"Let me be clear", how do you like all that "TRANSFORMATION" now .......

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    "Let me be clear", how do you like all that "TRANSFORMATION" now .......

       The "windows of wake up" are closing fast !!!!    What say you ?????

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:


    Let me be clear.......you are being unclear.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re:

    He means, "how are you liking that hopey changy stuff now?"

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    [QUOTE]Oh freddled gruntbuggly
    thy micturations are to me

    As plurdled gabbleblotchits
    on a lurgid bee.
    Groop I implore thee
    my foonting turlingdromes
    And hooptiously drangle me
    with crinkly bindlewurdles,
    Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
    with my blurglecruncheon,

    see if I don't




    Well said.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    He means, "how are you liking that hopey changy stuff now?"

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Oh....I see.

    Then I'm pleased with foreign policy (ending wars, killing Bin Laden, etc.)

    I'm upset that the President has been unable to undo our Republican economy.  What I mean by that is:  Total government spending are at levels not seen since the Korean War, corporate and individual tax rates are at levels not seen since the Great Depression and financial regulation has been demolished.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re:

    "Killing Bin Laden" = Foreign Policy

    Gebus, no wonder we're in a world of excrement.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re:

    but probably more than I'd have liked the once-honorable man who sold his soul to the far right (to run)

    Agreed, he probably wouldn't have been any better once he snapped back to his "real" self. Not sure about Mr 47%, but then again it's a pretty low standard that being set.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    "What say you?"

    O'Reilly. Pompous windbag.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    "Killing Bin Laden" = Foreign Policy

    Gebus, no wonder we're in a world of excrement.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    You got it wrong:

    OBAMA Killing Bin Laden = foriegn policy

     

    For the left, without Obama, our foriegn policiy would be in shambles.

    Kinda makes you laugh...or cry. One is never sure in these situations.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    He means, "how are you liking that hopey changy stuff now?"

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     



    Oh....I see.

     

    Then I'm pleased with foreign policy (ending wars, killing Bin Laden, etc.)

    I'm upset that the President has been unable to undo our Republican economy.  What I mean by that is:  Total government spending are at levels not seen since the Korean War, corporate and individual tax rates are at levels not seen since the Great Depression and financial regulation has been demolished.



    Really? Let's face it, we are almost five years into Obama's run and you're still calling it the republican economy. Please tell me at what point does it become Obama's economy? When he's out of office. We will go from Bush to whomever that next president is in 2017, right? You just can't bring yourself to except any blame from this administration, Obama can do no wrong, can he....pathetic! 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    "Killing Bin Laden" = Foreign Policy

    Gebus, no wonder we're in a world of excrement.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.




    This president prioritized locating and killing Bin Laden on a sovereign nation's soil without using diplomacy.  It most certainly was a foreign policy decision.

    Not doing to good with definitions today are you?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "Killing Bin Laden" = Foreign Policy

    Gebus, no wonder we're in a world of excrement.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     




    This president prioritized locating and killing Bin Laden on a sovereign nation's soil without using diplomacy.  It most certainly was a foreign policy decision.

     

    Not doing to good with definitions today are you?

    [/QUOTE]

    See?  This post makes my point.

    Bush=bad foriegn policy

    Obama=good foriegn policy

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    He means, "how are you liking that hopey changy stuff now?"

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     



    Oh....I see.

     

    Then I'm pleased with foreign policy (ending wars, killing Bin Laden, etc.)

    I'm upset that the President has been unable to undo our Republican economy.  What I mean by that is:  Total government spending are at levels not seen since the Korean War, corporate and individual tax rates are at levels not seen since the Great Depression and financial regulation has been demolished.

     



    Really? Let's face it, we are almost five years into Obama's run and you're still calling it the republican economy. Please tell me at what point does it become Obama's economy? When he's out of office. We will go from Bush to whomever that next president is in 2017, right? You just can't bring yourself to except any blame from this administration, Obama can do no wrong, can he....pathetic! 

     



    Helloooo Newman.

    Like it or not, we have a republican economy.  Republicans are getting exactly what they want. They've been getting what they want for the past 30 years, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike.....and thats why I criticize Obama and many democrats.

    In addition to falling spending, taxes and regulation, we've also seen private sector unions destroyed (now we're destroying public sector unions), as well as eroding wages to the point where we have no tax base.  This country has taken a hard turn to the right since Reagan's election and we've never looked back. To pretend that there has been a shift to the left under Obama is pure, unadulterated fantasy.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    He means, "how are you liking that hopey changy stuff now?"

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     



    Oh....I see.

     

    Then I'm pleased with foreign policy (ending wars, killing Bin Laden, etc.)

    I'm upset that the President has been unable to undo our Republican economy.  What I mean by that is:  Total government spending are at levels not seen since the Korean War, corporate and individual tax rates are at levels not seen since the Great Depression and financial regulation has been demolished.

     



    Really? Let's face it, we are almost five years into Obama's run and you're still calling it the republican economy. Please tell me at what point does it become Obama's economy? When he's out of office. We will go from Bush to whomever that next president is in 2017, right? You just can't bring yourself to except any blame from this administration, Obama can do no wrong, can he....pathetic! 

     

     



    Helloooo Newman.

     

    Like it or not, we have a republican economy.  Republicans are getting exactly what they want. They've been getting what they want for the past 30 years, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike.....and thats why I criticize Obama and many democrats.

    In addition to falling spending, taxes and regulation, we've also seen private sector unions destroyed (now we're destroying public sector unions), as well as eroding wages to the point where we have no tax base.  This country has taken a hard turn to the right since Reagan's election and we've never looked back. To pretend that there has been a shift to the left under Obama is pure, unadulterated fantasy.

     



    Are you saying that the policies, stimulas packages and the doubling down of the debt under this president have no blame as to where the economy stands today? Furthermore, are you saying it would then take a republican to fix things? You don't seem to have too much faith in your party. If you can't fix it, blame, blame, blame.  

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    I don't see that much as been tranformed actually.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re:

    From 2012, but the facts still remain:

    Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed:

    “Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.”

    Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. Obama’s assertion is based upon a Congressional Budget Office projection from January of 2001. The CBO had projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2001-2011. As is so often the case, the government agency grossly overestimated revenue and underestimated costs. By 2002, the CBO was projecting a surplus of $313 billion. Instead, there was a deficit of $158 billion, a net change of $471 billion. Considering the 2001 CBO projection was so wildly off just a year later, it is striking how often it is cited by Obama and his allies. 

    So why was the CBO’s 2001 projection so horrendously misguided? When the CBO put out their budget projection in 2002, they explained, “[I]nvestment plunged beginning late 2000. A sharp drop in profit margins, probably tied to excess capacity stemming from over-optimism ... worsened that fall ... the contraction in the share of GDP claimed by corporate profits is expected to be one of the worst since World War II.” The economy entered a recession in mid-2001; then came September 11, 2001. “Investors, consumers, and businesses lost confidence. As a result, stock prices fell, consumers bought less, and firms sharply reduced orders for new equipment. Lower demand in turn led business to reduce their workforces.” Also, “[C]apital gains realizations in calendar year 2001 fell by nearly 20%.” Corporate tax receipts fell from 2.1% of GDP in 2000 to 1.7% in 2001, and were projected to fall to 1.5% by 2002.

    The CBO also grossly underestimated outlays in their 2001 projection. As a result of the recession and September 11, spending increased significantly. By 2002, the CBO was projecting unemployment compensation to soar 67%, and those on food stamps to increase 19%. Of course, there was also the war in Afghanistan. Authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan was bi-partisan and virtually unanimous.

    As we are all too aware, that $5.6 trillion in surpluses never materialized. The increased spending, tax cuts, wars, economic downturn, interest payments, and September 11 all contributed. As indicated above, we have added $5.2 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. For the president’s claim to be accurate, only $520 billion of that amount would be attributable to his policies.

    Obama attributes all of the war spending to Bush. Since taking office, President Obama has actually increased spending on the war in Afghanistan, sending more troops to the country.Spending in Afghanistan went from $38 billion in 2009 to $87 billion in 2010 and $98 billion in 2011. Obama requested $115 billion for both wars in 2012. “The cost from 2010 to 2012 is more than $400 billion, excluding interest.” 

    Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone in January of 2011, and cut payroll taxes, reducing projected revenues by nearly $800 billion. He also proposes to continue the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 in 2013. The Recovery Act cost $800 billion through 2011, and his health care reform actually increased funding for Medicare Part D, closing the “doughnut hole.”

    In these measures alone, Obama’s policies account for more than $2 trillion in deficit spending.  Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts reduced expected revenues by an estimated $369 billion from 2009 to 2010. Medicare Part D cost $150 billion from 2009 to 2011. Secondary to the recession, “economic and technical changes” accounted for $1.96 trillion in reduced revenue from 2009 to 2011.

    As such, Bush's policies amounted to a total of $519 billion (reduced tax revenue + Medicare Part D) in added deficit spending, together with some portion of the Iraq war spending, which was essentially wound down by the time Obama took office.

    In his claim, Obama had the 10% part right. However, that 10% was more properly attributed to his predecessor’s role in creating the deficits from 2009-2012. The remainder is attributable to Obama’s policies (~40%), the recession (~40%), and other (~10%).

    Similarly, the president’s claim that federal government grew at a slower pace than at any time since the Eisenhower administration has been widely debunked. The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Factcheck.org all agreed the statement is patently false. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re:

    I think if Obama (or any competent Dem) had been in office in 2001, there is a 50/50 chance there would not have been a 9/11.  If there had been a 9/11, there would not be an Iraq, and without Iraq, how long would Afghanistan have lasted?  Without the Bush Tax Cuts, and two lengthy wars, there would be no spike in oil prices.  There would be no debt crisis.  Would there be a housing bubble bursting economy problem?  Maybe - but we would have a budget surplus, so you have to think the landing would have been softer.

    Now that's all blame Bush, ancient history in this day and age, so let's try the other side of the coin.

    If John McCain had been elected in 2008, would there have been an Iranian uprising?   Maybe - if so, he would have gone to war with Iran - he said so himself; he sang songs about it.  So instead of peacefully waiting a cycle for a moderate Iran president, we'd be in yet another war.  Would there have been an Arab uprising?  I don't know, but if there was, we'd have been boots on the ground in Libya, because that's not "leading from behind".  And of course, we all know how he feels about Syria.  Would bin Laden be dead?  Hard to imagine we'd have the time, what with the half dozen wars we're engaged in.  

    But at least we would have fewer earmarks.

    It's time for the Right to leave the process.  They screw everything up; they're wrong about everything;  they'll say or do anything to win; and when they lose anyway, they try to sabotage the game.  

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re:

    Most people haven't seen much change.  SSDD.  They wouldn't, because who is POTUS doesn't really matter to most peoples' everyday lives.

    But that doesn't mean change isn't there.  It always takes time to come to terms with itself, what its hopes were, and what its reality ended up being.

    As far as "transformative" - that part has already happened merely by dint of his election, which was historical in both scope and substance.

    Obama is POTUS is less than what many thought he was and more than many others thought he could be.  Personally, I temper my own disappointments with the understanding that nobody takes those failures to heart or mind more than the man himself...which, if you think about it, it's all that we can really expect from any leader.

    Meanwhile, the hessians will rage and the bleeding hearts will weep, and the sun will rise in the east over Cadillac Mountain.

     

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    I think if Obama (or any competent Dem) had been in office in 2001, there is a 50/50 chance there would not have been a 9/11.  If there had been a 9/11, there would not be an Iraq, and without Iraq, how long would Afghanistan have lasted?  Without the Bush Tax Cuts, and two lengthy wars, there would be no spike in oil prices.  There would be no debt crisis.  Would there be a housing bubble bursting economy problem?  Maybe - but we would have a budget surplus, so you have to think the landing would have been softer.

    Now that's all blame Bush, ancient history in this day and age, so let's try the other side of the coin.

    If John McCain had been elected in 2008, would there have been an Iranian uprising?   Maybe - if so, he would have gone to war with Iran - he said so himself; he sang songs about it.  So instead of peacefully waiting a cycle for a moderate Iran president, we'd be in yet another war.  Would there have been an Arab uprising?  I don't know, but if there was, we'd have been boots on the ground in Libya, because that's not "leading from behind".  And of course, we all know how he feels about Syria.  Would bin Laden be dead?  Hard to imagine we'd have the time, what with the half dozen wars we're engaged in.  

    But at least we would have fewer earmarks.

    It's time for the Right to leave the process.  They screw everything up; they're wrong about everything;  they'll say or do anything to win; and when they lose anyway, they try to sabotage the game.  

     



    Agreed. The party of No, Know Nothing, and Do Nothing has really accomplished nothing for America since Nixon created the EPA in 1970; something that current party members would equate with treason.

    Sure, one-party rule is not ideal and is not a long-term solution, but when the other party is nothing more than a group of crazy carnival barkers spouting bumper sticker slogans like 'freedom','faith', 'family' and 'liberty', then maybe one-party rule isn't so bad, especially if they deal in facts and solutions instead of dead symbolism.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re:

    Has anyone played the "impeahment card"  ????

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I don't see that much as been tranformed actually.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    I havent seen a more accurate post on this forum.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share