PDA

View Full Version : The other choice



shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 06:22 PM
Here is the other choice for us republicans who are not on the same ride with the rest of our party

Obama on jobs

national unemployment up 3% since he took office
teen unemployment up 3%
employment population rate 5% decrease

Obama on blacks

black unemployment up 20%+
black teen unemployment up higher than white teens

Obama on Welfare

11 million more people receiving some form of federal welfare

Obama on Military use

Continue in Iraq
Continue in Afghanistan
Pakistan
Libya
Bin Laden
first to kill US citizen
Yemen
Somalia

Obama on Gay Marriage
nothing but coming to the conclusion he was ok with it

Obama on Women's rights

prochoice, i will give him that
nothing on equal pay


Obama on National Debt

5.566 trillion dollar increase

Obama on spending

with taking out the numbers that he had no control of we see an increase of 740 billion

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 07:12 PM
I'm going to say two things and only one is a defense of Obama.

1 - Re: Gay Marriage: What he said was he's for it, but it's not up to the federal government but is instead a state issue which he has no business sticking his nose in. For my money, even if he said he was against it, the rest is the perfect answer.

2 - What's your source on this. I'm just wondering.

duwal
08-29-2012, 08:04 PM
but the unemployment numbers aren't because jobs are not out there, it is because there are a lot of people that would rather collect unemployment instead of taking a job they think is beneath them. Like there is a member on here that said he has been unemployed for 3 years. Obama's fault right??? No, because when brought up the idea of taking a lesser, entry level position job he scoffed and said no those are for the Mexicans or were all being taken up by Mexicans. My law firm currently has 13 positions available, they've also hired 70 people so far this year with other people either retiring, leaving for different jobs or the firm needing additional help for workloads along with the new additions of summer associates accepting a position. Jobs are there in every town, pages of listings in every larger newspaper. If the unemployment rate goes up it is because people are lazy and not lower their ego or sit on their butt and collect until it runs out

habsheaven
08-29-2012, 08:28 PM
Here is the other choice for us republicans who are not on the same ride with the rest of our party

Obama on jobs

national unemployment up 3% since he took office
teen unemployment up 3%
employment population rate 5% decrease

Obama on blacks

black unemployment up 20%+
black teen unemployment up higher than white teens

Obama on Welfare

11 million more people receiving some form of federal welfare

All your numbers are skewed by the fact that things got progressively worse after he took office through no fault of his. 4.2 million private sector jobs created since 2009. Things are improving.

Obama on Military use

Continue in Iraq - continue? that is your best description of the troop levels? totally dishonest.
Continue in Afghanistan
Pakistan
Libya
Bin Laden
first to kill US citizen - keep telling yourself that.
Yemen
Somalia

Not sure if you are saying the others are good or bad

Obama on Gay Marriage
nothing but coming to the conclusion he was ok with it

That's a start. Something the GOP will never wake up to.

Obama on Women's rights

prochoice, i will give him that
nothing on equal pay

Compared to the GOP, he looks pretty darn good.


Obama on National Debt

5.566 trillion dollar increase

It's been increasing every year for the last 50 years. He has had to deal with a recession like few other.

Obama on spending

with taking out the numbers that he had no control of we see an increase of 740 billion

He has had to deal with a recession like few other.



Responses in bold.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 08:37 PM
habs, not saying anything is good or bad, but facts, and no numbers are skewed, in fact some are in Obama's favor. and as far as jobs created, it does not equal the standard for the rate to stay unchanged, more people are entering the workforce than leaving.

wickabee,

here are a few, lmk if you need any more

bureau of laor stats

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

white house spokeman carney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 10:39 PM
duwal, yes i would say Obama could have increased the job market rather than wasting the stimulus on failed alternative energy. he could also make entitlements have better standards and people like you mentioned would be forced to get a job or be homeless.

nobody has anything else? my sources were nearly all liberal approved sources for my numbers, but no comments.

so people here still think Obama did a good job and will do a good job again?

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 11:32 PM
duwal, yes i would say Obama could have increased the job market rather than wasting the stimulus on failed alternative energy. he could also make entitlements have better standards and people like you mentioned would be forced to get a job or be homeless.

nobody has anything else? my sources were nearly all liberal approved sources for my numbers, but no comments.

so people here still think Obama did a good job and will do a good job again?

No, but I do think he'll do a better job than Romney.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 12:13 AM
but the unemployment numbers aren't because jobs are not out there, it is because there are a lot of people that would rather collect unemployment instead of taking a job they think is beneath them. Like there is a member on here named Dunndeal that said he has been unemployed for 3 years. Obama's fault right??? No, because when brought up the idea of taking a lesser, entry level position job he scoffed and said no those are for the Mexicans or were all being taken up by Mexicans. My law firm currently has 13 positions available, they've also hired 70 people so far this year with other people either retiring, leaving for different jobs or the firm needing additional help for workloads along with the new additions of summer associates accepting a position. Jobs are there in every town, pages of listings in every larger newspaper. If the unemployment rate goes up it is because people are lazy and not lower their ego or sit on their butt and collect until it runs out

Equally relevant are the companies that won't hire someone because they are "overqualified". I have talked to several people who I went to college with who remain unemployed and have been outright told that the fact that they have a BS makes them too qualified for the lower paying jobs that they are applying for. At the same time many higher paying jobs have their "pick of the litter" and only take someone with experience or someone who has connections or friends that can help them get the job.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in some areas there are jobs to be had, but not everywhere. In my area there are jobs that range from $12-$14k a year right up to $40k a year. I also know of other areas that have businesses that have stopped taking applications because they already have a big pile of applicants and are not hiring.


No, but I do think he'll do a better job than Romney.

Thats a cop out. I am not a Romney person, but saying that he would do worse without proof is pretty weak. After 4 years we have definitive proof that Obama is inept and unsuccessful.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 12:18 AM
wickabee, it is a crazy gamble either way.

do i choose someone who has proven not to be able to turn things around?
or for someone who hasn't proven anything either way?

romney could be worse or better, there is no real way to know.

theonedru
08-31-2012, 12:39 AM
After 4 years we have definitive proof that Obama is inept and unsuccessful.

after decades of going back and forth electing Reps and dems its pretty obvious that they are all inept.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 12:44 AM
All your numbers are skewed by the fact that things got progressively worse after he took office through no fault of his. 4.2 million private sector jobs created since 2009. Things are improving.


I realize that you are just repeating something that you were told by someone who was conveniently skewing the numbers, so here is some truth...

Since Feb. 2010 we have recovered 4.2 million private sector jobs...which simply replaces the 4.2 million private sector jobs that were lost between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010. That's right. We didn't gain anything, we simply got back what was lost. A net gain of zero. Good that we got them back? Yes. Proof that the economy is recovering? No. In that same time frame the public sector has lost an additional 607k jobs. So after 4 years of "job creating" and stimulus spending and patting himself on the back for the great job that he has done all he has really done is fail at creating jobs.


Continue in Iraq - continue? that is your best description of the troop levels? totally dishonest.

2007 & 2008 - Obama promises to pull all troops out of Iraq by 2009 at a rate of 1-2 brigades per month and promises that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4WY TKj8pU5M&ei=pjxAUNyoCaqp0AHq5YGIDg&usg=AFQjCNHp00BCGXzh-VI0wQYrDaM58SIAhw

Jan 2011 - 49,800 troops remain on "peace keeping missions" in Iraq. No more draw downs have taken place and most estiamtes place current troops levels between 40k and 50k.
http://www.vetfriends.com/images/Active%20Duty%20Dec31st%202011.jpg

Is that a better description? Obama either blatantly lied or epically failed to fulfill his promises.


Compared to the GOP, he looks pretty darn good.

Based on what? I get that it is fun to toss a bash out at the entire Republican party in defense of Obama's failure to live up to yet another promise, but what is your statement based on?

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 12:45 AM
after decades of going back and forth electing Reps and dems its pretty obvious that they are all inept.

Church!!! :love0030: :love0030: :love0030:

duane1969
08-31-2012, 12:47 AM
after decades of going back and forth electing Reps and dems its pretty obvious that they are all inept.

I won't argue with that. Like I said, I am no Romney supporter and am pretty disappointed overall with the options that I will have on election day, but to claim that Obama has been a success at anything is an unsupportable position to take.

I personally think we need to get the wealthy career politicians that have been groomed since childbirth to be our "leaders" out of politics and return control of the government to the people. It is a pipe dream to think that Romney or Obama cares diddly about any of us.

theonedru
08-31-2012, 02:28 AM
I won't argue with that. Like I said, I am no Romney supporter and am pretty disappointed overall with the options that I will have on election day, but to claim that Obama has been a success at anything is an unsupportable position to take.

I personally think we need to get the wealthy career politicians that have been groomed since childbirth to be our "leaders" out of politics and return control of the government to the people. It is a pipe dream to think that Romney or Obama cares diddly about any of us.

Total agreement

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 03:32 AM
wickabee, it is a crazy gamble either way.

do i choose someone who has proven not to be able to turn things around?
or for someone who hasn't proven anything either way?

romney could be worse or better, there is no real way to know.
Romney will likely be much worse for the ommon man. Best case scenario is he doesn't allow himself to be a puppet, but I don't see that happening.

theonedru
08-31-2012, 04:28 AM
Romney will likely be much worse for the ommon man. Best case scenario is he doesn't allow himself to be a puppet, but I don't see that happening.

They are both equally horrible choices but unfortunately the majority of Americans in general are too stupid to vote for anything other than a Democrat or Republican so no matter who wins we all lose and face another 4 years of ineptitude.

joee5
08-31-2012, 06:01 AM
it's hopeless and the people will be fooled once more and B.O. will, unfortunately walk out victorious.

habsheaven
08-31-2012, 08:25 AM
I realize that you are just repeating something that you were told by someone who was conveniently skewing the numbers, so here is some truth...

Since Feb. 2010 we have recovered 4.2 million private sector jobs...which simply replaces the 4.2 million private sector jobs that were lost between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010. That's right. We didn't gain anything, we simply got back what was lost. A net gain of zero. Good that we got them back? Yes. Proof that the economy is recovering? No. In that same time frame the public sector has lost an additional 607k jobs. So after 4 years of "job creating" and stimulus spending and patting himself on the back for the great job that he has done all he has really done is fail at creating jobs.

The jobs lost in the first year of Obama's presidency would have been lost with McCain also. The economy was in a freefall. To claim anything else is SKEWING the numbers. As for jobs being "recovered"; that's just more semantics. Jobs are jobs. 4.2 million people that lost there jobs are now working. That is a recovery. Heck, you are the one that used the word "recovered". As for the public sector losses in jobs. Look into those numbers you will find that many are the result of government cuts that the Republicans are all gung-ho for.


2007 & 2008 - Obama promises to pull all troops out of Iraq by 2009 at a rate of 1-2 brigades per month and promises that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4WY TKj8pU5M&ei=pjxAUNyoCaqp0AHq5YGIDg&usg=AFQjCNHp00BCGXzh-VI0wQYrDaM58SIAhw

Jan 2011 - 49,800 troops remain on "peace keeping missions" in Iraq. No more draw downs have taken place and most estiamtes place current troops levels between 40k and 50k.
http://www.vetfriends.com/images/Active%20Duty%20Dec31st%202011.jpg

Is that a better description? Obama either blatantly lied or epically failed to fulfill his promises.

Yes, that is a better description. I don't put much stock in what someone not running the country has to say about a situation 2 or 3 years removed from it. Obviously when you become President you have to re-assess the situation. As for the specifics; the combats troops are gone. The soldier deaths have been reduced to almost nothing. That was the essence of his promise.


Based on what? I get that it is fun to toss a bash out at the entire Republican party in defense of Obama's failure to live up to yet another promise, but what is your statement based on?

Based on their backwards thinking on every social issue. Based on their willingness to be beholden to a lobbyist by signing a draconian pledge. Based on their priority of defeating Obama rather than doing what is right for the country.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 09:20 AM
The jobs lost in the first year of Obama's presidency would have been lost with McCain also. The economy was in a freefall. To claim anything else is SKEWING the numbers. As for jobs being "recovered"; that's just more semantics. Jobs are jobs. 4.2 million people that lost there jobs are now working. That is a recovery. Heck, you are the one that used the word "recovered". As for the public sector losses in jobs. Look into those numbers you will find that many are the result of government cuts that the Republicans are all gung-ho for.

The liberal penchant for claiming that we have GAINED 4.2 million private sector jobs is not skewing the data, it is an outright lie and that is what I am dispelling. I give credit where credit is due. We got the jobs back. Is it thanks to Obama? I have seen no evidence that it is, but the same as I hold him accountable for the loss during his reign I give credit for getting them back to him as well. I am just not simple-minded enough to buy into the liberal talking-heads that like to spew that we gained 4.2 million jobs when we did not.

As for the private sector jobs being a result of government spending cuts...what spending cuts? Last I checked Obama spent around $2 TRILLION dollars "creating" jobs. I know that American currency exchanges at a different rate in Canada, but 2 trillion dollars in spending in any country is not a spending cut.

Yes, that is a better description. I don't put much stock in what someone not running the country has to say about a situation 2 or 3 years removed from it. Obviously when you become President you have to re-assess the situation. As for the specifics; the combats troops are gone. The soldier deaths have been reduced to almost nothing. That was the essence of his promise.

He should have reassessed right after it came out of his mouth. Nearly ever Republican AND Democrat who spoke on the issue said that it was an impossible promise to keep. Every major military commander who spoke on the subject said that it would be impossible to be out in 16 months and most likely impossible to ever be fully out. Yet Obama just kept running around like the village idiot saying that he was bringing the troops home.

Based on their backwards thinking on every social issue. Based on their willingness to be beholden to a lobbyist by signing a draconian pledge. Based on their priority of defeating Obama rather than doing what is right for the country.

That is nothing but a liberal mantra and strawman argument. Because conservatives do not support gay marriage is not evidence that they are weak on equal rights for women.

It is also a little weak to say that they are focused on beating Obama rather than doing what is right for the country when speaking about a president that has spent more time campaigning to get re-elected than he has spent actually being president and has accomplished nothing significant while he was president.


responses in bold

habsheaven
08-31-2012, 10:22 AM
1) Gained, recovered, added, created, etc ... I don't care what you call it. The point is that is a positive change from 2009.

2) I said the PUBLIC sector job losses are the result of Republican cuts, as well as blocking legislation to provide funding for more teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. Also cutting funding in their Republican run states. I was not implying it was from cuts Obama made.

3) If everyone knew it was impossible and said so what is the big deal? Obviously it wasn't a factor in him getting elected. The general notion of getting out of Iraq has occurred, compared to how involved you were when he made the statements.

4) What does gay marriage have to do with women's rights? You completely lost me on this.

5) I noticed you avoided commenting on Grover. Convenient.

6) The Republicans have been OPENLY saying, long before this election cycle began, that their main goal was to make him a 1-term president. Their actions in both the senate and house have confirmed it. Every incumbent President has to campaign while in office. That argument is weak.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 11:23 AM
1) There is relevance to the language used. Gained implies that it is more than before which is not true. If you want to claim that it is semantics then that is your choice, but it doesn't make it right.

And it is not a positive change from 2009. It is equal to the numbers of 2009.

2) What cuts did the Republicans make that resulted in public sector losses? The public sector has been consistently losing jobs for 4 consecutive years. The Dems controlled the House, Senate and White House for the first two years of that period and the White House and Senate for the second two year period. Where do you get that Republican cuts caused any of it? I am totally baffled.

3) It was a factor in him getting elected. The Kol-Aid drinkers bought into every lie that he told including that one. Re-watch the video, listen to the cheers as he makes his statements. Pulling out of Iraq specifically and his promise of a new and better foreign policy in general were major factors that people voted for him. He accomplished neither.

4) I made an assumption based on your "backwards thinking on every social issue" comment. Why social issues were you referring to?

5) ???

6) Show me a political party that does not have a #1 goal of unseating the opposition's leader. Republicans openly admitting it is just showing a little spine and honesty. Just because Democrats lack the character to admit their truth doesn't mean it isn't what they do too.

The entire 8 years that George W. was in office Democrats openly and actively went after him. From making fun of the way he talked and implying that he was unintelligent to going after his children, the Democrats pulled no punches. Democrats are the last people who should be trying to position themselves on moral high ground.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 12:01 PM
6- It would be nice if politicians could get to running the country instead of running 4 year long elections.
It would be neat if people held both parties accountable instead of just the one they don't like.

habsheaven
08-31-2012, 12:15 PM
1) This is what you typed: Since Feb. 2010 we have recovered 4.2 million private sector jobs... How can that comment not mean that in Jan 2010 there were 4.2 million less jobs? The "gain" implies that things have turned around. It has never been a claim that you are ahead of the point where George Bush left you.

2) I am talking about cuts on a state level. I assume these are part of the public sector jobs being talked about. If they are not, I withdraw the comment. If they are, the comment stands.

3) Nothing more than YOUR opinion. Any foreign policy that differs from the previous administration is positive. No doubt, you were one of the ones criticizing the man for bowing to another head of state. Pompously ridiculous.

4) I was referring to both of those issues and more but why that got YOU to linking the two of them is puzzling to say the least.

5) Grover Norquist - you have no problem that 90% of the Republican reps and senators have signed a pledge to NEVER raise taxes under any circumstances?

6) Great! The "you did it so we can do it too" defense. As weak as that is, it is not even relevant here. The economic climate facing this administration was completely different from the one that faced Bush. If there was ever a time for the petty politics to stop it was 4 years ago. I am not going to list all the legislative data over the past 12 years, suffice to say, Bush didn't face the legislative obstruction Obama has faced. Trying to unseat the incumbent is normal. Doing it at the detriment of the country is not.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 01:55 PM
1. Quite simply, liberal media likes to say "Obama policies have caused an increase/gain of 4.2 million jobs in the private sector". What they don't want the uninformed people to know is that it wasn't a gain, it was a recovery of what was lost. If liberal media said "After a loss of 4.2 millions jobs between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010 we have now REgained 4.2 million jobs" then people would be more informed and aware that while the recovery is happening it isn't a gain of jobs.

Using the word GAINED implies that we now have more than when Obama took office. That simply is not true. The goal in the misuse of words is an attempt to create the illusion that Obama fulfilled a promise and created jobs. He did not. During his tenture there has been a net loss of 607,000 jobs.

2. Public sector refers to government jobs. As a public sector employee I can atest that funding is almost exclusively from the Federal government. The Federal government provides funding to states and the states then dole it out based on how it was earmarked by the Fed. I have no numbers to back this up but I would guess that no more than 10-15% of public sector jobs are funded exclusively by state government income.

One thing I can tell you is that thanks to being married to a woman who works for the state department of education I am aware that the Fed government is cutting funding a lot to education. Right now Republicans have very little say on spending or spending cuts in the Federal government.

3. Opinion? Yes. But an opinion that is widely held. I see no evidence that we have made any friends abroad in the last 4 years. And yes, I took issue with him bowing to other heads of state. However I will add that I think he did it mostly because he was ignorant and not because he was actually showing them respect or admitting that he was below them.

4. I took what you said and ran with it. Any social issue is not evidence of how someone deals with another social issue.

5. Yeah I have a problem with it. They will not hold to it. Politicians raise taxes.

6. That is the defense of everything Obama. I am not going to bother with going back and finding the hundreds of times that the liberal defense has been that a conservative did it before. What's more, liberals are just as actively trying to tear down Romney as conservatives are trying to tear down Obama.

I see nowhere that there is any detriment to the country in stating the facts. If Republicans point out that Obama spent $5 trillion to create jobs and fix the economy and there are less jobs now than before and the economy is still weak and floundering, then how is that wrong? Since when did Obama become so superior that he is above criticism for his failures? Pointing out Obama's flaws is not detrimental to the country, his flaws are detrimental to the country. If he had fixed the economy, kept unemployment below 8%, gotten gas prices down, improved our international standing, pulled us out of Iraq, closed Guantanamo, reformed the Patriot Act, and passed cap and trade, all things that he promised, then we would have nothing to complain about. He accomplished none of it. If pointing out his failure as president is detrimental to the country then giving him 4 more years to be a failure will be catastrophic to the country.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 02:07 PM
1. Quite simply, liberal media likes to say "Obama policies have caused an increase/gain of 4.2 million jobs in the private sector". What they don't want the uninformed people to know is that it wasn't a gain, it was a recovery of what was lost. If liberal media said "After a loss of 4.2 millions jobs between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010 we have now REgained 4.2 million jobs" then people would be more informed and aware that while the recovery is happening it isn't a gain of jobs.

Using the word GAINED implies that we now have more than when Obama took office. That simply is not true. The goal in the misuse of words is an attempt to create the illusion that Obama fulfilled a promise and created jobs. He did not. During his tenture there has been a net loss of 607,000 jobs.
So you're saying he hasn't lost any jobs then?


2. Public sector refers to government jobs. As a public sector employee I can atest that funding is almost exclusively from the Federal government. The Federal government provides funding to states and the states then dole it out based on how it was earmarked by the Fed. I have no numbers to back this up but I would guess that no more than 10-15% of public sector jobs are funded exclusively by state government income.

One thing I can tell you is that thanks to being married to a woman who works for the state department of education I am aware that the Fed government is cutting funding a lot to education. Right now Republicans have very little say on spending or spending cuts in the Federal government.
Didn't Romney say he wants to make cuts to education and policing?


3. Opinion? Yes. But an opinion that is widely held. I see no evidence that we have made any friends abroad in the last 4 years. And yes, I took issue with him bowing to other heads of state. However I will add that I think he did it mostly because he was ignorant and not because he was actually showing them respect or admitting that he was below them.
Wow! What else does Obama think when he's nowhere near you?
For the record, it is a show of respect. Whether he actually respects them, I don't know, but it is a show of respect in their culture.


4. I took what you said and ran with it. Any social issue is not evidence of how someone deals with another social issue.
Where did you run though?


5. Yeah I have a problem with it. They will not hold to it. Politicians raise taxes.
You have a problem with it, but that's not why Habs had to ask twice, is it?


6. That is the defense of everything Obama. I am not going to bother with going back and finding the hundreds of times that the liberal defense has been that a conservative did it before. What's more, liberals are just as actively trying to tear down Romney as conservatives are trying to tear down Obama.
How about no one uses the "YOU DID IT FIRST!" argument. It's useless as conservatives have come up with scripted answers such as "Oh, that's your defense for everything!" when Dems say it and "No, it's completely different" when they do it. Both sides do it to an annoying degree and the arguments it spurns are ridiculous. If everyone would either admit they do it as much as the other guy or at least learn and STOP things would get a lot better. When did running the US become a schoolyard spat between 8 year olds?


I see nowhere that there is any detriment to the country in stating the facts. If Republicans point out that Obama spent $5 trillion to create jobs and fix the economy and there are less jobs now than before and the economy is still weak and floundering, then how is that wrong? Since when did Obama become so superior that he is above criticism for his failures? Pointing out Obama's flaws is not detrimental to the country, his flaws are detrimental to the country. If he had fixed the economy, kept unemployment below 8%, gotten gas prices down, improved our international standing, pulled us out of Iraq, closed Guantanamo, reformed the Patriot Act, and passed cap and trade, all things that he promised, then we would have nothing to complain about. He accomplished none of it. If pointing out his failure as president is detrimental to the country then giving him 4 more years to be a failure will be catastrophic to the country.
That's right. Facts are good, just ask Paul Ryan...

Kosmo kards
08-31-2012, 04:57 PM
There is one question that needs to be answered. What will Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan change?

Paul Ryan doesn't want to cut the defense budget, which is where most of the countries money. They don't really want to balance the budget, they will just use government money for what they want.

joee5
08-31-2012, 05:09 PM
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff473/texaslady1960/whatyoumean.gif

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 05:17 PM
There is one question that needs to be answered. What will Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan change?

Paul Ryan doesn't want to cut the defense budget, which is where most of the countries money. They don't really want to balance the budget, they will just use government money for what they want.

Cut taxes for the rich
Cut entitlements for the poor.
Mission Accomplished!

duwal
08-31-2012, 05:40 PM
so people here still think Obama did a good job and will do a good job again?


yup, I absolutely had my doubts when I voted against him in the election but since then he certainly has changed my mind to get my vote this time around (well that and the representatives from my party were all pretty pathetic choices)

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 06:13 PM
yup, I absolutely had my doubts when I voted against him in the election but since then he certainly has changed my mind to get my vote this time around (well that and the representatives from my party were all pretty pathetic choices)

It actually seems to me you had a couple guys worth listening to, but who aren't popular.

Seriously, the Republican party looks like a high school society and the Tea Party is the popular kids. All the others don't really like them, but they're the "popular" crowd, so they must be followed. Guys like Huntsman and Ron Paul (who I'm not saying would do a good job but do seem to be somewhat levelheaded) get shunned and made fun of while everyone is listening to the head cheerlea...er, Sarah Palin, and her cohorts.

I tend to disagree with Republican policy, but that doesn't make it bad. I think Romney is totally out of touch with the common man and would probably consider me to be destitute because the house I own is 1/100th of his smallest house, that doesn't mean he's bad. I think Ryan promised issues and facts and gave us abs and lies, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% correct.
With all that in mind though, the Republican party is ridiculous. All of these people are college educated job creators, and they run themselves like a high school dance. It's pretty pathetic.

At the same time, that doesn't mean they can't be fixed (but that doesn't mean I will agree with them when they are fixed, either)

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 09:36 PM
duwal, so without the other choice in mind, you still think Obama did a good enough job to be re-elected?

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 09:55 PM
duwal, so without the other choice in mind, you still think Obama did a good enough job to be re-elected?

When your entire system is built on "lesser of 2 evils" the way the US is (and really, replace "2" with "3 or 4" and "the US" with Canada and the statement is still true) you can't answer that question. The obvious answer is no, no he didn't. But did GWB? I would say no and I know many would agree with him. At the same time, while I'm not going to say Kerry wouldn't have done a better job, I also understand completely how Bush won that election. Many saw him as better than the other option. I'm sure Clinton and Reagan got a lot of those votes too. In fact, I'm positive that every 2-term President had a lot of people who thought he did a terrible job vote for him again because he was still better than the other guy.

You can't not take the other guy into account when voting in our systems. It just doesn't work.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 10:30 PM
wickabee, i am unsure i agree but see what you are saying.

if i tried a budget system that did not work i would replace it, even though i would be unsure the next system would be better. i would rather go with something i may have a chance with then something i know will fail.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 10:38 PM
I understand your point as well. When every election is just picking who will take you less farther into the hole, it's not much fun.

duwal
09-01-2012, 01:42 AM
duwal, so without the other choice in mind, you still think Obama did a good enough job to be re-elected?

absolutely, I think that he has exceeded the expectations that I personally thought either Obama or McCain could pull off in their first term with the abysmal mess that they would be inheriting at the time that they would take office. I didn't think after Bush that we would see light at the end of the tunnel in the entire first term of whoever was voted in to follow

habsheaven
09-01-2012, 08:02 AM
I think the US could be a lot further along in economic recovery than it is. The problem as I see it is this. Nothing is getting done. There remains too much uncertainty. Something is better than nothing when facing a recovery of this magnitude. Short-term, the only thing that matters is getting the economic engine running again at full speed. Unfortunately, too many lawmakers are focused on the deficit/debt at a time when it should be secondary. In my opinion, when you are facing a crisis (economic or otherwise) you have to fall in line behind your leader and support whatever course of action he feels is necessary. Instead of doing that, the Republicans have taken this opportunity (poor choice of words, I know) to debate economic philosophy, knowing full well that nothing can get done without their support. Someone HAS/HAD to compromise. In my mind, that should be the side that doesn't currently hold the office of President.

shrewsbury
09-02-2012, 01:51 AM
nothing can be done without their support? they passed Obama Care

habsheaven
09-02-2012, 05:55 AM
nothing can be done without their support? they passed Obama Care

They passed the ACA at the same time that the stimulus package was being implemented. It is obvious to both sides that more measures had to be implemented in the last 2 years. Nothing has been accomplished, unless you call the downgrade an accomplishment.

Wickabee
09-02-2012, 12:34 PM
The Republicans have outright said they spent the last four years trying to make Obama a one termer.