43
06-09-2012, 10:54 PM
its very simple for the obama admin/obama lovers. anything good that happens during his tenure( not much to speak of) is all due to obama, but whenever something is going bad, its all bushes fault. its never obamas fault.

You won't find anyone on this board who likes everything the President has done or not done. This kind of blanket statement is silly and ignorant.

Ilovemyfins4eva
06-09-2012, 11:21 PM
You won't find anyone on this board who likes everything the President has done or not done. This kind of blanket statement is silly and ignorant.
its the truth though. every single time something bad is happening in this country, instead of taking accountability for it like the leader should do, he always tries to put the blame on bush. bush has not been in office 3 and a half years, enough's enough, as the leader of the greatest country in the world, be a man and try to fix the situation, dont always mention bush, bush is 3 and a half years ago.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 12:50 AM
its the truth though. every single time something bad is happening in this country, instead of taking accountability for it like the leader should do, he always tries to put the blame on bush. bush has not been in office 3 and a half years, enough's enough, as the leader of the greatest country in the world, be a man and try to fix the situation, dont always mention bush, bush is 3 and a half years ago.

In the Internet Age, you don't get to make stuff up and get away with it. Anyone who is good at playing politics knows to shift blame and how to do it effectively. The only thing worse than them doing it is you pretending Obama is the first to do so. Do we not remember how so many Bush Administration acolytes tried to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton?

The problem with talking about politics on the Internet is that we have to go over the basics before we ever get to the meat and potatoes, and by the time anyone puts down their Glenn Beck book or closes their MSNBC browser, they are usually turned off by what they see. I guess it is because an election is coming up, but the sloganeering that is going on here, there, and everywhere is really wearing me down.

Why is it that everyone on here that is going to vote for Romney and dislikes Obama has to read from the same script? D9954 isn't voting for Obama, but he doesn't read from a script. I am not voting for Obama, but I don't read a script.

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 08:02 AM
I've criticized Obama in the past for doing stupid stuff so he is far from perfect. In regards to your comments about China's currency manipulation, that was in response to your Obama devaluing the currency nonsense. However, for someone who's posts are about Obama losing or not creating American jobs it strikes me as a bit odd as you basically ignore one of the major countries that benefits from outsourcing our moving manufacturing jobs from America. However, your posts don't want to deal with facts just some right wing economic nonsense.

As for the rest of the post just the same old nonsense. Comparing the recession of 2000 with this just goes to show how completely out of your depth when talking about economics.

You can always tell who parrots the WH talking points to try and make economic arguments. When you spend trillions of dollars that you don’t have, you have to print more dollars. (Does this make sense so far?) Obama keeps spending dollars (that we don’t have) in fact every dollar he spends, we borrow 40 cents of that. That makes the value of our dollar go down. When the value of our dollar goes down, the people at OPEC get mad. See people have to buy oil from OPEC in American Dollars. It makes the price of oil go up. Is it the only factor, absolutely not. Is it a factor that is consistently not talked about, yes. So when Obama keeps proposing on spending money, is he devaluing the dollar, yes. It is not nonsense, it's fact.

And here is a quote I dug up about this:

"It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money," Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schšuble told Der Spiegel magazine last week.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/news/economy/what_is_currency_manipulation/index.htm

Is that just right wing nonsense as well?


Outsourcing jobs to China. What is the bigger factor? Is it currency manipulation or unions? It would seem that since non union car manufactures like Honda and Toyota have moved plants back to the US in non union states, it would seem the later. That is the real 800-pound gorilla in the room that pro Obama supporters seem to forget. Again not nonsense, not talking points that you really don’t understand, just facts. (BTW, facts are usually the things that drive liberals crazy.)

I never said that the recession of 2000 or the early 90's was as severe as the current, however those we recovered in months, not years. Now I realize all recessions are different. Why all of the sudden the 5-8 years meme? Well the time frame is certainly convenient isn't it? Just after one election, and enough cover for 2 terms. Convenient.

Don't know what Fox news said about Mass economy. Don’t watch Fox that often. And again, reading comprehension does not seem to be your top quality. The unemployment rate was 4.7% (not the Growth rate) in Mass when Mitt was Gov. That is almost double what it is now. Of course the Dems can make an argument that Mitt was just a benefactor in the great booming Bush economic years, so that's why the unemployment rate was so low, how would that argument sound? Again, not spin coming from the WH, just economic facts.

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 08:12 AM
In the Internet Age, you don't get to make stuff up and get away with it. Anyone who is good at playing politics knows to shift blame and how to do it effectively. The only thing worse than them doing it is you pretending Obama is the first to do so. Do we not remember how so many Bush Administration acolytes tried to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton?

The problem with talking about politics on the Internet is that we have to go over the basics before we ever get to the meat and potatoes, and by the time anyone puts down their Glenn Beck book or closes their MSNBC browser, they are usually turned off by what they see. I guess it is because an election is coming up, but the sloganeering that is going on here, there, and everywhere is really wearing me down.

Why is it that everyone on here that is going to vote for Romney and dislikes Obama has to read from the same script? D9954 isn't voting for Obama, but he doesn't read from a script. I am not voting for Obama, but I don't read a script.

I would like to see all these times that the Bush Administration tried blaming Clinton for 9 /11. I hear that argument a lot. I dont remember a lot of blame given to anyone other than Bin Laden. Did they blame him for over 3 years after it happened? Did they campaign on it in 2004? I just dont remember that, so if you could provide all those examples that would be great because I hear the Bush did it first argument alot.

I do remember lots of Dems however blaming Enron and other corporate scandals on Bush, thoough the fraudulent activity at Enron occurred during Clinton years, it just blew up Bush's first term.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 08:17 AM
I would like to see all these times that the Bush Administration tried blaming Clinton for 9 /11. I hear that argument a lot. I dont remember a lot of blame given to anyone other than Bin Laden. Did they blame him for over 3 years after it happened? Did they campaign on it in 2004? I just dont remember that, so if you could provide all those examples that would be great because I hear the Bush did it first argument alot.

I do remember lots of Dems however blaming Enron and other corporate scandals on Bush, thoough the fraudulent activity at Enron occurred during Clinton years, it just blew up Bush's first term.

It was probably on of the more repeated topics on FOX News back in 2004. Here are some quick Google excerpts.

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/05/03/sean_hannity_still_trying_to_blame_clinton_for_911.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/27/during_another_fox_news_blame_clinton_discussion_dick_morris_attacks_clintons_terrorism_efforts_before_admitting_not_being_up_to_speed_on_last_three_years_of_presidency.php

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 08:41 AM
It was probably on of the more repeated topics on FOX News back in 2004. Here are some quick Google excerpts.

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/05/03/sean_hannity_still_trying_to_blame_clinton_for_911.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/27/during_another_fox_news_blame_clinton_discussion_dick_morris_attacks_clintons_terrorism_efforts_before_admitting_not_being_up_to_speed_on_last_three_years_of_presidency.php

Sean Hannity is not the Bush Administration. Dick Morris was a Clinton Administration guy trying to sell books. The Obama Administration has spent the last 3 1/2 years blaming George Bush for all the economic problems in the world. They play with every number they can. Hell, they actually tried to blame the Stimulus on Bush. Because Sean Hannity wants to blame Clinton for 9 /11 does not equal the same thing. Because every member of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, etc blames Bush for everything (they get their talking points from the WH). I want to know the Bush Administration people that were blaming Clinton for 9 /11, in the manner that all the WH and it's Cabinet Secretaries and the Dem Senators and Congress people blame Bush for the economy.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 09:26 AM
Sean Hannity is not the Bush Administration. Dick Morris was a Clinton Administration guy trying to sell books. The Obama Administration has spent the last 3 1/2 years blaming George Bush for all the economic problems in the world. They play with every number they can. Hell, they actually tried to blame the Stimulus on Bush. Because Sean Hannity wants to blame Clinton for 9 /11 does not equal the same thing. Because every member of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, etc blames Bush for everything (they get their talking points from the WH). I want to know the Bush Administration people that were blaming Clinton for 9 /11, in the manner that all the WH and it's Cabinet Secretaries and the Dem Senators and Congress people blame Bush for the economy.

You'll have to go on that journey yourself. I said Bush Administration acolytes, and I gave you Bush Administration acolytes. I am not terribly interested in the specificity of what you are looking for, because most people who don't work for campaigns would admit that all politicians try to misplace blame. If you want to be that guy that says the Bush Administration never did and the Obama Administration does it all the time, you can be that guy.

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 10:02 AM
You'll have to go on that journey yourself. I said Bush Administration acolytes, and I gave you Bush Administration acolytes. I am not terribly interested in the specificity of what you are looking for, because most people who don't work for campaigns would admit that all politicians try to misplace blame. If you want to be that guy that says the Bush Administration never did and the Obama Administration does it all the time, you can be that guy.

No need, I just hear that argument a lot, in fact you used it today, and yet I never see proof of it. I honestly do not remember ever hearing anyone from the Bush Adminstration blaming Clinton for 9/11. Since so many use the "Bush did it first" argument to stick up for President Obama, I just figured I surpressed all those times Karl Rove complained that it was Clinton's fault.

However, if we are using such a wide definition of acolytes, that means that everything Ed Shultz says should then be treated as the Obama Adminstration is saying it. By your definition.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 01:37 PM
No need, I just hear that argument a lot, in fact you used it today, and yet I never see proof of it. I honestly do not remember ever hearing anyone from the Bush Adminstration blaming Clinton for 9/11. Since so many use the "Bush did it first" argument to stick up for President Obama, I just figured I surpressed all those times Karl Rove complained that it was Clinton's fault.

However, if we are using such a wide definition of acolytes, that means that everything Ed Shultz says should then be treated as the Obama Adminstration is saying it. By your definition.

No one is saying "Bush did it first", that is the point. Every politician, from the President to a member of a small town city council, survives and thrives by avoiding the placement on blame by themselves.

irish fin fan
06-10-2012, 03:19 PM
You can always tell who parrots the WH talking points to try and make economic arguments. When you spend trillions of dollars that you donít have, you have to print more dollars. (Does this make sense so far?) Obama keeps spending dollars (that we donít have) in fact every dollar he spends, we borrow 40 cents of that. That makes the value of our dollar go down. When the value of our dollar goes down, the people at OPEC get mad. See people have to buy oil from OPEC in American Dollars. It makes the price of oil go up. Is it the only factor, absolutely not. Is it a factor that is consistently not talked about, yes. So when Obama keeps proposing on spending money, is he devaluing the dollar, yes. It is not nonsense, it's fact.

And here is a quote I dug up about this:

"It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money," Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schšuble told Der Spiegel magazine last week.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/news/economy/what_is_currency_manipulation/index.htm

Is that just right wing nonsense as well?


Outsourcing jobs to China. What is the bigger factor? Is it currency manipulation or unions? It would seem that since non union car manufactures like Honda and Toyota have moved plants back to the US in non union states, it would seem the later. That is the real 800-pound gorilla in the room that pro Obama supporters seem to forget. Again not nonsense, not talking points that you really donít understand, just facts. (BTW, facts are usually the things that drive liberals crazy.)

I never said that the recession of 2000 or the early 90's was as severe as the current, however those we recovered in months, not years. Now I realize all recessions are different. Why all of the sudden the 5-8 years meme? Well the time frame is certainly convenient isn't it? Just after one election, and enough cover for 2 terms. Convenient.

Don't know what Fox news said about Mass economy. Donít watch Fox that often. And again, reading comprehension does not seem to be your top quality. The unemployment rate was 4.7% (not the Growth rate) in Mass when Mitt was Gov. That is almost double what it is now. Of course the Dems can make an argument that Mitt was just a benefactor in the great booming Bush economic years, so that's why the unemployment rate was so low, how would that argument sound? Again, not spin coming from the WH, just economic facts.

Typo on my part regarding growth vs unemployment rate. Same point, I thought jobs were destroyed by health care reform. Apparently not.

I quote our major trading partners exchange rates and see no major collapse in the value of the dollar. Yet you decide to bypass those minor points and make up your own.

Learn what a financial recession means before you start your esteemed timeframe of how long a recovery should take. You know, do some real research.

Bush boom was a fantasy built on cheap money and spending. Now we are paying the price. Of the two clowns we have to vote for I will go with the least bad choice which will be Obama. Romney, changes opinions like an baby changes diapers.

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 06:15 PM
Typo on my part regarding growth vs unemployment rate. Same point, I thought jobs were destroyed by health care reform. Apparently not.

I quote our major trading partners exchange rates and see no major collapse in the value of the dollar. Yet you decide to bypass those minor points and make up your own.

Learn what a financial recession means before you start your esteemed timeframe of how long a recovery should take. You know, do some real research.

Bush boom was a fantasy built on cheap money and spending. Now we are paying the price. Of the two clowns we have to vote for I will go with the least bad choice which will be Obama. Romney, changes opinions like an baby changes diapers.

Your ignorance on economic matters is astounding. Obviously if you cannot figure out that printing more dollas devalues them, well, I am at a loss. That is simple. If you dont understand the most basic of principals, then there is no reason going any further. You move the goalposts on your arguments, which happens when you parrot information that you dont understand.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Your ignorance on economic matters is astounding. Obviously if you cannot figure out that printing more dollas devalues them, well, I am at a loss. That is simple. If you dont understand the most basic of principals, then there is no reason going any further. You move the goalposts on your arguments, which happens when you parrot information that you dont understand.


Romney ""I'm Not Going To Focus On The Fed" .

l6JDooqBcjg

Romney doesn't get it either.

Locke
06-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Romney ""I'm Not Going To Focus On The Fed" .

l6JDooqBcjg

Romney doesn't get it either.

Ssshhhhhh. Haven't you heard?

Romney is the perfect candidate. His feces consists of gold and diamond, which he will sell back to China and have us out of debt in 4 days. He will punch every Democrat in the U.S. in the face so hard, they will literally implode into nothing. He will build a wall 400 feet high single-handedly between the U.S. and Mexico withing 15 minutes of becoming President. His hair is so awesome, just looking at it will prevent anyone in the U.S. from getting an abortion again, ever.

Thus spoke our resident ultra partisans...

irish fin fan
06-10-2012, 11:36 PM
Your ignorance on economic matters is astounding. Obviously if you cannot figure out that printing more dollas devalues them, well, I am at a loss. That is simple. If you dont understand the most basic of principals, then there is no reason going any further. You move the goalposts on your arguments, which happens when you parrot information that you dont understand.

Once again the post shows complete ignorance of economics. How big was the American economy back in1900 and how big is it now? Do you not think that alone would not require additional printing of dollars. Dollars, or any currency, become devalued through inflation. Most of the money that has been loaned out over the last 4 years has gone straight to banks in one form or another. Very little of that money has gotten into the hands of consumers which could cause inflation. Mortgages % rates are at their lowest levels in memory and no major sustained demand or mortgages. No demand, no increase in inflation, no reduction in the dollar value.

Now in a few years if by some miracle the economy starts growing out of control then the fed and the government will have to soak up this liquidity and reduce spending and/or increase taxes or you will get inflation. However, as we are talking about the here and now, the post is one more to add to the seemingly infinite list of laughable posts.