WSJ: Falling middle-class direct result of Obama policies, not bad luck or the lingering effects of a crash four years ago

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 8:32 PM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443686004577635292861508300.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    For all the spin and deception of politics, sooner or later every politician reveals his true purposes. For Barack Obama, one of those moments came when he declared shortly before the 2008 election that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Above all else, the President who asked voters for a second term Thursday night sees himself as destined to transform America according to his own progressive dreams.

    For most of 2008, Mr. Obama was able to disguise this ambition behind his gauzy rhetoric of hope and post-partisanship. The fine print of his agenda betrayed his plans to expand and entrench the entitlement state, but most voters ignored that as they chose his cool confidence over John McCain's manic intensity amid a financial panic.

    Candidate Obama was eloquent and likable. His personal story echoed of America's history as a land of opportunity. Voters put aside any worry about his ideology and took a chance on his promise of a better tomorrow.

    Four years later the shooting liberal star, as we called him then, has come down to earth. What should have been a buoyant recovery coming out of a deep recession was lackluster to start and has grown weaker. The partisanship he claimed to want to dampen has become more fierce. The middle-class incomes he sought to lift have fallen. These results aren't bad luck or the lingering effects of a crash four years ago. They flow directly from his "transforming" purposes.

    ***

    To our mind, two events amid hundreds stand out as defining President Obama's first term. The first is his go-for-broke pursuit of progressive social legislation instead of focusing on economic recovery. The second is his refusal to strike a budget deal with Speaker John Boehner in 2011. Both reveal a President more bent on transforming America than addressing the needs of our time.

    Mr. Obama was elected first and foremost with a mandate to fix the economy. Yet when he found himself by rare confluence of luck with 60 votes in the Senate, he put nurturing a fragile recovery secondary to the pursuit of pent-up liberal social policies.

    Consider the amazing course of ObamaCare. Rather than craft a White House proposal and draw in Republicans from the start, he let Pete Stark and the most liberal House Democrats write the bill. As public opposition built and the tea party rose in 2009, he doubled down with a September speech extolling the virtues of government.

    Opposition continued to build. But when Rahm Emanuel and other advisers urged him to compromise on something smaller, he still pressed ahead. Even after Scott Brown's January 2010 victory to replace Ted Kennedy gave the GOP 41 Senators, Mr. Obama endorsed an effort to abuse Congressional procedure to ram the bill through.

    The result is a monster that will transform a sixth of the U.S. economy, but at huge cost to growth, political comity and America's long-term fiscal health. Never before has a new entitlement passed on such narrowly partisan lines. The new taxes and burdens on small business in particular have helped to slow job creation. Voters reacted by imposing historic losses on House Democrats.

    After that 2010 "shellacking," as Mr. Obama called it, he had another chance to steer a more moderate course. Believing that bipartisan cover offered a unique chance to control the deficit, House Speaker Boehner agreed to back-room talks to pursue a grand budget bargain.

    The Republican put tax increases on the table that might have cost him his Speakership, even as Mr. Obama refused to consider any modifications to ObamaCare and would allow only tinkering around the edges of other entitlements. As the deadline neared for raising the national debt limit, Mr. Obama demanded $400 billion more in revenue, and Mr. Boehner had little choice but to walk away.

    This episode is all the more remarkable because the deal Mr. Boehner was offering would have divided Republicans, helped Mr. Obama with independents, and probably guaranteed his re-election. Yet the President poisoned the deal for the sake of higher taxes.


    ***

    So now Mr. Obama is seeking a second term by asking the voters to give him more time to finish the job he started. But what job is that?

    The President tried to reprise the spirit of 2008 in his speech Thursday night, but the preoccupation of this week's nominating convention has been to portray Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Republicans as mummies from the crypt.

    The second-term agenda he offered Thursday was a diminished and vague version of what he offered in 2008: More government spending disguised as "investment," more subsidies for green energy, more regulation for other parts of the economy. What he didn't mention was his goal of protecting ObamaCare at all costs and passing one of the largest tax increases in history.

    In recent interviews, Mr. Obama has said that if he wins he believes a chastened GOP will have no choice but to strike a grand fiscal bargain on his terms. This assumes that the same Republicans he has savaged for 18 months will want to become the tax collectors for his agenda. We support immigration reform, but his executive branch actions have poisoned that prospect too.

    The more likely forecast is for more gridlock and rancor. As an unnamed adviser recently told a Journal reporter, Mr. Obama thought he could work with Republicans but "he won't make that mistake again."

    Yet by Mr. Obama's transforming lights, his Presidency would still be a success. Re-election guarantees the implementation of ObamaCare, which means he would join FDR and LBJ in the pantheon of progressives who expanded the reach of government to "spread the wealth." Republicans may cavil, but over time they would have no choice but to agree to a value-added tax or some other tap on the middle class to finance a permanently larger, European-sized welfare state.

    ***

    Were he a man of lesser ideological ambition, President Obama would now be presiding over a stronger economy and probably be cruising to re-election. He gambled instead that he could use the economic crisis as a political lever to achieve his progressive policy goals, and he now finds himself struggling to be re-elected with a campaign based almost entirely on savaging his opponents.
    Americans who are disappointed with Transformers 1 aren't likely to enjoy the sequel any better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 8:45 PM GMT
    Bullshit.
    The economy does not lift and fall on the policies of a single president. The middle class are taking a beating more because of the idiots in congress who have done everything they can to fuck the economy and ruin the presidency of one B.H. Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 9:08 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidBullshit.
    The economy does not lift and fall on the policies of a single president. The middle class are taking a beating more because of the idiots in congress who have done everything they can to fuck the economy and ruin the presidency of one B.H. Obama.

    The policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    You are just like the lemmings with all emotion and no thought or logic. Slogans, not facts - that is all you are good for.
  • comfortablynu...

    Posts: 230

    Sep 07, 2012 10:02 PM GMT
    Opinion pieces are opinion. You can tell because he offers no facts to back up his opinion that everything that is wrong with the economy is president Obama's fault and nothing is the fault of the administration in office when the economic collapse took place. Instead he relies on fallacy and fantasy.

    This may have well have been taking from Hannity, since Fox News and the WSJ editorial board are run by the same right wing organization.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    comfortablynumb saidOpinion pieces are opinion. You can tell because he offers no facts to back up his opinion that everything that is wrong with the economy is president Obama's fault and nothing is the fault of the administration in office when the economic collapse took place. Instead he relies on fallacy and fantasy.

    This may have well have been taking from Hannity, since Fox News and the WSJ editorial board are run by the same right wing organization.

    Yes, of course it is an opinion. Although it is not an economic analysis with numbers, the events referred to can be backed up, even though no links are provided. You can certainly question his interpretation of Obama's motivation, no doubt with differences of opinion on that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:20 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    Prove that statement with facts. Please identify the regulatory burdens enacted during the Obama Administration that were not already in place during the preceding Bush Administration. And relate those burdens, if you can find any, to keeping businesses from hiring.

    And BTW, the issue isn't small businesses, but large corporations that aren't hiring, despite reaping increasing profits during a recession.

    The only jobs these "job creators" are creating with their tax breaks are cheap overseas jobs that don't benefit US workers. Perhaps you can explain that?

    ::: watching socalfitness desperately flipping through his Right Wing talking points to come up with a reply :::
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidThe policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    Prove that statement with facts. Please identify the regulatory burdens enacted during the Obama Administration that were not already in place during the preceding Bush Administration. And relate those burdens, if you can find any, to keeping businesses from hiring.

    And BTW, the issue isn't small businesses, but large corporations that aren't hiring, despite reaping increasing profits during a recession.

    The only jobs these "job creators" are creating with their tax breaks are cheap overseas jobs that don't benefit US workers. Perhaps you can explain that?

    ::: watching socalfitness desperately flipping through his Right Wing talking points to come up with a reply :::

    No I don't have to flip through anything. The points have been made numerous times in the past by threads of mine, riddler, Shybuffguy, SouthBeach, among others. Those threads had extensive backup material with links to source material as well as articles. We are beyond the time to waste trying to prove anything to the blind, but instead share articles with those who understand the situation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:30 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidThe policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    Prove that statement with facts. Please identify the regulatory burdens enacted during the Obama Administration that were not already in place during the preceding Bush Administration. And relate those burdens, if you can find any, to keeping businesses from hiring.

    And BTW, the issue isn't small businesses, but large corporations that aren't hiring, despite reaping increasing profits during a recession.

    The only jobs these "job creators" are creating with their tax breaks are cheap overseas jobs that don't benefit US workers. Perhaps you can explain that?

    ::: watching socalfitness desperately flipping through his Right Wing talking points to come up with a reply :::

    No I don't have to flip through anything. The points have been made numerous times in the past by threads of mine, riddler, Shybuffguy, SouthBeach, among others. These threads are not to waste time to try to prove anything to the blind, but share articles with those who understand.

    riddler and southbeach1500 are your sources? LMAO!!!

    FAIL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:33 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidThe policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    Prove that statement with facts. Please identify the regulatory burdens enacted during the Obama Administration that were not already in place during the preceding Bush Administration. And relate those burdens, if you can find any, to keeping businesses from hiring.

    And BTW, the issue isn't small businesses, but large corporations that aren't hiring, despite reaping increasing profits during a recession.

    The only jobs these "job creators" are creating with their tax breaks are cheap overseas jobs that don't benefit US workers. Perhaps you can explain that?

    ::: watching socalfitness desperately flipping through his Right Wing talking points to come up with a reply :::

    No I don't have to flip through anything. The points have been made numerous times in the past by threads of mine, riddler, Shybuffguy, SouthBeach, among others. These threads are not to waste time to try to prove anything to the blind, but share articles with those who understand.

    riddler and southbeach1500 are your sources?

    FAIL

    I was saying they also provided sourced material, not that they themselves were sources. Subtle point perhaps.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidThe policies of this administration, the uncertainty of health care costs, with the likelihood of escalating costs, together with the regulatory burden are keeping small business from hiring.

    Prove that statement with facts. Please identify the regulatory burdens enacted during the Obama Administration that were not already in place during the preceding Bush Administration. And relate those burdens, if you can find any, to keeping businesses from hiring.

    And BTW, the issue isn't small businesses, but large corporations that aren't hiring, despite reaping increasing profits during a recession.

    The only jobs these "job creators" are creating with their tax breaks are cheap overseas jobs that don't benefit US workers. Perhaps you can explain that?

    ::: watching socalfitness desperately flipping through his Right Wing talking points to come up with a reply :::

    No I don't have to flip through anything. The points have been made numerous times in the past by threads of mine, riddler, Shybuffguy, SouthBeach, among others. These threads are not to waste time to try to prove anything to the blind, but share articles with those who understand.

    riddler and southbeach1500 are your sources? LMAO!!!

    FAIL

    I was saying they also provided sourced material, not that they themselves were sources. Subtle point perhaps.

    So please quote that source material, per my request above.
  • comfortablynu...

    Posts: 230

    Sep 07, 2012 10:37 PM GMT
    Worker productivity is up. Corporate profits are way up. Stock prices are way up. Wages are down. Hiring is down.

    Corporate America is using the recession as an excuse to bilk American workers out of as much of their labor power as possible while spending as little of their capital as possible. That's broken capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:42 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidSo please quote that source material, per my request above.

    I'm sorry, but it's not a priority of mine. More focused on campaign issues. Suggest you either search past threads here or, better yet, voice your concerns on the WSJ site. There are comments along with each article, and you can probably engage in some discussion there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2012 10:50 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco saidSo please quote that source material, per my request above.

    I'm sorry, but it's not a priority of mine.

    Nor is truth a priority of yours. As most guys here already know. icon_razz.gif
  • comfortablynu...

    Posts: 230

    Sep 07, 2012 10:57 PM GMT
    "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by Fact-Checkers."

  • comfortablynu...

    Posts: 230

    Sep 07, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    tallahasseejock said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco saidSo please quote that source material, per my request above.

    I'm sorry, but it's not a priority of mine.

    Nor is truth a priority of yours. As most guys here already know.


    There were a few things that the President and the Vice President said last night that weren't truthful either. I hope you all realize that.

    When the President said we can now take all that money we were spending on the wars and pay down our debt, he was lying. The wars were paid for by borrowed money, so you can't take borrowed money and use that to pay down the debt.

    Also, I almost fell out of my seat when VP Biden said that the President had to "sit at the end of his mother's bed and watch her fight cancer and her insurance company at the same time." The President's mother had her treatments covered by insurance and only had to pay a deductible of a few hundred dollars every month.

    Biden also said the Republican plan would cut Medicare to seniors immediately. That is also unfortunately a lie. It doesn't touch anyone 55 or older.

    That's just a few that I noticed - there were others though.

    I think these conventions really are only for those people in the political parties. I don't think that either party is as truthful as they should be. I watched because I am a registered Democrat but after this election I think I might become an Independent instead.


    There is nothing in appropriations bills that says A will be bought with money gained through tax revenue and B will be bought with money gained through selling bonds. Money not spent on wars is money we can spend elsewhere, like on paying down the debt.

    Obama's mother's disability insurance claims were rejected, leaving her with high deductibles to and uncovered expenses to pay. Why? Because she had a pre-existing condition.

    The Romney-Ryan plan is to repeal Obamacare, including closing the prescription drug donut hole. That directly effects seniors currently on medicare.
  • comfortablynu...

    Posts: 230

    Sep 08, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    tallahasseejock said
    comfortablynumb said
    There is nothing in appropriations bills that says A will be bought with money gained through revenue and B will be bought with money gained through selling bonds.

    Obama's mother's disability insurance claims were rejected, leaving her with high deductibles to and uncovered treatments to pay.

    The Romney-Ryan plan is to repeal Obamacare, including closing the prescription drug donut hole. That directly effects seniors currently on medicare.


    You can't pay a debt by borrowing the money to do it.

    The disability claim she put in for was to cover her deductible, which was just a few hundred dollars a month, NOT for her the overwhelming bulk of her treatments. She wanted to pay NOTHING out of pocket.

    On the Medicare plan, I guess you could have interpreted it differently than I did. Here is the actual quote: "'But what they [Republicans] didn't tell you, is that their plan would immediately cut benefits to more than 30 million seniors already on Medicare.'"

    I interpreted it as their "Medicare Plan" so I took what he said at face value.


    He mentioned that his plan was to raise 1 dollar in revenue for every 2.5 dollars in cuts. The goal is to not be borrowing money at a rate where our debt piles up so fast that paying the interest alone is a massive chunk of the federal budget. And again, there is nothing in appropriations that says "this is to be paid for with borrowed money." Increase revenue, draw down spending on things like wars rather than social services, and we can begin to service the debt.

    She had to pay due to denied claims because of the fact that she had a pre-existing condition. Hundreds of dollars a month is a lot for seniors on a fixed income, not all of them are lucky enough to have someone with money for a son.

    The quote on Medicare is completely factual. They have stated numerous times that they want to repeal Obamacare. Every now and then they add the word replace, but have yet to mention what they will replace it with. Not only will a repeal effect millions of students, sick children, and chronic disease sufferers, but every senior citizen who uses medicare's prescription drug plan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:14 AM GMT
    comfortablynumb said"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by Fact-Checkers."



    Is that what the Obama Administration said? Did you watch the NBC News broadcast tonight? The fact checkers blew holes in most of what he and Biden said last night.

    The Demoncrats are liars trying to distort Obama's record into something less than the outright failure it's proven to be. And where they can't fight the facts, they just blame the Republicans. What a bunch of losers.

    I can't wait until he's voted out of office in November.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/

    FactChecking Obama and Biden

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a rousing double-header, Democratic delegates heard Barack Obama and Joe Biden both accept renomination on their convention’s final night. And we heard some facts being spun.

    - President Obama boasted that his plan would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, citing “independent experts.” But one such analyst called a key element of the plan a “gimmick.”
    - Vice President Biden quoted GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as saying “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth” to catch Osama bin Laden. Actually, Romney said he’d target more than just “one person.”
    - The president said U.S. automakers are “back on top of the world.” Nope. GM has slipped back to No. 2 and is headed for third place in global sales this year, behind Toyota and Volkswagen.
    - Biden said “the experts” concluded Romney’s corporate tax plan would create 800,000 jobs in other countries. One expert said that. She also said the number depends on the details, and foreign jobs could grow without costing U.S. jobs.
    Obama quoted Romney as saying it was “tragic” to “end the war in Iraq.” What Romney was criticizing was the pace of Obama’s troop withdrawal, not ending a war.
    - Biden claimed Romney “believes it’s OK to raise taxes on middle classes by $2,000.” Romney actually promises to lower middle-class taxes.
    - Biden said Romney and running mate Paul Ryan “are not for preserving Medicare at all.” Actually, the plan they endorse would offer traditional Medicare as one option among many.
    - Obama said his tax plan would restore “the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president” for upper-income taxpayers. Not quite. New taxes to finance the health care law also kick in next year, further burdening those same taxpayers.

    $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction?

    Obama exaggerated when he claimed “independent experts” say his deficit-reduction plan would reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. Actually, one independent analysis criticized a central part of the president’s plan as a “gimmick.”

    In September of last year, Obama released “The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction.” The plan purports to generate $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years — including “more than $1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years from our drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    In February, when Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget criticized the president’s plan for relying on savings from winding down the two wars. Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan group, called it a “gimmick.”

    “There are a number of good policies in this budget, but the use of this war gimmick is quite troubling,” said MacGuineas. “Drawing down spending on wars that were already set to wind down and that were deficit financed in the first place should not be considered savings. When you finish college, you don’t suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere — in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans.”

    In addition, the president’s plan includes another $1 trillion in savings from the Budget Control Act that had been agreed to as part of the deal with Congress to raise the debt ceiling. That’s not new savings, but accounts for already agreed-upon savings.

    Biden’s bin Laden Baloney

    Biden repeated the Obama campaign’s claim — previously made in a Web ad — that Romney said that “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars” to catch Osama bin Laden.

    The claim, which Republicans disputed, fails to include the rest of Romney’s quote from an Associated Press story. Romney said the country’s focus should not be on one person, but it should be a “broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.”

    Biden: Folks, Governor Romney didn’t see things that way. When he was asked about bin Laden in 2007, here’s what he said. He said, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just to catch one person.”

    Romney’s quote comes from an interview with the AP in April 2007 — when bin Laden was still alive.

    AP: [Romney] said the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

    A transcript of Romney’s 2007 interview, which the conservative website Townhall obtained from the Romney campaign, offers more context:

    [AP reporter ] Liz Sidoti: Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?

    Romney: I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort.

    He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world.

    It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.

    Not Quite ‘on Top’

    The president overstated the strength of the U.S. automotive industry when he said that “we reinvented a dying auto industry that’s back on top of the world.” Not quite. General Motors has currently slipped back to No. 2 in world auto sales, based on sales for the first six months of the year, and Volkswagen is expected to push GM into third place for the full year.

    GM has indeed made a comeback: It took back the top spot in global sales in 2011 after being surpassed by Toyota in 2008. Prior to that, GM had been No. 1 for more than 70 years. But for the first six months of 2012, Toyota, with 4.97 million vehicle sales, regained the lead from GM, with 4.67 million sales, for first place in worldwide auto sales. GM is expected to drop to third for all of 2012.

    A Disputed Jobs Figure

    Biden used a disputed figure to attack Romney’s proposal to overhaul the taxation of multinational corporations:

    Biden: It’s called a territorial tax, which the experts have looked at, and they acknowledge it will create 800,000 new jobs — all of them overseas, all of them.

    It’s true that one expert — Kimberly Clausing, a professor of economics at Reed College in Portland, Oregon — recently published a study calculating that a “pure” territorial system of international taxation would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs. But that’s not necessarily what Romney is proposing. The foreign job growth could be smaller, wouldn’t necessarily come at the expense of U.S. workers, and doesn’t take account of any offsetting job gains in the U.S.

    Romney has proposed switching taxation of U.S.-based multinational corporations to a territorial system — in which ear
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 08, 2012 4:07 AM GMT
    BULLSHIT.
    If the voters agreed with you, the polls would indicate a Romney victory, BUT THEY DON'T.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 08, 2012 4:34 AM GMT
    Wow, I can tell from this thread that the republicans are desperate! Shouldn't you guys be busy plotting ways to exploit workers and squash gay rights? Where do you find the time for all this tl;dr nonsense?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Sep 08, 2012 7:21 AM GMT
    what bothers me more is the fact that Obama has ruined bipartisanship.

    Bob Wordword tells this tale , and its depressing.

    Although I disagree with Obama's economic policy we have examples in the past of Democratic and Republican President being pulled to the center because of how our government shares power.

    Clinton was in the end successful because he had to team up with Gingrich to balance the budget. ( He didnt get to that place by himself, he started out with Healthcare reform and was beat back.

    The only scenario for ANYTHING to get done with Obama as President would require that the Democrats win back the house and maintain the Senate. This is a unlikely scenario.

    Obama has to negotiate. Its pretty clear he stopped doing this in 2008. We are going to have to wait for the debates for any specifics on what happened because to date we only hear vague references from Obama to the Republican stalemate in Congress. The specifics are left out I believe because they are so damning for him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 10:46 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    BornJuly4th said
    comfortablynumb said"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by Fact-Checkers."
    ....http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/....

    I LOVE how you managed to skate past the rest of that site's articles on the lies and misrepresentations from the GOP speeches, lol. You're like a monkey cherry-picking the untouched peanuts out of an elephant's shit. Your ability to compartmentalize the facts is about the only thing in your post that's beyond reproach. Bravo! icon_lol.gif


    Beyond reproach? icon_rolleyes.gif

    It's called staying on topic for my post, if you were bothering to pay attention. I was talking about the series of lies and misrepresentations that Biden and Osama made during their speeches at the DNC. I also did NOT include the lies about the Administration having "created 4.5mm jobs" that several other Demoncrats had made at the convention prior to the final evening (which had been so de-bunked that the Prez couldn't even go there) or the misrepresentations they've made throughout the campaign about Romney's record in MA.

    In case you haven't been paying attention, you only get so many characters per post, and those three topics alone would have exceeded mine.

    And where have your "balanced" posts appeared, calling out your party for their lies and misrepresentations, instead of the endless vitriol toward the Republicans? Seems you're guilty of "compartmentalizing the facts" as much as you blame me for. Get off your high horse, hypocrite!

    Get a clue, you communist whack-job!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 08, 2012 11:02 AM GMT
    what bothers me more is the fact that Obama has ruined bipartisanship.

    Oh Jeez ... icon_biggrin.gif
    That little quote needs to be emblazoned in marble and enshrined in the FOX Vaults where they store their ridiculous accusations

    Dude ... have you listened to your own party in the last four years?
    .... to your majority leaders?
    ..... have you WATCHED your filibuster numbers?

    Planet earth to republican numnutz ...we have a communication problem icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 11:11 AM GMT
    BornJuly4th saidAnd where have your "balanced" posts appeared, calling out your party for their lies and misrepresentations, instead of the endless vitriol toward the Republicans? Seems you're guilty of "compartmentalizing the facts" as much as you blame me for. Get off your high horse, hypocrite!

    Get a clue, you communist whack-job!

    Just to clarify, the Democratic party is not yourname2000's party. He is a Canadian, to the dismay of many other Canadians here. He is a leftist but also a forum agitator. When not in the political threads, he hangs out in the All Things Gay and Dating & Relationships folders. Whenever there is a disagreement between other members, he jumps in to agitate further. And when an 18 year old posts about some problems, he jumps in to bully the poor kid. Also posts hard porn in threads to disrupt. Definitely has issues and is best ignored. I tangled with the scum a bit but from now on, he doesn't exist. Recommend same approach from now on. Not worth your time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 11:22 AM GMT
    tallahasseejock said
    There were a few things that the President and the Vice President said last night that weren't truthful either. I hope you all realize that.


    Someone who repeatedly sets up sock accounts and steals other people's personal images is in no position to be giving lectures on truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:08 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    tallahasseejock said
    There were a few things that the President and the Vice President said last night that weren't truthful either. I hope you all realize that.


    Someone who repeatedly sets up sock accounts and steals other people's personal images is in no position to be giving lectures on truth.


    Well, I have neither set up a sock account nor stolen other people's personal images, so I'll make the same statement:

    There were quite a few things that the President and the Vice President said last night that weren't truthful either. I hope you all realize that.