Originally posted by Sleepyguy
He couldn't be worse.

Oh yes he could! And will.

Originally posted by sh76
Yup, if Obama is lucky, he may just have waited long enough for the economy to rebound.

If he's unlucky, the pending European debt mess will drag us down along with it and the President may have to re-apply for a job as a Chicago community organizer.

Well, the Republicans can still sink it with the payroll tax. Take heart!

Originally posted by sh76
It always has something to do with the President, although the President's role is admittedly overrated. For example, I give President Clinton great credit for the economy in the mid to late 1990s. The Obama administration's policies have had mixed results, at best and we have been stuck in a sluggish economy with poor unemployment numbers for more time than th ...[text shortened]... and experience to manage the US economy and I think the proof of that is in the results.

If he was pragmatic, he might have done all the same things, only without intense Republican opposition whittling the proposals down. But if the Republicans were intent on destroying the economy to bring Romney down as they have been with Obama, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Originally posted by Eladar
If Republicans want liberal activist judges appointed, then Mitt is your man!

I there is anyone who can get Barak Obama reelected its the GOP.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, the Republicans can still sink it with the payroll tax. Take heart!

Sink it with the payroll tax??

Give me a break.

There is a program: social security. Correct?

The program was initiated by democrats and though it has bipartisan support, it has always been more favored by Democrats. Correct?

It has to be funded somehow. Correct?

It is funded by the payroll tax. Correct?


Yeah. I thought so.

At a time that social security is underfunded in any case, these long payroll tax holidays are irresponsible. Now there may be better solutions to funding social security, but that's on the table is funding it vs. not funding it. The Dems' position is completely irresponsible. Out of one side of their mouth, they scream about how we can never decrease its benefits and from the other side they yell about how the mean 'ol GOP is going to force you to fund it.

It's just another bizarre political ploy that wouldn't have a chance of working if most people weren't politically illiterate stooges who aren't really paying attention.

Originally posted by sh76
Sink it with the payroll tax??

Give me a break.

There is a program: social security. Correct?

The program was initiated by democrats and though it has bipartisan support, it has always been more favored by Democrats. Correct?

It has to be funded somehow. Correct?

It is funded by the payroll tax. Correct?


Yeah. I thought so.

At a time that ...[text shortened]... if most people weren't politically illiterate stooges who aren't really paying attention.

By law Social Security will be funded regardless. It's basically a way to target tax cuts toward the low and middle income the rich pay a considerably less portion of their income to payroll taxes.