Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on December 31, 2012, 05:40:21 PM
-
Obama was re-elected and
Andrew Breitbart dropped dead (good riddance you lying sack of shit - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person)
-
andrew who
-
Thats nice.........worst thing that happened..you assholes reelected a communist piece of shit, now you owe it all.
-
Thats nice.........worst thing that happened..you assholes reelected a communist piece of shit, now you owe it all.
8)
-
Obama was re-elected and
Andrew Breitbart dropped dead (good riddance you lying sack of shit - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person)
And you STILL have no idea why. In truth, it should have been reversed between Obama and Breitbart.
-
And you STILL have no idea why. In truth, it should have been reversed between Obama and Breitbart.
.
-
Thats nice.........worst thing that happened..you assholes reelected a communist piece of shit, now you owe it all.
Cry much?
-
Cry much?
Why did you vote for him.
-
The economy is still a fucking disaster , nothing whatsoever is going together done, but the emotional navies have their mocha messiah to jerk off to at night thnking he gives a rats ads about them. Typical.
-
Cry much?
-
Cry much?
You bought it you own it. O-twink is not my potus and will never be. F him.
-
Why did you vote for him? libs
-
You bought it you own it. O-twink is not my potus and will never be. F him.
he is your POTUS no matter how much your brain can't process that fact
don't forget to thank him for your tax cut
-
he is your POTUS no matter how much your brain can't process that fact
don't forget to thank him for your tax cut
I look at Obama no different than I do a random homeless bum in penn station sleeping on a cardboard mat drunk and drenched in his own piss.
-
I look at Obama no different than I do a random homeless bum in penn station sleeping on a cardboard mat drunk and drenched in his own piss.
sounds more like you're looking in the mirror (Hugo - hopefully this is perceived as a "toned down" response because that is how I intended it)
-
sounds more like you're looking in the mirror (Hugo - hopefully this is perceived as a "toned down" response because that is how I intended it)
Btw are you not the same person who said you didn't hate anyone?
Regardless - f Michelle and Barry. Two glorified obamaphone ladies, both of them.
-
Btw are you not the same person who said you didn't hate anyone?
Regardless - f Michelle and Barry. Two glorified obamaphone ladies, both of them.
where did I say I hated you
I just offered a suggestion as to what you might actually be looking at ?
You're the one who wrote the description of what you saw....not me
-
the pres or some deadbeat that lives in the ghetto, which would you rather be :D :D :D :D :D
-
where did I say I hated you
I just offered a suggestion as to what you might actually be looking at ?
You're the one who wrote the description of what you saw....not me
Was talking about Breitbart. You hated him.
-
Was talking about Breitbart. You hated him.
I said good riddance because he was a liar and a blight on the public media
I didn't say I hated him though as I think of all they lies he published I just might work my way up to some hatred.... but what's the point really now that he's dead
-
I said good riddance because he was a liar and a blight on the public media
I didn't say I hated him though as I think of all they lies he published I just might work my way up to some hatred.... but what's the point really now that he's dead
Really? Lied about what? Obama and his admin are the biggest liers this country has EVER seen. He lied again just yesterday but you somehow dismiss that.
-
Really? Lied about what? Obama and his admin are the biggest liers this country has EVER seen. He lied again just yesterday but you somehow dismiss that.
take your pick
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051
-
take your pick
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051
Hahahaha, you site an ultra-liberal, George Soros media matters? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Probably the least credible of all the lib outlets. lol
-
Hahahaha, you site an ultra-liberal, George Soros media matters? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Probably the least credible of all the lib outlets. lol
great point
feel free to check the link and then tell me which one of those lies by Breitbart was your favorite or if you don't think they are lies then feel free to point out which one and why it was actually not a lie
-
Hahahaha, you site an ultra-liberal, George Soros media matters? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Probably the least credible of all the lib outlets. lol
Without a doubt the least credible.
media matters has been outed as having received their topics, stories and opinions/views straight from the white house via emails, meetings, telephone calls etc.
They are the obama administration
-
Without a doubt the least credible.
media matters has been outed as having received their topics, stories and opinions/views straight from the white house via emails, meetings, telephone calls etc.
They are the obama administration
great point
feel free to check the link and then tell me which one of those lies by Breitbart was your favorite or if you don't think they are lies then feel free to point out which one and why it was actually not a lie
-
Thats nice.........worst thing that happened..you assholes reelected a communist piece of shit, now you owe it all.
LOL!!! I did not vote for that communist pos.
-
great point
feel free to check the link and then tell me which one of those lies by Breitbart was your favorite or if you don't think they are lies then feel free to point out which one and why it was actually not a lie
ACORN folded why? F O-94er and his white guilt ridden cult of racial guilt. Those wortheless scumbag leftists are better off at the bottom of the San Fan Bay being eaten by eels.
-
he is your POTUS no matter how much your brain can't process that fact
don't forget to thank him for your tax cut
What tax cut? At best, taxes will remain as they were just 24 hours ago.
Then again, with all the hidden tax hikes (i.e. ObamaCare, payroll tax, estate tax, etc), there is no tax cut for anyone.
-
Hahahaha, you site an ultra-liberal, George Soros media matters? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Probably the least credible of all the lib outlets. lol
*cite
Shit..did it again.
-
ACORN folded why? F O-94er and his white guilt ridden cult of racial guilt. Those wortheless scumbag leftists are better off at the bottom of the San Fan Bay being eaten by eels.
they were completely vindicated of wrongdoing
remember
no of course you don't
I won't even bother posting links because the right wingers on this board would rather have a circle jerk than look at facts
-
great point
feel free to check the link and then tell me which one of those lies by Breitbart was your favorite or if you don't think they are lies then feel free to point out which one and why it was actually not a lie
Ive never even visited breitbarts site, Im not sure what you give him credit for as far as stories and personally dont give rats ass.
I do find it absolutely hillarious that you have an issue with his lies but take no issue at all with the obama administrations/media matters.
-
What tax cut? At best, taxes will remain as they were just 24 hours ago.
Then again, with all the hidden tax hikes (i.e. ObamaCare, payroll tax, estate tax, etc), there is no tax cut for anyone.
I don't think you'll have to worry about the estate tax
and you and Joe and every other person on this board (including all the GB billionares) will eventually get a permanent tax cut up to the first 250k or perhaps 400k of income
-
I don't think you'll have to worry about the estate tax
and you and Joe and every other person on this board (including all the GB billionares) will eventually get a permanent tax cut up to the first 250k or perhaps 400k of income
You don't read very well, do you? There is no tax cut. A tax cut would be paying less than was paid in 2012, NOT keeping the 2012 rates.
As usual, you're deluded enough to think that only the rich are getting soaked by this. 21 new taxes in ObamaCare ALONE (12 of them hit those making under $250K).
Not to mention the extra that gets yanked out of people's checks, courtesy of the payroll tax.
This was supposed to be about "millionaires and billionaires" paying more. $250K or less ain't "millionaires and billionaires".
But, as long as people are bowing before Obama (like you), it's all ducky!! ::)
-
You don't read very well, do you? There is no tax cut. A tax cut would be paying less than was paid in 2012, NOT keeping the 2012 rates.
As usual, you're deluded enough to think that only the rich are getting soaked by this. 21 new taxes in ObamaCare ALONE (12 of them hit those making under $250K).
Not to mention the extra that gets yanked out of people's checks, courtesy of the payroll tax.
This was supposed to be about "millionaires and billionaires" paying more. $250K or less ain't "millionaires and billionaires".
But, as long as people are bowing before Obama (like you), it's all ducky!! ::)
2012 rate EXPIRED
if you get a tax cut it's going to be a NEW TAX CUT
-
You don't read very well, do you? There is no tax cut. A tax cut would be paying less than was paid in 2012, NOT keeping the 2012 rates.
As usual, you're deluded enough to think that only the rich are getting soaked by this. 21 new taxes in ObamaCare ALONE (12 of them hit those making under $250K).
Not to mention the extra that gets yanked out of people's checks, courtesy of the payroll tax.
This was supposed to be about "millionaires and billionaires" paying more. $250K or less ain't "millionaires and billionaires".
But, as long as people are bowing before Obama (like you), it's all ducky!! ::)
x10
Straw is still in a daze
-
Why did you vote for him.
Because your party ran a shitty two face lying Mormon who didn't even want the job and a dorky glorified dishwasher.
Don't cry because everyone preferred Obama.
-
2012 rate EXPIRED
if you get a tax cut it's going to be a NEW TAX CUT
The screwball president who jacked up my tax rate orchestrates some garbage, to screw other people, just to get it back to where is was in the first place.
And, you're yapping, as if this is something to celebrate.
-
Because your party ran a shitty two face lying Mormon who didn't even want the job and a dorky glorified dishwasher.
Don't cry because everyone preferred Obama.
47% preferred the other and 100% of the gay/welfare/terrorist/govt employee/fag/fluke/ghetto/ supported O-Twink
-
47% preferred the other and 100% of the gay/welfare/terrorist/govt employee/fag/fluke/ghetto/ supported O-Twink
Unfortunately, we and nearly all of them will suffer, because of this. It's just that the latter will actually be SHOCKED that Obama's stupid policies didn't work (just as they didn't work the last four years).
-
Should have ran better candidates then. A bat shit crazy woman, womanizing pizza man, 1940 mentality sweater guy, Tiffanys welch that wanted to colonize the moon, and another dumbass cowboy from Texas.
Yeah... great selection there.
-
Should have ran better candidates then. A bat shit crazy woman, womanizing pizza man, 1940 mentality sweater guy, Tiffanys welch that wanted to colonize the moon, and another dumbass cowboy from Texas.
Yeah... great selection there.
And after that was . . . .. was . . . . .who you voted for . . . . O-TWINK
LOL!!!!
-
Yeah. Obviously I wasn't the only one that thought he was better.
LANDSLIDE anyone?
-
Should have ran better candidates then. A bat shit crazy woman, womanizing pizza man, 1940 mentality sweater guy, Tiffanys welch that wanted to colonize the moon, and another dumbass cowboy from Texas.
Yeah... great selection there.
Instead, we get a cocaine-snorting, fat-girl bullying, excuse-making, identity-crisis-possessing, lying-through-his-teeth guy, who had the benefit of a misguided and woefully underinformed populace and a butt-kissing media.
-
Yeah. Obviously I wasn't the only one that thought he was better.
LANDSLIDE anyone?
Oh because the mob always picks the right choice. ::)
-
x10
Straw is still in a daze
very very few of those so called tax raises in Obamacare are actually tax raises (we've been over this at least a few times) and even fewer of those will effect anyone under 250k
don't forget to thank YOUR POTUS when you eventually get your new tax cut
-
Whining and making excuses isn't changing anything.
-
Oh because the mob always picks the right choice. ::)
Is that your excuse and reasoning behind the two year plus streak of you constantly whining and talking about a LANDSLIDE or tsunami?
-
very very few of those so called tax raises in Obamacare are actually tax raises (we've been over this at least a few times) and even fewer of those will effect anyone under 250k
don't forget to thank YOUR POTUS when you eventually get your new tax cut
That's like you, thanking a pickpocket for giving your wallet back to you (minus a few bucks).
-
hahahahaahaha all the crybabies are on here crying get over it you lost :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
hahahahaahaha all the crybabies are on here crying get over it you lost :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
O-jihad is not my potus EVER!
-
hahahahaahaha all the crybabies are on here crying get over it you lost :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
We're over the loss. We're preparing for the disaster to come, which of course will shock people like you.
-
We're over the loss. We're preparing for the disaster to come, which of course will shock people like you.
Oh like the disaster we were told was coming four years ago? Riots in the streets? Doctors quitting their jobs? Cities burning?
::)
You lost. Tell yourself what you wish.
-
Oh like the disaster we were told was coming four years ago? Riots in the streets? Doctors quitting their jobs? Cities burning?
::)
You lost. Tell yourself what you wish.
he only knows what hannity and rush tells him
-
O-jihad is not my potus EVER!
What country you live in? Because if you live in the US as a citizen he is. But make whatever excuse you need to so you can sleep at night.
::)
Might want to change your tampon every once in a while.
-
Oh like the disaster we were told was coming four years ago? Riots in the streets? Doctors quitting their jobs? Cities burning?
::)
You lost. Tell yourself what you wish.
NOPE!!! I mean the disasters like higher unemployment, grocery prices, energy prices, healthcare premiums, more layoffs, fewer jobs, and more debt.......ALL OF WHICH (and more) HAPPENED during Obama's first term.
And, ALL OF WHICH will continue at an even more disastrous rates in his second term.
BTW, Riots in the streets? That DID occur, courtesy of those Occupy clowns.
Doctors quitting? Many have considered it, including one I know personally.
-
What country you live in? Because if you live in the US as a citizen he is. But make whatever excuse you need to so you can sleep at night.
::)
Might want to change your tampon every once in a while.
Obama to me is little more than a homeless pickpocket on the 4 train in a puddle of his own piss
-
NOPE!!! I mean the disasters like higher unemployment, grocery prices, energy prices, healthcare premiums, more layoffs, fewer jobs, and more debt.......ALL OF WHICH (and more) HAPPENED during Obama's first term.
And, ALL OF WHICH will continue at an even more disastrous rates in his second term.
BTW, Riots in the streets? That DID occur, courtesy of those Occupy clowns.
Doctors quitting? Many have considered it, including one I know personally.
One doctor doesn't speak for all. I work around doctors. I have to sign and budget contracts for doctors through our vendors. You don't want to talk about what doctors are doing or aren't doing with me. I can tell you - even without the random ALL CAPS emphasis - that doctors aren't quitting. Period. End of story.
How many Occupy clowns burned cities? How many trashed homes? How many vigilante forces were mobilized? Yeah... that's right. Just what I thought.
And show me proof that things would have been different under McCain and Quitter.
-
One doctor doesn't speak for all. I work around doctors. I have to sign and budget contracts for doctors through our vendors. You don't want to talk about what doctors are doing or aren't doing with me. I can tell you - even without the random ALL CAPS emphasis - that doctors aren't quitting. Period. End of story.
I said, "INCLUDING one I know personally". That doesn't indicate that one speaks for all.
How many Occupy clowns burned cities? How many trashed homes? How many vigilante forces were mobilized? Yeah... that's right. Just what I thought.
How many rioted in the streets, vandalized property, assaulted and raped people....THAT'S RIGHT!! Just what I thought.....hence the police in RIOT gear.
And show me proof that things would have been different under McCain and Quitter.
The mere fact that you made that statement is admission on your end that Obama was indeed the disaster he was predicted to be.
As for McCain, let's see:
More drilling.....lower energy prices
No ObamaCare.....no hikes in premiums nor hidden taxes
Extending the Bush tax cuts, coupled with legitimate spending cuts......there goes the fiscal cliff debacle.
You knew Obama was a train wreck the first term; yet you voted for him again. What are the excuses going to be in a couple of years (or less, perhaps), when he fails in his second term as he did in his first term?
Winning a second term doesn't necessarily equate to a successful presidency. I'm sure you'd say that about our last two-term president.
-
"Including..." just because you know him doesn't mean shit. If he doesn't speak for all, then why even bother throwing that statement out there? It has no value. Might as well forget this issue and stop trying to split hairs because it isn't a debate you won't win with me. That's putting it kindly.
Funny all the rioting and burning was supposed to be done by the people who hated Obama. Who was Occupy again?
What will I say about Obama in two years? "Thank God he wasn't a womanizing pizza liar, moon bat, ding bat, dishwashsher, etc... " You know... everything that the GOP candidates were.
-
"Including..." just because you know him doesn't mean shit. If he doesn't speak for all, then why even bother throwing that statement out there? It has no value. Might as well forget this issue and stop trying to split hairs because it isn't a debate you won't win with me. That's putting it kindly.
So because he doesn't speak for all, that means that such isn't going to occur? PLEASE!!
Besides, the pain of ObamaCare has yet to hit. But, since it didn't happen in his first term, that must mean it won't happen at all ::).
Funny all the rioting and burning was supposed to be done by the people who hated Obama. Who was Occupy again?
Says who? I didn't make that prediction. My comments were about the economic woes that would occur, during Obama's presidency. Any, by YOUR OWN admission, they have occurred as predicted.
What will I say about Obama in two years? "Thank God he wasn't a womanizing pizza liar, moon bat, ding bat, dishwashsher, etc... " You know... everything that the GOP candidates were.
And, yet, he'll continue to fail to fix the economy, just like last time (and you'll gin up all the excuses for his ineptitude).
-
So because he doesn't speak for all, that means that such isn't going to occur? PLEASE!!
Besides, the pain of ObamaCare has yet to hit. But, since it didn't happen in his first term, that must mean it won't happen at all ::).
Says who? I didn't make that prediction. My comments were about the economic woes that would occur, during Obama's presidency. Any, by YOUR OWN admission, they have occurred as predicted.
And, yet, he'll continue to fail to fix the economy, just like last time (and you'll gin up all the excuses for his ineptitude).
1 - And because he doesn't speak for all that means that such IS going to occur? PLEASE. You know the biggest problem that is facing doctors today isn't Obamacare. It's finding space to practice. For ever surgeon, cardiologist, ER trauma specialist, radiologist that we have on grounds, there are 15 more waiting to take their place. Vendors like Team Health and Martin Gottlieb don't make the bulk of their money from what we pay them to manage our ERs, Rads, and ORs. They make the bulk by leasing out the hourly slots of their contracted time to other docs like plastic surgeons, spinal specialists and orth.scop. wizards. We regularly decline docs use of our facilities simply because the space for them practice and perform doesn't exist. So just because some wack job you know personally says he is going to quit, well... that isn't affecting reality out there.
2 - I never said you did. That is what the board crybaby whined about 4 years ago. Not a single thing of it has come true. Surprise!
3 - Yeah... and someone would have fixed the economy overnight. Perhaps if your guy didn't run it into the ditch with useless spending we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
-
1 - And because he doesn't speak for all that means that such IS going to occur? PLEASE. You know the biggest problem that is facing doctors today isn't Obamacare. It's finding space to practice. For ever surgeon, cardiologist, ER trauma specialist, radiologist that we have on grounds, there are 15 more waiting to take their place. Vendors like Team Health and Martin Gottlieb don't make the bulk of their money from what we pay them to manage our ERs, Rads, and ORs. They make the bulk by leasing out the hourly slots of their contracted time to other docs like plastic surgeons, spinal specialists and orth.scop. wizards. We regularly decline docs use of our facilities simply because the space for them practice and perform doesn't exist. So just because some wack job you know personally says he is going to quit, well... that isn't affecting reality out there.
He is part of that reality and he is hardly alone. And the reason given wasn't space to practice. It was getting pennies on the dollars from insurance, namely Medicare and Medicaid.
2 - I never said you did. That is what the board crybaby whined about 4 years ago. Not a single thing of it has come true. Surprise!
Then why are you asking me about his predictions? I talked about the economic items, the economic failures which have occurred under Obama.
3 - Yeah... and someone would have fixed the economy overnight. Perhaps if your guy didn't run it into the ditch with useless spending we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
Four years isn't "overnight", especially when your guy said he could fix it in three. And the last president had plenty of help, particularly the last two years of his second term, driving into the ditch.
-
NOPE!!! I mean the disasters like higher unemployment, grocery prices, energy prices, healthcare premiums, more layoffs, fewer jobs, and more debt.......ALL OF WHICH (and more) HAPPENED during Obama's first term.
And, ALL OF WHICH will continue at an even more disastrous rates in his second term.
BTW, Riots in the streets? That DID occur, courtesy of those Occupy clowns.
Doctors quitting? Many have considered it, including one I know personally.
the rate at which those economic ailments occcured were astronomical when obama took office and have slowly returned back to almost normal since then. things are getting better, not worse.
-
the rate at which those economic ailments occcured were astronomical when obama took office and have slowly returned back to almost normal since then. things are getting better, not worse.
You can't point that out to people blinded by party hatred.
-
He is part of that reality and he is hardly alone. And the reason given wasn't space to practice. It was getting pennies on the dollars from insurance, namely Medicare and Medicaid.
If this is your guy's problem, then he has no business being a doctor. Newsflash - the majority of doctors do NOT bill and collect anything themselves. That is third party vendors like Per Se or McKesson are for. In addition to paying for the doctors malpractice insurance once they join and for handling their direct paychecks and salaries.
If this guy is under one of those vendor the only excuse I can think of is that he must be practicing in some bumfuck back water town and doubling as the vet as well.
-
the rate at which those economic ailments occcured were astronomical when obama took office and have slowly returned back to almost normal since then. things are getting better, not worse.
Almost normal? We were nowhere near 7% unemployment, until the tail end of the Bush years. 4 or 5% unemployment would be normal.
8% or higher unemployment for nearly all of Obama's first term is hardly what I'd call getting better, not to mention the credit downgrade and Obama, amassing more debt than all his predecessors COMBINED.
That is what you can't point out to people blinded by Obama worship (i.e. Lurker) who basically admitted Obama's first term was a disaster yet can only retort with the quip that McCain would not have been any better.
-
bush was great for the economy fox news smart :D :D :D :D
-
bush was great for the economy fox news smart :D :D :D :D
8% unemployment or higher for nearly all of Obama's first term (after Obama and his team claimed it would never exceed that level)....buffoonery at its best.
-
bush was great for the economy fox news smart :D :D :D :D
LOL!!!!
Look were are now!
6 years since the communists took over the senate and 4 years of O-Twink and we are still in the toilet.
-
Got to love people who claim Obama's first term was a disaster when their candidate was going to do nothing more than follow the Bush plan that stuck the country in the ditch in the first place.
-
Got to love people who claim Obama's first term was a disaster when their candidate was going to do nothing more than follow the Bush plan that stuck the country in the ditch in the first place.
Obama has followed Bush's program remember?
Big spending
Big deficits
Wars and Police state
War on Drugs
No curtailing the impending entitlement bomb on the way
Two pieces of shit - same agenda
-
so as soon as obama went into office the economy went bad,had nothing to do with what was happening before :D :D :D :D fox news smart
-
LOL!!!!
Look were are now!
6 years since the communists took over the senate and 4 years of O-Twink and we are still in the toilet.
Pretty much!!
Got to love people who claim Obama's first term was a disaster when their candidate was going to do nothing more than follow the Bush plan that stuck the country in the ditch in the first place.
Let's see!
Taxes weren't supposed to go up on the middle class: THEY DID!
Unemployment wasn't supposed to exceed 8%: IT DID!
Throw in a credit downgrade, increased food and energy prices, and jacked-up healthcare premiums, and you pretty much have a disaster.
Yet, as long as you can be on welfare, unemployment, and food stamps indefinitely (all while thinking Obama is sticking it to the rich), the Obama worshippers are in party-favor mode.
-
so as soon as obama went into office the economy went bad,had nothing to do with what was happening before :D :D :D :D fox news smart
Try again, Speak-N-Spell boy!!
What happened before was excessive spending. Obama griped about Bush doing it, yet Bush looks like Scrooge, compared to spending Obama did (racking up more debt in less than one term than Bush did in two).
BTW, who was running Congress the last two years of Bush's term (which just happened to be when the economy start tanking)? When you're done with your remedial spelling lessons, try that on for size.
-
mcway thinks bush was good for the economy :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart
-
mcway thinks bush was good for the economy :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart
for most of his term he was - so far O-TWINK has been bad all 4 and going on 5.
-
for most of his term he was - so far O-TWINK has been bad all 4 and going on 5.
fox news smart
-
mcway thinks bush was good for the economy :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart
5% unemployment or lower for most of his presidency, a number Obama can't approach if his life dependent on it.
8% or higher for nearly all his first term...."FORWARD", according to Obama worshippers. Back to remedial spelling for you.
-
for most of his term he was - so far O-TWINK has been bad all 4 and going on 5.
If your credibility was in doubt before (it wasn't, you have none) this cemented your status as board idiot.
-
If your credibility was in doubt before (it wasn't, you have none) this cemented your status as board idiot.
Dispute what I wrote.
Most of Bush's term UE was 6% or less yes or no?
-
If your credibility was in doubt before (it wasn't, you have none) this cemented your status as board idiot.
easy on them they're fox news smart :D :D :D
-
Dispute what I wrote.
Most of Bush's term UE was 6% or less yes or no?
If my memory is correct, the excuse was that many of those jobs were "low wage", burger-flipping jobs.
Of course, when those same "low wage" burger-flipping jobs came under Obama, it was ticker-tape-parade time.
To the Obama-worshippers, 8% unemployment (or higher) for 43 of 48 months is considered progress. So is nearly 50 million on food stamps (up from 32 million at the worst of the Bush years).
-
5% unemployment or lower for most of his presidency, a number Obama can't approach if his life dependent on it.
8% or higher for nearly all his first term...."FORWARD", according to Obama worshippers. Back to remedial spelling for you.
Yeah, that plane trip was fine all the up until the point it crashed into the mountain
maybe you've forgotten the massive job losses, stock market collapse, credit market collapse that all happened during the Bush Administration
luckily for us the majority of voters were not as forgetful as you
-
Yeah, that plane trip was fine all the up until the point it crashed into the mountain
maybe you've forgotten the massive job losses, stock market collapse, credit market collapse that all happened during the Bush Administration
luckily for us the majority of voters were not as forgetful as you
I didn't forget it. I also didn't forget about the Dems who ran Congress the last two years of Bus's presidency, who AIDED in that collapse.
Funny how you don't mention that part.
You also forget Obama's claim that he would fix the economy in his first term, that he'd do immigration reform his first year of his first term.
The, there's that unemployment not exceeding 8% thing.
Of course, when Obama fails again to live up to his promises, you and the rest of the Obama-worshipping crew will have more excuses for him than a habitual criminal.
-
I didn't forget it. I also didn't forget about the Dems who ran Congress the last two years of Bus's presidency, who AIDED in that collapse.
Funny how you don't mention that part.
You also forget Obama's claim that he would fix the economy in his first term, that he'd do immigration reform his first year of his first term.
The, there's that unemployment not exceeding 8% thing.
Of course, when Obama fails again to live up to his promises, you and the rest of the Obama-worshipping crew will have more excuses for him than a habitual criminal.
how EXACTLY did they aid it?
Just saying it doesn't make it true so give some specific details on how they aided it
I know you think Obama failed to live up to his promises but the reality is that at the time he was re-elected UE was lower than when he took office and he reduced the deficit every year (keeping in mind of of course that the projected deficit for 2009 was 1.2 trillion BEFORE he did one single thing to help save the economy, credit markets, real estate market, etc..)
speaking of the "markets" the credit, RE, and job market were all MUCH better the day he was re-elected for a 2nd term than the day he took office
That's called success
It's not perfection but it's certainly not failure (I Repubs like to pretend that success is failure when it's a Democratic success)
And, once again, the voters clearly agreed since they not only gave him another term in office but gave the Dems Senate and House victories
I fully expect you'll respond back with more nonsense but you really shouldn't waste your time because it won't change any of the facts back here in reality
-
The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
Posted on November 7, 2012 | 210 Comments
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/11/07/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire
The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total. (Note: this was written the day after the election. The final results indicate that Romney exceeded McCain’s total by less than one million votes, while Obama received almost four million votes fewer than he did in 2008 – the first time in history that a president won a second term with fewer votes than he scored in his first victory. RSP)
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.
Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That suggests the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that, as Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. How could Obama get away with such rants to squealing sign-wavers? See Churchill, above.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. How could he do and say all these things ? See Churchill, above.
One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required and does not solve any discernible problem – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.
A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.
The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.
One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.
Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry, for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.
The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
Two bright sides: Notwithstanding the election results, I arose this morning, went to shul, davened and learned Torah afterwards. That is our reality, and that trumps all other events. Our relationship with G-d matters more than our relationship with any politician, R or D. And, notwithstanding the problems in Israel, it is time for Jews to go home, to Israel. We have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to leave with dignity and without stress. Thinking that it will always be because it always was has been a repetitive and deadly Jewish mistake. America was always the land from which “positive” aliya came – Jews leaving on their own, and not fleeing a dire situation. But that can also change. The increased aliya in the last few years is partly attributable to young people fleeing the high cost of Jewish living in America. Those costs will only increase in the coming years. We should draw the appropriate conclusions.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.
-
Who the fuck in Rabbi Pruzansky and why should anyone give a shit what he thinks?
-
Who the fuck in Rabbi Pruzansky and why should anyone give a shit what he thinks?
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
-
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
fox news talking points= fox news smart
-
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
that doesn't answer the question of who he is or why anyone should give a shit about his opinion
why don't you put up an article from Fred Phelps next
-
how EXACTLY did they aid it?
Just saying it doesn't make it true so give some specific details on how they aided it
I know you think Obama failed to live up to his promises but the reality is that at the time he was re-elected UE was lower than when he took office and he reduced the deficit every year (keeping in mind of of course that the projected deficit for 2009 was 1.2 trillion BEFORE he did one single thing to help save the economy, credit markets, real estate market, etc..)
NOPE!! Unemployment was 7.6% when he took office. It was 7.8% when he got re-elected. In fact, it didn't dip under 8% (the level his administration said it'd never exceed) until a month before the election.
And, as had been reported numerous times (even by AP), the lower UE rate had more to do with people dropping out of the workforce.
He didn't reduce deficits every year. It was 1.2 trillion for FY 2009, 1.3 trillion for FY 2010, 1.3 trillion for FY 2011, and 1.2 trillion for FY 2012.
Remember that he was supposed to CUT IT IN HALF by the end of his first term.
speaking of the "markets" the credit, RE, and job market were all MUCH better the day he was re-elected for a 2nd term than the day he took office
That's called success
It's not perfection but it's certainly not failure (I Repubs like to pretend that success is failure when it's a Democratic success)
And, once again, the voters clearly agreed since they not only gave him another term in office but gave the Dems Senate and House victories
I fully expect you'll respond back with more nonsense but you really shouldn't waste your time because it won't change any of the facts back here in reality
Credit downgrade for the first time EVER, with another on the horizon and more debt than Bush and the other preisdents combined.....That's called failure, especially with nearly 50 million on food stamps, when he promised to cut the deficit in half but didn't, to reform immigration his first year but didn't.
The voters agreed to re-elect him, in part, because Obama basically promised to subsidized their poverty indefinitely.
-
that doesn't answer the question of who he is or why anyone should give a shit about his opinion
why don't you put up an article from Fred Phelps next
You mean "DEMOCRAT" Fred Phelps?
-
NOPE!! Unemployment was 7.6% when he took office. It was 7.8% when he got re-elected. In fact, it didn't dip under 8% (the level his administration said it'd never exceed) until a month before the election.
And, as had been reported numerous times (even by AP), the lower UE rate had more to do with people dropping out of the workforce.
He didn't reduce deficits every year. It was 1.2 trillion for FY 2009, 1.3 trillion for FY 2010, 1.3 trillion for FY 2011, and 1.2 trillion for FY 2012.
Remember that he was supposed to CUT IT IN HALF by the end of his first term.
Credit downgrade for the first time EVER, with another on the horizon and more debt than Bush and the other preisdents combined.....That's called failure, especially with nearly 50 million on food stamps, when he promised to cut the deficit in half but didn't, to reform immigration his first year but didn't.
The voters agreed to re-elect him, in part, because Obama basically promised to subsidized their poverty indefinitely.
stop lying (whether intentional or not)
Obama took office on Jan 20th 2009 and the UE rate at that time was 7.80%
Obama was re-elected in Nov 12 and the UW rate at that time was 7.70%
We'll ignore the OBVIOUS FACT that the UE rate was 8.2% in Feb 09 ( I'm sure you think he should have had a handle on UE by then - shit he had been in office for almost 4 weeks by that time)
http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
Regarding the deficit - it was projected by the CBO to be 1.2 trillion for 2009 and that's BEFORE Obama took office and of course you failed to admit that Obama was dealing with a Bush Budget for that year even though he was the POTUS
The FACT is that the deficit has dropped every year since 2009
Regarding the credit downgrade the rating agencies said it was specifically due to the GRIDLOCK in Washington and the majority of the country knows who is responsible for that
So, once again, you're completely wrong about everything but I understand you need to believe shit that is simply not true in order to deal with reality
BTW - I'm pretty sure I've posted all the FACTS many times on this board so I don't understand how you still remain so completely misinformed
-
he only parrots what hannity and rush tell him fox news smart
-
he only parrots what hannity and rush tell him fox news smart
MSNBC dumb!
-
MSNBC dumb!
AWESOME CONTRIBUTION on your part there
great job
-
ouch
Well if Ghetto thugs and Otwink shots don't work, then lengthy cut and paste articles don't work....
time to deflect.... lol
How about deflect from from FACTS and attack sources.... lol
-
ouch
Well if Ghetto thugs and Otwink shots don't work, then lengthy cut and paste articles don't work....
time to deflect.... lol
Deflect what - you call blowing a hole in the deficit by double and then paring a tiny fraction back is an improvement? LOL!!!!
-
Deflect what - you call blowing a hole in the deficit by double and then paring a tiny fraction back is an improvement? LOL!!!!
Just cut and paste some articles or deflect or attack OB. that's about all you do.
-
Its funny because, NO ONE seems to have an intelligent argument on the conservative side these days without:
Deflecting
Cut and pasting long articles
Op ed pieces
Or just ripping on OB with name calling
-
Just cut and paste some articles or deflect or attack OB. that's about all you do.
wwwaaahhhhh - try to spin a 1.1 trillion deficit 4 years into his disastrous presidency. But but but but - it was $1.3 trillion the year before! ::) ::)
-
Still waiting for you craft a good argument that doesn't get destroyed.
-
Still waiting for you craft a good argument that doesn't get destroyed.
One where you don't deflect.
-
Its funny because, NO ONE seems to have an intelligent argument on the conservative side these days without:
Deflecting
Cut and pasting long articles
Op ed pieces
Or just ripping on OB with name calling
What else is there to say?
Since the left wing clown car never holds obama accountable for anything he EVER does - what else is there? Its not like O-Twink is going to ever be a moderate or promote sane policies based on fiscal realities. So why not just mock him instead as we circle the drain w his ruinous policies?
-
Its so sad.....
According to Conservatives..... our country was in so much trouble going in such the wrong direction and the best the conservatives could do was: Romney, some one who didn't even want to run.
It pretty much invalidates everything they said.
-
What else is there to say?
Since the left wing clown car never holds obama accountable for anything he EVER does - what else is there? Its not like O-Twink is going to ever be a moderate or promote sane policies based on fiscal realities. So why not just mock him instead as we circle the drain w his ruinous policies?
Still waiting for a legit argument.
PS attacking libs or their views is a DEFLECTION from the issue.
-
Still waiting for a legit argument.
PS attacking libs or their views is a DEFLECTION from the issue.
LOL. The issue is simple - dont spend more than you take in and have a budget.
Case closed.
-
stop lying (whether intentional or not)
Obama took office on Jan 20th 2009 and the UE rate at that time was 7.80%
Obama was re-elected in Nov 12 and the UW rate at that time was 7.70%
We'll ignore the OBVIOUS FACT that the UE rate was 8.2% in Feb 09 ( I'm sure you think he should have had a handle on UE by then - shit he had been in office for almost 4 weeks by that time)
http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
You mean stop telling the truth:
The unemployment rate – currently at 8.6 percent – has remained above Obama’s promised target of 8 percent for his entire presidency. It stood at 7.6 percent in January 2009, when Obama took office on Jan. 20. It was 8.1 percent in February 2009.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dnc-chair-falsely-claims-unemployment-has-not-increased-under-obama
And by the time of the 2012 election, unemployment was supposed to be around 5.5%.
Regarding the deficit - it was projected by the CBO to be 1.2 trillion for 2009 and that's BEFORE Obama took office and of course you failed to admit that Obama was dealing with a Bush Budget for that year even though he was the POTUS
The FACT is that the deficit has dropped every year since 2009
If you start with 1.2T and end with 1.2T, that is a net deficit of......ZERO.
And, lest you forget, he was supposed to cut the deficit IN HALF by the end of his first term. Dropping it, at best, by a few billion is NOT cutting it in half (even using the graph you provided).
Of course, since you think Obama hiking taxes then lowering them back to their previous levels is a tax cut, it's little surprise you think that keeping the deficit AT THE EXACT SAME level as it was when he took office equate to lowering the deficit.
Regarding the credit downgrade the rating agencies said it was specifically due to the GRIDLOCK in Washington and the majority of the country knows who is responsible for that
Yet, the CATO Institute that actually studied the problem (not the low-information voters, led by the fact-distorting media) cited BOTH PARTIES for the problem: One for not raising taxes; the other for not cutting spending.
So, once again, you're completely wrong about everything but I understand you need to believe shit that is simply not true in order to deal with reality
Try again, Straw.
I deal with reality on a regular basis. And unfortunately, I will deal with the reality of misguided folks like you, who foolishly re-elected a guy who failed on virtually every economic promise he made to the American people, namely:
- Keeping unemployment under 8%
- Not raising taxes on the middle class
- Cutting the deficit in HALF by his first term's end
- Shovel-ready jobs (by his own admission, they weren't as shovel-ready as he'd hoped).
- Fixing the economy in three years
- Immigration reform, in his first year of his first term
- 5.5% unemployment by 2012's end.
And, that's just the short list.
-
LOL. The issue is simple - dont spend more than you take in and have a budget.
Case closed.
Should have added realistic to the list.
Its funny because, NO ONE seems to have an intelligent argument on the conservative side these days without:
Deflecting
Cut and pasting long articles
Op ed pieces
Or just ripping on OB with name calling
-
Should have added realistic to the list.
Right - we ant even talk about fiscal sanity in the Age of the Messiah now since that is "extreme". ::) ::)
-
Right - we ant even talk about fiscal sanity in the Age of the Messiah now since that is "extreme". ::) ::)
There you go again.
R E A L I S T I C
We are not going to cut spending into a surplus under any administration at this point in time.
I am going to go get some breakfast, maybe you can find a way to ignore your conservative parroting mantras and come up with real solutions. Doubt you will.
-
There you go again.
R E A L I S T I C
We are not going to cut spending into a surplus under any administration at this point in time.
I am going to go get some breakfast, maybe you can find a way to ignore your conservative parroting mantras and come up with real solutions. Doubt you will.
LOL - how about stop adding to the problem? Is that so much to ask? Oh I forgot - its 1984 - down is up black is white, etc.
Debt, Deficit. high taxes = good
Freedom, prudence, mathmatical reality = bad.
-
You mean stop telling the truth:
The unemployment rate – currently at 8.6 percent – has remained above Obama’s promised target of 8 percent for his entire presidency. It stood at 7.6 percent in January 2009, when Obama took office on Jan. 20. It was 8.1 percent in February 2009.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dnc-chair-falsely-claims-unemployment-has-not-increased-under-obama
And by the time of the 2012 election, unemployment was supposed to be around 5.5%.
I gave you a link to the actual UE #'s month by month
it was 7.8 the day he took office (and 8.2 a month later) and 7.7% the day he was re-elected
WRONG! 1.2T, FY 2009; 1.3T, FY 2010, 1.3T, FY 2011, 1.2T, FY2012.
So, if you start with 1.2T and end with 1.2T, that is a net deficit of......ZERO. And, lest you forget, he was supposed to cut the deficit IN HALF by the end of his first term.
great job making claims and not posting a source
here's yet another link to a source which shows a bit over 1.4 Trillion in 2009 and shrinking every years since the
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
If you don't like that then try this source which says the deficit is shrinking FASTER than any time since WW2
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
Of course, since you think Obama hiking taxes then lowering them back to their previous levels is a tax cut, it's little surprise you think that keeping the deficit AT THE EXACT SAME level as it was when he took office equate to lowering the deficit.
Yet, the CATO Institute that actually studied the problem (not the low-information voters, led by the fact-distorting media) cited BOTH PARTIES for the problem: One for not raising taxes; the other for not cutting spending.
Try again, Straw.
I deal with reality on a regular basis. And unfortunately, I will deal with the reality of misguided folks like you, who foolishly re-elected a guy who failed on virtually every economic promise he made to the American people, namely:
- Keeping unemployment under 8%
- Not raising taxes on the middle class
- Cutting the deficit in HALF by his first term's end
- Shovel-ready jobs (by his own admission, they weren't as shovel-ready as he'd hoped).
- Fixing the economy in three years
- Immigration reform, in his first year of his first term
- 5.5% unemployment by 2012's end.
And, that's just the short list.
LOL - a conservative think tank believes that both parties are equally to blame
Who would have guessed that ?
I've got news for you.... the public doesn't agree with the Cato Institute
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/frustration-with-congress-could-hurt-republican-incumbents/
You keep saying "this or or that" was supposed to be at a certain point at a certain time yet you don't even bother to source the claim (let me guess - it was a projection made by the Obama Admin just after or even before they took office)
Gee, I hope the voters don't find out what what supposed to happen or Obama might not get re-elected
-
I gave you a link to the actual UE #'s month by month
it was 7.8 the day he took office (and 8.2 a month later) and 7.7% the day he was re-elected
It was 7.6 the day he took office and 7.7 when he got re-elected. As expected, you dodge the point that it was NOT to exceed 8% and was to be around 5.5% by the 2012 election.
Instead, we got 8% unemployment for 43 straight months, until (of course, just before the election). Even that was due to people dropping out of the workforce.
great job making claims and not posting a source
here's yet another link to a source which shows a bit over 1.4 Trillion in 2009 and shrinking every years since the
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
If you don't like that then try this source which says the deficit is shrinking FASTER than any time since WW2
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
Where's the link that says he cut it in HALF, as he promised?
LOL - a conservative think tank believes that both parties are equally to blame
Who would have guessed that ?
I've got news for you.... the public doesn't agree with the Cato Institute
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/frustration-with-congress-could-hurt-republican-incumbents/
The public also thought that (under Obama) their taxes wouldn't go up, if they were in the middle class. How did that turn out?
The facts remain that lack of cutting spending and tax hikes caused the credit downgrade. BTW, the Democrats held both Houses of Congress Obama first two years. You forgot that part. If hiking taxes were so important, they could have done it THEN.
You keep saying "this or or that" was supposed to be at a certain point at a certain time yet you don't even bother to source the claim (let me guess - it was a projection made by the Obama Admin just after or even before they took office)
Gee, I hope the voters don't find out what what supposed to happen or Obama might not get re-elected
NOPE! That came from members of his own team, many of whom fled back to academia, when the numbers didn't crunch. I'm sure you've seen the data before. But, since you're pretending to have amnesia:
The unemployment rate unexpectedly declined this month, even as U.S. payrolls expanded at a slower pace than most economists had forecast.
Unfortunately, the decline was due to a sharp drop in the labor participation rate (fewer people looking for jobs), which isn't good news.
Nonetheless, the 8.1 percent figure is a welcome rate for the Obama administration, because it looks like unemployment is finally heading in the right direction (down).
It's worth noting, however, that the unemployment rate is still strikingly higher than the Obama administration thought it would be by now, especially after the economic stimulus enacted back in 2009.
In 2009, advisers to President Obama projected that the unemployment rate would be close to 5 percent at this time.
This highlights one of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration has made in the President's first term — underestimating the depths of the economic decline and then being over-optimistic about the recovery rate.
Below, a look at the current unemployment rate (green) compared to projections made in 2009.
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5049eb11eab8ea5b1e00001a-618-/unemployment-against-projections-august.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-rate-projections-2012-9
SO, deficit NOT cut in half, unemployment (despite stimuli) nowhere near 5%, not to mention the tax hikes on the middle class, higher gas, food, and healthcare prices.......Where is this economic success again?
-
It was 7.6 the day he took office and 7.7 when he got re-elected. As expected, you dodge the point that it was NOT to exceed 8% and was to be around 5.5% by the 2012 election.
if you're just going to make claims without posting sources then don't waste my time
he took office Jan 20th and the UW rate in Jan 2009 was 7.8% (and yet again, 8.20% just a month later before he even had a chance to do anything that would be reflected in the UE number. If you had any intellectual honesty you would know that most of the UE figures in 2009 were the direct result of the prior administration)
he was re-elected in Nov 2012 and the UE rate at that time was 7.70%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
If you going to claim what was "supposed" to happen then show your source
The public who re-elected him didn't seem too concerned that he didn't hit projections that were most likely made prior to or in the first weeks of his first term
I know you think it's important but the indisputable reality is that it was not important
you can tell this is true because he was re-elected
-
if you're just going to make claims without posting sources then don't waste my time
he took office Jan 20th and the UW rate in Jan 2009 was 7.8% (and yet again, 8.20% just a month later before he even had a chance to do anything that would be reflected in the UE number. If you had any intellectual honesty you would know that most of the UE figures in 2009 were the direct result of the prior administration)
he was re-elected in Nov 2012 and the UE rate at that time was 7.70%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
If you going to claim what was "supposed" to happen then show your source
The public who re-elected him didn't seem too concerned that he didn't hit projections that were most likely made prior to or in the first weeks of his first term
I know you think it's important but the indisputable reality is that it was not important
you can tell this is true because he was re-elected
-
and AGAIN
WHEN was that chart created
Did you happen to notice the voters didn't seem to give a shit about that chart
Do you even understand that projections are nothing more than (hopefully) educated guesses
-
if you're just going to make claims without posting sources then don't waste my time
he took office Jan 20th and the UW rate in Jan 2009 was 7.8% (and yet again, 8.20% just a month later before he even had a chance to do anything that would be reflected in the UE number. If you had any intellectual honesty you would know that most of the UE figures in 2009 were the direct result of the prior administration)
he was re-elected in Nov 2012 and the UE rate at that time was 7.70%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate
If you going to claim what was "supposed" to happen then show your source
The public who re-elected him didn't seem too concerned that he didn't hit projections that were most likely made prior to or in the first weeks of his first term
I know you think it's important but the indisputable reality is that it was not important
you can tell this is true because he was re-elected
I posted the sources, multiple times. Your not reading them doesn't equate to those facts not being there.
And, the source for cutting the deficit in half by his first term was OBAMA'S OWN MOUTH! Or, is that amnesia of yours kicking into gear again?
This is about what Obama failed to do, not his ability (with help from the media) to sucker 53% of the populace to re-elect him. You voted for him, despite forgetting a MAJOR campaign promise that came from his own lips.
If you're judging success or failure, simply by the ability to get re-elected, then you've no issue with which to criticize Bush.
Did Obama cut the deficit in half his first term?
Did he keep unemployment under 8% his first term?
Did he keep his word not to raise taxes on the middle class?
The reason (or among the reasons, at least) the voters didn't care is because Obama basically advertised that he'd keep them subsidized on the government dole indefinitely, while sticking it to those evil rich people.
-
By changing the figure for ending tax cuts from $250k to $450k, the GOP added an additional $3.5 trillion to the debt. But that's the kind of deficit hawks the Republicans are. HAHAHAHA
-
I posted the sources, multiple times. Your not reading them doesn't equate to those facts not being there.
This is about what Obama failed to do, not his ability (with help from the media) to sucker 53% of the populace to re-elect him.
If you're judging success or failure, simply by the ability to get re-elected, then you've no issue with which to criticize Bush.
Did Obama cut the deficit in half his first term?
Did he keep unemployment under 8% his first term?
Did he keep his word not to raise taxes on the middle class?
The reason (or among the reasons, at least) the voters didn't care is because Obama basically advertised that he'd keep them subsidized on the government dole indefinitely, while sticking it to those evil rich people.
where is your actual official government source for the claim of 7.6% unemployment
The actual published UE rate for January was 7.8% (I gave you my source which is linked from actual government data)
again, this is all NONSENSE because as I said before if you had ANY intellectual honesty you'd know that the UE rate for at the very least the first few months of the Obama administration were owned by Bush. There was nothing he could have done in those few months to change the UE numbers
8.20% in Feb 09
8.6% in March 09
8.9% in April 09
9.4% in May 09
Ask yourself when the stimulus package was passed and even more importantly how long it took until $'s started hitting the street and actually getting people back to work
If you can't admit at the very least that these few months were baked into the cake the day the day he took office then there is no point in us trying to have an actual adult conversation
Again, this is all just mental masturbation on your part as the voting public knows the truth as demonstrated by the result of the last election
-
More smoke!! More mirrors!!! Quick!!!!
-
where is your actual official government source for the claim of 7.6% unemployment
The actual published UE rate for January was 7.8% (I gave you my source which is linked from actual government data)
again, this is all NONSENSE because as I said before if you had ANY intellectual honesty you'd know that the UE rate for at the very least the first few months of the Obama administration were owned by Bush. There was nothing he could have done in those few months to change the UE numbers
8.20% in Feb 09
8.6% in March 09
8.9% in April 09
9.4% in May 09
He didn't have just a few months. He's had FOUR YEARS and he said he could fix the economy in three. If YOU had any intellectual honesty, you'd admit that (per his own standards) he didn't get the job done.
Ask yourself when the stimulus package was passed and even more importantly how long it took until $'s started hitting the street and actually getting people back to work
If you can't admit at the very least that these few months were baked into the cake the day the day he took office then there is no point in us trying to have an actual adult conversation
Again, this is all just mental masturbation on your part as the voting public knows the truth as demonstrated by the result of the last election
Three years (not a few months) but three years after his stimulus (and several mini-stimuli, afterward) passed, the numbers were nowhere near where HIS ECONOMIC TEAM said they would be. I'm not talking about what was "baked into the cake". I'm talking about what has occurred after Obama had a substantial amount of time in office.
I'm judging him by the standards HE (not Bush, or anyone else) set. By those standards, he failed.
He didn't get unemployment under 8% until conveniently just a month away from the election (due more to people dropping out of the workforce).
He didn't cut the deficit in half by first term's end, words that came from is own lips, despite Lurker's stupid statements about smoke and mirrors.
And, he completely lied his tail off, regarding raising taxes on the middle class.
Use your intellectual honesty on that.
-
He didn't have just a few months. He's had FOUR YEARS and he said he could fix the economy in three. If YOU had any intellectual honesty, you'd admit that (per his own standards) he didn't get the job done.
Three years (not a few months) but three years after his stimulus (and several mini-stimuli, afterward) passed, the numbers were nowhere near where HIS ECONOMIC TEAM said they would be. I'm not talking about what was "baked into the cake". I'm talking about what has occurred after Obama had a substantial amount of time in office.
I'm judging him by the standards HE (not Bush, or anyone else) set. By those standards, he failed.
He didn't get unemployment under 8% until conveniently just a month away from the election (due more to people dropping out of the workforce).
He didn't cut the deficit in half by first term's end, words that came from is own lips, despite Lurker's stupid statements about smoke and mirrors.
And, he completely lied his tail off, regarding raising taxes on the middle class.
Use your intellectual honesty on that.
News Flash
The economy is MUCH better now than it was 4 years ago
you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact that it is MUCH BETTER
The voters seemed to be aware of it a few months when they re-elected him
-
Obamaphone lady agrees
News Flash
The economy is MUCH better now than it was 4 years ago
you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact that it is MUCH BETTER
The voters seemed to be aware of it a few months when they re-elected him
-
Obamaphone lady agrees
most people agree
it's just reality
-
He didn't have just a few months. He's had FOUR YEARS and he said he could fix the economy in three. If YOU had any intellectual honesty, you'd admit that (per his own standards) he didn't get the job done.
Three years (not a few months) but three years after his stimulus (and several mini-stimuli, afterward) passed, the numbers were nowhere near where HIS ECONOMIC TEAM said they would be. I'm not talking about what was "baked into the cake". I'm talking about what has occurred after Obama had a substantial amount of time in office.
I'm judging him by the standards HE (not Bush, or anyone else) set. By those standards, he failed.
He didn't get unemployment under 8% until conveniently just a month away from the election (due more to people dropping out of the workforce).
He didn't cut the deficit in half by first term's end, words that came from is own lips, despite Lurker's stupid statements about smoke and mirrors.
And, he completely lied his tail off, regarding raising taxes on the middle class.
Use your intellectual honesty on that.
What taxes on the middle-class?
-
What taxes on the middle-class?
ObamaCare and the payroll tax (and that's just the opening act).
333386 posted the number on his thread. People making at least $50,000 will be coughing up an extra $1600 per year.
Obama lied his @$$ off about not raising taxes on the middle class, point blank.
The so-called champion of the middle-class just suckered them (or at least 53% or so) into coughing up more of their hard-earned money. And when those EEEEEEEVIIILLLL millionaires end up doing what they always do, namely find a way to keep their cash (either by moving it or by passing on to the middle-class folks), it's the working folks who are going to get SCREWED.
-
News Flash
The economy is MUCH better now than it was 4 years ago
you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact that it is MUCH BETTER
The voters seemed to be aware of it a few months when they re-elected him
Just like the voters believed their premiums would be lower and their taxes wouldn't go up. Now that Obama has suckered them (and you) into buying that crap, he shows his true colors and the pain is coming to the American people.
Nearly 50 million people in food stamps vs. 32 million four years ago is not a better economy.
Over half of college grads not being able to find jobs in their field is NOT a better economy.
8% (or higher) unemployment for 44 of his 48 months, during the first term, is not a better economy.
A downgraded credit limit is not signs of a better economy.
The fact that you and your fellow Obama worshippers were silly enough to buy his BS a second time is hardly evidence of a successful economy.
He didn't cut the deficit in half, as he said.
He didn't keep his word about not raising taxes on the middle class.
He didn't keep unemployment under 8%.
He didn't get unemployment into the 5% area, as his economic team projected.
And, now that he's conned you and the other Hopey-Changeys into giving him a second term, we're all going to get slammed, as never before.
-
ObamaCare and the payroll tax (and that's just the opening act).
333386 posted the number on his thread. People making at least $50,000 will be coughing up an extra $1600 per year.
Obama lied his @$$ off about not raising taxes on the middle class, point blank.
The so-called champion of the middle-class just suckered them (or at least 53% or so) into coughing up more of their hard-earned money. And when those EEEEEEEVIIILLLL millionaires end up doing what they always do, namely find a way to keep their cash (either by moving it or by passing on to the middle-class folks), it's the working folks who are going to get SCREWED.
if I recall, none of the so called taxes in the healthcare legislation are actually taxes and payroll taxes were cut EXPIRED and now is going back to where it originally was
Repubs will piss and moan and say Obama raised taxes but he did not and Repubs were not even in favor of reducing the payroll tax in the first place so it's totally disingenuous for them to now call it a tax increase
last time I checked people making between 200k and 500k were not middle class
http://news.yahoo.com/77-americans-pay-more-taxes-2013-152240088.html
The good news, according to non-partisan Tax Policy Center (whose report the Times cites), is that very few non-wealthy households will face a net increase in taxes. The center "calculated that less than 5 percent of families earning $200,000 to $500,000 will actually pay more." Which pretty much aligns with what President Obama said at the White House late last night
-
if I recall, none of the so called taxes in the healthcare legislation are actually taxes and payroll taxes were cut EXPIRED and now is going back to where it originally was
Repubs will piss and moan and say Obama raised taxes but he did not and Repubs were not even in favor of reducing the payroll tax in the first place so it's totally disingenuous for them to now call it a tax increase
last time I checked people making between 200k and 500k were not middle class
There's that amnesia of yours again.
One, Obama's lawyers testified UNDER OATH that ObamaCare was a tax. That's the only reason it's still legal per the Supreme Court. So, either Team Obama lied to the Court; or they lied to US. Either way, you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Two. The end of the payroll tax (as well as ObamaCare) hit people making at least $50,000. That, in many states, is middle class. An average of $1,600 extra per year goes bye-bye, thanks to Obama and crew. See 333386's thread for more details.
Furthermore, Obama didn't say very few people who make under $250,000 would see their incomes go up "one dime". He said NOBODY, who made under $250,000 would see their taxes go up "one dime".
"And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Once again, Obama lied his keister off and people like you fell for it.
-
;D
There's that amnesia of yours again.
One, Obama's lawyers testified UNDER OATH that ObamaCare was a tax. That's the only reason it's still legal per the Supreme Court. So, either Team Obama lied to the Court; or they lied to US. Either way, you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Two. The end of the payroll tax (as well as ObamaCare) hit people making at least $50,000. That, in many states, is middle class. An average of $1,600 extra per year goes bye-bye, thanks to Obama and crew. See 333386's thread for more details.
Furthermore, Obama didn't say very few people who make under $250,000 would see their incomes go up "one dime". He said NOBODY, who made under $250,000 would see their taxes go up "one dime".
Once again, Obama lied his keister off and people like you fell for it.
-
;D
I added Obama's quote on this matter. Straw seems to have a problem, explaining why Obama betrayed the words that came from his own mouth.
-
Just like the voters believed their premiums would be lower and their taxes wouldn't go up. Now that Obama has suckered them (and you) into buying that crap, he shows his true colors and the pain is coming to the American people.
Nearly 50 million people in food stamps vs. 32 million four years ago is not a better economy.
Over half of college grads not being able to find jobs in their field is NOT a better economy.
8% (or higher) unemployment for 44 of his 48 months, during the first term, is not a better economy.
A downgraded credit limit is not signs of a better economy.
The fact that you and your fellow Obama worshippers were silly enough to buy his BS a second time is hardly evidence of a successful economy.
He didn't cut the deficit in half, as he said.
He didn't keep his word about not raising taxes on the middle class.
He didn't keep unemployment under 8%.
He didn't get unemployment into the 5% area, as his economic team projected.
And, now that he's conned you and the other Hopey-Changeys into giving him a second term, we're all going to get slammed, as never before.
yeah, yeah, you keep harping on the fact that he didn't meet certain projections but if you haven't noticed yet, the voters didn't care and by all salient measures were are much better off then we were four years ago
let's review some facts
UE peaked at 10.10% in October of 2009 and has been going down steadily
Stock Market much higher now than when Obama took office
Real Estate values are doing much better than when Obama took office and most
Regarding insurance rates, I can only speak for myself. I had been part of a group plan based on membership in a professional association and I decided to check with a friend who is an insurance broker and I got an individual plan and dropped my insurance premium from
~ $400 a month to $138 a month. This is not some shitty plan either. It's a PP0 with a 4500 annual deductible (my former group plan was a PPO with a 3500 deductible) and also has a health savings account (which I always max out)
So, just because you choose to find fault because things are not yet perfect the undeniable fact is that all the markers of the economy are much better than when Obama took office
-
There's that amnesia of yours again.
One, Obama's lawyers testified UNDER OATH that ObamaCare was a tax. That's the only reason it's still legal per the Supreme Court. So, either Team Obama lied to the Court; or they lied to US. Either way, you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Two. The end of the payroll tax (as well as ObamaCare) hit people making at least $50,000. That, in many states, is middle class. An average of $1,600 extra per year goes bye-bye, thanks to Obama and crew. See 333386's thread for more details.
Furthermore, Obama didn't say very few people who make under $250,000 would see their incomes go up "one dime". He said NOBODY, who made under $250,000 would see their taxes go up "one dime".
"And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Once again, Obama lied his keister off and people like you fell for it.
yawn, more pissing and moaning about the healthcare legislation yet virtually no one in the middle class will every pay a penalty or a "tax" because their low income will exclude them
you can pretend that payroll taxes are going up all you want but it's simply not true (again - I understand your need to tell yourself it is true so I won't bother repeating myself on this)
-
I know you hate my guts - but being self employed - can you forward me your insurance brokers'info on the health insurance?
yeah, yeah, you keep harping on the fact that he didn't meet certain projections but if you haven't noticed yet, the voters didn't care and by all salient measures were are much better off then we were four years ago
let's review some facts
UE peaked at 10.10% in October of 2009 and has been going down steadily
Stock Market much higher now than when Obama took office
Real Estate values are doing much better than when Obama took office and most
Regarding insurance rates, I can only speak for myself. I had been part of a group plan based on membership in a professional association and I decided to check with a friend who is an insurance broker and I got an individual plan and dropped my insurance premium from
~ $400 a month to $138 a month. This is not some shitty plan either. It's a PP0 with a 4500 annual deductible (my former group plan was a PPO with a 3500 deductible) and also has a health savings account (which I always max out)
So, just because you choose to find fault because things are not yet perfect the undeniable fact is that all the markers of the economy are much better than when Obama took office
-
I added Obama's quote on this matter. Straw seems to have a problem, explaining why Obama betrayed the words that came from his own mouth.
he didn't raise the payroll tax
he lowered it and now it's going back to where it was
that's not raising taxes
I know you won't be able to understand that
-
he didn't raise the payroll tax
he lowered it and now it's going back to where it was
that's not raising taxes
I know you won't be able to understand that
Was 4.2%; Now it's 6.2%. That's a tax hike.
Then, there's that ObamaCare thing.
Try again, Straw!
-
the l;osers still on here crrrrrrryyyyyyyiiiinnnng g
-
yawn, more pissing and moaning about the healthcare legislation yet virtually no one in the middle class will every pay a penalty or a "tax" because their low income will exclude them
you can pretend that payroll taxes are going up all you want but it's simply not true (again - I understand your need to tell yourself it is true so I won't bother repeating myself on this)
Unfortunately, it isn't pretending. It's a fact. The fact you keep denying such, in an attempt to whitewash your being suckered by Obama's lame promises....AGAIN is laughable yet pitiful.
And, par the course, you keep denying that he said he'd cut the deficit in half but didn't. And, you keep denying that ObamaCare isn't a tax, when Obama's lawyers swore under oath that it was and the Supreme Court agreed.
Any way you slice it, he basically lied TO YOUR FACE about taxes and the middle class.
-
the l;osers still on here crrrrrrryyyyyyyiiiinnnng g
And the dummies are still here, thinking they didn't get conned by Obama and will be immune to the impending disaster that will hit this country.
-
the l;osers still on here crrrrrrryyyyyyyiiiinnnng g
Trayvon serving trays of frank n beans in the prison kitchen in the Big Pen in the sky!
-
Unfortunately, it isn't pretending. It's a fact. The fact you keep denying such, in an attempt to whitewash your being suckered by Obama's lame promises....AGAIN is laughable yet pitiful.
And, par the course, you keep denying that he said he'd cut the deficit in half but didn't. And, you keep denying that ObamaCare isn't a tax, when Obama's lawyers swore under oath that it was and the Supreme Court agreed.
Any way you slice it, he basically lied TO YOUR FACE about taxes and the middle class.
-
Best thing to happen in 2012 - was Obamaphone lady being made public as well as fluke.
-
Unfortunately, it isn't pretending. It's a fact. The fact you keep denying such, in an attempt to whitewash your being suckered by Obama's lame promises....AGAIN is laughable yet pitiful.
And, par the course, you keep denying that he said he'd cut the deficit in half but didn't. And, you keep denying that ObamaCare isn't a tax, when Obama's lawyers swore under oath that it was and the Supreme Court agreed.
Any way you slice it, he basically lied TO YOUR FACE about taxes and the middle class.
No it's not but I know you want to believe it so feel free
I, like almost EVERYONE else, will pay no penalty at all
I don't expect a rabid Obama hater to ever be able to see through the haze of their hatred to understand that so there is no need to keep going around in circles on this
-
The unofficial-official Obama-worshipping tune:
-
And the dummies are still here, thinking they didn't get conned by Obama and will be immune to the impending disaster that will hit this country.
LOL
you're sounding about as nutty as the person who thinks Obama in trying to "collapse the nation" or maybe you actually believe that nonsense too
-
Best thing to happen in 2012 - was Obamaphone lady being made public as well as fluke.
there is no such thing as an Obamaphone but don't let that stop you from believing it to be true
-
Was 4.2%; Now it's 6.2%. That's a tax hike.
Then, there's that ObamaCare thing.
Try again, Straw!
no it's not
it's an expiration of a discount and your party wasn't even in favor of the original discount
-
the l;osers still on here crrrrrrryyyyyyyiiiinnnng g
yep, a couple of bad cases of diaper rash
-
what mcway has a lot of energy ;D
-
no it's not
it's an expiration of a discount and your party wasn't even in favor of the original discount
An expiration of a discount? Boy, you libs come up with the cutest phrases for tax hikes. But, that's to be expected I guess. Telling it like it is usually doesn't work well for the left.
So now that Obama suckered you into voting for him again, you don't need the "discount" anymore. That's rich!!
Hiking up payroll taxes and slapping on ObamaCare. At the end of the day, Obama jacked up taxes for the middle class, contrary to his campaign promise.
-
An expiration of a discount? Boy, you libs come up with the cutest phrases for tax hikes. But, that's to be expected I guess. Telling it like it is usually doesn't work well for the left.
So now that Obama suckered you into voting for him again, you don't need the "discount" anymore. That's rich!!
Hiking up payroll taxes and slapping on ObamaCare. At the end of the day, Obama jacked up taxes for the middle class, contrary to his campaign promise.
yep that's EXACTLY what it was
remember, it was a temporary reduction (hint - go google the Republican objections at the time)