• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time to admit Obamanomics has failed

Then we have common ground. I believe this about both democrats and republcians on this issue.

OK...and I respect that...and Im not doing this just to play 'gotcha' blog games...but there is a world of difference between what you just said and

"Yes, he did. And he created them as wll. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And a Republican congress let him. While I hold up neither party as being superior, the facts are the facts."
 
OK...and I respect that...and Im not doing this just to play 'gotcha' blog games...but there is a world of difference between what you just said and

"Yes, he did. And he created them as wll. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And a Republican congress let him. While I hold up neither party as being superior, the facts are the facts."

What he said.
 
Responding to the OP, I don't think this is strictly an Obama problem, I think this is a politician problem. Politicians from both sides, both Dems and Republicans have been spending too much money for years. Republicans would do no differently though, they would spend money in the form of tax cuts. It's either infrastructure or tax cuts, same spending, just different forms. More saving needs to be done in the economy and in the government if the economy wants to avoid boom/bust cycles.

Somewhat off-topic, I think this opinion writer is uninformed and partisan.
And we haven't even addressed the destructive effect on economic growth of Obama's nationalization of major portions of the economy, including the banks, health care and the auto industry.
Providing loans is not nationalization, and the auto industry is probably one of the few successes and turn-around stories in this economy.
 
Just pointing out the facts. Democrats have controlled both legislative houses (including holding a supermajority) since January of 2007. Thats 3 years and 8 months. Unemployment until they took over was consistently under 5%. In 2008 it climbed to 5.8%. It has skyrocketed ever since.

exactly how is unemployment the fault of dems? please point to the particular actions they have taken that caused employment numbers to drop. thanks.
 
OK...and I respect that...and Im not doing this just to play 'gotcha' blog games...but there is a world of difference between what you just said and

"Yes, he did. And he created them as wll. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And a Republican congress let him. While I hold up neither party as being superior, the facts are the facts."

No, not really. Bush made the decision. That congress was cowardly does not change that. Nor does it change that republicans held the majority. It is a simple fact that they did. A democratic majority might have behaved differently. We can't know. We can only deal with what we know. Bush decided. He choose to invade. Twice. Congress did nothing to hinder him. The congress was controlled by republicans at the time. The minority showed little back bone (those who did losing seats), but the majority, with the power, did nothing any better.

Again, the facts are what they are.
 
No, not really. Bush made the decision. That congress was cowardly does not change that. Nor does it change that republicans held the majority. It is a simple fact that they did. A democratic majority might have behaved differently. We can't know. We can only deal with what we know. Bush decided. He choose to invade. Twice. Congress did nothing to hinder him. The congress was controlled by republicans at the time. The minority showed little back bone (those who did losing seats), but the majority, with the power, did nothing any better.

Again, the facts are what they are.

:inandout:
 
No, not really. Bush made the decision. That congress was cowardly does not change that. Nor does it change that republicans held the majority. It is a simple fact that they did. A democratic majority might have behaved differently. We can't know. We can only deal with what we know. Bush decided. He choose to invade. Twice. Congress did nothing to hinder him. The congress was controlled by republicans at the time. The minority showed little back bone (those who did losing seats), but the majority, with the power, did nothing any better.

Again, the facts are what they are.

dood...how many pairs of tap shoes do you wear out in a week?
 
dood...how many pairs of tap shoes do you wear out in a week?

Sigh, . . . there is no tapping here. A clear statement. Bush was president and he alone decided to invade. The congress, republican controlled did nothing to hinder him. And congress, both republican and democrat were cowardly. However, the power was in the hands of republicans. These are simply facts.
 
Sigh, . . . there is no tapping here. A clear statement. Bush was president and he alone decided to invade. The congress, republican controlled did nothing to hinder him. And congress, both republican and democrat were cowardly. However, the power was in the hands of republicans. These are simply facts.

Sigh...





 

Vance, you went to a LOT of work to post those videos. One can only hope that others bother to watch them -- and that a few moderates will understand the point you're making. Boo will keep singing the same tune -- and he's right, really --

Originally Posted by Boo Radley
Sigh, . . . there is no tapping here. A clear statement. Bush was president and he alone decided to invade. The congress, republican controlled did nothing to hinder him. And congress, both republican and democrat were cowardly. However, the power was in the hands of republicans. These are simply facts.

All of that is true. But why would you (Vance) bother arguing with someone who won't just simply say, "Well, ya' know, you're right. Both parties were clearly responsible?" Never going to happen. Not on DP.

I wish you well in your endeavor, though. ;-) And a great big thank you from me for all your work. Not easy. I know.
 
Vance, you went to a LOT of work to post those videos. One can only hope that others bother to watch them -- and that a few moderates will understand the point you're making. Boo will keep singing the same tune -- and he's right, really --



All of that is true. But why would you (Vance) bother arguing with someone who won't just simply say, "Well, ya' know, you're right. Both parties were clearly responsible?" Never going to happen. Not on DP.

I wish you well in your endeavor, though. ;-) And a great big thank you from me for all your work. Not easy. I know.

Gave my index finger quite a workout I did! ;)

Seriously...thats the part of 'the other side' that just sometimes drives me batcrap crazy. They are so invested in being right they cant admit when they are wrong. I have blasted Bush cited his fiscal policy as my a number one reason for leaving the republican party, and blasted away at the republicans for their lack of fiscal responsibility. Doood on the other hand in his first post blames republicans (and ONLY republicans), then admits...OK...democrats too...then, just cant stop himself...and blames republicans. Its that kind of mindless adherence to ideology that just literally repulses me.
 
Gave my index finger quite a workout I did! ;)

Seriously...thats the part of 'the other side' that just sometimes drives me batcrap crazy. They are so invested in being right they cant admit when they are wrong. I have blasted Bush cited his fiscal policy as my a number one reason for leaving the republican party, and blasted away at the republicans for their lack of fiscal responsibility. Doood on the other hand in his first post blames republicans (and ONLY republicans), then admits...OK...democrats too...then, just cant stop himself...and blames republicans. Its that kind of mindless adherence to ideology that just literally repulses me.

I definitely feel your pain. ;-)
 
As this article points out, it's time for the administration, congress and the senate to admit Obamanomics has failed so we can move on to an economic plan that has a chance to fix this mess. The problem is, it will never happen. Obama and the democrats will keep leading this country into economic destruction no matter how bad things get, in order to protect their radical, progressive agenda. It's politics first and the country second with this bunch.




Time to admit Obamanomics has failed | Washington Examiner

"The stimulus didn't work" -- tell that to every teacher who still has a job this fall.

No wonder they peddle that crappy gold on Glenn Beck, you guys will buy anything.
 
"The stimulus didn't work" -- tell that to every teacher who still has a job this fall.

No wonder they peddle that crappy gold on Glenn Beck, you guys will buy anything.

every teacher that has a job...how will they pay for them in 6 months? A 'stimulus' plan is supposed to STIMULATE GROWTH. Its NOT WORKING. At best we are treading water in quicksand.

But thanks for pointing out the absolute lie that gets told EVERY TIME someone from the administration speaks about the simulus...

We have CREATED (or saved) 2 million jobs
 
I'm reading these posts and some of it I don't agree with. Iraq was not on anybody's radar right prior to 9/11, and probably even after, up until Bush's January State of the Union address. It was only until Bush included Iraq in the "axis of evil" and began building a case against them did Iraq become an issue. Bush and the hawks in his administration were entirely responsible for the war, and the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, rubber-stamped the war effort. Congress did not go to Bush and ask for an Iraq war resolution, the Bush Administration went to Congress and asked for one, and even strong-armed many members into voting for a resolution by sending Dick Cheney down to Congress and criticizing members of their patriotism if they didn't vote for the resolution. Although Democrats and Republicans rubber-stamped the war, major responsibility for the war lies with Bush, as he was the Executive who started and conducted the war.

Iraq disarmament crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Wolfowitz, the military analyst for the United States Department of Defense under Ronald Reagan, had formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption", with the goal of striking first to eliminate threats.

This policy was short-lived, however, and Clinton, along with George H. W. Bush, Colin Powell, and other former Bush administration officials, dismissed calls for preemption in favor of continued containment. This was the policy of George W. Bush as well for his first several months in office. The September 11, 2001 attacks brought to life Wolfowitz's and other "hawks'" advocacy for preemptive action; Iraq was widely agreed to be a likely subject of this new policy, despite absolutely no evidence yet having been produced to connect Iraq with the attacks. Powell continued to support the philosophy behind containment.
 
I'm reading these posts and some of it I don't agree with. Iraq was not on anybody's radar right prior to 9/11, and probably even after, up until Bush's January State of the Union address. It was only until Bush included Iraq in the "axis of evil" and began building a case against them did Iraq become an issue. Bush and the hawks in his administration were entirely responsible for the war, and the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, rubber-stamped the war effort. Congress did not go to Bush and ask for an Iraq war resolution, the Bush Administration went to Congress and asked for one, and even strong-armed many members into voting for a resolution by sending Dick Cheney down to Congress and criticizing members of their patriotism if they didn't vote for the resolution. Although Democrats and Republicans rubber-stamped the war, major responsibility for the war lies with Bush, as he was the Executive who started and conducted the war.

Iraq disarmament crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, Iraq was on America's radar during the entire Clinton administration. Here are just some of the quotes from prior to 9/11:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

I'd say he was definitely on the radar.

As for your comment about Cheney strong arming members of congress, that is a load of bull. The majority of both democrats and republicans in Washington supported the invasion of their own free will, just like the majority of the American people did, according to every single credible public opinion poll of the time. If Bush would not have invaded Iraq, he would have had to go against the wishes of everyone. It was America's decision to go to war with Iraq, not just president Bush's.

The major decisions that Obama has made on the other hand, have gone against the wishes of both republicans in DC, as well as the majority of the American people, and look at the results.

.
 
Last edited:
Id be fine with the government raising taxes to pay off the debt if I didnt know that all they would do is spend everything they raised. Until the fed cuts the out of control spending it is ridiculous to talk about tax increases.

The One and a democrat controlled congress has added 3.9 TRILLION to our total historical debt since he took office. Thats WITHOUT the health care debacle that no one knows how much it is going to cost us (primarily because most of congress doesnt have a clue what they actually voted FOR). Assuming you work and pay taxes...if you arent as pissed at the democrats as you are at the republicans...well...that speaks volumes...

It's not that I'm pissed at Democrats or Republicans. I'm pissed at conservative politicians, as there are many conservative Democrats. So how many of the Democrats you call hypocrites aren't hypocrites but rather just conservative?

Also, the only reason why we have the health care debacle is because conservative Senators wouldn't compromise on a better bill, so in order to get any health care reform done the House had to pass a bill identical to the one that was passed in the Senate in order to present it to the President to be signed.

And I would love to stop out of control spending, and I would start by getting rid of no-bid contracts that are nothing but corporate welfare that Senators and Congressmen dole out to their corporate contributors.

So fine. I'm pissed off at Republicans and Democrats, but mostly the conservative ones.
 
As this article points out, it's time for the administration, congress and the senate to admit Obamanomics has failed so we can move on to an economic plan that has a chance to fix this mess. The problem is, it will never happen. Obama and the democrats will keep leading this country into economic destruction no matter how bad things get, in order to protect their radical, progressive agenda. It's politics first and the country second with this bunch.

Well, that was one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. A few sentences were missing words and the ones they left in weren't all that great. Your comment had a lot in common with the article: entirely talking points and no actual suggestions for what we should be doing. Unemployment at "European levels." Sheesh. And the constant attacks on Obama for new "rules" and "studies." Oh no, studies! Studies and rules aren't what's hurting the economy, the fact that middle class families don't have money to spend and the lower classes don't have jobs is what's causing this. Yes, federal spending needs to be drastically reduced. Let's start by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan (something the Republicans don't want to do), cutting back on welfare (something the Democrats don't want to do), and ending the war on drugs (something neither party wants to do).

Absolutely terrible article. Even if "obamanomics" was actually the cause of this economic turmoil, admitting it wouldn't do anything other than make a bunch of conservative morons wet their pants and giggle with joy.
 
It's not that I'm pissed at Democrats or Republicans. I'm pissed at conservative politicians, as there are many conservative Democrats. So how many of the Democrats you call hypocrites aren't hypocrites but rather just conservative?

Also, the only reason why we have the health care debacle is because conservative Senators wouldn't compromise on a better bill, so in order to get any health care reform done the House had to pass a bill identical to the one that was passed in the Senate in order to present it to the President to be signed.

And I would love to stop out of control spending, and I would start by getting rid of no-bid contracts that are nothing but corporate welfare that Senators and Congressmen dole out to their corporate contributors.

So fine. I'm pissed off at Republicans and Democrats, but mostly the conservative ones.

So for you its conservtive vs liberal ideology??? Well...thats honest I suppose. Makes very little sense to me...but honest.

Im as conservative as they come. I have said since the beginning of the health care discussion here I was not oppossed to some form of healthcare...just health care run by the states, not some massive federal monster. We KNOW how thats going to work...just like every other failed federal policy. Its ludicrous that you claim the 'only reason' there are problems is due to repiublicans. How many democrats stuffed pork into that monster? How many democrats voted for something they knew nothing about? How much of all of this that you have bought into are sound bite politics, spin, and rhetoric?

Those no bid contracts can be a problem for sure. I'm certain Haliburton truly pissed you off. Probably REALLY pissed you off that Clinton awarded them their IDIQ to rebuild Bosnia.
 
Well, that was one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. A few sentences were missing words and the ones they left in weren't all that great. Your comment had a lot in common with the article: entirely talking points and no actual suggestions for what we should be doing. Unemployment at "European levels." Sheesh. And the constant attacks on Obama for new "rules" and "studies." Oh no, studies! Studies and rules aren't what's hurting the economy, the fact that middle class families don't have money to spend and the lower classes don't have jobs is what's causing this. Yes, federal spending needs to be drastically reduced. Let's start by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan (something the Republicans don't want to do), cutting back on welfare (something the Democrats don't want to do), and ending the war on drugs (something neither party wants to do).

Absolutely terrible article. Even if "obamanomics" was actually the cause of this economic turmoil, admitting it wouldn't do anything other than make a bunch of conservative morons wet their pants and giggle with joy.

Wow...way to discredit ANYTHING you have ever written! Oh...sure...thats ALL it would do...not cause ideologues to realize the path they have chosen to support is wrong and destructive for the country. not cause people to consider more intelligent fiscal policies.
 


Why do you think this changes the facts? Kerry said clearly we should invade without the UN and that he would oppose the president if he did. But that doesn't mean he did his job, or that Bush and the republican congress are not repsonsible. Bush alone decided. And Congress, controlled by republicans, they held the power, did nothing to hinder him. These are just facts. Making excuses for Bush and his party doesn't change those facts.
 
Why do you think this changes the facts? Kerry said clearly we should invade without the UN and that he would oppose the president if he did. But that doesn't mean he did his job, or that Bush and the republican congress are not repsonsible. Bush alone decided. And Congress, controlled by republicans, they held the power, did nothing to hinder him. These are just facts. Making excuses for Bush and his party doesn't change those facts.

Excuses for what? For following through on the same commitments made by Clinton? For acting on Clintons intel? For going to congress and getting both parties to agree to military action?

The only person here making 'excuses' is you Boo...and you do it all the time. You trip over yourself excusing any and everything liberal and democrat. Whats the 'value' in those statements/ it shows democrat intent from 1996 to 2004...right up until the 2004 elections when it was time for the democrats to flip flop and pretend they didnt say all those things or support the war. THEY are pathetic...and so is your blind obedience and defense of them.
 
Excuses for what? For following through on the same commitments made by Clinton? For acting on Clintons intel? For going to congress and getting both parties to agree to military action?

The only person here making 'excuses' is you Boo...and you do it all the time. You trip over yourself excusing any and everything liberal and democrat. Whats the 'value' in those statements/ it shows democrat intent from 1996 to 2004...right up until the 2004 elections when it was time for the democrats to flip flop and pretend they didnt say all those things or support the war. THEY are pathetic...and so is your blind obedience and defense of them.

If you followed Clinton, he, or more accurately his peoples (See snopes on this and the out of context part about words of democrats) said the threat was over after his last bombing.

No where did Clinton argue for invasion. Taking quotes out of context is no more honest than out right lying.

But that is all irrelevent as Bush and Bush alone made the decision. And a republican congress, with republicans holding the power, did nothing to hinder him. These are the facts. You can say Saddam is bad, that he needs to be removed, and that we shouldn't trust him and not equal an argument to invade.
 
Back
Top Bottom