Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 246

Thread: obama

  1. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
    like the debt is obamas fault, yeah right.
    our country went into debt under reagan, it was his presidency where we became a country who was owed money to a country that owed.
    no repub has ever cut the gov spending, bush took it to new limits with two unfunded wars and other poor decisions.
    considering what obama walked into he is doing pretty well.
    economy picking up, more jobs, ending wars and finally fighting for the middle class over rich corporations and the wealthy who get richer and more powerful even during bad economic times.
    I think more and more people are finally realizing that.
    watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe...ature=youtu.be
    Yeah, the conservlicans like to imagine that the economy and everything was all peaches and cream and warm puppies prior to 1/20/2009.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Obama enacted the largest piece of "trickle down" legislation ever conceived with his stimulus plan.
    Actually it was a piece of pure Keynesian economics. Public policy enacted to stimulate the economy. Which is precisely what happened.

    So much for supply side myths like only one side does it. In fact, both sides have quite a long history of doing so.
    Trickle down was a purely private sector response which has been a documented failure. See the appalling job losses produced by Bush trickle down policies.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,743
    Quote Originally Posted by k-fridge View Post
    As I said, I'm not a Romney fan.


    But at least he did have executive experience prior to running for president.


    Oh and, he held a real job too. Meaning, something other than a community organizer.

    Seriously...who would vote for a presidential candidate who has never ran a business, led in management or the military, or even held a private sector job? Someone show me the logic in putting a person with zero practical experience in charge of the world's largest economy.
    I agree the choices are limited but then again who would want to vote for a guy with extensive business experience in closing businesses and firing people after looting the corporate bank account. Seems like a recipe for disaster when applied to a national economy.
    Fox News - Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame the poor.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by k-fridge View Post
    I love it when people twist the facts. Here's what really happened;

    We were already running a deficit when Reagan came into office, and the economy was in a mess. Reagan correctly proposed that we cut taxes to stimulate the economy (which worked), and he knew that there would have to be some money spent on defense because his predecessors had ran the military down and allowed equipment/weaponry to become dated and fall into disrepair.

    So he did what a good administrator does, meet with his "board" and work out a plan to try and address all objectives. He sat down with Tip O'Neil (D) and got an agreement from him for both tax cuts and spending reductions. Specifically, Tip promised $3 of spending cuts for every $1 or tax cuts.

    Sounds good, right? Except that congress (that would be a Democratic controlled congress) didn't keep their end of the bargain when it came to spending cuts. In fact, spending grew, rampantly. Admittedly, Reagan did end up signing those budgets, so he shared some responsibility. He did pitch a fit and even shut the government down if I recall, but in the end the Dems won the propaganda war and Reagan caved.

    Fact is, tax revenues almost doubled in Reagan's 8 years. Trickle down worked; it put money back into the economy, created jobs, spurred venture capital investment. The near doubling of tax revenues on the back of a recession proves that. The real problem was the same as it is now...congress spends insane amounts of money without regard to our future or who will pay it back. They squander our tax dollars for political power and gain.

    You were quick to try and shift the blame to Republicans when Obama was blamed for the current debt and deficits. I'm not here to defend the Republicans, they suck too. But Obama and the Dems are absolutely responsible for DOUBLING our debt in less than 3 years, and the facts show that nothing of substance came from all this money we spent on the Democrats grand social experiment (that has been tried before and failed every time, I might add).

    Ironically, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under the policies of this administration, and the mess mostly created by the mortgage meddling policies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Millions of homes lost by the middle and lower class, and people with money are picking them up for a song so they can sell them at a profit in a few years and get richer. The Dem's policies are shrinking the middle class, and both the rich and poor are growing. To be fair, the Republicans didn't fix the causes of this mess when they had the chance.

    So again, Dice, you've spewed partisan propaganda and left out the facts that matter. Both parties are sorry these days, I'm not defending either. But this is Obama's economy now. He promised he would fix it in 3 years or he would not deserve re-election. He hasn't fixed it, it's worse than what he first inherited and still very bad. For all the trillions of our tax dollars he and congress threw away, the economy is no better. Obama is responsible, and he has not earned re-election.
    Great Post.

    But when providing facts to some such as our Obama supporters on this thread, facts are meaningless to them. When confronted with the facts rebutting their emotional responses and rhetoric, they change the subject or start arguing louder. Isn't that the playbook?

    Anyway, nice job. And maybe it at least will be read by some who have an open mind.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,501
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Actually it was a piece of pure Keynesian economics. Public policy enacted to stimulate the economy. Which is precisely what happened.

    Trickle down was a purely private sector response which has been a documented failure. See the appalling job losses produced by Bush trickle down policies.
    The biggest difference in trickle down and Keynesian policy is who spends the money and decides where it goes.

    In Keynesian, the government spends the money and decides where it goes, who gets it, etc. And I will point out that the theory calls for borrowed funds to be paid back once there is a recovery. That never happens, congress just spends more.

    In Trickle Down, individuals are allowed to keep more of their own tax dollars, so they are empowered to decide when and where the money is spent.

    I know which one I trust.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Actually it was a piece of pure Keynesian economics. Public policy enacted to stimulate the economy. Which is precisely what happened.

    Trickle down was a purely private sector response which has been a documented failure. See the appalling job losses produced by Bush trickle down policies.
    I don't disagree that proper application is needed. Neither side has shown themselves to be particularly good at it I'm afraid but I also recognize that it can be a difficult call to make.

    The point is, economic policies are not partisan. Both sides have equal opportunity to affect either supply or demand, and both sides have done both. So, the idea that one side does one thing and another side the opposite is a myth of epic proportion.

    This idea leads us to some unfortunate conclusions like those people who claim that Bush tax cuts were supply side policies.

    Say what?

    But it is assumed that they must be simply because its the GOP and Bush.

    This false perception needs to go away in my opinion.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
    like the debt is obamas fault, yeah right.
    our country went into debt under reagan, it was his presidency where we became a country who was owed money to a country that owed.
    no repub has ever cut the gov spending, bush took it to new limits with two unfunded wars and other poor decisions.
    considering what obama walked into he is doing pretty well.
    economy picking up, more jobs, ending wars and finally fighting for the middle class over rich corporations and the wealthy who get richer and more powerful even during bad economic times.
    I think more and more people are finally realizing that.
    watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe...ature=youtu.be
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,268
    People tend to have very short term memories, especially when it comes to politics....who here remembers Bush's approval rating? Somewhere around 14% I believe.

    I'm not saying ALL of our economic troubles are due to Bush and I'm not saying it's ALL Obama's fault either...cause it's not....but money spent in war is money lost, whereas money spent at home is money kept at home. Even entitlements as some people like to call them are partially paid back to the system through consumption tax....even the non taxed portion of goods bought with entitlements go to businesses that pay taxes..but the media rarely mentions this...they just spew about how much entitlements cost upfront.
    Last edited by AStudent; 05-03-2012 at 03:29 PM.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by AStudent View Post
    People tend to have very short term memories, especially when it comes to politics....who here remembers Bush's approval rating? Somewhere around 14% I believe.

    I'm not saying ALL of our economic troubles are due to Bush and I'm not saying it's ALL Obama's fault either...cause it's not....but money spent in war is money lost, whereas money spent at home is money kept at home. Even entitlements as some people like to call them are partially paid back to the system through consumption tax....even the non taxed portion of goods bought with entitlements go to businesses that pay taxes..but the media rarely mentions this...they just spew about how much entitlements cost upfront.
    I think your logic is flawed in this argument, but first of all Bush's lowest approval was about 29% soon after signing the TARP bailout, but I digress.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...pp0605-31.html

    I would like to see your statistics for how all war time money spending is money lost, I mean most of the spending is to American Companies right, to the troops. So some of the money returns to the US and kept withiin our economy. I'm not saying that their isn't waste and money that's lost but it certainly isn't all lost as you indicate. I'm also not saying we should even be in most places that we are, but I can't buy in to your logic on ALL wartime spending.

    Then there is entitlement costs, as we know, much of that cost is medicare/medicaid, welfare and Social Security but how does the tax from this spending pay itself back? I'd like to see the math, so please show some source links on it.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,743
    Upon leaving office the W's approval rating was 22%. Cheney's was 13%. And we all know who ran the show.
    Fox News - Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame the poor.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,723
    Let's see what happens at 8:30 AM last months job numbers will be out. Keep in mind the expections have been lowered!

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Afton, VA / Khorat, Thailand
    Posts
    2,468
    A
    Last edited by tunnel_rat; 05-03-2012 at 05:28 PM.
    Tough times don't last...Tough people do.

    Midnight Sun Astrophotography

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Afton, VA / Khorat, Thailand
    Posts
    2,468
    A scallop could beat Obama, with it's shell tied behind it's back. People who care about this country just need to put down the cheetos and diet cokes and get off their collective butts for an hour or so and VOTE. Remember voting? There are far more reasonable people in this country than whacked out Liberals and commies. It should be a slam dunk every 4 yrs.
    Tough times don't last...Tough people do.

    Midnight Sun Astrophotography

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event