Daniels Light
Posts: 4,911
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
I'm saying that congress, dominated by liberal, progressive, Keynesian democrats and their propaganda machine dog piled on Bush and rendered him totally useless after they took over both houses of congress in 2006.
Remember these people?
Politics Of Personal Destruction. That's how obama won in 2008.
Since he doesn't have GWBush as a whipping boy in 2012, obama is going to have to run on his own record, which is a colossal failure.
This is obama's big problem right now.
That's too sad. Republican Presidents are led around by the nose by the mean old Democrats. Doesn't give much reason to elect another one, does it?
Daniels Light wrote: That's too sad. Republican Presidents are led around by the nose by the mean old Democrats. Doesn't give much reason to elect another one, does it?
Not only republicans.
Our process for electing the best and brightest amongst us, to lead us as a nation, has some serious flaws and often produces cons and frauds who are poor choices.
Lots of people are thoroughly disgusted and totally fed up with obama and his loons too. You can count on it.
No the dems had the house and senate for 2 years before Obama took the Whitehouse
Seems the repubs were blaming Clinton for the start of the recession yet they controlled house and senate for the last 2 years and then for 6 more years had decent control of all three houses.. Yet it was 2 years of Dems that caused all these problems.. AMAZING!!!
Tropical Photography wrote: Seems the repubs were blaming Clinton for the start of the recession yet they controlled house and senate for the last 2 years and then for 6 more years had decent control of all three houses.. Yet it was 2 years of Dems that caused all these problems.. AMAZING!!!
Maybe obama can blame the incoming romney administration in advance?
Seems the repubs were blaming Clinton for the start of the recession yet they controlled house and senate for the last 2 years and then for 6 more years had decent control of all three houses.. Yet it was 2 years of Dems that caused all these problems.. AMAZING!!!
Seems the repubs were blaming Clinton for the start of the recession yet they controlled house and senate for the last 2 years and then for 6 more years had decent control of all three houses.. Yet it was 2 years of Dems that caused all these problems.. AMAZING!!!
here we go with the whole well your party did this and that and finger pointing and waving their dicks around. Both party's have fucked us and if you are to stupid to know this you deserve this shit and to be fucked more.
00siris wrote: Sure did.
And Mr. Kessler himself is just a guy with a perspective. In his very article he makes a conclusion about a specific notion but not what was being argued by Carney.
j3_photo wrote: Perspective?? Ha! He cited actual facts/number. Not like the OP link. You're funny.
Then let's take a look - shall we?
Here is Jay Carney's statement (which even Kessler recognizes) ... “I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness ...
“the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.”
While Kessler thinks Rex Nutting's numbers were inaccurate, your darling Politifact thinks it's just fine. You can read it for yourself.
So, like I said it's just one man's perspective.
But let's look deeper at Kessler's argument. He did all that prestidigitation and concluded that Alex Nutting's number of 1.4 trillion was really more like 3.6 trillion, but guess what? Jay Carney's statement is true even with Kessler's numbers yet he gave Nutting three Pinocchio's as if Carney recited the exact numbers.
And Carney was also right right about lazy journalists simply allowing conservatives a platform to spew complete lies without themselves checking the facts.
Daniels Light
Posts: 4,911
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Well, all we know for sure - according to Mr. Hamilton - is that Republican Presidents are worthless at standing up against the mighty, mean Democrat lady. Since she will still be in Congress after the next election, putting Romney in the Oval Office would be a complete waste of time.
AOP Studios wrote: Amen! But the retards that make up this country will always have something to say and make up crap...like birth certificates, who his mommy and daddy are, oh "that black man!", trying to help the whole and not the part, whatever. I hate both parties but I see thru the BS.
So, for those of you who actually believe this stuff (and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of you do), I ask this: Doesn't this upset you, that your dear leader promised to take gobs of money away from the evil productive ones in our society and redistribute it to the other group... and he (according to this) didn't do much of that at all. He had the power to do so, and you believe he's a great leader, and as such still has the power to do whatever he wants. These numbers don't reflect much of an effort to spend big on infrastructure, programs for the "needy", education, or any of the other things he promised. I would be furious if I was one of those Dems who believed his promises.
Kozmina
Posts: 6,515
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
Maybe obama can blame the incoming romney administration in advance?
You saying Romney won't jump all over blaming Obama for any and every lil thing that goes wrong if he were to win? I'd be willing to bet anything that if Romney wins,we'll be hearing him blame Obama for the next 4yrs.
Politicians blame their predecessor's,it's how they roll.
Daniels Light
Posts: 4,911
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I don't recall any previous president blaming his predecessor, do you?
Guess you're not old enough to remember the whole first three years of the Reagan Presidency when Ron's approval ratings were in the low 40s. Carter was the whipping boy of the Republicans for years.
Daniels Light
Posts: 4,911
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
So, for those of you who actually believe this stuff (and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of you do), I ask this: Doesn't this upset you, that your dear leader promised to take gobs of money away from the evil productive ones in our society and redistribute it to the other group... and he (according to this) didn't do much of that at all. He had the power to do so, and you believe he's a great leader, and as such still has the power to do whatever he wants. These numbers don't reflect much of an effort to spend big on infrastructure, programs for the "needy", education, or any of the other things he promised. I would be furious if I was one of those Dems who believed his promises.
Obama was talking a 3% increase on the top wage earners - hardly a money grab of epic proportions considering taxes had been higher under Reagan and Clinton.
Kozmina
Posts: 6,515
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I should have known better than to ask a liberal a serious question in response to her goofy "statement".
First of all,I'm an Independent not a Liberal.I also have far more conservative views than you may think.Just because I do not agree with most of the conservatives in SB,doesn't mean I do not have conservative views.I generally disagree with the rightwingers in SB because of their delivery,not really the points they are sadly trying to make.
Second,you asking such a ridiculous question is a perfect example of the type of BS I am talking about in my first paragraph.You know damn well that everybody in politics blames the guy that held office prior to them.
SAND DIAL
Posts: 5,965
Santa Monica, California, US
'These numbers don't reflect much of an effort to spend big on infrastructure, programs for the "needy", education, or any of the other things he promised. I would be furious if I was one of those Dems who believed his promises.'
Shovel Ready Jobs.
Solendra [?].
et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Daniels Light
Posts: 4,911
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
SAND DIAL wrote:
Is 'The Plan' to add another 20 million peeps to USA this decade? Some say 30,000,000.
Jobs are being lost!!! Who gives a ****.
If you think there is a population problem, talk to the Republicans who shelved, "Jobs, jobs, jobs," and replaced it with bills trying to reduce the availability of contraception.
Daniels Light wrote: Guess you're not old enough to remember the whole first three years of the Reagan Presidency when Ron's approval ratings were in the low 40s. Carter was the whipping boy of the Republicans for years.
I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter. In fact, I was bussed to the Shahyad Monument to greet him when he arrived in Tehran to meet with the Shah a few months before he was forced to abdicate by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski in favor of their ridiculous and naive PC choice of Ayatollah Khomeini. That's as dumb as setting up the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt.
For the record, Jimmy Carter was a one term president for good reason, and is widely recognized as being the worst president in recent US history.
Obama is now challenging him for that title.
Abysmal Failure vs. Unmitigated Disaster. I think as far as legacies go, obama is going to easily win this one against Jimmy Carter.
You saying Romney won't jump all over blaming Obama for any and every lil thing that goes wrong if he were to win? I'd be willing to bet anything that if Romney wins,we'll be hearing him blame Obama for the next 4yrs.
Politicians blame their predecessor's,it's how they roll.
What would you like to wager on that?
After the first 90 days few Presidents mention their predicessors, in fact it is rare after 30 days to blame the guy you took over from. PBO is the exception.
Kozmina
Posts: 6,515
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
Robert Helm wrote:
What would you like to wager on that?
After the first 90 days few Presidents mention their predicessors, in fact it is rare after 30 days to blame the guy you took over from. PBO is the exception.
Ok,I'll rephrase-Presidents blame "former administration's actions" all the time and I'm sure Romney will place blame also.
Maybe Obama has played the "blame game" a little too much but he did get handed a huge pile of crap and he has had to deal with a LOT of resistance.Resistance that does not always stem from beliefs that are based in factual wrong-doings he has commited.Not an excuse but still a factor to be considered when judging Obama's actions,IMO.
What about the things being done that are current where blame can't be passed back 4-16 years? Do we continue to ignore those and praise someone who can't get us back up to where we need to be?
Let's focus on NOW rather than years ago and discuss how the country is being ran today.
Ok,I'll rephrase-Presidents blame "former administration's actions" all the time and I'm sure Romney will place blame also.
Maybe Obama has played the "blame game" a little too much but he did get handed a huge pile of crap and he has had to deal with a LOT of resistance.Resistance that does not always stem from beliefs that are based in factual wrong-doings he has commited.Not an excuse but still a factor to be considered when judging Obama's actions,IMO.
GCobb Photography wrote: What about the things being done that are current where blame can't be passed back 4-16 years? Do we continue to ignore those and praise someone who can't get us back up to where we need to be?
Let's focus on NOW rather than years ago and discuss how the country is being ran today.
Facts? Ain't no facts to be had in this world anymore! Show off a graph and someone else will just make another graph, proving you wrong... then someone else will go make another graph to prove THAT one wrong. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Why don't we just admit it. We just love to argue and the truth is that there is no basis behind any of this shit except the human need to thrive on discord.
Tallying that up, the Wall Street Journal editorial board concluded: “To anyone who really knows the numbers, Mr. Obama’s spending has increased by closer to 5% a year,” as opposed to the 1.4 percent in the MarketWatch numbers. The Republican National Committee touted the Journal’s figure in its rebuttal of Obama’s point.
The problem with that is 5 percent is still low by historical standards. That’s especially true of modern Republican presidents: President George W. Bush’s two terms saw spending increases of 7.3 and 8.1 percent, respectively; President George H.W. Bush’s figure was 5.4 percent and President Ronald Reagan’s were 8.7 and 4.9 percent. (Spending increases under President Bill Clinton were under 4 percent.)
ernst tischler wrote: Please repost with an overlay of what party controlled congress during each of those periods of time.
If you are going to use "facts"...please post ALL the facts.
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote: I hear Obama's spending is out of control. Which party controls congress now?
Are you saying the chart supports the Republicans currently in Congress?
I was not being political or defending either side, I was advocating telling the whole story, not just what happens to suit the agenda of the person posting.
![http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/05/21/Photos/ME/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6]](http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/05/21/Photos/ME/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6])
| 
| 
| edu