Why Liberals Should NOT Vote For Obama

[Gina]

The Dems had 4 years of FULL control.. the final two years of GWB and the first two of Obama.. take a look at the stellar run of FAILURE....

this is like saying... lets replace Brett Favre, becasue sadly he didnt win a superbowl with Erkle..and then tell me that Erkle who he cant win a single game is BETTER...

what year did Pelosi adn Reid get into power and start with Cap and Trade, No drilling and Unversal Health care.. that was in 2006/7.. the Libs had 4 years of full power.. the last two year of GWB. now look at the chart..

Yes, because during the last two years of the Bush administration, the president was so eager to sign a UHC law or any of that into law. They, in point of fact, did not have full control while Bush was in office, nor a full proof super majority of 60 votes in the senate after 2009 to get bills out of cloture.

 

[AdamT]

I don't deal in hyperbole and false mischaracterizations of fact. There is no other possible conclusion that a logical and rational person can make, judging from the raw economic data under Obama's leadership, that his presidency has been a massive failure.

Tell us why we should vote for Obama with 15% Real Unemployment and 5 trillion in new debt.

Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. Under his policies we are doing better than just about everyone else in the Western world. If we followed the Republican course of austerity we would be in a double-dip recession along with Europe.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He lied.

The 2013 defict will probably be 40% below the 2009 deficit in 2013 dollars. So yeah, he missed by 10%. Now, if Republicans hadn't blocked his effort to repeal the top Bush tax cuts, and rejected his debt ceiling offer, he would have made his goal. So I'll give him a pass on that one.

Obama promised we'd be at sub 6% employment right now if he was allowed to ram his stimulus down our throats. He lied

No, he didn't; you lied.

Obama promised to get the lobbyists out of WA. He lied

No, he didn't; you lied.

Obama promised transparency. He lied

He has increased transparency; you lied.

Obama promised that Obamacare wasn't a massive tax increase on the poor and middle class. He lied

It isn't. It is a net benefit to the middle class; you lied.

Obama promised that the costs of HC would go down if he was allowed to ram Obamacare down our throats using shady reconciliation tactics. He lied

Undetermined, since most of ACA won't go into effect until 2014.

Obama promised that there would be "Green Jobs". He lied

There are green jobs; you lied.

Obama promised that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans would cease and the planet would start to heal. He lied

He has done what he can (EPA regs, CAFE standards) given that Republicans would in no way permit any climate change legislation to pass Congress; you lied again.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Is Romney more Liberal?

Yeah...as if. I just don't get the OP's logic, if we are supposed to reject Obama, then what does Romney offer to attract our vote?

Maybe Bro hasn't thought this out....you suppose?

 

[poweRob]

Yeah...as if. I just don't get the OP's logic, if we are supposed to reject Obama, then what does Romney offer to attract our vote?

Maybe Bro hasn't thought this out....you suppose?

He seems to have bought into that theory that "if you can't upsell your candidate, downsell the other."

 

[TheNextEra]

He seems to have bought into that theory that "if you can't upsell your candidate, downsell the other."

That was the mistake the Dems made in 2004. Looks like the GOP isn't up on learn your history or be doomed to repeat it. While I personally feel Obama has been a failure as a leader, he will get re-elected.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

He seems to have bought into that theory that "if you can't upsell your candidate, downsell the other."

Negative campaign efforts....have a great track record.....especially from smooth talkers like Bronson.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds...

 

[poweRob]

That was the mistake the Dems made in 2004. Looks like the GOP isn't up on learn your history or be doomed to repeat it. While I personally feel Obama has been a failure as a leader, he will get re-elected.

And offering up a terrible candidate in 2004 didn't help.

 

[00timh]

Please compare to the last Republican president's opening and closing figures on the same metrics, and then we'll talk about "logic" and "reality."

If we talk about 2004, then a good case would be made for re-election. For 2008 then he would have a bad case for re-election.

The simple fact is, under the Obama administration, the economy as a whole has gotten worse. Typically when that happens, Presidents do not win re-election.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The simple fact is, under the Obama administration, the economy as a whole has gotten worse.

********************************

 

[Born Free]

So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.

Sorry but that is how history is recorded.

 

[hazlnut]

Nice charts from every GOP / Conservative source you could find.

Start a new thread when you have something objective and factual for us to look at.

Thanks!:2wave:

 

[Born Free]

Cut domestic spending? :lamo

Cut taxes? :lamo

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate, but also eliminated tons of deductions, so he didn't really cut taxes that much. But it was too much, as he realized -- following up his big tax bill with 11 tax hikes.

In any case, the economic conditions are not comparable and the tools available are not comparable. With tax revenue at a 60 year low, Obama can't tax cut his way out of this. And with $10 trillion in debt, 1/3 of which was attributable to Reagan and 1/2 to Bush II, he's hard pressed to spend his way out of it.

IOW, the Reagan/Bush legacy of deregulation, tax cuts, and out-of-control spending left Obama with a historic train wreck of an economy and nothing but a screwdriver to fix it.

10 trillion in debt spaced over how many presidents. Compare that to Obama who has trumped all presidents by raising the national debt by almost 6 trillion, and he did that in just 4 yrs. Worse yet, he added 6 trillion to the national debt, and we have over 8% unemployment, and an anemic 1.5% GDP to show for it. Why Liberals Should NOT Vote For Obama

 

[Born Free]

Nice charts from every GOP / Conservative source you could find.

Start a new thread when you have something objective and factual for us to look at.

Thanks!:2wave:

And what do you dispute?

 

[00timh]

********************************

View attachment 67131894

I wish I could trust that graph. IDK, maybe Obama is a better magician then Houdini... But with all economic indicators pointing south, somehow the GDP goes up....

 

[Gimmesometruth]

10 trillion in debt spaced over how many presidents. Compare that to Obama who has trumped all presidents by raising the national debt by almost 6 trillion, and he did that in just 4 yrs. Worse yet, he added 6 trillion to the national debt, and we have over 8% unemployment, and an anemic 1.5% GDP to show for it. Why Liberals Should NOT Vote For Obama

The president is not responsible for the declines in revenue, which is the direct result of declines in demand. Spending, as measured in % of GDP, has increased at a lower rate as compared to Bush, Bush II or Reagan. In fact, we are seeing the lowest increases in spending since Eisenhower.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I wish I could trust that graph. IDK, maybe Obama is a better magician then Houdini... But with all economic indicators pointing south, somehow the GDP goes up....

"I don't trust the St. Louis or the Dept of Commerce..."

 

[poweRob]

I wish I could trust that graph. IDK, maybe Obama is a better magician then Houdini... But with all economic indicators pointing south, somehow the GDP goes up....

GDP tends to rise rather naturally. You have to really really bust your ass screwing up to make GDP go negative.

​

Obama was inaugurated on January 20th of 2009. Then of course a couple months of enacting his policies. If Obama weren't half stepping the recovery... and by that I don't mean grasping hold of that Republican broken ideology of austerity, if he truly was deploying keynesian economics, the GDP wouldn't be growing at the mere pace of 1% to 2%.


Historically speaking of GDP growth:

​

 

[a351]

So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.

Sorry but that is how history is recorded.

Not among serious circles.

 

[Ikari]

Average (Mean) Duration of Unemployment (UEMPMEAN) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Economy lost more than 200,000 small businesses in recession, Census shows | Fox News

Out of Business | NewAmerica.net



Household electricity bills skyrocket

Missing $4,155? It Went Into Your Gas Tank This Year - US Business News - CNBC

18 Staggering Charts On The Rise Of Government Dependence - Business Insider

18 Staggering Charts On The Rise Of Government Dependence - Business Insider

PolitiFact Ohio | Betty Sutton says that on average, 15 U.S. factories close each day

How Your Dollar Got To Be Worth Just 3.8 Cents - Business Insider

Good thing I ain't voting for Obama.

 

[hazlnut]

And what do you dispute?

That Rick Thune has any interest in supplying people who visit his website an accurate picture of Obama policies.

I dispute that Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

The sources are so extremely partisan, it's a conversation stopper. Like saying, "Let's talk sensibly about homosexuality and gay rights by asking Fred Phelps what he thinks."

 

[00timh]

GDP tends to rise rather naturally. You have to really really bust your ass screwing up to make GDP go negative.

View attachment 67131898​

Obama was inaugurated on January 20th of 2009. Then of course a couple months of enacting his policies. If Obama weren't half stepping the recovery... and by that I don't mean grasping hold of that Republican broken ideology of austerity, if he truly was deploying keynesian economics, the GDP wouldn't be growing at the mere pace of 1% to 2%.


Historically speaking of GDP growth:


*edit... I'd like to ad a pic but the insert pic from computer doesn't seem to be working.

I feel the GDP is a seriously flawed measurement Rob. Bush took office during a recession. The economy was still wobbly at the time of 9/11 and then took a good hit from that. That is not reflected in the GDP anywhere. It should be though. But if as you say things really need to be screwed up badly, then even with just murky economies, the GDP does not show a true picture of the economy.

From 2002 to 2007 the value of my house increased by 35k. I didn't do a thing to it during that time. Housing bubble, we all know this.... I have since made some cosmetic changes to the interior, and after the bubble burst, I am almost back to the 2002 value. And NY homes have not declined nearly as much as other areas, especially Fl. Being that the housing bubble is a big reason for the big GDP during the Bush years, It would then make sense that the GDP should not be going up at the same rate now as it did during the Bush years when Housing is still down significantly, along with most other labor. GDP as it is being measured currently is not an accurate picture of the economy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, a president is instantaneously responsible for everything that happens to an economy from the day he takes office?

Like, before he's signed a single bill, the stuff happening is still his fault?

Interesting way of deciding it.

You would prefer to look at which party controlled congress then?

 

[a351]

You would prefer to look at which party controlled congress then?

Perhaps a glance at the circumstances that led to such a situation would be more appropriate.

 

[Bronson]

Perhaps a glance at the circumstances that led to such a situation would be more appropriate.

You can blame Democrats for that too. They blocked any attempts at GSE Reform and accused the regulator of being a racist.

Democrats Blocking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reform - YouTube

Amazon.com: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (9780805091205): Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner: Books

 

[Born Free]

The president is not responsible for the declines in revenue, which is the direct result of declines in demand. Spending, as measured in % of GDP, has increased at a lower rate as compared to Bush, Bush II or Reagan. In fact, we are seeing the lowest increases in spending since Eisenhower.

The hell he's not, it's called "JOBS" and "economic growth" all Obama has done is put in place job, and economic growth killing policies. And you have to wonder why the GDP is 1.5% and the unemployment is over 8% for over 40 months now. And on top of that it is Obama that increased our national debt by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs and the only president to have our debt downgraded.