The 2012 Election Is Not About Obama's Record

By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record

This has to be the dumbest thing you've cut and pasted yet, Shitting Bull....

He posts it on the pretense of showing this to the right, but really it's just an attempt to get more on the left to buy into it and rally the troops to be relentless in their attacks...it backfired in '08, '10, and will just continue to make people who didn't formerly give a lot of consideration to race, now are sick and tired of being labeled a racist and will shun the party who plays that game.
 
What's become so creepy about that bullshit is that back in '08, I really believed that it was just a pathetic game that the left was playing to fuck with the opposition...now it's become increasingly clear that too many people on the left actually believe it themselves.:cuckoo:
Not everyone's an illiterate bubblehead/bimbo.


January 13, 2008

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."


:rolleyes:

I guess you & Snookie Palin missed this one.​
 
I am honored to present this award to the OP you have truly earned it.
dumb-ass-award.jpg
 
BTW, Shitting Bull gets paid 10 cents by the DNC for every leftist link he/she/it cuts & pastes here...

Some people have to make a living in this crappy 0nama economy.....
 
For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in. Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts. In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.

4524250851_8a16aebb74.jpg


10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts | Crooks and Liars

I'm still waiting for you wingnut geniuses to give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. Waiting...
 
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record

:lmao:.......................:eusa_hand:................................:lmao:
 
For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in. Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts. In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.

4524250851_8a16aebb74.jpg


10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts | Crooks and Liars

I'm still waiting for you wingnut geniuses to give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. Waiting...
Try giving a source that is not so clearly partisan do you really expect anyone to take a site called crooks and liars serious. That would be the same as me using a site called morons and idiots to back alleged Democrat lies you want someone to take you serious stop acting like a wingnut and posting things like this as a source.
 
For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in. Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts. In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.

4524250851_8a16aebb74.jpg


10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts | Crooks and Liars

This old argument...... You are aware that the 2 WARS were PAID for and included in the debt numbers for all 8 years of Bush's Presidency right? RIGHT? They did not just suddenly appear in 2009 with no accounting for the intervening years.

As to a budget? So be so kind as to point us to a budget past by Obama. The 2009 Budget was created by the Democrats in 2008 and then added to by the stimulus. And yet Bush only racked up 5 to 6 trillion in 8 years. Obama has matched and exceeded that in 4. He has set new deficit amounts every year of his Presidency. The Democrats have refused to pass a budget in the hopes they can hide from the blame for the debt. The Democrats have owned the deficit since 2007 when they took over Congress. And low and behold what 2 years was Bush deepest in debt? 2007 and 2008.

If you can claim Bush is responsible for debt created funded and voted on by majority Dem Congresses and 2 additional years of the Senate being run by the Democrats then guess what? Obama gets blamed for his 4 years.
 
Whatever the cost, some experts say that it wasn't what was financed in the Iraq War but how it was financed that is problematic.

"The problem is not the impact on the GDP. It basically was financed through debt, which is a completely different issue," says Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"It's really the decision of how to pay for it that has had such a negative effect on the U.S. economy. Because unlike any previous war in U.S. history, this was paid for entirely by debt at the same time that we cut taxes," says Bilmes. While entitlements and other mandatory spending make up a majority of annual federal budgets and contribute heavily to deficits and debt, the Iraq War also contributed significantly. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.

More: What Did the Iraq War Cost? More Than You Think. - US News and World Report
 
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.
Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record
:badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin::badgrin:
 
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., Carl Davidson

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

Much More: The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record

Oh brother!

i hear ya.....but get used to it.....dipshits like Lkunta will keep on saying....." you dont want him there because he is black"......
 
Playing the white guilt race card and saying that after 3 1/2 years of his failed policies he still has no resonsibity for the disaster, incredible. What this election is going to be about is.......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc]Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube[/ame]


Thanks, Mitch!


:eusa_clap:

did he mention because the guy is black?......i dont think i heard that.....did i miss that Shamen?....
 
Iraq War Lives on as Second-Costliest U.S. Conflict Fuels Debt

By Mike Dorning

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The war in Iraq is officially over. The costs will go on.

Eight years of dodging improvised explosive devices, repelling insurgent ambushes and quelling sectarian strife already has drained the U.S. of more treasure than any conflict in the nation’s history except World War II.

Even though the last U.S. combat troops have left Iraq, American taxpayers will face decades of additional expenses, from veterans’ health care and disability benefits to interest on the debt accumulated to finance the war.

“Those costs are going to build for years,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based research group.

That burden will come amid growing concern about the federal government’s debt, with cuts to popular programs such as Medicare and to national defense being debated. Spending so far on the war and related interest payments make up about a tenth of the U.S. Treasury’s $10.4 trillion in publicly held debt.

Direct federal spending on the war through 2012 will reach $823 billion, surpassing the $738 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. spent on the Vietnam War, the Congressional Research Service estimated in a March 29 report. Only World War II had a higher direct cost, $4.1 trillion, in current dollars.

Not counted in that is the interest of more than $200 billion the federal government has already had to pay on the resulting debt, said Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Bilmes also estimates the price over the next 40 years of health care and disability compensation for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts will be almost $1 trillion.

“The veterans’ costs in particular will dwarf the other budget costs,” said Bilmes, who was an assistant commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton.

More: Iraq War Lives on as Second-Costliest U.S. Conflict Fuels Debt - Businessweek
 
He has one or two good things to which he can point. Top of the list: he authorized the action that took out Osama bin Laden.

But beyond that and a couple of related actions along such lines, his record has been one of abject fail after abject fail.

Even his "wins" are fails -- like ObamaCrap.

The economy is in DIRE straights and by HIS own metric he does not merit a second term.

The GOP cannot simply run AGAINST him and his horrid record. I agree with that.

But running against the Obama Record of almost total FAIL is certainly a big PART of this campaign. And it should be.
 
8. Add interest. The U.S. has borrowed most of the funds used to wage the Iraq war. We will have to repay this debt with interest. If we include in our tally the interest payable on what we are borrowing over only the next 10 years, this adds another $615 billion to the price tag, and brings the total budgetary cost of the Iraq war into the neighborhood of $2.8 trillion.

The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair
 
The credit card war
The Iraq war, says economist Joseph Stiglitz, is “the first U.S. war financed entirely on credit.” When the war started, the Bush administration said it would cost no more than $60 billion. But the U.S. budget was already in deficit, so the administration had to borrow money to finance the invasion. About 40 percent of the money was borrowed from China and other international investors—the first time since the Revolutionary War that foreigners financed a U.S. war. At the same time, the administration and Congress lowered taxes instead of raising them, as is customary in wartime. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, which encouraged middle-class Americans to go on a consumption binge financed by credit cards and home-equity loans. Today, say Stiglitz and other economists, the bills for the country’s spending spree are starting to come due, in the form of higher prices, a weakened dollar, and lower living standards. “There’s no such thing as a free war,” Stiglitz said. “The U.S.—and the world—will be paying the price for decades to come.”

Briefing: The Iraq money pit - The Week
 
Well the article doesn't surprise me, it's what the leftist pricks want you all to believe.

For me it's simple, if Obama wins this country is probably forever lost, and we will be just another mediocre country that takes from the inovators, the inventors, the entrepeneurs and gives to the unproductive who view the government safety net as a hammock, and have no motivation to personally progress further.

It's really unfortunate that liberalism came to America. With so many other places around the world that would fit the needs of these socialistic morons, it would have been wonderful for the dreamers, the inovators, to have a place to go, to grow up in, that keeps the government from stealing it all, and killing the hopes and dreams of the visionaries.

Once Obama's vision of America is firmly planted, like dogs the citizens quickly become trained and addicted to view their lot in life through the view of government glasses.
 

Forum List

Back
Top