I can back up ever damn one of those comments with links to facts and you know it. You swallowed that bullchit hook, line, and sinker. And now you attempt to defend baldface lies.
No. You can spout the same BS we hear from the liberal media and ignorant defenders of Obama who refuse to look under the rug for fear of the dirt that's under there.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but believing in kooks like that in the face of facts to the contrary makes you a puppet and a dupe. I at least can make my own arguments and defend them with some logic and reason. You cast aspersions as if that somehow constitutes a discussion.
My two cents: Perry's gonna be the next President of the United States, bank on it, whether he deserves it or not, whether Obama deserves out or not. Whether Obama deserves his criticisms or not, it doesn't matter. He'd better start drafting his concession speech. I may end up eating my words but I doubt it.
Not at all. I pointed out that you were unwilling or unable to answer my question. Is this not true? History shows recessions come and go with many lasting less than a year. They have started and have ended with both republicans and democrats at the helm. In fact, every past president that has inherited a recession from his predecessor turned the recession around. There's no doubt Obama inherited a bad economy that, once the free fall was abated with his continuation of Bush's stop gap measures, had much more upside potential than downside. I remember thinking what a great opportunity for Obama and the Democrats. Instead of having the enormous pressure of inheriting and maintaining a booming economy all they had to do was improve an economy that had hit near rock bottom. Despite the overwhelming upside potential there has been little upside and yet you continue, in a poor attempt to make your case, to go back more than 2 years and use the he turned the recession around argument. Yes, like all past recessions this one has ended. However, there's one major difference. Most previous recessions have been followed by a booming economy but not this one. This recovery has been stifled by Obama's economic policies. If a year from now unemployment is still hovering around 9%, GDP is still anemic, and there's no meaningful budget deficit improvement will you still support Obama's economic policies? Will you ever judge Obama based on economic data relative to what that data has been historically or does he get a free pass because of what he inherited even though the recession ended over 2 years ago? Or will you always view Obama as a successful president economically because, by definition, the recession ended? It's quite clear that Obama was continuing Bush's stop gap measures. Bush "requested the second half of the $700 billion financial-rescue fund on behalf of President-elect Barack Obama" The rescue fund was used to help small banks, businesses, and large financial institutions and was not related to Obama's $800 billion "stimulus". Obama himself promised unemployment would stay below 8% once the stimulus was passed. I believe the added amount to the deficit has damaged growth in the economy. Michael J. Boskin: Why the Spending Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com No at all. Like I said, the economy had already been stabilized before the bulk of the stimulus was initiated and history proves that recessions always end and usually quickly. Reagan reduced marginal tax rates to spur economic growth which vastly increased tax revenue. His deficits resulted from his build up of the military that was the catalyst to the downfall of the evil empire. Reagan did run sensible deficits because of the reason I state above. Budget deficits should be put into context relative to size and the overall national debt. Reagan's were quite manageable compared to Obama's. There's no comparison. No projections needed. In less than 3 years Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion. The most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president. Bush increased it by $4.9 trillion in 8 years. I don't buy your notion that because a prior president signed into law unfunded liabilities that from here on out that portion of the deficit is on him. How many presidents does that go back anyway and does this include programs that were funded but the cost of the program out grew the revenue? Obama approves and signs the budget. If he and the dems believed those unfunded liabilities were so bad why didn't they either fund them or end them while they had their super majority in the house? Every single penny added to the deficit from the first day the president is in office until his last he gets credit for. Whether fair or not this is how it has always been. The dems want to change that and have been pointing fingers at Bush and using the unfunded liabilities talking points nonsense to try and deflect blame away from Obama but it's not going to work. History documents will show the enormous sum Obama added to the national debt and there won't be an asterisk next to that figure. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama - Political Hotsheet - CBS News The polls do show that there is a steady march by independents away from Obama. Agreed and that's not good news for Obama's reelection chances if the economy does not improve. I would tend to think that most independents that position themselves in the middle are pragmatic enough to realize that there has been bad and good republican presidents in the past. If they think Bush was terrible that doesn't mean they will automatically discount another republican as you apparently have especially if they don't like the alternative.
No one, the Tea Party won't let it happen. You know those crazy radicals that think people should be rewarded for hard work and not rewarded for being a dead beat leech. The ones that the far left wingers at the White House and MSNBC say are controlling the political process.
what do you think happens when people are taxed less and they have money? put the money on a rocket and shoot the cash to the moon? they buy things! that means jobs. NECESSARILY and if they invest, that also means jobs. especially if they are smart and rich and invest in companies that are doing well. this of course makes them more rich and makes you hate them more, but too bad. the way the economy works is that it flourishes when you allow poeple to create and exchange and leave them be. they accumulate things and money and they use this to accumulate more money and things by trading with others. and everyone wins. the way to break this system is by taking things from them unnecessarily. this is what our friend sabanfan might call "common sense"
nobody really, but we have all been taxed into being less rich than we could be. but we are so rich that this hurts almost nobody, because virtually every american is wildly over-consuming. but to the extent that actual poor people exist, they would be better off without your tax policies. freedom plus more rich people = less poor people. the only way to create really poor people is with taxes. at least in todays first world countries where we are not subject to things like famines and such.
