Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ironic thing is that some of the liberals fools are in here shouting that Obama has reduced spending and the economy is booming. If that is the case, why are we in the process of raising the debt limit once again?
The debt limit is on total debt, cumulative, so even if spending were reduced, if there is more spending than taxes collected, the debt goes up...
The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush, and five times under Barack Obama. In practice, the debt ceiling has never been reduced, even though the public debt itself may have reduced.
Congress has raised the debt ceiling 14 times from 2001-2013. The debt ceiling was raised a total of 7 times (total increase of $5365bil) during Pres. Bush's eight-year term and it has been raised 7 times (as of 10/2013 a total increase of $5385bil) under Pres. Obama's term as of 2013 (five years in office).
obama owns the sequestration and the cutting of the budget....
or
the republicans are the owners of the sequestration and the cutting of the budget
liberals keep spinning it..."oh its the repubs fault for the sequester"........."oh we will take credit for the deficit dropping because of the sequester"
which is it liberals??????
I don't attribute any of it to sequestration. Pres. Obama has submitted reasonable budget requests to Congress that keep federal expenditures within modest limits. Moreover, because of Pres. Obama's initiative to have the upper-end Bush tax-cuts expire, there is greater revenue.
Time is running out on taking pot shot at the first African American POTUS , you better hurry up and
get all of your digs in before time runs out and it's forever too late LOLLLLLL......
Oh, that's funny. He actually is "African" and American but not black. I get it! Now, if Carson is elected, we will have our first black POTUS.
Yes, less than 450 days before we get our new POTUS who will begin healing the country and trying to undo the damage. Obama will only be a bad memory that fades as time passes.
Obama? Failure. Huge failure. Sadly, some are signing on for more of the same with their candidate choice.
Oh, that's funny. He actually is "African" and American but not black. I get it! Now, if Carson is elected, we will have our first black POTUS.
Yes, less than 450 days before we get our new POTUS who will begin healing the country and trying to undo the damage. Obama will only be a bad memory that fades as time passes.
Obama? Failure. Huge failure. Sadly, some are signing on for more of the same with their candidate choice.
Admittedly, I am a big fan of Obama for many reasons, "black" or "African" or whatever those who focus on those distinctions prefer (better than foreign-born Muslim, terrorist communist anyway).
But regardless anyone's feeling about Obama, or now Hillary Clinton as the DEM front runner, the question we are forced to contend with is who instead? Much like the GOP was not able to provide any real good alternative choice over Obama, I watch the GOP debate again last night, and no one rises as the clear better choice.
Only bad alternative choices that are made all the more clear as they bash one another in ongoing non-presidential fashion.
Though a progressive, I am truly saddened if not concerned that the other party is doing so poorly. The balance the two parties should provide and the choices they should give the American people for POTUS is more important than either party alone. That balance is clearly tilting as the GOP reels from its own serious shortcomings...
You've never given an explanation for why Obama's policies have promoted the widest income and wealth gaps on record. What stumps me is why so many Dems/liberals would vote for that.
You've never given an explanation for why Obama's policies have promoted the widest income and wealth gaps on record. What stumps me is why so many Dems/liberals would vote for that.
It's not an Obama problem, but a 40+ year problem. It's really that simple. And Obama promotes policies to narrow those gaps, like increasing the minimum wage, free community college, reducing the gender gap, etc.
It's not an Obama problem, but a 40+ year problem. It's really that simple. And Obama promotes policies to narrow those gaps, like increasing the minimum wage, free community college, reducing the gender gap, etc.
but those policies WON'T reduce the gap..they will actually increase it
It's not an Obama problem, but a 40+ year problem.
A problem made much worse by Obama's policies. Here's the thing... Obama could have chosen policies that could have reversed the trend (which is what he promised voters he would do), kept the gaps at stagnant levels, or continued to grow the gaps to record highs. Obama chose policies that accomplished the latter. Is that what he was elected to do? Is that what Dems/liberals wanted?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alternatives?
