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.
And is that the reason you’re pissed at Obama for? When you suggested this…
… you came across as someone who wanted to see Obama deliver EVERYTHING he promised. So, I guess you also voted for him in 2008. Right?
But, allow me to address your misconceptions. Obama’s Hope and Change message was to change course from the old policies. And if he didn’t, why are Romney and the Zomneys screaming their lungs out “four years of policies under this President”? That argument conflicts with your claims. If Obama hasn’t done things differently, why do they limit the term for the policies in effect to only his term? I challenge you to explain this, and if you agree/disagree with them.
I also take it that you didn’t know about his tax policies in 2008? But, let me address this other concern of yours: to unite as a country. No, in politics you CANNOT. Anybody with a functioning brain can also see why it cannot be achieved. Wanting, and making a compromise is NOT uniting. It is working towards a common goal.
I'll stay reasonable in my responses and not get into name calling. To answer your questions - No, I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I was not that naive to fall for his empty speeches that sounded good. What I'm ticked off at Obama for is that the very people that he gave false hope to in 2008 are the people who have been hit the hardest during his first four years. Frankly, those people to a large degree will continue to vote for him again, whether the reason be for race, party affiliation, or otherwise. Obama knows that they'll vote for him again too even though their lives became more difficult. It's a shame. I agree with Romney that we need a different course from the last four years because things have gotten worse for too many people to make it a course worth sustaining. Even if Obama did "change" the policies of the prior administration, it clearly wasn't the right change.
I hear what you're saying about how you cannot unite in politics, so then why did he imply that he would? Hope is the biggest motivating factor for people and his campaign took advantage of that in 2008 without delivering on it. I agree not everyone will always agree with you as a politician, but he has staged an all out class warfare on the upper class. What kind of true leader of a country does that? He's slipping towards Francois Hollande territory. Have you heard Governor Romney talk about dividing a country or attacking one class of our great nation? Of course not. He wants everyone to prosper more than they are today. We will be most proud as a country if everyone is bettering their lives, not just some people at the expense of others. If we do that, then we're just redistributing, not growing as a country.
I'll stay reasonable in my responses and not get into name calling.
Please do, as it will further demonstrate your position and knowledge of issues. I hate political correctness.
Quote:
No, I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I was not that naive to fall for his empty speeches that sounded good. What I'm ticked off at Obama for is that the very people that he gave false hope to in 2008 are the people who have been hit the hardest during his first four years.
You believe in BS in 2008, and nothing has changed since. You were bitter about Obama in 2008, and that hasn't changed (it wasn't going to). That isn't an issue at all! What is, however, is when you try to speak for me and others. Speak for self. It makes for a better debate.
But also allow me to educate you on a few facts, so you may avoid shooting in the dark and actually have a perspective to my point of view. Did you know or acknowledge the following? State if you disagree with ANY of them:
1- The economy had begun to slow down in 2000, was in a recession for a few months in 2001 (Feb-Nov).
2-It took the economy about 20 months since the end of that recession to finally have a month with private sector adding jobs (this was, IIRC, July 2003). Over this period, 3.2 million private sector jobs were lost. The average household income had dropped every single year.
3-The lack of job growth, poor state of economy was propped up from getting worse by lowering of interest rates EVEN when borrowing and price inflation was at hand. This, combined with deregulation of leveraging ratio for top financial corporations in 2004, finally jump started the economy, based almost entirely on borrow and spend binge.
4-The result of the above was that we finally saw significant job growth for two years (FY2005 and FY2006). This wasn't great news for the average American, even though it probably felt like it. Or, was it? Because now they were living off credit card. BTW, the household income still did not get to the level last seen in 2000.
5-The next two years so dramatic slowdown in job growth. The economy hadn't even made up for the jobs lost in early 2000s. But, people were obviously buying into non-sense about economy.
6-Hell breaks lose in 2008. The economy went into a downward spiral losing 8.8 million private sector jobs in just two years. Only a sheer idiot would blame Obama for this debacle. That the economy will see a major recession was as predictable as was at least one war after Bush was elected into the office. But I doubt anybody would have predicted the severity of the disaster, and nearly 9 million jobs lost. It is why I presented you with some facts on private sector jobs, that you didn't dare to touch earlier. I dare you again. Facts:
Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2001: 111.6 million
Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2010: 106.8 million
Why should we overlook this fact that despite a substantial increase in population (281 million to 305 million), and a substantial increase in civilian labor force during this period, that we saw nearly five million fewer jobs! Did you think there would be no implications of that going forward? Seriously?
Sure, you could say... but Obama took office in Jan 2009. Yes he did. But an utter idiot would assume that his policies would have an effect beginning on day 1, or even a few months down the road. After all, would you blame Reagan for 1982 recession? Would you blame W Bush for economic slowdown that had begun BEFORE he took office? I won't.
7-The bleeding of private sector jobs came to an end in February 2010. It has been 32 months since that the economy has seen private sector add jobs every since month for a total of 4.7 million. Let me repeat:
Jan 2001-Jan 2010: -4.8 million private jobs
Feb 2010-Oct 2012: +4.7 million private sector jobs
Please do, as it will further demonstrate your position and knowledge of issues. I hate political correctness.
You believe in BS in 2008, and nothing has changed since. You were bitter about Obama in 2008, and that hasn't changed (it wasn't going to). That isn't an issue at all! What is, however, is when you try to speak for me and others. Speak for self. It makes for a better debate.
But also allow me to educate you on a few facts, so you may avoid shooting in the dark and actually have a perspective to my point of view. Did you know or acknowledge the following? State if you disagree with ANY of them:
1- The economy had begun to slow down in 2000, was in a recession for a few months in 2001 (Feb-Nov).
2-It took the economy about 20 months since the end of that recession to finally have a month with private sector adding jobs (this was, IIRC, July 2003). Over this period, 3.2 million private sector jobs were lost. The average household income had dropped every single year.
3-The lack of job growth, poor state of economy was propped up from getting worse by lowering of interest rates EVEN when borrowing and price inflation was at hand. This, combined with deregulation of leveraging ratio for top financial corporations in 2004, finally jump started the economy, based almost entirely on borrow and spend binge.
4-The result of the above was that we finally saw significant job growth for two years (FY2005 and FY2006). This wasn't great news for the average American, even though it probably felt like it. Or, was it? Because now they were living off credit card. BTW, the household income still did not get to the level last seen in 2000.
5-The next two years so dramatic slowdown in job growth. The economy hadn't even made up for the jobs lost in early 2000s. But, people were obviously buying into non-sense about economy.
6-Hell breaks lose in 2008. The economy went into a downward spiral losing 8.8 million private sector jobs in just two years. Only a sheer idiot would blame Obama for this debacle. That the economy will see a major recession was as predictable as was at least one war after Bush was elected into the office. But I doubt anybody would have predicted the severity of the disaster, and nearly 9 million jobs lost. It is why I presented you with some facts on private sector jobs, that you didn't dare to touch earlier. I dare you again. Facts:
Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2001: 111.6 million
Private Sector Jobs, Jan 2010: 106.8 million
Why should we overlook this fact that despite a substantial increase in population (281 million to 305 million), and a substantial increase in civilian labor force during this period, that we saw nearly five million fewer jobs! Did you think there would be no implications of that going forward? Seriously?
Sure, you could say... but Obama took office in Jan 2009. Yes he did. But an utter idiot would assume that his policies would have an effect beginning on day 1, or even a few months down the road. After all, would you blame Reagan for 1982 recession? Would you blame W Bush for economic slowdown that had begun BEFORE he took office? I won't.
7-The bleeding of private sector jobs came to an end in February 2010. It has been 32 months since that the economy has seen private sector add jobs every since month for a total of 4.7 million. Let me repeat:
Jan 2001-Jan 2010: -4.8 million private jobs
Feb 2010-Oct 2012: +4.7 million private sector jobs
A change, I believe in and want more of.
Ok well again I won't stoop to your level and call you an idiot, I recommend you not do the same. It may shed some credibility on your claims and not give a childish image to your posts. Now, let me dismantle one of the fallacies. We hear all about the 4.5 million jobs created by Obama and his team. Clearly, they're misleading the American people. Almost as many jobs were lost in the first part of the administration. Net net, about 400,000 have been created from the time the President took office until now. Now tell me if this is a good deal that you'd gobble up. Spending $6 trillion in taxpayer money of the last 4 years and in the same time frame creating 400,000 jobs. Not you of course, but only an utter idiot would think that's a good deal. It's one thing to talk about what jobs were created (or lack thereof), but you have to tell the whole story or else people will discredit what's being said. You have to explaine what the cost was of every benefit. You know, like normal people live their lives not politicians who hide from the truth and intentionally mislead. A perfect example would be to say that we used to have a beat up car and now we have a mediocre car, but we spent $100,000 on that car. Yes, the car is a little bit nicer than the prior, but we made a horrible deal with the money we paid for it. We're $6 trillion further in the whole, and have only 400,000 jobs stronger? Only an utter idiot...
Ok well again I won't stoop to your level and call you an idiot, I recommend you not do the same.
Please do, if you can prove it.
Quote:
Now, let me dismantle one of the fallacies. We hear all about the 4.5 million jobs created by Obama and his team. Clearly, they're misleading the American people. Almost as many jobs were lost in the first part of the administration. Net net, about 400,000 have been created from the time the President took office until now.
You hear too much, think too little (if at all). Here are facts (again), but this time, from a period of greater relevancy to a Presidential term, more so if you must insist Presidential policies take effect almost immediately. For sake of convenience, we will use available facts, with February employment report (private sector only, since I assume you're no fan of government jobs and measure economic progress accordingly). February job report is published in March.
With that established, the numbers:
Private Sector Employment, March 2001: 111.6 million
Private Sector Employment, March 2009: 109.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these eight years: -2.1 million
Now let us look at the policies over last four years (almost, but technically 44 months):
Private Sector Employment, March 2009: 109.5 million
Private Sector Employment, October 2012: 111.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these 44 months: +2.0 million
That practically destroys your idea on the subject, something you probably heard somewhere. And here is why the number is +2 million despite the economy continuing to drop jobs in 2009.
Private Sector Employment, February 2010: 106.8 million
Private Sector Employment, October 2012: 111.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these 32 months: +4.7 million
The latter is what you "heard" as 4.5 million jobs. This is simple math, based on facts.
Quote:
Spending $6 trillion in taxpayer money of the last 4 years and in the same time frame creating 400,000 jobs.
You heard that too? Ask whoever told you that, ask for a better perspective. Such as, how much of those $6T is courtesy of carryover policies from previous administrations? And how much did it cost over those eight years (and will cost as a result of it in the future) for it all to have REDUCED private sector employment by -2.1 million?
Quote:
Not you of course, but only an utter idiot would think that's a good deal.
Which one? Trust me, there are idiots who believe and preach +4.7 million didn't happen but great times preceded these four years. Would you like to talk about them too?
Quote:
You know, like normal people live their lives not politicians who hide from the truth and intentionally mislead.
Give me ONE example of Mitt Romney's lies and ONE example of Mitt Romney's intentional misleading. Can you? I doubt you will, but prove me wrong.
You hear too much, think too little (if at all). Here are facts (again), but this time, from a period of greater relevancy to a Presidential term, more so if you must insist Presidential policies take effect almost immediately. For sake of convenience, we will use available facts, with February employment report (private sector only, since I assume you're no fan of government jobs and measure economic progress accordingly). February job report is published in March.
With that established, the numbers:
Private Sector Employment, March 2001: 111.6 million
Private Sector Employment, March 2009: 109.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these eight years: -2.1 million
Now let us look at the policies over last four years (almost, but technically 44 months):
Private Sector Employment, March 2009: 109.5 million
Private Sector Employment, October 2012: 111.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these 44 months: +2.0 million
That practically destroys your idea on the subject, something you probably heard somewhere. And here is why the number is +2 million despite the economy continuing to drop jobs in 2009.
Private Sector Employment, February 2010: 106.8 million
Private Sector Employment, October 2012: 111.5 million
Net change in private sector employment during these 32 months: +4.7 million
The latter is what you "heard" as 4.5 million jobs. This is simple math, based on facts.
You heard that too? Ask whoever told you that, ask for a better perspective. Such as, how much of those $6T is courtesy of carryover policies from previous administrations? And how much did it cost over those eight years (and will cost as a result of it in the future) for it all to have REDUCED private sector employment by -2.1 million?
Which one? Trust me, there are idiots who believe and preach +4.7 million didn't happen but great times preceded these four years. Would you like to talk about them too?
Give me ONE example of Mitt Romney's lies and ONE example of Mitt Romney's intentional misleading. Can you? I doubt you will, but prove me wrong.
Just look at the facts and quit dodging the question. Yes or No. Do you think spending $6 trillion and having less than 400k jobs to show for it is a good deal? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you as uncle Joe says
Thanks for playing and proving my points son! Cheers
Just look at the facts and quit dodging the question. Yes or No. Do you think spending $6 trillion and having less than 400k jobs to show for it is a good deal? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you as uncle Joe says
Thanks for playing and proving my points son! Cheers
Old man, the age card isnt going to help you after shoving aside facts to make room for the one trick pony show that you want to stick with.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 10-31-2012 at 03:46 PM..
Faux outrage. Many Catholic companies already cover contraception in their health care plans - in some cases because it's part of state requirements. Why didn't they raise a stink about it before 2009?
Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion.
I don't think those insurance companies made employers pay for BC or provide the morning after pill or sterilization. But it they did then those companies didn't know, now they do and are going to go to court before they provide it. Seems the government should have kept their mouths shut.
If I had a chance to ask President Obama a few questions, they would be the ones listed below. I would appreciated a legitimate response from anybody who plans to support President Obama in the upcoming election:
1) If you have a plan now to help grow the economy, why didn't you use it in the first four years?
2) Do you think that adding $6 trillion to our nation's debt and getting essentially zero new net jobs as a result over the past four years was a good deal for the American people?
3) Why do you mandate us to do things that go against our religious beliefs?
4) Are you really a Christian? Why should we believe you given what you have done?
5) When will you ever take accountability for failed economic policies in the last four years instead of blaming it on others? If you don't want to act like a leader, at least act like an adult.
6) Why did you lie to us about the debt? You said you'd cut it in half, instead it expanded by $6 trillion. Governor Romney's plans make it clear he understands how important the debt is to our future as a country and to our kids. Your record makes it clear you do not.
7) The poor and the middle class have gotten poorer in the last four years. You also intend to ramp up taxes on the wealthy. So, who are you actually trying to help? Anyone?
1) The stimulus was the plan.
2) Net zero is better than the rest of the industrialized world.
3) Do you mean providing birth control? Because it is discriminatory not to.
4) No, and I don't think Obama is either, and technically Romney is not either, but I don't care.
5) We are doing better than Europe so I don't see it as failed.
6) Romney wants to cut taxes which will increase the deficit/debt.
7) Trying to help the poor/middle class. Romney if he actually wants to cut taxes but close loopholes to pay for them MUST close loopholes for the poor/middle class which would increase their tax burden.
I am from Canada and I truly do feel bad for you all. We had this recession in the early '90s with out of control deficit, rampant unemployment and too much government control. We fixed it the old fashioned way: less government, less social programs, and TAX CUTS for small business. I'm going to let you in on a little secret; raising taxes on the people who hire people makes those "rich pricks" leave America and they take their jobs with them. On behalf of Brazil, China, Russia, Canada, and don't forget Mexico, I should say Thank you.
Suggestions that someone shouldn't run your country just because he is extremely wealthy and a shrewd businessman is ridiculous...that is exactly what you need.
Fight it all you want, but realize your next minority president will probably speak Chinese and he already owns most of your country.
I actually benefit from the re-election; the US dollar will remain low because the rest of the world knows Obama is an idiot running you off the fiscal cliff, which allows people like me from all over the world to buy the USA.
The whole world was affected by crash in 2008, so why have Mexico, Brazil, and Canada done so well the last 4 years?
I'm trying to not be mean but this guy you elected twice now is a smooth talking idiot. Remember who has benefitted most from the last 4 years? Barack Obama and a few million non-Americans!
Sit back and complain and make excuses as the Chinese buy everything you have(including de-valued dollars) and Mexicans take all the jobs you wish you had.
Believe me, the entire planet was watching Tuesday and collectively slapped their foreheads and said "Doh", you blew it.
I am from Canada and I truly do feel bad for you all. We had this recession in the early '90s with out of control deficit, rampant unemployment and too much government control. We fixed it the old fashioned way: less government, less social programs, and TAX CUTS for small business. I'm going to let you in on a little secret; raising taxes on the people who hire people makes those "rich pricks" leave America and they take their jobs with them. On behalf of Brazil, China, Russia, Canada, and don't forget Mexico, I should say Thank you.
Suggestions that someone shouldn't run your country just because he is extremely wealthy and a shrewd businessman is ridiculous...that is exactly what you need.
Fight it all you want, but realize your next minority president will probably speak Chinese and he already owns most of your country.
I actually benefit from the re-election; the US dollar will remain low because the rest of the world knows Obama is an idiot running you off the fiscal cliff, which allows people like me from all over the world to buy the USA.
The whole world was affected by crash in 2008, so why have Mexico, Brazil, and Canada done so well the last 4 years?
I'm trying to not be mean but this guy you elected twice now is a smooth talking idiot. Remember who has benefitted most from the last 4 years? Barack Obama and a few million non-Americans!
Sit back and complain and make excuses as the Chinese buy everything you have(including de-valued dollars) and Mexicans take all the jobs you wish you had.
Believe me, the entire planet was watching Tuesday and collectively slapped their foreheads and said "Doh", you blew it.
Is that you Trace?
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.
