Heres the way I see it

[olevetonahill]

When Slick willie left office the National debt was 6 Tril, Up next was GWB the debt went up 4 Tril to a tad over 10 in 8 years under GW
In less than 4 Under Obammy its climbed another 6 Tril

Nuff ****in said

[Sooner_Bob]

But . . . but it is helping the economy.

Think of the economy.

[SoonerNomad]

What's a couple of trillion between friends?

[olevetonahill]

What's a couple of trillion between friends?

Well accordin to my Math Obammy owes us 11 Trillion

He said he would cut the deficit by 1/2 in his 1st term. so thats 5 trillion , instead he ran it up another 6,so Total of 11 trillion that ****er owes us

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually, When Bill left it was just over 5 Trillion. When GWB left, it was just over 9 trillion. With 3.5 years of Obama, it has climbed to over 16 trillion.

So the math:

Bill left with 5 Trillion

GWB leaves (after 8 years and two wars) with 9 Trillion: 9 trillion - 5 trillion = 4 trillion
Obama's (first 3.5 years and shutting down two wars) grows to 16 trillion: 16 trillion - 9 trillion = 7 trillion in growth.

[marfacowboy]

That's a highly reductive way of looking at things, especially when you consider that with one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. Since 1776, there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt.
Obama came to office in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. One of the reasons we haven't improved more than we have is he probably hasn't spent enough. Compare (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html) Obama to Reagan for a really interesting eye-opener.

[badger]

Don't let the dollar figures shock you - consider that we made the Louisiana Purchase (not just Louisiana, but tons more) for about $15 million.

If only we could sell Louisiana (just that state, especially Lester and LSU's Geaux Tigers) back to the French. Napoleon! Take your cajun rednecks back, please! :mad:

[OU_Sooners75]

That's a highly reductive way of looking at things, especially when you consider that with one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. Since 1776, there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt.
Obama came to office in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. One of the reasons we haven't improved more than we have is he probably hasn't spent enough. Compare (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html) Obama to Reagan for a really interesting eye-opener.

So Obama gets a pass while you liberal pieces of **** give Bush a hard time for being dealt with a dot com bubble burst, and then a terrorist attack that led to war in his first 9 months?

Give me a ****ing break. Every president in history resided, or resides, over some period of time that shows instability. It is how the president leads that ultimately defines his presidency.

And well, Obama has handled what was handed to him pretty **** poorly!

In fact, the only damn thing he passed as a leader (and without executive order) was his health care plan. And he did that with a filibuster proof Senate and a big majority in the House. Why couldnt he get more of his agenda passed with a big time majority? Probably because there were quite a few in his own party that didn't/don't agree with his socialist views!

[marfacowboy]

So Obama gets a pass while you liberal pieces of **** give Bush a hard time for being dealt with a dot com bubble burst, and then a terrorist attack that led to war in his first 9 months?

Why even have a conversation with someone that calls people "liberal pieces of ****?" I mean, what's that point? You think liberals are pieces of ****, so you're surely not interested in having a worthwhile discussion. You've made a character judgement about half or more of the country.

Socialist views? Are you using your Faux News talking points wallet insert?

[okie52]

Why even have a conversation with someone that calls people "liberal pieces of ****?" I mean, what's that point? You think liberals are pieces of ****, so you're surely not interested in having a worthwhile discussion. You've made a character judgement about half or more of the country.

Socialist views? Are you using your Faux News talking points wallet insert?

LOL.

Well, it got your attention anyway.

One technical point is that only 20% of the population identify themselves as liberals while 40% identify themselves as conservatives.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why even have a conversation with someone that calls people "liberal pieces of ****?" I mean, what's that point? You think liberals are pieces of ****, so you're surely not interested in having a worthwhile discussion. You've made a character judgement about half or more of the country.

Socialist views? Are you using your Faux News talking points wallet insert?

I am assuming you do not know what socialism is?

Socialism is where the government helps the people by making them dependent on things, like Obamacare...that is a social program.....food stamps...that is a social program....Medicare...that is a social program....Social Security....that is a social program.

Should I keep going?

He has an agenda to make more and more people dependent on the government for survival...and he doesn't hide it. Hence his socialist views.

And yeah, you can have a conversation with someone that said what I did. I am tired of the stupid *** liberal left trying to think their views are the right way. I am also tired of the conservative right thinking the same damn way.

deal with it you liberal leftist jackwagon!

[OU_Sooners75]

BTW, marfa, before you go crying to the refs (i.e. Moderators) it wasn't directly directed at you. Just all liberal pieces of ****! If you fit the mold, then I guess you got called it indirectly!

[OU_Sooners75]

Ahhhh...I got Midtowners panties in a bunch!


LMFAO at anyone that takes this **** seriously!


conservative piece of **** by Midtowner

[Midtowner]

So Obama gets a pass while you liberal pieces of **** give Bush a hard time for being dealt with a dot com bubble burst, and then a terrorist attack that led to war in his first 9 months?

Wow.. right on the same level with Icky. Well done.

I don't think anyone ever blamed GWB for 9/11. If they did, how silly. Now, invading Iraq and Afghanistan to engage in trillion dollar nationbuilding? He owns that. Also, failure to act on the housing bubble despite being warned? That's also on him and his predecessor. Ron Paul certainly wouldn't have made that mistake.


Give me a ****ing break. Every president in history resided, or resides, over some period of time that shows instability. It is how the president leads that ultimately defines his presidency.

And well, Obama has handled what was handed to him pretty **** poorly!

Only for simpletons who view a presidency in a vacuum. The first two years of any administration are basically spent dealing with the policies of the former administration. Obama could not have possibly abandoned the bailouts or TARP as to do so would have had catastrophic short and long term implications--much worse than if Bush hadn't done them in the first place.


In fact, the only damn thing he passed as a leader (and without executive order) was his health care plan. And he did that with a filibuster proof Senate and a big majority in the House. Why couldnt he get more of his agenda passed with a big time majority? Probably because there were quite a few in his own party that didn't/don't agree with his socialist views!

Because of blue dog Democrats who were afraid of being challenged by right wing Republicans. Their electoral calculus has mostly been proven dead-on.

[Midtowner]

75's panties must really be in a bunch...


Really? at least I am a piece of **** and not a ****ing crybaby liberal like you are ***. BTW...registered democrat for 18 years until June of 2012!

^Also, kind of proves my point about bluedogs.

[OU_Sooners75]

Doesn't prove anything sister.

My point is valid though. You liberals are so swept up in your views that it isn't good for anyone but you.

[Midtowner]

Doesn't prove anything sister.

My point is valid though. You liberals are so swept up in your views that it isn't good for anyone but you.

Speak for yourself. Not being able to raise taxes under ANY circumstances, continuing to fight pointless wars, being totally against even discussing healthcare reform. Defunding education at the local level (over 20% over the last few years in Oklahoma). These are good alternatives?

[TitoMorelli]

LOL.

Well, it got your attention anyway.

One technical point is that only 20% of the population identify themselves as liberals while 40% identify themselves as conservatives.

Since you brought it up, okie... :pride:

One thing I don't understand is why so many bluer-than-the-ocean posters are afraid to admit that they are libs. I guess it really is a bad label. Instead we have all these "moderates" who, amazingly enough, seem never to make posts supporting any conservative views or criticizing the Democrap-tastic leadership.

Even nationwide ( and as you mentioned) I see the same thing. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 35% moderate, and a paltry 21% as liberal. If that were true then Obama would be trailing by double-digits, given this administration's track record.

I'll say this for the poll. It certainly shows which side is more honest.

C'mon, you libs. Take a deep breath, come out of your little closets, and just admit it. You'll feel so much better for it.

[okie52]

Since you brought it up, okie... :pride:

One thing I don't understand is why so many bluer-than-the-ocean posters are afraid to admit that they are libs. I guess it really is a bad label. Instead we have all these "moderates" who, amazingly enough, seem never to make posts supporting any conservative views or criticizing the Democrap-tastic leadership.

Even nationwide ( and as you mentioned) I see the same thing. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 35% moderate, and a paltry 21% as liberal. If that were true then Obama would be trailing by double-digits, given this administration's track record.

I'll say this for the poll. It certainly shows which side is more honest.

C'mon, you libs. Take a deep breath, come out of your little closets, and just admit it. You'll feel so much better for it.

A lot of people obviously misidentify themselves. I don't really know where I am because most social issues I could give a **** about one way or the other. It usually won't be a factor in how I vote. Now fiscal issues do matter to me so I usually go conservative on those but not always. And since energy is one of my top priorities I usually go repub.

I see some on here that many think they are moderates...their not even close. Of course it does matter where you think the center is. Diver Dog lives in Delaware and up there they think Obama is right of center. They think Okies are bat**** crazy on politics. 5-0 lives in a place that is closer to Mars than the US and seems to vote that way. There are Jill Stein supporters on here for God sakes but I can't imagine even they think they are moderates.

[Ton Loc]

A lot of people obviously misidentify themselves. I don't really know where I am because most social issues I could give a **** about one way or the other. It usually won't be a factor in how I vote. Now fiscal issues do matter to me so I usually go conservative on those but not always. And since energy is one of my top priorities I usually go repub.

I see some on here that many think they are moderates...their not even close. Of course it does matter where you think the center is. Diver Dog lives in Delaware and up there they think Obama is right of center. They think Okies are bat**** crazy on politics. 5-0 lives in a place that is closer to Mars than the US and seems to vote that way. There are Jill Stein supporters on here for God sakes but I can't imagine even they think they are moderates.

People who can completely identify with and/or label themselves with any party or social stance sorta freak me out. I'd be labeled liberal in social issues and conservative in economics. I always imagined people having their takes on each issue, not picking a team in politics and defending them on all topics. Hell, its politics, not Sooner football.

Also, debt sucks...

[diverdog]

[QUOTE=OU_Sooners75;3507084]I am assuming you do not know what socialism is?

Socialism is where the government helps the people by making them dependent on things, like Obamacare...that is a social program.....food stamps...that is a social program....Medicare...that is a social program....Social Security....that is a social program.

Should I keep going?

He has an agenda to make more and more people dependent on the government for survival...and he doesn't hide it. Hence his socialist views.

And yeah, you can have a conversation with someone that said what I did. I am tired of the stupid *** liberal left trying to think their views are the right way. I am also tired of the conservative right thinking the same damn way.

deal with it you liberal leftist


You really do not understand what is driving the deficits. Until you do you should shut the f*** up.

[Sooner Eclipse]

Socialist views? Are you using your Faux News talking points wallet insert?

You wouldn't recognize a socialist if he was about to nationalize your health care... oh wait, he is. Obamacare is the first step towards a single payer system which is exactly what Obama was on videotape admitting is his ultimate goal. Govt owned car company. He says that worked so well he wants to do the same for other industries. Nah, he's not a socialist. He's just somewhere between a Fascist and a Socialist. Give him 4 more and he might go straight Commie on us.

[AlboSooner]

Socialism has been in America since the colonies formed a militia. The trick is for socialism not to inhibit capitalism, and for capitalism not to devour itself.

[Ton Loc]

You wouldn't recognize a socialist if he was about to nationalize your health care... oh wait, he is. Obamacare is the first step towards a single payer system which is exactly what Obama was on videotape admitting is his ultimate goal. Govt owned car company. He says that worked so well he wants to do the same for other industries. Nah, he's not a socialist. He's just somewhere between a Fascist and a Socialist. Give him 4 more and he might go straight Commie on us.

Heh, please. He's got more in common with Romney than anything you mentioned in your crazy person rant.

[diverdog]

You wouldn't recognize a socialist if he was about to nationalize your health care... oh wait, he is. Obamacare is the first step towards a single payer system which is exactly what Obama was on videotape admitting is his ultimate goal. Govt owned car company. He says that worked so well he wants to do the same for other industries. Nah, he's not a socialist. He's just somewhere between a Fascist and a Socialist. Give him 4 more and he might go straight Commie on us.

I guess you just overlook the fact that Bush gave GM and Chrystler money, essentially nationalized the banks and Obamacare was a plan first invisioned by the Republicans. Facts really don't matter to you guys.

[Sooner Eclipse]

I don't think anyone ever blamed GWB for 9/11. If they did, how silly.

Really, can you give me your defination of a 9/11 truther? Michael Moore anyone? Who's booth was that moron sitting in for the 08 commiefest in Denver.


Now, invading Iraq and Afghanistan to engage in trillion dollar nationbuilding? Your right he never should have gone into that by executive order and invoking the war powers act. Oh wait, he didn't. He and Congress agreed to it and Congress voted to authorize it. That's so unconstitutional compared to say, butt ****ing our already feckless immigration policy by exec order.


Also, failure to act on the housing bubble despite being warned? That's also on him and his predecessor. Bush went to the House and Senate no less than 5 times begging them to send him something to curtail the Homes 4 Homeless lending program that was put in place by Carter and massively expanded by Clinton.



Only for simpletons who view a presidency in a vacuum. The first two years of any administration are basically spent dealing with the policies of the former administration. Obama could not have possibly abandoned the bailouts or TARP as to do so would have had catastrophic short and long term implications--much worse than if Bush hadn't done them in the first place.
Most true conservatives would agree with you that Bush should have allowed the recession to run its course. The decline would have been deeper but the rebound would have been much much stronger and we would be in a much better position by now. But president dumbass not only continued the asinine stupidity, he doubled down and then bet the countries house on both piles of crap. We'd be out of this if neither had done what they did.


Because of blue dog Democrats who were afraid of being challenged by right wing Republicans. Their electoral calculus has mostly been proven dead-on. No, they understand that despite his soaring rhetoric, he is what his actions make him, a socialist. Blue dogs aren't socialists, their party has just been co-opted by them.

[Sooner Eclipse]

I guess you just overlook the fact that Bush gave GM and Chrystler money Bush gave them a loan, he shouldn't have. It didn't work and both should have gone through bankruptcy. Again Owebama doubled down on stupidity and ****ed the creditors and investors and divided the ownership between union thugs and left the country holding the bag to the tune of an immediate drop in share price of 80% that will never recover because GM will be bankrupt again in 10 years. He put union inmates in charge of the prison. The smaller, leaner companies that would have spawned from the bankruptcies would have far exceeded job growth and wealth expansion to many smaller business owners. But O couldn't have that. He needed to pay of his union thugs.


Obamacare was a plan first invisioned by the Republicans. Facts really don't matter to you guys.
And they were smart enough to not actually propose it. Besides, Obama's version is far more overreaching and dangerous. Owebama spent the time he should have been fixing the economy on buying votes for the biggest fraud ever hoisted on the American public. You wouldn't know a fact if it fell out your ***.

[diverdog]

Bush gave them a loan, he shouldn't have. It didn't work and both should have gone through bankruptcy. Again Owebama doubled down on stupidity and ****ed the creditors and investors and divided the ownership between union thugs and left the country holding the bag to the tune of an immediate drop in share price of 80% that will never recover because GM will be bankrupt again in 10 years. He put union inmates in charge of the prison. The smaller, leaner companies that would have spawned from the bankruptcies would have far exceeded job growth and wealth expansion to many smaller business owners. But O couldn't have that. He needed to pay of his union thugs.


And they were smart enough to not actually propose it. Besides, Obama's version is far more overreaching and dangerous. Owebama spent the time he should have been fixing the economy on buying votes for the biggest fraud ever hoisted on the American public. You wouldn't know a fact if it fell out your ***.

What smaller, leaner companies? No one was going to put capital into that business. And what do you think would have happened to the stocks and bonds had GM declared bankruptcy?


Dole introduced his bill in 1994 and Romney passes his.

[marfacowboy]

I am assuming you do not know what socialism is?

Socialism is where the government helps the people by making them dependent on things, like Obamacare...that is a social program.....food stamps...that is a social program....Medicare...that is a social program....Social Security....that is a social program.

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand socialism. Socialism exists when the means of production are owned by the workers. A banking or electrical cooperative are socialist interprises. Government owned entities can be considered socialist, but social programs like welfare are not socialist. A medical office where all of the doctors and employees were owners with voting rights would be considered socialist.
There are problems with socialism, but you haven't identified a single one.




He has an agenda to make more and more people dependent on the government for survival...and he doesn't hide it. Hence his socialist views.

Please produce a single quote from anyone in the White House or in Obama's cabinet where they've stated their goal is to make people dependent on the government. Why would he want that?

[Midtowner]

Really, can you give me your defination of a 9/11 truther? Michael Moore anyone? Who's booth was that moron sitting in for the 08 commiefest in Denver.

Oh c'mon.. Michael Moore is what you have? When I said "no one," I'll be happy away to back away from the superlative. Let's just say no one of consequence. That's crazy talk, always has been.


Your right he never should have gone into that by executive order and invoking the war powers act. Oh wait, he didn't. He and Congress agreed to it and Congress voted to authorize it. That's so unconstitutional compared to say, butt ****ing our already feckless immigration policy by exec order.

Apples/oranges. I don't care if you have Congress' approval. You still shouldn't be able to kill and imprison folks without ANY process. And of course, let's not ignore the fact that with one order, he's giving people rights, with another order he's freaking KILLING PEOPLE. What a silly comparison. Next.


Bush went to the House and Senate no less than 5 times begging them to send him something to curtail the Homes 4 Homeless lending program that was put in place by Carter and massively expanded by Clinton.

If you think that was the cause of the housing market collapse, you need to do some more reading. The collapse wasn't caused by homeless people. That's just a tactic the righties use to demonize poor people. Those CRA loans made up about 15% of the junk loans which crashed the system. The cause was more poor regulation and a flood of money into the home loan securities markets due to the repeal of Glass Steagall.


Most true conservatives would agree with you that Bush should have allowed the recession to run its course. The decline would have been deeper but the rebound would have been much much stronger and we would be in a much better position by now. But president dumbass not only continued the asinine stupidity, he doubled down and then bet the countries house on both piles of crap. We'd be out of this if neither had done what they did.

Obama would have done more harm than even Bush could have done allowing the recession to run its course by switching gears. We'd be in much more dire straits today and you'd be MUUCH more butthurt over "President Dumbass." Have some respect for the office of the President.


No, they understand that despite his soaring rhetoric, he is what his actions make him, a socialist. Blue dogs aren't socialists, their party has just been co-opted by them.

As explained by marface, socialism occurs when the workers own the means of production. You have failed to identify socialism or any negative aspects associated with it.

[FaninAma]

People who can completely identify with and/or label themselves with any party or social stance sorta freak me out. I'd be labeled liberal in social issues and conservative in economics. I always imagined people having their takes on each issue, not picking a team in politics and defending them on all topics. Hell, its politics, not Sooner football.

Also, debt sucks...

I am very libertarian with social issues. I suspect where we differ is that if I feel your social philosophies cause you to end up in a bad situation economically I don't think the government is responsible for bailing you out.

Want to use drugs and not be employable? Fine, but don't try and sign up for food stamps and disability.

Want to keep having kids out of wedlock you can't support? Fine, you get once mistake and then you lose the privilige of having kid after kid after kid that you can't support. And if you want to abort your pregnancy then pay for it out of your own pocket.

You dropped out of highschool and now can't get the job you think you deserve? Too bad. Go back and get your education and work for the type of job you want.

Gay marriages should be recognized but churches shouldn't be forced to perform them.

Don't expect the tax payers to pay for your poor social choices. You are free to choose your own path.

Nobody can point to mass starvations or mistreatment of the elderly before the great socialist programs were introduced in this country.

Americans are generous and and they will help their fellow Americans in times of need willingly and voluntarily. Americans are smart and if they understand that they need to plan for retirement they will do that. They will also alter their self-destructive behavior if they know that they will bear the full consequences of that behavior.

So, by all means DO NOT legislate morality but then don't subsidize the destructive behavior some will engage in with government handouts. That's what we are doing now and it is breaking us.

[Sooner Eclipse]

Oh c'mon.. Michael Moore is what you have? When I said "no one," I'll be happy away to back away from the superlative. Let's just say no one of consequence. That's crazy talk, always has been.
Van Jones was no one of consequence when he worked for Obama at the White house? C'mon, moon bats abound in the left.




Apples/oranges. I don't care if you have Congress' approval. You still shouldn't be able to kill and imprison folks without ANY process. And of course, let's not ignore the fact that with one order, he's giving people rights, with another order he's freaking KILLING PEOPLE. What a silly comparison. Next. One is legal, the other is not. Apparently you cant tell the difference. Nation of laws, not a nation of men (or narcissistic wanna be dictators).




If you think that was the cause of the housing market collapse, you need to do some more reading. The collapse wasn't caused by homeless people. That's just a tactic the righties use to demonize poor people. Those CRA loans made up about 15% of the junk loans which crashed the system. The cause was more poor regulation and a flood of money into the home loan securities markets due to the repeal of Glass Steagall. OK, homes for people that cant afford them. Sound better? Sub prime loans of all accords made up the vast majority of the junk derivatives that crashed the system. Who do you think were the Chairmen of the 2 main committees were that blocked any and every attempt to reform any of it. Chris Dodd and Barney's Frank maybe? Nah.




Obama would have done more harm than even Bush could have done allowing the recession to run its course by switching gears. We'd be in much more dire straits today and you'd be MUUCH more butthurt over "President Dumbass." Have some respect for the office of the President. Pain would have been greater but the wound would have healed quicker. We'd be in a better place now without all the debt. Once again the "compassionate" side of the liberal base piles more debt on the unrepresented.

As far as president dumbass is concerned, libs called Bush much worse for eight years. Get over it. Funny how lib **** sticks want respect now.




As explained by marface, socialism occurs when the workers own the means of production. You have failed to identify socialism or any negative aspects associated with it. Socialism occurs when the government owns/controls the means of production. Like i said, somewhere between a Fascist and a Socialist. Why don't you define the 2, or all 4 main economic structures.

[marfacowboy]

Nobody can point to mass starvations or mistreatment of the elderly before the great socialist programs were introduced in this country.


You have to have mass starvation before you help people? Do you know how many elderly people were in poverty during the Great Depression? Before there was Social Security?
Have you ever been hungry? Gone without healthcare? Transportation?

[BermudaSooner]

One of the reasons we haven't improved more than we have is he probably hasn't spent enough.

I love this liberal logic...still believing it is the gubment that creates jobs. Thank you FDR for starting this nanny state thinking.

[Midtowner]

Van Jones was no one of consequence when he worked for Obama at the White house? C'mon, moon bats abound in the left.

Does Van Jones work for Obama now?


One is legal, the other is not. Apparently you cant tell the difference. Nation of laws, not a nation of men (or narcissistic wanna be dictators).

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--kind of hard to argue the Constitution's authors would have frowned on processless killings and warantless searches, dontcha think?


OK, homes for people that cant afford them. Sound better? Sub prime loans of all accords made up the vast majority of the junk derivatives that crashed the system. Who do you think were the Chairmen of the 2 main committees were that blocked any and every attempt to reform any of it. Chris Dodd and Barney's Frank maybe? Nah.

Again, you're just talking the CRA. A small part of the overall problem which both parties wholly failed to address over about a 20 year period.


As far as president dumbass is concerned, libs called Bush much worse for eight years. Get over it. Funny how lib **** sticks want respect now.

And you approved of that then?


Socialism occurs when the government owns/controls the means of production. Like i said, somewhere between a Fascist and a Socialist. Why don't you define the 2, or all 4 main economic structures.

That's not the definition.

[Midtowner]

I love this liberal logic...still believing it is the gubment that creates jobs. Thank you FDR for starting this nanny state thinking.

He asked why those voters voted consistently Dem. It's 'cuz the 'pubs' solution for these groups is bootstraps. They don't want that, so they vote Dem.

[BermudaSooner]

Please produce a single quote from anyone in the White House or in Obama's cabinet where they've stated their goal is to make people dependent on the government. Why would he want that?

hmmmm.....votes? Create a system where enough people are dependent on gubment, you've got yourself a long term job....until the whole ****house goes up in flames.

[marfacowboy]

hmmmm.....votes? Create a system where enough people are dependent on gubment, you've got yourself a long term job....until the whole ****house goes up in flames.

They don't need to destroy the country and people's lives to get votes. Do you really believe that's how they think? That's preposterous.

[marfacowboy]

I love this liberal logic...still believing it is the gubment that creates jobs. Thank you FDR for starting this nanny state thinking.

The government absolutely does create jobs. The government works with the private sector to help create jobs. Look at the top ten employers in Oklahoma.

[TitoMorelli]

Does Van Jones work for Obama now?

So I guess if Charles Manson had been part of the administration but resigned yesterday, that wouldn't reflect on the integrity of this administration. They'd just claim they didn't know he was a nutcase either.

[BermudaSooner]

They don't need to destroy the country and people's lives to get votes. Do you really believe that's how they think? That's preposterous.

That is absolutely how I believe they think. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste," Rahm Emanuel.

Get as many on the dole as possible, and those are votes we'll have forever.

[Midtowner]

So I guess if Charles Manson had been part of the administration but resigned yesterday, that wouldn't reflect on the integrity of this administration. They'd just claim they didn't know he was a nutcase either.

Charles Manson was part of the administration?

I like Van Jones. He calls 'em as he sees 'em. His explanation, for example, as to why Republicans had no problem passing their agenda without supermajorities in the Senate versus why Dems couldn't do a single thing was "they're [Republicans] *******s."

Too true.

[marfacowboy]

That is absolutely how I believe they think. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste," Rahm Emanuel.

Get as many on the dole as possible, and those are votes we'll have forever.

Have you ever been on welfare? Do you know what it's like to be on welfare? You know, it's not the glam life conservatives make it out to be. You're in poverty. "Hey, I'm going to support Obama because he's helping keep me in poverty! It's sweet as hell living on less than a thousand dollars per month!"

[FaninAma]

You have to have mass starvation before you help people? Do you know how many elderly people were in poverty during the Great Depression? Before there was Social Security?
Have you ever been hungry? Gone without healthcare? Transportation?


Poverty rates have changed very little since the mid 60's....just the demographics of those who find themselves in poverty. And this despite the tens of trillions that have been spent of social programs to fight poverty that began with the LBJ's Great Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

I will again assert that the more dependent you are on government programs the more likely you are to be in poverty. This cuts across all age groups.

[yermom]

I will again assert that the more dependent you are on government programs the more likely you are to be in poverty. This cuts across all age groups.

is that supposed to be surprising? would you rather they not be in poverty and getting government aid?

[marfacowboy]

I will again assert that the more dependent you are on government programs the more likely you are to be in poverty. This cuts across all age groups.

I don't know of a single study that supports this claim. It's not government programs that are the driver. It's poverty. There are studies that show a strong correlation between education and environment (disadvantaged households). Welfare doesn't cause more poverty, but poverty affects education, and your education level is a strong predictor for future economic opportunity.
Studies have show that students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country.

[UberSooner]

Since you brought it up, okie... :pride:

One thing I don't understand is why so many bluer-than-the-ocean posters are afraid to admit that they are libs. I guess it really is a bad label. Instead we have all these "moderates" who, amazingly enough, seem never to make posts supporting any conservative views or criticizing the Democrap-tastic leadership.

Even nationwide ( and as you mentioned) I see the same thing. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 35% moderate, and a paltry 21% as liberal. If that were true then Obama would be trailing by double-digits, given this administration's track record.

I'll say this for the poll. It certainly shows which side is more honest.

C'mon, you libs. Take a deep breath, come out of your little closets, and just admit it. You'll feel so much better for it.

I'm a moderate, registered democrat. I'm Southern Baptist, anti-abortion, anti-drug legalization and I don't hug trees, I hunt deer. The only thing I trust less than big government is big business. Yeah I guess I'm a liberal. Not.

[FaninAma]

Charles Manson was part of the administration?

I like Van Jones. He calls 'em as he sees 'em. His explanation, for example, as to why Republicans had no problem passing their agenda without supermajorities in the Senate versus why Dems couldn't do a single thing was "they're [Republicans] *******s."

Too true.

What the hell does that even mean?

[SoonerKnight]

Actually, When Bill left it was just over 5 Trillion. When GWB left, it was just over 9 trillion. With 3.5 years of Obama, it has climbed to over 16 trillion.

So the math:

Bill left with 5 Trillion

GWB leaves (after 8 years and two wars) with 9 Trillion: 9 trillion - 5 trillion = 4 trillion
Obama's (first 3.5 years and shutting down two wars) grows to 16 trillion: 16 trillion - 9 trillion = 7 trillion in growth.

Yes, let's blame Obama for everything. After all the country was riding high after two wars and a complete collapse of the financial markets. Of course why respond to someone who is misinformed. My grandma always told me "No, honey they ain't stupid just ignorant!"

[hawaii 5-0]

A lot of people obviously misidentify themselves. I don't really know where I am because most social issues I could give a **** about one way or the other. It usually won't be a factor in how I vote. Now fiscal issues do matter to me so I usually go conservative on those but not always. And since energy is one of my top priorities I usually go repub.

I see some on here that many think they are moderates...their not even close. Of course it does matter where you think the center is. Diver Dog lives in Delaware and up there they think Obama is right of center. They think Okies are bat**** crazy on politics. 5-0 lives in a place that is closer to Mars than the US and seems to vote that way. There are Jill Stein supporters on here for God sakes but I can't imagine even they think they are moderates.


I've voted for Republicans lots of times. Can you say the same? I look at the person, not the Party.

Tell us, who is the Father of Socialized Medicine in America?

Who signed into law a Bill permanently banning assault weapons?

Who used to be pro-choice as Gov. and is now Pro Life when it's convenient to the UltraRight?

The list of flip flops goes on and on and it's rather exhausting.

How can anyone in their right mind support someone who flips all over the place, even daily? (who's budget is it? Romney's or Ryans? They're different but the same)

Romney is a Moderate at best and is just catering to the Far Right to get elected. I'm amazed anyone trusts his pony show. I know Seamus doesn't.

5-0

[okie52]

I've voted for Republicans lots of times. Can you say the same? I look at the person, not the Party.

Tell us, who is the Father of Socialized Medicine in America?

Who signed into law a Bill permanently banning assault weapons?

Who used to be pro-choice as Gov. and is now Pro Life when it's convenient to the UltraRight?

How can anyone in their right mind support someone who flips all over the place, even daily. (who's budget is it? Romney's or Ryans? They're different but the same)

Romney is a Moderate at best and is just catering to the Far Right to get elected. I'm amazed anyone trusts his pony show. I know Seamus doesn't.

5-0

Flip flops for Romney vs evolving for Obama?

Trusting what Romney says vs what Obama does? Really not a hard decision there.

[TitoMorelli]

Yes, let's blame Obama for everything. After all the country was riding high after two wars and a complete collapse of the financial markets. Of course why respond to someone who is misinformed. My grandma always told me "No, honey they ain't stupid just ignorant!"


And over 3 1/2 years later we're still in the same mess we were in when he took office, thanks at least in part to failed stimulus, anti-business rhetoric and the never-ending politics of division, all authored by this administration. And the only solution he can propose is more of the same.

As for dear old grammy, it sounds like you and icky come from the same stock. Are you siblings, or just inbred cousins?

[FaninAma]

I don't know of a single study that supports this claim. It's not government programs that are the driver. It's poverty. There are studies that show a strong correlation between education and environment (disadvantaged households). Welfare doesn't cause more poverty, but poverty affects education, and your education level is a strong predictor for future economic opportunity.
Studies have show that students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country.


You are woefully wrong. The biggest cause of poverty in the country today are dysfunctional families. The higher the single mother rate rises the higher the poverty rate rises in that group. There is no evidence that blacks or single women have been denied the opportunity at a decent education. It is poor life choices that, in most cases, lead to poverty which leads to more poor choices which leads to more poverty.

I guess the left's buzzword for dysfunctional families is "disadvataged households".

Let me ask you a question. What makes these housholds "disadvataged"? Are they stupid? Do they not have the same access to public education that I recieved? Can they not take out tens of thousands in student loans and go to college like I did? Why is it so difficult for individuals in "disadvantaged households" to take advatage of available opportunities and get out of poverty?

What is making them disadvataged? A definition and brief cause of the problem would be appreciated. I am sincerely interested in your answer.

[hawaii 5-0]

Flip flops for Romney vs evolving for Obama?

Trusting what Romney says vs what Obama does? Really not a hard decision there.


I think you have it backwards.

Romney signed the Bill permanently banning assault weapons.

Romney worked hard to push for Socialized Medicine in Mass. He didn't just sign off on it.

What Romney does and now says speaks alot.

I'm really curious as to why Repubs think Romney can be trusted?

5-0

[Midtowner]

And over 3 1/2 years later we're still in the same mess we were in when he took office, thanks at least in part to failed stimulus, anti-business rhetoric and the never-ending politics of division, all authored by this administration. And the only solution he can propose is more of the same.

As for dear old grammy, it sounds like you and icky come from the same stock. Are you siblings, or just inbred cousins?

Actually, things are vastly improved. Obama did nothing to put us into this mess and we're now digging out of it. The 'pub argument of "we messed things up horribly, this guy has been too slow to clean it up, put us back in charge!" is not too convincing.

[TitoMorelli]

Doesn't matter whether you think it's convincing. Or whether you're so delusional that you can claim that things are vastly improved.

[okie52]

I think you have it backwards.

Romney signed the Bill permanently banning assault weapons.

Romney worked hard to push for Socialized Medicine in Mass. He didn't just sign off on it.

What Romney does and now says speaks alot.

I'm really curious as to why Repubs think Romney can be trusted?

5-0

I don't care about banning assault weapons.

I don't care about Romneycare vs Obamacare other than they are crappy laws when much better models like the Swiss are out there.

I don't care whether gay marriage is enacted or not.

I won't vote for someone based on whether he is pro life or pro choice.

Sure, I don't think flip flopping is a good thing. But voting for someone that may not live up to his campaign statements which I support vs someone who has a record of harmful policies, unfulfilled campaign promises, flip flops and campaigns to pursue even more harmful actions if reelected really doesn't seem like a hard choice.

Now I could list all of Obama's shortcomings on energy and illegal immigration but you don't really care about that.

It really comes down to what issues you think are important and regarding my most important issues there is no way Romney will ever be as bad as Obama.

[Midtowner]

Doesn't matter whether you think it's convincing. Or whether you're so delusional that you can claim that things are vastly improved.

Two wars raging, the economy in free fall, two of the three largest automakers on the verge of collapse, unemployment skyrocketing, housing crashing, financial firms falling apart. That's how Obama found things.

So yeah, I'd say we're substantially better off now.

[sappstuf]

Actually, things are vastly improved. Obama did nothing to put us into this mess and we're now digging out of it. The 'pub argument of "we messed things up horribly, this guy has been too slow to clean it up, put us back in charge!" is not too convincing.

It isn't the Pub argument... Obama said if we DIDN'T pass the stimulus that unemployment would be at 6% right now... Don't we all wish. Either his stimulus is the reason that unemployment hasn't dropped below 8% since he has been in office or he is so incompetent he flushed a trillion dollars down the drain in the wrong places. You don't get second chances with a trillion dollars.

I don't understand why Dems have such a hard time holding someone responsible for a specific promise.. It wasn't just another empty campaign promise either... He spent a trillion dollars!

[sappstuf]

Two wars raging, the economy in free fall, two of the three largest automakers on the verge of collapse, unemployment skyrocketing, housing crashing, financial firms falling apart. That's how Obama found things.

So yeah, I'd say we're substantially better off now.

Bush had already put in place the end of one war, which Obama followed to a T. TARP, which was passed by Bush covered the rest.

The recession was over before Obama spent a penny in stimulus money.

[hawaii 5-0]

I don't care about banning assault weapons.

I don't care about Romneycare vs Obamacare other than they are crappy laws when much better models like the Swiss are out there.

I don't care whether gay marriage is enacted or not.

I won't vote for someone based on whether he is pro life or pro choice.

Sure, I don't think flip flopping is a good thing. But voting for someone that may not live up to his campaign statements which I support vs someone who has a record of harmful policies, unfulfilled campaign promises, flip flops and campaigns to pursue even more harmful actions if reelected really doesn't seem like a hard choice.

Now I could list all of Obama's shortcomings on energy and illegal immigration but you don't really care about that.

It really comes down to what issues you think are important and regarding my most important issues there is no way Romney will ever be as bad as Obama.

We're not gonna change each other's minds. All that matters is the undecideds in the swing states.

I waste my time arguing.

I'm glad football is here.

[diverdog]

You are woefully wrong. The biggest cause of poverty in the country today are dysfunctional families. The higher the single mother rate rises the higher the poverty rate rises in that group. There is no evidence that blacks or single women have been denied the opportunity at a decent education. It is poor life choices that, in most cases, lead to poverty which leads to more poor choices which leads to more poverty.

I guess the left's buzzword for dysfunctional families is "disadvataged households".

Let me ask you a question. What makes these housholds "disadvataged"? Are they stupid? Do they not have the same access to public education that I recieved? Can they not take out tens of thousands in student loans and go to college like I did? Why is it so difficult for individuals in "disadvantaged households" to take advatage of available opportunities and get out of poverty?

What is making them disadvataged? A definition and brief cause of the problem would be appreciated. I am sincerely interested in your answer.

To a point I agree with the bolded part. There are some people who are poor through no fault of their own. But a lot of them make bad choices.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

That's a highly reductive way of looking at things, especially when you consider that with one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. Since 1776, there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt.
Obama came to office in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. One of the reasons we haven't improved more than we have is he probably hasn't spent enough. Compare (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html) Obama to Reagan for a really interesting eye-opener.

You seriously need to quit reading Krugman. Krugman is going to conveniently leave out the hundreds of billions that the fed has pumped into this economy.

[cleller]

Well, we seemed to be following the path laid out by European countries, despite the fact that they cannot fund all their programs, and are tottering on the brink of failure. Still we push onward, or should I say Forward?

Another dynamic no one much considers is that we also have a bigger problem with people being criminals and/or too stupid to support themselves here. It'll be like throwing LSD hits around a Grateful Dead show.

[Sooner Eclipse]

Does Van Jones work for Obama now? Really, that's the best you got? NOW????




No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--kind of hard to argue the Constitution's authors would have frowned on processless killings and warantless searches, dontcha think?

The Constitutions authors would have no problem with a President executing a war which the Congress legally authorized. They would have a problem with a POS that has issued an order of execution on an American citizen without due process and signed legislation allowing the indefinite detention of any American citizen without any due process or legal proceedings what so ever. Can you name that POS??? Betcha can.



That's not the definition. Come on, gimme the definition. I know you don't want to cause it blows your point.

[SoonerKnight]

And over 3 1/2 years later we're still in the same mess we were in when he took office, thanks at least in part to failed stimulus, anti-business rhetoric and the never-ending politics of division, all authored by this administration. And the only solution he can propose is more of the same.

As for dear old grammy, it sounds like you and icky come from the same stock. Are you siblings, or just inbred cousins?

Last time I checked things were better. When Bush left we were losing 850,000 jobs amonth. We are not losing jobs right now. Last time I checked the stock market had crashed, Lehman Brothers was going belly up and a whole lot of banks (like all of them were failing) They were talking about not enough money in the FDIC to cover the losses. The housing market went ****. We were in real trouble. Not to mention that Mitt was writing about letting dtroit go bankrupt.

4 Years later we are not losing jobs. Banks are not failing. Detroit is alive and well. The stock market has had a record high. Oh we are doing better as a country. Are we great NO! but we are not where Bush left us!!! We are better than we were 4 years ago. Oh and stop acting like you care about the debt. Republicans have never cared about debt. Hell that is their grand plan. Another 2 trillion dollar tax cut on those making 3 million or more a year. How they gonna pay for it? taking away what tax deduction you and I have!!! SO blow it out your rear end and try thinking with your big brain for once.

[SoonerKnight]

Well, we seemed to be following the path laid out by European countries, despite the fact that they cannot fund all their programs, and are tottering on the brink of failure. Still we push onward, or should I say Forward?

Another dynamic no one much considers is that we also have a bigger problem with people being criminals and/or too stupid to support themselves here. It'll be like throwing LSD hits around a Grateful Dead show.

Really and we can afford to go to war again and not pay for it. Or maybe we can afford to give the rich an even bigger tax cut and not pay for it. Who's gonna pick up the tab?

[okie52]

Last time I checked things were better. When Bush left we were losing 850,000 jobs amonth. We are not losing jobs right now. Last time I checked the stock market had crashed, Lehman Brothers was going belly up and a whole lot of banks (like all of them were failing) They were talking about not enough money in the FDIC to cover the losses. The housing market went ****. We were in real trouble. Not to mention that Mitt was writing about letting dtroit go bankrupt.

4 Years later we are not losing jobs. Banks are not failing. Detroit is alive and well. The stock market has had a record high. Oh we are doing better as a country. Are we great NO! but we are not where Bush left us!!! We are better than we were 4 years ago. Oh and stop acting like you care about the debt. Republicans have never cared about debt. Hell that is their grand plan. Another 2 trillion dollar tax cut on those making 3 million or more a year. How they gonna pay for it? taking away what tax deduction you and I have!!! SO blow it out your rear end and try thinking with your big brain for once.

Icky...is that you?

[okie52]

Really and we can afford to go to war again and not pay for it. Or maybe we can afford to give the rich an even bigger tax cut and not pay for it. Who's gonna pick up the tab?

We did go to another undeclared war and didn't pay for it.

Who is paying for your tax cut and picking up your tab?

Where's that shared sacrifice?