Why I'm Voting For Obama

[Listening]

Basically, yeah. They get angry when people post facts from unbiased sources. They respond with personal attacks and made-up BS.

Facts, you know, have an inherent liberal bias.

I noticed this post making some pretty bold claims has zero to back it up.

What happened ?

You forget to post your graph or DailyKos talking points ?

 

[Listening]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Listening]

And if i post graphs and claim they mean something they dont, please point it out.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand what people mean when they post graphs. They might point to something that looks good starting 3 days into a presidents term and say....look what happened while he is in office.

When everyone knows that it takes a great deal of time to stear an aircraft carrier. Meaning the new pres probably does not know where the bathrooms are yet, much less having an effect on things (from actions he has taken).

If you want to have a serious discussion about data, you need to spell out what you think the cause and effect are.

Otherwise, the conversations stay more general.

 

[cbirch2]

And if i post graphs and claim they mean something they dont, please point it out.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand what people mean when they post graphs. They might point to something that looks good starting 3 days into a presidents term and say....look what happened while he is in office.

When everyone knows that it takes a great deal of time to stear an aircraft carrier. Meaning the new pres probably does not know where the bathrooms are yet, much less having an effect on things (from actions he has taken).

If you want to have a serious discussion about data, you need to spell out what you think the cause and effect are.

Otherwise, the conversations stay more general.

fair enough

 

[Chris]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wrong.

An economy can be growing but not fast enough to absorb the millions that were thrown out of work by the Bush recession.

 

[cbirch2]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consequitive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

 

[Full-Auto]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consequitive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

The only thing I would bring to your attention about that post is GDP as been revised downward. Subtract out the artificial infusion of federal cash. Well..............

 

[grunt11b]

1. Obama has cut my taxes.

POLITIFACT: Barack Obama says taxes are lower for middle class today than when he took office

Second-lowest 20 percent

2008 tax burden: $1,715
2011 tax burden: $1,396
Decline of $319

2008 tax rate: 6.7 percent
2011 tax rate: 5.7 percent
Decline of 1 percentage point

Middle 20 percent

2008 tax burden: $6,290
2011 tax burden: $5,535
Decline of $775

2008 tax rate: 13.6 percent
2011 tax rate: 12.4 percent
Decline of 1.2 percentage points

Second-highest 20 percent

2008 tax burden: $13,749
2011 tax burden: $13,078
Decline of $671

2008 tax rate: 17.4 percent
2011 tax rate: 16.5 percent
Decline of 0.9 percentage points

So for each of the three middle quintiles, both the amount of tax paid and the effective tax rate paid declined.

Our ruling

Every taxpayer is different, and some "middle-class" Americans may have seen their tax rate or their tax burden go up for one reason or another. But Obama was talking about "the average middle-class family." The changes to the tax code made under Obama and the analyses by the Tax Policy Center show that for the middle 60 percent of the income distribution, both the average tax paid and the average tax rate fell between 2008 and 2011. We rate Obama’s statement True.

You're must be a lemming. He has not lowered your taxes. If you smoke or chew, he has raised your taxes, if you buy gasoline, he has raised your taxes. He is trying to raise taxes through class warefare as we speak. If you vote for him in 2012, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[cbirch2]

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consequitive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

The only thing I would bring to your attention about that post is GDP as been revised downward. Subtract out the artificial infusion of federal cash. Well..............

Subtract out the artificial infusion of federal cash!?

What a coindidence! I happen to have a graph for that!

There is no recession, even by your own measure

 

[Listening]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consequitive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

So why do we need a jobs bill ?

 

[Listening]

Your tirade is fooling no one. No one is foolish enough to look at this and say, "Oh, Sundial's happy because Obama cut his taxes personally. Not because Obama cut taxes for everyone."

No one is foolish enough to think, "Oh look, Frazzled put up a bunch of stuff without any links or support whatsoever. It mush be true!"

The fact is that the recession started under George W. Bush. It ended under Obama. In the course of the last two years, we've been adding around 150,000 jobs a month - compared to losing several times that many, per month, when Bush left office.

Is it enough?

Of course not. More is needed. What we really need is to pass Obama's Jobs Bill, and to extend his middle-class tax cut for another year.

If it weren't for the Republicans, these things would already be done.

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wrong.

An economy can be growing but not fast enough to absorb the millions that were thrown out of work by the Bush recession.

I see....so you admit the economy is weak.

Your claims about being out of a recession are nothing more than optics.

Technically true.

In reality....not worth crap.

Obama is a one termer.

 

[Chris]

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wrong.

An economy can be growing but not fast enough to absorb the millions that were thrown out of work by the Bush recession.

I see....so you admit the economy is weak.

Your claims about being out of a recession are nothing more than optics.

Technically true.

In reality....not worth crap.

Obama is a one termer.

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

The economy is coming back and the opposition party is about to nominate an old pol, Mondale-Gingrich, who will lose.

 

[Sundial]

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wrong.

An economy can be growing but not fast enough to absorb the millions that were thrown out of work by the Bush recession.

I see....so you admit the economy is weak.

Your claims about being out of a recession are nothing more than optics.

Technically true.

In reality....not worth crap.

Obama is a one termer.

Suppose your asshole brother-in-law drove your car into a ditch. You get it out, and you're driving down the road again. But you're only going 15 mph, rather than 30. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[cbirch2]

If the recession was over, we would not need a jobs bill you moron.

You can't make this stuff up.

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

So why do we need a jobs bill ?

Because the economy is not at full employment.

Maybe were in a recession if you define a recession as an economy not at full employment. Then again, thats not the definition of a recession.

 

[cbirch2]

Wrong.

An economy can be growing but not fast enough to absorb the millions that were thrown out of work by the Bush recession.

I see....so you admit the economy is weak.

Your claims about being out of a recession are nothing more than optics.

Technically true.

In reality....not worth crap.

Obama is a one termer.

Suppose your asshole brother-in-law drove your car into a ditch. You get it out, and you're driving down the road again. But you're only going 15 mph, rather than 30. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lulz good analogy.

Not only that, but your brother in law is in the passenger seat trying to drive the car off the road again.

The republican position is:

1. Stop spending money
2. ????
3. Prosperous economy!

Maybe if the government just fires public workers at a time when the private sector cant hire the existing unemployed, everything will get better.
Maybe if we end subsidies, prices will go down!
Maybe if we stop paying certain benefits, poor people will just magically get more money.

These are the republican positions. Its amazing. Everything is a contradiction

If you just lay off public workers, all your going to do is increase the unemployment rate.
If you end subsidies, prices will go up.
If you stop paying benefits like unemployment insurance, people will get poorer.

Jesus Christ the republican party has flipped economics 101 on its head just to make it agree with current policy.

 

[Listening]

Obama is Reagan in 1984.

The economy is coming back and the opposition party is about to nominate an old pol, Mondale-Gingrich, who will lose.

Only in your dreams.

 

[Listening]

Your the one making stuff up.

There is a technical definition of the term "recession". Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Our economy is growing at 2.5% a quarter. Far from a recession.

So why do we need a jobs bill ?

Because the economy is not at full employment.

Maybe were in a recession if you define a recession as an economy not at full employment. Then again, thats not the definition of a recession.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, that becomes part of the problem for me. I keep hearing idiots say things are getting better, but they are getting any where good enough.

 

[AmericanFirst]

They dont care.

they have no convictions.

they are like a cult and will believe and think whatever they are told to believe and think

Yeah, liberals are that way.

 

[Listening]

I see....so you admit the economy is weak.

Your claims about being out of a recession are nothing more than optics.

Technically true.

In reality....not worth crap.

Obama is a one termer.

Suppose your asshole brother-in-law drove your car into a ditch. You get it out, and you're driving down the road again. But you're only going 15 mph, rather than 30. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lulz good analogy.

Not only that, but your brother in law is in the passenger seat trying to drive the car off the road again.

The republican position is:

1. Stop spending money
2. ????
3. Prosperous economy!

Maybe if the government just fires public workers at a time when the private sector cant hire the existing unemployed, everything will get better.
Maybe if we end subsidies, prices will go down!
Maybe if we stop paying certain benefits, poor people will just magically get more money.

These are the republican positions. Its amazing. Everything is a contradiction

If you just lay off public workers, all your going to do is increase the unemployment rate.
If you end subsidies, prices will go up.
If you stop paying benefits like unemployment insurance, people will get poorer.

Jesus Christ the republican party has flipped economics 101 on its head just to make it agree with current policy.

Can you breath now ?

With everything you listed....you will stack up debt because you don't have the money to pay for it.

You are gambling things will improve. You'll still have the debt that you need to pay for.

On the other hand, if you don't do those things (or follow the GOP plan), you will not have the additional debt. You will have a lot of unhappy people (well, not if they belong to the Tea Party), but you won't have the debt.

Will things get better ?

Who knows.

But you'd need to explain to me how that turns econ on it's head.

 

[Listening]

They dont care.

they have no convictions.

they are like a cult and will believe and think whatever they are told to believe and think

Yeah, liberals are that way.

She's not worth the time.