Please list/mention Obama's Accomplishments

[3mils-right]

My bet is due to personal insecurity about his own race. Just a thought

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by Booth

You're the one who introduced his race to this discussion. Why is that?

Your the one making it an issue.....I just made a choice to be descriptive and not use a name.

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

More like the "Tea Party Express" to our new third world economy.

This statement is mind numbing......Just exactly how much power does the Tea Party have????? They are small minority in the house and senate....

If you do think it's Obama's fault, then tell me, would you prefer he had vetoed Boehner's last bill and let us default? Yes he is the leader. He should have brought the parties together and come to a deal to ensure that we did not lose our credit rating. How low do you think the market would be today if that happened? Couldn't be much worse. I'd also be curious to know what you think Obama's role in this was and what he should have done differently. He asked for the Job 3 years ago. Maybe he should try leading instead of sitting on the bench. Lastly, if you blame Obama for this, then you must believe that Congress and the Tea Party are not culpable and should not share any of the responsibility. True or false? There are only a few Republicans that are a part of the Tea Party. So I would say they are not responsible. The Demacrats still control the White House and the Senate. You know damn well had this happened to a Republican President you would be crying up shit storm. What you are failing to mention is that he could have passed something before the 2010 election.

Stop with the right-wing Fox News propaganda bullshit for just one minute and for once give us an honest analysis of what you believe to be the root of the problem here.

Then stop with the MSNBC, CBS, and CNN propaganda.... Did I leave any out....

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Then stop with the MSNBC, CBS, and CNN propaganda.... Did I leave any out....

Hell, even they are turning against him. Today on Hardball; Chris Matthews and Ed Rendell spent 15 minutes talking about Obama's failure to lead. Show us your plan, Mr. President Abandoning a sinking ship like drowning rats.

.
DOW -634...

[F-Sharp]

Please, let's keep the rhetoric and propaganda out of this discussion for awhile. Until we can agree on what the facts are, no one is ever going to come up with a possible solution. Let me run a few things by you and see if we can at least agree on what the facts are.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

This statement is mind numbing......Just exactly how much power does the Tea Party have????? They are small minority in the house and senate....

Well, let's ask John McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7GfPEtyQsE

It's seems to me that the GOP side of the house does not have enough votes to get anything done without the support of the Tea Party freshmen. Wasn't this the entire reason the debt ceiling debate dragged on and on until the very last minute? The original $850 billion GOP plan from Boehner did not have anywhere near the amout of reductions that the Democrat's plan had, which is why the Tea Party would not support it. What exactly do you think all those delays were about?

"The concerns within the GOP caucus, especially from freshmen elected with Tea Party support, underscore Boehner's challenge. He needs 217 votes to pass his bill, and if about two dozen of his GOP members balk -- as some vote counts suggest -- he'll need some help from Democrats to get his bill to the Senate."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ohn-boehner-/1

Do you agree with my assessment?

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Yes he is the leader. He should have brought the parties together and come to a deal to ensure that we did not lose our credit rating.

My assertion is the only realistic way to meet the $4 trillion dollar reduction that the ratings agencies are demanding is to raise taxes. The Tea Party and the GOP have declared tax hikes completely off the board. I think given this alone, we were lucky enough to just not default.

Strangely enough, the deal that was passed all but guarantees the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2013. I'll explain this in a later thread soon, but it seems to me that we lost our credit rating for absolutely nothing because the GOP would not budge on something that ultimately they're going to have to cave on any way. Eliminating those tax cuts alone is enough to meet the $4 trillion mark over ten years.

Again, do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

There are only a few Republicans that are a part of the Tea Party.

I dunno about you, but "a few" to me means three. There are 53 members of Congress who are affiliated with the Tea Party caucus. That's 22% of the GOP side of the House and 12% of the entire House. With 193 Democrats currently in the House 53 is more than enough to sway a majority vote.

http://teapartynationalism.com/the-d...112th-congress

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=199440

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

What you are failing to mention is that he could have passed something before the 2010 election.

Yes, but I don't think you and I agree on who "he" is. The President does not write legislation, it is only his job to propose legislation. Back in December of 2010 when the issue over extending the Bush tax cuts was back on the table, Obama's decision was to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to keep more money in people's pockets in an effort to help ward off further recession. Here's what he said at the time:

"a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121606200.html

If those tax cuts had been left to expire then, we would not be in the mess we are in at this moment. For this he is truly to blame, and I have considered him a compromising pussy ever since that day.

Do you agree that the Bush Tax cuts are the root of the problem we are in and do you agree with my assesment that if they were left to expire either then or last week, our credit rating would still be AAA?

[Billy_Saul]

Washington Post on Obama's failure to lead: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...72I_print.html

"Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and activists on his own side are calling him weak."

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Hell, even they are turning against him. Today on Hardball; Chris Matthews and Ed Rendell spent 15 minutes talking about Obama's failure to lead. Show us your plan, Mr. President Abandoning a sinking ship like drowning rats.

.
DOW -634...

F-turkey will be the only one left. I bet Obama gets off the ship before he does....

[Booth]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Your the one making it an issue.....I just made a choice to be descriptive and not use a name.

So his race was the first description that came to mind? Interesting... I can only imagine which name you were thinking.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Washington Post on Obama's failure to lead: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...72I_print.html

"Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and activists on his own side are calling him weak."

This nothing new Billy, but to his activists he's still a far better option than the alternatives so far in 2012. I've stated since he dropped the ball on the public option, the tax cuts and the two wars we're still involved with overseas that he's the best Republican president we've had in years. 43 is actually not that bad. Consider Bush was at 25 before he left office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...pproval_rating

He's also still ahead in the polls against each individual candidate. Not exactly sure what the "Republican vs. Obama" poll implies. I think it's "any Republican candidate".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Please, let's keep the rhetoric and propaganda out of this discussion for awhile. Until we can agree on what the facts are, no one is ever going to come up with a possible solution. Let me run a few things by you and see if we can at least agree on what the facts are.




Well, let's ask John McCain: John McCain would have been just a lesser of two evils option and he is too liberal for my taste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7GfPEtyQsE

It's seems to me that the GOP side of the house does not have enough votes to get anything done without the support of the Tea Party freshmen. Wasn't this the entire reason the debt ceiling debate dragged on and on until the very last minute? The original $850 billion GOP plan from Boehner did not have anywhere near the amout of reductions that the Democrat's plan had, which is why the Tea Party would not support it. What exactly do you think all those delays were about? I am just fine with them slowing things down. Evidently they did not slow it down enough. We should have waited until we had a complete solution.

"The concerns within the GOP caucus, especially from freshmen elected with Tea Party support, underscore Boehner's challenge. He needs 217 votes to pass his bill, and if about two dozen of his GOP members balk -- as some vote counts suggest -- he'll need some help from Democrats to get his bill to the Senate."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ohn-boehner-/1

Do you agree with my assessment?

Nope

My assertion is the only realistic way to meet the $4 trillion dollar reduction that the ratings agencies are demanding is to raise taxes. The Tea Party and the GOP have declared tax hikes completely off the board. I think given this alone, we were lucky enough to just not default.

Strangely enough, the deal that was passed all but guarantees the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2013. I'll explain this in a later thread soon, but it seems to me that we lost our credit rating for absolutely nothing because the GOP would not budge on something that ultimately they're going to have to cave on any way. Eliminating those tax cuts alone is enough to meet the $4 trillion mark over ten years.

Again, do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

Nope. We do need to simplify the tax code and get rid of loop holes is fine. Raising taxes does not help anyone. Cut spending. The purse that the government has is needs to shrink.....

I dunno about you, but "a few" to me means three. There are 53 members of Congress who are affiliated with the Tea Party caucus. That's 22% of the GOP side of the House and 12% of the entire House. With 193 Democrats currently in the House 53 is more than enough to sway a majority vote.

Wow 12% caused all the fuss....What would happen if they get 15%???

http://teapartynationalism.com/the-d...112th-congress

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=199440



Yes, but I don't think you and I agree on who "he" is. The President does not write legislation No FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK, it is only his job to propose legislation. THE DEMS had all the control in both houses and the white house. Back in December of 2010 when the issue over extending the Bush tax cuts was back on the table, Obama's decision was to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to keep more money in people's pockets in an effort to help ward off further recession. Here's what he said at the time:

"a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121606200.html

If those tax cuts had been left to expire then, we would not be in the mess we are in at this moment. For this he is truly to blame, and I have considered him a compromising pussy ever since that day.

I agree with keeping the tax cuts, but I hardly would call him a compromising President. I would call him duck and dodge. He is still blaming the last President.

Do you agree that the Bush Tax cuts are the root of the problem we are in and do you agree with my assesment that if they were left to expire either then or last week, our credit rating would still be AAA?

Nope! Excessive Government spending is the problem.....

The tax hikes do not really affect the Rich that much. The added expense just gets passed on to the small business owner. Which in turn affects the middle class and the poor.

Give you an example of government regulation at its worst. Cell phone companies charge you everything under the sun in little charges. Why is that??? They just pass the expense of government regulations to the consumer. The rich can afford a team of accountants to save them money at tax time. The middle class and small business owner can't afford a team of accountants.

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by Booth

I can only imagine which name you were thinking.

Obama....What did you imagine????I am thinking you are the racist....

[Gushing Geyser]

I could only hope F Shart and Gloryhole Booth are caught in the middle of a black flash mob.

[F-Sharp]

Am I the only one here that finds this logic impossible to follow?

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I am just fine with them slowing things down. Evidently they did not slow it down enough. We should have waited until we had a complete solution.

Slowing things down further would have resulted in default. If this is what you wanted, then what exactly are you blaming Obama for? For not defaulting? Congress had all year to come up with a complete solution and failed to do so. I guess they were too busy symbollically reading the Constitution and symbollically voting to repeal healthcare legislation. I guess they did manage a vote to defund women's health clinics while at the same time voted to continue spending 7$ million a year to place an Army sticker on the side of a race car.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Nope. We do need to simplify the tax code and get rid of loop holes is fine. Raising taxes does not help anyone. Cut spending. The purse that the government has is needs to shrink.....

Guess what simplifying the tax code and getting rid of loop holes will do? RAISE TAXES! And I guess I have to mention this again, taxes were 4% higher under Clinton and it seemed to help everyone by quite a bit.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Wow 12% caused all the fuss....What would happen if they get 15%???

Since 193 + 53 = 246 is something they call a majority in Congress, 22% is the important number in that equation. Dude, seriously I'm begging you to please go take some basic math classes.

I ask this with all sincerity..are you perhaps handicapped or deficient in some way? If that's the case, then your math, along with your posts in general would start to make a lot more sense to me.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I agree with keeping the tax cuts, but I hardly would call him a compromising President. I would call him duck and dodge. He is still blaming the last President.

You agree with adding over $4 trillion to our National debt over the last 10 years, but you're against excessive government spending? I have some bad news for you; tax cuts are excessive governement spending and we have the National debt and deficit every year to prove it.

And any thinking person is blaming the last President for our current economic issues. High unemployment, deficit and National debt all existed well before anyone even knew Obama's name. Anyone with half a brain can't deny that. Additionally, anyone who thinks we can solve what took 8 years to create in less than a few decades is going to be very disspointed for a very long time. It's not going to matter who's in office.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Nope! Excessive Government spending is the problem.....???

If you're certain of this, you should be able to provide me some numbers. Give me some dollar amounts and tell me what "government spending" needs to be cut. Maybe you just trust Michelle Bachmann, who is certain Glenn Beck is qualified to solve our budget deficit, but I want to hear it from you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/02...udget-deficit/

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Am I the only one here that finds this logic impossible to follow? Amongst the rational people yes....



Slowing things down further would have resulted in default. Says who??? If this is what you wanted, then what exactly are you blaming Obama for? Not being a leader For not defaulting? Blaming everyone but himself... Congress had all year to come up with a complete solution and failed to do so. He had 3 years to push to get a logical budget in place. I guess they were too busy symbollically reading the Constitution and symbollically voting to repeal healthcare legislation. We have yet to fully feel the pain that damn thing is gonna cost. I guess they did manage a vote to defund women's health clinics while at the same time voted to continue spending 7$ million a year to place an Army sticker on the side of a race car. There are still plenty of free clinics out there.



Guess what simplifying the tax code and getting rid of loop holes will do? RAISE TAXES! And I guess I have to mention this again, taxes were 4% higher under Clinton and it seemed to help everyone by quite a bit.

How about we go back to what we were spending during that administration... Just raising taxes without closing loop holes does nothing but hurt the small business owner and in turn the consumers. Get rid of the loop holes and impose a reasonable flat tax. I guess you forgot the economy was doing much better back then. Not as many businesses were portable and could move to lower taxed countries as fast either.

Since 193 + 53 = 246 is something they call a majority in Congress, 22% is the important number in that equation. Dude, seriously I'm begging you to please go take some basic math classes.

So you are saying that he is just too big of a pussy that he could not bring together some common ground because of that 12%. I can do the math you just can't grasp how a leader should lead.

I ask this with all sincerity..are you perhaps handicapped or deficient in some way? So since you can't understand logic, I must be handicapped. If that's the case, then your math, along with your posts in general would start to make a lot more sense to me.



If you're certain of this, you should be able to provide me some numbers. Give me some dollar amounts and tell me what "government spending" needs to be cut. Maybe you just trust Michelle Bachmann, who is certain Glenn Beck is qualified to solve our budget deficit, but I want to hear it from you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/02...udget-deficit/

It does not take a genius to figure out the government is spending too much money.....You are obviously someone that believes that the government owes you something....

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

How about we go back to what we were spending during that administration...

I am glad we finally agree on something. The ONLY spending besides the $800 billion in stimulus money under Obama that's taken place since Clinton, is money spent under Bush in the form of tax cuts, two wars, plus interest on that money borrowed. These facts are indisputable.

"Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush."

http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...pending-2011-7

"As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline."

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Just raising taxes without closing loop holes does nothing but hurt the small business owner and in turn the consumers.

Says who? This statement is nothing but conjecture on your part and I challenge you to show one shred of proof to back it. There's absolutely no correlation I can find that raising taxes a few percentage points has any detrimental effects on small businesses or inflation whatsoever. If anything, our economic history in the last fify years tells quite a different story. Under Clinton the marginal tax rate was 4 points higher and we experienced record growth. Since the Bush tax cuts have been in place, we've experienced record losses. This is in fact true for every tax reduction we've experienced in the last 50 years. Each and every time taxes have been lowered, the result was a recession due to loss of revenue. This has been the case ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time. Also, notice in the chart here, that even changes of 40 points have made little difference in GDP. The only real thing lowering taxes does is produces deficit while putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy. Again, this is indisputable.

http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/



Our average tax bills are at the lowest they've been since the 1950s. The truth is that low tax bills only truly benefit the rich who can afford to be without essential programs that are usually first to be on the chopping block when revenues due to those low tax rates decline.

"Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...10-taxes_N.htm

Let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you Wyldeman. I have nothing better to do than waste my time debunking your completely unfounded opinions.