Why Obama deserves a second term.

1. 59

   phionposted 12 years ago

   The title is misleading, because I have no answer as to why he does. Can those of you who plan to vote, or voted for Obama the first time give some valid reasons?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Once again we go to the polls and pinch our noses and vote for the least evil of candidates.  Obama has not lived up to his end of the bargain and congress seems to care little about helping out.  Romney on the other hand is the candidate nobody wanted.  His own party went to unprecedented lengths in the primaries to weed him out.  We are left with an ideological quandry between the two parties and liberals and conservatives want to let the rhetoric play out.  They all have to be nervous of what the independents have hiding under their hats.  Makes for good copy and great profits for the news and network stoolies.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There is still too much freedom in this country.  I can still drive a big American(Canadian really) V 8 - that should not happen.  I also own a few firearms.  That is just wrong.  I am married to a woman.  Someone has to put a stop to that kind of thing and I believe Obama is the one.
      
      There is just too much Americanism going on and it needs to be stopped.  Obama/Biden 2012

      replyreport
   3. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He doesn't deserve a second term. Romney doesn't deserve a first term much less be elected at all.
      No rationalization would do or give validation for him to be re-elected.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If that is true, will you and other's with this same view sit this one out, and hope for the best?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sit this out and hope for the best? I don't hope for the best when it comes to elections because they are rigged before they even get started. The fact that people are unaware that elections are rigged is because they are too busy dealing with the distortion and misinformation of the politicians already in office.
            
            Here- when America was formed- only white men were allowed to vote. Then women and blacks were granted the power to vote. Then elections went from popular vote to electoral college.
            
            If all the citizens who are not politicians didn't vote, politicians would still be elected to office, so do tell me how your vote counts? Please, by all means, tell me that YOUR vote matters in a system which can elect officials without a majority of voters.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               ginosblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It must count. Pelosi said, "We have to vote in Obama Care to see what is in it". Huh! Is that how your party works? You voted in Obama and look what you got. A black and white Muslim Socialist thats hoping to get all your change. Why don't you see it in black and white? He does not care about you! Romney does. He cares about America. You should too!

               replyreport
            2. 59

               phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Cags~
               The truth that we face is very dreary, but would you like all to give up hope, or continue to watch the demise, and wait to pick up the pieces?
               I’m still digging for an answer on if you are too jaded to vote.
               Is Cags really the alter ego of a sitting Politian? I knew it!

               replyreport
            3. 77

               MickeySrposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "Then elections went from popular vote to electoral college"
               
               The make-up of the electoral college has gone through revisions, but there was never a national popular vote, the electoral college has been here from the beginning, electing George Washington (the only president ever to be elected unanimously, not a single vote against him - and so with his reelection).
               
               And . . . "Then women and blacks were granted the power to vote" might be misleading; Blacks received the right to vote before women (though poll taxes and other measures were often employed to prevent Blacks from voting).

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  May be splitting hairs but, free blacks in the north who were of age and owned property could vote, though I would expect some localities to have discouraged that and women were permitted the vote in several territories before becoming states, i.e. Wyoming Territory.

                  replyreport
   4. 59

      phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who do you think the rest of the world would like to seen in the Oval Office come next year?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Everyone I have talked to in Canada wants it to be Obama.

         replyreport
2. 60

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   He says we need more change. I have about 78 cents. Will that help?

   replyreport
3. 76

   brimancandyposted 12 years ago

   I will vote for Obama again. Mainly because I have listened to all the crap that is coming out of the republican party, which is mostly geared at pleasing their base, and religious groups. This is the same thing Bush did, claiming the whole family values BS, while they set out to attack anyone who didn't agree with their views, and get rid of our fire anyone in their party who didn't agree with them. And, Romney seems to be just another yes man, who will do whatever his party wants to get elected, and probably do nothing when or if he become President.
   
   Obama has been screwed time and time again by the republican Majority, who were out to get him from day one. Yet, he has the balls to stand up to them, and still get some of his ideas passed. While all President Bush did was bring us to war, and give away our tax dollars to his rich buddies. Who then turned around and used it to stab him in the back. And, Romney vows to continue down the same path with Bush era tax cuts, that a majority of the country doesn't want. And, bow to the religious right with all of his plans to set civil rights back to the 1950s.
   
   So you can bet, I will vote for Obama. I don't want another rich nutjob in the White house. Thank you.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Probably for the same reasons you cited I will vote for Obama again.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So you want to stick with the rich nutjob we have - from your perspective that seems perfectly reasonable.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         brimancandyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Unfortunately, in the United States, only the very wealthy can run for President. Because they are the only ones who can afford to, there might be some really good candidates who drop out of the race simply because they can no longer afford to stay in. So, you just have to choose which rich guy is going to run the country. I choose the non creepy nutjob.
         
         Or in simple South park terms, you get to choose between giant douche or steaming pile of turd. Either way you lose.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Might as well vote for the one who will encourage corporate growth and international investment in the US, considering we have above 10% real unemployment.
            
            Obama's plan to stimulate corporations to hire, is to give them a one-time, 10% discount on any new hiring costs for the year.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               brimancandyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That sounds like a good idea, but tax credits only work in the short term. Corporations do take advantage of it, but only hire to get the discount and rarely keep that new employee more than 90 days. Usually just until the day before they are eligible for unemployment and then boot them out the door.  I know because I worked for a company that does it every year.
               
               What we need is a plan to encourage companies to hire and retain employees. In retail, the Christmas shopping season sees a huge rush in hiring, most new hires work through Christmas and are booted out the door the 2nd of January. This mentality needs to stop.
               
               Funny thing is, I recall a senator who tried to come up with a bill to pay minority women not to have children. I have an idea, why don't we take that same logic and pay people who don't want to work to stay home with that same money. We are already giving 800 billion dollars to the banks, why not do something like that with those billions. Instead of going into a small     hand full of executives pockets, it would put money into the hands of millions of consumers. Who will then spend that money, and cause businesses to hire to keep up with the huge un-tapped pool of consumers that it lost to massive unemployment.
               
               People will say, that's what welfare does. But, not true. Welfare is basically geared towards women with children, minorities, and the handicapped, and they get very little money, unless they have many under aged children. Able bodied single men get nothing.
               
               Another thing they should do is encourage older workers to retire, and make it more attractive for them to do so. That would open up the job pool to millions of workers as well. Drop the retirement age to 55, but make it  a choice. The government is paying senators huge amounts of money in healthcare, and perks. Why not offer the same to those who worked all their lives, instead of just offering the door.
               
               Think my ideas are stupid. Here's another real bill  created by a senator. Lets give millionaires vouchers, so they can buy bigger boats, and luxury cars, to help stimulate the shipping and auto industry. Please! they have the money if they want a bigger boat, let them buy it! That would stinulate the economy, get some of these rich bastards to spend their money, and stop giving them our tax dollars!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama's plan is a tax credit.
                  
                  Romney's plan is to make the corporate tax rate competitive on an international level. We have the highest rates in the OECD, 7% above average and up to 30% above specific countries in certain markets.
                  
                  Having a competitive environment is the first step to encouraging real growth. Multinational investors have a hard time looking at America when they automatically lose an extra 10-20% of their profits here.
                  
                  Giving money directly to people doesn't create real demand. Just like the holiday season, new hires would be temporary and the net effect would be very small. Unless you want the government to give out 800 billion dollars every year, which would also be a bad idea.
                  
                  We have to create an environment that encourages real growth and investment, and real demand will follow. That means we have to take a look at tax rates and regulations, just to name 2.

                  replyreport
         2. 60

            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It is good that the unbridled optimism that put an American on the moon is alive and well.  I wonder how Obama isn't creepy.  Have you actually paid attention to his rambling narcissism?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               There are lots of folks in these forums who would have been right at home hating Nixon in the same way they hate Bush and any Conservative or Republican. They were raised in it and believe it fully.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
            2. 59

               phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Undermyhat~
               Does Obama get credit for NASA going under during his watch?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  How many top paying engineering job did the Space Coast lose to Star City?  Other than Muslim out reach, it would appear that Obama's NASA mission is to employ Russian rocket scientists.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey, at least you can still go on a tour right? Sad sad sad. Putin is eating it up. Good thing we can give the Russians a boost in confidence.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No wonder Vlady looked like the angry uncle next to the troublesome child during the G20 summit in Mexico.  Man vs. boy.  So sad.  Reagan and Gorbechev were obviously both Men.

                        replyreport
               2. 77

                  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  NASA seems pretty healthy
                  
                  http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_2 … b_2010.pdf

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     UW~That is a proposed budget. That’s before more cuts are needed to pay for Obamacare and other social programs that are growing exponentially fatter than ever expected.
                     But hey who doesn’t like free stuff?
                     I know NASA isn’t completely belly up, but sadly I don’t think it will be long.
                     Notice how they ask for more each year for the same things the year prior, and it’s not to account for inflation. What happened to efficiency? Did that ever exist in government?
                     I guess as long as most of us peon’s are efficient and responsible, the government and those that depend on it don’t need to be.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        NASA's budget is slated to rise every year for at least the next 10 years.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Looks like NASA is on a freeze. 17.7 billion from 2012-2015, at least. Factoring for inflation, their budget is going down every year.
                           
                           Just sayin'.
                           
                           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_ … _1958-2012

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              The end of the shuttle program cost 8000 American jobs - directly.  There are always jobs lost through cancellation of a high tech program beyond those directly dismissed.
                              
                              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23904170/ns … A4iRpEsF0Y

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Russians don't offer credit.  You have to buy the ticket before the flight to the ISS.  How much is NASA going to have to pay per cargo delivery by private contractors?  How much to send astronauts to the ISS and bring them home?  Will they be flying stand by behind the Chinese?

                           replyreport
               3. 0

                  DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That would be no http://spacenews.com/policy/120420-nasa … bills.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No! It's all Obama's fault. He's a terrible president who hasn't done anything for people who hate gays, enjoy working and enjoy freedom.
                     
                     If Obama so much as wins one state in the next election it will be because of voter fraud!

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        cody cody cody....if you’re a gay it's ok. Most of us don't hate you, and if Obama wins it will be because the majority of the people that voted for him didn’t have the hind or foresight to hope for the best possible future.
                        
                        The stats are dismal for him. I voted for him for certain reasons last time, but none of those reasons held any water when he gained power. He turned out to be just another puppet, and I’m not suggesting that Romney will be any better, but at least Romney can the give hope of a economically friendly white house.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Is that you JS?
                           
                           

                           replyreport
                  2. 60

                     undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Three years to save an institution we were told he loved so as a child and the biggest NASA initiative is a Muslim out reach program.  Presidential leadership has been missingfor 3 years. Leading with his behind seems to be the way Obama does everything.  He takes credit and is assigned blame for the Health care reform but he offered and authored none of it.  He takes credit for the killing of Bin Laden when the order was given by Leon Panetta.  He takes credit for Lybia but it was NATO, the British, French and Italians who initiated teh policy.  He takes credit for Egypt and it is rapidly approaching the humaintarian disaster that Lybia could never have been.
                     
                     Inept, petulant, marginally articulate, angry, out of his depth and out of time Barrack Obama will be retired in November, but what will he do afterward for a living?  He has never held a real job.  Michelle has become acustomed to queenly comfort.  His time in office has produced very little about which Bill Ayres can ghost write yet another biography.  So what is next for Barrack Obama?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry are you seriously suggesting that in the recovery period from a massive global recession NASA is a priority for funds? My kids liked NASA as children too, most children love astronauts etc. then they grow up and figure out there are much bigger issues at hand.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, I am saying the biggest R & D program that has had enormous benefit should be a spending priority, if for no other reason than NASA is essential for advances in space based defense.  What spending priorities of this administration have generated any lasting or meaningful results?  As for a global recession, once Obama is out of office and Romney and a bigger and better Republican Congress institue
                           1) an actual budget - something Obama has failed to get passed in his term
                           
                           2) spending cuts - something that will result in America's bond rating returning to its historically high rating - one that no other President ever lost
                           
                           3) a massive change in taxation priorities and structure
                           
                           4) a repproachment with Germany - the only EU country actually making sense through out the Euro crisis
                           
                           5) implimentation of Romney's plan
                           
                           Than  you will see the "global" recession start to reverse.  It isn't a global recession - it is a recession in the largest economy in the world - without a healthy American economy there can be no healthy world economy

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Space based defense against what.... We have spent countless trillion on NASA to the benefit of killing a few people and landing on very uninteresting rock then they manged to copy soviet satellites, brilliant.
                              
                              No it's a global recession caused by people investing in the US and copying the US model which was shown to be terribly flawed and all those amazing conservative policies culminated in exactly that collapse. Also they are all useless as measures and not a single successful economy in the present day is doing that, why not copy a model that works instead of the tired old trash that got us here in the first place? Too innovative I guess
                              
                              Please show me a single economy in the world in the modern day that has passed these conservative measures and had any success with them. Good luck with that. The economies succeeding are doing the opposite particularly increasing spending to stave off recession during recovery (because literally the dumbest economist in the world can tell you that when the economy is down it needs capital infusion and spending, the last thing it needs is bunkering down which prevents commerce thus causing recession.
                              
                              *sigh* basic economics are obviously way too complex for some.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 China is militarizing space with satellite shoot down ability
                                 Near Earth Objects pose an extinction threat and more work needs to be done there
                                 GPS is a direct benefit of NASA/military work
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 Less than $890 billion in 53 year - adjusted for inflation - with a maximum inflation adjusted annual budget of $33 billion at the height of the Space Race in the 1960s
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 Well that ends the whole point in conversation - you and I dwell in different realities
                                 
                                 
                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budge … SA_funding

                                 replyreport
                              2. 60

                                 undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Governments own no capital that it can infuse.  It can inflate, tax, borrow but not create wealth.
                                 
                                 “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
                                 —George Washington, 1797

                                 replyreport
   3. 80

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, Romney reminds me a lot of the Bush Boys and their oil wars...torture ... hatred a family value. If I had $20 million in the Bahamas, I'd vote for Romney. The money would make be more of a retard.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      'The Republicans are bad' is not a very compelling argument for voting for Obama. Thank God for the Republicans or the Democrats would never know what scapegoat to run their campaign against, and vice versa. They need each other.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Of course, both parties are needed to continue the illusion of a dual party, when in truth they are parts of the same coin, just the flip side from another.
         
         Neither are interested in creating an Economy where Equality and Equal Rights rule the Marketplace.
         
         Republicans blame Democrats.
         Democrats blame Republicans.
         
         Conservatives blame liberals or anyone else who doesn't agree with them.
         Liberals blame Conservatives or anyone else who doesn't agree with them.
         
         The independents and other parties for the most part know it's all a gimmick which is why someone will always attempt a run, but know pretty damn well they won't be elected, because the wouldn't have the financial support to live through all the Campaigning, and those who control media and who they back, will make it very difficult for other candidates to get airtime that is needed. It will most likely cost them more than the person they are supporting. To think they wouldn't skew Elections in this manner is naive.

         replyreport
   5. 60

      ginosblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Brimancandy, let me guess. Your on food stamps, medicaid, and any other programs that you don't have to work for. Am I right? Please. You don't have an arguement. At an early age if you felt so strong about the government why did you not spend your efforts in that direction instead of drinking beer with the bros?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Were you born offensive and presumptive or did something make you that way? Do you know anything about the person you are talking to? As a small business owner etc. I find your statement to be incredibly foolish and offensive. It may do you good to remember that liberals are on average wealthier...

         replyreport
4. 60

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very Good - than he can talk about himself as the fixer and the wrecker.  That should really keep his ego happy.  It may just ruin the use of the pronoun "I"  I am certain it was not designed for those RPMs.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am going to have to write a hub about some of the incredible and frightening things I have seen and heard said about him over the past four years.
         There is almost a cult about the man.

         replyreport
5. 76

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   I agree that "deserve" is inappropriate. He doesn't "deserve" anything. There's no entitlement to the office of POTUS.
   Has Obama earned our trust to lead the US for four more years?
   Partially. He's still got some promises to keep.
   But as Romney has earned zero trust for anything he currently claims to stand for (today), I'll put my vote behind another four years of Obama.
   
   Unless Hillary pulls a shock and awe.
   Then  sorry, but buh bye Bararck.
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He was entitled to the office the first time around.  How else could he have possibly been elected?  What had the man ever done up to that point but talk?

      replyreport
6. 61

   Cody Hodgeposted 12 years ago

   Why is this even a question?
   
   Obama in a landslide.
   
   The GOP should just stay home.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obama doesn't understand economics or free markets. That's a problem. That's a good reason to not vote for him, when unemployment is over 10%.
      
      Really, our party system screws things up more than each individual group does on its own, which is sad. But, we have to work within it...

      replyreport
   2. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't a landslide last time around and there has been a great deal of buyers remorse since.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         365-173 isn't exactly close.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Electoral College does not constitute a landslide.  It reflects number of states and size of states won.  Landslide implies popular vote.  That having been said, it is quite unlikely Obama will have as many electoral votes this time around since he is guaranteed not to win Indiana, again.. In fact, I venture to say that he has insured that no Democrat will carry Indiana within the next 50 years.  I guess he has accomplished something good.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Actual votes:
               Dems                          Republicans   
               66,882,230    53.0    58,343,671    46.0
               
               Difference: 8,538,559
               
               http://www.infoplease.com/us/government … mmary.html

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  okay

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Dmart-
                  Do those stats take into account all the first time African American voters that voted for the first time? They rightfully did what anyone would do, and I'm not knocking them, but every single one of my friends that voted for him last time in that demographic are very disappointed in the results. He has truly done nothing for the struggling African American, except give them more of the same worthless hopes and promises.
                  Can you prove otherwise?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I was merely posting the vote count. I have no intention of getting into this pissing contest. Besides, you've proven when someone disagrees with you that personal attacks work best. Have fun with that.

                     replyreport
         2. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Obama won by 7%. I'll agree that's pretty much a landslide. It makes the E.C. votes look like more of a landslide than they are. Obama only has a 1.1% advantage in polls right now.
            
            This time around though, Obama's got a problem. His record. (His record wasn't an issue last time, nobody could come up with one).
            
            Jobs aren't doing well. People are unemployed. Over 10% unemployed, how many of those people do you think are going to be enamored with the jobs situation?
            
            The last 3 months we've been losing jobs compared to the population. It ticked up in May, and is going to tick up again. We'll probably be looking at 8.5-8.7 or so by the time we get to voting(CBO is projecting 8.9 by the end of the year). That's not going to look good for the candidate that told us we'd never get above 8%.
            
            I think it will be close, but I think Romney's going to squeeze into the White House.

            replyreport
         3. 60

            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            A unanimous victory can be attained by winning every Congressional district by 1 vote - that  would be winning the national popular vote by 435 votes.  It has never been done, it is improbable but possible - would you consider that a land slide?

            replyreport
   3. 60

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Voter suppression anyone?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well duh, how else is he supposed to win. It's not like he's leading in the polls or anything.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            He isn't.  Depending on the poll he is behind or ahead by no more than the margin of error.  He hasn't been over 50% in any poll for months.  In the so called battleground states the polls are very tight and Obama's campaign is spending money in places presumed safe. Obama's campaign and its supporters will spend a $billion on this election and do so fastert than the money is coming in.
            
            It is a dead heat going into the Olympics where Americanism will be on display - not good for liberals.  The conventions will follow.  Then the home stretch.  Republican voter enthusiasm is on an up swing with every Obama public goof - "you didn't do that."  Precious little teleprompter reader should stick to the planned text.  Republicans tend to vote in greater percentages than liberals and independents, but Obama is helping to lose important margins in his own support.
            
            Just as that grumpy, old, liberal Republican John McCain convinced many conservatives that he was unworthy of their vote, so too has Obama convinced them that sitting out an election has profound results.  I doubt Republican voter enthusiasm will ever fall as far as it did with McCain.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That went right over your head again Cody...........

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               What went over my head?

               replyreport
7. 60

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   
   
   The liberal philosophy on voting.

   replyreport
8. 52

   ocbillposted 12 years ago

   He was given 4 trillion in debt by Bush, a falling stock market, and a recession in progress. Nobody could turn around a large economy like the US that quick, especially with the perennial party opposition and fat pocket guarding stalwart politicians and their buddies in the back room (bank CEOs). Greed takes a while to dismantle.  It didn't matter if it was that little guy from AZ elected or the comical hockey Mom governor. China turned around b/c the govt acts quick and we still don't change our ways.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      and piled more in heaps upon it.
      
      
      
      Reagan did when handed an economy worse than the one Obama had.
      
      
       
      
      
      Obama had a fillibuster proof Senate and total control of the House for a year.
      
      
      
      
      7 of the 10 wealthiest people in Congress are Democrats
      
      
      
      You are right and the greedy government will be chaged in November

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Obama has had the slowest growth in public national debt
         
         Reagan did it by raising taxes
         
         Democrats in conservative states might as well be part of the GOP

         replyreport
         1. 60

            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            1) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … nder-bush/
            
            Doubtful since Obama has added as much to the National Debt in 3 years as Bush did in 8.  Crazed contortions contained in commentaries that offer Obama cover are laughable.  Try to sell those numbers to anyone but a Democrat.
            
            2)Presidents don't raise nor cut taxes, they sign bills that make tax changes law.  Those laws originate in the House of Representatives.  Frequently,  Presidents cooperate with the House to achieve other policy priorities. 
            
            http://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law
            
            If that is too hard for some, School House Rock got it right in its basics and the tune was catchy..I'm just a bill, yeah, I'm only a bill....
            
            3)AWESOME!!!! So you are saying Romney is going to run away with it??  Let's see, Obama would get Illinois, California, New York - any more??? Not if those conservative Democrats have anything to say about it they might as well be baby eating Republicans - I repeat - AWESOME!!!!

            replyreport
         2. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Come on Cody. The stimulus spending was supposed to be one-time. Obama has grown debt on top of that, as if the 2008-09 spending was the normal baseline.

            replyreport