2 of the best things that happened in 2012

[OzmO]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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!    

[OzmO]

Still waiting for you craft a good argument that doesn't get destroyed.

[OzmO]

Still waiting for you craft a good argument that doesn't get destroyed.

One where you don't deflect.

[Soul Crusher]

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?

[OzmO]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[OzmO]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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".     

[OzmO]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[MCWAY]

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://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?

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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

[Straw Man]

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
 

[LurkerNoMore]

More smoke!!  More mirrors!!!  Quick!!!!

[MCWAY]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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