In response to slomag's comment:

So the supermajority actually lasted one month - from July, 2009 to August 2009, and then again from September, 2009 - January 2010 (when Brown won the special election). The reality of getting all 60 votes on an issue never materialized.  Not a single bill was passed with only "supermajority" votes.  Go back and check - every piece of legislation passed in Obama's first two years had at least one Republican casting an aye.

RINOS! Socialist infiltrators!

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"....keep the focus on the facts..."

Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

FACTS!

Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

- In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

- In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

- In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

- In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

- Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Crickets....

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"....keep the focus on the facts..."

Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

FACTS!

Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

- In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

- In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

- In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

- In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

- Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Crickets....

first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. 

Ask you again as you seem to avoid this crucial FACT, Who had super majorities from Jan 2007?

The supermajority claim is ridiculous.  If you count all Dems and independents who caucus with Dems it should have added up to 60 votes.  The reality was...

1) You have to count Lieberman in this talley - a man who campaigned for the Republican Presidential nominee.

2) You have to count Al Franken in this talley - a man who was not sworn in until July, 2009 due to a contested election.

3) You have to count Robert Byrd in this talley - a man who lost half his votes to illness, and died in June, 2010 (seat vacant for remainder of session)

4) You have to count Ted Kennedy in this talley - a many who was also often too sick to vote, and who died in August, 2009.  His seat was won by a Republican.

So the supermajority actually lasted one month - from July, 2009 to August 2009, and then again from September, 2009 - January 2010 (when Brown won the special election). The reality of getting all 60 votes on an issue never materialized.  Not a single bill was passed with only "supermajority" votes.  Go back and check - every piece of legislation passed in Obama's first two years had at least one Republican casting an aye.

Correct.  Good points.  What I`m saying and have been saying all along is, W was a lousy president, a spender.  You would be hard-pressed to find one conservative here at BDC that would disagree.  We can admit that W was a problem.  BUT, (and as Pee-Wee Herman always said, "everyone has a big BUT"), after 4 years of Obama`s incompetence, he owns this mess.  It is no longer "Bush`s fault".  The fiscal budget handed over was handed over by a Rep president and a Dem congress. The first 2 years of Obama`s tenure he owned all 3 branches and his big accomplishment was a $1.8 Trillion HC debacle.  It`s time to "man up" and take responsibility.

We should all try and learn these simple words.........."Obama`s fault". 

I disagree - we'll never know exactly what Obama wanted, because he has always been dealing within the confines of political reality.  Having a majority in the Senate used to mean something, but it doesn't anymore.  Republicans will fillibuster anything - they are fillibustering a member of their own party for Sec of Defense, during a time of war.  They fillibustered bills with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the House.

Obama's doing his best, but he doesn't own anything.  Bush got exactly what he asked for with Iraq, the Patriot act, no child left behind, Homeland Security, Bush Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, Partial Birth Abortion, Trade agreements in South American and Asia, even TARP.

The only thing Obama really owns is foreign policy.  If that's not OK with you, you guys have to start getting out of the way.  If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country, the American people will see it, and give the Republicans a second look.  As it stands now, it just looks like the GOP is playing keep-away with the constitution, and it may have sold some people in 2010, but everybody seems to be sick of the game by now.

"If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country"

Gas up 100%

Unemployment up to 14.4% (real numbers)

Food stamps up tp 57 million

Government assistance up to 101 million

HC costs up 25%

Houses worth nothing

N Korea with nukes and Iran seconds away

Could his "policies" hurt the country any freakin more?  Geeeeeesh.

Just admit it.

Let's take your arguments one at a time, and see who admits what.

Gas prices up 100% - you can point to two prices on a timeline that support this idea, but you know in your heart it's BS.  Average gas prices of Bush's 2nd term = $2.98.  Average gas price of Obama's first term = $3.04.

That's really all you should need to know to admit you're twisting the truth to support your ideology.  If we're agreed, we can move on to your next fiction.

(QUOTE) 

3.79 TODAY!   Stop lying!  You`re not a liar, you`re a good person.......geeeesh!

Jan 20th, 2009 (Obama Inaugaration) gas=$1.82.   Stop!

Everything is worse!   Are you living in the real world?

 If you think ANYTHING I`ve posted is "fiction", then we`re not "moving on" to anything because you`re delusional.  I`m very close to a senator from a NE state.  His exact words......"if anyone you`re discussing politics with suggests that anything is better since Obama took office, walk away, they`re being dishonest"

In Obama`s defense, the DOW is back to where it was for some of W`s tenure.  Housing isn`t as awful as it was.  It`s bouncing along the bottom with no where to go but up.  Everything else is worse.  Obama had majorities for his 1st 2 years.  He chose to focus on Obamacare insted of the economy.  

Obama`s fault.

Let's stick with gas for now...

Is January 2009 the only date you are willing to use?  Is that honesty?  The DOW closed at 8212.49 on January 15, 2009.  Why do you say that gas prices doubled under Obama, but the DOW is "back to where it was for some of W's tenure"?  An honest person would see the two are directly related - how do you justify having it both ways?

The DOW was at 14,000 (or close to it) many times between 2000 and 2008.  We had 42 straight months of economic growth despite 2 wars.  There was a stretch when gas went up dramatically for a very short time.  It fell back to 1.82 by Obama`s inaugaration day.  It hasn`t been close since and today it`s at 3.75.  It`s affecting the cost of everything.  It`s just one of the things that has happened under this incompetent`s reign of terror.

Be honest man!  Look around.  We just had negative GDP for Q4, first negative since 2008.  We`re headed for a recession (we`re already in one) and the guy (and the Dems) is clueless.

It`s OK.  First step is admitting there`s a problem.

We'll get to the debt, but let's follow your gas prices argument to it's logical conclusion.  So you're saying that gas prices should have stayed at 1.82 under Obama, and that the spike under Bush was just a temporary condition?  

The last time gas was under 1.82 for a year was in 2003.  So this temporary condition lasted five years?  If you discount the market crash, the trend would suggest that gas under Bush would be over six dollars / gallon right now.

The average price of gas was steady for twenty years before Bush took office.  It averaged $1.40 the year he took office.  It averaged $3.60 eight years later.  Now it's been steady the four years since he left office (going by yearly averages, rather than pointing at one obviously depreciated point in the timeline).

So if you're sticking to your guns on this, you're saying that five of the eight years of the Bush administration were a fluke?  Do you want to present any evidence or reason to support this absurdity?  Realize that if you discount five years of the Bush administration on anything, any criticism you have of Obama is immediately negated - at least until next January.

(QUOTE)

"Averaged 3.60"?  "averaged"?  BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Are you kidding?  Now you`re using hypotheticals and intangibles?  Seriously, are you kidding?  Gas had a short upwards  spike during the Bush years.  Obama campaigned on the (temporary)high prices.  He took office with gas at 1.82.  It`s now 100% higher and has stayed 100% higher.  

Is there a defend Obama`s incompetency handbook that you guys use or something?  This is the worst president we`ve ever had.  Again.........are you kidding?

Look, I get it.  You can go find any link you want supporting your argument, so can I.  The bottom line is, everything touched by this president has gotten worse.  The DOW and the simple fact that housing may have "bottomed-out" might be exceptions (we`ll see).  

"Go back and check - every piece of legislation passed in Obama's first two years had at least one Republican casting an aye."

Republicans (any) voted "aye" for Obamacare?

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"....keep the focus on the facts..."

Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

FACTS!

Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

- In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

- In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

- In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

- In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

- Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Crickets....

first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. 

Ask you again as you seem to avoid this crucial FACT, Who had super majorities from Jan 2007?

The supermajority claim is ridiculous.  If you count all Dems and independents who caucus with Dems it should have added up to 60 votes.  The reality was...

1) You have to count Lieberman in this talley - a man who campaigned for the Republican Presidential nominee.

2) You have to count Al Franken in this talley - a man who was not sworn in until July, 2009 due to a contested election.

3) You have to count Robert Byrd in this talley - a man who lost half his votes to illness, and died in June, 2010 (seat vacant for remainder of session)

4) You have to count Ted Kennedy in this talley - a many who was also often too sick to vote, and who died in August, 2009.  His seat was won by a Republican.

So the supermajority actually lasted one month - from July, 2009 to August 2009, and then again from September, 2009 - January 2010 (when Brown won the special election). The reality of getting all 60 votes on an issue never materialized.  Not a single bill was passed with only "supermajority" votes.  Go back and check - every piece of legislation passed in Obama's first two years had at least one Republican casting an aye.

Correct.  Good points.  What I`m saying and have been saying all along is, W was a lousy president, a spender.  You would be hard-pressed to find one conservative here at BDC that would disagree.  We can admit that W was a problem.  BUT, (and as Pee-Wee Herman always said, "everyone has a big BUT"), after 4 years of Obama`s incompetence, he owns this mess.  It is no longer "Bush`s fault".  The fiscal budget handed over was handed over by a Rep president and a Dem congress. The first 2 years of Obama`s tenure he owned all 3 branches and his big accomplishment was a $1.8 Trillion HC debacle.  It`s time to "man up" and take responsibility.

We should all try and learn these simple words.........."Obama`s fault". 

I disagree - we'll never know exactly what Obama wanted, because he has always been dealing within the confines of political reality.  Having a majority in the Senate used to mean something, but it doesn't anymore.  Republicans will fillibuster anything - they are fillibustering a member of their own party for Sec of Defense, during a time of war.  They fillibustered bills with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the House.

Obama's doing his best, but he doesn't own anything.  Bush got exactly what he asked for with Iraq, the Patriot act, no child left behind, Homeland Security, Bush Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, Partial Birth Abortion, Trade agreements in South American and Asia, even TARP.

The only thing Obama really owns is foreign policy.  If that's not OK with you, you guys have to start getting out of the way.  If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country, the American people will see it, and give the Republicans a second look.  As it stands now, it just looks like the GOP is playing keep-away with the constitution, and it may have sold some people in 2010, but everybody seems to be sick of the game by now.

"If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country"

Gas up 100%

Unemployment up to 14.4% (real numbers)

Food stamps up tp 57 million

Government assistance up to 101 million

HC costs up 25%

Houses worth nothing

N Korea with nukes and Iran seconds away

Could his "policies" hurt the country any freakin more?  Geeeeeesh.

Just admit it.

Let's take your arguments one at a time, and see who admits what.

Gas prices up 100% - you can point to two prices on a timeline that support this idea, but you know in your heart it's BS.  Average gas prices of Bush's 2nd term = $2.98.  Average gas price of Obama's first term = $3.04.

That's really all you should need to know to admit you're twisting the truth to support your ideology.  If we're agreed, we can move on to your next fiction.

(QUOTE) 

3.79 TODAY!   Stop lying!  You`re not a liar, you`re a good person.......geeeesh!

Jan 20th, 2009 (Obama Inaugaration) gas=$1.82.   Stop!

Everything is worse!   Are you living in the real world?

 If you think ANYTHING I`ve posted is "fiction", then we`re not "moving on" to anything because you`re delusional.  I`m very close to a senator from a NE state.  His exact words......"if anyone you`re discussing politics with suggests that anything is better since Obama took office, walk away, they`re being dishonest"

In Obama`s defense, the DOW is back to where it was for some of W`s tenure.  Housing isn`t as awful as it was.  It`s bouncing along the bottom with no where to go but up.  Everything else is worse.  Obama had majorities for his 1st 2 years.  He chose to focus on Obamacare insted of the economy.  

Obama`s fault.

Let's stick with gas for now...

Is January 2009 the only date you are willing to use?  Is that honesty?  The DOW closed at 8212.49 on January 15, 2009.  Why do you say that gas prices doubled under Obama, but the DOW is "back to where it was for some of W's tenure"?  An honest person would see the two are directly related - how do you justify having it both ways?

The DOW was at 14,000 (or close to it) many times between 2000 and 2008.  We had 42 straight months of economic growth despite 2 wars.  There was a stretch when gas went up dramatically for a very short time.  It fell back to 1.82 by Obama`s inaugaration day.  It hasn`t been close since and today it`s at 3.75.  It`s affecting the cost of everything.  It`s just one of the things that has happened under this incompetent`s reign of terror.

Be honest man!  Look around.  We just had negative GDP for Q4, first negative since 2008.  We`re headed for a recession (we`re already in one) and the guy (and the Dems) is clueless.

It`s OK.  First step is admitting there`s a problem.

We'll get to the debt, but let's follow your gas prices argument to it's logical conclusion.  So you're saying that gas prices should have stayed at 1.82 under Obama, and that the spike under Bush was just a temporary condition?  

The last time gas was under 1.82 for a year was in 2003.  So this temporary condition lasted five years?  If you discount the market crash, the trend would suggest that gas under Bush would be over six dollars / gallon right now.

The average price of gas was steady for twenty years before Bush took office.  It averaged $1.40 the year he took office.  It averaged $3.60 eight years later.  Now it's been steady the four years since he left office (going by yearly averages, rather than pointing at one obviously depreciated point in the timeline).

So if you're sticking to your guns on this, you're saying that five of the eight years of the Bush administration were a fluke?  Do you want to present any evidence or reason to support this absurdity?  Realize that if you discount five years of the Bush administration on anything, any criticism you have of Obama is immediately negated - at least until next January.

(QUOTE)

"Averaged 3.60"?  "averaged"?  BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Are you kidding?  Now you`re using hypotheticals and intangibles?  Seriously, are you kidding?  Gas had a short upwards  spike during the Bush years.  Obama campaigned on the (temporary)high prices.  He took office with gas at 1.82.  It`s now 100% higher and has stayed 100% higher.  

Is there a defend Obama`s incompetency handbook that you guys use or something?  This is the worst president we`ve ever had.  Again.........are you kidding?

Look, I get it.  You can go find any link you want supporting your argument, so can I.  The bottom line is, everything touched by this president has gotten worse.  The DOW and the simple fact that housing may have "bottomed-out" might be exceptions (we`ll see).  

An annual average is not hypothetical - it is far more important than one moment in time.  If you want to know how good David Ortiz is, do you look at his averages, or his performance on May 15, 2011?

Gas did not have a short temporary spike under Bush - it went from $1.60 in 2003 to 1.85 in 2004 to 2.30 in 2005 to 2.60 in 2006 to 3.20 in 2007 to 3.60 in 2008.  That's a five year trend.

You haven't found any links that support your argument.  I know that gas was once $1.82 under Obama.  But that was the temporary condition - it lasted 5 months, not 5 years!  If you want to dig in this, you'll need to come up with an explanation for how a five year trend under Bush is temporary, and a five month trend under Obama is the result of his failures.  

(QUOTE)

Do you not get that gas at 1.82 in Jan 2009 is different than gas today at 3.70?  Do you not see that it`s a 100% increase?  Have you been in America for the last 4 years as gas has been over 3.00 a gallon for the entire time Obama`s been in office?  Have you not seen that over the last 40 days gas has gone up each and every day?

Are you really suggesting that Obama`s record on gas prices is not a complete disaster?

Again, are you being honest?

 This article is from TODAY`s CNS News report.  Today 2/18/2013

(CNSNews.com) – The average price of a gallon of gas has increased 96 percent since President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, according to figures from the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

According to EIA data, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States was $1.838 on Jan. 19, 2009--the day before Obama took office. As of Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, the per-gallon price had risen to an average of $3.611--an increase of 96 percent.

The $3.677 is not the highest gas prices have been under President Obama. That record was reached the week of May 9, 2011 when they averaged $3.965 per gallon.

Gas prices took a sharp dive during the recession but have climbed back to near their pre-recession peak under Obama, despite the President’s push for greater fuel-efficient cars and trucks and pursuit of expanded clean energy. (The recession officially occurred from December 2007 to June 2009.)

Gas prices have never been this high in early February in American history, according to EIA, even in 2008 when gas prices reached all-time highs

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"....keep the focus on the facts..."

Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

FACTS!

Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

- In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

- In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

- In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

- In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

- Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Crickets....

first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. 

Ask you again as you seem to avoid this crucial FACT, Who had super majorities from Jan 2007?

The supermajority claim is ridiculous.  If you count all Dems and independents who caucus with Dems it should have added up to 60 votes.  The reality was...

1) You have to count Lieberman in this talley - a man who campaigned for the Republican Presidential nominee.

2) You have to count Al Franken in this talley - a man who was not sworn in until July, 2009 due to a contested election.

3) You have to count Robert Byrd in this talley - a man who lost half his votes to illness, and died in June, 2010 (seat vacant for remainder of session)

4) You have to count Ted Kennedy in this talley - a many who was also often too sick to vote, and who died in August, 2009.  His seat was won by a Republican.

So the supermajority actually lasted one month - from July, 2009 to August 2009, and then again from September, 2009 - January 2010 (when Brown won the special election). The reality of getting all 60 votes on an issue never materialized.  Not a single bill was passed with only "supermajority" votes.  Go back and check - every piece of legislation passed in Obama's first two years had at least one Republican casting an aye.

Correct.  Good points.  What I`m saying and have been saying all along is, W was a lousy president, a spender.  You would be hard-pressed to find one conservative here at BDC that would disagree.  We can admit that W was a problem.  BUT, (and as Pee-Wee Herman always said, "everyone has a big BUT"), after 4 years of Obama`s incompetence, he owns this mess.  It is no longer "Bush`s fault".  The fiscal budget handed over was handed over by a Rep president and a Dem congress. The first 2 years of Obama`s tenure he owned all 3 branches and his big accomplishment was a $1.8 Trillion HC debacle.  It`s time to "man up" and take responsibility.

We should all try and learn these simple words.........."Obama`s fault". 

I disagree - we'll never know exactly what Obama wanted, because he has always been dealing within the confines of political reality.  Having a majority in the Senate used to mean something, but it doesn't anymore.  Republicans will fillibuster anything - they are fillibustering a member of their own party for Sec of Defense, during a time of war.  They fillibustered bills with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the House.

Obama's doing his best, but he doesn't own anything.  Bush got exactly what he asked for with Iraq, the Patriot act, no child left behind, Homeland Security, Bush Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, Partial Birth Abortion, Trade agreements in South American and Asia, even TARP.

The only thing Obama really owns is foreign policy.  If that's not OK with you, you guys have to start getting out of the way.  If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country, the American people will see it, and give the Republicans a second look.  As it stands now, it just looks like the GOP is playing keep-away with the constitution, and it may have sold some people in 2010, but everybody seems to be sick of the game by now.

"If he's as much a mess as you say he is, his policies will hurt the country"

Gas up 100%

Unemployment up to 14.4% (real numbers)

Food stamps up tp 57 million

Government assistance up to 101 million

HC costs up 25%

Houses worth nothing

N Korea with nukes and Iran seconds away

Could his "policies" hurt the country any freakin more?  Geeeeeesh.

Just admit it.

Let's take your arguments one at a time, and see who admits what.

Gas prices up 100% - you can point to two prices on a timeline that support this idea, but you know in your heart it's BS.  Average gas prices of Bush's 2nd term = $2.98.  Average gas price of Obama's first term = $3.04.

That's really all you should need to know to admit you're twisting the truth to support your ideology.  If we're agreed, we can move on to your next fiction.

(QUOTE) 

3.79 TODAY!   Stop lying!  You`re not a liar, you`re a good person.......geeeesh!

Jan 20th, 2009 (Obama Inaugaration) gas=$1.82.   Stop!

Everything is worse!   Are you living in the real world?

 If you think ANYTHING I`ve posted is "fiction", then we`re not "moving on" to anything because you`re delusional.  I`m very close to a senator from a NE state.  His exact words......"if anyone you`re discussing politics with suggests that anything is better since Obama took office, walk away, they`re being dishonest"

In Obama`s defense, the DOW is back to where it was for some of W`s tenure.  Housing isn`t as awful as it was.  It`s bouncing along the bottom with no where to go but up.  Everything else is worse.  Obama had majorities for his 1st 2 years.  He chose to focus on Obamacare insted of the economy.  

Obama`s fault.

Let's stick with gas for now...

Is January 2009 the only date you are willing to use?  Is that honesty?  The DOW closed at 8212.49 on January 15, 2009.  Why do you say that gas prices doubled under Obama, but the DOW is "back to where it was for some of W's tenure"?  An honest person would see the two are directly related - how do you justify having it both ways?

The DOW was at 14,000 (or close to it) many times between 2000 and 2008.  We had 42 straight months of economic growth despite 2 wars.  There was a stretch when gas went up dramatically for a very short time.  It fell back to 1.82 by Obama`s inaugaration day.  It hasn`t been close since and today it`s at 3.75.  It`s affecting the cost of everything.  It`s just one of the things that has happened under this incompetent`s reign of terror.

Be honest man!  Look around.  We just had negative GDP for Q4, first negative since 2008.  We`re headed for a recession (we`re already in one) and the guy (and the Dems) is clueless.

It`s OK.  First step is admitting there`s a problem.

We'll get to the debt, but let's follow your gas prices argument to it's logical conclusion.  So you're saying that gas prices should have stayed at 1.82 under Obama, and that the spike under Bush was just a temporary condition?  

The last time gas was under 1.82 for a year was in 2003.  So this temporary condition lasted five years?  If you discount the market crash, the trend would suggest that gas under Bush would be over six dollars / gallon right now.

The average price of gas was steady for twenty years before Bush took office.  It averaged $1.40 the year he took office.  It averaged $3.60 eight years later.  Now it's been steady the four years since he left office (going by yearly averages, rather than pointing at one obviously depreciated point in the timeline).

So if you're sticking to your guns on this, you're saying that five of the eight years of the Bush administration were a fluke?  Do you want to present any evidence or reason to support this absurdity?  Realize that if you discount five years of the Bush administration on anything, any criticism you have of Obama is immediately negated - at least until next January.

(QUOTE)

"Averaged 3.60"?  "averaged"?  BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Are you kidding?  Now you`re using hypotheticals and intangibles?  Seriously, are you kidding?  Gas had a short upwards  spike during the Bush years.  Obama campaigned on the (temporary)high prices.  He took office with gas at 1.82.  It`s now 100% higher and has stayed 100% higher.  

Is there a defend Obama`s incompetency handbook that you guys use or something?  This is the worst president we`ve ever had.  Again.........are you kidding?

Look, I get it.  You can go find any link you want supporting your argument, so can I.  The bottom line is, everything touched by this president has gotten worse.  The DOW and the simple fact that housing may have "bottomed-out" might be exceptions (we`ll see).  

An annual average is not hypothetical - it is far more important than one moment in time.  If you want to know how good David Ortiz is, do you look at his averages, or his performance on May 15, 2011?

Gas did not have a short temporary spike under Bush - it went from $1.60 in 2003 to 1.85 in 2004 to 2.30 in 2005 to 2.60 in 2006 to 3.20 in 2007 to 3.60 in 2008.  That's a five year trend.

You haven't found any links that support your argument.  I know that gas was once $1.82 under Obama.  But that was the temporary condition - it lasted 5 months, not 5 years!  If you want to dig in this, you'll need to come up with an explanation for how a five year trend under Bush is temporary, and a five month trend under Obama is the result of his failures.  

(QUOTE)

Do you not get that gas at 1.82 in Jan 2009 is different than gas today at 3.70?  Do you not see that it`s a 100% increase?  Have you been in America for the last 4 years as gas has been over 3.00 a gallon for the entire time Obama`s been in office?  Have you not seen that over the last 40 days gas has gone up each and every day?

Are you really suggesting that Obama`s record on gas prices is not a complete disaster?

Again, are you being honest?

 This article is from TODAY`s CNS News report.  Today 2/18/2013

(CNSNews.com) – The average price of a gallon of gas has increased 96 percent since President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, according to figures from the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

According to EIA data, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States was $1.838 on Jan. 19, 2009--the day before Obama took office. As of Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, the per-gallon price had risen to an average of $3.611--an increase of 96 percent.

The $3.677 is not the highest gas prices have been under President Obama. That record was reached the week of May 9, 2011 when they averaged $3.965 per gallon.

Gas prices took a sharp dive during the recession but have climbed back to near their pre-recession peak under Obama, despite the President’s push for greater fuel-efficient cars and trucks and pursuit of expanded clean energy. (The recession officially occurred from December 2007 to June 2009.)

Gas prices have never been this high in early February in American history, according to EIA, even in 2008 when gas prices reached all-time highs

I've been in this country since 2009, but I didn't arrive in 2009!

I'm not arguing that gas was at 1.82 when Obama took office - I'm arguing that that's a meaningful number, given the price of gas in the months and years prior and since.

Think of it in relation to your other arguments - should the DOW be at 8400 right now?  Should we be losing 800,000 jobs a month?  Should the GDP be contracting at 8%?  These are all things that were happening on January 20, 2009.  

It's your call - stick to your gas price argument, and immediately concede every other argument, or concede that 1.82 gas prices have not been a reality for nearly a decade, and hold onto some footing for the next point.

I don't really see a way for you to have it both ways.

You`re right, I give.  The hundreds of articles by reliable sources mean nothing.  Gas is the same now as it was then.  Everything is good.  $4.00/gallon......great.  26 million out of work.......awesome.  1st negative GDP since 2008.........wonderful.  My house for sale worth 900k, can`t get 600k for it.........who cares.  Layoffs at Boeing, Intel, Texas Inst, Siemens, Hewlett Packard.......heck, those nice people will get 99 weeks of unemployment, and EBT card, food stamps, and an Obamaphone, no worries.  It`s all good!

It`s Bush`s fault.

Geee..........I have a chart too

" (i.e. Republicans)."

LOL!  Yes, that slight majority in the House ONLY is to blame for all the problems.

Could you attach or cut and paste the "Defend Obama`s Incompetence" handbook you get your MSNBC talking points from?  My Senior in High School would like to take it in to  government class for discussion. 

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

" (i.e. Republicans)."

LOL!  Yes, that slight majority in the House ONLY is to blame for all the problems.

Could you attach or cut and paste the "Defend Obama`s Incompetence" handbook you get your MSNBC talking points from?  My Senior in High School would like to take it in to  government class for discussion. 

Federal spending was up, so it's just state and local levels that have been dragging down the employment numbers.

It's just like the gas prices - as soon as speculators overcame their initial fears, everything went back to normal.  Same with private sector employment - it's as strong now as it was in 2004.  It's public sector behavior that has changed. 

I blame Republicans, because they're the ones screaming about debt and deficits wherever they go.  The Dems are saying we have to address these things, but let's get America back to work first.  And historically, as I've pointed out before - over the last 3+ decades, Republicans do not have the right to b1tch about debt and deficits.  They just don't.  It's like Newt Gingrich talking about traditional marriage.

LOL

Good analogy.  I respect your civility.  Apologies for being a wise a55 all the time.  I do appreciate your loyalty to your side and your always intelligent argument. 

So, do we "get America back to work first" with tax increases?  Or, do we cut spending? I hear much raving here at BDC that "corporations have more earnings saved than ever before", so why aren`t they investing in America?  Why aren`t they hiring?  Why are they laying off more so than ever?

I think it`s fear and doubt.  I think ACA will cost companies and they know it.  I think potential higher taxes with no spending cuts has them unsure and uneasy. I think much of the reason companies that could/should hire have no trust or faith in this president. Frankly, his record for the last 4 years doesn`t give them confidence.