Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[QUOTE=B-Low]So waitwaitwait...you mean Obama won the election by promising people things that would help them????

That cheating, scheming rat bastard...[/QUOTE]

He doesn't "care" about them. He cares about the votes. He absolutely bought the latino vote with his immigration executive order (what, he doesn't do anything until a few months before the election? There's the guy who supports latinos....).

[QUOTE=boozehound]As far as the attack on the embassy, how many embassies were attacked under bush? How many americans died during those attacks? As usual, its only important when it is the people you dont agree with. SMFH.
[/QUOTE]
This times a million.

[IMG]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/JSO2897/BenGazi.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Math2]He doesn't "care" about them. He cares about the votes. He absolutely bought the latino vote with his immigration executive order (what, he doesn't do anything until a few months before the election? There's the guy who supports latinos....).[/QUOTE]


He obviously "cares" more than Mitt Romney and the GOP... They were so dumb they spent that period of time bashing latinos and pushing them into Obama's camp

[QUOTE=GreatGreg]It's a new age, and unless the GOP gets with the times, they are one and done. Adapt or get adapted, there is no in between and there is no way to succeed without doing so.[/QUOTE]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


This is the new age. Dependence.

[QUOTE=Math2]"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


This is the new age. Dependence.[/QUOTE]
Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/AdamSmith.jpg/402px-AdamSmith.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Check the unemployment % when Obama took office, and look now, plus, consider that as bad as it is, it's deceptively low considering how many gave up looking for jobs this summer because of how bad the economy had been for 4 years.[/QUOTE]

The BLS has a stat that tracks that. It's the u6 unemployment number and it tells the same story as the general u3 figure: Obama took office at the very height of job losses, job losses rose for another year and then have slowly tapered down to about where they were when he took office, but not where they were when the recession began
[IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/2dsoin4.png[/IMG]

To me people who hold this against Obama simply don't understand the nature and magnitude of the 2007-2009 crisis. No one on ISH has lived through a crisis like this, not even Jlauber. (I think a very valid criticism of Obama is he didn't undertstand this and communicate this.)

So ShaqAttack, please tell me what would have been different under a different president? What would another president have been able to do to affect the demand side of the economy after a massive housing & credit bubble have popped?

B-Low ended this thread. Regardless of your thoughts on Obama's plans, you don't get people's votes just by asking nicely, you get them by promising them something in return. This isn't even newsworthy.

[QUOTE=Droid101]Oh, this lie again?

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.00% increase

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 21.21% decrease



GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
[IMG]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20080701&d2=20120731[/IMG]

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 70.88%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 80.81%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 116.01%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 107.48%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 115.20%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 145.30%


[IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8449/8070918361_885df4cccc_b.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.

[QUOTE=boozehound]well, first of all, the number of people who are counted in the labor force has been going up fairly significantly during the fall.

As far as the attack on the embassy, how many embassies were attacked under bush? How many americans died during those attacks? As usual, its only important when it is the people you dont agree with. SMFH.


Besides, its hard to argue that obama has done nothing (hes done quite a bit if you bother looking into it), when the GOP controlled house has basically ceded any responsibility for the governance of this country.[/QUOTE]

Terrorist attacks will happen, you can't prevent them all, but Obama's response was disgraceful. Sickening, actually. That reassured to me that I don't want this man leading the country.

By the way, for all of the criticism Bush takes, when it got really bad, it was his last 2 years when Democrats controlled the Senate and the House, and he couldn't really do anything himself, yet he gets all the blame, but when it's Obama, he gets a pass. I'm not saying I liked Bush, I could list many things I disagreed with him about, but the double standard is hilarious.

[quote]
Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.[/quote]

:facepalm

We're not losing 780,000 jobs a month like we were in early 09.. You forgot to mention that

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]


Terrorist attacks will happen, you can't prevent them all, but Obama's response was disgraceful. Sickening, actually. That reassured to me that I don't want this man leading the country.

By the way, for all of the criticism Bush takes, when it got really bad, it was his last 2 years when Democrats controlled the Senate and the House, and he couldn't really do anything himself, yet he gets all the blame, but when it's Obama, he gets a pass. I'm not saying I liked Bush, I could list many things I disagreed with him about, but the double standard is hilarious.[/QUOTE]

there is no double standard...


you sound like you think Obama started 2 wars of his own and blew a surplus also....


I think people rightly understand who put us in this terrible position

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Beyond all your smoke and mirrors, it's at 7.8% just as it was when he took office, that's terrible. And again, it's deceptively low. Just go out in the real world and ask people how the economy is.
[/QUOTE]
The stock market is at an all time high.

[QUOTE=Droid101]The stock market is at an all time high.[/QUOTE]

No it's not.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]No it's not.[/QUOTE]
You're being deliberately obtuse. It was just a short time ago and the trajectory is still positive.

I'm disappointed that I have to re-post what I just posted three posts up:

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 70.88%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 80.81%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 116.01%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 10/08/2012: 13,583.65
Rate of Return: 107.48%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 10/08/2012: 1,455.88
Rate of Return: 115.20%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 10/08/2012: 3,112.35
Rate of Return: 145.30%

From another site:

There is no way to fairly tax people because there is no way to clearly define what "fair" is.
Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same amount? Is it fair to ask everyone to contribute the exact same percentage? Is it fairer to tax based on income or spending? Is it fair to ask single people to pay taxes for schools? Is it fair to tax Capital Gains? Is it fair to tax companies? Is it fair to tax Churches? Is it fair to tax Non-Profit Organizations?
This debate is a waste. We will never come to a consensus. There will ALWAYS be some people who are treated unfairly by taxing. So rather than sit here and waste our time trying to determine what is truly fair, why don't we just try to come up with a tax policy that shifts the burden away from those who are struggling to get by and onto those who will not have to change their lifestyle?

As a Hispanic, I find it insulting that Romney thinks I want free stuff. Fvck you, I'm not asking for handouts, I run my own small enterprise. All I'm asking is for the rich to kick in like the rest of us and for the GOP to stop using minorities as the boogeyman to gin up your ignorant racist base.

As long as the GOP continues this path, I will never ever vote for them...and I will make sure my friends and family do the same.