i didnt vote for him the 1st time
-
Comment -
I most definitely will not be voting for Obama... didn't the first time. I am hoping for some other GOP candidates like Christie, Bobby Jindal, etc. Hell, Marco Rubio will have as much time in the legislative branch as BHO did by election night.Comment -
Remember this guys.. The inauguration of Obama.. I'm so fukking happy on that day, so are the millions of people there.. believing that a change will happen..
Still waiting for the change that he promised..
Comment -
one of the worst days in American history! Let's never forgetComment -
so bringing the economy back from brink of disaster wasnt the change you were hoping for?
bringing two american auto companies from bankruptcy to profitability wasnt the change you wanted?
giving millions of uninsured women & children healthcare while lowering the national deficit wasnt the change you were hoping for?
pulling combat troops out of iraq and going after the real enemies in afghanistan wasnt the change you hoped for?
then what change were u hoping for?Comment -
I don't understand why Obama gets a free pass for four years just because the economy was in bad shape when he took office. Obviously a recession doesn't go away over night, but that doesn't mean his decisions to spend more money than we have isn't objectively bad policy. Everyone can now see that his stimulus package was a huge expensive mistake- why doesn't he have to take any blame for it? Isn't it possible for the economy go from bad to much worse? Why does inheriting a deficit mean that he's allowed to just coast for four years without having to take responsibility for any economic issues? It's the equivalent of if I got into debt so I fired my accountant and hired a new accountant, except the new accountant just sat around blaming my old account while increasing my spending and watching my debt multiply every day.
And speaking of Obama getting a free pass- why did the entire anti-war movement disappear overnight when he was elected? It seems like there were huge protests against the war everywhere I looked right up until Bush left office. What's changed? The two wars are still going on, Obama sent a lot more troops over there, and he expanded the bombing to Pakistan. He hasn't even closed Gitmo like he promised to. How come the wars aren't such a big problem anymore now that their Commander in Chief is a Democrat?
Also, how come this theory that an economic downturn is the fault of the last president's actions doesn't apply equally to an economic improvement? If Obama's horrible economy is the result of Bush's last four years in office, then shouldn't the economic boom of the early 90's be credited to Reagan's last four years in office? Which is it?
I'm voting for Ron Paul next year, but if he doesn't win then I actually kind of hope Obama gets re-elected. I'm interested in seeing if a president can go a full eight years without taking any responsibility at all for the condition of the country.Comment -
wowso bringing the economy back from brink of disaster wasnt the change you were hoping for?
bringing two american auto companies from bankruptcy to profitability wasnt the change you wanted?
giving millions of uninsured women & children healthcare while lowering the national deficit wasnt the change you were hoping for?
pulling combat troops out of iraq and going after the real enemies in afghanistan wasnt the change you hoped for?
then what change were u hoping for?Comment -
obamas gotten a free ride? HUH?
every day I see and hear neocons like blame obama for the economy, iraq, unemployment, gaa prices, basically everything he has inherited. this would be like a new owner buying the raiders and being blamed for the past 8 years of excrement.Comment -
The President submits a budget that adds an astounding $1.6 trillion to the deficit for the upcoming fiscal year and claims that that figure would create an additional $1.1 trillion in the next fiscal year - and the headline is that he is going to cut the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade.
From what starting point?
From the $14.3 trillion that we currently face or from the more than $17 trillion that we will have after the next two fiscal years? That means that if I can borrow $40 from a buddy over the next two years and pay him back $11 over the next decade, I am a hero?Comment -
@crustyme this:
"The federal debt increased by $105.8 billion ($105,835,837,302.32) in January, according to the the U.S. Treasury Department, jumping from $14.0252 trillion ($14,025,215,218,708.52) at the close of business on December 31 to $14.1311 trillion ($14,131,051,056,010.84) at the close of business on January 31."
I have to admit it, I'm one of the millions who believed in him.. Maybe I'm just too disgusted by the Bush administration that I voted for his opponent and Barack looks competent during that time.. I just feel bad on what's happening now.. the debt continues to grow with no concrete plan on how to solve it.. poor getting poorer, job loss, etc..
I just think Obama don't want to make an unpopular decision even if that unpopular decision will greatly help his countrymen..Comment -
He cut the pell grant which was basically paying my wifes tuition, now she cant finish school, but it depends who runs against him I guess.Comment -
That's not a good analogy. Nobody is blaming Obama for what happened eight years before he took office. They're blaming him for what happened under his administration. A better example would be if a new owner bought the Raiders but then they lost even more games the next three seasons (i.e; the unemployment rate and federal deficit have skyrocketed under Obama's administration), except the new owner just kept using the last eight losing seasons as an excuse for why the team is even worse off under his ownership. Here's my point: just because the economy was bad when Obama took office doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that Obama has made bad decisions that didn't work and have since made the economy much worse.
Unemployment Rate:
Source
Federal Deficit:
SourceComment -
Obama actually includes the wars into the deficit..That's not a good analogy. Nobody is blaming Obama for what happened eight years before he took office. They're blaming him for what happened under his administration. A better example would be if a new owner bought the Raiders but then they lost even more games the next three seasons (i.e; the unemployment rate and federal deficit have skyrocketed under Obama's administration), except the new owner just kept using the last eight losing seasons as an excuse for why the team is even worse off under his ownership. Here's my point: just because the economy was bad when Obama took office doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that Obama has made bad decisions that didn't work and have since made the economy much worse.
Unemployment Rate:
Source
Federal Deficit:
Source and you gotta to spend money to make money...
Comment -
OMG! In conclusion, we're going to have Sara Palin as the next president sostart digging a hole everybody because we might have nuclear war with China.
Comment -
hard to say.. i usually vote for the lesser of two evils.. hard to say who that might beComment -
where was this same outrage when bush inherited a record surplus from clinton and managed to run up trillions in debt? im not even counting the trillions he cost americans in lost home value thanks to his failed housing policies. not to mention paying 4x at the gas pumps.
would you rather be unemployed and homeless but have lower deficit? because thats what wouldve happened without the stimuluses.
look on the bright side, at least the money is being spent on america not some country half way around the world. plus you will be long gone before it has to be paid back. heck your great grandchildren will still be paying back for iraq.Comment -
There was no surplus. Get your facts straightComment -
Obama wants to keep the black man down, this way he can keep issuing those welfare checks, in exchange for those welfare checks, Obama gets the black mans vote.
It's the liberal formula for decades, welfare checks for votes.Comment -
factComment -
So why do they say he had a surplus?
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T
$55.8B $1.792328T 
$168.9B $5.526193T $113B FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Comment -
The surplus is bull shiitComment -
Just google it so you dont look so stupid, or check this article for some facts http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16Comment -
What is stupid is arguing about politics on a sports forum.Comment -
Its like putting your bills on a CC every month and then calling your paycheck surplus money. Pretty basic. Thats why social security fund is depleted. Now we have no more funds to borrow like in the past.Comment -
typical neocon, getting his "facts" from neo kooks such as craig steiner. lol
heres an unbiased source:
Comment -
I don't vote, never have never will ! Elections are fixed just like NBA games.Comment -
actually, social security is depleted thanks to bush raiding it and spendings a total of $1.37 trillion to fund his war.Comment -
Freedom of choice is what 1/2 of the world(or more) willing to die for just to obtain.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_federal.html
Sources such as .org is one of the credible e-net sources that is accepted on University writings, other than that it can be written by everyone.Comment -
Haven't seen the change yetComment -
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway This is a link to our national treasury debt records . You can enter any dates you like. You will see that our national debt indeed did go up in 1998, 1999, 2000. And of course has skyrocketing in the past 10 years.Comment -
That's not an unbiased source. It's a liberal web site. There are many holes in the data that is presented there. It's slanted journalism.
For example, that page you link to mentions the budget during Clinton's term in office. The Republicans held both houses of Congress and voted for lower budgets than previous Democrat Conresses. Clinton fought them all the way until he realized that he wouldn't win in a battle against both houses so he signed the Republican-sponsored budgets.
But you won't find that at that slanted web site.
Please link to a credible source next time.Comment -
What do you mean will I vote for him again? I never voted for that chimp in the first place...guy makes Dubya look like the greatest president everComment
