President Obama's Real Record: The Facts

[AlbqOwl]

To PW4000, please forgive me if I don't use nested quotes, but just on the GM thing alone, the numbers simply don't allow for any conclusion other than payola, staggering expense to the taxpayer, payola, and a failed effort of the Obama Administration:

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again - Forbes

Sunday, October 14, 2012

More Americans than ever have a favorable opinion of Ford, the one Big Three automaker that didn’t take federal bailout money.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 78% of American Adults have at least a somewhat favorable impression of Ford. That’s up slightly from 76% in February, the previous high, but consistent with findings since the 2008-2009 auto bailouts.
Ford Remains Far More Popular Than GM, Chrysler - Rasmussen Reports™

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The bailouts still rankle a lot of car buyers. More Americans than ever are more likely to buy a Ford because it's made by the one Big Three automaker who didn't take a federal government bailout. By the same measure, most Americans are still unlikely to buy a General Motors product
57% Are More Likely to Buy A Ford Because Of the GM Bailout - Rasmussen Reports™

The Staggering Size of the Bailout

President Obama handed the United Auto Workers $26.5 billion—more than the U.S. spent on all foreign aid programs in 2011 ($20.6 billion). The union collected 50 percent more than NASA’s $17.6 billion budget for 2011,[46] more than Missouri’s state budget ($23.2 billion), and almost as much as Indiana’s state budget ($26.7 billion).[47] The UAW subsidies cost twice as much as Congress spent last year on the Executive Office of the President, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch combined ($12.3 billion);[48] more than the Department of Labor spent on job training programs ($11.0 billion);[49] and almost as much as the cost of keeping federally funded extended unemployment insurance benefits in place in 2012 ($30.1 billion).[50]
Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses Came from Subsidizing Union Compensation

In new analysis from the Mackinac Center, James Hohman discusses how $3 billion in federal and state funding for General Motors’ Chevy Volt, the much acclaimed “green,” plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle, is costing taxpayers $250,000 per car. As noted by Hohman, the Volt “might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant,” the car produced by the former Communist country of East Germany.
GM’s Chevy Volt Costs Taxpayers $250,000 Per Vehicle | MyGovCost | Government Cost Calculator

For what it's worth, other analysis I've seen estimated the taxpayer's cost for each Chevy Volt sold at closer to $40,000.

 

[AdamT]

To PW4000, please forgive me if I don't use nested quotes, but just on the GM thing alone, the numbers simply don't allow for any conclusion other than payola, staggering expense to the taxpayer, payola, and a failed effort of the Obama Administration:

For what it's worth, other analysis I've seen estimated the taxpayer's cost for each Chevy Volt sold at closer to $40,000.

Opinion polls are interesting, but they are not facts. The fact is that GM has been profitable every quarter since it was bailed out. The fact is that Chrysler is doing gangbusters, and in fact is saving Fiat's bacon as it tries to weather the much worse European economy. The fact is that rescuing GM and Chrysler saved over a million jobs, and that is an estimate that was presented to the Bush White House, so please no claims of cooked books. The fact is that Ford actively lobbied for the GM and Chrysler bailouts, and not because they have any great love for their competition. They did it because they knew that many of their suppliers would have gone bankrupt if GM and Chrysler bit the dust. The fact is that Ford was both lucky and good. If the recession had hit six months earlier Ford would have been in as bad a shape as GM and Chrysler found themselves. The $40k Volt claim is bogus and has been debunked many times.

 

[PW4000]

You have laid out some of the problems but still support someone who has no concept of how to fix the problem and only delegates responsibility to someone else.

Romney, said "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" and you think that kind of so-called insight into how our economy works is the better option for the country? Please come out of Romnesia Land. This is the exact same candidate who then later said that he takes some credit for saving the Automobile Industry in America. So, not only is Romney, lacking an understanding of how a huge component of our economy actually works, he's also delusional about his own statements for crying out loud! That's called Romnesia.

Where is your head on this man's background? You said you've been in business for X-number of yours yourself, yet you can't distinguish a Used Car Salesman Job when you see one? Before I began my own firm, I worked in Enterprise Technology on both the technical and the sales side of the contract, and in doing so, I've worked with some of the top Sales Executives in industry back during the tech boom. I KNOW when I'm looking at an Executive Sales Job being cooked-up in front of me, because I've seen this kitchen before. I know what's being served-up by Romney, and it has nothing to do with helping the Middle and Working Classes in this country, nor does it have anything to do with Women and the daily issues that they contend with constantly under extreme Conservative Administrations.

You are being PLAYED by this guy and I, quite frankly have never in my life witnessed the American People getting played this much, by a candidate who can't even remember what he said last week, let alone last year.

It is time to put an adult back in the WH,

According to you, its time to completely sell-out America, ship all of its remaining jobs overseas, give tax breaks to those of us who do not need them, while raising taxes on those who need them raised the least, cut funding for public education so that The People remained as dumbed-down as possible for the next election, where you sell them yet another bill of goods that will see military spending probably reach $2 trillion dollars to prepare us for an invisible strategic enemy that we will never fight, but always be prepared to deal with should the imaginary world war come to our doorstep.

I don't mind having an adult in the White House. I just want to make sure that whomever sits in the White House, fully understands that he or she is not talking to a complete idiot, when he or she tells me that they can cut taxes by $5 trillion, increase spending by another $3 trillion and make the whole darn thing Revenue Neutral without raising taxes on those who can least afford it - the Middle and Working Class.

That is exactly what Romney's plan will do, if you put him in the White House. So much for posing like an adult.

someone that will actually work across the aisle,

Are you serious? Work across the aisle? The very first thing Romney, would do as President is pick a fight with the Democrats by attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which will set capital hill on fire make it completely dysfunctional for the remainder of Romney's term in office, should he get elected as President. Work across the aisle on what, exactly? He's laid out no specifics about how he's going to make his tax plan deficit neutral and spring a surprise on Congress, is not working across any aisle I've ever seen.

He's got no clue about how our national legislative process works and his wannabe "god-like" domineering attitude will most assuredly rub people the wrong way on the Hill, you can take that to the bank. If the man is willing to disrespect the President of the United States on national television, how the heck do you think he's going to reach across the aisle and work with opposing party leaders?

Do you think these things through before you present them as ideas to the forum?

someone who has actual experience in dealing with those kind of issues,

You Republicans have become Masters of the Nonsequitur. You inject claims that you have previously established no foundation for using, as though you are talking about something that actually exists in the real world. "Experience in dealing with those issues...?" What the heck does that mean? He has no "actual experience" that gives him more insight into how relations with the Congress works. This is the United States of America, where Congress represents the interest of the ENTIRE country, not just the 53%.

and someone who won't spend the next four years blaming Obama for the mess he inherited.

Of course, not. He'll spend the next four (4) TAKING CREDIT FOR A RECOVERY ESTABLISHED UNDER OBAMA. That's WHY he keeps lying to people about being able to establish "12 million new jobs".

How convenient for Romney, is it not. Romney's 12 Million New Jobs promise in Four (4) Years, just happens to be the existing projection made by both the CBO and Moody's Analytics, under President Obama. So, what Romney, is projecting, has absolutely NO IMPACT on the current official projections under President Obama - none whatsoever.

It is facts like these, that make it extremely hard for me to believe anything that comes out of Romney's mouth, or from his campaign. He even goes as far as to misrepresented known CBO projections, and he fails to acknowledge the Moody's Analytics projections that are in the exact same ballpark over the next four (4) years.

So much for Romnesia's 12 Million Jobs Plan. It is nothing more than what is already projected to happen under Obama, and the foundation he has helped to lay for the recovery.

I find it quite telling that you blame Bush for just about everything.

What part of 2000 to 2008 Negative Economic Momentum do you STILL not get? I've posted the Economic Data for you from BLS, BEA and CBO, complete with charts, that shows you exactly WHY the GDP number that keep posting is still so low, exactly WHY the Unemployment (NFP) numbers are where they are right now and exactly WHY the economy had to bottom-out first, before turning to the upside with a U-Shaped geometry that every realistic economist has said would be the case, as the seriousness of the economic damage left behind by Bush 43, could be properly assessed.

You like to toss out these meaningless terms as though they have weight in real economic analysis. In real economic analysis, there is no such term as Blame George W. Bush. In real economic analysis, you derive the real damage to the economy by the fact that:

- GDP slowed to less than -8.0%.
- Over 6 million jobs were lost over several years.
- Over 800,000 jobs were lost in one month.
- More than 25% of Residential Mortgages fell into Foreclosure.
- Millions of Middle and Working Class Jobs were shipped over seas.
- The Federal Reserve moved interest rates down too far and too fast.
- The nation had been plunged into unnecessary war costing trillions.
- The national debt had been increased by more than $6.5 trillion.
- The banking industry in the U.S. nearly collapsed.
- Economic problems in the U.S. caused a world-wide liquidity crunch.

And, ALL of these things just happened to take place UNDER George W. Bush. I did not plan it that way, but that's how the economic cookie crumbled according to the actual facts of history. All of that pressure on our economy forced GDP to below -8.0% and set the country on a collision course with very low GDP growth, high unemployment and stagnant growth prospects for at least two (2) years subsequent, regardless of WHO had been been elected in 2008.

John McCain, would be looking down the throat of the exact same economy that Obama, is working with right now. Those are the facts.

You think Gore or Kerry would have done a better job?

A better job of what? 911, most certainly would not have happened, as neither Kerry, nor Gore, are Neocon Puppet subject to the doctrine of preemption as a tool for establishing the United States of America as some kind of Superpower without equal, which is expressly stated in the Neocon Bible called PNAC, which itself is nothing more than a watered down version of the early 1990's Paul Wolfowitz Defense Planning Guidance, which called for the use of overt and unilateral military action on the part of the United States, to dismantle all "regimes" that stood in the way of access to natural resources that enables unrivaled superpower status. Fortunately, Bush 41, did not go all the way to fulfilling the promises found in these documents on his watch, but his son most certainly did. All the way to Baghdad, via Afghanistan as the perfect Patsy.

You need to get up to speed on your government. You can start with Project T/P Ajax circa 1953, Iran. After that, make sure you study Northwoods, circa 1962, which reached all the way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is our nations Contemporary History and Foreign Policy Dicta and as such, it is as real as it gets. The fact that so many of you are still fast asleep about the real issues affecting our great nation, should be a crime in and of itself.

Get educated, Conservative. Stop pretending that this stuff is not going on. You make yourself part of the problem when you do that.

Have you seen anything Obama has proposed that will solve any of the problems you laid out?

Where have you been! I outlined precisely what this President has outlined in his campaign, before the bottom fell out of the economy. I wrote about inside this thread, and at least two others. But, the fact that you don't read, means that you don't have a clue as to what has already been placed directly under your nose.

This President ran a campaign on the premise that building a new economy based on Education and Innovation in the area of Energy, would be the next step toward moving the country into the 21st century. Rather than pretend that you don't know what he said, why not listen to what he actually said:

Obama, 2008. Lansing, Michigan, on a New Energy Economy:

You think raising the taxes on the top 1% is the answer to the deficit problem?

I think getting spending under control and NOT having to continually pay for the economy that imploded under Bush 43, is the answer to the deficit problem. In the mean time, why on earth would you raise taxes on Middle and Working class tax payers, when they will need discretionary income to put back into the economy to provide the necessary Demand. The most logical, rational and fair thing to do in the mean time, while government deals with the need to put money directly into the economy, is to help cover the gap with an increase in taxes on the topside. We can afford it, Conservative, and we won't be hurt long-term by it. I can certainly afford to pay more taxes and I am definitely inside the top 1% of all U.S. incomes.

The TRUTH is that the budget deficit has actually decreased in 2012, over 2011, by $200 billion. Government spending went down in 2012, as compared to 2011, but Social Security and Medicare actually increase individually. The TRUTH is that this President along with Congress (talking about reaching across the aisle) has already put into place spending curbs that will automatically go into effect in 2013 (Budget Control Act of 2011).

In addition, the key point to understand is that with this President's leadership on helping to forge current law, the deficit is projected to go down to $641 billion in 2013. This helps to put the country back on the road towards having a plausible deficit in 2014, and ultimately no deficit in the not so distant future. If you mess around with current law, as Romney/Ryan want to do, you can kiss that positive deficit reduction trajectory goodbye.

Source: CBO.

 

[PW4000]

This CBO chart, clearly shows WHEN the spending really spiked up. It took place PRIOR to Obama's arrival at the White House, and it continued through his first term, as a direct result of:

A) Previous spending that was already in place under Bush 43.
B) Necessary spending to put a floor under the economy.

The chart also shows PROJECTED spending under current law, to DECREASE back to 58% of GDP, in 2022. You cannot get this reduction in spending as a percentage of GDP under the Romney Plan, because he adds $2 trillion in uncalled for military spending with no stipulation whatsoever that any of it will help Veterans, and he creates a multi-trillion dollar deficit problem with a tax plan that no legit official study says will be deficit, or revenue neutral.

So, while the nations fiscal house is already out of control due to eight (8) years of domestic neglect under Bush 43, hiring Romney, will actually make the problem much worse as the data clearly shows.

Obama campaigned for the job and said he had the answers.

Maybe you should try to actually watch the video (above) that you keep ignoring. His plan was clearly interrupted by a rapidly declining economy - unless you want to now suggest that the 2008 economic implosion never happened?

His plans were nothing short of visionary. I've been talking about a new Energy Economy where we patent the technology and sell both Energy, Hardware, Software and Services to developed and developing countries, for eons - certainly long before I ever came to this forum. This President ran on that promise. Unless you want to blame the 2008 economic meltdown on Obama, then there was no way for him to do anything but change his focus to solving the crisis at hand.

So, don't sit here and pretend as if the man had no plans, or that his plans were not interrupted by an economy that imploded under Bush 43.

For the first two years Republicans could stop nothing and Obama did nothing to promote bipartisanship.

Lying about what actually happened, does not strengthen your position. You had leaders within the Republican Party, saying outright that there intent over the next four (4) years was to see Obama fail as President, and you have the audacity to claim that Obama, did nothing to promote "bipartisanship" agreement with Republicans?

How can you possibly not remember any of this nonsense:



Chris, nailed it. "It's about hatred."

He generated terrible results and has no proposals to make the next four years any better than the last four.

You keep retorting the same tired crap. Where are the terrible results? You've never posted them. All you have ever done is post out of context numbers and declared that they came from the BLS. I post numbers, charts AND the actual LINK to the source, whenever I make claim that stems from the economy. If we are posting from the same pool of economic data, why is your data so messed up?

Go READ the first post in the OP. That tells you something about what his results have been as President. Then go READ the links and the posts that I have made in repeated reply to you, that clearly establishes WHERE you keep acting like you have amnesia about how this economy got to where it is today. Obama, found this economy in far worse shape than it is right now.

So, when you ask any U.S. Citizen, whether they are better off now than they were when he took office, the answer can't be anything but Yes! There is now a floor under this economy. The auto industry still exists and thousands of top tier as well as substrate industry jobs in the Mid Size and Small Size business category are still alive today as a direct result of the actions taken by this President. Foreclosures are down as a direct result of what this President put into motion. Housing Starts are UP, as a direct result of what this President did. 5 million plus new jobs were created at a time that economists describe as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression - all as a direct result of the leadership of this President.

What kind of recovery would you expect after having GDP dip to below -8.0% under Bush 43, and after losing more than 6 million jobs - before the next President took office, where liquidity dried-up, banks refused to lend, the stock and bond market imploded, fuel prices went ballistic, commodity prices soared and people were losing their homes by the hundreds per day? THAT is what Obama found when he came to office, and much of that has now been turned around.

Is the economy still slow? It is supposed to be slow after undergoing something like that. No economy our size would simply spring back to life, on a moments notice that a new President had been elected. It took us eight (8) long years under Bush 43, to get here. It will take us more than four (4) years to get completely out.

Maybe you can get over your hatred and ignorance about GW Bush to see that Obama is truly and empty suit, unqualified for a Mid level management position let alone the Presidency.

Ignorance of George W. Bush? Can you outline what I'm ignorant about regarding Mr. AWOL at the TANG? Mr. I Lied about WMD in Iraq? Mr. Neocon Puppet, whose Vice President is being given real-time airborne telemetry on an inbound aircraft that neither the FAA, nor NORAD could track on their radar? (how the heck can the Vice President be getting real-time inbound data on an aircraft heading Eastbound, when it LAST known heading was WEST BOUND with radar contact unavailable!

Wake up, Mid Level Manger.

 

[PW4000]

It does appear that you just aren't nearly as smart as you want people to believe. I have posted the BLS data that shows a 4.7% Unemployment rate and I posted the factcheck article. Neither apparently are too enough for you as once again your overall intelligence is second to your arrogance. Why is this even an issue and not the 4.7% unemployment? Obama would die for that right now but there is no chance of him ever getting there

Could you be more incapable of producing substance?

This entire paragraph basically says: I can't compete with the actual data you have posted from real sources such as CBO, BEA, OMB and BLS, so I'm just going to keep on pretending that I know what the heck I'm talking about, by tossing out the same nonsequitur 4.7% unemployment number, that has:

- Zero context to anything being discussed
- Zero relevance to any on-topic rebuttal
- Zero meaning to an eight (8) year old economy ran into the ground between 2000 and 2008

Keep avoiding the data and the charts from the actual sources that pretend to be referencing and I'll keep hammering you with real facts from those very same sites. How on earth you can look at the sites I just gave you and attempt to actually argue that they are incorrect, is well beyond my ability to comprehend.

You problem is that you think you are too intellectually dishonest to admit you've been cornered with your own data source. I posted actual links to the official sites - WHERE are your links and WHERE are the sources to back-up what you say.

4.7%? How the heck does that square with the fact that the State finished 47th out of 50th, during Romney's term as Governor? Stop pretending. 47th is 47th.

What economic or national security policy implemented by this President has made things better for the country?

I'm starting to think you are deaf and blind. How about READ the first page of this thread and learn about some of the policies that do help this country, or will help this country once fully implemented.

This is my problem with fake debaters. You've got an OP sitting right under your nose, yet you have spend the past several days ignoring it while offering red herring nonsequitur drivel as a surrogate for actually discussion and/or debating the merits of the OP. If can read, then you would know the answer to this question already.

I know this is hard for you to understand but 1.3% economic growth in 2012 which is less than 2011 which is less than 2010 isn't an economy headed in the right direction.

I just replied to this for the FOURTH (4th) time in this thread alone you blind bat. It is called Negative Economic Momentum and the DO still teach at the Harvard School of Business, and every major Business School in existence! How incredibly transparent you are, for pretending that the economy which got turned upside down and on its head through eight (8) years of total neglect by Bush 43, would all of a sudden stop on a dime, reverse its trajectory and start growing at some break neck pace, merely because you hallucinate it should, would or could.

You are about as deep as a box of cracker jacks, which is probably where your degree came from. Lower than -8.0% GDP just as Obama, is taking office - and you want that economy to stop, retrace and start producing 250,000 NFP jobs a month, with little to no liquidity and no manufacturing base worth mentioning? On exactly what planet does that kind of nonsense happen, and what exactly where you smoking when it happened that way?

We spent 25+ year shedding Middle Income Jobs and shipping them overseas, 30+ years tearing down our manufacturing base, and nearly 40 years losing the component manufacturing wars, 35+ years borrowing money from China, German and Japan, and you sit here wondering WHY we are having such a difficult time recovering from the worst economic killing field since before World War II?

Go back to school.

I don't know how someone who is as intelligent as you believe you are can support this President. This election shouldn't even be close and wouldn't be if the media and people like you wouldn't distort the Romney record.

You've completely lost whatever little mind you had left, my dear friend. You can't distort the record of a SHAPE SHIFTER like Mitt Romney.

Did the media tell him to lie about his stance on Privatizing Social Security, Healthcare Mandates, Pro-Gun before being Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Life before being Pro-Choice, before being Pro-Life, before being Pro-Choice, before being BOTH Pro-Life and Pro-Choice AT THE SAME TIME, Pro-Cap & Trade before being Anti-Cap & Trade, before being Pro-Cap & Trade, for Public Schools before wanting to Privatize Public Schools with Vouchers, Anti-Auto Bailout before actually having the audacity to take credit FOR the Auto-Bailouts, Anti-Tarp before being Pro-Tarp, Anti-Troop Surge in Afghanistan, before being Pro-Troop Surge in Afghanistan and then being Anti-Troop Surge in Afghanistan, or Anti-Obamacare (claiming to repeal it), before becoming Pro-Obamacare (saying he would keep parts of it) and then back to Anti-Obamacare again (claiming to repeal it on day one)?

Of course, not. The Media is not responsible for this man's character role as the biggest Presidential Candidate Shape Shifter in U.S. History. He deserve an Academy Award Oscar, not the Presidency.

The issue is the 4.7% unemployment rate when Romney left office. How many Americans would take that today?

Are you nuts! You can't compare the economic size, scope and depth of the state of Massachusetts, with that of the United States of America. Who does that?

I stand by the data and facts that I post.

What data? What facts? The stuff you pluck from thin air? Or, the stuff you take out of proper context, like not accounting for GDP reaching NEGATIVE -8.0% right when President Obama is taking office, or the MILLIONS of jobs that were already lost before he got to office, or the more than 800,000 jobs that were lost the very MONTH before he took office, or the bank liquidity drain he faced immediately upon entering office, or the near financial industry collapse that he saw just as he walked into the front doors of the White House for the first time in his first term, or the rising fuel prices, rising number of foreclosures, rising commodity prices and unemployment falling off a cliff - just as he sits in the Oval Office for the first time?

Is that the data you are talking about because I NEVER saw one shred of that kind of economic data here, BEFORE I made it available in this thread. You did not offer that data, so I offered it for you as a correction to the fallacy that you are trying to pimp around here, that somehow, this President broke our economy and/or made it worse. Neither of those things is true and BOTH of those things are a bald face lie.

The deficit spending that this President did was NOT his own. A relative small part of the total deficit spending accounted for by the CBO for this President since entering office, is what his contribution to the national debt is in reality. The remainder comes from Bush Era policy, omnibus normalized spending to keep the government running, other regular federal spending, TARP and Stimulus. Obamacare, has not been fully implemented yet - so you can stop lying about that as well.

You toss out this $5 trillion number, but you NEVER dissect the number to show that a bunch of it is primary due to what either Bush 43 did, or what he failed to do, to keep our economy from imploding. Those are the facts, like it or not.

 

[PW4000]

Why anyone would support Obama is beyond comprehension. You have no concept of what intellectual dishonesty really is or you would be holding Obama accountable for actual results.

I've shown in this thread precisely where you keep lying about the numbers you spew and the very first post in this thread shows your claim about the President's failure to also be a lie. You republicans set out to destroy the man's Presidency from day one - so I'm not surprised that you blow-up strawmen and set them on fire.

Your supporting a guy who can't keep his lies straight from one debate to the next and who left a State with the 13th largest economy in the country with a jobs creation record that was 47th out of 50th during his term in office. And, you wonder why I am supporting President Obama? All of my posts tell you why, I am supporting his Presidency.

Republicans lead the country into the gutter from 2000 through 2008. You tell me WHY on earth should the country return to that mess? What have Republicans learned, done or offered since 2008, that tells anyone they have learned from their past mistakes, are willing to take responsibility for their role in PUTTING US HERE, and have developed a plan where the numbers ADD UP that will build an economy that is finally sustainable long-term? Can you answer that question?

I could call you a lot worse but would get an infraction. I never ran from your success as I have no idea what your definition of success really is. I ran a 200 million dollar business and really don't care what you made, what you paid in taxes, nor what Romney paid in taxes. I always celebrated success and if you are successful great, I am sure that is something that someone other than a liberal would look up to.

I could care less what you call me - but when you debate me, you had better bring some honesty and some integrity to the floor - or you will get corrected like this summarily. You have not answered a SINGLE question that I have put forth to you and you have repeatedly run and hid from posts that correct your false statements with direct data and links to sources that PROVE the point being made in my posts.

So, you can sit here and pretend all you want to actually be responding on the merits, but you don't find anywhere in this thread, where you have actually dealt with the first post in the OP. Not once have you honestly dealt with it. You've slithered around here and danced a mile with nonsequitur, which is a huge wast of my time.

The choice thinking people have this year is Obama vs Romney. I didn't vote for Obama because of his resume and won't vote for him because of his results. I will vote for Romney because of his resume and results. If you are truly independent and a successful business person there is no way you can vote for Obama. Why don't you just stay home

That just goes to prove just how utterly bias you are in this process. Candidate Obama's resume, looked very similar to a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln, when he was running for President for the very first time. If you had any kind of understanding of our nations History, then you would have already known this. It was one of the stories that was being talked about by scholars and history professors in the media, during the run-up to his election and then again, during his inauguration. But, even without watching television - you should have already known how similar their resumes looked upon entering office.

Instead, you were willing to support McCain, who while having a resume sufficient for the role, placed a Vice Presidential Candidate one heart-beat away from the Presidency, who could barely tie her own shoelaces or manage to utter a coherent sentence safely, without help from a coach. So, that tells me that your angst over Obama's so-called resume problem, is hardly worth the screen space it was typed on.

As far as Obama's results, you really do seem tone deaf. The first post in this thread is something you might want to fess up to.

Regarding Romney's resume, the entire story of Bain Capital, came up missing in the debates and thus far, he's escaped having to answer questions about his role at Bain, or the role that Bain played in shipping American Jobs outside the country. We don't need and Exporter Of American Jobs In Chief, sitting in the White House. If you think that somebody some some LBO experience makes for a good POTUS, then that probably explains your vote for George W. Bush, who turned out to be the most destructive President in the modern era.

Congratulations on your gain. Now tell me why anyone successful would ever vote for Obama?

First post in the OP.
Remainder of all my posts in this thread that prove your economic gibberish to be misleading at best.

What is Obama's position on those issues?

Asked and answered several times already. You need to learn how to read.

What is in the best interest of the principles upon which this country was built is the firing of Barack Obama

Not if the hiring of a total liar is the alternative, with a documented history of being involved in the shipping of U.S. Jobs overseas.

I don't care what you are or who you are. If you are successful, great. If you are successful you cannot be supporting Obama. The better alternative is Romney and the results show it.

And, that's exactly why I posted those details about myself. You Republicans seem to think that you are somehow made of something that other people are not made of. Your failure is born of your arrogance and your arrogance is born of your ignorance. You can't fathom how someone who is successful in business is supporting Obama? What a foolish statement to make - it pretty much says everything I need to know about you.

You are not genuine in your assessment of the President. Yours is born of hate, not performance or capability. The very fact that you are supporting a well known LIAR, while lying yourself about what the President has done, and failing to address your own misuse of economic data out of proper context, is proof positive that you are disingenuous at best in your appraisal of what's been done thus far in his Presidency.

The very fact that you do not understand the fundamental principle of Cause & Effect, and its relevance to a President entering office on the heels of an economic tsunami, and how the wave of that tsunami cannot simply vanish into thin air merely because one man moves out of the White House and another man moves in, or how the Negative Economic Momentum of that tsunami will wash to shore additional negative economic output in the reports you feign to know so much about and that I study on a daily basis in my own business, is testament to the fact that you are quite simply a severe Hyper-Partisan Hack of monumental proportions.

Bottom line: Get real.

 

[PW4000]

To PW4000, please forgive me if I don't use nested quotes, but just on the GM thing alone, the numbers simply don't allow for any conclusion other than payola, staggering expense to the taxpayer, payola, and a failed effort of the Obama Administration:

What is it worth to you, to try and save thousands of down-range jobs in the Auto Industry, during a time where the economy was so fragile that allowing such a collapse, would have meant certain Depression, and not just a Great Recession?

You have to put on your thinking cap. What was going on at the time? Foreclosures were reaching upwards of 25%, millions of jobs had already been lost and over 800,000 had been lost just the month before the President came into office. Where were the banks in all this? Don't you think that GM and Chrysler, went to the bankers first?

It was not just about the First Tier of Auto Manufacturers, it was also about the thousands of Second Tier Auto Parts Manufacturers in the middle and the small businesses that support their supply chain. There is no way on earth, that any President faced with that kind of decision, should or would simply say: "Let Detroit go Bankrupt."

Beyond any of that - the result was a success by any measure. The goal was to keep as many jobs as possible here in the United States. Why? That's what the economy needed - jobs. That last thing we needed was to lose more GDP, especially from a strategic product category. That's part of the cost of saving our economy when we allow things to get that bad.

Now, Bush 43, could have focused more on the economy but he expressly went in front of television cameras telling people that he was a "War President" that he "wakes up with war on his [my] mind." So, if Bush, is waking up every morning with "war" on his mind, he's probably not caring too much about that fact that millions of jobs are being lost under his watch. It is not like he did not know about the economic data. He knew about, but simply did not care. That economy was allowed to fester for eight (8) years until it blew a fuse and went atomic. After it went atomic, the entire globe went into scramble mode, not just the United States. Our problems bleed all the way into China, who loaned us the money in the first place - to build our bubble.

Look, there is a ton of blame to be passed around. Congress failed. The President failed. The Federal Reserve undoubtedly failed. The Financial industry failed to control itself and got greedy. The SEC failed to regulate the junk that was being dumped on the Street. The CRAs failed to tell the truth about the quality of the dope being put on the Street. The Quants failed to speak up but they were under strict NDA not to talk, even though their models detected some real problems with Credit Risk. The Counter-Parties failed to get an understanding of what they were providing sell-side liquidity to. The President did not have to launch into trillion dollar wars for oil, sparking an energy price increase world wide while getting hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in the process. There are plenty of sources for the failure. Once that ball of wax melted and hit the fan, the die was cast and our economy slid off the cliff in virtual free fall.

In that kind of environment - as President, you are simply looking to stop the bleeding as fast as possible, so you get a better assessment of what needs to actually be done structurally to solve the problem.

If the real truth be told, we are bankrupt and are probably looking at national default at some point - but nobody in government wants to admit that in public, let alone actually do something about it. Everybody in the know on this, is sitting around just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Unfunded Pension Plans and Bankrupt State Treasury Departments. When that whole thing exploded (and it will) all heck is going to break loose in this country.

Our entire economic model over the past 40 years or so, has been predicated on a total mathematical fallacy, and it is time to pay the piper - unfortunately.

I hate to say it, but that is the truth - regardless of who the President might be when it all comes crashing down.

For what it's worth, other analysis I've seen estimated the taxpayer's cost for each Chevy Volt sold at closer to $40,000.

Seems kind of high to me just off the top, but I think the real question is going to be how much public funding of the new energy economy will the public be willing to front. Somebody is going to have to get the thing going, if we are going to get serious about it.

The fossil fuel based economy in the U.S., is going to be good for a select few. All this PR floating around in the media about the tens of millions of new jobs that it could produce, is total sales hype. That industry has undergone a tremendous amount of automation over the decades and that was to reduce costs associated with labor, as well as to increase efficiency.

The real job growth would be in new energy alternative technologies and then the exporting of some energy itself, but mainly hardware, software and consulting services. You are talking about building a new economy overall that would literally create a jobs surplus in this country. The problem is that the real message about new energy technology is being drowned out by big oil, because they still have lots of BTUs in the ground that could make them trillions. So, they don't accelerate the research they could be doing and they give lots of lip services to what they claim they are doing right now.

Carter, tried to warned us about this very thing more than 33 years ago, but they laughed at him back then. He warned us of one day having to fight "wars for oil" and "exchanging our children's lives for natural resources." Yep - they laughed Carter, straight out of the White House.

They are not laughing anymore. Now, his words seem very prophetic. We are now doing exactly what he predicted, some 33 years ago. We never learn the appropriate lesson when we should learn it and we always end up making the same exact mistakes, over and over and over again. It is the same exact thing with Romney. We know he's Trickle Down Economics and on a War footing with Iran. Trickle Down has failed, the war in Iraq, has cost us valuable treasure and killed many innocent people who did not have to die - yet here we are, giving this same kind of candidate a real shot at the White House.

We simply do not ever learn our lesson when it is time to learn it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

To PW4000, I do not want the government doing things that the government of a free people is not authorized to do. I don't want government wasting my tax dollars that I worked damn hard to earn--I want my government to use my money for what it HAS to do and what it can do that is beneficial that the private sector cannot do.

And while I have my issues with President Bush 43, I completely discount your characterization of him. As well as your assessment of Governor Romney. Yes, Romney believed the auto makers should declare bankruptcy and reorganize and give themselves a chance to get back on their feet with a sustainable economic plan. But as Forbes correctly pointed out, that isn't what happened. We had the bankruptcy anyway after billions of our tax dollars went into the process, and nothing is fixed. Government is rarely the answer to what ails the private sector, but it certainly can create the ills.

One of my very favorite Jon Stewart segments is this one. And under the humor, and it is funny, there is a huge truth to be learned:

An Energy-Independent Future - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/16/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Conservative]

I've shown in this thread precisely where you keep lying about the numbers you spew and the very first post in this thread shows your claim about the President's failure to also be a lie. You republicans set out to destroy the man's Presidency from day one - so I'm not surprised that you blow-up strawmen and set them on fire.

Your supporting a guy who can't keep his lies straight from one debate to the next and who left a State with the 13th largest economy in the country with a jobs creation record that was 47th out of 50th during his term in office. And, you wonder why I am supporting President Obama? All of my posts tell you why, I am supporting his Presidency.

Republicans lead the country into the gutter from 2000 through 2008. You tell me WHY on earth should the country return to that mess? What have Republicans learned, done or offered since 2008, that tells anyone they have learned from their past mistakes, are willing to take responsibility for their role in PUTTING US HERE, and have developed a plan where the numbers ADD UP that will build an economy that is finally sustainable long-term? Can you answer that question?




I could care less what you call me - but when you debate me, you had better bring some honesty and some integrity to the floor - or you will get corrected like this summarily. You have not answered a SINGLE question that I have put forth to you and you have repeatedly run and hid from posts that correct your false statements with direct data and links to sources that PROVE the point being made in my posts.

So, you can sit here and pretend all you want to actually be responding on the merits, but you don't find anywhere in this thread, where you have actually dealt with the first post in the OP. Not once have you honestly dealt with it. You've slithered around here and danced a mile with nonsequitur, which is a huge wast of my time.




That just goes to prove just how utterly bias you are in this process. Candidate Obama's resume, looked very similar to a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln, when he was running for President for the very first time. If you had any kind of understanding of our nations History, then you would have already known this. It was one of the stories that was being talked about by scholars and history professors in the media, during the run-up to his election and then again, during his inauguration. But, even without watching television - you should have already known how similar their resumes looked upon entering office.

Instead, you were willing to support McCain, who while having a resume sufficient for the role, placed a Vice Presidential Candidate one heart-beat away from the Presidency, who could barely tie her own shoelaces or manage to utter a coherent sentence safely, without help from a coach. So, that tells me that your angst over Obama's so-called resume problem, is hardly worth the screen space it was typed on.

As far as Obama's results, you really do seem tone deaf. The first post in this thread is something you might want to fess up to.

Regarding Romney's resume, the entire story of Bain Capital, came up missing in the debates and thus far, he's escaped having to answer questions about his role at Bain, or the role that Bain played in shipping American Jobs outside the country. We don't need and Exporter Of American Jobs In Chief, sitting in the White House. If you think that somebody some some LBO experience makes for a good POTUS, then that probably explains your vote for George W. Bush, who turned out to be the most destructive President in the modern era.




First post in the OP.
Remainder of all my posts in this thread that prove your economic gibberish to be misleading at best.




Asked and answered several times already. You need to learn how to read.




Not if the hiring of a total liar is the alternative, with a documented history of being involved in the shipping of U.S. Jobs overseas.




And, that's exactly why I posted those details about myself. You Republicans seem to think that you are somehow made of something that other people are not made of. Your failure is born of your arrogance and your arrogance is born of your ignorance. You can't fathom how someone who is successful in business is supporting Obama? What a foolish statement to make - it pretty much says everything I need to know about you.

You are not genuine in your assessment of the President. Yours is born of hate, not performance or capability. The very fact that you are supporting a well known LIAR, while lying yourself about what the President has done, and failing to address your own misuse of economic data out of proper context, is proof positive that you are disingenuous at best in your appraisal of what's been done thus far in his Presidency.

The very fact that you do not understand the fundamental principle of Cause & Effect, and its relevance to a President entering office on the heels of an economic tsunami, and how the wave of that tsunami cannot simply vanish into thin air merely because one man moves out of the White House and another man moves in, or how the Negative Economic Momentum of that tsunami will wash to shore additional negative economic output in the reports you feign to know so much about and that I study on a daily basis in my own business, is testament to the fact that you are quite simply a severe Hyper-Partisan Hack of monumental proportions.

Bottom line: Get real.

Now the rest of the story, absolutely no reason to give Obama four more years in spite of your distortions and diversions from reality. If you insist on writing more novels understand that I won't be responding to them with anything more than the following:

Five reasons not to vote for Obama
Top 5 reasons - YouTube

The financial results show

Poor economic growth and dismal economy, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dismal-hiring-shows-economy-stuck-010706331.html

More people unemployed than when Obama took office, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

15 House bills not considered by Senate
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

22.7 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed Americans, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

5.6 trillion added to the debt and trillion dollar deficits, Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hundreds of thousands discouraged workers, Bush average 477k Obama 900k

U.S. Treasury showing line item expenses and budget. Notice tax cuts aren't an expense and further notice that debt service is, debt service only paid for by those actually paying taxes

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Worst recovery since the Great Depression

The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression - Forbes

Class warfare, forced wealth redistribution, Carter style economic malaise including gridlock in Congress,
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Crony Capitalism

Green energy companies going bankrupt, Solar company that Obama visited will shut down | Reuters
Government Motors and Obamacare

Chrysler sold to an Italian firm

GDP Growth- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
2010-2.4%
2011-1.8%
2012-1.3%
-
Debt exceeding our yearly GDP and downgrade of credit rating

Rhetoric trumping substance, repeat, rinse, and repeat again, Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record - YouTube

Poverty at record levels, Report: Poverty hits record level - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

"Fast and Furious" and "Wide Receiver"

 

[Conservative]

And Obama carried Indiana in 2008 for the first time in over 40 years. Obama's still leading Ohio, and that's all that matters. We could start a campaign for Romney in 2016 though

This is the person you are supporting? What the hell is wrong with you?

Articles: Military Families are Outing Obama

Military Families are Outing Obama
By Karin McQuillan

American military and State Department families that have lost their sons in the war against Islamic jihadis are outing President Obama for playing politics with the lives (and deaths) of their sons. Speaking out in some of the most painful interviews ever shown on television, they directly blame the president for the loss of their sons' lives. Their accusations speak directly to Obama's competence in defending our national security.

Iran is on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons. Egypt's elected President Mubarak, the keystone to stability in the Middle East for the last 30 years, was pressured by President Obama to step down in favor of the terror group the Muslim Brotherhood. The Benghazi embassy was denied Marine protection, even on 9/11, with the subsequent tragedy and White House cover-up. We haven't lost an ambassador since Jimmy Carter's incompetence. Obama's Middle East policy has been a disaster, with one exception -- the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEAL Team 6.

The president ran the special ops raid on Osama bin Laden's compound with one eye on national security and the other on political opportunism. Intelligence was compromised because there was political advantage to Obama to do so. Within a day, the White House divulged details of the attack, including that it was carried out by SEAL Team Six.
Three months later, 22 men from SEAL Team 6 were dead, victims of Obama's policies and politics. This story has been buried, until this 9/11.

Aaron Vaughn

Aaron's mother, Karen Vaughn, has a simple message: "How dare they -- they put a target on my son's back and even on my back! A little over 90 days later, my son was dead."
Sean Hannity ran a searing interview with Karen and Billy Vaughn, parents of a fallen Navy SEAL Team Six serviceman, Aaron Vaughn. It deserves repeated viewing. Aaron signed up to serve after 9/11 and was killed in Afghanistan in 2011 after the Osama raid, along with 21 other SEALS -- the single greatest disaster in the Afghanistan war and Navy Special Forces history.

Robert Gates, the defense secretary at the time, was appalled at President Obama and Vice President Biden boasting about the raid in detail: "We all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart the next day."

Karen Vaughn:

Aaron called me, his tone was extremely serious and he said, mom, you need to wipe your social media clean. Get rid of everything. Any reference of me or my buddies because there is chatter and all of our lives are possibly in danger, including yours.

Karen Vaughn says that her son told her the SEALs were angry that their secrecy was compromised by the White House. Aaron felt that it put not only his life, but also the lives of 300 American military families in danger. She adds, "I can tell you that the community was stunned by the [White House] announcement. It was unprecedented and extremely dangerous."
As the mother speaks, Aaron's father, Billy Vaughn's face is so full of grief and anger, I can hardly look at him. He looks like he might explode if not for intense self-control. Billy's face was more searing than his wife's words. I don't think I will ever forget it. Then it is his turn to speak.

These elite warriors can do anything they want to the Taliban, to al Qaeda if this administration -- if President Obama would just recognize the enemy, give them rules of engagement that favor them, instead of leveling the playing field for the enemy, and give them the equipment that is required to carry out their missions.
And I mention those three things because those are other issues that we have found in searching and looking at what happened to Aaron and those warriors on that night, all three of those things were -- were reasons why this chopper was shot down.

Why this largest loss in a single day in the 10-year war on terror was caused and also the largest loss in the history of naval special warfare.
...Our president is directly responsible for the rules of engagement.

Let me just say this. On the night that Extortion 17 was shot down, this is all from the military -- we learned that the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the Afghan Security Ministry, are all involved in every single special ops mission, in the pre-planning, the post-op.

They know the flight routes of the choppers. That chopper flew in there that night in a place that had already been cleared seven times, according to our military, by our warriors and turned back over to the Afghans.

A 3 1/2-hour firefight under way and our chopper flew in with an AC-130 gunship in the air, two H-64s and they were not allowed to give any pre-assault fire. They landed the chopper like it was landing at Wal-Mart even though a firefight was underway.

When the chopper was shot down, neither were the AC-130 or the two AH-64s allowed to take out the savages who fired the RPGs because they were standing on a tower. And under the rules of engagement, they didn't know if there might be friendlies in the building. These rules of engagement are criminal for our warriors.

In an interview the Vaughns gave this 9/11, Billy said: "We expect better out, out of the, the high-ups in our government. We, as American citizens, look to our government. We elect them; we look to them to take care of the best interests of the American citizen, and especially the warrior. And I believe what the administration did then -- I believe it was criminal."
A little-told side to President Obama's running of the war in Afghanistan is the fact that the rules of engagement there are deadly to American soldiers. Under President Obama, average yearly deaths in Afghanistan have doubled. The Obama administration is denying our troops air support and threatening them with prosecution for firing in self-defense. Returning military are protesting, but their voices are not reported in the mainstream media (read here, here, here).

Sean Smith

There was another heart-wrenching interview the evening before the Ryan-Biden debate that did make it onto prime-time news -- on CNN, no less. Anderson Cooper interviewed Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, father of three, an Air Force veteran and computer specialist who was murdered in the terrorist attack in Benghazi this 9/11.

He was my only child. ... I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son's? I don't know if he was shot. I don't know -- I don't know. They haven't told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.

That Susan Rice, what -- she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was -- it was because of this film that came out.

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did. Leon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me.
...at first I was so proud because they were treating me so nice when I went to that reception. They all came up to me and talked to me and everything. I cried on Obama's shoulder. And he -- then he'd kind of looked off into the distance. So that was worthless to me. I want to know, for god's sakes.
It's my son. I had him for the first -- I told Obama personally, I said, look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him. And -- I won't say it the way I said it. But I said you screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son.

The Obama administration denied the embassy the military security they repeatedly requested. The embassy was forced to rely on hired locals instead of Marines. According to State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, at the congressional hearings held October 11 on the Benghazi cover-up, "in deference to sensitivity to Libyan practice the guards at Benghazi were unarmed."

Mr. Nordstrom said that he was forced to a lesser security profile due to reduced staffing. As a result, instead of man-to-man defense, they had to move to zone defense. In other words, they had to rely on help from other areas in the case of an attack while sheltered in a facility that did not meet minimum requirements.

Obama lied to the American public in order to promote his major political talking point -- that al-Qaeda was defeated because of bin Laden's death. The administration's false claims of success were put above the safety of our embassy personnel. That is what Pat Smith was referring to when she said to Obama to his face, "You screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son."

Joseph Logan

A third story is also receiving coverage -- in the U.K.'s Daily Mail, that is, and on Fox News and Sean Hannity's radio web page. The father of fallen Marine Joseph Logan is speaking out about the condolence form letter he received from President Obama, delivered by a UPS truck driver almost five months after his son's remains were brought home from Afghanistan.
The father, Tom Logan, experienced Obama's late, impersonal form letter as profoundly disrespectful: "It opened up a wound, a hole in our heart, that you can't fix."
Tom Logan sent the form letter back to the Oval Office with a personal, hand-written message written across the bottom:

You, Sir, are an embarrassment to the Oval Office. ... Your ridiculous rules of engagement have caused the massive amount of casualties on your watch in Afghanistan. While we watch your media pander to your administration and clearly sweep things under the rug for you. I understand Marines die. You have tied their hands and feet! I am thankful that I did not serve under a Commander in Chief such as you. I am sickened that my son had to.

The families of the 21 Navy SEALs killed three months after the Osama raid also received form condolence letters, each with a huge Barack Obama signature that looked as if it was signed by an automatic pen.

Obama did have the time to send a personal letter to rapper Heavy D's family when he passed away, to be read before a crowd of 1,500 at Heavy D's star-studded funeral.
It is not as if writing condolence letters would be a big burden on Obama's busy schedule. The Department of Defense reports 1,650 combat deaths in total in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war in 2001. That's a rough average of 150 deaths a year. Obama has played a hundred rounds of golf with White House staffers but can't write a single condolence letter every other day.

The contrast with President Bush is remarkable. Bush (who played golf 24 times and then stopped playing in deference to the troops) sent personal letters to the families of "every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that ... escaped public notice." President Bush also met privately with "more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans ... outside the presence of the news media."

The first lady (Laura Bush) said those private visits, many of which she also attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, but on her as well...."People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish.

These military and State Department families who have lost their sons since 2008 have lost respect for Obama as commander in chief. They are angry that their sons' lives are cheap to Obama, and their deaths not treated as worthy of his personal attention. As Pat Smith says so eloquently: "You screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son." Or Billy Smith: "These rules of engagement are criminal for our warriors." Tom Logan: "I understand Marines die. You have tied their hands and feet! I am thankful that I did not serve under a Commander in Chief such as you."

All Americans can say the same: in playing politics with national security, Obama is not looking out for our lives.

 

[PW4000]

To PW4000, I do not want the government doing things that the government of a free people is not authorized to do.

We are in 100% total agreement.

I don't want government wasting my tax dollars that I worked damn hard to earn

Ware in 100% total agreement.

--I want my government to use my money for what it HAS to do and what it can do that is beneficial that the private sector cannot do.

We are in 100% total agreement.

And while I have my issues with President Bush 43, I completely discount your characterization of him.

A) What is my characterization of Bush 43 as you read it?
B) What is your specific disagreement with my characterization of Bush 43?

In 2003, Bush 43, was my Commander In Chief, literally. I had to obey commands that came directly from the President of the United States, down through the COC and out to my WC. I then carried out those specific orders by executing sorties as FL 17 times, mostly at night. I've been shot at enough to know what I like and what I don't like, but there has never been a single time when I thought twice about following those orders that I knew came directly from George W. Bush. And, if I had to do it all over again - based on what I knew at the time, I would the exact same thing as precisely as I could.

I don't write from a position of Monday Morning Quarterback. I also don't being mislead and lied to - under any circumstances. So, please tell me what it is about my characterization of our 43rd President, that you disagree with me about. Because, I can put you in direct contact with a lot of Men and Women, who feel exactly the same way I do today, about our 43rd President.

As well as your assessment of Governor Romney. Yes, Romney believed the auto makers should declare bankruptcy and reorganize and give themselves a chance to get back on their feet with a sustainable economic plan. But as Forbes correctly pointed out, that isn't what happened. We had the bankruptcy anyway after billions of our tax dollars went into the process, and nothing is fixed. Government is rarely the answer to what ails the private sector, but it certainly can create the ills.

If you care about understanding this issue, then you should listen to what I am about to say very carefully. All undecided voters should read this very carefully, because it cuts through the lies that you've been told about this subject and it focuses on what the Media has failed miserably to highlight as the important distinctions between both men and their plans for the auto industry after the 2008 economic collapse.

It is extreme important for you to know that what Mitt Romney, called for is NOT the same thing as what Barack Obama, called for in Detriot.

- Romney, was anti-Government Car Loan and Pro-Reorganization.
- Obama, was Pro-Government Car Loan and Pro-Reorganization.
- These two plans are NOT one and the same.

The media has failed you. The media, except for a few exceptions, has reported these two vastly different paths to be highly similar, merely because they both end up in Bankruptcy Court. However, Bankruptcy Court, was not the most important factor involved in this matter, nor has it ever been the most important factor.

This is what you need to understand. The most important factor in the decision to write the check to the auto industry, was to retain and preserve the labor markets that produce the components that go into the manufacturing of automobiles here in the United States. That meant keeping the Medium and Small businesses that reside at the automobile industry's substrate level alive through the reorganization process. That would not have been even remotely possible, had Romney's idea of simply letting Detroit go bankrupt gone into effect.

Roughly 8% to 10% of ALL jobs in the United States of America, are everyday hard working U.S. Citizens, who make and produce the more than 5,000 parts that go into the typical automobile manufactured here in the United States of America. That is the Medium to Small Business Substrate within the entire automobile industry that represents literally thousands of jobs all across this country.

If the the major automobile manufacturing plants shut down entirely, or if the restructuring process through bankruptcy is so severe, or (more appropriately) if the majors run into severe cash-flow problems because they can't get adequate operational liquidity from the banks who were at the time being very restrictive in their lending and lines of credit, then the Substrate within the entire industry gets damaged to a point where you then would have had a larger increase in unemployment at a time when we could least afford it, and a much bigger economic ditch from which to recover.

That is precisely why the President's plan called for providing that industry with the Operational Capital it desperately needed, WHILE at the same time, requiring the industry to re-tool and reorganize through the courts, at a pace that would not destroy the Supply Chain Substrate that fuels the major automobile industry giants and makes their manufacturing operations possible.

You would think that for a man who goes around the country bragging about his 25 years in business, that he would have had the vision to see at least what the President had the vision to see, in terms of the bigger picture impact on the decision to fund, or not fund. This is one of those very clear examples of why I support President Obama. He is a Strategic Thinker, where we have not had such strategic thinking in the White House for a very long time, prior to his election in 2008. He's not merely thinking about what our nation will look like tomorrow. President Obama, thinks about where our nation will be 10, 20, 50 75 years into the future and beyond. And, that is simply the kind of thought leader we desperately need in the White House during times like these.

President Obama's campaign has done a lousy job of explaining the Auto Bailout the way I have just done so here, but that does not mean that his strategic decisions in this regard were flawed. He did precisely what made the most long range sense at the time, given what we knew about the economy and what we know about the stratification of the auto industry itself.

 

[PW4000]

Now the rest of the story, absolutely no reason to give Obama four more years in spite of your distortions and diversions from reality. If you insist on writing more novels understand that I won't be responding to them with anything more than the following:

Distortions and diversions that you can't name, you can't identify, you can't delineate and you can't prove - but that do exist merely because you say so.

Thanks for that bit of nothingness and gross repetition. Whenever you get hit with facts, you reel like a high-performance fishing rod. Whenever you get hit with history, you deny it ever took place. Whenever you are brought back to reality, you pretend that reality does not exist. Whenever you are shown proof that Romney, has lied, you proclaim that distortion is all you see.

You are evasive, slippery, elusive, ducking, hiding, running, pivoting and shape shifting. But, hey - you have learned for the best - you have learned from Mitt Romney.

 

[PW4000]

This is the person you are supporting? What the hell is wrong with you?

Articles: Military Families are Outing Obama

The fact that you are now down (inside this thread) to spewing hate speech from a person with some obvious issues of her own, is downright telling of just how desperate you are in this thread, and how inept you have become at actually debating the merits of the first page of the OP.

This so-called "author" that you quote, actually believes that Obama, is a Communist. All you had to do, was just a tiny bit of homework in this person and you would have known about:

- She got banned from Wikipedia: Karin Mcquillan Banned.
- She spews contemporary revisionist history: Karin Mcquillan Hyper-Partisan.
- She engages in the Blind Gossip writing style: Karin Mcquillan's Blind Gossip Writing Style.

All you had to do, was the slightest bit of homework on Karin Mcquillian, and you would have known that she's never been an Obama supporter, and has always taken an Anti-Obama stance since before the 2008 election. So, the fact that you anchor your reply in such hyper-partisan hackery, is not very surprising to me.

And, you have the nerve to talk about posting distortions? Karin Mcquillian, is a huge distorter of he facts, yet you ran directly to one of her hyper-distorted rants and anchored yourself to her wildly ridiculous statements. Why would anybody calling themselves a level headed member of the electorate ever do that?

If Kari Mcquillian, Anti-Obama Activist, is your best answer to the OP written on the very first page in this thread, then you have already lost this debate.

 

[Fruityfact]

Much respect PW..
I'm just waiting for a real rebuttal
(but we both know that's not happening)

Just curious-what is your occupation?
No need to tell if you don't want to.

 

[Conservative]

Distortions and diversions that you can't name, you can't identify, you can't delineate and you can't prove - but that do exist merely because you say so.

Thanks for that bit of nothingness and gross repetition. Whenever you get hit with facts, you reel like a high-performance fishing rod. Whenever you get hit with history, you deny it ever took place. Whenever you are brought back to reality, you pretend that reality does not exist. Whenever you are shown proof that Romney, has lied, you proclaim that distortion is all you see.

You are evasive, slippery, elusive, ducking, hiding, running, pivoting and shape shifting. But, hey - you have learned for the best - you have learned from Mitt Romney.

Fully understand your point because in the liberal universe, BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury, and U.S. Census have no place. How anyone can support Obama is beyond comprehension especially in light of those that also support him. Which one of these do you best relate to?

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years! | Times 247

How someone can associate with any candidate who has the support of so many radicals says a lot about you.

 

[AdamT]

Fully understand your point because in the liberal universe, BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury, and U.S. Census have no place. How anyone can support Obama is beyond comprehension especially in light of those that also support him. Which one of these do you best relate to?

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years! | Times 247

How someone can associate with any candidate who has the support of so many radicals says a lot about you.

Con, doubling down on his epic fail.

 

[Conservative]

The fact that you are now down (inside this thread) to spewing hate speech from a person with some obvious issues of her own, is downright telling of just how desperate you are in this thread, and how inept you have become at actually debating the merits of the first page of the OP.

This so-called "author" that you quote, actually believes that Obama, is a Communist. All you had to do, was just a tiny bit of homework in this person and you would have known about:

- She got banned from Wikipedia: Karin Mcquillan Banned.
- She spews contemporary revisionist history: Karin Mcquillan Hyper-Partisan.
- She engages in the Blind Gossip writing style: Karin Mcquillan's Blind Gossip Writing Style.

All you had to do, was the slightest bit of homework on Karin Mcquillian, and you would have known that she's never been an Obama supporter, and has always taken an Anti-Obama stance since before the 2008 election. So, the fact that you anchor your reply in such hyper-partisan hackery, is not very surprising to me.

And, you have the nerve to talk about posting distortions? Karin Mcquillian, is a huge distorter of he facts, yet you ran directly to one of her hyper-distorted rants and anchored yourself to her wildly ridiculous statements. Why would anybody calling themselves a level headed member of the electorate ever do that?

If Kari Mcquillian, Anti-Obama Activist, is your best answer to the OP written on the very first page in this thread, then you have already lost this debate.

We certainly don't want our military families with a voice, do you we? Your support of Obama is appreciated especially by the other radicals that support him as well.

You see in your world the author is always much more important than the content which is why so many hate Fox News. They cannot refute Fox News content so they attack Fox News. What is it exactly in the content that is false. Further what is it in the Military Times Poll that shows the military with a 2-1 support for Romney that is false?

 

[Conservative]

Con, doubling down on his epic fail.

I am sure they will pay you as well to post your biased, partisan posts as well as Obama. After all we now know that you can be bought. It is going to be a long night for you on November 6 and rightly so.

 

[winston53660]

Fully understand your point because in the liberal universe, BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury, and U.S. Census have no place. How anyone can support Obama is beyond comprehension especially in light of those that also support him. Which one of these do you best relate to?

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years! | Times 247

How someone can associate with any candidate who has the support of so many radicals says a lot about you.

Psst:

Putin urges voters to back Bush

 

[rocket88]

Psst:

Putin urges voters to back Bush

Well you see, Putin was right then. He must have lost his mind in the past 8 years. :lamo

 

[Conservative]

Psst:

Putin urges voters to back Bush

Wonder if Bush told Putin he would have more flexibility after the election?

 

[AdamT]

I hope PW won't mind if I try to add some additional substance to his superb thread.

The vast majority of Romney's criticism of Obama relates to the slow recovery. He is fond of pointing to other recoveries that have been quicker. But Romney fails to distinguish between run-of-the-mill recessions and recessions that result from systemic financial crises. The recession that Obama inherited is the first one resulting from a systemic financial crisis since the Great Depression. In the latter case, recoveries are generally U-shaped rather than V-shaped and they are more protracted.

It is likely that Romney is aware of this, as several of his economic advisors have been seeking to undercut the economic research that diminishes Romney's argument. The authors of the research have fired back in devastating fashion:

They begin:

Five years after the onset of the 2007 subprime financial crisis, U.S. gross domestic product per capita remains below its initial level. Unemployment, though down from its peak, is still about 8 percent. Rather than the V- shaped recovery that is typical of most postwar recessions, this one has exhibited slow and halting growth.

This disappointing performance shouldn’t be surprising. We have presented evidence that recessions associated with systemic banking crises tend to be deep and protracted and that this pattern is evident across both history and countries. Subsequent academic research using different approaches and samples has found similar results.

Recently, however, a few op-ed writers have argued that, in fact, the U.S. is “different” and that international comparisons aren’t relevant because of profound institutional differences from one country to another. Some of these authors, including Kevin Hassett, Glenn Hubbard and John Taylor -- who are advisers to the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney -- as well as Michael Bordo, who supports the candidate, have stressed that the U.S. is also “different” in that its recoveries from recessions associated with financial crises have been rapid and strong. Their interpretation is at least partly based on a 2012 study by Bordo and Joseph Haubrich, which examines the issue for the U.S. since 1880.

Gross Misinterpretations

We have not publicly supported or privately advised either campaign. We well appreciate that during elections, academic economists sometimes become advocates. It is entirely reasonable for a scholar, in that role, to try to argue that a candidate has a better economic program that will benefit the country in the future. But when it comes to assessing U.S. financial history, the license for advocacy becomes more limited, and we have to take issue with gross misinterpretations of the facts.

Sorry, U.S. Recoveries Really Aren

 

[Conservative]

I hope PW won't mind if I try to add some additional substance to his superb thread.

The vast majority of Romney's criticism of Obama relates to the slow recovery. He is fond of pointing to other recoveries that have been quicker. But Romney fails to distinguish between run-of-the-mill recessions and recessions that result from systemic financial crises. The recession that Obama inherited is the first one resulting from a systemic financial crisis since the Great Depression. In the latter case, recoveries are generally U-shaped rather than V-shaped and they are more protracted.

It is likely that Romney is aware of this, as several of his economic advisors have been seeking to undercut the economic research that diminishes Romney's argument. The authors of the research have fired back in devastating fashion:

They begin:

Do you get direct feeds from the Obama Campaign? What a bunch of bull****, Obama's zero leadership generated the results we have today which is the worst recovery in history. You want four more years like the last four? You are in for a long night on Nov. 6 as I have a lot more faith in the American people not being fooled twice

 

[Conservative]

Is this really what keeps liberals in power? If so no wonder liberals are excited about the Obama results

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama's presidency - Washington Times

 

[winston53660]

Do you get direct feeds from the Obama Campaign?

His link was to bloomberg.com