Paul Ryan our VP nomination....One more step closer to ensuring an Obama-Free America

[Guest061918]

As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.
The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.
For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."
The conversation got only more specific from there, Draper reports. Kyl suggested going after incoming Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while at the International Monetary Fund. Gingrich noted that House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) had a similar tax problem. McCarthy chimed in to declare "there's a web" before arguing that Republicans could put pressure on any Democrat who accepted campaign money from Rangel to give it back.

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:
Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)
Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)
Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

"You will remember this day," Draper reports Newt Gingrich as saying on the way out. "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

Draper's timeline is correct. On Jan. 21, 2009, Kyl aggressively questioned Geithner during his confirmation hearings. On Jan. 28, 2009, House GOP leadership held the line against the stimulus package (Senate GOP leadership would prove less successful in stopping defections).
The votes, of course, can be attributed to legitimate philosophical objection to the idea of stimulus spending as well as sincere concern that the secretary of the Treasury should personally have a clean tax-paying record. But what Draper's book makes clear is that blunt electoral-minded ambitions were the animating force.
Whether or not that's shocking depends on the degree to which one's view of politics has been jaded. What's certainly noteworthy is the timing. When Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was treated as remarkably candid and deeply cynical. Had he said it publicly in January 2009, it would likely have caused an uproar.

By extension, however, the Draper anecdote also negatively reflects on the Obama administration for failing to appreciate how quickly congressional Republicans would oppose the president's agenda.

So lets see now

From its record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its unprecedented (and repeated) threats to trigger a U.S. default, the most conservative Congress in over 100 years.

Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised:
"That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."

Time after time, President Obama could count the votes he received from Congressional Republicans on the fingers (usually the middle one) of one hand. The expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to four million more American kids earned the backing of a whopping eight GOP Senators. (One of them, Arlen Specter, later became a Democrat.) Badly needed Wall Street reform eventually overcame GOP filibusters to pass with the support of just three Republicans in the House and Senate, respectively. Last summer, it took 50 days for President Obama to get past Republican filibusters of extended unemployment benefits and the Small Business Jobs Act. As for the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to limit the torrent of secret campaign cash unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, in September Republican Senators prevented it from ever coming to a vote.

The President did not need any Republicn votes you say/ yes, he did. By the way ever heard of a filibuster? Because the Republican party in Congresss sure loved it.

[zach1978]

Keep in mind Obama inherited a hole and turned it into a canyon.

By "hole" are you referring to the economic free fall GWB left the country in? Maybe you are forgetting the weeks of 300, 400, and 500 point declines in the DOW? The country was in over $10T in debt AND had two active wars to cleanup (running a tab of over $1T) long before Obama even stepped foot in the White house and don't forget that the entire 2009 congressional budget was signed by GWB pushing the country into further debt. This wasn't a hole this was the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Jesus.

Here's some key take away points.

- The DOW is regarded as a 6 to 12 month leading indicator of the economy by many economists.

- The DOW fell down as low as 8K under GWB, and on March 6th 2009 (three months after Obama took office when it hit 6K+) began its recovery.

- Today DOW is now trading over 13K

- The unemployment rate is an inverse result of the crashing economy and began its descent for the first time since its rise in 2007 in 2009.

Now tell me again, why the hell should Americans ever let another Republican into office? Oh that's right, (this is where Republican's say the president has no effect on the overall economy), but watch what they say because what they really mean is, "The president has no effect on the economy unless it's a positive effect and we happen to be in office, OR, there is a negative effect and the dems happen to have a president in office". OR, and this is applicable to today, we can blame the current economic conditions on today's incumbent when in actuality the economy of today is STILL trying to recover from the leadership of that fool, GWB, who virtually drove this country into the ground.

[Mike6082]

College girl you opened up a can of worms. I have always (almost always) seemed to "click" with the "mature" providers. However, you are making me rethink my thinking.
Collegegirl you're very sexy talking about politics. I think I want to meet you, I'm thinking of an hour, we can talk about Obama, get all pissed off, then take it out on each other.
IM me if you're interested.

To Obama supporters- yes, he inherited a mess, what positive thing has he done in almost 4 years to fix it? And when will he (and his supporters) quit blaming Bush and take responsibility for his (and his supporters) own actions? Any good leader (politician,coach,business leader, parent,sports player) wouldn't give a crap over something they didn't do. They would roll up their sleeves and WIN (fix it). It's been 4 years and all he has done is play the blame game, spend trillions of OUR future generations money, has over 50% of our citizens (as well as other countries citizens on some type of government assistance. When 50% of the voting public is getting a paycheck from government it is no wonder why the man that signs those checks will be re-elected. It's simple math. Obama is a genius, he figured out how to buy votes and pay for them with other peoples money- your, mine and many generations to come.
I know all won't agree with me just like I don't agree with everyone either. This is just my opinion, not looking for a debate, just a place we can all share our opinions. We should all feel very fortunate that we live in the greatest country on earth and have the freedom to openly exchange our opinions.
Have a good one all!
College- you so sexy!!!!

[Laz]

I keep hearing how the republicans wanted to make Obama a one term president. SO WHAT! Of course they did. Are you foolish enough to think the democrats are not doing that when a republican is in office? Look how badly they insulted and lied about Bush. In the 90's the republicans wanted to get rid of Clinton. They were unsuccessful because Clinton was a moderate that found a way to work with them and compromise. Obama has not had an interest in compromise so the only option the republicans have had is to block.

All of you that think the tea party republicans are radical ask yourself why it is radical to push for changes that will prevent an economic disaster. I would think that a radical or irresponsible position would be to support a policy that will without a doubt result in a financial crisis.

[Guest061918]

You mean Bush the guy who stole the election from Gore in 2000? I am sorry Laz but I do not buy it. The republicans systematically put a plan in place to make sure they will not support him at all. Did they put the interest of the american people first? No, it was their agenda to make sure they did not support any of his bills.

The democrats never went to the lengths that the Republicans did to Obama. If so show me some proof.

Obama wanted compromise when we first took office but did not get it. What part of that do you not comprehend?

Look, I am not trying to defend Obama. I lost a lot of repect for him over past few years. That being said exactly how have the Republicans tried at all to comprimise with Obama in the last 4 years? That is my point and that is what I want to know. All I hear is that Obama never wants to comprimise. It has been nothing but a pissing contest that the Republicans started. The democrats never went to the length that the Pubs did in terms of their conspiracy to make Obama's life a living hell. well you succeeded.

Come November nothing will change. Obama will still be in office and the Pubs will be conspiring to make sure none of his bills get passed for another four years. So this whole thread which was started because of a VP will be meaningless.

[collegegirlforyou]

Three pages of threads and the biggest thing that get people in the upset is a metaphor... OK i apologize let me recant...Obama inherited a canyon and turned into something larger then a canyon. Does the suffice the sensitivities ?

I have been trying to be pretty cool about everything and accepting of others beliefs so no need to get heated. There's tons of republicans I don't like, John Boehner, being one of them. I also don't except buzz words or slogans as truth and always try to find out for myself using the cognitive powers God gave me.

I hope I'm wrong about Obama and the economy bounces back. I hope that the seven new taxes that are in the affordable care act that effect households making less then 250,000 (those go in effect after the re-election effect and will be active in 2014) doesn't strain the already weakened middle class along with the increased payroll tax and the end of bush era tax cuts. Nothing wrong with increased revenue as long as we can trust the government to spend our dollars wisely....Oh wait...

Originally Posted by zach1978

By "hole" are you referring to the economic free fall GWB left the country in? Maybe you are forgetting the weeks of 300, 400, and 500 point declines in the DOW? The country was in over $10T in debt AND had two active wars to cleanup (running a tab of over $1T) long before Obama even stepped foot in the White house and don't forget that the entire 2009 congressional budget was signed by GWB pushing the country into further debt. This wasn't a hole this was the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Jesus.

Here's some key take away points.

- The DOW is regarded as a 6 to 12 month leading indicator of the economy by many economists.

- The DOW fell down as low as 8K under GWB, and on March 6th 2009 (three months after Obama took office when it hit 6K+) began its recovery.

- Today DOW is now trading over 13K

- The unemployment rate is an inverse result of the crashing economy and began its descent for the first time since its rise in 2007 in 2009.

Now tell me again, why the hell should Americans ever let another Republican into office? Oh that's right, (this is where Republican's say the president has no effect on the overall economy), but watch what they say because what they really mean is, "The president has no effect on the economy unless it's a positive effect and we happen to be in office, OR, there is a negative effect and the dems happen to have a president in office". OR, and this is applicable to today, we can blame the current economic conditions on today's incumbent when in actuality the economy of today is STILL trying to recover from the leadership of that fool, GWB, who virtually drove this country into the ground.

Ok so if the entire 2009 congressional budget was signed off by GWB why do you point out that that things began to shape up three months after Obama takes office? Wouldn't that be Bush's success under the line of thought you're using? Also keep in mind Obama maintained bush era tax cuts to keep from having to balance his own budget. The DOW can be a good indicator but if far far from being the only indicator that shows how an economy is doing. Interest rates, Inflation, Unemployment, Foreclosure rate, etc. etc. all have a part of it too. So yeah if we take a look at the DOW (which is a representation of only the 30 largest stocks) It can be an indicator but certainly not proof of anything changing. Keep in mind the Dow is trading at 13k now and when was the last time it traded that high? May 2008 so in 2008 would you say that based on the DOW that we were heading towards a time period of prosperity? And who was president at that time? Are you going to say that based on the DOW as an indicator that Bush put us on the path to prosperity? I'm not dogging on you just trying to keep in line with the logic you used in your key points.

What budget has been passed under this president? (KEEPING IN MIND FOR TWO YEARS HE COULD GET ANYTHING PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY)----A point I keep bringing up even though LatinaLover003 says that none of Obamas bills got passed because of evil republicans. Disregarding that the only bills passed were those that only democrats wanted there was no bipartisanship there. No Compromise. I'm really confused why Latinalover003 thinks Obama wanted to foster in compromise if he looked at the meat and potatoes of the bills that were getting passed during the initial two years

Originally Posted by latinalover003

You mean Bush the guy who stole the election from Gore in 2000? I am sorry Laz but I do not buy it. The republicans systematically put a plan in place to make sure they will not support him at all. Did they put the interest of the american people first? No, it was their agenda to make sure they did not support any of his bills.

The democrats never went to the lengths that the Republicans did to Obama. If so show me some proof.

Obama wanted compromise when we first took office but did not get it. What part of that do you not comprehend?

Look, I am not trying to defend Obama. I lost a lot of repect for him over past few years. That being said exactly how have the Republicans tried at all to comprimise with Obama in the last 4 years? That is my point and that is what I want to know. All I hear is that Obama never wants to comprimise. It has been nothing but a pissing contest that the Republicans started. The democrats never went to the length that the Pubs did in terms of their conspiracy to make Obama's life a living hell. well you succeeded.

Come November nothing will change. Obama will still be in office and the Pubs will be conspiring to make sure none of his bills get passed for another four years. So this whole thread which was started because of a VP will be meaningless.

Again you're cool and i like you but your last post if used as an example of intelligent conversation and debate would make us all look bad.

Bush did not "steal" the election. The electoral college has been a part of the nations election process for a long long time. Keeping in mind that the electoral college may very well be the reason why Obama wins re-election, so if he wins will you say that Obama steals the election if he looses the popular vote? I doubt it. Buzz words are silly and not representation of truth.

I will reference my topic above to you about Obama's bills. On the matter of Obama just wanting to get along when getting into office, i'm sorry you are wrong. If you look at Obama's voting record as senator prior to winning presidency he showed no record of compromise with any republican. You say prove that Obama didn't want compromise, but i challenge you to bring up a piece of legislation drafted out of his administration that you think was an attempt at being bipartisan. I personally don't like a few of the 15 republicans mentioned in Drapper's book but the except quoted in your above posted sounds a little cloak and dagger. So I'm not saying it's wrong because Drapper couldn't even say if everything is 100% in the book when interviewed about it was completely factual because it revolved around a lot of conversations about other conversations. But i get the jist of it.

A handful of mean old white republicans met and secretly decided to pick on the poor innocent and vulnerable democrats. And because of those mean old republicans Obama just can't catch a break even within those first two years. It's all someone else's fault dagnabit!

I guess when i put you it like that you're right i do feel bad for the guy who played 100 rounds of golf in 3 1/2 years (even thought MSNBC ridicule Bush for taking time off to golf ...24 times in 8 years) and sends his family on numerous lavish vacations. I'm not a Bush fan, but i'm not a fan of double standards...and using hypocrisy to claim a halo for your deceit.


Anyhoo...I'm coming back into town tomorrow to officially end my vacation/fishing trip. So i won't have as much time for posting as i did this weekend. I have work, school and a special needs son, put that all together and it makes a pretty full schedule. But it's been fun you guys! Do your homework and maybe next time we can go at it again

Take care and be safe!!! Try to spend a little less time just picking up on headlines. LOL i'm just joshing ya'll !!

I do have to leave it on one my favorite facts about Obama.

Hugo Chavez (a terrible, murdering, tyrant) Said Obama's a good guy and should get four more years and Romney's a bad guy. Now if i liked Obama i would feel a little embarrassed about that endorsement. But hey it's a free country....and we can all just talk about it.

[Retscer]

Wow "Hugo Chavez (a terrible, murdering, tyrant) Said Obama's a good guy and should get four more years and Romney's a bad guy. Now if i liked Obama i would feel a little embarrassed about that endorsement. But hey it's a free country....and we can all just talk about it." are you serious???

"Since Chavez became president in 1999 the poverty rate in the country has dropped dramatically, education levels have risen and healthcare for the poor has improved. But the country still faces enormous challenges."

At least he has gone against the norm, if any of our corporate owned leaders weren't just in it for the money we as Americans wouldn't be in this situation, so ignorant of what is truly going on. The gap between rich and poor in the United States is getting worse every year! Most Americans are happy with their reality tv bs and listen to this fake ass journalism that is owned by a handful of people controlling the news for there own personal gain.

The last speech from the dictator was pretty much on the spot and sad as it may be we don't make choices, they just want us to believe we actually have control of what happens here...Spend some time abroad and you may see things as other countries see them and how our leader is usually referred to as a terrible, murdering, tyrant. Which would definitely hold true if Mitt were elected the poor would suffer while the rich..well they get richer! Maybe we'd have another Bush, sending our youth to die for what again, was it really in retaliation or was it just over control of oil???

"Imagine if America was a dictatorship, You could let 1 percent of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family" - Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘The Dictator’

[guy fawkes]

Boy oh Boy

[zach1978]

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Paul Ryan's voting record.

The issue Ryan is most known for is his interest in cutting the deficit and balancing the budget.

But why did the Congressman vote to bail out the auto industry, to pass the Medicare package to the tune of $400 billion, and to nationalize education via No Child Left Behind?

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.

According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, “[Paul Ryan] gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”

Interesting. His voting record is so much different than the words he speaks. Good luck in Nov GOP, the dems are going to have a field day with this guy.

[Laz]

He does not have to be perfect. He just has to be better than Obama and Biden. Focus on what he thinks is the right thing to do and support that or not. If in 4 yrs he has failed to do that then we have the choice of replacing him.

[Guest061918]

Paul Ryan is the bait and switch of Politicians.

[collegegirlforyou]

"Since Chavez became president in 1999 the poverty rate in the country has dropped dramatically, education levels have risen and healthcare for the poor has improved. But the country still faces enormous challenges."

At least he has gone against the norm, if any of our corporate owned leaders weren't just in it for the money we as Americans wouldn't be in this situation, so ignorant of what is truly going on. The gap between rich and poor in the United States is getting worse every year! Most Americans are happy with their reality tv bs and listen to this fake ass journalism that is owned by a handful of people controlling the news for there own personal gain.

The last speech from the dictator was pretty much on the spot and sad as it may be we don't make choices, they just want us to believe we actually have control of what happens here...Spend some time abroad and you may see things as other countries see them and how our leader is usually referred to as a terrible, murdering, tyrant. Which would definitely hold true if Mitt were elected the poor would suffer while the rich..well they get richer! Maybe we'd have another Bush, sending our youth to die for what again, was it really in retaliation or was it just over control of oil???

Every one has their own set of beliefs but that is one of the dumbest things i have every read.

If a dictator murders journalists for writing negative things about him, would you call that a champion of human rights? Because i refer to it as a terrible murdering dictator.

Had i not lived in an foreign country for six years i may be naive enough to believe what you say people in other countries say about the "tyranny in America" When countries get in trouble who's the one they always coming running to? Maybe if i wasn't well traveled and had had immediate family members serving in the armed forces in humanitarian and combat campaigns all over the world i would fall for your platitudes. But wait because i'm a young white female does that mean i grew up in the suburbs of the sweet peaceful America with a silver spoon in my mouth?


As for the U.S. being the country that just goes around and steals oil or whatever nonsense you were trying to spew out. Venezuela is one of the founding nations in OPEC, and somehow you get that Hugo Chavez is not the norm and certainly isn't a corporate owned leader. Somehow you think a nation that has controlling interests in OPEC trade is run by greedy blood thirsty tyrants? Read a book!!!! You're ignorant if you think the U.S. ever got a drop of oil from Iraq resulting from the war. I think we should have taken it all, but jeez man, do you know anything for yourself? Do you just listen to out dated sound bites and subscribe to Rose O'Donnell blog? That's the kind of absolutely baseless BS that makes me mad. It's OK to pick sides, it's OK to have different beliefs, It's OK to vote whoever your heart desires, but at least have to common decency to learn something.

As for Ryan I'm not going to agree with everything he voted for or against. It's funny to me that you check the voting record of VP candidate for the GOP, but probably failed to check the senate voting record of the Barack Obama before voting for him. Lots of fun stuff in that record. But then again, three pages later and i keep bring up more stuff to respond to what people have said and those points never get mentioned again.

Latinalover003 your post was lazy especially after i went through so much time responding to your last ones.

In closing when I replied to zach1978 key points above he moved on to Ryan's voting record instead of trying to go back to using the DOW to defend Obama's record. Which i think will be the battle for the next few months. Who know's maybe you guys are right. Obama may really be the savior.

And it is really discourages me from ever posting again when some one says:

Hugo Chavez is a great leader certainly better then us Americans, we are so greedy and bloodthirsty. Check your facts dude and stop hanging out with whoever fed you that garbage lol lol

Take care ya'll

[zach1978]

In closing when I replied to zach1978 key points above he moved on to Ryan's voting record instead of trying to go back to using the DOW to defend Obama's record.

I only responded with his voting record as this information has become front and center of many news sites this morning, and I thought it more appropriate given the thread topic.

But in reference to your previous statement / question.

Keep in mind the Dow is trading at 13k now and when was the last time it traded that high? May 2008

Yes, the DOW was actually trading as high as 14K in 2007 primarily due to a market speculation fueled by centralized debt obligation built on mortgage backed securities that were sold globally to unsuspecting buyers of subprime mortgages in the US. We all know what happened once the bottom dropped out. Many economists blame Alan Greenspan (Fed chairman under GWB) for this disaster by allowing investment bankers to "self-regulate" themselves with little to no oversight from the government.

Ok so if the entire 2009 congressional budget was signed off by GWB why do you point out that that things began to shape up three months after Obama takes office? Wouldn't that be Bush's success under the line of thought you're using?

No. The DOW began to shape up three months after Obama took office, the federal deficit however continued to grow (in efforts to clean up Bush's disaster). These are two completely different things.

Also keep in mind Obama maintained bush era tax cuts to keep from having to balance his own budget.

Uhh, I'm not sure where you get your dogma, BUT, the tax cuts were extended to middle class Americans under a plan drafted by Geithner and Lew to prevent an average increase of $2000 per year in taxes (in 2010) to working families. Tax cuts are a good thing, you should be happy about this.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by latinalover003

Paul Ryan is the bait and switch of Politicians.

Come on, you are going to have to do better than that considering you once liked Obama; the senator that voted present in the state legislature and did not accomplish anything in the US Senate. Looking at his campaign promises vs his policies after being elected Obama is the poster child of bait and switch.

[Guest061918]

He is a fast learner from Paul Ryan