Wonder what it will be in 18 months?

Obama has a 99.9% approval rating with the mainstream media, however.

 

Obama is misunderstood...only smart people can really understand how bankrupting America is actually good for us and our children.

In response to tvoter's comment:

And yet modern conservatism is so repugnant to voters that Obama won anyway. Unfortunately, the only Republican candidate who wasn't a rotting douchestain lost....

...to Stephen Colbert

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

The independents agrred to give him another term; not uncommon for an incumbant to get re-elected.

We'll see how the mid-terms go.

The dems better start looking for a another rockstar minority!

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

Obama is projected to add 11 trillion to our national debt during his Presidency...I think worst will be an understatement.  His fiscal irresponsibility will go down in history as what put an end to the US as a super power and economic powerhouse in the world....

 

In response to macnh1's comment:

Not his fault. Now that 'second term' Obama is duly sworn in, per usual the previous Administration must be blamed for the failures.

That was "First Term" Obama who added to the deficit.

 

 

This post has been removed.

"Obama is the worst President ever (and we couldn't beat him)!"

 

Stirring slogan.....

In response to jmel's comment:

They got schalacked in 2010; 2014 will be interesting if, he doesnt make some policy changes!

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Not really, incumbants are hard to beat. Especially if, 20% of their consituency is turning out to vote due to race more than record.

This post has been removed.

In response to tvoter's comment:

 So any time a black D wins, you'll just play the race card?

Go any lower and you'll need a submersible.

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

No race card the facts are what they are.

Im not even saying it's bad; Im just saying it makes a difference.

try to not be so whiney!

This post has been removed.

In response to jmel's comment:

Step 1: Do not say that it isn't your job to worry about 47% of America.

Step 2: Show some recognition of the fact that cutting off unemployment to people who are still in their homes because they received unemployment would dump those people onto the street, and then into even more social programs.

Step 3: Articulate policies that amount to something other than "f**k the poor."

 

 

 

I know it's oh so easy to avoid thinking and color these programs as universally abused handouts (when in fact abuse is in the small minority).

I know it's also oh so easy for you to ignore a pragmatic cost benefit analysis. Cutting unemployment benefits in the middle of the recession is rather likely to simply push families into the street where they (1) need more taxpayer assistance, (2) will find it nearly impossible to get back into the job market.

Trouble is you're not convincing anyone with lies, and you're probably making the problem you think you are helping even worse.

 

 

So what's the solution? End unemployment benefits AND cut the social programs that would absorb people after they lose their home post-unemployment-benefits?

You know exactly what would happen then: A result you don't mention because it is handy as something to paint as "liberal fear-mongering."

Clue: No, private charity is not going to step into the breach. It's already there.

 

 

The hard truth is that expenditure on domestic safety net programs can be expected to surge during a recession created by congresspeople and "job creators".

The truth that seems impossible to accept is that if you do away with the safety net programs in such circumstances, you put people on the street. Then you can either pay even more to help them, or, close your eyes and hope there's enough food in the dumpsters.

 

 

 

Bottom line: If Republicans want to start winning elections seriously again, they need to abandon the lie that people receiving assistance are all gaming the system.

If anything, your current mantra is creating the problem you complain about.

And what makes it particularly repugnant to voters is that your side pays lip service to the general concept of a need for a safety net, while all your other words make it sound like you don't want one in the least.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

No tall but, too fvcking many!

btw; these are not why Romney lost.

Romney lost because he went against an incumbant that had very solid support in blocks of his party which romney's out of context remarks on the 47% was masterfully exploited by the left and won him a majority of independents!

In response to tvoter's comment:

Read the transcript.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to tvoter's comment:

I have he never said "I will not represent that 47%" or I dont care about that 47%" which is exactly what the left claimed he said!

He fvcked up and gave them something they could exploited it to their benefit.

It's today's politics.