If Obama admits he cant fix the problems created by Bush (Ron Paul, vote)
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.
Just saying stuff without any facts or a video is just laughable it truly shows that Romney trolls will say any every that comes to there minds. They will saying every but show there true colors of how racist they truly are this pres race is mostly about racism weather we like it or not & the GOP god offal people started it.
DJboutit,
I expected more from you. YOU just showed YOUR racism.
The left's blinders are working as good as always for them.
And for no other reason than SC picks I'll vote Romney. Compared to the two whack jobs the jug-eared little barry has picked Romney will make FAR better choices. The dopes who ***** about social regression are simply clueless.
Probably because they understand that a lot of people are like you and don't understand that all candidates make promises to get elected. Romney is making the same promises Obama did 4 years ago, and yet, should he win, he will have no more control over most of these issues than Obama has. If the economy recovers over the next 4 years, it won't be because there was a change in the Oval Office.
Like I already said, Obama promised big and failed to deliver. When you promise that you can fix something and fail because you never had the power to fix it to begin with, that makes you a liar and a fraud. He had a two year window with the Dems firmly in control of both houses and himself in the White House. Obama did push through a lot of FDR style "borrow like there's no tomorrow and spend like there's no tomorrow" stuff. Most of it was chopping at the branches and not focusing on the root problems. Some of it succeeded within a limited part of the economy, but failed to offset job losses elsewhere. Obamanomics haven't produced a net gain in the Labor Participation Rate. The percentage of Americans gainfully employed has plummetted since Obama took office.
Romney's economic strategy is completely different, so I'm not sure how you can say "there's no difference." Romney is not committed to "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend" economics. So yes there is a big difference.
Quote:
Prices usually crash when the world economy is crashing. It creates a market of too much supply and too little demand, lowering prices. They've risen since because of aslowly improving economy, tensions in the Middle East (par for the course), and simply higher consumption
When you get elected based almost entirely upon blaming the standing POTUS for a crappy economy and then promise to fix it, you damn well better fix the thing. I'm sure the GOP can make lots of excuses for why the economy collapsed under their president. Right or wrong, if credit Bill Clinton for the good economy of the 1990's and you blame Geoge W for the 2007-2008 collapse, then you have to be consistent. The economy hit rock bottom and has been stuck at rock bottom ever since Obama took office. It's not getting better for the average American, it's getting worse. The man at the helm has always gotten the blame or credit in the past. The man at the helm gets the blame.credit in 2012. If Obama is not being held responsible for our current complete lack of recovery, then the Dems are being massively hypocritical -- rewriting the rules of the game whenever they see fit.
Quote:
This also tends to happen in a massive economic downturn like we went through through 2009 and 2010. These were going to happen regardless of an Obama or McCain presidency. And by all recent accounts, because of China's changing economy and rising costs, manufacturing is actually making a tentative return to the US. Obama cannot singlehandedly pull jobs out of his *ss. No president can, and this argument is tired and ridiculous. Also, a very large chunk of the debt increase since 2008 has been related to the economic downturn, not necessarily spending. A lot of people see a debt increase and seem to believe it can only come from too much spending, but that's just not reality.[/color]
We can only speculate how things would be different under McCain. We don't know.
For my part, I believed a changing of the guard was in order in 2008 and I voted for Obama. I disagreed with many of the things W did and the GOP rightly deserved credit. Now I'm dealing with massive buyer's remorse. Obama has been such a disappointment.
Republican economic theory is a polar opposite compared to Democrat economic theory. Republicans say take the boot-heel off the throat of the companies that actually create jobs in the private sector. Democrats pick a few favorites based upon their own pet causes in the private sector, but mostly focus on hiring public workers like mad. Obama's attempts to help have cost insane amounts of money and added huge sums to our national debt, yielding a net loss in the % of Americans who actually have a job. the LPR is at a 30 year low right now. Obama's medicine cost us a ton of money (borrowed money) and obviously didn't work. Barack Obama is deeply committed to continuing more of the same policy. Time to try different medicine already.
Jesus himself couldn't fix those problems. There's little any President can do. Why are you asking why "you guys" are voting for him? You try to act objective on here. Shouldn't you be just asking what else can be done to improve things and of those things which candidate is more likely to put them in place.
The two candidates of birds of a feather.
Quote:
If Obama is not being held responsible for our current complete lack of recovery, then the Dems are being massively hypocritical -- rewriting the rules of the game whenever they see fit.
If you're saying that there is a current complete lack of recover then you're being massively hypocritical. The last time I checked, GDP is growing and capital markets are freed up. Getting business done now is night and day different from 2009. You seem to be big on melodrama. Why don't you hold yourself to those standards?
Obama's had three-plus years to try to implement policies that would enable the job-creators & entrepreneurs of this country to grow their businesses and put more folks to work, but the fact that 'shovel-ready jobs do exist in this country but he cannot initiate steps to help bring them into existence because of his environmental position, the country has figured that he's lying to us, and has done so on multiple occasions.
When placing the needs of environmentalists, the UAW & civil service unions over the needs of the rest of us is tops on his agenda, the rest of us wind up losing, and you wind up with an economy as flat as a bowling alley.
This election is going to be about results, and not his race.
Jesus himself couldn't fix those problems. There's little any President can do. Why are you asking why "you guys" are voting for him? You try to act objective on here. Shouldn't you be just asking what else can be done to improve things and of those things which candidate is more likely to put them in place.
The two candidates of birds of a feather.
If you're saying that there is a current complete lack of recover then you're being massively hypocritical. The last time I checked, GDP is growing and capital markets are freed up. Getting business done now is night and day different from 2009. You seem to be big on melodrama. Why don't you hold yourself to those standards?
Labor Participation Rate = politicians least favorite stat. That goes for both sides of the aisle because you can't tweak the numbers to say what you want them to say. It says exactly what percentage of Americans are actually working currently. If you are between the age of 0 to 500 years old, the LPR counts you.
GDP may have increased and I don't care. The Dow may have gone up and I don't care. I'm not terribly concerned with how much money the richest Americans are making or how the stock prices of huge corporations are doing.
What matters to me: How many Americans could, should and would like to be working that aren't? There will always be those that are too old, too young or otherwise opting out of employment. That percentage of Americans should stay fairly constant barring some Pandemic-like event killing off only retirees or only children or only housewives, or your worker bees etc. So barring some catastrophe like that, LPR tells us the real unemployment rate.
LPR doesn't let the politicians ramble on about how they created a million billion jobs when the reality was a net increase in the total number of jobless Americans. And the Labor Participation Rate says Barack Obama is doing a terrible job. We're at a 30 year low and it's been dropping like a rock since he took office.
I'm not sure what you mean by "being melodramatic" but if people want to insist that Barack Obama has turned things around and that everything is so much better now, of course I'm going to point out that they're blowing smoke up our collective butts. Why wouldn't I?
So you admit Obama doesnt know what he's talking about, but you'll vote for him regardless.
I will vote for Obama because I won't vote based on the economy, and because Romney will bring no change other than regressive social conservatism. On that front, Obama wins. And he's done okay on foreign policy... and I don't trust conservatives on other things, such as education, the environment or middle class issues.
Like I already said, Obama promised big and failed to deliver. When you promise that you can fix something and fail because you never had the power to fix it to begin with, that makes you a liar and a fraud. He had a two year window with the Dems firmly in control of both houses and himself in the White House. Obama did push through a lot of FDR style "borrow like there's no tomorrow and spend like there's no tomorrow" stuff. Most of it was chopping at the branches and not focusing on the root problems. Some of it succeeded within a limited part of the economy, but failed to offset job losses elsewhere. Obamanomics haven't produced a net gain in the Labor Participation Rate. The percentage of Americans gainfully employed has plummetted since Obama took office.
See, that makes no sense to me, but I try to be realistic. Here's how I see it:
1. All politicians make promises during an election cycle.
2. They almost never follow through with them, either partially or completely.
3. The American public expects to be spoonfed a load of "I'll part the seas for you!!" rhetoric, and then act all shocked when that doesn't happen.
4. Obama never was going to be able to fix the economy, especially not in 4 years. The Great Depression took 40 years to recover from, and this was the greatest downturn since. Do the math.
5. Holding Obama accountable for promises on doing things he never was going to be able to do, at least with the economy, seems dumb to me given the above. You should expect promises in a campaign, but I have no idea on what planet that historical evidence supports getting all butthurt when those promises magically don't come to pass. Is this new? Is it just a Democratic thing? Of course not.
6. Obama didn't cause the downturn, so holding him accountable for not fixing it, especially when he actually had no power to do so, is equally stupid.
7. So I'll vote on other issues.
Romney's economic strategy is completely different, so I'm not sure how you can say "there's no difference." Romney is not committed to "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend" economics. So yes there is a big difference.
Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure no one thought Obama was going to be the way he's been either. No, it'll be different this time, you'll see!! Please.
When you get elected based almost entirely upon blaming the standing POTUS for a crappy economy and then promise to fix it, you damn well better fix the thing. I'm sure the GOP can make lots of excuses for why the economy collapsed under their president. Right or wrong, if credit Bill Clinton for the good economy of the 1990's and you blame Geoge W for the 2007-2008 collapse, then you have to be consistent. The economy hit rock bottom and has been stuck at rock bottom ever since Obama took office. It's not getting better for the average American, it's getting worse. The man at the helm has always gotten the blame or credit in the past. The man at the helm gets the blame.credit in 2012. If Obama is not being held responsible for our current complete lack of recovery, then the Dems are being massively hypocritical -- rewriting the rules of the game whenever they see fit.
Honestly, it could've been any Democrat in 2008. Hell, John Kerry could've won in 2008, just because everyone was so tired of Bush. Obama didn't need any help stirring up hate for Bush. He earned it by himself.
And I don't credit Clinton with the 1990s, which also ended in a bubble that burst. Let's be honest, people blame the president largely if they belong to the other party. Partisanship is more important to people than reality.
We can only speculate how things would be different under McCain. We don't know.
Sure we do. The economy would've sucked. It would've sucked under George Washington, for that matter.
For my part, I believed a changing of the guard was in order in 2008 and I voted for Obama. I disagreed with many of the things W did and the GOP rightly deserved credit. Now I'm dealing with massive buyer's remorse. Obama has been such a disappointment.
So you're cool with repeating the same mistake by buying into the same promises from someone else on something they can't fix. Makes perfect sense. I would think buyer's remorse would come with some kind of lesson learned. Guess not.
Republican economic theory is a polar opposite compared to Democrat economic theory. Republicans say take the boot-heel off the throat of the companies that actually create jobs in the private sector. Democrats pick a few favorites based upon their own pet causes in the private sector, but mostly focus on hiring public workers like mad. Obama's attempts to help have cost insane amounts of money and added huge sums to our national debt, yielding a net loss in the % of Americans who actually have a job. the LPR is at a 30 year low right now. Obama's medicine cost us a ton of money (borrowed money) and obviously didn't work. Barack Obama is deeply committed to continuing more of the same policy. Time to try different medicine already.
Obama got a lot of flack for saying it, but the private sector IS actually doing significantly better than the public sector. The GOP has made it clear that they have no use for teachers, police, fire, or other government employees, and that's where the biggest drag on the economy has been. Other than that, the only difference is that Republicans want to spend just as much, but cut taxes so there is less revenue to pay for that spending.
Obama's had three-plus years to try to implement policies that would enable the job-creators & entrepreneurs of this country to grow their businesses and put more folks to work, but the fact that 'shovel-ready jobs do exist in this country but he cannot initiate steps to help bring them into existence because of his environmental position, the country has figured that he's lying to us, and has done so on multiple occasions.
When placing the needs of environmentalists, the UAW & civil service unions over the needs of the rest of us is tops on his agenda, the rest of us wind up losing, and you wind up with an economy as flat as a bowling alley.
This election is going to be about results, and not his race.
"Job-creators" has to be the most overhyped, overused, total bullsh*t GOP term ever.
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.
No, it'll be different this time, you'll see!! Please.
