- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
My cup is no different than your cup. That's the part you fail to recognize. I suspect, and I could be wrong, you would would have voted for Bush in 2004 no matter how badly he had performed (and I can't imagine him failing worse than he had). I equally suspect that no matter how well Obama performs, he's not getting your vote, regardless of who runs against him, as long as they put an (R) after their name.You see, your cup is always half empty with Bush whereas it is always half full with Obama.
I don't ignore the attack -- I hold him accountable for doing nothing to prevent it. That aside, I find it amazing that you cut Bush slack for poor performance because of the cards he was dealt, but you don't offer that same advantage to Obama. I chalk that up to your partisanship and nothing more.You totally ignore that Bush had an attack on our soil, a recession and still grew jobs during 2004 along with had strong economic growth.
According to you, he did save or create 3.5 million jobs. You were the one who bought the rightwing rhetoric that each job cost us $228,000. Well if that's what you believe each job cost, then 3.5 million jobs had to have been saved or created.So Obama didn't tell the CBO that he created or saved 3.5 million jobs? I asked you where those jobs were saved because it is obvious that he didn't create 3.5 million jobs meaning that he had to save a great portion of those. Show me where those jobs were saved?
My cup is no different than your cup. That's the part you fail to recognize. I suspect, and I could be wrong, you would would have voted for Bush in 2004 no matter how badly he had performed (and I can't imagine him failing worse than he had). I equally suspect that no matter how well Obama performs, he's not getting your vote, regardless of who runs against him, as long as they put an (R) after their name.
I don't ignore the attack -- I hold him accountable for doing nothing to prevent it. That aside, I find it amazing that you cut Bush slack for poor performance because of the cards he was dealt, but you don't offer that same advantage to Obama. I chalk that up to your partisanship and nothing more.
According to you, he did save or create 3.5 million jobs. You were the one who bought the rightwing rhetoric that each job cost us $228,000. Well if that's what you believe each job cost, then 3.5 million jobs had to have been saved or created.
The CBO never stated each job cost $228,000, which is what you stated (not the CBO); so why on Earth would I think you worked for them?Let me know where you get your evidence that I work for the CBO?
The CBO never stated each job cost $228,000, which is what you stated (not the CBO); so why on Earth would I think you worked for them?
But, but, but that caused the debt increase and we all know the govt. can spend the money better than the people can when they keep their own. Where is that liberal compassion? We have to help our fellow Americans by giving it to the govt. so they can spend it the way they see fit. You seem like a heartless conservative to me who wants to starve kids, kill seniors, and pollute the air by keeping more of your own money.
You tell me -- it's your math. You are the one complaining about how every job saved or created cost us $228,000. Well based on the cost of the stimulus, the only way you can figure that each job cost us $228,000 is if 3.5 million jobs were saved or created.CBO claims that Obama created or saved 3.5 million jobs, what does the 228k have to do with that?
You tell me -- it's your math. You are the one complaining about how every job saved or created cost us $228,000. Well based on the cost of the stimulus, the only way you can figure that each job cost us $228,000 is if 3.5 million jobs were saved or created.
yeah and smart people understand that a state doing something doesn't violate the tenth amendment but the federal government doing it does.
You're sadly mistaken if you think it's my job to prove your numbers are correct. You posted that each job saved or created cost us $228,000. Only after you learned the implications of that figure (that being 3.5 million jobs would have had to be saved or created in order to reach the number of $228,000), did you suddenly decide you no longer accept that figure.So unless you can show me where those saved jobs are then you are nothing more than a typical Obama cheerleader how basis your vote on rhetoric and not actual results because in your world results don't matter.
You're sadly mistaken if you think it's my job to prove your numbers are correct. You posted that each job saved or created cost us $228,000. Only after you learned the implications of that figure (that being 3.5 million jobs would have had to be saved or created in order to reach the number of $228,000), did you suddenly decide you no longer accept that figure.
Until then, you kept whining about how each job cost us $228,000. That's your number, not the CBO's; as the link to the CBO showed, they never said anything about each job costing us $228,000.
I've never seen anybody struggle so much to divorce themselves from figures they themselves posted as you have; trying to distance yourself from saying how each job saved or created cost us $228,000.
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.Probably because Reagan and Bush policies helped the average American with tax cuts that they are still getting today and neither added 4 trillion to the debt in two years.
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.
but they added to it, regardless of the amount, but you excuse it...anyhoo...me thinks you should bow out of this thread, as sheik yerbuti is manhandling you. just sayin'Try to stay on topic, of course Reagan and Bush added to the debt but no one has ever added this much in two years and in fact at the end of this year Obama will be close to adding as much debt in 3 years as Bush added in 8. There was a lot of complaining about the Bush debt but none here by Obama supporters about his debt. It will be his debt that will be an issue in the next election, not Reagan's or Bush's.
reagan and bush policies also contributed to our debt..but of course, they are excused in your book, as they are republican, like yourself.
but they added to it, regardless of the amount, but you excuse it...anyhoo...me thinks you should bow out of this thread, as sheik yerbuti is manhandling you. just sayin'
Reagan yes, because he tried to fix it. Bush II no, because he didnt'. I was against the Bailouts (the first one, in 2008) when being against them wasn't cooleace:
it has been pointed out that you perceive results as good or bad depending on if there is an (R) or a (D) in front of the name....the (R) could have worse results than the (D), and you would still vote for the (R)....Yes, liberals have to stick together for who else but another liberal believes a word that they say. Only a compassionate liberal makes claims of someone else being manhandled. You have very little credibility on the issue as obviously you believe what you want to believe.
Reagan and Bush both added to the debt along with the Congresses at the time so what is your point? Does that make it right that Obama has added more in a little over a year than Reagan added in 8 or will add more in 3+ years than Bush added in 8?
Results matter, randel and I am sure that is why you never want to talk about results. If you care so much about the debt that Reagan and Bush created why aren't you sending your Bush tax cut back since you believe that causes debt? If you are concerned about the debt that Reagan and Bush added why are you supporting Obama since he is adding more debt than both and will add more debt than both combined by the time he is done?
Now you're comparing 2011 dollars with 1988 dollars? Fact of the matter is, by the time Reagan left office, he nearly tripled the national debt. Lemme guess, in 1984, you voted to give him 4 more years too, huh? I suppose you voted to give GHW 4 more years too in 1992? In his 4 years, the debt rose a whopping 61%. That's the second worst performance over a 4 years span (Reagan remains king in that department, raising the debt 79% during his first term).Try to stay on topic, of course Reagan and Bush added to the debt but no one has ever added this much in two years and in fact at the end of this year Obama will be close to adding as much debt in 3 years as Bush added in 8. There was a lot of complaining about the Bush debt but none here by Obama supporters about his debt. It will be his debt that will be an issue in the next election, not Reagan's or Bush's.
it has been pointed out that you perceive results as good or bad depending on if there is an (R) or a (D) in front of the name....the (R) could have worse results than the (D), and you would still vote for the (R)....
Now you're comparing 2011 dollars with 1988 dollars? Fact of the matter is, by the time Reagan left office, he nearly tripled the national debt. Lemme guess, in 1984, you voted to give him 4 more years too, huh? I suppose you voted to give GHW 4 more years too in 1992? In his 4 years, the debt rose a whopping 61%. That's the second worst performance over a 4 years span (Reagan remains king in that department, raising the debt 79% during his first term).
Of course the debt skyrocketed, before Obama even became president, the deficit for 2009 was already projected to hit $1.2 trillion.Reagan and Bush both added to the debt along with the Congresses at the time so what is your point? Does that make it right that Obama has added more in a little over a year than Reagan added in 8 or will add more in 3+ years than Bush added in 8?
Not to you they don't. If they did, you never would have voted to give 4 more years to the guy who did nothing to prevent 9.11, saw 2 million people lose their jobs, and invade a country over weapons that turned out not to be there ... and that was just his first term. By the end of his second, this country was hanging by a thread.Results matter...
Riiight ... he created so much revenue, that he balanced the budget, right?Reagan policies created so much govt. revenue that it was like a "kid in the candy store" for the Congress to see how they could spend the money the quickest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?