# "Obama best Prez."?



## Aliaysonfire

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...lly-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/2/

I was floored at this article. What does someone who follows this subject matter more say?


----------



## Sentry18

I couldn't stop laughing long enough to read the article.


----------



## ZoomZoom

*Obama is not the best President. He's 5th.*


----------



## weedygarden

I think that there is an adjective or adverb missing between best and president or part of the sentence after best president was chopped off. I know many of you can do this. I will see what I can use:

Best President for selling out America
Best President for bringing America down
Best President for creating a subterfuge (healthcare)


----------



## FatTire

What this article, and most like it, tend to ignore is the very real effect of economic policies on working class people. Yes, Obamas policies have been a boon for insurance corporations, making it law that middle class americans give over more of their incomes to massive corporations, who in turn see more profit. The end result is, more concentration of wealth and power, and less income for people to use as they see fit. This is great for transnational corporations, bad for anyone wishing to shop locally. And thats the sort of hidden lie in US fiscal policy since WWII... whats good for big business, is not good for the vast majority of americans.

I do like that the author did correctly point out a couple of myths associated with conservative worship of Reagan.


----------



## PrepN4Good

I've seen 2 smilies that we really need for the PS collection. One is a smilie up-chucking (more funny than gross). The other smilie's eyes roll back in his head & he faints.

I think both would be useful when responding to the OP.


----------



## Tweto

Obama is truly is the undisputed number one at these;

Convincing the voters that corruption is huge in the administration.

That big government may not be a good idea.

That Obama the number one liar.

The biggest salesman for firearms in the history of the US as been Obama.

Obama hates the military even more then Clinton does.

Obama has done more to destroy the US economy then any other president in history.

Obama has convinced thinking people how easy it is to fool the liberal mind.

How the president/king can disregard the Constitution and laws and then do what ever they want without retribution.

Convince the people how big the cowards are in the Republican party for being afraid of the minority king.


----------



## ZoomZoom

Here's a few for you.



PrepN4Good said:


> I've seen 2 smilies that we really need for the PS collection. One is a smilie up-chucking (more funny than gross). The other smilie's eyes roll back in his head & he faints.


----------



## UncleJoe

ZoomZoom said:


> Here's a few for you.


Now we just have to get Naekid to put them in our selection box.


----------



## VoorTrekker

Apparently, Forbes is a liberal, left leaning Democrat apologist publication.

Don't you just adore that they keep telling us that something will improve the economy and businesses, yet they won't or can't tell us how. No process thinking? What's the formula?


----------



## FatTire

VoorTrekker said:


> Apparently, Forbes is a liberal, left leaning Democrat apologist publication.
> 
> Don't you just adore that they keep telling us that something will improve the economy and businesses, yet they won't or can't tell us how. No process thinking? What's the formula?


This is because multinational corporations dont need to improve. They are performing just as designed. They respect no borders, no laws, and exist solely to consolidate wealth and power. This is the logical conclusion of the profit motive.

While those of us that work for a living might see declining wages and a shift to a service economy away from a production economy as net negatives, the transnational corporation sees this as an increasing cheap labor pool, filled with well conditioned, unquestioning slaves.


----------



## VoorTrekker

FatTire said:


> This is because multinational corporations don't need to improve. They are performing just as designed. They respect no borders, no laws, and exist solely to consolidate wealth and power. This is the logical conclusion of the *USURER *motive.
> 
> While those of us that work for a living might see declining wages and a shift to a service economy away from a production economy as net negatives, the transnational corporation sees this as an increasing cheap labor pool, filled with well conditioned, unquestioning slaves.


Fixed it for you. Usury is why we have a failing economy and the global economy going usury is the model for the big global economic collapse described in Revelations.


----------



## ZoomZoom

VoorTrekker said:


> Fixed it for you. Usury is why we have a failing economy and the global economy going usury is the model for the big global economic collapse described in Revelations.


You go!

Go full out since I/we have no idea of what you said. Please elaborate and explain your position.


----------



## Geek999

Usury is the term for charging exorbitantly high interest rates on loans. For more detail:

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


----------



## FatTire

VoorTrekker said:


> Fixed it for you. Usury is why we have a failing economy and the global economy going usury is the model for the big global economic collapse described in *some fictional tale written by men, and used by other men as a system of control.*.


Fixed it for you. Now perhaps we can just agree that you say what you want, and ill doo the same?


----------



## Mase92

FatTire said:


> What this article, and most like it, tend to ignore is the very real effect of economic policies on working class people. Yes, Obamas policies have been a boon for insurance corporations, making it law that middle class americans give over more of their incomes to massive corporations, who in turn see more profit. The end result is, more concentration of wealth and power, and less income for people to use as they see fit. This is great for transnational corporations, bad for anyone wishing to shop locally. And thats the sort of hidden lie in US fiscal policy since WWII... whats good for big business, is not good for the vast majority of americans.
> 
> I do like that the author did correctly point out a couple of myths associated with conservative worship of Reagan.


Thank you for bringing solid sentiment to this thread.

The Right had his presidency doomed from the day he swore the oath, the Left seen him as the savior of this country. There also isn't one thing he has set out to do he hasn't failed at miserably.

However you can't say his detractors are any smarter than those who voted for him. In this article he is blamed for the response to Katrina. At least his fan boys get something out of the deal.

In other words he not nearly as amazing as the Left thinks he is and he is clearly not as gruesome as the fringe of the far right think he is.

When all is said and done, 2000 - 2016 (or maybe further) will be the darkest days in American history in no small part to our leaders we've been allowed to put in office and that is including both sides of the house.

Not sure how a country that was founded by men like; Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin Madison have fallen to candidates like O, McCain, Romney, Gore and Bush.....Sad times....


----------



## partdeux

y'all are a bunch of haters

Mesiah took the worst stock market crash since the great depression and doubled it's value in 5 years
unemployment has been cut in half
ended war in iraq
ending war in afghanistan
making significant progress to real gun control

just because it's all a fiat facade...


----------



## PrepN4Good

partdeux said:


> y'all are a bunch of haters
> 
> Mesiah took the worst stock market crash since the great depression and doubled it's value in 5 years
> unemployment has been cut in half
> ended war in iraq
> ending war in afghanistan
> making significant progress to real gun control
> 
> just because it's all a fiat facade...


Ya'll gotta put a smilie or two here so we can tell if you're kidding or not...:scratch


----------



## Mase92

PrepN4Good said:


> Ya'll gotta put a smilie or two here so we can tell if you're kidding or not...:scratch


Be it sarcasm or not, that is a pretty factual list, up until the gun control thing.

O has controlled guns, yep, he's controlled selling more than any human in history and sent the masses fleeing to the gun shows any time he makes mention. :laugh:


----------



## partdeux

PrepN4Good said:


> Ya'll gotta put a smilie or two here so we can tell if you're kidding or not...:scratch


Everything on that list is factual, take one and prove it's not a correct statement.

Most people here are critical thinkers and understand that in the process of achieving those results, we have created an impending collapse.


----------



## partdeux

Mase92 said:


> Be it sarcasm or not, that is a pretty factual list, up until the gun control thing.


Need I remind you of SAFE Act? How about Colorado? How about NFA Trusts being delayed for months now? Internet if filled with people question why they could previously purchase firearms and are suddenly being delayed by ATF.


----------



## Mase92

partdeux said:


> Need I remind you of SAFE Act? How about Colorado? How about NFA Trusts being delayed for months now? Internet if filled with people question why they could previously purchase firearms and are suddenly being delayed by ATF.


I guess my idea of significant is different that those mentioned. The 'net is a wonderful thing, if you look hard enough you can find many questions.

Lets not forget that doctor at the VA who is getting $3000 per vet he says is no longer able safe to own firearms  ahhhhh the 'net. Love the place, just glad I don't live there.

Colorado and NY are not the doings of O.


----------



## Geek999

partdeux said:


> y'all are a bunch of haters
> 
> Mesiah took the worst stock market crash since the great depression and doubled it's value in 5 years
> unemployment has been cut in half
> ended war in iraq
> ending war in afghanistan
> making significant progress to real gun control
> 
> just because it's all a fiat facade...


It is all in how you look at it. If you are a supporter, you would applaud that list. If you are not a supporter the list looks like:

Presided over so much money creation he created a stock market bubble.
So many people dropped out of the work force the unemployment rate fell in half.
He did a VietNam style cut and run from two wars.
He tried to score political points on gun control resulting in a 50% increase in gun sales.

I think it is a bit premature to decide how history will view Obama. He still has 3 more years to serve and Obamacare, whichever way it works out, is likely to trump that entire list.

BTW: He also presided over the bankruptcies of two of the three large auto companies, and then tried to claim he saved them, and the bankruptcy of the city of Detroit.


----------



## partdeux

Geek999 said:


> It is all in how you look at it. If you are a supporter, you would applaud that list. If you are not a supporter the list looks like:
> 
> Presided over so much money creation he created a stock market bubble.
> So many people dropped out of the work force the unemployment rate fell in half.
> He did a VietNam style cut and run from two wars.
> He tried to score political points on gun control resulting in a 50% increase in gun sales.
> 
> I think it is a bit premature to decide how history will view Obama. He still has 3 more years to serve and Obamacare, whichever way it works out, is likely to trump that entire list.
> 
> BTW: He also presided over the bankruptcies of two of the three large auto companies, and then tried to claim he saved them, and the bankruptcy of the city of Detroit.


I have a liberal business owner friend that loves to talk about O saved the auto industry. I think his head explodes every time I remind him that O did exactly what Romney said they should do, declare bankruptcy.

I live in Metro Detroit area. City is an absolute mess, much worse than I think people realize. That mess comes from the union mentality of believing they are not only capable of running a city, but can do a better job. It can't be that hard, you sit around, hire your friends, take kickbacks, make a little noise, and borrow more money. I don't know how they are going to get out of the mess they are in. City is still declining revenue, they can not support the required services, and it's getting worse. One of the trial balloons has been to screw the bond holders, and yet borrow more money to pay their bills.


----------



## Geek999

They won't be able to borrow from any normal sources until they emerge from bankruptcy and I suspect they won't be able to borrow then. Detroit is now dependent on a bailout from the state or the Feds, neither of which is in a good position to do a bailout.

I think the likely outcome is the people there can either join the exodus, or live with the situation as is.

Personally, I think it is an interesting experiment in how to function during an economic collapse that is worth paying attention to.


----------



## millertimedoneright

Last I checked the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are still going on...just cuz some liberal reduces troops and says the war is over doesn't mean it really is...as long as soldiers are fighting and dying their is still a war...if you believe Obama cut unemployment in half I will encourage you to read a little closer to those numbers...and as far as gun control goes we have too much already why should he be applauded for failing to restrict us more


----------



## PrepN4Good

partdeux said:


> Everything on that list is factual, *take one and prove it's not a correct statement.*
> Most people here are critical thinkers and understand that in the process of achieving those results, we have created an impending collapse.


Let me turn it around & ask _you_ - what is your source proving that Dear Leader has "cut unemployment in half"? During what time period? By what standard? The rate, or the number of people working full time, the number of jobs created...? By what method has HE done this?

Methinks you jest.

Just sayin.


----------



## partdeux

PrepN4Good said:


> Let me turn it around & ask _you_ - what is your source proving that Dear Leader has "cut unemployment in half"? During what time period? By what standard? The rate, or the number of people working full time, the number of jobs created...? By what method has HE done this?
> 
> Methinks you jest.
> 
> Just sayin.


Trust me, I know the data, all of the data.

The official unemployment number as reported the way it has been reported since 1992(ish), shows a significant drop in unemployment. This is the officially reported govt number.

Critical thinking people will point the low percentage of eligible employed. However, even that number requires additional critical thinking with the surging retirements.

So no, it was not in jest, those are real data. It's just not the "rest of the story".


----------



## millertimedoneright

How many of these that are now "employed" are only part time and how many formerly employed have had their hours significantly reduced to conform to Obamacare? How many of these new jobs were government jobs that cost taxpayers money instead of increase revenue? How many of these jobs were created by bush's policies and bailout plan of several big corporations? For every piece of paper that shows lower unemployment their is another that shows it to be a crock of crap...with the massive debt Obama has accumulated their shouldn't be a single person out of work(bush spent less money and he took us into two wars)...anyone with two eyes can tell this country is going down hill fast no matter what the liberals tell u...


----------



## BillS

Real unemployment is at 25%. Real inflation is at 10%. Based on real inflation numbers, the economy has been shrinking for 5 straight years. Think about all the deficit spending and the money printing to finance it yet the economy is still shrinking. Not only are there horrific consequences for money printing but there's no short term benefit for it either.

I find it mind boggling that anybody could argue that Obama is a good president. Either you're criminally uninformed or you're in denial.


----------



## Mase92

BillS said:


> Real unemployment is at 25%. Real inflation is at 10%. Based on real inflation numbers, the economy has been shrinking for 5 straight years.


Got some proof of these magical numbers? Please share them with the class.


----------



## Mase92

millertimedoneright said:


> How many of these that are now "employed" are only part time and how many formerly employed have had their hours significantly reduced to conform to Obamacare?


Depends on the source you look at. Seeing as the law isn't implimented yet, do we really know?



> How many of these new jobs were government jobs that cost taxpayers money instead of increase revenue?


 Does any job created cost revenue with the others that benefit from a full time employee?
Here's the problem, government employment is at a 50 year low in fact if we could grow the numbers at the lowest in history like under Clintons 1st term, we'd be somewhere around 5.5% unemployment.



> How many of these jobs were created by bush's policies and bailout plan of several big corporations?


 YOU CAN"T BLAME BUSH! ER MY GAWD the country didn't start until 21 Jan 2008. Nothing he did even counts anymore! /sarcasm



> For every piece of paper that shows lower unemployment their is another that shows it to be a crock of crap...


 Isn't that the deal with every source?



> with the massive debt Obama has accumulated their shouldn't be a single person out of work(bush spent less money and he took us into two wars)...


Sure there is massive debt. Do you honestly think the 'real' cost of those two wars and tax break really showed yet? 
Oh that's right Bush is the 1st president in history to wipe out a surplus, oversee a depression, bail out many different corporate entities, deny a recession, start two wars, watch our country get attacked, allow America to become 3rd world during Katrina, have over 60 embassy attacks in his 8 years, SPIED on IT's CITIZENS, and made the US a mockery in foreign policy world wide and NONE of that matters because nothing he did can even be mentioned as his doing because it's the new guys fault, he is a fascist, socialist, muslim, kenyan, right? Looking at the list don't you think it costs a lot to fix all those f$%k ups? O must be the TRUE TYRANT, right?

Not saying O is any good, he's not. Honestly looking at your comments, you seem to be singing the praises of W...W at least had a congress to work with. Sadly (everyone should laugh a sad laugh at this) Pelosi did a better job than Boehner (BTW Boehner's Congressional body has passed less than 200 laws in the LAST two years combined).


----------



## partdeux

BillS said:


> Real unemployment is at 25%. Real inflation is at 10%.
> 
> I find it mind boggling that anybody could argue that Obama is a good president. Either you're criminally uninformed or you're in denial.


Shadow Stats would indicate your 25% number is a tiny bit high. The one problem I have with shadow stats, is how they count people that have moved on to early retirement. They are still counted. I would suggest the number is much much higher than the official govt number, but not nearly as high as 25%. U6 is probably the closest correct number.

I guess you must be new around here, even for as long as you've been here  I look at all the data and try to understand not only the real source, but understand it's true meaning.



Mase92 said:


> Here's the problem, government employment is at a 50 year low in fact if we could grow the numbers at the lowest in history like under Clintons 1st term, we'd be somewhere around 5.5% unemployment.
> 
> Pelosi did a better job than Boehner (BTW Boehner's Congressional body has passed less than 200 laws in the LAST two years combined).


I'm not believing that govt employee data one single bit. I haven't dug into deeply, but the total number of executive branch employees has INCREASED. Be very careful when presented with data like is on the CNN article. It is often incomplete and not the complete data.

Pelosi, the congressional leader that demanded the US military fly her home in a 757 every weekend. The small jet that every other prior leader used was inadequate for her gun banning self.

you think more laws are a good thing? I'd say 200 are 197 too many!


----------



## PrepN4Good

Whether anyone here believe I have "critical thinking skills" or not, I have a difficult time trusting _any_ stats coming from the progressive govt bureaucracy.

An unemployment rate that doesn't count people who stopped looking for work? An inflation rate that doesn't include food or fuel? :nuts:


----------



## VoorTrekker

FatTire said:


> Fixed it for you. Now perhaps we can just agree that you say what you want, and ill doo the same?


Usury really is a danger to civilized nations. It is the fractional banking and printing more notes than are covered by tangible assets which has ruined this country's economy. As for fictional tales etc...I have the right to my proven spiritual beliefs and you have the right to no spirituality or beliefs. Let's leave it at that. There is a belief in humanity and the consequences of our actions and there is the belief that there are no consequences nor conscience.

Which does one choose?


----------



## partdeux

One thing the fed govt does do really well, they put out the REAL data. Often times it's about getting the DATA and not the rhetoric...

Here is the table of total US Federal Govt Employees... It's interesting to look at. First column is year, second column total employees, third column year over year change.
2011	2,854,251	-5.11%
2010	3,007,938	6.52%
2009	2,823,777	1.98%
2008	2,768,886	1.42%
2007	2,730,050	0.34%
2006	2,720,688	0.01%
2005	2,720,462	-0.49%
2004	2,733,869	0.62%
2003	2,717,080	1.00%
2002	2,690,149	-0.28%
2001	2,697,602	-6.96%
2000	2,899,363	3.58%
1999	2,799,100	1.23%
1998	2,765,214	-1.49%
1997	2,807,077	3.72%
1996	2,706,420	-6.52%
1995	2,895,275	-1.91%
1994	2,951,768	-1.58%
1993	2,999,039

Total Payroll in 1994 = $9,685,506,035
2011 = $16,118,609,850
*source*

Ya gotta look past the rhetoric and look at the REAL data.

So, seeing the REAL data, please tell me what the CNN article was reporting?


----------



## partdeux

PrepN4Good said:


> Whether anyone here believe I have "critical thinking skills" or not, I have a difficult time trusting _any_ stats coming from the progressive govt bureaucracy.
> 
> An unemployment rate that doesn't count people who stopped looking for work? An inflation rate that doesn't include food or fuel? :nuts:


And that my friend is what you should be questioning.

Unemployment stats were changed during the Clinton era, Bush and bambam have continued using the same statistical procedure.

Inflation is "adjusted" for changes in behavior. I'll give you an example. Your internet speed in 18M and costs $45 per month. The cost of 18M goes up to $52 per month, so you down grade to 12M at $42 per month. Per the govt, that's a DECREASE in inflation.


----------



## Geek999

I'd have to disagree with the statement that the Federal Government puts out the real data well. Some things, like how many people work for the government, they ought to know just as every employer knows. They have to cut paychecks after all. Other items like the unemployment stats are done via surveys and are subject to other manipulation.

We already know there was fudging of the unemployment data just prior to the election. Until that gets thoroughly investigated, I'll be suspicious of all unemployment stats coming from the federal government and trust the ADP stats.


----------



## partdeux

One of other things the employment data does NOT reflect, the huge increase in contract workers. They are not counted as full time employees, but counted as a budget expense.


----------



## VoorTrekker

People who have found no work and are dropped from the unemployment rolls are no longer counted as unemployed. 
Part time workers are counted as "employed." 
"Fudging stats?" It's flat out deceptive numbers and reporting.


----------



## partdeux

VoorTrekker said:


> People who have found no work and are dropped from the unemployment rolls are no longer counted as unemployed.
> Part time workers are counted as "employed."
> "Fudging stats?" It's flat out deceptive numbers and reporting.


And that was started by Clinton

Expect to see a huge drop next month as all the long term are dropped from the unemployment rolls.


----------



## millertimedoneright

Trust me I can't stand bush but he did a better job than Obama has...what does it matter if the law has officially been started yet when many many major corporations have already started making adjustments to circumvent it's ridiculous standards...part time employment is a big part of our future as many companies are moving their full time employees to it...keep believing Obama has done everything perfect and it's all bush's fault that's why we are in as much trouble as we are in now cuz Obama is the savior who just inherited a mess(liberal thinking)...the liberal numbers will never show how much easier it was to find quality work in bush's terms than it is now...don't get me wrong their is still plenty of jobs to be had in the oil and gas industry(no thanks to liberals) but it is tougher regardless of what their numbers say...the thing about employment numbers is they bend them around to favor whoever the current administration is...part time workers are misconstrued...they don't take into consideration those that could work but are to busy soaking up free entitlements...they are nothing but misleading as is all government and biased information...anyone who believes anything that comes from the media or the government is a fool in my opinion...anyone with two eyes can tell this country is tearing itself apart from the inside....it is our government that we elected that will be our destruction...republicans and democrats both are the problem...neither care about the taxpayers and the workers...neither care about anything but lining their own pockets...defending Obama is like defending an abusive father cuz he says he did it cuz it what was best for the child...you can show obamas fake numbers all day long that show how great he is but in the end he has repeatedly went against what Americans have wanted and is running us into the ground in an attempt to secure his legacy...


----------



## Mase92

partdeux said:


> you think more laws are a good thing? I'd say 200 are 197 too many!


Read the rest and I'm looking it over. At the very least you lay out a compelling argument between this and the numbers you put out. Thanks for that.

No, I don't think laws are a good thing, however there is a job that Congress has to do and well, this incarnation and the last one are not doing it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ff00d2-172c-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html


> the smallest number in six years and a 37 percent drop since 2009, federal data show.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/



> the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Until now, the lowest figure for the current century had been 2,724,000 federal employees in October 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term in the White House.
> 
> Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent.


----------



## Mase92

HOLY WALL OF TEXT. I'll break it up with what I can decphpire.



millertimedoneright said:


> Trust me I can't stand bush but he did a better job than Obama has...


 Could never tell that but no, he didn't do a better job. Neither have done any good.



> keep believing Obama has done everything perfect and it's all bush's fault that's why we are in as much trouble as we are in now cuz Obama is the savior who just inherited a mess(liberal thinking)...


Going to guess that is pointed at me. I've never stated anything like this. O is bad and well, the sloagan is that is Bushes fault will ring true until it stops being his fault. How come Reagan can still get credit for what he did yet, only 5 years after Bush left and made a mockery of the country it is no longer his doing? (Republican thinking I guess)



> they don't take into consideration those that could work but are to busy soaking up free entitlements...


 Up until this point we were having a decent conversation.



> they are nothing but misleading as is all government and biased information...anyone who believes anything that comes from the media or the government is a fool in my opinion...


 Better sources are your friends and the 'net I guess?



> anyone with two eyes can tell this country is tearing itself apart from the inside....


 Been going on that way for years.



> it is our government that we elected that will be our destruction...republicans and democrats both are the problem..


 100% true! The rest was deleted too but I couldn't agree with you more.



> you can show obamas fake numbers all day long


Not sure who is showing you numbers?


----------



## millertimedoneright

So exactly when does Obamas policies and leadership begin to have to own up to his own failures and stop blaming it all on the past president? Bush was horrible but since we are going by your standards I guess his failures were all actually Clinton's fault am I correct? The funny thing is every screw up bush did is bush's fault yet all of obamas screw ups are bush's fault to(liberal logic)...I honestly thought bush was one of the worst we have had at least until Obama came to the throne...Obama has done nothing to help this country and only has further destroyed it yet continues to get a pass on his failures and all the blame gets pushed back to the previous administration...Obama goes against the wish of Americans(as does most politicians) and gets a free pass as usual...the problem with this country is no politician or anyone else is held accountable for their actions...if a politician goes against the wishes of the people he should be automatically be removed from office plain and simple(even if your name is Obama)...


----------



## Geek999

While I don't care for Obama, I would say that politicians that go against the wishes of the people are held accountable, at the next election.

Like it or not, the American people voted for Obama for President twice. I think they voted stupidly, but they are getting what they voted for.


----------



## partdeux

Geek999 said:


> but they *WE* are getting what they voted for.


We are getting the government WE deserve


----------



## Mase92

millertimedoneright said:


> So exactly when does Obamas policies and leadership begin to have to own up to his own failures and stop blaming it all on the past president?


 You act like the economic downturn we suffered in 2008 happens all the time or that we are in two different wars. That has happened, excatly NEVER.



> Bush was horrible but since we are going by your standards I guess his failures were all actually Clinton's fault am I correct?


Yep, 8 years of unprecedented growth, peace and balanced buget and he wiped it out in what, 18 months?



> The funny thing is every screw up bush did is bush's fault yet all of obamas screw ups are bush's fault to(liberal logic)...


No! They aren't but you GOP guys, like to pretend that we didn't start as a country until 2009. (conservative logic)

_"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter." Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House._



> I honestly thought bush was one of the worst we have had at least until Obama came to the throne...Obama has done nothing to help this country and only has further destroyed it yet continues to get a pass on his failures and all the blame gets pushed back to the previous administration...


We agree on this. But you can't or HAVE to stop pretending like Bush was good at, well anything.



> Obama goes against the wish of Americans(as does most politicians) and gets a free pass as usual...


He is getting a free pass? Are you totally that un media savvy? He is taking a butt kicking. Which he deserves.



> the problem with this country is no politician or anyone else is held accountable for their actions...if a politician goes against the wishes of the people he should be automatically be removed from office plain and simple(even if your name is Obama)...


They have a process called the next election! If we replaced every time someone wasn't doing what we liked, how much would that lil election cycle cost us? Any clue? The last one cost us about $12 Billion, aren't you big on fiscal responsibility? (must be your conservative logic)

If we could get solid candidates we wouldn't be in this mess. Hell, if the GOP understood to stop running whacko's to the right of a good candidate they'd have the Senate now (O'Donell, Aiken, Brown, Murdoch). Too bad they are just finding that out. It only took the 5 of the last 6 election cycles of loosing to get that nugget.

And to Geek999 we had the choice that is currently in office or the Reagan wanna be, budget guru who just balanced the budget in 2024 on the back of the military retiree's as the running mate of an even worse choice. You might call that stupidity I call that not wanting to go bad to worse.
You do realize how weak a candidate O was last election cycle and won by 6 million votes. Shows you how bad the guy was he ran against! :eyebulge:


----------



## Mase92

partdeux said:


> We are getting the government WE deserve


No, no one deserves this! As American's we shouldn't stand for this. Any. Of. IT!


----------



## Geek999

I think a lot of how people vote depends on what they think the primary issues are, whether they think the policies proposed are appropriate and will work, etc.

In both 2008 and 2012 I would say the primary issue was the economy, with the two wars having degenerated into an economic issue rather than a security issue. In 2008 a lot of people believed the GOP was responsible for the crisis that unfolded so voting Democrat was rational for a lot of people, though I wasn't one of those voters.

By 2012 it should have been obvious to everyone that the Democrats policies were not working, so I'll stick by my comment that the American people voted stupidly. I again voted against Obama.

The question going forward is how the American people will vote in the next 2 elections. I think the dominant issues will again be the economy and the impact of Obamacare. If the economy starts to generate jobs and people are not too traumatized by Obamacare, they may vote Democrat again. Personally, I expect economic progress to be slow and Obamacare to be a continuing saga of unintended consequences. It remains to be seen what the reaction of voters will be.


----------



## partdeux

Mase92 said:


> Yep, 8 years of unprecedented growth, peace and balanced buget and he wiped it out in what, 18 months?


Gotta love revisionist history

Budget was NOT balanced for 8 yrs, go to OMB and look up the actual data.

Here's the best part of the whole thing, the unprecedented growth flag you're flying, was actually the start of the unsustainable housing bubble created by liar loans and risk elimination without any oversight or control. This was all put in place in the 90's. It imploded on Bush's watch. And I'm no Bush fan.

Today, we have a stock market bubble that makes the housing bubble look like a little pop. Corporate earnings and GDP do NOT support the current levels.

Do you know who owns the Federal Reserve?

Federal Reserve is buying govt debt now, since nobody is buying it.

Look at data, all of the data. Seriously go to the OMB and look at the historical financial data.


----------



## Geek999

Uh, you have that partly correct. We did have large deficits under Bush.

I was with you until you got to the part about the stock market. The stock market is at roughly the level it was at the beginning of the crisis, a bit above or below that level depending on your preferred index. I would agree that it is being inflated by easy money, but I don't agree on your comparison to the housing bubble. Housing is a bigger deal in the economy than the stock market and the stock market can go up and down much faster and with less impact.

The ownership of the Federal Reserve is already being discussed in another thread. The Fed is buying govt debt, but it is incorrect to say no one is else is buying it. Government debt is bought and sold in large quantities daily, just as it was pre-crisis. Every major bank has a portfolio of government debt, etc. Bids were placed in 2013 for 2.8 times the amount sold at auction. Without the Fed's intervention the price of government debt would probably be lower, but it would still get purchased. There are people who will buy Greek debt at the right price so US debt can get sold too.


----------



## partdeux

Geek999 said:


> Uh, you have that partly correct. We did have large deficits under Bush.
> 
> I was with you until you got to the part about the stock market. The stock market is at roughly the level it was at the beginning of the crisis, a bit above or below that level depending on your preferred index. .


Bush also ran positive balance, Clinton ran negative balance up until near the end of his term, when he went positive.

Market it up a huge amount on thin trading and not supported by corporate profits.


----------



## Geek999

We aren't disagreeing that the recent rise is at least partly driven by easy money. I was disagreeing with the earlier comment that a stock market crash would be a bigger deal than the housing market.

Also, the stock market getting back to where it was 5-7 years ago is not much of a bubble, at least yet, and the housing market is a bigger deal in the economy than the stock market, so a bubble in the stock market might be a problem, but a bubble in the housing market, as we have just seen, is a bigger problem. 

The stock market plummeted in 2000-2001. It wasn't a big deal in hindsight. We can easily weather a stock market correction or bear market as we have in the past.


----------



## Mase92

partdeux said:


> Gotta love revisionist history


You can call it revisionist history, I can say I lived thru it and remember. I'd then link sources that state as such and you'd do nothing more than disregard the sources.

I've heard almost everyone I've talked with in this thread say they are no Bush fan yet defend him or his job he did. Neither is acceptable. Just as defending or fandom of the current President is unacceptable.

This was a thread of O being the best president and it's turned into a quasi "we love Bush" thread.

I bid you all a happy new year as I bow out of this thread for now...


----------



## Geek999

Actually there was a recent poll and Bush's approval is higher than Obama's right now.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I disliked bush but I defended him for the simple fact that when he was in office I easily found work and the market was booming...I received raise after raise and things were great in my household...while bush had many many faults and did a crappy job like it or not things were good until 2008 when the bubble popped(which depending on who you believe can be blamed on the Clinton administration but some say it was bush)...since when does disliking Obama make me a "GOP guy"...just cuz I believe bush did a better job than Obama doesn't make me anything but someone who realizes Obama is a mess...and if you are gonna quote what I say at least post an arguement that makes sense and has to something to do with the section that u quote...I noticed you say that GOP logic states that the country didn't begin until 2009...does that mean liberal logic is we can do what we want cuz we can always blame the past president?....as far as your comment on having a new election at the cost of 12 billion I say this....would you really rather have a politician that goes against the will of the people than spend the money to rid us of them? After the first one or two the politicians would get the point and we would have no more need for "reelections" so the money would be well spent....12 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of billions currently being wasted by things being implemented that the majority of Americans were and still are against...


----------



## Geek999

millertimedoneright said:


> I disliked bush but I defended him for the simple fact that when he was in office I easily found work and the market was booming...I received raise after raise and things were great in my household...while bush had many many faults and did a crappy job like it or not things were good until 2008 when the bubble popped(which depending on who you believe can be blamed on the Clinton administration but some say it was bush)...since when does disliking Obama make me a "GOP guy"...just cuz I believe bush did a better job than Obama doesn't make me anything but someone who realizes Obama is a mess...and if you are gonna quote what I say at least post an arguement that makes sense and has to something to do with the section that u quote...I noticed you say that GOP logic states that the country didn't begin until 2009...does that mean liberal logic is we can do what we want cuz we can always blame the past president?....as far as your comment on having a new election at the cost of 12 billion I say this....would you really rather have a politician that goes against the will of the people than spend the money to rid us of them? After the first one or two the politicians would get the point and we would have no more need for "reelections" so the money would be well spent....12 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of billions currently being wasted by things being implemented that the majority of Americans were and still are against...


Near as I can tell, people got what they voted for. I don't like it, but there it is.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I def agree with that but like most snakes(politicians) they lie to get into office...I say get rid of 2-3 immediately after they go against the will of the people and it will put a stop to that crap...they continue to do it cuz they know they can do it with no consequences til the next election(if it's their last term they really don't care)...


----------



## Geek999

I think the next couple elections will be a real test of whether there are consequences for the party if not the individual.


----------



## Magus

We haven't had a REAL leader since Reagan, we've had:
A New World Order backdoor Nazi.[Look up his family ties!]
A perverted backwoods lawyer and his shrew wife, 
An honest but browbeaten cowboy,
And a communist/utopian Fabian Socialist Rock star.
We've been in nose-dive-mode since "read my lips".
If its not fixed next time, IF there is even a chance to fix it at all, we're going to be a
third world nation in a decade or in the midst of civil war, OR BOTH!


----------



## millertimedoneright

In my opinion all parties should be kicked down the road...no more lobbyists are big money buying votes...it should be one honest individual against another however that will never happen in our current system since an honest person will never be voted in


----------



## VoorTrekker

And possibly, an election committee which meets only once a year to qualify the candidates and then the committee decommissions and a new committee is established for the next election, one time service per lifetime. Who selects the committee members?


----------



## Mase92

Magus said:


> We haven't had a REAL leader since Reagan, we've had:


Reagan was a leader I'll give him that other than that, he was just as crooked as the rest.



> And a communist/utopian Fabian Socialist Rock star.


You forgot Facist, Muslim that is looking to make the US a Monrachy.



> If its not fixed next time, IF there is even a chance to fix it at all, we're going to be a third world nation in a decade or in the midst of civil war, OR BOTH!


Is this opinion or do you have some facts to back up such an outlandish statement?

See what you forgot to say in all of this, is that they all tend to be nearly the same guy, with the same agenda and only move when the money is there to make said move.


----------



## Geek999

I think most Presidencies wind up being defined by the events they need to react to. Bush 43 was clearly defined by 9/11. Carter was defined by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Reagan and Clinton both benefited from the lack of outside events and economies that were relatively good.

Obama was in the final stretches of his campaign when the financial crisis. 50 years from now he will be remembered based on a perception of whether his policies mitigated or prolonged that crisis.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I believe obamas legacy will be more about whether or not his healthcare package was the savior he feels it is or a complete failure


----------

