Printable View
I voted for Obama in '08. I thought he would fundamentally change America. My party lost because Obama's changing of the old guard strategy proved to be too tough to crack for Republicans...as this really resonated with the general public. It's too early to compare Obama to Bush.
[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.
Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]
so are we gonna act as if there isnt just as many racist white people who voted against him because they didnt want a black man as the leader of their country?
what about all the scandal on his birth certificate and him being a muslim? I bet you those topics would have never been brought up if he was white.
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]YOUR OWN LINK explains that job loss in the public sector came at the local levels Obama has absolutely no jurisdiction over. At the federal level...
Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary. That keeps voters under the Democrats' thumb. An excessive of government dependents is not good for any country, but you don't care. You are not concerned about the United States of America. You milk the government for fraudulent disability money, just like your father taught you to do (you admitted this in a thread some 2 or 3 years ago) and you spend all your time defending the hand that feeds you, even when it is with the earnings of others. Good for you. Partisan hack. You are a loser.[/QUOTE]
So you couldn't find any evidence to back up your welfare lie, could you? Now you're spewing a disability lie? My father was a Goldwater Conservative who campaigned for the NY Conservative party. Nice try though.
You claimed government jobs didn't affect the economy. This is a Republican talking point. It's just simply false. And anyone with a basic sense of macroeconomics knows it's not true. It's especially not true in times like past five years.
My post is dishonest only if you can convince yourself that local jobs help the economy while federal jobs don't. Your point is simply incoherent.
Also the fact is that federal goverment payrolls are down overall since Obama took office which demolishes your point about Obama's plan. In
Jan 2009 there were 2,772,000 federal employees. The latest month we have the data for is May 2013 when there were 2,757,000. You can check these numbers on the BLS website. Go here and just select "Federal" to get the numbers
[url]http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm[/url]
Again overall federal employment is down during Obama's term. However, even that 1.3 percent you cite is due to spike during 2010, when we hired a shitload of people to do the census.
The other thing to note is that federal employment has gone down while the population of the country has gone up by 10 million. Population growth especially affects local government. Usually when you get more people you need more cops, more teachers, etc.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Yes he did, during a severe recession. In fact, a good chunk of the stimulus was in tax cuts. It's still completely irrelevant to the comparison made above but you're not bright enough to see that. Later Obama signed another bill that brought those tax cuts back on the top 2% and the top brack is currently
39.6% on taxable income over $450,000.
[/QUOTE]
Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years
Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.
If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?
At a minimum Obama's actions indicate that he agrees with 98% of Bush's tax cuts. Bush never made them permanent tax cuts. That was Obama.
All Obama had to do to get rid of the Bush tax cuts was to do nothing and let them expire. Obama actively went out to protect them in full for 2 years and then actively went out and insured 98% of them will never expire. They are at least partially the obama tax cuts now.
[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]so are we gonna act as if there isnt just as many racist white people who voted against him because they didnt want a black man as the leader of their country?[/QUOTE]
Certainly there are, but those are not people who swing an election anyway. Those people either always vote red or don't vote at all.
Women and wafflers swing the elections. They are the most easily impressionable groups of people. They all gave themselves a huge pat on the back for voting for "this nice black man" and demonstrating to everyone else (which is their top priority) how totally beyond race they are. Even backwoods racists typically don't go around bragging about George Bush or Mitt Romney. Those people typically don't like politicians and government at all anyway. Liberals were wildly flaunting OBAMA PRIDE down everyones throats from Day 1. They absolutely reveled in being seen voting for a black guy. They needed everyone to see their membership in The Progressive Club. They are posers and when you are a poser, your whole thing is showing off who and what you are to others. That's what liberals did. They showed off their Obama Pride nonstop, loud and proud. Just look at the fervor Obama drew that Kerry did not. For all intents and purposes they are the same politician. Same party, same politics. It's not because Obama was "more charismatic" he's honestly not that charismatic. That's a blatant misnomer. Clinton was far more charismatic. Obama was a nice looking black guy who did manage to sell some fraudulent hope dream.
[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]
what about all the scandal on his birth certificate and him being a muslim? I bet you those topics would have never been brought up if he was white.[/QUOTE]
Parties are always gonna attack each other, regardless of race. Republicans actually wanted to waste time impeaching Clinton for adultery. :facepalm As far as being a Muslim, I'm pretty sure Obama's father IS a muslim, and Obama's christian "pastor" was applauding/glorifying September 11. Those are facts. It's not exactly a leap for his detractors to labale the dude a "muslim" even if they know he doesn't practice it actively.
The Bush presidency was the worst in US history. The economy completely collapsed, forcing the US to print money hand over fist to bail the economy out. He also started a war with Iraq for no reason costing lives and roughly $5trillion dollars.
Bush was a train wreck and made the US a worldwide laughingstock for electing this idiot.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years
Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.
If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?
At a minimum Obama's actions indicate that he agrees with 98% of Bush's tax cuts. Bush never made them permanent tax cuts. That was Obama.[/QUOTE]
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts quietly in the middle of his term.
When election time came rolling around, then he got on the soapbox and demanded rich people "pay their fair share."
Obama, just like Bush, is not doing what he feels is best for his country. He is an actor on a stage, justifying the decisions of his party and the people behind the scenes who have the power to control the nations affairs. The guy is absolutely, 100% not a leader. He is a puppet, putting on a charade. And sadly, he has regular Americans bickering over him, which is the entire purpose of the illusion.
[QUOTE=tontoz]The Bush presidency was the worst in US history. The economy completely collapsed, forcing the US to print money hand over fist to bail the economy out. He also started a war with Iraq for no reason costing lives and roughly $5trillion dollars.
Bush was a train wreck and made the US a worldwide laughingstock for electing this idiot.[/QUOTE]
Bush didnt "make" the economy collapse. No president does. He happened to be in office when it did.
Also, Congress voted for war. As in, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others. Guess that doesn't suit your "good guys and bad guys" agenda.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years
Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.
If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?[/QUOTE]
Read upthread.
The original argument was a completely apples to oranges comparisons of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to the stimulus. They are not comparable and it's dishonest to pretend they are since they took place under completely different economic conditions. The only way they could be comparable is if you pretended that ALL job growth/loss is due to tax/stimulus policy.
Also tax cuts affecting the bottom 98% is not 98% of the tax cuts, note the 30% going to the top 1 percent there, but this is a completely separate issue from my point.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image-3.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Bush didnt "make" the economy collapse. No president does. He happened to be in office when it did.
Also, Congress voted for war. As in, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others. Guess that doesn't suit your "good guys and bad guys" agenda.[/QUOTE]
the banking deregulation and the war on Iraq are what led to the collapse of the economy. And Congress believed that Iraq had WMD's which was nothing but a Bush Administration lie.
Still waiting to hear you explain why Federal employment has gone down even though you claim that "Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary." I won't hold my breath.
[QUOTE=OJ SIMPSON 2.0]Does the word offend you or something? Neocon just face it, Obama is a great president compared to that raging alcoholic.[/QUOTE]
It is very easy to argue that he is worse then Bush. That's coming from someone who thought Bush was pretty bad. If you call Bush a raging alchoholic then Obama is a raging coke head stoner.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Read upthread.
The original argument was a completely apples to oranges comparisons of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to the stimulus. They are not comparable and it's dishonest to pretend they are since they took place under completely different economic conditions. The only way they could be comparable is if you pretended that ALL job growth/loss is due to tax/stimulus policy.
Also tax cuts affecting the bottom 98% is not 98% of the tax cuts, note the 30% going to the top 1 percent there, but this is a completely separate issue from my point.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image-3.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
My point was its funny how you completely blame bush for initaiting the tax cuts, while completely defending obama for ensuring the continuation of the tax cuts.
[QUOTE=tontoz]the banking deregulation and the war on Iraq are what led to the collapse of the economy. And Congress believed that Iraq had WMD's which was nothing but a Bush Administration lie.
Still waiting to hear you explain why Federal employment has gone down even though you claim that "Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary." I won't hold my breath.[/QUOTE]
The War on Iraq had nothing to do with collapsing the economy. It raised the deficit, but that didn't cause the economy to collapse. As for banking deregulation, the specific repeal of Glass Steagal did not cause the crisis, but had regulators enforced existed regulations at every step of the mortgage chain, we would have been much, much better. The culture of deregulation definitely played a part. Trusting banks to manage their risk was a giant error in retrospect. Some of that falls on Bush. However, I don't see how any president would have known about the problems in the shadow banking system until a crisis hit. I don't think any president would have known about how interconnected the Too Big To Fail banks had become.
Remember the housing bubble popped in 2006, the economy sufffered but it was not catastrophic, it was when the credit bubble popped in 2008 when we fell off a cliff.
[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]My point was its funny how you completely blame bush for initaiting the tax cuts, while completely defending obama for ensuring the continuation of the tax cuts.[/QUOTE]
At no point in this thread, did I point out the merits of either.
[QUOTE=tontoz]the banking deregulation and the war on Iraq are what led to the collapse of the economy. And Congress believed that Iraq had WMD's which was nothing but a Bush Administration lie.
Still waiting to hear you explain why Federal employment has gone down even though you claim that "Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary." I won't hold my breath.[/QUOTE]
Nothing you said here even made a remote amount of sense, objectively. That was nothing but the incoherent rage of a liberal nerd who still blames George Bush for his own personal inadequacies in life.
It is clear that Bush is simply an outlet for your own personal frustrations with your inability to compete in a tough world. What's the matter? Not smart enough? Not makin enough money? Can't put on muscle? Girls don't want you? Some sunovabitch don't wanna buy land? Waahhhhh, it's all Bush's fault! Republicans are jerks!!!!
You're angry because you are wanting. And you can't stand to look in the mirror and blame yourself. Liberals are your flock, they are the one group that you still feel semi-included by. So you keep hating George Bush, long after he's even been relevant.
Get mad you little f[COLOR="Black"]a[/COLOR]ggot. Get mad.