I said it like it is not true.

Posted by greeny9 on 9/22/2011 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/21/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
The federal debt when Bush left office: $10,626,877,048,913.08
The federal debt in 2010 $14.8 trillion

That represents roughly a 50% increase in his first 2 years.

That is unprecedented.

 

In all fairness, a good portion, (not half, but definitely pertinent) can be pinned on the cost of the Bush led wars.

 

Even if you deduct that amt, Obama has still added to the debt at a much faster rate than any other president.

If we want to be fair to Obama we should also consider the 2008 meltdown.  You really dont think that absolutely killed the economy therefore adding a lot of debt because costs stayed the same, (in fact rose because of the stimulus packages) meanwhile revenues fell of the cliff.

A meltdown that Obama had nothing to do with may I remind you?

He knew what he was getting into when he ran for president - please lets not make excuses for him not cleaning up bushes mess - that was his job to do when he was elected.  Instead he chose to shove a massive healthcare bill down our throats instead of focusing on the economy during his first 2 years as president (which by the way is causing more job loss).   

And is there no standard we can judge Obama on?

No matter what happens it is ok because there was a collapse when he took over?

Im just saying in terms of the national debt increasing by 4 trillion in Obamas time in office so far isnt as bad as it seems.

But as Ive said before this Lefty is very unhappy with Obamas actions so far too.  He has broken many many campaign promises.  Most of which righties probably are very happy with.  But the Lefties that voted him in arent all that happy about.  (at least a good chunk of us anyways)

You can judge Obama according to his broken promises.  But when it comes to the economy he has a bit of a free pass there.  It wasnt him that laid the groundwork for the meltdown, that would be mostly on Bush's shoulders, and maybe a bit on Clinton's and most presidents before Clinton too.  They all allowed the financial sector to become more and more unregulated.  Then BOOM one day the house of cards falls.  Imagine that?

There is no free pass on anything - he's been president for 3 years and the economy (JOBS) is a HUGE issue as he will see come this election.  Instead of campaigning for job bills he was off passing bills like cap and save or obamacare.  My favorite was cash for clunkers.... the $1 billion ran out after 1 month, way sooner than it was supposed too, and obama throws $2 million more at it to extend the program another month... the results = less american cars on the road (trade ins) and more sales for honda, toyota, and nissan.... oh and the program costs outweighed the benefits by $1.4 billion dollars.   whoops!  actually come to think of it - sounds like this 2nd coming of the infrastructure bill obama is trying to pass after the first 700 billion flop (create or save 3.5 million jobs? yeah, that happened alright).... more good money after bad  < shakes head >  Its pretty sad.

As a side....

(Write this one down) .....  IF the DJIA drops below 9600 our markets will go into a free-fall and Obama at that point loses the election (no matter who he blames) when that 'double-dip recession' panic sets in.  Some advice for Obama - address the deficit NOW while there is still time!   Wall Street needs certainty and he's not providing it.   Obama can paint Wall Street as that bad guys all he wants but as wall street fails, so does employment #s and retirement plan balances.  

Heres the thing though Moy, I dont think anything is going to change because the repubs dont have any big name contenders.  Americans are all about the big names... I suppose if Palin put her name in the ring her name is big, but no woman is going to get elected for quite a few more years in America Id bet.

Posted by greeny9 on 9/22/2011 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Heres the thing though Moy, I dont think anything is going to change because the repubs dont have any big name contenders.  Americans are all about the big names... I suppose if Palin put her name in the ring her name is big, but no woman is going to get elected for quite a few more years in America Id bet.

she wouldn't win anyways.  

If Mitt can dumb down his rhetoric (for example, a 59 point job plan is probably the right thing, but typical americans can only process about 3 points before they get confused so stick to the big 3 in his case).  He has a track record of turning things around... the Massachusetts Deficit, the Utah Olympics revenue shortfall, Turned around struggling Bain & Company as CEO, and Co-Founded Bain Capital.  I personally think a track record of success, if played correctly, can beat Obama if Obama does not get his **** together fast.  Americans are getting frustrated and jobs will not get better by next November. 

Posted by moy23 on 9/22/2011 9:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 9/22/2011 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Heres the thing though Moy, I dont think anything is going to change because the repubs dont have any big name contenders.  Americans are all about the big names... I suppose if Palin put her name in the ring her name is big, but no woman is going to get elected for quite a few more years in America Id bet.

she wouldn't win anyways.  

If Mitt can dumb down his rhetoric (for example, a 59 point job plan is probably the right thing, but typical americans can only process about 3 points before they get confused so stick to the big 3 in his case).  He has a track record of turning things around... the Massachusetts Deficit, the Utah Olympics revenue shortfall, Turned around struggling Bain & Company as CEO, and Co-Founded Bain Capital.  I personally think a track record of success, if played correctly, can beat Obama if Obama does not get his **** together fast.  Americans are getting frustrated and jobs will not get better by next November. 

General Elections are primaries are very different things.

2008 was going to be the year that Dems won. Everything was pointing towards their victory, no matter who they ran. Women and Blacks were not a problem.

If 2012 turns out to be the reverse then Tea Party candidates are not a problem.

The things you are thinking about Palin and Rommney are not as valid in the primaries. It may be too late for Palin, but she clearly could have won if she had made an earlier call.

Posted by nickbracco on 9/25/2011 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Could have won what? You want that dumb **** as President? How damn stupid are you?

Since I believe, and I think the evidence supports, that in fact she is not stupid, That is an irrelevant question.

What we need to examine is could she solve America's problems.

She would likely call on a cabinet with people with similar views. She would have a Bush style cabinet.

She would want less government, clear tax policies and a general across the board reduction in government interference with business.

That is exactly what America needs.

Posted by nickbracco on 9/25/2011 7:32:00 PM (view original):
I did not say she was stupid, I said you were. She is just your ordinary everyday dumb ****! 

Well I guess we can make a narrow distinction between stupid and dumb.

Where would you put other women on the EDC chart? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sonya Sotomayor. Are they also EDCs?