His "number one priority is to keep diplomats safe" and then doesn't answer question of why the Ambassador wasn't protected. This is a failed President on so many levels, but he's supposed to be the Commander in Chief and that is his top job. Fail.
How about $5 trillion in new national debt, U-6 unemployment around 16%, 40 million people on food stamps, GDP growth rate less than 1.5%. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid hurtling toward bankruptcy. Budgets submitted to Congress that are so unrealistic even his own party won't vote for them. Kowtowing to Islamic terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood. No plan to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How's that for starters?
Anyone on this blog going to actually have the backbone to say Romney is going to win because Obama is so bad? I know, Victoria, you are just keeping your job and repeating all the talking points given to you by your corporate masters. At least, for now, you arent yet one of the 47% living off of billionnaires hard earned tax dollars. Give it up, Romney is going to lose because you have nothing, no facts, no information, just pointless and mindless attacks with no value to anyone but the few people that already believe the same hyperbole. you are not changing anyones opinions, so give up. you are losing, just like you always do.
If Romney loses it's because he failed to get his message across to a majority of voters. If the President is reelected, somehow I think that might be better for Victoria's employment opportunities. : )
The two men represent two totally different philosophies of governing. It seems clear you feel entitled to other peoples' earnings for some reason that seems good to you. So be it. If you win, then you can fight with the 47% over the scraps that "trickle down" from the government. Or if the President loses, then you can immigrate to France where they will take care of you. Oui?
Australia's deputy prime minister Wayne Swan warned Friday that the greatest threat to the U.S. economy are the "cranks and crazies" in the Republican Party.
Yes they do evidently...gay marriage lost 2-1 in a recent parliment vote there.
So Dr Arpell is arguing that 5 trillion in new debt to reduce the U6 unemployement rate 1.8% to 14.7% is a good reason to re elect the President. So to get it down to the 5.6% he promised if the stimulus, AKA ARRA, was passed would cost how much we don't have?
CBO report on the impact of the ARRA in the 3rd quarter of 2011 was between 0.4 to 2.4 million jobs were saved by ARRA money. For 780 billion dollars.
According to CNN web article dated 1/25/12, his Office of Management and Budget said that 123,000 new federal employees had been added since his innauguration in 2009.
Over twice as many people have gone on social security disability than the number of jobs created since his immaguration.
It's a free country and you can vote for the President for any reason you want, but if it's for economic progress, then perhaps his first legistlative effort should be the repeal of the 22nd Ammendment limiting presidents to two terms.
I'm glad that Osama Bin laden is dead, but I'm surprised that left wingers opposed to waterboarding, rendition, and Guantanamo would celebrate his death based on no real evidence he was guilty.
Last time I looked, the Office of Management and Budget was not a media outlet....guess things may have changed. As is the CBO.
The President got his 780 Billion stimulus package and about 409 million in a supplemental budget package in March 2009...a 1.2 trillion dollar increase in federal spending in one year...and that's post TARP. Most of that spending was rolled into the budget baseline for the following years. That's the functional skeleton of our 1.2 trillion dollar a year deficit. Where's that "peace dividend" from the war in Iraq ending? The stimulus was supposed to have reduced unemployment to 5.6% by now. Even the President admitted that only 6% of that money went into "shovel ready" infrastructure projects.
So now that you have taken me to the wood shed over "media sources", why don't you school me on how high you have to raise taxes on the rich and corporations to "redress" that upwards redistribution of wealth to your satisfaction. I'd ask you to define rich or we can go with Al Gore's definition of anyone who makes over $250,000 a year.
I'd ask Victoria's indulgence to allow your answer to be posted. I'm intrigued to see if there is another left winger other than dj on this blog that can think deeper than the glue that holds the Hope and Change bumper sticker to their cars.
Well, sorry. It was your opportunity to at least broaden my horizons. I'm open to new ideas, but it's hard to have any kind of informed discussion without any ever being expressed.
There a finite, fiscal and moral limits on what government should do in terms of taxation and social engineering. There are things that only government can do, but they need to be explained, not hidden; or imposed by people who never read the bill or were bought off; or cannot show any value to make rational cost/benefits decisions.
I have no idea what you mean by "being on the other side of your own people". I thought we were all in this together as Americans? Though I guess if your a big government statist who thinks that some sort of non elected, super smart, elite group (anyone I know?) should make decisions for everyone else for the betterment of all, then I guess your not one of my people.
I agree with you about corrupt politicans and bad public policy, favorable to a few. The solution to that is relatively simple...give government less money and power over your life.
Democracy is messy and a self governing society can be victim to excesses, but it is eminently preferable to a facist telling you what kind of house you can have, what kind of car you will drive, what kind of schooling you will get, what you can say and who you have to like, as well as the bleeping size of the soda you can drink.
I don't remember what your scientific credentials are, but you have a living example of your thinking right here in Oregon. Almost like a terrarium. For over 30 years, that kind of "progressive thinking, has turned us into a cultural, economic, and intellectual backwater....which seems to have been the objective all along. Unemployed, uneducated, and uninformed people are evidently willing to trade their freedom for a SNAP card and affordable housing while the wealth of the state is redistrubuted to the new elite of public employees and their cronies. Not to mention easier to control. The left wing equivalent of "barefoot and pregnant".
I would suggest that people such as you, iago, bricklayer, hard cheese, et al, can't express what you really believe because it is so repugnant and alien that it never see the light of day unless escorted by Churchill's "bodyguard of lies". So you have to hide behind soft phrases like "social justice, "equity" and "fairness" to hide what you would impose on your fellow citizens for their own good.
David: I'm not scared of anything; I don't generally comment to die hard liberals like you, because you won't listen. So I didn't know I would be listed as "unknown". At the same time, I have a very unique name, and since I prefer not to be lambasted by those who disagree, or for my family to get subjected to such treatment, I choose to remain anonymous. And how do I know that David Appell is your real name?
Some comments have been removed because one of the commenters has been banned from this blog. He knows this and persists. I will continue to delete them or turn off comments on this thread.
How about $5 trillion in new national debt, U-6 unemployment around 16%, 40 million people on food stamps, GDP growth rate less than 1.5%. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid hurtling toward bankruptcy. Budgets submitted to Congress that are so unrealistic even his own party won't vote for them. Kowtowing to Islamic terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood. No plan to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How's that for starters?
ReplyDeleteAnyone on this blog going to actually have the backbone to say Romney is going to win because Obama is so bad? I know, Victoria, you are just keeping your job and repeating all the talking points given to you by your corporate masters. At least, for now, you arent yet one of the 47% living off of billionnaires hard earned tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteGive it up, Romney is going to lose because you have nothing, no facts, no information, just pointless and mindless attacks with no value to anyone but the few people that already believe the same hyperbole. you are not changing anyones opinions, so give up. you are losing, just like you always do.
Hi vote,
DeleteIf Romney loses it's because he failed to get his message across to a majority of voters. If the President is reelected, somehow I think that might be better for Victoria's employment opportunities. : )
The two men represent two totally different philosophies of governing. It seems clear you feel entitled to other peoples' earnings for some reason that seems good to you. So be it. If you win, then you can fight with the 47% over the scraps that "trickle down" from the government. Or if the President loses, then you can immigrate to France where they will take care of you. Oui?
Obama 2012
ReplyDeleteRomney 1040
Australia's deputy prime minister Wayne Swan warned Friday that the greatest threat to the U.S. economy are the "cranks and crazies" in the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteOur Australian friends get it.
Hi Iago,
ReplyDeleteYes they do evidently...gay marriage lost 2-1 in a recent parliment vote there.
So Dr Arpell is arguing that 5 trillion in new debt to reduce the U6 unemployement rate 1.8% to 14.7% is a good reason to re elect the President. So to get it down to the 5.6% he promised if the stimulus, AKA ARRA, was passed would cost how much we don't have?
CBO report on the impact of the ARRA in the 3rd quarter of 2011 was between 0.4 to 2.4 million jobs were saved by ARRA money. For 780 billion dollars.
According to CNN web article dated 1/25/12, his Office of Management and Budget said that 123,000 new federal employees had been added since his innauguration in 2009.
Over twice as many people have gone on social security disability than the number of jobs created since his immaguration.
It's a free country and you can vote for the President for any reason you want, but if it's for economic progress, then perhaps his first legistlative effort should be the repeal of the 22nd Ammendment limiting presidents to two terms.
I'm glad that Osama Bin laden is dead, but I'm surprised that left wingers opposed to waterboarding, rendition, and Guantanamo would celebrate his death based on no real evidence he was guilty.
Hi Dave,
DeleteLast time I looked, the Office of Management and Budget was not a media outlet....guess things may have changed. As is the CBO.
The President got his 780 Billion stimulus package and about 409 million in a supplemental budget package in March 2009...a 1.2 trillion dollar increase in federal spending in one year...and that's post TARP. Most of that spending was rolled into the budget baseline for the following years. That's the functional skeleton of our 1.2 trillion dollar a year deficit. Where's that "peace dividend" from the war in Iraq ending? The stimulus was supposed to have reduced unemployment to 5.6% by now. Even the President admitted that only 6% of that money went into "shovel ready" infrastructure projects.
So now that you have taken me to the wood shed over "media sources", why don't you school me on how high you have to raise taxes on the rich and corporations to "redress" that upwards redistribution of wealth to your satisfaction. I'd ask you to define rich or we can go with Al Gore's definition of anyone who makes over $250,000 a year.
I'd ask Victoria's indulgence to allow your answer to be posted. I'm intrigued to see if there is another left winger other than dj on this blog that can think deeper than the glue that holds the Hope and Change bumper sticker to their cars.
Well, sorry. It was your opportunity to at least broaden my horizons. I'm open to new ideas, but it's hard to have any kind of informed discussion without any ever being expressed.
DeleteThere a finite, fiscal and moral limits on what government should do in terms of taxation and social engineering. There are things that only government can do, but they need to be explained, not hidden; or imposed by people who never read the bill or were bought off; or cannot show any value to make rational cost/benefits decisions.
I have no idea what you mean by "being on the other side of your own people". I thought we were all in this together as Americans? Though I guess if your a big government statist who thinks that some sort of non elected, super smart, elite group (anyone I know?) should make decisions for everyone else for the betterment of all, then I guess your not one of my people.
I agree with you about corrupt politicans and bad public policy, favorable to a few. The solution to that is relatively simple...give government less money and power over your life.
Democracy is messy and a self governing society can be victim to excesses, but it is eminently preferable to a facist telling you what kind of house you can have, what kind of car you will drive, what kind of schooling you will get, what you can say and who you have to like, as well as the bleeping size of the soda you can drink.
I don't remember what your scientific credentials are, but you have a living example of your thinking right here in Oregon. Almost like a terrarium. For over 30 years, that kind of "progressive thinking, has turned us into a cultural, economic, and intellectual backwater....which seems to have been the objective all along. Unemployed, uneducated, and uninformed people are evidently willing to trade their freedom for a SNAP card and affordable housing while the wealth of the state is redistrubuted to the new elite of public employees and their cronies. Not to mention easier to control. The left wing equivalent of "barefoot and pregnant".
I would suggest that people such as you, iago, bricklayer, hard cheese, et al, can't express what you really believe because it is so repugnant and alien that it never see the light of day unless escorted by Churchill's "bodyguard of lies". So you have to hide behind soft phrases like "social justice, "equity" and "fairness" to hide what you would impose on your fellow citizens for their own good.
David: I'm not scared of anything; I don't generally comment to die hard liberals like you, because you won't listen. So I didn't know I would be listed as "unknown". At the same time, I have a very unique name, and since I prefer not to be lambasted by those who disagree, or for my family to get subjected to such treatment, I choose to remain anonymous.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do I know that David Appell is your real name?
Some comments have been removed because one of the commenters has been banned from this blog. He knows this and persists. I will continue to delete them or turn off comments on this thread.
ReplyDeleteWell Dave, might be time to convert to Islam. They know how to get grievances redressed.
Delete