Job growth may be slower than we wish, but it is JOB GROWTH. We were losing jobs at 800,000 a month the last time the Republicans held the White House. Why do you want that back? The dems realize that this is a plural country and that compromises must be made to effectively govern. The Party of No and their "my way or the highway" philosophy is responsible for Washington gridlock. They foolishly imagine that they can force half the country to their extreme right views. They negotiate nothing and compromise nothing. They would rather see the country fail than practice statesmanship. Bullshit. We will be paying for Bush's unfunded "No Child" and Medicare Prescription Drug Plan forever. We will be paying for his two unfinished wars for decades. Did you think that stopped when Bush left office?
You're dense dude. I was speaking specifically to your point of national experience when running for president. Obama had two years in the senate when he ran. My point is, I like dinners experience over obamas before his first term. And no, I didn't forget he was a professor or state legislature. It's just that neither of those bring any level of legitimacy with respect to experience when running for president. That's a pretty typical response for you. Change the argument inmid stream, when the facts don't fit.
Who is dense? Romney is running against Obama's experience in 2012, not 2008. Is that why you described him as a "community organizer". Give me a break. Plenty enough legitimacy to get him elected in 2008, Chief. Against a man with 25 years in Congress. It's a debate, Junior. If it's too hot for you, what are you doing in the kitchen? I didn't change your argument, I disputed it.
bailing out banks and unions and spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on green energy failures was not good policy. i don't see how pumping billions of borrowed dollars, that taxpayers will have to payback, into companies that taxpayers weren't supporting in the first place is stupid. without subsidies the chevy volt would cost 250,000. the solyndra debacle was really bad deal. solyndra had the whole roof of their plant covered with them panels and only generated %5 of their own power. they used 2 big diesel burning generators for the rest. Govt Motors is a union ponzy scheme. when your spending and overhead is costing you more than your product brings in you need to restructure and regroup. and for a man that was a professor of constitutional law he sure doesn't seem to follow the constitution very well.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/06/23/dream-act-obama-passes-amnesty-by-executive-order/ DREAM ACT
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdVCrbOZPLgsAhxJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyYWc2MjFxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGUjVfNzc-/SIG=131oa8vc4/EXP=1340529963/**http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war Obama bypasses congress to attack Libya. At least W got Congressional approval for Iraq and Afghanistan
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG...he-gm-bailout-really-cost-american-taxpayers/ looks like not all the rich going to get that Fair Share tax raise
That's just a silly argument and right out of the Democrats talking points handbook. We've had good and poor Republican presidents just as we've had good and poor Democratic presidents. Back in the days Republicans were saying that Bill Clinton would be another Carter but obviously he was not. Unfortunately Obama is not another Clinton. My point is Romney could very well turn out as a good president. Yes we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and no I don't want to go back but I know that the cause of that was not solely the Republicans fault and that there's much blame to go around for both parties. The 800,000 a month job losses were 3 years ago and yes the economy has been stabilized. For argument's sake we'll give Obama the credit for that. He used short term stop gap measures to stabilize the economy. What I'm focused on is his long term policies that have been in place for 3 years that have led to a very anemic recovery. Since the broadest and best way of measuring the economy is GDP let's look at those figures. In 2010 GDP was 3.9, 3.8, 2.5, and 2.3 compared to 0.4, 1.3, 1.8, and 3.0 in 2011. First quarter 2012 came in at 1.9. If things are getting better and we are on the right track then why was 2011 GDP worse than 2010? Last week this is what the Fed stated. "The economy we've got today is more or less the economy we've got for the rest of the year." The Fed sharply reduced its forecast for U.S. growth. It sees unemployment barely budging in the rest of 2012. If Obama's policies were right for America then how come we don't see improved GDP figures since the beginning of 2011 and why is the long term outlook so gloomy? You can only use the low point of the recession as a measuring point for grading Obama's performance for so long. If he's reelected and the economy we have today is more or less the same 4 years from now and we have another $5 Trillion added to the debt are you still going to be blaming Bush? I have more faith and much higher expectations in the US economy than that. "HIRING SLOWS ECONOMY: Sluggish hiring is weighing on the U.S. economy three years after the Great Recession ended. And the evidence suggests that job gains won't pick up any time soon." "LAYOFFS RISE: A measure of the number of people applying for unemployment benefits over the past month has reached a six-month high, the government said Thursday. The increase suggests that layoffs are rising and June will be another tepid month for hiring." I see neither party willing to compromise. No Child had bipartisan support (91 to 8 in the Senate!) and to a much lesser extent Medicare Prescription Drug Plan had it as well. Once again there's plenty of blame to go around.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Dream Act does NOTHING like this. Make your case.
