Obama Dssed By Cambodia PM

As to the "debt disaster" (hyperbole of course but ......), $12 trillion is directly attributable to the Republican Presidents of the last 30 years. http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I notice you left out Carter.

Under Reagan, the economy grew, the government shrunk, and America had a sense of optimism that simply was not there under Carter. Bush I successfully prosecuted a war that enjoyed broad, worldwide support. Clinton massively reformed welfare. Kennedy - is there a more famous line, from a more famous inaugural address, ...[text shortened]... to be President could beat arguably the most honorable member of either Congressional chamber.

Yes, you're right. I forgot about Mr. peanut farmer.

But how can you blame Obama on what has gone before???

He's the new broom trying to sweep up the mess left behind
by stetson wearing cowboy hillbilly "W" Bush. Probably the worst US
President I will have ever seen in my lifetime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Racist". 🙄🙄

Psychosis. And probably projection.

Your "analysis" is hypocritical; you lambaste Obama for "A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined" yet praise Reagan when the EXACT SAME STATEMENT is applicable to him!

It was a much smaller number then, Reagan had a broad mandate and a booming economy, he was not facing the imminent retirement of the largest generation in American history (and the corresponding massive entitlement outlays), and he bought the destruction of the Soviet Union with it.

What's Obama bought? A stimulus that cost$9 million per job created, a health care law that takes money out of the pockets of the middle class and fines them if they do not buy health insurance, institutionalized government dependence, and the derision of half the country.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It was a much smaller number then, Reagan had a broad mandate and a booming economy, he was not facing the imminent retirement of the largest generation in American history (and the corresponding massive entitlement outlays), and he bought the destruction of the Soviet Union with it.

What's Obama bought? A stimulus that cost$9 million per job crea ...[text shortened]... ealth insurance, institutionalized government dependence, and the derision of half the country.

The soviet union was already imploding.
It did not need help to do so from Reagan or anyone else.

Reagan knew this himself when he made that landmark speech about the Berlin wall
in 1989 when he challenged the Russian leader,

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It was a much smaller number then, Reagan had a broad mandate and a booming economy, he was not facing the imminent retirement of the largest generation in American history (and the corresponding massive entitlement outlays), and he bought the destruction of the Soviet Union with it.

What's Obama bought? A stimulus that cost$9 million per job crea ...[text shortened]... ealth insurance, institutionalized government dependence, and the derision of half the country.

Without some stimulus (Obama's was certainly not of the size and type necessary but it was something), we'd be talking bout the Great Depression #2, not the recovery. The health care law will benefit the economy and tens of millions of working Americans. "Institutionalized government dependence" is just some right wing buzzword that you memorized having no relation to reality. Obama has won a majority of the votes two elections in a row; that malcontents like you hate him is your problem - get professional psychiatric help.

The first paragraph about Reagan is so preposterous I don't know what to say. Every bit of it is untrue (Reagan in 1980 got a lower percentage of the vote than Obama in 2008 just as an example).

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Yes, you're right. I forgot about Mr. peanut farmer.

But how can you blame Obama on what has gone before???

He's the new broom trying to sweep up the mess left behind
by stetson wearing cowboy hillbilly "W" Bush. Probably the worst US
President I will have ever seen in my lifetime.

Mmm, don't get to blame Bush anymore...Obama's been in four years , and did nothing when he had both houses of Congress. If Obama were serious about cleaning up a mess, he would have set the economy straight and instituted job-creating policies, not job-killing ones.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Mmm, don't get to blame Bush anymore...Obama's been in four years , and did nothing when he had both houses of Congress. If Obama were serious about cleaning up a mess, he would have set the economy straight and instituted job-creating policies, not job-killing ones.

Over 5 million jobs have been created in the last two years, a fact you have to ignore.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Over 5 million jobs have been created in the last two years, a fact you have to ignore.

Not when he needed to (and could have) created the fourteen million he needed to.

Reagan's "booming economy" produced no more improvement in unemployment during his first term than Obama did:

But look at the numbers from the U.S. Department of Labor. During Reagan's first full month in office, February 1981, the unemployment rate stood at 7.4 percent. It then rose steadily and peaked at 10.8 percent in November 1982, before falling to 7.5 percent in August 1984, as he campaigned for re-election. (Jarrett's mention of "five percent" was in reference to unemployment at the very end of Reagan's second term.)

Obama? During his first full month in office, February 2009, unemployment stood at 8.3 percent, it peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, and currently stands at 8.1 percent.

Note that unemployment right now is nearly identical to when Obama began his first term. And at this point in his presidency, the unemployment rate under Reagan was nearly identical to when he began his first term. So why is Fox pretending Reagan slayed unemployment in his first term when his record is nearly identical to Obama's?

In fact, left unmentioned on Fox yesterday was the fact that in the months prior to Reagan's first term, unemployment in America had been decreasing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the truth is, Obama's track record looks a lot like Reagan's, and in some ways, given the immediate jobs crisis Obama had to deal with, it's more impressive.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/10/fox-keeps-pushing-reagan-myth-making-about-unem/189814

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Not when he needed to (and could have) created the fourteen million he needed to.

Please point me to any period in US history where 14 million jobs were created in two years.

You really are delusional. Even Mitt didn't claim he could do such a thing.

EDIT: I'll bite though. Please give me your economic program that can create 14 million jobs in two years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This passage offers some hope for even people like you who have been so embittered by the rejection of your beliefs by the majority that you have become unhinged:

We’ve tasted the bitterness of civil war and segregation, but our history shows us that hatred in the human heart can recede; that the lines between races and tribes fade away. And what’s l ...[text shortened]... ur union stronger. It has made our country stronger. It’s part of what has made America great.

That a tiny majority may have supported Obama and his ideas, is no reason for the rest of us who disagree to roll over and accept those ideas. We believed them wrong, and still do. He is a naive and ineffective leader, and that doesn't change due to a thin electoral victory. We can only hope he does less damage to our republic in his second term than he did in his first.

When George W. Bush won reelection, you didn't automatically fall in line and support his ideas. The majority is no more likely to be right than the smallest minority.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As to the "debt disaster" (hyperbole of course but ......), $12 trillion is directly attributable to the Republican Presidents of the last 30 years. http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

12 trillion accepting your figures, is over five terms. Obama managed to increase the debt half of that amount in a mere four years. If the Republican record is preposterously bad, Obama's is indescribable.

Originally posted by normbenign
That a tiny majority may have supported Obama and his ideas, is no reason for the rest of us who disagree to roll over and accept those ideas. We believed them wrong, and still do. He is a naive and ineffective leader, and that doesn't change due to a thin electoral victory. We can only hope he does less damage to our republic in his second term than h ...[text shortened]... and support his ideas. The majority is no more likely to be right than the smallest minority.

No one said that the minority have to change their ideas just because of an election. But it would be nice if Sas would stop lying so hysterically as he does in the OP. It is no surprise that the majority of Americans have rejected this strategy of unadulterated hatred directed against the President esp. when so much of it is based on deliberate falsehoods and misinformation.

Originally posted by normbenign
12 trillion accepting your figures, is over five terms. Obama managed to increase the debt half of that amount in a mere four years. If the Republican record is preposterously bad, Obama's is indescribable.

The policies of those Republican Presidents are still in place unfortunately. Their deficits contribute to high interest payments. Their tax cuts have reduced the share of tax revenue as share of GNP to 1950 levels. Their foreign policy makes it so the US has to spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

Obama can be faulted for not doing more to reverse this disastrous policies, true. But it is hypocritical for those who support said policies to criticize Obama for the consequences of acquiescing to the continuation of policies they fervently believe in.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please point me to any period in US history where 14 million jobs were created in two years.

You really are delusional. Even Mitt didn't claim he could do such a thing.

EDIT: I'll bite though. Please give me your economic program that can create 14 million jobs in two years.

The notion of US Presidents creating jobs is pure loony tunes, regardless of the party in power. The best a President in partnership with Congress can do is create a favorable environment for business to create jobs.

The exception to this is government expansion, for example when new bureaucracies are created like department of Homeland Security, or tens of thousands of private sector employees are made Federal like the TSA.

The biggest problem I can see with Obama's notions of job creation is that it has been crony capitalism, and giveaways of taxpayer money to fund Solindralike enterprises, or force established players like GM to do things they otherwise might have not done, or delayed doing, like the introduction of the Volt into full production. Billions of both private and public money have gone down black holes, and provided only temporary jobs, as the green job companies failed.