Obama must fail

[SFC Ollie]

Of everything I have purchased at Walmart over the years I would bet that at least 75% was made in the USA. Of course sometimes you have to look past the $1.29 can opener and take the one for $2.49......Other times the exact opposite.

My bet is that most people don't even look at where the stuff they buy is made. Which is one reason I don't buy a lot of things from the PX anymore. Most of it is not US made.

 

[asterism]

Well, it's been an interesting few days. It looks like I'm poor again because I'm starting a new business. Between that and some very long overdue home improvements my short and medium term savings accounts are withering away. Exciting times though.

Sounds very interesting - best of luck on the new (ad)venture.

Thank you. It's going to be a fun project. Take an old bus, put a bunch of monitors in it and on it, various console games (xbox, wii, ps3), and use it for parties. Sorta like this:

But using a bus instead of a trailer and I'm not buying a franchise. If it works I'll have bought myself a decent job. If if flops I'll still be the coolest dad ever.

I disagree. The rates at which these indicators are currently improving is insufficient to improve the overall economic environment. Jobs are up from a low that we were told wasn't going to happen if the stimulus passed. Rationalizing it by saying that "things were worse than we thought" just shows the lack of accuracy in the analysis. The stimulus didn't work as planned and I don't think it helped.

Just about every economist on the planet agrees that the short-term impact of the stimulus is positive - it created jobs, it pumped capital into projects, it sustained school budgets etc...and as it turns out, every broad measure of the economy has improved since its passage: GDP is up, monthly jobs have gone from -750k to positive 240K, consumer spending is up, durable goods orders are up, manufacturing has increased, exports and imports have both increased, the financial sector is more stable...





I didn't mean that you couldn't cost out each job - I meant that the overall benefit can't be measured simply in the cost of each job. The money didn't just go to jobs and at any rate it has a multiplier effect as it is spread throughout the economy.



The tax cuts and incentives in the act are valued at $288 billion dollars.





No, it's not spin. It's what McCain's economist, Obama's economist and a wide majority of all other economists are saying.

National income is growing, even when adjusted for inflation.




I'm saying the stimulus played a part in fostering recovery. I never claimed the stimulus was the only agent at play here.

But it did pour billions of dollars into maintaining employment for teachers and municipal officials, it provided targeted tax cuts that put money in the hands of those likely to spend it and it created hiring opportunities for private firms in a wide array of industries.



1.8% annualized last quarter.
2.9% in the year 2010.

The law fostered economic activity.

Specifically how? Why the need to add $1 Trillion to the debt?

It fostered economic activity by putting capital behind projects, by keeping people employed and by putting money in the hands of those likely to spend it.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the civil conversation. The point I was making which got derailed long ago was that a technical economic "recovery" has little to do with whether the economy is in good shape or not, as well as the problem with promising results that were completely unrealistic and had no basis in fact.

Assuming the direct cause and effect relationship exists, the stimulus would not have nor should have ever been enacted if the expected results were 3 million jobs "created or saved," unemployment climbing over 10% and sustained unemployment near 9%, and no "shovel ready" jobs.

 

[8537]

Well, it's been an interesting few days. It looks like I'm poor again because I'm starting a new business. Between that and some very long overdue home improvements my short and medium term savings accounts are withering away. Exciting times though.

Sounds very interesting - best of luck on the new (ad)venture.

Thank you. It's going to be a fun project. Take an old bus, put a bunch of monitors in it and on it, various console games (xbox, wii, ps3), and use it for parties. Sorta like this:

But using a bus instead of a trailer and I'm not buying a franchise. If it works I'll have bought myself a decent job. If if flops I'll still be the coolest dad ever.

That's amazing - I'm not much of a gamer but it's a hell of an idea. Best of luck with it.

I hope there are pillows in there because I suspect your kids will be "camping out".

 

[lehr]

After Obama was elected, that was the stated strategy of the GOP. Basically, do everything you could to prevent Obama from acquiring a resume that would lead to his reelection. This included smear campaigns, delays, filibusters and whatever Fox News could spit out.

How has it worked? Well, in the first two years, the Democrats controlled Congress. they were able to pass:

Obamacare
Repeal DADT
Reduce nuclear weapons by one third
Economic Stimulus
Financial Reform
Credit card reform

In addition, Obama did as he promised and redirected the war on terror from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drone attacks are up and the number of terrorist targets eliminated are up substantially

In 2010, the Republicans took control of the House and gloated that they would now be able to block Obama from accomplishing anything in his last two years. How did it work out?

Obama hit a home run in killing Bin laden and now has captured intelligence to mop up Al Qaida operatives. He also begins withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq. He correctly positioned the US in a backup role in Libya and has allowed NATO forces to bear the load.

Now the GOP is stuck with no viable candidates for President and must show the voters what the GOP has accomplished in the last four years

first - when u hear the word (reform) - reach for your wallet = as for obama care = it is going to destroy the best medical in the world- government only destroys- hillary healthcare advisor - vincente navarro is a leninist - lenin invented national healthcare just to control whole populations- vincente navarro is the doctor who said little elian had to go back to cuba - u never force anyone to go to a communist country

u say obama reduced nukes - yes- american nukes - im sure

u mention economic stimulus - obama went thru three trillion dollars in 2 yrs - where is our good economy - obama knows all he had to do was cut taxes and drill for oil - government is not the solution =

obama is hiring govt. workers by the truck loads - we need private sector workers no govt.

 

[lehr]

After Obama was elected, that was the stated strategy of the GOP. Basically, do everything you could to prevent Obama from acquiring a resume that would lead to his reelection. This included smear campaigns, delays, filibusters and whatever Fox News could spit out.

How has it worked? Well, in the first two years, the Democrats controlled Congress. they were able to pass:

Obamacare
Repeal DADT
Reduce nuclear weapons by one third
Economic Stimulus
Financial Reform
Credit card reform

In addition, Obama did as he promised and redirected the war on terror from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drone attacks are up and the number of terrorist targets eliminated are up substantially

In 2010, the Republicans took control of the House and gloated that they would now be able to block Obama from accomplishing anything in his last two years. How did it work out?

Obama hit a home run in killing Bin laden and now has captured intelligence to mop up Al Qaida operatives. He also begins withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq. He correctly positioned the US in a backup role in Libya and has allowed NATO forces to bear the load.

Now the GOP is stuck with no viable candidates for President and must show the voters what the GOP has accomplished in the last four years

lets review the demokrat record - demokrats took s.s. from an independant fund and put it in the general fund so congress can spend it - then demokrats put a tx on s.s. - then demokrats increased tax on s.s. with gore casting the deciding vote- then demokrats gave s.s. to (legal) immigrants who come here at age 65
and klinton vetoed tax cut 23 sept. 1999 - we know whar demokrats do - thus we know who obama is

 

[edthecynic]

lets review the demokrat record - demokrats took s.s. from an independant fund and put it in the general fund so congress can spend it - then demokrats put a tx on s.s.

Let's review some typical CON$ervative lies.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939. From its inception the Social Security Trust Fund has never been put into the general fund of the government.

The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by St Ronnie, a Republican CON$ervative, in April 1983.

 

[HUGGY]

Obama must fail

I don't know how many of you like to get your news first hand with no spin but that's my cup of tea and crumpets.

I watched the Wednesdays Obama address to joint Parliament to see for myself how the British view Obama.

They ******* fawned all over him is what they did. He gave an OK speech and received a full half hour standing ovation from the Brits. The applause lasted when his talk ended and then there was a Brit babe that jumped up and practically had an orgasm at the podium and the prez spent the next half hour plus shakin hands and talking to the Limeys on his way out the door and the whole time he is getting wave after wave of applause and cheers.

Never seen anything like it. If youz guys think the Brits are embarrassed by Obama then they are laughing at themselves also..cuz he had em eating outta his hands...

No Fail In London...

 

[lehr]

After Obama was elected, that was the stated strategy of the GOP. Basically, do everything you could to prevent Obama from acquiring a resume that would lead to his reelection. This included smear campaigns, delays, filibusters and whatever Fox News could spit out.

How has it worked? Well, in the first two years, the Democrats controlled Congress. they were able to pass:

Obamacare
Repeal DADT
Reduce nuclear weapons by one third
Economic Stimulus
Financial Reform
Credit card reform

In addition, Obama did as he promised and redirected the war on terror from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drone attacks are up and the number of terrorist targets eliminated are up substantially

In 2010, the Republicans took control of the House and gloated that they would now be able to block Obama from accomplishing anything in his last two years. How did it work out?

Obama hit a home run in killing Bin laden and now has captured intelligence to mop up Al Qaida operatives. He also begins withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq. He correctly positioned the US in a backup role in Libya and has allowed NATO forces to bear the load.

Now the GOP is stuck with no viable candidates for President and must show the voters what the GOP has accomplished in the last four years

this DADT stuf is full of danger - there is no problem with gay marriage in civilian life - just dont call it marriage - but when u force this stuff on our military - not to mention - during wars - it can hurt morale - the generals and admirals did not care if there were gays in our military - it was the corporals and sergeants - and the socialists are good at taking social stands just to gain power over people - socialists dont care a wit about gays - all they want is political power = that is spelled - DEMOKRAT ! = by the way - i do not like the word - "gay" - that destroys our language - gay means happy - language is very important - canada almost had a civil war 2 times since the 50s ever french v. english language

 

[Dot Com]

Wonder what McConnell will say if O'bama is reelected since his main priority was making O'bama a 1- term President? So far, it looks like McConnell is failing.

 

[SFC Ollie]

lets review the demokrat record - demokrats took s.s. from an independant fund and put it in the general fund so congress can spend it - then demokrats put a tx on s.s.

Let's review some typical CON$ervative lies.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939. From its inception the Social Security Trust Fund has never been put into the general fund of the government.

The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by St Ronnie, a Republican CON$ervative, in April 1983.

Sort of, kind of.......

Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[edthecynic]

lets review the demokrat record - demokrats took s.s. from an independant fund and put it in the general fund so congress can spend it - then demokrats put a tx on s.s.

Let's review some typical CON$ervative lies.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939. From its inception the Social Security Trust Fund has never been put into the general fund of the government.

The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by St Ronnie, a Republican CON$ervative, in April 1983.

Sort of, kind of.......

Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

Trust Fund FAQs

You are confusing the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.

Starting in 1969 the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[lehr]

2 yrs of komrade obama ---- buy food - store it --- you have been warned !

 

[SFC Ollie]

Let's review some typical CON$ervative lies.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939. From its inception the Social Security Trust Fund has never been put into the general fund of the government.

The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by St Ronnie, a Republican CON$ervative, in April 1983.

Sort of, kind of.......

Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

Trust Fund FAQs

You are confusing the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.

Starting in 1969 the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

No matter how you spin it, it looks shady to me.....

 

[Avorysuds]

Well this thread blew up in RW's face.

 

[edthecynic]

Sort of, kind of.......

Trust Fund FAQs

You are confusing the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.

Starting in 1969 the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

No matter how you spin it, it looks shady to me.....

The "spin" was by the poster who tried to blame Democrats for something they did not do. The money spent by both Parties was BORROWED from the SS fund. If SS was part of the general revenue fund then they would not have to borrow from it.

Originally Posted by lehr lets review the demokrat record - demokrats took s.s. from an independant fund and put it in the general fund so congress can spend it - then demokrats put a tx on s.s.

 

[Goodoledays]

If you consider Obama a successful President and one worthy of re-election, you are a sick puppy. The only positive thing he's done in office is to whack UBL. Everything else he has touched has been a dismal failure.

Well I wouldn't quite give to much credit for Obama whacking UBL. It took him 7 hours to make the desision and then again it was our military who pulled the trigger while Obama was dropping in front of the screne just watching.

 

[rightwinger]

Well this thread blew up in RW's face.

Far from it my friend

It just shows that no matter how hard the right wing has tried to derail Obama, the have failed miserably. Obama's approval is at 52% and top potential GOP contenders are sitting out the 2012 election

Can you blame them?

 

[rightwinger]

If you consider Obama a successful President and one worthy of re-election, you are a sick puppy. The only positive thing he's done in office is to whack UBL. Everything else he has touched has been a dismal failure.

Well I wouldn't quite give to much credit for Obama whacking UBL. It took him 7 hours to make the desision and then again it was our military who pulled the trigger while Obama was dropping in front of the screne just watching.

Gee.....complaining about seven whole hours to make a decision that puts Navy SEALS at risk

Took Bush seven YEARS not to get him

 

[JimH52]

If you consider Obama a successful President and one worthy of re-election, you are a sick puppy. The only positive thing he's done in office is to whack UBL. Everything else he has touched has been a dismal failure.

Well I wouldn't quite give to much credit for Obama whacking UBL. It took him 7 hours to make the desision and then again it was our military who pulled the trigger while Obama was dropping in front of the screne just watching.

Gee.....complaining about seven whole hours to make a decision that puts Navy SEALS at risk

Took Bush seven YEARS not to get him

Of course, he was really "concerned" about OBL. He had better things to do, like bringing the US economy to its knees.

 

[rightwinger]

Well I wouldn't quite give to much credit for Obama whacking UBL. It took him 7 hours to make the desision and then again it was our military who pulled the trigger while Obama was dropping in front of the screne just watching.

Gee.....complaining about seven whole hours to make a decision that puts Navy SEALS at risk

Took Bush seven YEARS not to get him

Of course, he was really "concerned" about OBL. He had better things to do, like bringing the US economy to its knees.

Then there were those WMDs to find