Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 8

Originally Posted by BR

And the Republicans have done their best to keep the unemployment numbers high and the economic recovery low.

Originally Posted by BR

The fabricated debt crisis and abject refusal to compromise says otherwise. Holding the country hostage and ultimately getting our credit rating lowered says otherwise.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Reality is that Obama is in deep trouble any way you look at it. I'll repost some data that clearly demonstrates this:

1. Official unemployment is 8.5%. No President has been reelected with more than 7% unemployment other than Reagan. His was 7.2% but was falling rapidly.

2. Real unemployment is at least 11% because of workers that have stopped looking for work.

3. Obama presided over the first ever downgrade of U.S. credit and the accumulation of more debt in four years than all other Presidents combined.

4. The deficit is now 4 times higher than it was at its highest during the Bush administration.

5. Obama's poll numbers have improved slightly, but he still hovers around 45% at best. If he doesn't get to at least 49%, reelection becomes extremely unlikely.

6. Polling data indicates that 75% of the American public believes the nation is on the wrong track. Consumer confidence and optimism about the economy are very low.

7. Party identification is up for Republicans and down for Democrats.

8. Independents have left Obama in droves. They got him elected in 2008. His numbers are now down by as much as 20 points.

9. Obama's approval among blacks has dropped from 83 to 58 percent.

10. It's the economy, stupid.



I didn't post that, you did.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Dailycaller.com

Wow, that is quite the change and tone and bipartisanship we all expected.

Obama's getting sued.

Now we know from Herman Cain that no one sues unless you've really done something wrong.

What a week for Obama, soldiers urinating, being sued, unemployment claims jump, and don't forget needing another $1.2 trillion!

Originally Posted by trumptman

I don't care if you trash them. This isn't about some talking head pushing some meme. The reality is the man is being sued.

TransCanada Corp. said it will reapply for the Keystone XL permit, after the U.S. State Department denied its current application.

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Originally Posted by Frank777

If you actually lived here, you would know that has always been Plan B.

Your glorious leader was told that to his face by our Prime Minister himself, and the plans are already in the works.

China is pushing this fast because American interests want to stall the project until Obama is gone.

It's probably cheaper just to wait, but I think enough Canadians are tired of hitching our economic boat to the U.S.

Originally Posted by jimmac

The reality here is you trying to find any little thing because your goal as the GOP's goal is to get Obama out of there at any cost.

It doesn't matter what he does.

He's a Democrat

who took over after 8 years of the worst president ever

and Republicans can't stand it.

That's the reality.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I wouldn't say any cost, but it is pretty damn important.



At this point, that's actually true...but not for the reason you may think. I've seen enough to have made my mind up. He sucks. That being said, it did matter what his actions were in the past. Those actions are the basis for my dislike of him.



Yes, jimmac...it's all just partisanship! It's just that he has a (D) behind his name! Really, not even you can believe this. Even his own party doesn't like him. It's about WHAT he's done and HOW he's done it.



That's just stupid. Bush is not even close to "the worst President ever." If you disagree, let's see some quantifiable data to prove it. This is where your inability to be objective shows.




I can't stand his polices and to an extent, the personality that comes through.



It's easy for you to believe that, because then you don't have to continue to defend this unmitigated failure of a President. He's a failure in nearly every area, from the economy, to fiscal policy, to national security, to his functions as Head of State. You know it. I know it. And fortunately, the majority of voters know it.

At this point, that's actually true

Originally Posted by jimmac

It's been that way from the start. You and trumpy know that.

Not that it matters much as Obama will probably get a second term.

The GOP candidates are such buffoons.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's not true. Despite not voting for Obama for many reasons, I had high hopes for him. I had hoped that he governed the way he campaigned....competent, smart, collected, and pragmatic. He turned out to be as bad as the caricature that the GOP painted of him...if not worse.



That's not what the numbers say, jimmac.



Buffoons? Is Romney a Buffoon? Gingrich? They are both very intelligent and successful men. Gingrich is quite brilliant, actually. I understand you disagree with them, but they most certainly not buffoons.

Despite not voting for Obama for many reasons, I had high hopes for him

That's not what the numbers say, jimmac.

Originally Posted by trumptman

ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR TRILLION AGO?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That is an outrageous, completely baseless charge.

Originally Posted by marvfox

Bush got us into this mess when he was president regarding the economy and the wars which were costing us billions for nothing. That was a Republican for you.Obama is no saint either.

Originally Posted by jimmac

From the start you have never expressed that here. Just the opposite. If I'm wrong please link to where ok? Otherwise stop trying to tell me something I know isn't true.

Which numbers are those SDW? I've seen plenty that say the opposite so if you really have something damning that's more recent let me know. Ok?

A little something for you to chew on : http://www.gallup.com/video/152036/S...GOP-Steer.aspx
And yeah Newt!

Originally Posted by marvfox

Bush got us into this mess when he was president regarding the economy and the wars which were costing us billions for nothing. That was a Republican for you.Obama is no saint either.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The total cost of the wars is less than our current annual deficit. Now tell me, what did he do to harm the economy again?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Wrong. I have posted this multiple times. Go look it up.



I've posted these numbers many times. Don't be obtuse.



Yep, that's pretty much your M.O. Post one poll or favorable Obama story and claim that it's definitive proof of your argument. Meanwhile, every other indicator shows the opposite. Unemployment. Right/Wrong track. State by state polling. Consumer confidence. Foreclosures. Welfare numbers. The list goes on.

Wrong. I have posted this multiple times. Go look it up.

I've posted these numbers many times. Don't be obtuse

Originally Posted by tonton

And the boat that you buy (when you don't need a boat) can be the purchase that leads you into bankruptcy, even if your decline into bankruptcy causes you to spend multiples more in reasonable investment to try and save yourself from it.

Originally Posted by jimmac

No SDW. You made the claim it's your duty to provide proof of your claim. Why you never get that ( well I know why you're counting on me not wanting to do the work you should be doing ).

I've posted numbers for you as well. Which you ignored.

And the other thing you're are ignoring is that all of these GOP candidates are only loved by 30% of the country. The hardcore other versions of you!

Also the voters aren't as stupid as you think.

They know where this debacle ( and yet you want to let Dubbya off the hook ) all started. He had 8 years to do something about this and during that time we were saying " There's nobody at the wheel ". You totally ignored that and tried to tll us how good things were about the economy " surging " I believe you said. Until of course the bottom fell out from under everything. And you think they want to let another one of those guys ( that have no pity for the middleclass or poor ) at bat?

Obama's had half the time to deal with this mess ( and had the party of " No " to deal with in congress as well ). Only an idiot would vote for them under these circumstances.

Trumpy's new signature asks if you were better off? I ask when were you better off? Oh yeah! That was when a Democrat who balanced the budget and left us with a surplus was in charge. In the same amount of time Dubbya was in charge no less.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're a real piece of work tonton. Obama runs 1.6 trillion deficits. The total cost of both wars was less than that. And yet someone they "bankrupted" us. Got it.

Originally Posted by BR

Bush kept much of the cost of both wars off the books. You have been alerted of this incontrovertible fact NUMEROUS times. You still ignore it. This makes you the true "real piece of work."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let me get this straight: You call me liar. Then you tell me if I want you to not think I'm a liar, I have to go provide examples of my own posts. Riiiiight. \



Excellent. Let's see them again.



People with conservative views outnumber those with liberal views to the tune of about 10-15 percentage points. The rest are moderates.



I never claimed they were stupid.



The economy was surging. Unemployment was low. Home values were up. Deficits were far smaller than today. Revenue to the government set records. Now, what precisely did Bush do to harm the economy? And no, "no one at the wheel" is not an answer. It's also demonstrably false.



Obama has made the situation far worse, from food stamps to unemployment...from deficits to debt, from GDP growth to regulation. No one blames Obama for the mess he inherited. It is his ACTIONS since taking office that are the problem.

As for the "party of no," that is nothing more than a talking point. Given your inability to think originally, I'm not surprised you used it. The reality is that Obama negotiated with them in bad faith. They passed bill after bill, and the Democrats (the actual party of no) killed them in the Senate. Tell me jimmac, was the GOP the "party of no" on the keystone pipeline? Hmmm?



Yes, jimmac...let's ignore that fact that Clinton wasn't the one who actually did those things. The GOP did those things, and Clinton got a lot of the credit, just as he did for the economy. Yet just as you can't tell me what Bush did wrong, you can't tell me what Clinton did right on the economy. That's because you don't know. You just put on your blue jersey and yell "go team!"

Let me get this straight: You call me liar

let's ignore that fact that Clinton wasn't the one who actually did those things.

The reality is that Obama negotiated with them in bad faith. They passed bill after bill,

That's because you don't know.

Originally Posted by Frank777

By "Emergency Spending Bills" I assume you are conceding that these were under legislation approved by Congress and never actually hidden from public scrutiny?

Emergency Designations Have Been Used as Budget Gimmicks

In other cases, supplemental appropriations increased because emergency designations have been abused. The practice of exempting emergency spending from budget allocations has created a tempting budget gimmick, which has not been lost on policymakers from either party.

For example, until the President’s FY 2010 budget request, much of the funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was funded entirely through emergency appropriations. Funding the war using emergency spending was a gimmick that had the effect of removing billions of dollars of likely military expenditures from the spending totals in the President’s budget.

Improvements in the President’s Budget and the Senate Budget Resolution

While recent trends in emergency spending have not been encouraging, it is worth noting that the budgets President Obama has proposed over the last two years have included requests that more accurately reflect anticipated emergency spending. The budgets for FY 2010 and FY 2011 included funding for military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the base defense request. They also included estimates for emergency spending that could be needed due to natural disasters. While these steps will not eliminate the need for supplemental spending for these purposes, the practice of budgeting for emergency spending rather than pretending it doesn’t exist is a fiscally responsible approach that should be continued.

It is also encouraging that the Senate Budget Committee recently reported a budget resolution that includes a committee amendment strengthening the emergency designation point of order. Sec. 303 of the resolution included a new requirement that an emergency designation be accompanied by a document with signatures of 16 senators affirming that the emergency designation meets the proper criteria (necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent). While more comprehensive reforms will still be needed to prevent the abuse of emergency spending, this requirement is a positive development that could add transparency and accountability. Making such additional improvements could also help restore public trust in government and the appropriations process.

Originally Posted by BR

Now, Frank, you are being misleading here. They were hidden from the budget deficit totals.

Thanks Jimmac, you beat me to it.