feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Obama is sooooo bad!

(49 posts)

  1. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

  2. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    Yeah, that happens when unemployment insurance runs out.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 01:44 PM #
  3. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    LOL!

    200,000+ jobs????

    Keep digging....

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 01:47 PM #
  4. 8.3% even with fudged numbers.

    This is something to celebrate?

    It was never supposed to RISE to this level because the "stimulus" was supposed to prevent it from going so HIGH as 8%.

    Americans are indeed suckers if they will credit a president with meager improvements after he first wrecks the economy.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:01 PM #
  5. Thats nice...the numbers are going in the right direction...any reasonable person, LIB or CON will agree to that...

    but we have seen this before...upticks and down ticks in the numbers realtive to jobs, unemployment and the like over the last several years...but its consistency and large swings in the right directions that really count...

    Carry on !!! Going Forward now...

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:02 PM #
  6. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    I guess there better numbers than the previous pResident that lost MILLIONS of jobs on a grand scale.

    These numbers are good for America.

    I'm sorry UF&UB that your so UNAMerican and UNPatriotic.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:11 PM #
  7. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    The actual rate is still around 10% or higher.

    I predict the numbers will magically continue to improve right up until November.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:13 PM #
  8. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    And then slide into oblivion???? And if Rummy is elected President??? The Unemployment numbers go to 12%???

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:14 PM #
  9. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    The U6 rate is currently 15.1%

    That includes those who have run out of unemployment or are marginally working part time when they need full time.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:20 PM #
  10. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    So if Rummey were to take over and run America into the ground like Shithead did then UE would be hovering around 23% by 2016.....

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:24 PM #
  11. The best unemployment rate under Bush was 4.3% and the worst was 7.8%.

    What is the best and worst under Obama so far?

    And how much more red ink has he written than Bush in just three years?

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:24 PM #
  12. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    How many trillions did Bush and Co. PISS away in Iraq that will NEVER be paid back and my kids,kids,kids will be saddled with?

    Fucking outrageous and at the expense of the taxpayers of America.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:28 PM #
  13. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    The best unemployment rate under Bush was 4.3% and the worst was 7.8%.

    What is the best and worst under Obama so far?

    And how much more red ink has he written than Bush in just three years?

    I'll be like Deane and let YOU do my homework for me...

    YAWN!

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:30 PM #
  14. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,368

  15. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
    FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
    FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
    FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]

    Little known fact, the Obama stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq war!

    Wow!

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war

    Keep digging, NoTrix

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:41 PM #
  16. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    Did the Bush administration include everything?

    Hmmmmmmm

    His term isn't over yet....

    Didn't Iraq fail?

    NOtalent... Did you look at what Amus posted????

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:46 PM #
  17. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,080

    F&B: 8.3% even with fudged numbers.

    This is something to celebrate?

    It was never supposed to RISE to this level because the "stimulus" was supposed to prevent it from going so HIGH as 8%.

    It would be even higher without the Stimulus. Ask any economist worth his or her salt.

    Americans are indeed suckers if they will credit a president with meager improvements after he first wrecks the economy.

    Only the delusional believe the economy is worse today than when Obama took office. It has a long way to go still to recover, but it's light years better than on January 20, 2009.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:49 PM #
  18. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    Americans are indeed suckers if they will credit a president with meager improvements after he first wrecks the economy.

    But yet the CONers want to slam him for NO jobs and a crappy economy.

    HYPOCRITES!!!!!

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 02:53 PM #
  19. Trixter, why don't you get as tense over the $800 Billion Obama squandered on the failed stimulus package. I get a little more disappointed on the millions wasted on preserving a mouse nest in San Fransisco, the money wasted on failure after failure of the supposed green energy companies that are now bankrupt, and the like.

    You've simply got an erection over Bush and can't seem to get it to go down. That's not good for your health.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 03:07 PM #
  20. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,368

    "Failed Stimulus"

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 03:09 PM #
  21. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,080

    Republicans think a $300 Billion tax cut was "squandered" when Democrats pass it, but when Republicans pass tax cuts, they're "returning the people's money to them." Why the difference?

    Besides $300 Billion in tax cuts, the Stimulus also propped up state legislatures that had huge holes on their budgets in early 2009, at a time when the private sector was laying people off in droves. Imagine if all of those teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. would have also been laid off in 2009 at the same time. They would not only be on the unemployment rolls, they'd be spending less in the economy, forcing more businesses to lay off or go out of business. We saw this happen to a smaller degree in 2011 when the Stimulus ended and state legislatures started laying people off - and just look what happened to the economy last year. Fortunately, the private sector had largely righted itself by then.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 03:28 PM #
  22. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,368

    "Imagine if all of those teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. would have also been laid off in 2009 at the same time."

    In F&B's wet dreams!
    I'll bet he getting a little woody right now just thinking about it.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 03:50 PM #
  23. NoTalent: Little known fact, the Obama stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq war!

    That's right wing spin. For starters approximately 1/3 of the stimulus was for tax breaks and all of it was an investment in America. The money we spent on the Iraq war was completely wasted. Plus we've spent much more on the war than what is shown for what we paid for the operations. Like fixing the thousands of injuries suffered by out troops.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 04:23 PM #
  24. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    You don't think the pay that went to the hundreds of thousands of troops was stimulus? It paid for food and housing back home...

    As did the incomes of several hundred thousand defense related workers in the US making everything from rations to drones.

    The Iraq war could just as easily be considered stimulus by your own definition of what stimulus is. Ie government spending that goes into the economy.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:08 PM #
  25. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,080

    You're right, NT - the Iraq War has created lots of jobs, caring for disabled veterans, prosthetic limbs, etc. Plus, the suicide rate of Iraqi vets is still pretty high. I hear the casket business is booming. If not for these extra jobs, the unemployment numbers would be a lot higher.

    It's a good thing we didn't invest that Iraq money in building America's infrastructure or educating more kids or something wasteful like that. I hear some of those prosthetic limbs are better than the originals.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:17 PM #
  26. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,655

    *PLONK*

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:22 PM #
  27. Attempting to convince the general electorate that one: Obama “wrecked the economy”, two: things are getting worse rather than better, and three: Obama is a terrible, just awful, person of dubious patriotic worth, is solid political gold for his re-election campaign.

    Keep it up, dips. I’m completely serious. I’m greatly cheered by your irrational bleating. You’re helping re-elect President Obama.

    Amus, please keep right on posting those graphics. I never tire of watching all of the usual suspects desperately avoid having to address the reality it presents, so at odds with the blind ideology they rely upon in place of critical thought.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:30 PM #
  28. Seconded

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:30 PM #
  29. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    It took 8 to 10 years to spend on Iraq what Obama spent in one year on stimulus. The two are not comparable.

    Clearly there are negatives with the Iraq war but its incorrect to say that 100% of the money left the country and did not contribute to the economy.

    A majority of what was spent went to people who worked stateside or the families of the several hundred thousand who rotated through that hell hole and came back intact.

    However I do think aid to the actual country or Iraq in the form of the missing 2 billion dollars is a big waste, as is aid to Pakistan and Egypt right now. But none of this is economically comparable to what was spent in one year (2009) by Obama on shady deals with bankrupt solar companies, etc.

    If you are going to call half a billion dollars to Solyndra stimulus then I can call govenment spending that went to Boeing workers or ATC employees (who make bullets) stimulus.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:30 PM #
  30. Nuttery

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:33 PM #
  31. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    * Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

    * Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

    * Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

    * Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

    * Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

    * The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

    * During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:34 PM #
  32. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,717

    "It took 8 to 10 years to spend on Iraq what Obama spent in one year on stimulus. The two are not comparable."

    ORLY? How about the billions IN CASH that simply "disappeared?"

    Iraq Money Missing: $6.6 Billion Still Unaccounted For, U.S. Officials Say
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/iraq-money-missing-66-bil_n_876237.html

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:35 PM #
  33. Notalent, much of the employment during the Bush era was because of the ever expanding bubble that bust in 2008. The total number of jobs added in the 8 years of Bush was just over 1 million, IIRC.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:35 PM #
  34. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    The Huffpo, and duxrule, apparently not up to date:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/once-feared-lost-now-accounted-iraq-inspector-says-153935856.html

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:37 PM #
  35. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,080

    Notalent: It took 8 to 10 years to spend on Iraq what Obama spent in one year on stimulus.

    What are you talking about?

    $300 Billion of the Stimulus was TAX CUTS - it wasn't "spent" by Obama unless you think George Bush "spent" his tax cuts, too.

    What remained wasn't spent in one year anyway - some of that money has taken years to filter into the economy, the part that was spent on infrastructure projects. That was one of the biggest criticisms of the Stimulus: that it took too long to get all of the spending into the economy. The portion of the Stimulus that went to the states wasn't spent immediately, either.

    I do agree with you that the spending on the Iraq War had a stimulative effect in the United States. The point is, it was mostly *WASTED*. Paying soldiers to get killed in Iraq may have created jobs here, but it was a stupid investment compared to paying to keep teachers working in schools because the states with huge budget problems would have had to lay them off - or because the Stimulus spending built a new bridge project that will pay big dividends to the economy in years to come.

    Your problem is you think every penny of the Stimulus went to "make work" jobs as happened in the New Deal. That wasn't the case at all, as much as you seem to want it to be.. It's easy to cherrypick a few nutty obscure examples of wasteful spending in anything Congress approves, but those are are irrelevant exceptions.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 05:41 PM #
  36. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    The point is that the Iraq war is not the worst thing that ever happened to the deficit as NoTrix said.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 06:40 PM #
  37. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,080

    It's right up there with the worst things to happen to the deficit. As I've pointed out, the Iraq war created jobs but they were dead-end jobs. Paying people to build roads and bridges or paying them to teach your kids or keep your streets safe (because many states couldn't afford to do it in 2009) was a far wiser investment.

    It's like saying, the week Microsoft went public, was it wiser to borrow $1000 to buy Microsoft stock or to blow it on a trip to Vegas? Both add $1000 to your "deficit" - what's the difference?

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 06:56 PM #
  38. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    Solyndra created some dead end jobs too, however they apparently paid pretty well.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 11:07 PM #
  39. President Bush tried for 2 years to get the loan for Solyndra, it didn't get approved until Obama became president. In fact it was Bush who along with Republican Congress that created the loan program for alternative energy sources. In the end it was China that killed Solyndra when they dumped below cost items in our country. Conservatives love to make Solyndra a big deal, but the $500 million is just a tiny speck in the scheme of things. It was less than 1% of the total alternate loans by the Obama administration.

    Posted on February 3, 2012 - 11:29 PM #
  40. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,897

    re: LP's post. I was unaware of this. Good info.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 12:25 AM #
  41. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,717

    (Ahem)...It also looks like NoTalent doesn't read the stories that he posts.

    "...This is not to say that the mystery of all the billions and billions the U.S. spent in Iraq has been entirely resolved. The SIGIR report says that inspectors are still trying to piece together the fate of some of the few hundred million that U.S. officials stowed at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces."

    In others words, money pretty much just thrown into the wind.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 09:23 AM #
  42. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    The problem with solyndra is more a PR issue with them going broke right after taking the money.

    They weren't vetted properly when the money was given and then they tried to pay bonuses out of the stimulus money.

    The administration should have done better homework on this and many other of these projects.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 09:23 AM #
  43. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    Dux,

    Was it this part you didn't read?

    ""While the bulk of the money was transferred to the Central Bank of Iraq, $217 million remained in a vault in a former presidential palace and was held by the U.S. Defense Department and most was doled out for a variety of projects and payrolls, the report says," Keyes reported. A February 2008 SIGIR audit found that $24.45 million of the $217 million stored at the palace vault remained, and was later turned over to Iraq."

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 09:25 AM #
  44. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,717

    So, it was "transferred" to the Iraqi Bank. Do we have any clue what happened to it from there? I still say it's the same as throwing it into a wood chipper. I always find it interesting how people who have NO confidence in government in other areas have have complete and total assurance when the result is in their favor.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 10:07 AM #
  45. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,399

    You've already conceded away 6.57 billion of your original 6.6 billion claim.

    27 mill extra isn't going to bankrupt your great grandchildren in the big scheme of things.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 11:06 AM #
  46. Duxrule has a tendency to decide what outcome he perceives, then provides an argument that he believes leads to the outcome he has preconceived.

    It's impossible to have a discussion on that basis, because you just keep going in the same circles, only with different words.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 11:50 AM #
  47. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,829

    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 12:03 PM #
  48. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,717

    Yeah, never argue with an idiot. I don't know why I get sucked into this crap with you clowns, because you rarely, if ever, see the light. I'll admit that PERHAPS this $6.6 billion has been accounted for, but that doesn't mean many other billions of dollars hasn't been thrown down a rathole. For instance:

    U.S. Defense Department can't account for billions for Iraq, audit finds
    January 29, 2012|By Josh Levs, CNN

    Iraqis work on a construction project in Baghdad in October 2003.The U.S. Defense Department cannot account for about $2 billion it was given to cover Iraq-related expenses and is not providing Iraq with a complete list of U.S.-funded reconstruction projects, according to two new government audits.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-29/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-us-audit_1_iraq-reconstruction-audit-deals-special-inspector-general?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

    Posted on February 4, 2012 - 11:12 PM #
  49. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    Deane,

    You've simply got an erection over Obama and can't seem to get it to go down. That's not good for your health.

    I hate what he did to America and YOU and all YOUR CONers should feel the same GD way. Anything less is UNAmerican.

    Can you still get it up at your age????

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 01:22 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.