No. of Recommendations: 29
On one of the Sunday morning propaganda...I mean "news" shows, someone said Obama won among the "working class".

It's really quite impressive how the left can utter such propaganda with a straight face.

Who Obama won with is in fact the non-working class. If working were a requirement for voting, Romney would have won by a landslide.

Words have meaning. Words are powerful. I sure wish that conservatives would challenge the propagandists when they utter phrases like "working class" (when talking about the hand-outs class), "women's health" (when referring to ending the life of the unborn), "tax fairness" (when they mean the rich should pay all of the taxes, instead of simply the overwhelming majority, "undocumented workers" (instead of those who came here illegally and work here illegally), "revenues" (not "increased" revenues, mind you, just "revenues"...when they are referring to tax increases, inevitably on the wealthy)...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Obama won among the "working class".


To a Democrat politician, a worker is a member of a union. People like me aren't workers because we do not belong to a union.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
To a Democrat politician, a worker is a member of a union.
______________________

It can also be someone who is working the system with any angle they can come up with, they are fairly inclusive in some regards.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
Who Obama won with is in fact the non-working class. If working were a requirement for voting, Romney would have won by a landslide.

Words have meaning.


They sure do. And facts, apparently, have a liberal bias.

According to Fox News exit polling, Obama and Romney exactly split the full-time worker vote. Considering a lot of full-time workers are "white collar" professionals and high income earners who skewed for Romney, and I bet Obama did actually win the "blue collar" working-class vote.

Obama creamed Romney among non-full-time workers, which includes retirees, not just "moochers." There, the split was 53-45.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

Lots of fun data in there.

The killer for Romney: although 59% ranked the economy as their highest priority, 53-percent said the poor economy was Bush's fault, not Obama's. And people thought Obama and Romney were nearly equally capable economy-wise, with a slight 48-49 edge for Romney.


By the way, Obama won every education bracket except college graduates, 47-51. Post-grads went Obama 55-42
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Who Obama won with is in fact the non-working class. If working were a requirement for voting, Romney would have won by a landslide.

Words have meaning.



Yes, words do having meaning. And your words illuminate your contempt for your fellow Americans, the great majority of which are working or once worked and are now retired. Keep it up and the republican party will continue to lose.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Obama creamed Romney among non-full-time workers, which includes retirees, not just "moochers." There, the split was 53-45.

Apparently, 53% of the people prefer freebies to full-time work.


Here are some other interesting responses in the exit polls:


"In your vote for president, how would you rate the importance of Obama's hurricane response?"

42% rated this "important."


Seriously? In an election where major health care legislation and financial solvency weighs in the balance, a photo-op with Christie is rated "important?" This does not say much about the intelligent of 42% of American voters.


Who would better handle the budget deficit?

47% of the people chose Barack Obama.

Again, this does not say much for the intelligence of 47% of the electorate. How can anybody in their right mind choose a man who ran up record trillion plus annual deficits and pushed through another entitlement costing trillions more, a man who has put forth absolutely no plan of his own to trim the deficit while demonizing a Ryan plan that modestly slowed down government spending in the future, a man whose budget proposal didn't gain a single vote? How can anybody in their right mind choose a community organizer with this record over an accomplished businessman?

Perhaps this was the 47% Mitt was talking about.


dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Post-grads went Obama 55-42

Whereas high school drop-outs went for him 65-34.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Obama creamed Romney among non-full-time workers, which includes retirees, not just "moochers." There, the split was 53-45.
---
Apparently, 53% of the people prefer freebies to full-time work.


Apparently, you're really, really bad at interpreting election results. Or at elementary logic. Maybe the moochers voted for Obama because they thought their prospects for employment are better with Obama than with Romney.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"In your vote for president, how would you rate the importance of Obama's hurricane response?"

42% rated this "important."


Seriously? In an election where major health care legislation and financial solvency weighs in the balance, a photo-op with Christie is rated "important?" This does not say much about the intelligent of 42% of American voters.


Careful. They didn't say they approved of Obama's response. They said his response was an important consideration. They also didn't say it was the "most important" or "exclusive to other issues." It is certainly possible to think that health care, financial solvency, and disaster response are all important issues.

Let's flip that around. What would you say about people who thought the president's reaction to a national disaster wasn't important?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Careful. They didn't say they approved of Obama's response. They said his response was an important consideration. They also didn't say it was the "most important" or "exclusive to other issues." It is certainly possible to think that health care, financial solvency, and disaster response are all important issues.

Let's flip that around. What would you say about people who thought the president's reaction to a national disaster wasn't important?


No. A photo-op wasn't relevant to the election.

Not even remotely.

Now, if he called a press conference and said "$%$#@ those people, they're gonna vote for me anyway." Well, that would have been a relevant consideration.

dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
alchook: Post-grads went Obama 55-42

Whereas high school drop-outs went for him 65-34.


I'm a multiple-time post-grad. Don't assume that means I'm rich. Sometimes it just means we're expensive, and that isn't always great in a crap economy. We PhDs and MBAs wants our free $h!t, too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Who would better handle the budget deficit?

47% of the people chose Barack Obama.

Again, this does not say much for the intelligence of 47% of the electorate.


True. Anyone could tell that 1) cutting taxes again while 2) increasing the military budget by billions would be 3) the perfect prescription to lower the deficit.

I dunno, but maybe that 47% can do elementary math?
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
True. Anyone could tell that 1) cutting taxes again while 2) increasing the military budget by billions would be 3) the perfect prescription to lower the deficit.

I dunno, but maybe that 47% can do elementary math?
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Ho elementary does the math have to be?

Raising the tax on the over 250K crowd gets bupkis

increase social spending instead of military spending and cut military today and just increase it tomorrow because of being short-sighted works so much better too--but even without the military a push

Then ensure policies that will continue a no growth economy

ooohhhhhhhh there's the perfect ticket

Fortunately though, it does not matter what Mitt would have done. Because you got your wish. I hope you are as smart as you think, because I think you voted for a clown.

SO now we get to see more of your solution, like we saw for the last 4 years. Or more likely we will see 4 more years of terrible policy terrible results and the mind numbing idiocy of those who will believe it is someone else's fault no matter how bad their own ideas are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
Goofyhoofy: True. Anyone could tell that 1) cutting taxes again while 2) increasing the military budget by billions would be 3) the perfect prescription to lower the deficit.

I dunno, but maybe that 47% can do elementary math?


Lower the what? LMAO

Who cares about lowering the deficit? Did you not pay attention to anything during the campaign, and then the election results that came in last week? We wants our free $h!t. You worry about your deficit or whatever that is. But do it on your own dime and your own time. I want healthcare, I want condoms, I want abortions, I want food stamps, I want cell phones, and I want them now. And I want you to pay for them. The deficit? As far as we're concerned, that's a made up number. What difference is a deficit to me. Just gimme my free $h!t and be on your way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just gimme my free $h!t and be on your way.

Free Sh!t rocks!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Seriously? In an election where major health care legislation and financial solvency weighs in the balance, a photo-op with Christie is rated "important?" This does not say much about the intelligent of 42% of American voters. "

That you think this question asked about a photo op does not say much about your intelligence.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe they can, but you can't. Barack Obama ran up deficits way in excess of most of Bush's.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"True. Anyone could tell that 1) cutting taxes again while 2) increasing the military budget by billions would be 3) the perfect prescription to lower the deficit.

I dunno, but maybe that 47% can do elementary math?"


Apparently you can't. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The defense budget is paltry compared to the entitlement spending. We have to quit spending what we don't have. You can only tax so much.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
What difference is a deficit to me. Just gimme my free $h!t and be on your way.


I mentioned the 16 trillion dollar deficit to my doorman and he gave me a blank stare. Another porter/doorman told me that he wants socialism in this country. When he said that my jaw dropped. The entire staff votes Democrat as they are union members. They seem to not know the issues nor do they care.
The reason they have jobs is because of the very people they love to bash, "the rich". I am not rich but live in a very nice part of Brooklyn. I gently tried to remind the porter that he has a job because of the "rich". I told him that my husband also had a job because the person who founded the company a hundred years ago was rich. I still have trouble wondering exactly what people want.
I guess as others here have pointed out, they just want free stuff and want the rest of us to pay for it.
This is not the country I grew up in and I find that very sad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another porter/doorman told me that he wants socialism in this country. When he said that my jaw dropped. The entire staff votes Democrat as they are union members.

Unions by their nature and how they operate ARE socialist organizations.

- They get paid to scale regardless of their performance. If they perform to well, the union instructs them to slow down because they are making the rest of them look bad.

- They are lead by officers who rip them off by embezzling their funds on a massive scale, using their positions to better themsleves at the members expense.

- They bribe politicians to enact labor laws that are designed to stifle competition and force membership.


I've often found it amusing to hear union members complain about the salaries of the senior exectuives of the companies that hire them while blindly supporting their union leaders who negotiated their wage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm a multiple-time post-grad. Don't assume that means I'm rich.

I don't think "post-grad" correlates with wealth. It wouldn't surprise me if university professors with tenure and defined-benefit retirement plans voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown, though. I wonder how, say, veterinarians running small businesses voted.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think "post-grad" correlates with wealth. It wouldn't surprise me if university professors with tenure and defined-benefit retirement plans voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Folks with postgraduate degrees in general voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 101
I want healthcare, I want condoms, I want abortions, I want food stamps, I want cell phones, and I want them now. And I want you to pay for them. The deficit? As far as we're concerned, that's a made up number. What difference is a deficit to me. Just gimme my free $h!t and be on your way.

Which is nothing like "I want tax breaks" and "I want oil subsidies" and "I want mortgage deduction" and "I want crop subsidies" and the like, right?

Simple fact: Bush was handed a balanced budget. Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency decided they wanted "free $h!t" in the way of taxcuts that would not, could not, and did not pay for themselves.

Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency took on two wars and refused to pay for them.

Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency voted in the largest increase in Medicare coverage in a generation.

And now you blame the deficit on Democrats.

It's like Kathleen Parker says: "The party doesn’t need a poll or a focus group. It needs a mirror."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-repub...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Which is nothing like "I want tax breaks" and "I want oil subsidies" and "I want mortgage deduction" and "I want crop subsidies" and the like, right?

Simple fact: Bush was handed a balanced budget. Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency decided they wanted "free $h!t" in the way of taxcuts that would not, could not, and did not pay for themselves.

Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency took on two wars and refused to pay for them.

Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency voted in the largest increase in Medicare coverage in a generation.

And now you blame the deficit on Democrats.

It's like Kathleen Parker says: "The party doesn’t need a poll or a focus group. It needs a mirror."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-repub......
_________________________

No problem the Republicans are evil

What did the Dems do with absolute power for two years? Didn't they straighten stuff out, didn't they at least roll back or pay for the bad stuff

Well at least they rolled back the Bush Tax cuts

They also helped on Medicare

Fortunately, Dems are not FOS. Now that they are in charge for another four years our problems are solved.

I like the Dem solutions, I have no idea what they are of course. But based on your genius I am sure that they will work. For you are too wise to follow people who do nothing but blame others and make things worse. Despite all evidence to the contrary
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I want healthcare, I want condoms, I want abortions, I want food stamps, I want cell phones, and I want them now. And I want you to pay for them.


That's interesting, because what I've been hearing from the free marketeers for all my life is that everything should be privatized.

You get people like you and MadCapitalist yelling "Privatize everything!" This amounts to the private sector telling us, through you, their loyal operative, "We want it ALL. We want all of the land, all of the water, the oil, electricity and coal. We want the hospitals, the medicine and all of the health records. We want the finance industry, the banking sector, the ports, the schools, the airwaves, the bandwidth, the internet, telecommunications, the manufacturing sector, the mines, all of the production facilities. We want the mortgages, the farms, the fisheries, the textile mills, the transit system. We are private capital, and we want all of that, we want you to abandon all efforts to regulate what we do with it, and if you want any of it yourselves, it will be on our terms.

Anti-government American capitalists are in the running for the most lazy, entitled, manipulative class of human beings that have ever existed. But please, lecture the rest of us more about how everything in society should belong to them while we are naughty for wanting a public health system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Anti-government American capitalists are in the running for the most lazy, entitled, manipulative class of human beings that have ever existed. But please, lecture the rest of us more about how everything in society should belong to them while we are naughty for wanting a public health system.

You give everything to the people you become Detroit at the dawn of the 20th Century. You give everything to the government you become Detroit at the dawn of the 21st Century. I know which one I'd prefer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Raising the tax on the over 250K crowd gets bupkis

The CBO respectfully disagrees. As do I:

The budgetary cost of extending the expiring tax provisions would be lower if certain provisions were allowed to expire that otherwise would apply to some high-income households. According to JCT and CBO's estimates, if the AMT was indexed for inflation beginning in 2012 and all of the other expiring tax provisions were extended except for the specific provisions affecting high-income taxpayers (and the payroll tax cut), revenues would be lower and outlays for refundable credits would be higher than $288 billion in fiscal year 2013 and by $382 billion in fiscal year 2014, compared with CBO's baseline projections.

CBO estimates that such changes would increase real GDP by 1.3 percent (by 0.3 percent to 2.3 percent under CBO's full range of assumptions), and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 1.6 million (with a range from 0.5 million to 2.8 million) in the fourth quarter of 2013.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Folks with postgraduate degrees in general voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

He got 55% of that vote, a solid majority for sure. Whether it is overwhelming is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. It certainly isn't nearly as impressive as his success with high-school dropouts, who preferred him 2-1 over Romney.

But again, I'd be interested in how that demographic breaks down. Postgraduate degree holders are a rather diverse lot. Some can be very well paid (physicians, some attorneys, MBA's). Others aren't. Some work in highly competitive markets and assume a significant financial risk. Others, such as university professors, can exist in an environment most of us think of as almost surreal, with jobs all but guaranteed indefinitely regardless of performance and a retirement financed by defined benefit plans.

I'm curious as to how who voted for who.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You give everything to the people you become Detroit at the dawn of the 20th Century.

Don't forget that Detroit depended on governments at every level building roads, bridges and highways.

You give everything to the government you become Detroit at the dawn of the 21st Century.

No one is suggesting giving everything to the government.

I know which one I'd prefer.

I'm glad I don't live in a binary, black and white world. I prefer neither.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You give everything to the people you become Detroit at the dawn of the 20th Century. You give everything to the government you become Detroit at the dawn of the 21st Century. I know which one I'd prefer.


Detroit rose and fell by the movement of private capital. Plenty of cities exist with corrupt local governments and function just fine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Anti-government American capitalists are in the running for the most lazy, entitled, manipulative class of human beings that have ever existed

Psychotic foaming at the mouth completely divorced from reality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Raising the tax on the over 250K crowd gets bupkis

The CBO respectfully disagrees. As do I:
_____________________

The CBO doesn't disagree from what you posted

In essence I posted you will not lose weight if you eat a lot of cheerios with chocolate milk for breakfast

and you posted nutritionists respectfully disagree

(of course buried in the nutritionists disagree is the part where it mentions you use cocoa instead of chocolate and it only works if you also limit your other meals cut out snacks and exercise daily for at least 46 minutes

In other words BS, respectfully
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
And now you blame the deficit on Democrats.

Did someone else run up the deficit by $5 trillion the past four years?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In other words BS, respectfully

Dung is a difficult thing to respect.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The budgetary cost of extending the expiring tax provisions would be lower if certain provisions were allowed to expire that otherwise would apply to some high-income households. According to JCT and CBO's estimates, if the AMT was indexed for inflation beginning in 2012 and all of the other expiring tax provisions were extended except for the specific provisions affecting high-income taxpayers (and the payroll tax cut), revenues would be lower and outlays for refundable credits would be higher than $288 billion in fiscal year 2013 and by $382 billion in fiscal year 2014, compared with CBO's baseline projections.

CBO estimates that such changes would increase real GDP by 1.3 percent (by 0.3 percent to 2.3 percent under CBO's full range of assumptions), and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 1.6 million (with a range from 0.5 million to 2.8 million) in the fourth quarter of 2013.


What? A GDP increase based on taxing high earners? Come on.

Notice also they conflated the payroll tax cut in there. Obama doesn't want to kill that one. In any case, let's say i accept your number.

You've raised $288 billion in revenue. Congrats. Where's the other $900 billion come from?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Did someone else run up the deficit by $5 trillion the past four years?
_____________________

You act as if Bush did not inherit a perfect world which he totally screwed up solely through his policies

Everyone just knows that is true, you must not be paying attention

Seriously the garbage you have to sell yourself to toe the liberal line is simply awe inspiring. The ability to believe facts exist in a vacuum and that you can separate them all and create a meaningful view is just so mind numbingly stupid that it really is impossible to tale liberals seriously
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I have postgraduate degrees and sure as hell didn't vote for Obama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
When you inherit debt, you don't go out and obtain new credit cards to pay for it. You pay it down. A concept completely foreign to liberals. They assume ALL spending, regardless of how much more it you do from the prior year, is necessary. When you start with a false assumption, it's tough to do the responsible thing. What the hell, it's not their money anyway, spend like a drunken sailor and let someone else pay the piper long after I'm dead. Yippee!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When you inherit debt, you don't go out and obtain new credit cards to pay for it. You pay it down. A concept completely foreign to liberals.

That wasn't done. What was done was "starve the beast" which is the genius conservative strategy that says if your family is spending too much money every month then you can solve the problem by asking your boss for a pay cut.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know quite a few with post-graduate degrees (myself included) and none of them voted for Obama
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That wasn't done. What was done was "starve the beast" which is the genius conservative strategy that says if your family is spending too much money every month then you can solve the problem by asking your boss for a pay cut.

Let's apply lib logic.
It's cold outside. I need to heat my house. I have a bag full of $100 bills.

The federal government's approach is to take half the money and hire a consultant to study the effects of cold weather. That sets the long term strategy. Then take the other half and light it on fire in the middle of the floor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That wasn't done. What was done was "starve the beast" which is the genius conservative strategy that says if your family is spending too much money every month then you can solve the problem by asking your boss for a pay cut.

Whereas the liberal approach is to double the family budget and live off of credit cards. Liberals keep telling everyone that this is a sustainable budget strategy just because the credit card company hasn't raise their interest rate. Meanwhile the family's credit rating keeps dropping.

Question for my liberal friends: is this sustainable or is the administration lying?

If you held Obama's debt, would you continue to lend him money?

How long before the government's variable rate credit cards start to reflect the unrealistic spending patterns?

Justify your answers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Question for my liberal friends: is this sustainable or is the administration lying?

Neither. It's not the case.

If you held Obama's debt, would you continue to lend him money? How long before the government's variable rate credit cards start to reflect the unrealistic spending patterns?

You don't need to ask, the answer is demonstrable. People the world over continue to line up to lend money to the USA. I know, the bond vigilantes are right around the corner, where they've been for decades, and they're going to punish us any day now by taking their money and buying gold with it or something. Any day now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I have postgraduate degrees and sure as hell didn't vote for Obama.

Huh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Justify your answers.
_________________________

THis line alone let me know you were not talking to your liberal friends. Maybe at them but not to them
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Raising the tax on the over 250K crowd gets bupkis

The CBO respectfully disagrees. As do I:
_____________________

Just curious, do you feel at all embarrassed about being such a partisan hack that you ignored the blindingly obvious?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And now you blame the deficit on Democrats.

Did someone else run up the deficit by $5 trillion the past four years?


Well yeah, as a matter of fact.

October 1, 2008 (four years a ago) was the beginning of Bush-II's last budget year. October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 added 1.885 trillion to the national debt. Note: Bush-II was not a Democrat.

On February 18, 2011, the GOP House passed their first spending bill, and from then until now 2.120 trillion has been added to the national debt.

That's about $4 trillion of the $5 trillion you mentioned.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Simple fact: Bush was handed a balanced budget. Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency decided they wanted "free $h!t" in the way of taxcuts that would not, could not, and did not pay for themselves.

Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency took on two wars and refused to pay for them. Then Republicans, in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency voted in the largest increase in Medicare coverage in a generation. And now you blame the deficit on Democrats


That story is really getting old, and incomplete.

2006-2008, Democrats control Senate & House
2008-2010, Democrats control Senate, House & Presidency
2010-2012, Democrats control Senate & Presidency

The Dems did nothing, but in their own words, spend 2006-2008 trying to get their candidate elected. In those 6 years they have done nothing to reduce spending or the deficit. They have spent more and passed grossly high spending bills.

If Bush was so bad, why did they not try to correct it rather than outdo it.

Democrats voted to support the war. Republicans voted against Obamcare.

Clinton may have had a balanced budget, Obama has no budget.

Harry Reid wants to raise the debt limit anohter $2trillion.

Many, if not most, taxpayers will pay some tax under Obamcare - regardless of what they call it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
October 1, 2008 (four years a ago) was the beginning of Bush-II's last budget year. October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 added 1.885 trillion to the national debt. Note: Bush-II was not a Democrat.

On February 18, 2011, the GOP House passed their first spending bill, and from then until now 2.120 trillion has been added to the national debt


Nice try.

In the first part you want to blame spending on the President, while the Dems controlled both the House & Senate.

In the second part you would rather blame the House, while the Dems held the Senate & Presidency.

As previuosly stated, there may be a case for spending prior to 2006, but after that, it's more on the Dems. And there is no greater obstructionist than Harry Reid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Who cares about lowering the deficit? Did you not pay attention to anything during the campaign, and then the election results that came in last week? We wants our free $h!t. You worry about your deficit or whatever that is. But do it on your own dime and your own time. I want healthcare, I want condoms, I want abortions, I want food stamps, I want cell phones, and I want them now. And I want you to pay for them. The deficit? As far as we're concerned, that's a made up number. What difference is a deficit to me. Just gimme my free $h!t and be on your way.

This sort of misinformed caricature of those who voted for Obama is exactly what I see as what went wrong for the GOP in this most recent election: they saw 47% of the population as a giant "taker" strawman that bore little resemblance to reality.

There are a whole lot of us who really need to get out more.

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<giant "taker" strawman that bore little resemblance to reality>

That is your version of reality, the reality is those that are takers and voted for 0 for stuff and color.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
October 1, 2008 (four years a ago) was the beginning of Bush-II's last budget year. October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 added 1.885 trillion to the national debt. Note: Bush-II was not a Democrat.

No, it wasn't.

It was the beginning of what should have been Bush II's last budget year.

However, Congress threw out his budget proposal and did not pass even a pretense of a budget until nearly two months after Bush left office. Obama signed that bill into law.

Note: Congress, both houses, was controlled by Democrats. And Obama is a Democrat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
You don't need to ask, the answer is demonstrable. People the world over continue to line up to lend money to the USA. I know, the bond vigilantes are right around the corner, where they've been for decades, and they're going to punish us any day now by taking their money and buying gold with it or something. Any day now.

Wow, do you not get it.

The ONLY reason people buy our debt is because right now we're the only game in town with the combination of:

1. Stability
2. Big enough economy
3. Reasonable expectation for payoff in the future
4. Mature markets that function

Notice the operative phrase "Right now". China fails #4 and #1. Europe fails #1 and #4, although the ECB is moving rapidly to fill that gap.

So what happens when they kick out the PIIGS and start issuing stable Euro bonds, largely tied to Germany's economy?

Goodbye worldwide reserve currency status, that's what. You liberals need to wake up and understand that the world doesn't sit still while Obama threatens #2 above.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
TMFSpeck,

This sort of misinformed caricature of those who voted for Obama is exactly what I see as what went wrong for the GOP in this most recent election

Odd that you were missing here when I tried to get Obama supporters to list the few top reasons why one should vote for Obama (not why you should vote against Romney).

The only person who articulated an answer was 1poorguy, who gave only one reason: the actions Obama has taken while in office so far resulted in a decrease in unemployment, a rise in the stock market, a rise in the Gross Domestic Product, and reduced the rate at which the national debt is growing. (To be fair, 1poorguy also said he would much rather have voted for someone other than Obama, had a candidate he considered appropriate been on the ballot.)

Of course it's not difficult to illustrate that unemployment has significantly increased and the national debt is growing by unprecedented amounts. I haven't researched the Gross Domestic Product, and the stock market is very difficult to pin down as to rising or falling (it largely depends on: compared to what?). Obviously the big question is: what did Obama have to do with these things, even assuming they are real? Unfortunately, we were overrun by the election before I had time to ask 1poorguy exactly what actions Obama took that accomplished these improvements.

Still, if you're going to complain about people's assumptions on why people voted for Obama, maybe you should have been one of the ones to step in and tell us why we should have voted for Obama back when it might have made a difference.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Goofyhoofy: And now you blame the deficit on Democrats.

I said I wants my free $h!t, I didn't say I wanted you to make $h!t up. I didn't blame the deficit on the Democrats. Screw the deficit. You worry about it if you want. I'm with the 51%. The deficit makes no difference. Just gimme my free $h!t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what happens when they kick out the PIIGS and start issuing stable Euro bonds, largely tied to Germany's economy?

Yea. Any day now. I know, it's different this time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I still have trouble wondering exactly what people want."

They want to still be children who have someone else take responsibility for their well being. Since they have outgrown the care of their parents they want the government to assume the role.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 35
"This sort of misinformed caricature of those who voted for Obama is exactly what I see as what went wrong for the GOP in this most recent election: they saw 47% of the population as a giant "taker" strawman that bore little resemblance to reality."

Someone is definitely divorced from reality. Clue: it ain't us.

What has 0bama done for you? He has spent your money on union pensions and failed green jobs. In other words, he wasted it. He may as well have burned cash in the fireplace. Nothing he has done has created a single job. In fact, almost everything he has done has killed them. His signature legislation, 0bamacare, is crushing the job market. Because of his redefinition of a full time job, companies all over are changing full time jobs to part time jobs.

No signing the Keystone legislation killed thousands of oil sector jobs. Closing down the Gulf for drilling killed thousands of oil sector jobs. Denying permits to drill on federal lands killed thousands of jobs. His war on coal is killing thousands of jobs.

His war on the rich and the uncertainty he is creating is killing hundreds of thousands of jobs. His massive new regulations are killing thousands of jobs. Dodd/Frank is killing thousands of jobs (these two had to be two of the biggest idiots in congress).

He hasn't done anything to help us and you say we don't know what reality is?! That's laughable.

You re-elected an empty suit. If I cast a vote for him ever, I would be feeling really dumb right now.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You re-elected an empty suit. If I cast a vote for him ever, I would be feeling really dumb right now.
______________________________________

Bu, but butt when Obama farts the smell of perfume is in the air and an angel gets its' wings
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
October 1, 2008 (four years a ago) was the beginning of Bush-II's last budget year. October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 added 1.885 trillion to the national debt. Note: Bush-II was not a Democrat.

No, it wasn't.

It was the beginning of what should have been Bush II's last budget year.

However, Congress threw out his budget proposal and did not pass even a pretense of a budget until nearly two months after Bush left office. Obama signed that bill into law.


You have a partial point. Bush-II did submit his FY 2009 budget proposal in Feb. 2008 and FY 2009 did begin in Oct. 2008 as I stated. However Bush-II signed a $630+ billion continuing resolution that funded federal agencies until March 6, 2009. Obama did sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.

Let me modify my closing remark to That's about $3.6 trillion of the $5 trillion you mentioned.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let me modify my closing remark to That's about $3.6 trillion of the $5 trillion you mentioned.

It's not as if a president's policies stop having an effect on the economy the day after he leaves office, or even when his last budget fiscal year ends. This is easy to demonstrate for Bush because of the ongoing cost of two wars, the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare bill. That's a lot on the credit card. How much of those ongoing expenses should Obama be held responsible for?

This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's a lot on the credit card. How much of those ongoing expenses should Obama be held responsible for?

Apparently all of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You don't need to ask, the answer is demonstrable. People the world over continue to line up to lend money to the USA. I know, the bond vigilantes are right around the corner, where they've been for decades, and they're going to punish us any day now by taking their money and buying gold with it or something. Any day now.

Just a thought; you could have said exactly the same thing about mortgage-backed securities in early 2008. Foreign investors were buying them up by the bushel, but it didn't end very well. Your hubris over America's ability to borrow no matter the level of debt or strength of the underlying economy does not appear to be consistent with actual historical events.

With many investment bubbles, the party is one heckuva good time, until it isn't. And then it can really suck.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nice to see some things never change.

How about we all get together for a group hug, safe and warm knowing that our government officals are doing their best to mske America thrive in an increasingly crowded and challenging world?

(ducking tomato thrown at head) well, maybe not. It's more fun to assign blame. Frankly, everybody here must be either retired or independently wealthy, 'cause you're here online every day. I doubt anybody here is actually struggling to stay warm and well fed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Looking for handouts? Go to PA. They are very generous with other people's money.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's more fun to assign blame.</>

You must be a careful watcher of 0bama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey Vile,

How much money has Obama wasted on union pensions and green jobs?

Cheers,

Felix
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Question for my liberal friends: is this sustainable or is the administration lying?



Deficits don't matter, because Reagan and Bush told us so.
Print the post Back To Top