U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107

Advertisements

Quote:
the money which Obama is spending is to FIX THE ECONOMIC DISASTER left to him by the Bush Administration.
Throwing $17 trillion after $1 trillion makes sense to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Then you should be informed that President Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq in a timely manner, and with the advice of the military. The timeline for a safe withdrawal is 2010.
I'm sorry to inform you that is Bush's timeline, worked out before obama took office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Looks like he is trying to make it smaller to me!
You must be joking? $17 Billion in cuts out of $3.5 TRILLION.

I can suggest a remedial math course for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 7,835,215 times
Reputation: 3376
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFancyPants View Post

Obama should be thanking his lucky stars he was left this "mess." It's the only way he could hope to win. Had the economy not tanked in September, you'd be calling Mr. McCain president now. You can't have it both ways.
What exactly am I trying to have both ways?

You have NO idea who would have won if we didn't have the economic crisis.

You are just assuming that Obama won solely because of the crisis.

If that helps you to sleep better ... then feel free to think it all you want.

In my view, Obama was an EXCELLENT candidate ... and I believe he would have likely won either way.

Did you happen to notice how many electoral votes Obama had versus McCain? If not, maybe you should have a look.

Last edited by RD5050; 05-07-2009 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:34 PM
 
982 posts, read 850,215 times
Reputation: 249
I'm extrapolating from poll positions in September just prior to the economic collapse.

On what are you basing your opinion that he'd have won anyway?

Any electoral votes he had are moot in this argument. How many would he have had if the election were held in August of 2008?


ETA: You're having it both ways by complaining about the economic mess, when in reality, absent that, Obama doesn't win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 7,835,215 times
Reputation: 3376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Throwing $17 trillion after $1 trillion makes sense to you?
Maybe you can SHOW me (provide a link) where the Deficit number is 17 TRILLION?

The NY Times article I posted above shows the Deficit at 1.2 Trillion for Fiscal Year 2010.

Quote:
The savings for the budget year starting Oct. 1 represent the sum of Mr. Obama’s promised “line by line” scrubbing of the federal budget, and the the proposed cuts amount to about 1.4 percent of the $1.2 trillion deficit that is projected for the fiscal year 2010.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:38 PM
 
982 posts, read 850,215 times
Reputation: 249
Mr. R.D. - your status line says it all for me. You can't have it both ways there either. If we can't blame Mr. Obama w/o getting the line "He's only been in office three months," then you cannot claim the stock market run is the result of Mr. Obama doing anything.

Do you see the irony in your position? It's only attributable to Mr. Obama if it's a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:39 PM
 
5,165 posts, read 5,308,272 times
Reputation: 1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post

What exactly am I trying to have both ways?

You have NO idea who would have won if we didn't have the economic crisis.

You are just assuming that Obama won solely because of the crisis.

If that helps you to sleep better ... then feel free to think it all you want.

In my view, Obama was an EXCELLENT candidate ... and I believe he would have likely won either way.

Did you happen to notice how many electoral votes Obama had versus McCain? If not, maybe you should have a look.
There was a clear trend established right after Lehman Bros. fell. Mccain was finished from that point on.

Last edited by cleanhouse; 05-07-2009 at 12:41 PM.. Reason: misquoted
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:44 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 7,835,215 times
Reputation: 3376
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFancyPants View Post
I'm extrapolating from poll positions in September just prior to the economic collapse.

On what are you basing your opinion that he'd have won anyway?

Any electoral votes he had are moot in this argument. How many would he have had if the election were held in August of 2008?

ETA: You're having it both ways by complaining about the economic mess, when in reality, absent that, Obama doesn't win.
On what are you basing your OPINION that he would have lost?

McCain managed to gain a very slight lead over Obama immediately after he chose Palin during the Republican National Convention. (Sept 1-4 2008)

But that changed the more and more people got to know Palin.

So you can't tell what would have happened in the final two months, from a poll taken in Sept, taken right when a completely unknown named Palin looked somewhat good to Republicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:46 PM
 
982 posts, read 850,215 times
Reputation: 249
So back to my point. McCain was the Republican nominee because during the time of the primaries, Iraq was the No. 1 election issue. When the issue quickly turned to the economy as the No. 1 issue, McCain was done. Obama was trailing McCain/Palin until Lehman collapsed. Almost immediately, the poll numbers changed and McCain never recovered.

Now, again, R.D., on what are you basing your opinion that he would've won had the economy NOT collapsed? Is there any evidence out there that shows that Obama would've beat McCain if Iraq had remained the No. 1 issue on voter's minds? I couldn't find any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:43 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top