Barack Hussein Obama

[P@triot]

I've noticed that his supporters do nothing but list perceived soft skills (he's nice, he's patient, he's intelligent, etc.).

The only thing that truly matters are the results. And here are the FACTS with regards to the results from his policies and the results from conservative policy:

The first 3 years under Barack Obama (inheriting a mediocre economy):

1.) Added more to the national debt than all US Presidents in history combined during the same period

2.) Unemployment skyrocketed - the longest period of +8% unemployment sans the Great Depression.

3.) Energy prices skyrocketed - gas prices nearly tripled from the time he took office

4.) Erosion of freedoms - federal government now mandates that every citizen must engage in commerce with regards to health insurance

The first 3 years under Ronald Reagan (inheriting the second worse economy in US history):

1.) Grew the economy at a rate of 6%

2.) Unemployment was dropping like a rock from the double-digits experienced under Jimmy Carter. The US was creating 600,000 jobs per month

3.) Dropped inflation from 13.5% in 1980 to 5.1% in 1982

By the end of the Reagan Administration, the US had created over 20 million new jobs; expeirenced economic growth for 25 years like the nation had not seen in a century; and *produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in modern U.S. history (unemployment hit a 14 year low in June of 1988). As Reagan left office, the nation was experiencing its sixth consecutive year of economic prosperity.

 

[edthecynic]

I've noticed that his supporters do nothing but list perceived soft skills (he's nice, he's patient, he's intelligent, etc.).

The only thing that truly matters are the results. And here are the FACTS with regards to the results from his policies and the results from conservative policy:

The first 3 years under Barack Obama (inheriting a mediocre economy):

1.) Added more to the national debt than all US Presidents in history combined during the same period

2.) Unemployment skyrocketed - the longest period of +8% unemployment sans the Great Depression.

3.) Energy prices skyrocketed - gas prices nearly tripled from the time he took office

4.) Erosion of freedoms - federal government now mandates that every citizen must engage in commerce with regards to health insurance

The first 3 years under Ronald Reagan (inheriting the second worse economy in US history):

1.) Grew the economy at a rate of 6%

2.) Unemployment was dropping like a rock from the double-digits experienced under Jimmy Carter. The US was creating 600,000 jobs per month

3.) Dropped inflation from 13.5% in 1980 to 5.1% in 1982

By the end of the Reagan Administration, the US had created over 20 million new jobs; expeirenced economic growth for 25 years like the nation had not seen in a century; and *produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in modern U.S. history (unemployment hit a 14 year low in June of 1988). As Reagan left office, the nation was experiencing its sixth consecutive year of economic prosperity.

CON$ervoFascists know that all of that is a complete lie, but lying is the Holy Eucharist of CON$ervoFascism.

I highlighted some of the most obvious.
Obama inherited the worst economy since the Reagan Recession which at the time was the worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan CREATED the second worst recession, he didn't inherit it.
There was never a time during the Carter administration when unemployment was double digits. The highest it ever reached was 7.8%. Reagan on the other hand jacked UE up to 10.8% by the end of his second year. And that was the U-3 rate which CON$ tell us is much less that the real rate. CON$ say the real rate is more than double the U-3 rate which would probably make Reagan's real rate around 25%.
Reagan did not create 20 million new jobs, the most he created was 15 million as opposed to Clinton's 25 million.
Economic growth ended with the Bush I recession, hardly 25 years.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did obama inherit the economy when he was a member of the democratic controlled Senate when the economy crashed? That's like a home owner doing his own plumbing and not knowing what he's doing and does damage to his plumbing and blames the plumber that came to fix his mess.

 

[edthecynic]

How did obama inherit the economy when he was a member of the democratic controlled Senate when the economy crashed? That's like a home owner doing his own plumbing and not knowing what he's doing and does damage to his plumbing and blames the plumber that came to fix his mess.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that Bush was the president who wasn't president and a first year junior Senator was infinitely more powerful. :cockoo:

BTW, does that apply to St Ronnie also? Did the Dems win the Cold War, create 15 million jobs, etc.?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did obama inherit the economy when he was a member of the democratic controlled Senate when the economy crashed? That's like a home owner doing his own plumbing and not knowing what he's doing and does damage to his plumbing and blames the plumber that came to fix his mess.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that Bush was the president who wasn't president and a first year junior Senator was infinitely more powerful. :cockoo:

BTW, does that apply to St Ronnie also? Did the Dems win the Cold War, create 15 million jobs, etc.?

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

 

[edthecynic]

How did obama inherit the economy when he was a member of the democratic controlled Senate when the economy crashed? That's like a home owner doing his own plumbing and not knowing what he's doing and does damage to his plumbing and blames the plumber that came to fix his mess.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that Bush was the president who wasn't president and a first year junior Senator was infinitely more powerful. :cockoo:

BTW, does that apply to St Ronnie also? Did the Dems win the Cold War, create 15 million jobs, etc.?

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

One more time BUSH was president.

 

[Rozman]

He's overseen the largest increase in debt in the history of the world.

Heh ehh heh ...If Obama gets a second term can you picture him
going off teleprompter and he starts bitchin about the mess he inherited
from the prior administration.He has given that speech so often he just
stays with it.

Finally his suck up boot licking adviser Valerie Jarrett gets his attention and he
just stares off into space...and his staff has to get Michelle to take him back to the
residence.

 

[midcan5]

Not sure this thread qualifies for the Clean room as the immediate assumption is biased.

President Obama has attempted and in many ways changed America internally and externally, the nation after our last president was looked at as the 'Honey Boo Boo' nation. Remember the headlines in the British papers. One can argue, if they were fair, but results demonstration they were right. If I were to consider one thing that has had immediate help it is his Court appointees, the opposition wants control of government, and controlling law controls the nation and its people.

"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?" William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

 

[JakeStarkey]

Several quick contradictions concerning Rottweiler's posts underlines his mistaken material when put into content: 10.8% unemployment in RR's 34th month in office, raised taxes three times, raised the debt ceiling sixteen times, lied about Iran-Contra.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

Bush was president, not Obama.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

Bush was president, not Obama.

obama was a senator in the Democratic controlled congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry, I keep forgetting that Bush was the president who wasn't president and a first year junior Senator was infinitely more powerful. :cockoo:

BTW, does that apply to St Ronnie also? Did the Dems win the Cold War, create 15 million jobs, etc.?

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

One more time BUSH was president.

And? Who controls spending and legislation?

 

[Liability]

More on Topic (to support what I said earlier about the President):

"You know, a year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." -- Barack Hussein Obama in 2009.

Of course, the optimist that he is, he underestimated the GOP's disregard of the American people in their determined obstructionism. He foolishly expected the GOP to put country over Party when he made that statement.

It's so adorable and completely predictable that you looney loopey lefties are still going to refuse to accept that The ONE bears responsibility.

 

[edthecynic]

One more time how did obama inherit anything? He was part of the problem

One more time BUSH was president.

And? Who controls spending and legislation?

The president who signs the bills sent to his desk. Congress can only be responsible if it passes the bill over the president's veto. No veto, the president owns it, that's the rule CON$ have been using to credit Reagan economically for everything the Dems "controlled" in the 1980s.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time BUSH was president.

And? Who controls spending and legislation?

The president who signs the bills sent to his desk. Congress can only be responsible if it passes the bill over the president's veto. No veto, the president owns it, that's the rule CON$ have been using to credit Reagan economically for everything the Dems "controlled" in the 1980s.

The president can only spend what congress allows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush signed the bill. He owns it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reminder that this thread is in the CDZ folks.

Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, high gasoline prices, and a very high misery index when he took office. And in an effort to get things under control, he went along with the Democratic Congress's push to raise taxes in return for a promise of three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes.

We got the taxes. We didn't get the promised spending cuts. And the unemployment rate continued to rise to 9.5% in Reagans, second and third years. So he went over the head of Congress to the people who supported him in getting tax reform--reduction of tax rates--that brought the recession to an end and prompted a strong economic surge. Unemployment was back down to just over 7% in 1984. He carried every state but Mondale's Minnesota in that election and almost won that.

Throughout his second term, unemployement continued to fall to 5.4% when he left office and he handed George H.W. Bush a strong economy but unacceptable (for that time) deficits. Unfortunately President Bush 41 tried to deal with the deficits in the same way Reagan did--by raising taxes in return for promised spending cuts. Again we got the taxes without the cuts. The economy faltered, unemployement was increasing sharply, and it cost Bush that election.

Clinton raised taxes in his first two years with poor results, but when the GOP reformers took over Congress in 1994, the tax rates were again brought down, the economy soared (with some help from the dot.com bubble) and unemployment came down. They also managed to balance the budget for the first time in a very long time.

George W. Bush early on had to deal with 9/11 and later on Katrina, plus the costs of two wars; however his tax reforms put the economy on an even keel and we did well until the housing bubble crash of 2008.

I can't find a single thing in Obama's resume for the past four years that has made anything better, and he seems to be hell bent on policy that will make things worse. On purpose? There is a great deal of speculation about that, but whatever the motives may or may not be, I don't want another four years of making things worse.

 

[edthecynic]

Reminder that this thread is in the CDZ folks.

Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, high gasoline prices, and a very high misery index when he took office. And in an effort to get things under control, he went along with the Democratic Congress's push to raise taxes in return for a promise of three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes.

We got the taxes. We didn't get the promised spending cuts. And the unemployment rate continued to rise to 9.5% in Reagans, second and third years. So he went over the head of Congress to the people who supported him in getting tax reform--reduction of tax rates--that brought the recession to an end and prompted a strong economic surge. Unemployment was back down to just over 7% in 1984. He carried every state but Mondale's Minnesota in that election and almost won that.

Throughout his second term, unemployement continued to fall to 5.4% when he left office and he handed George H.W. Bush a strong economy but unacceptable (for that time) deficits. Unfortunately President Bush 41 tried to deal with the deficits in the same way Reagan did--by raising taxes in return for promised spending cuts. Again we got the taxes without the cuts. The economy faltered, unemployement was increasing sharply, and it cost Bush that election.

Clinton raised taxes in his first two years with poor results, but when the GOP reformers took over Congress in 1994, the tax rates were again brought down, the economy soared (with some help from the dot.com bubble) and unemployment came down. They also managed to balance the budget for the first time in a very long time.

George W. Bush early on had to deal with 9/11 and later on Katrina, plus the costs of two wars; however his tax reforms put the economy on an even keel and we did well until the housing bubble crash of 2008.

I can't find a single thing in Obama's resume for the past four years that has made anything better, and he seems to be hell bent on policy that will make things worse. On purpose? There is a great deal of speculation about that, but whatever the motives may or may not be, I don't want another four years of making things worse.

Talk about revisionist history!!!!!

St Ronnie CUT taxes his FIRST year and unemployment soared from 7.6% to 10.8% by the end of his second year. Reagan then RAISED taxes, the largest peacetime tax increase in history, and the economy recovered. And it was Reagan who welshed on the spending cuts because he would not go along with cuts to his Star Wars boondoggle!!! If you remember Senator Dole gave him hell when he would not support the deal he had worked out with Tip O'Neill.

And Clinton's tax reforms, which raised taxes on the rich and cut them on the middle class, are what got the economy moving again. The GOP had nothing to do with it as not a single one voted for it. After it succeeded the GOP then tried to take credit for it, at least until the tech bubble burst and then suddenly it was Clinton's economy again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, there was a tax cut in 1981 followed by a series of tax increases throughout Reagan's tenure. I believe the unemployment rate did not exceed 9.5% (both in 82 and 83) however. And had dropped to something over 7% by 1984 and we had close to full employment when he left office. (With 5% considered essentially full employment at that time.)

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

The tax increases were to deal with deficits resulting from massive spending, mostly to rebuild the military that Carter had so decimated to the point it was almost gutted. Reagan rebuilt our defense capabilities, increased military pay and veteran's benefits, and made us again so powerful that the U.S.S.R. could not keep pace and bankrupted itself trying.

The fact remains that Reagan was able to create a positive spirit in America again and that is why he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. And if you look at the maps that included almost all the counties in all those states too. He carried 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.6%.
And he did it with one simple line: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Do you think Barack Obama would dare use that line this year?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, there was a tax cut in 1981 followed by a series of tax increases throughout Reagan's tenure. I believe the unemployment rate did not exceed 9.5% (both in 82 and 83) however. And had dropped to something over 7% by 1984 and we had close to full employment when he left office. (With 5% considered essentially full employment at that time.)

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

The tax increases were to deal with deficits resulting from massive spending, mostly to rebuild the military that Carter had so decimated to the point it was almost gutted. Reagan rebuilt our defense capabilities, increased military pay and veteran's benefits, and made us again so powerful that the U.S.S.R. could not keep pace and bankrupted itself trying.

The fact remains that Reagan was able to create a positive spirit in America again and that is why he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. And if you look at the maps that included almost all the counties in all those states too. He carried 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.6%.
And he did it with one simple line: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Do you think Barack Obama would dare use that line this year?

There it is, the Right chooses to "believe" their disinformation even after they were told the truth!!! St Ronnie's unemployment peaked at 10.8% in both November and December of 1982.

Carter decimated nothing in the military and Reagan ran up the generational debt on boondoggles like Star Wars, not rebuilding the already most powerful in the world American military. The USSR was collapsing from within independent of Reagan and would have fallen without Reagan bankrupting this country. Reagan turned America from a creditor nation into a permanent debtor nation.