To The Obama Supporters

[Goodoledays]

Yes, you are 78 and still naive and dumb.

I believe the definition of idiot is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Republicans haven't had a new idea since Reagan's "Trickle Down" "Voodoo Economics." I've got news for you...he qaudrupled the national debt and the only trickle down for what used to be the middle class of this country was warm piss running down the middle of their backs.

Yeah and Obama has a great idea...spend what we can't afford and let future generations pay for it.

He's already admited that he wants more stimulus.

Oh and let's not forget to turn the printing presses on again. Great strategy.

And I bet the nitwit leader gets his ink for the presses from China.

 

[IHBF]

I doubt the democrats on this board that have posted about their ability to manage money well are an accurate representation of the average democrat.

But to them: if you understand the importance of fiscal responsibility in your home, why do you support and advocate the opposite in DC?

 

[Truthmatters]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

Not think for one second that the right in this country wants solutions to our problems.

Obama wasted quite some time thinking the right in this coutnry would help fix things for the peoples sake.


That was proven completely untrue because the right did nothing but harm any chance of improvement for the country and its people.


Now the truth is there to be seen.

Republicans would kill this government OUTRIGHT to be in power of the remaining wreckage.


They dont want democracy or the government the founders left us.

they want teapartytopia built on this countrys smouldering ruins

 

[Full-Auto]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

To The Obama Supporters

 

[Truthmatters]

and there is the level of the debate with cons.

Obama has learned this lesson now.

You want to this country to fail.


You want to starve this government until you can drown it in the bathtub and then you will construct TEAPARTYTOPIA on the ashes.

religion and guns for everyone.

ONLY they get to tell you which religion.

Oh but they will find a way to make sure all those inner city kids cant have a gun.

then TEAPARTYOPIA will hand over the riegns to the corporate heads because they are sure those are the BEST human minds that exsist in the world.

its a wonderful that you are all doomed to failure on your plans for this country

 

[Vel]

45 posts in this thread and not 1 addresses the OP question of what Obama will do different than what he has done. It is 4 years later and Obama is still making the exact same promises to fix the exact same problems that clearly have not been fixed. If he couldn't figure out ow to get congress to work with him in 3 1/2 years, how will he get things done if re-elected.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZgQhnNRSuw]"We've Heard It All Before" (Extended Cut) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

obama never said he would do anything different. What he said was that he expected more compromise and cooperation from republicans in helping him do the same thing as he's doing now, but more of it.

He promised the Russians more flexibility and promised the Iranians that he would not stop them from destroying Israel by assisting in Israel's self defense.

That's not different.

 

[beretta304]

45 posts in this thread and not 1 addresses the OP question of what Obama will do different than what he has done. It is 4 years later and Obama is still making the exact same promises to fix the exact same problems that clearly have not been fixed. If he couldn't figure out ow to get congress to work with him in 3 1/2 years, how will he get things done if re-elected.
"We've Heard It All Before" (Extended Cut) - YouTube

I posted the nearly exact words earlier. Lots of snide, snippy comments but not one post addresses what he will do differently. Some weak cases that try to portray that what he has done is working. More informed people know that's a crock.

If what he has been doing worked why does he give himself an "incomplete"? Also, what happened to, if it isn't fixed then I'm a one termer?

The man himself has stated that he wants another round of stimulus. I've repeated the following, however simplictic in nature it is,haff a dozen times:

You don't payoff your credit card balance by spending more or by borrowing from another credit card.

I noticed a pattern here. Evrey once in awhile a good tread gets started against Obama and/or his policies. As soon as his lapdogs start posting they try to divert the thread into collateral issues.

Be that as it may, no one is going to change anyone's mind here. It's an exercise in futility.

 

[candycorn]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

I'm sure he'll be more effective in dealing with the Republican Congress. I think he was a bit naive in thinkng that he could just reason with these people.

 

[beretta304]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

I'm sure he'll be more effective in dealing with the Republican Congress. I think he was a bit naive in thinkng that he could just reason with these people.

If reasoning with the Congress was truly the issue, he would have gotten more done. It's inflexibility on his part. He only wants compromise if he gets everything he wants. That's his version of compromise.

Do I Say! When he doesn't get his way the Fuhrer signs an Executtive Order circumventing the Congress as well as the wishes of the people.

 

[candycorn]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

I'm sure he'll be more effective in dealing with the Republican Congress. I think he was a bit naive in thinkng that he could just reason with these people.

If reasoning with the Congress was truly the issue, he would have gotten more done. It's inflexibility on his part. He only wants compromise if he gets everything he wants. That's his version of compromise.

Do I Say! When he doesn't get his way the Fuhrer signs an Executtive Order circumventing the Congress as well as the wishes of the people.

I know this is a lot of reading so you will likely give up but here is proof that you're full of shit in blaming Mr. Obama for being intractable.

From ABC News:

President Obama and Speaker John Boehner have been discussing a grand bargain to cut some $4 trillion in projected budget deficits over the next 10 to 12 years, according to officials familiar with the talks.

There is no deal yet, but the ideas under consideration include reductions in spending on the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would be a huge concession for Democrats. In return, Republicans would agree to close some big tax loopholes, reducing some deductions and other so-called spending in the tax code as part of a tax reform deal that would also lower corporate tax rates. The net effect of that tax reform plan would be an increase in tax revenue.

Same article later on:

Senior Congressional Republicans said this morning that they are doubtful that anything that looks like a tax increase can pass the House – or even gain the support of others in the Republican leadership. And Democrats from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on down have said they would oppose anything that cuts Medicare or Social Security benefits.

Debt Talks: The Grand Bargain - ABC News

From RCP:

President Barack Obama has billed his "grand bargain" as the adult compromise because it has something for everyone to hate. The package would raise the $14 trillion debt ceiling (which the public hates), raise taxes by $1 trillion (which Republicans hate) and cut spending by $3 trillion (which Democrats hate) over 10 years. As the president argued in Monday's news conference, it's time for Washington to eat its peas.

Later on in the same article:

While pundits scold Republicans for not supporting the "grand bargain," it is not clear the package could pass even if House Speaker John Boehner signed on. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has come out against any cuts in entitlement spending -- an extreme position that breaks the deal.

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Debt Ceiling "Grand Bargain" No Such Thing


Here is NJ Governor Chris Christie's take on it; basically he believes all of it was a hoax.

We sat down in Trenton with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for a profile to air on Nightline tonight.

Here’s one exchange we had about President Obama and deficit reduction that I thought you might find interesting.

TAPPER: One of the things that the- that’s coming down the pike is after the election, there’s this thing called Taxmageddon, which I’m sure you’re following.

CHRISTIE: Yeah.

TAPPER: Four trillion dollars in Bush tax cuts are said to expire. Then there are also these – spending cuts in domestic programs in the Pentagon budget, because Congress, through the Super Committee, was not able to come up with them… I think Jimmy Kimmel said, the Super Committee is to committees as Supercuts is to cuts. But I think – well, one of the problems that President Obama has talked about is the fact that he has been willing to compromise and talk about spending talks -

CHRISTIE: No-o!

TAPPER: You don’t buy it.

CHRISTIE: No! No, he never put out a plan. He never put out a plan, never, not once! He talked about – he was talking about a grand bargain behind closed doors.

TAPPER: He and John Boehner – he and Speaker Boehner were working -

CHRISTIE: Yeah, but then he never put out – he never put out publicly what he was willing to do. I mean, the fact of the matter is the way you led is you lay down the marker in the sand. You say, here’s what I’m willing to do. Come meet me in the center of the room. The President never did that. The President didn’t lead. The President asked for Simpson-Bowles and he put it on the shelf for political reasons. This President has no credibillty on this issue, none! So I don’t listen to anytihng that he has to say about this, until he’s willing to really do something significant. and for three and a half years he hasn’t been willing to do it.

TAPPER: Let’s just posit that you’re right about that for a second, for discussion’s sake. The truth of the matter is in addition to whatever your take is on his leadership, you have House Republicans who are not willing to agree to one penny in any tax increase.

CHRISTIE: But that’s not true. John Boehner was willing – John Boehner said publicly -

TAPPER: Boehner was willing to – I don;’t know that he could have – I don’t know that he had the votes for it.

CHRISTIE: Well guess what? We never found out because the President wasn’t willing to uphold his – his end of the bargain. I mean, listen – it takes two to tango, Jake. And, and – and John Boehner showed his willingness to do it, and the President walked away. He kept moving the goal post on Boehner. And the fact is the President didn’t want to do it.

TAPPER: You don’t think he wanted to.

CHRISTIE: No.

TAPPER: Because it would hurt him with Democrats?

CHRISTIE: That’s exactly right.

TAPPER: But this is a Congress that you saw what they did with the debt ceiling. I mean, this is a Congress that at times does not appear willing to listen to reason.

CHRISTIE: Well, and this seems like a President who at times is not willing to listen to reason. Simpson-Bowles (the deficit reduction committee plan) seems pretty reasonable to me. I don’t agree with every part of Simpson-Bowles, but you know what, it’s a good place to start. There are huge problems. We know we have a huge problem. It’s a good place to start, and this President asked for it! And he got Republicans and Democrats on that Commission to vote for it. And then he left them hangin’ out to dry.

TAPPER: House Republicans that were on that Commission didn’t vote for it. Paul Ryan was on that Commission, and he didn’t even vote for it.

CHRISTIE: Well, that’s fine but some Republicans did.

So there is some conjecture about what was proposed and what was not proposed. RCP and ABC think something was bandied about at least.

David Horowitz writing for Red State blog posits the following about the Grand Bargain so apparently it's not a hoax.

The False Narrative of the Grand Bargain on Tax Hikes

Over the past few months, there has been a daily trickle of establishment Republicans coming out before the media in hostage style confession statements to declare that they would accept tax increases as part of a ?grand bargain? to cut the deficit.? The latest member was Lindsey Graham, who stated his newfound opposition to the taxpayer pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, which he considered to be too ideologically intransigent.? Tom Coburn continues to work with the ?Gang of 6? in an effort to ?raise revenue.?

The media has extrapolated on Graham?s narrative, suggesting that Republicans are too unyielding to compromise and that they would even chase Reagan out of the party if he?d be president today.? Buttressed by Jeb Bush?s comments concerning Reagan?s place in today?s Republican Party, the media is chastising us for being so stridently opposed to tax increases ? even in the event of a ?grand bargain? of $10 of spending cuts per $1 of tax increases.

The problem with this narrative of the grand bargain is that no such agreement exists.? Nor will it ever materialize.

I?ll be the first person to agree to such a deal.? There, I said it.? If Democrats would really agree to a deal that would wind down the welfare and entitlement programs and eliminate full departments of the executive branch, I would reluctantly go along with some form of revenue increases.? Raising taxes is unfair and counterintuitive, but if that is what it would take to get Democrats to come onboard with our efforts to shrink government, then it would be a deal worth making.

Then again, if unicorns could fly, we wouldn?t need airplanes either.



The reality is that Democrats have never agreed to anything more than notional baseline cuts over 10 years.? They have not agreed to close down a single agency or office, much less a full government department.? They have not put on the table a plan to eliminate even a few of the 2,184 assistance programs.? And they never will.? It would be an anathema to their entire political desideratum: growing government and creating dependency and special interests for the purpose of cementing a permanent power structure.

The farm bill that just passed the Senate is a great example of how gargantuan budget figures are used to create the false impression that we are cutting spending.? Both Republicans and Democrats on the Agriculture Committee are patting themselves on the back for their great work in cutting $23 billion from the 10-year baseline, down to $969 billion from $992 billion.? The problem is that the one program they eliminated ? direct payments to farmers ? will be replaced by a more costly shallow loss protection program that is not accurately reflected in the cost of the bill.? Moreover, this bill locks in several hundred billion extra in food stamp spending, thereby consummating the Obama Food Stamp presidency even after he leaves office.? Remember, this bill makes food stamp spending mandatory.

Over the next few years, we will hear grumblings of budget deals that sound like an Old McDonald song: ?a few trillion here and a hundred billion there; here a trillion there a billion, everywhere a spending cut.?? However, once we cut through the illusory narrative generated by the media, we?ll realize that not a single program or agency is eliminated, at least not without the creation of a new one in its place.

The real question is why so many Republicans are revealing their cards on the issue of taxation in preparation for a deal on spending that Democrats would never support?? You don?t hear Democrats saying, ?gee, maybe we would agree to abolish the Department of Education as part of a broader deal to raise taxes.?

Democrats might be the evil party, but Republicans are intent on being credulously stupid.

Notice how Horowitz doesn't even mention Obama as being intractable? True you have some democrats that are as well as some Republicans that are too.

Here is yet another source you won't believe because it doesn't agree with your fantasy about things:

From Politico:

Speaker John Boehner’s decision not to “go big” on a debt limit deal is the starkest demonstration yet of the limits of the Ohio Republican’s power.

The internal GOP backlash against his efforts to secure a package of $4 trillion in spending cuts and revenue-raisers revealed that Boehner sometimes is little more than the first among equals — capable of synthesizing Republican sentiments but unwilling to drive them.

Tax hikes, by any name, are a non-starter for a party that forged its brand on the mantra of lower taxes and less government, and Boehner’s willingness to talk rates with President Barack Obama — particularly in the context of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s refusal to do so — raised eyebrows within his conference. The uproar among Republicans, on and off Capitol Hill, forced Boehner to back away from the “grand bargain,” setting up a testy White House meeting where little was accomplished Sunday night.

“It’s crazy to think the speaker was considering a trillion [dollars] in tax increases. After all, we’re the anti-tax party,” said one veteran Republican lawmaker close to leadership. “Cantor brought him, the economy and our party back from the abyss. Cantor is strengthened, clearly. And it’s another example of the speaker almost slipping beyond the will of the GOP conference.”

Details of the potential “big deal” with President Barack Obama leaked before House members were briefed on the broad outlines of any agreement. “That was a huge problem,” acknowledged a top House Republican aide. “Boehner got way out in front of where he should have been. He pulled back because he had to do so.”


Read more: John Boehner's 'grand bargain' ? with House GOP - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

There is plenty of blame to go around on this matter as in all matters of fiscal irresponsibility. It's revealing that persons like yourself engage in such obviously deceitful narratives though.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd have a comment Samurai.

 

[jillian]

Tell us what he will do "different" if he's reelected. If you want to claim that what he's done is working, it's working at a snail's pace. The country will be like Greece before we get tangible results.


Obama himself has admitted that it's going to take more time.


So tell us what he will do that's better and different.

he won't be romney and the rabid right

 

[OpenJumper1]

Breaking: Obama asked EU to hold off dumping Greece until after the election.

Now why is Barry begging Germany to hold off.

Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day - Europe - World - The Independent

 

[OpenJumper1]

You might want to also look up Velocity. Most of us don't know what that means, in the financial world, and we ALL should know this. pls bing or google that

 

[jillian]

Breaking: Obama asked EU to hold off dumping Greece until after the election.

Now why is Barry begging Germany to hold off.

Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day - Europe - World - The Independent

well, why should his re-election hinge on what the EU does? i know you'd love that, but i'd get over it if i were you.

obama derangement syndrome is really pathetic to watch. you can't even have a discussion about policy because you all are too busy drooling spittle and working yourselves into a tizzy over nonsense.

and no doubt if the rightwingnut blogosphere is saying it, it must be true.