POLL: one-third say Impeach Obama

nic11 · Jul 29, 2014

The Bailout Scorecard
Last update: Jul. 22, 2014

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $611B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $388B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $265B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $41.7B profit as of Jul. 22, 2014.

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

washunut · Jul 29, 2014

haymarket said:
How would numbers on advocating impeachment of Bush and Clinton a decade or two ago provide evidence either way for the radicalization of the right in 2014?

It tries to put to rest the meme that folks like you (partisan left) toss out about who much more radical politics is now.

American · Jul 29, 2014

MTAtech said:
Since about a quarter of America doesn't think Obama is a citizen, a poll such as this has little merit.

Since a good portion of the Left are mind-numbed Obamabots the number is significant.

haymarket · Jul 29, 2014

washunut said:
It tries to put to rest the meme that folks like you (partisan left) toss out about who much more radical politics is now.

You certainly can try all you want.

MTAtech · Jul 29, 2014

Anthony60 said:
LOL, not even a good analogy! Yeah, the federal government doesn't have any waste, not a smidgen. They need every bit of our tax dollars to cover the bare minimums that the government is supposed to be doing. Right.
I'm glad you "love it" so much, you must love being wrong. And whose money do you think it is?
Here's another flaw in your logic, working families go out and earn money, it belongs to them. Tell me, what does the federal government earn? What does it produce?
Not even close to the real world. That's why you liberals believe what you believe, because you depend on the flawed logic of you leaders.

What does the government produce? The FBI produces safety from drug smugglers, counterfeiters and other criminals;
Food inspectors assure that our meat and vegetables are safe to eat;
The military defends the country;
The SSA sends our millions of pension checks to seniors, that keep them out of poverty;
Medicare assures that seniors have insurance for medical access;
Medicaid gives medical access to the poor;
The federal courts prosecute criminals and adjudicate disputes;
The Corp of Army Engineers devise infrastructure projects like dams;
I could go on but point made.

MTAtech · Jul 29, 2014

Anthony60 said:
So, your point is that Bush, sworn in in late January, caused the recession? Hmmm, I wonder how many of those economists would agree with that. I figured you'd say that. Just a ridiculous response, but not unexpected. What, no comment on Obama's Trillion dollar deficits that followed? Have they been paid back? I think not.

Reading comprehension is your friend. This is what I wrote in post# 206. I bolded the relevant portion to help you:

MTAtech said:
Let me dissect this one by one and it clearly started on Bush's watch -- not that he was directly responsible for business cycles. Here is that recession in gray. It wasn't much of anything.

tres borrachos · Jul 29, 2014

Anthony60 said:
So, your point is that Bush, sworn in in late January, caused the recession? Hmmm, I wonder how many of those economists would agree with that. I figured you'd say that. Just a ridiculous response, but not unexpected. What, no comment on Obama's Trillion dollar deficits that followed? Have they been paid back? I think not.

Paul Krugman would agree, because he's another full-on partisan.

It started on "Bush's watch". :roll: Everything was on "Bush's watch" to the partisans. The fact that the actions of the recession (and 9/11, and the housing bubble) all happened during Clinton's "watch" are never mentioned by the partisans. It doesn't suit the talking points.

By the way, Obama apparently doesn't have a "watch". Everything wrong in Obama's world is Bush's fault, just like everything wrong in Bush's world was Bush's fault. It wasn't Clinton's fault, none of it. It's always the predecessor's fault - unless of course the predecessor was a Democrat.

MTAtech · Jul 29, 2014

tres borrachos said:
Paul Krugman would agree, because he's another full-on partisan.

It started on "Bush's watch". :roll: Everything was on "Bush's watch" to the partisans. The fact that the actions of the recession (and 9/11, and the housing bubble) all happened during Clinton's "watch" are never mentioned by the partisans. It doesn't suit the talking points.

By the way, Obama apparently doesn't have a "watch". Everything wrong in Obama's world is Bush's fault, just like everything wrong in Bush's world was Bush's fault. It wasn't Clinton's fault, none of it. It's always the predecessor's fault - unless of course the predecessor was a Democrat.

9/11 happened on Clinton's watch? The housing bubble occurred between 2005 and 2007. It must be, according to you, that one has the right to blame anything bad on the Democrats, no atter how long they left office.

Misterveritis · Jul 29, 2014

joG said:
Perjury? Break and enter? Taking a bribe?

Actual crimes can lead to impeachment but they are not required to impeach. Treason and bribery can lead to impeachment unless we have a flake like Boehner as Speaker of the House.

I am coming to believe our fascist in the White House is an Islamofascist. But we cannot impeach the President for demolishing the nation with the help of his democratic henchmen. Can we?

Kobie · Jul 29, 2014

Misterveritis said:
Actual crimes can lead to impeachment but they are not required to impeach. Treason and bribery can lead to impeachment unless we have a flake like Boehner as Speaker of the House.

I am coming to believe our fascist in the White House is an Islamofascist. But we cannot impeach the President for demolishing the nation with the help of his democratic henchmen. Can we?

What. What.

What.

The Mark · Jul 29, 2014

Kobie said:
What. What.

What.

Well you see, it's a simple connection chain, Kobie.

Back in WWII, some Islamic groups got all friendly with the Nazi's, partially because they agreed in some ways on the whole "jews are bad" thing.

Some of those groups were from the same areas that terrorists come from now, and some terrorists and the like are fans of what the Nazi's were doing.

So some terrorists are called "islamofacists" by some persons.

Ummmm...actually it breaks down there, I have no idea why the POTUS is apparently an islamofacist.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

Kobie said:
Oh, are we on the "DEMOCRATZ JUST WANT VOTERZ" train still?

Do you honestly think the democrats are pushing for amnesty for humanitarian reasons?

Kobie · Jul 29, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
Do you honestly think the democrats are pushing for amnesty for humanitarian reasons?

I'm not a mind reader. However, it's a common train of thought amongst conservatives -- every single thing a Democratic politician does is intended to cynically pander to minorities. You can set your watch by how often that card is played. It's the kind of thinking that emerges once you've convinced yourself that one party is pure, unadulterated evil.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

Ockham said:
Impeachment isn't on the table until possibly, after the mid-term elections. If Republicans can seize a majority in the Senate..... If they do not get a majority, then it's not an option unless Obama murders someone in broad daylight in the Rose Garden, with a pistol. (Obvious "Clue" reference there... ) The news networks would probably destroy the video - so it's a "maybe" even then.

Even if they do get a majority in the Senate it's still not going to happen. I believe they had a majority in the Senate when they impeached Slick Willy. The Senate is kind of a country club. Obama would just about have to be caught torturing kittens.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

Kobie said:
I'm not a mind reader. However, it's a common train of thought amongst conservatives -- every single thing a Democratic politician does is intended to cynically pander to minorities. You can set your watch by how often that card is played. It's the kind of thinking that emerges once you've convinced yourself that one party is pure, unadulterated evil.

I have never heard any conservative suggest that every single thing a democrat politician does is intended to pander to minorities. I think you are pulling that out of your hat. However many things that democrats do are certainly done for the purpose of pandering to minorities. Any intellectually honest leftwinger will admit that.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

Top Cat said:
That was already debunked on this thread. Nice try though. Now carry on.

Debunked by who? Birtherism: Where it all began - Ben Smith and Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
It's a well-known fact that mid-terms almost always result in significant gains for the party that is not residing in the White House. In fact, if the GOP doesn't take the Senate, it will be seen as a significant victory for the Dems, especially since more incumbent Dem seats are up for reelection than are GOP seats. And in the House, the districts have been gerrymandered to such a degree that most GOP seats are safe no matter what - which is why the GOP has a significant majority even though in the 2012 election Democratic House candidates received over a half million more votes than GOP candidates did.

However, in 2016, if Hillary runs and lives to election night, she will win the election and we will certainly take back the Senate...and possibly the House as well...because as much as the Right hates her, there's no one on your side that even comes close to presenting a real threat to her candidacy. Personally, I'd much prefer Elizabeth Warren...but if Hillary's the nominee, she'll get my vote...and the votes of all the other Dems who would prefer a real liberal instead of a LINO like Hillary. We see her much as the Right saw McCain.

But while funding greatly helps, it's certainly not the be-all and end-all of elections. You and I can agree on that much, at least.

You are certainly not an objective arbiter or expert on whether the right has any possible candidate that would be a threat to Hillary. At this point in time, I think the only way the republicans could lose to her is if they nominate another old fart RINO like McCain. Hillary of "I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia" is damaged goods. She is old.....haggard...and in poor health for the rigors of a presidential campaign.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 29, 2014

rocket88 said:
So what you're saying is that Conservatives trust Hillary Clinton? :shock:

?????????

Linc · Jul 29, 2014

Apparently the Speaker of the House is no longer one of those who wants to Impeach the Prez .

Linc · Jul 29, 2014

The GOP fundraises to increase voter turn-out off of Impeaching President Obama--OKAY.
The Democrats fundraise to increase voter turn-out defending the President against Impeachment--not Okay .

TheNextEra · Jul 29, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
Debunked by who? Birtherism: Where it all began - Ben Smith and Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

While it was brought up in the Hillary camp it is the right-wing nutjobs that have carried the football from there and you know it.

Linc · Jul 29, 2014

Just as we saw with the Willie Horton ad.

TheNextEra said:
While it was brought up in the Hillary camp it is the right-wing
nutjobs that have carried the football from there and you know it.

Just a month ago the GOPs were for Impeachment.
Now about 80 of them are afraid to go home and get an anti-impeach earful.

Maybe it's the $2.1 million Dems just raised off of impeachment, as reported by Rep. Steve Israel.
Why just tonight a got a DNC call and was glad to help out .

Anthony60 · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
What does the government produce? The FBI produces safety from drug smugglers, counterfeiters and other criminals;
Food inspectors assure that our meat and vegetables are safe to eat;
The military defends the country;
The SSA sends our millions of pension checks to seniors, that keep them out of poverty;
Medicare assures that seniors have insurance for medical access;
Medicaid gives medical access to the poor;
The federal courts prosecute criminals and adjudicate disputes;
The Corp of Army Engineers devise infrastructure projects like dams;
I could go on but point made.

Oh, good point. And who pays for all that?

Glen Contrarian · Jul 30, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
You are certainly not an objective arbiter or expert on whether the right has any possible candidate that would be a threat to Hillary. At this point in time, I think the only way the republicans could lose to her is if they nominate another old fart RINO like McCain. Hillary of "I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia" is damaged goods. She is old.....haggard...and in poor health for the rigors of a presidential campaign.

If you want to think that way, please go right on ahead - please don't let me stop you!

And let me guess - when Fox and "unskewed polls" was predicting a Romney victory in 2012, you believed that one, too....

Anthony60 · Jul 30, 2014

haymarket said:
It is the perfect analogy as it exposes the rightwing fraud that you can cut your income and still be more than fine just like you are now.
Regardless if you like it or not - the income of the federal government is taxes. Reality is what reality is. Denial is just dumb.

It's "perfect"??? Let's see, a family were the man works two jobs to make ends meet, compared to a federal government adorned with lavish buildings, high paid employees, a President that spares no expense, living like a king. Yeah, perfect comparison. Talk about something being, your words, "just dumb".

Where did I say there is no waste or nothing to cut? Right off the top of my head I can point to over 2 trillion dollars that the government wasted over the last decade or so sticking our nose overseas where it did not belong. I simply think that the right wing drown it in a bathtub solution is foolish and inane so to talk about only tax cuts and pretend they will not have really bit negative impacts upon the American people is ridiculous.

Well, looks like you didn't get the point there. No biggy. Well, let's just move on, shall we?

POLL: one-third say Impeach Obama

nic11

Member

washunut

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

haymarket

MTAtech

MTAtech

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

MTAtech

Misterveritis

Kobie

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

LetsGoBrandon

Kobie

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

Linc

NIMBY

Linc

NIMBY

TheNextEra

Linc

NIMBY

Anthony60

Glen Contrarian

Anthony60

POLL: one-third say Impeach Obama

Member

Trump Grump Whisperer

HoHoHo

Sporadic insanity normal.

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency