Tom Sweetnam
Platinum Member
Almost every time he opened his mouth in the 2011 State of the Union Address, he was lying. How about this year?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was just as bad this time.Almost every time he opened his mouth in the 2011 State of the Union Address, he was lying. How about this year?
He has nothing to lose at this point i don't know why people act like he does. He Can basically do what he wants as this is his second term and Veto everything he disagrees with.
He has nothing to lose at this point i don't know why people act like he does. He Can basically do what he wants as this is his second term and Veto everything he disagrees with.
What he has to lose is his legacy. It's already tarnished. If he vetoes everything the duly elected representatives of the House and Senate send him he will see that legacy go up in flames.
Whether liberals like it or not, the mid terms were an overwhelming rejection of Obama's policies. President Clinton had the gravitas to understand that when it happened to him and he turned his whole Presidency around by working positively with Congress and the Senate.
Count the number of words and divide by 3.Almost every time he opened his mouth in the 2011 State of the Union Address, he was lying. How about this year?
He has nothing to lose at this point i don't know why people act like he does. He Can basically do what he wants as this is his second term and Veto everything he disagrees with.
What he has to lose is his legacy. It's already tarnished. If he vetoes everything the duly elected representatives of the House and Senate send him he will see that legacy go up in flames.
Whether liberals like it or not, the mid terms were an overwhelming rejection of Obama's policies. President Clinton had the gravitas to understand that when it happened to him and he turned his whole Presidency around by working positively with Congress and the Senate.
He's been trying to work with them for six years. The election was only overwhelming if you don't consider the tiny number of people who voted. Not many more than you would expect in an election for Homecoming Queen.
But a drop in average hourly earnings last month, after a healthy gain in November, sidetracked hopes that a tighter labor market was beginning to lead to broader wage gains.
Claim: "Today, fewer than 15,000 remain"State and USAID: The FY 2014 civilian foreign assistance request of nearly $2.2 billion for Afghanistan
“The idea that the median American has so much more income than the middle class in all other parts of the world is not true these days,” said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist who is not associated with LIS. “In 1960, we were massively richer than anyone else. In 1980, we were richer. In the 1990s, we were still richer.” That is no longer the case, Professor Katz added.
Median per capita income was $18,700 in the United States in 2010 (which translates to about $75,000 for a family of four after taxes), up 20 percent since 1980 but virtually unchanged since 2000, after adjusting for inflation. The same measure, by comparison, rose about 20 percent in Britain between 2000 and 2010 and 14 percent in the Netherlands. Median income also rose 20 percent in Canada between 2000 and 2010, to the equivalent of $18,700.
United Airlines is assessing whether to outsource jobs at airports around the country in a cost-cutting effort that could affect some 2,000 workers.
The recovery has been disappointing from the perspective of pay. From early 2010 through mid-2014, while the economy gained a little more than 9 million jobs, the fastest growth came in the low-paying accommodation and food sector; this year the average annual wages in the sector are just under $21,000.
But the spike in part-time work since the recession has been largely involuntary. These workers may have had their hours cut or are unable to find full-time jobs, earning them the official designation of “part-time for economic reasons.” In June, their ranks swelled by 275,000 to 7.5 million. In 2007, 4.4 million people fell into this category.
In fact, Congress recently weakened The Volcker Rule, which aimed to prohibit some forms of risky trading by banks. And now the Republican-controlled House and Senate vow to further roll back the Volcker Rule and other provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform.
Brown represents one of the more than 1.2 million households lost to the recession, according to a report issued this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association that looked at data between 2005 and 2008. That number doesn’t include information from 2009, when job losses and foreclosures continued to rise.
So it's likely that the full impact of the 8.4 million jobs lost and nearly three million homes foreclosed on since the recession began has taken an even bigger toll on the number of American households.
The new budget provision once again acts as a promise that taxpayers will foot the bill for risky trading and speculation, Kelleher said.
“If things go wrong, [the banks] get to run to the Fed for bailouts. That’s incredibly valuable to them,” he said.
The surprise in the budget move is that everyone but banks considered the matter already settled.
The Dodd-Frank rule dictated that banks would have to find new homes for their risk-taking unit to prevent them from taking risks with customer deposits. Even so, mistakes occurred.
But Obamacare tackled only half of the problem. American health care, warns Mr Brill, is still jeopardised by “the broken economics of the marketplace”. Doctors are rewarded for performing useless procedures, while insurers pay for as little as possible, and hospitals gouge those without coverage. The author has his own plan for reform that involves encouraging the country’s big health systems to expand and offer their own insurance. This, he writes, would eliminate the incentive for doctors and hospitals to run up costs (as they would be on the hook for them) and cut out the insurance-company middleman that wants to skimp on care.
He has nothing to lose at this point i don't know why people act like he does. He Can basically do what he wants as this is his second term and Veto everything he disagrees with.
What he has to lose is his legacy. It's already tarnished. If he vetoes everything the duly elected representatives of the House and Senate send him he will see that legacy go up in flames.
Whether liberals like it or not, the mid terms were an overwhelming rejection of Obama's policies. President Clinton had the gravitas to understand that when it happened to him and he turned his whole Presidency around by working positively with Congress and the Senate.
He's been trying to work with them for six years. The election was only overwhelming if you don't consider the tiny number of people who voted. Not many more than you would expect in an election for Homecoming Queen.
Democrat base stayed home. And R's have only had the House for 4 years and Obama used Reid to block bills coming to the Senate floor.
Obama's legacy will be that he was President of only liberal America and not a President for all of America.
Sad.
He's been trying to work with them for six years. The election was only overwhelming if you don't consider the tiny number of people who voted. Not many more than you would expect in an election for Homecoming Queen.
He's been trying to work with them for six years. The election was only overwhelming if you don't consider the tiny number of people who voted. Not many more than you would expect in an election for Homecoming Queen.
It means that people didn't support his agenda and did not go out and vote for more of it. Where were all his supporters?
Obama did not attempt to work with Republicans. He spent all the time bashing them. Reid blocked bills passed by the house and refused to call a vote on them in the senate. They all lied about Republicans having no ideas about healthcare or anything else. There were plenty that got completely ignored by the Dems.
In the speech, he seemed to be promising more free stuff and intends to go after the wealthy to pay for all of it. That never pans out, so here comes more debt.
He had the gall to act like he has helped the economy. It's the private sector responsible for the little improvement and that is despite Obama's attempts to go after the oil companies. Gas prices are low because of them, not him. He's already talking more gas taxes. Of course, the government dependents don't have to fill their tanks often to drive to work, so they probably don't care.
LOL. So let's go back to those wonderful sunny days at the end of the Bush years when we all were enjoying the fantastic financial success that the Bush Policies had created for this nation. I am sure the GOP would love to replicate that astounding success.
I dunno. He is a politician. How many times did he open his mouth?How Many Lies Did Obama Tell Tonight?