US presidential election

[NeoSupaMario]

So... Who is he?

 

[Gahars]

So... Who is he?

There's a website called Google...

 

[NeoSupaMario]

...

 

[NeoSupaMario]

If Obama gets re-elected, this will be me:

CK THIS

 

[ThatDudeWithTheFood]

If Romney gets elected,this will be me:

CK THIS

 

[NeoSupaMario]

So regardless of what you say Obama has not made the economy worse.... And if you're wondering he has done more than 'Obamacare' which actually a good thing

This is some pretty smelly

Have a look at the chart below.

There's no line going down. Only up. If Obamas the wonder president you say he is, give me reason to believe that the economy hasn't gotten worse and has gotten better. And don't give me shit about how he had to clean up "Bush's mess," cuz if he was fixing it that line would be going down.

 

[W.I.C.K.E.D.]

So regardless of what you say Obama has not made the economy worse.... And if you're wondering he has done more than 'Obamacare' which actually a good thing

This is some pretty smelly

Have a look at the chart below.

I will say that this chart doesn't accurately portray the entire picture though. Bush came into office under a surplus, where as Obama came into office with substantial debt, in a recession, and in time of war. Not to mention policies that Bush created increased the debt day by day from the first second Obama stepped foot into office. That's like me running the electric bill up insanely, then moving out, and fitting my roomate with the bill. Obama has increased the debt, but he has been in a position that not many can or would overcome. I'm not really a fan of politics or statistically arguing which president made it worse, but you have to logically look at the the whole picture and formulate your own opinions on the bullshit you find through media and the internet.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

Ok then. Here's another chart.

note how much Obamas put on in his first term. No telling how much he'll add in his second term (if he gets a second term)

 

[W.I.C.K.E.D.]

Yes, but like I said, he fell into a pair of pants with holes in the pockets. Our debt does gain interest, so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around, inevitably the debt does mathmatically have to increase. He does not create the budget, he does not solely decide it. The surge into afganistan played a major part in the debt occurred during his term as we were essentially more than doubling the amount of troops abroad.That is a lot of salaries that require imbursement. He was put into a hard position where it was either admit complete failure overseas and chalk up our losses, or take a risk and possibly get the original target that spurred the main cause of our accumulated debt. If your monthly income is...let's say, $1000 dollars. You hand me a credit card and I run up thousands of dollars in bills. Your monthly minimum payment then exceeds what you can afford to pay. The debt realistically can't be paid off or won't for a great deal of time. Now if by chance you accrue more debt in this time for whatever reason, of course it is going to seem like your budgeting skills are lacking moreso now than they were prior to you handing me that credit card (even though it was because of a situation I created for you).Bush made the debt substantial enough that it would be almost impossible to recover in a timely manner, and any debt added to that which was actually created during Obama's term by him is the reason I believe the numbers look like that. I could be wrong, but I believe it makes sense.

 

[Lacius]

NeoSupaMario, you have obviously made up your mind about Obama and the debt, regardless of the facts. Yes, the debt has gone up while Obama has been President. This is because we have a deficit. However, many of the Bush policies that were never paid for are still in effect, and they contribute the most to our growing debt.

Many conservatives often call foul when I bring this up, often times saying that they've had enough of liberals blaming Bush, but facts are facts. See below:

As you can see, the debt is going up under Obama; you are right about that. But it is not his policies doing it. See that sliver of light blue? That's the effect Obama policies have had on the debt, and it was mostly economic recovery. And here are some specific numbers for you:

Obama contributions to the current debt: ~1.4 trillion:
~800 billion from the Recovery Act.
~250 billion from the December 2010 middle class tax cut deal.
~400 billion from the HIRE Act, small business help, etc.

The Bush tax cuts contributed ~3 trillion to the current debt alone, and that's obviously going to keep going up if the Bush tax cuts continue. Republicans have the tendency to increase spending and cut taxes to the rich without paying for any of it. Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, would cut taxes to the very rich without paying for it, increasing the debt ~3 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the debt is an important issue of yours, Obama is the only viable candidate.

 

[Hanafuda]

Yes, but like I said, he fell into a pair of pants with holes in the pockets. Our debt does gain interest, so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around, inevitably the debt does mathmatically have to increase. He does not create the budget, he does not solely decide it. The surge into afganistan played a major part in the debt occurred during his term as we were essentially more than doubling the amount of troops abroad.That is a lot of salaries that require imbursement. He was put into a hard position where it was either admit complete failure overseas and chalk up our losses, or take a risk and possibly get the original target that spurred the main cause of our accumulated debt. If your monthly income is...let's say, $1000 dollars. You hand me a credit card and I run up thousands of dollars in bills. Your monthly minimum payment then exceeds what you can afford to pay. The debt realistically can't be paid off or won't for a great deal of time. Now if by chance you accrue more debt in this time for whatever reason, of course it is going to seem like your budgeting skills are lacking moreso now than they were prior to you handing me that credit card (even though it was because of a situation I created for you).Bush made the debt substantial enough that it would be almost impossible to recover in a timely manner, and any debt added to that which was actually created during Obama's term by him is the reason I believe the numbers look like that. I could be wrong, but I believe it makes sense.

If that were true, then Clinton's numbers would be shit too. But they're not. Things got turned around when he was President, and especially during his second term (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress IIRC, so welfare reform got pushed through among other things. Those were the Gingrich years as Speaker of the House.).

As for the surge in Afghanistan, that belongs to Obama. He campaigned on it, arguing that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war and we weren't doing enough there. Bush didn't make him do it, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for his first two years and they hypocritically went in for it too after wringing their hands over Bush's military spending. Three years of escalation and a trillion down the hole, I don't see where we've accomplished anythingin Afghanistan. If anything, it's worse now. Obama should've gotten us out of Afghanistan from day one, not to mention keeping his promise to close Gitmo.

And FWIW I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Democrat who also believes in fiscal responsibility and keeping the USA from sinking into default. Bush didn't do a good job, but Obama and the Congress we have now are only making it worse.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around,

He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like

 

[Hanafuda]

Lacius,

the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.


edit: and what's more, the cuts continue to this day because the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget (despite being Constitutionally mandated to do so) for over three years, so the status quo spending just carries on.

 

[omgpwn666]

Mitt Romney, he's my boiiiiii!

 

[NeoSupaMario]

Bush didn't do a good job, but Obama and the Congress we have now are only making it worse.

FINALLY someone gets it!

---

 

[W.I.C.K.E.D.]

so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around,

He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like

You are right. He did. Easier said than done in most cases though.
@ Hanafuda. I highly doubt desert storm cost anything near what the current has, and I don't believe Bush seniors created debt was anywhere near what his sons was. So the current hurdle has probably been harder to overcome than it was for Clinton.

 

[Hanafuda]

so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around,

He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like

You are right. He did. Easier said than done in most cases though.
@ Hanafuda. I highly doubt desert storm cost anything near what the current has, and I don't believe Bush seniors created debt was anywhere near what his sons was. So the current hurdle has probably been harder to overcome than it was for Clinton.

it doesn't matter. under Reagan and Bush 1, the debt increased substantially. Not as much as under Bush 2, but it still increased. And yet during the Clinton years we ran a NEGATIVE balance (i.e. we made progress against the debt). This proves that proper policies can pull things in the right direction. I don't care how much "Bush baggage" you want to use as your scapegoat, you can't justify an increase of 24% of total debt (that's all debt accrued by the USA from 1776 to 2009) in only two years and a half years, i.e from 2009 - June 2011 when that graph was made. Since almost another year has gone by the number is probably over 30% now, and we're still in Obama's first term.

edit: also, like I said above, where's the effort to do anything to turn things around anyway??? The Senate has kicked the can down the road for three years without passing a budget, allowing those "Bush" tax cuts to continue, doing absolutely nothing to either increase revenue or cut spending. They're spiraling us into the black hole and will neither hit the brake nor take their foot off the gas. So if you want me to agree Bush is even partly to blame for the additional 1/3 in total debt this country has added to its total accumulated debt over just the last 3 years (versus the 203 years that came before), then you'd have to show me they'd actually been trying to turn it around. But they ain't doin' shit ... too worried somebody might get pissed when the free money stops coming in the mail and might not vote democrat next time.

 

[Lacius]

If that were true, then Clinton's numbers would be shit too. But they're not. Things got turned around when he was President, and especially during his second term (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress IIRC, so welfare reform got pushed through among other things. Those were the Gingrich years as Speaker of the House.).

Clinton's tax increases on upper-income taxpayers in his first year were the primary contributors to the surplus. The Republicans were against it. That's not to say other things didn't happen in his second term, but the surplus had nothing to do with the Republicans.

As for the surge in Afghanistan, that belongs to Obama. He campaigned on it, arguing that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war and we weren't doing enough there. Bush didn't make him do it, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for his first two years and they hypocritically went in for it too after wringing their hands over Bush's military spending. Three years of escalation and a trillion down the hole, I don't see where we've accomplished anythingin Afghanistan. If anything, it's worse now. Obama should've gotten us out of Afghanistan from day one, not to mention keeping his promise to close Gitmo.

I mostly agree with you on this one, especially with Gitmo since he campaigned on that. However, Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, although a little disappointing, is better than the likely Republican alternative.

He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like *snip*

Obama did turn the economy around. Look it up.

the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.

Technically, no. The Republicans refused to extend unemployment unless the Bush tax cuts were also extended. Because unemployment is one, if not the best kind of economic stimulus, Obama felt it was more important to stimulate the economy and allow the tax cuts to be extended than allow the tax cuts to expire and risk a double-dip recession. I'm obviously torn on this decision, just as Obama obviously was. If the Republicans had not held the unemployed hostage (they've been holding a lot of things hostage in the past couple of years, huh?), then the Bush tax cuts would be gone. The Democrats hate them, and rightfully so. The Democrats tried passing an extension on the Bush tax cuts for people making under $250,000 a year, but the Republicans voted no and killed it. They only cared about the tax cuts for the rich, or no tax cuts for the middle class and no unemployment.

 

[smile72]

Lacius,

the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.


edit: and what's more, the cuts continue to this day because the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget (despite being Constitutionally mandated to do so) for over three years, so the status quo spending just carries on.

There's the big lie that everyone tells, you forget the Blue Dog Democrats, who are technically Republicans. They still don't have 60 which would allow a filibuster proof Senate.You sound like a Republican to me.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like *snip*

Obama did turn the economy around. Look it up.

Oh he turned it around alright. Just in the wrong direction.