What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

You must have missed the chart that ExileOnDaytonStreet posted below. Obama is not the spending fiend that you think he is. Given the circumstances and knowing how much the GOP loves to spend money I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that McCain would have more debt right now than Obama does. History tells us as much.
Hey, believe your alternative view of history if you can't handle the truth.

I can't wait as Obama winds down his 8th year of record deficits, and you'll still be on here blaming it on the Republicans. Of course by then our economy and monetary policy will be in such shambles, who know what anything would be like by then.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

You must have missed the chart that ExileOnDaytonStreet posted below. Obama is not the spending fiend that you think he is. Given the circumstances and knowing how much the GOP loves to spend money I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that McCain would have more debt right now than Obama does. History tells us as much.

I'd take that bet. And I could use the dollars I'd get from you to buy more doughnuts, as long as the doughnut tax doesn't get me. Huge win for me!
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Hey, believe your alternative view of history if you can't handle the truth.

I can't wait as Obama winds down his 8th year of record deficits, and you'll still be on here blaming it on the Republicans. Of course by then our economy and monetary policy will be in such shambles, who know what anything would be like by then.

I'll take what Obama's offering over 8 trillion in new spending any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

He had a mandate for two years. Nice try.
Scooby thinks the Republicans somehow secretly controlled the country those two years. And they forced Obama and Pelosi to spend more and more money. He just didn't have any recourse. Poor fellow.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

A telling sideshow from last night....

The room set aside for reporters to watch Tuesday night's debate erupted into applause after President Obama ridiculed the size of Mitt Romney's personal wealth.

Mr. Romney was trying to make the point that both his and Mr. Obama's investment funds probably include investments in China — something the president has attacked Mr. Romney for.

"Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?" Mr. Romney said.

"You know, I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it — it doesn't take as long," Mr. Obama retorted. His reply prompted laughter in the debate hall where the two men were squaring off — but across the way in the separate room where the press was stationed, a brief round of applause broke out.

which in turn prompted this rejoinder:

It's a good idea for journalists to avoid applauding politicians, for we are supposed to be independent and, in the case of straight-news reporters, impartial. But what was it about this particular Obama rejoinder (in what was a rather entertaining exchange) that inspired such enthusiasm among the presumably left-leaning scribes?

The answer, it seems to us, says a lot about the politics of "class" in America. You hear a lot about "income inequality," but most people don't particularly care. Last year's effort to begin a mass movement around the question was a whimpering failure, yet it got hyped to the sky at first because it played into powerful class resentments--on the part not of poor or low-income working people but of academics and journalists, which is to say intellectuals.

Now, academics and journalists are not exactly downtrodden. Although life as an adjunct or a freelancer can be a challenge, a professor with tenure or a journalist at a major media outlet makes a good enough living to make him affluent. Affluent people with elitist pretensions often have a strong distaste for the wealthy, especially those, like Romney, who earned their riches by being successful in business. If you want to find bitterness against "the 1%," don't look at "the 99%." Instead, focus in on the 98th percentile. [emphasis added]


Now, if I were being snarky, I'd suggest that this last insight explains a great deal about certain resentful posts that show up here regularly, except we all know how snark-free I am, right? ;)
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Scooby thinks the Republicans somehow secretly controlled the country those two years. And they forced Obama and Pelosi to spend more and more money. He just didn't have any recourse. Poor fellow.

Another one that has no clue how the government works (or in this case doesn't) today.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

More lies.

There is no mandate without 60 votes in the Senate. Nothing gets done without them.

Wow. Amazing there is always a way to shift blame so nothing is Obama's fault. Will it finally be his fault after 8 years and things still haven't improved?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Wow. Amazing there is always a way to shift blame so nothing is Obama's fault. Will it finally be his fault after 8 years and things still haven't improved?
He's the Teflon President.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

383562_539853106044147_1108796255_n.jpg
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

I'm admittedly politically dense, but I seem to recall that Clinton came in with a deficit and left with a surplus. Bush then came in with a surplus and left not only with a deficit but two costly wars, one of which was difficult, at the very least, to justify, and an economy that was headed downhill at full speed. So much so that Bush hurriedly pushed through a 700 billion stimulus before he closed the door (after a 150 billion stimulus earlier in the year).

I'm sure those much smarter than I will point out how these facts are either inaccurate or mean little. And they should. But I think most will agree that the economy is suffering for many complex reasons that go back decades, if not more, and that it is too easy to say either Bush or Obama has sole or even majority ownership of the problem. But to say republican policy, whatever that is, would have avoided economic catastrophe more deftly and put us on the road to recovery more quickly is nothing but speculation not well supported by recent history.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

He's the Teflon President.

Well, when Romney wins and the Dems hold the Senate you'll see. That's actually my dream scenario. I want the Democrat Senate and House Leaders to say that their number one goal for the next 4 years is to make Mitt Romney a one term President.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Well, when Romney wins and the Dems hold the Senate you'll see. That's actually my dream scenario. I want the Democrat Senate and House Leaders to say that their number one goal for the next 4 years is to make Mitt Romney a one term President.
That'd be standard politics for the party out of power. And you say I'm the one who doesn't know how government works. Keep digging yourself deeper.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Well, when Romney wins and the Dems hold the Senate you'll see. That's actually my dream scenario. I want the Democrat Senate and House Leaders to say that their number one goal for the next 4 years is to make Mitt Romney a one term President.

So when that happens is everything still the fault of Congress, especially the Senate? Or will everything magically become the president's fault then?
 
I'm admittedly politically dense, but I seem to recall that Clinton came in with a deficit and left with a surplus. Bush then came in with a surplus and left not only with a deficit but two costly wars, one of which was difficult, at the very least, to justify, and an economy that was headed downhill at full speed. So much so that Bush hurriedly pushed through a 700 billion stimulus before he closed the door (after a 150 billion stimulus earlier in the year).

I'm sure those much smarter than I will point out how these facts are either inaccurate or mean little. And they should. But I think most will agree that the economy is suffering for many complex reasons that go back decades, if not more, and that it is too easy to say either Bush or Obama has sole or even majority ownership of the problem. But to say republican policy, whatever that is, would have avoided economic catastrophe more deftly and put us on the road to recovery more quickly is nothing but speculation not well supported by recent history.


Expect to get ignored by the knuckledragger chorus on this one but exactly right. Obama inherits two wars, a 700B bank bailout, a 500B perscription drug mandate, and 2T in gimmicky tax cuts, yet he's to blame.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

First on my list is my 20% tax cut with NO increases in my taxes. That's what he promised. That means that I'm getting 20% without having any of my loopholes removed.

Will Obamacare pay for "removing your loopholes?" Are loopholes a pre-existing condition? Is it done under local or general? Will removing your loopholes have any impact on your other holes?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Saw that the second debate pulled in as many viewers as the 1st. Not a good sign for Mittens as it indicates people were looking to see if he could pull off an encore as opposed to being on board with him after debate one. He could have used less people watching him get spanked, particularly the Benghazi flub.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Will Obamacare pay for "removing your loopholes?" Are loopholes a pre-existing condition? Is it done under local or general?

If the Affordable Care Act proves to be reasonably effective in slowing down runaway medical costs and making medical care more accessible, will Mitt insist that it be called Obomney care?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top