Barack Hussein Obama's plan has been is dismal failure up to year four. After that, he will have to finally get a job in the private sector.
WOOT
Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!
WOOT
Once again, thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!
WOOT
Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?
Pffft.
That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.
That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.
Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.
He's going to try and buy the election again with his entitlement philosophy.
that's kinda funny ... the documentary i saw the other night (queen of versailles) is about david siegel and his wife ... he started westgate resorts (timeshare) ... anyways ... the guy says he was responsible for bush winning florida in 2000 and says he had a few regrets about it (iraq war) but then he's asked how bush got elected in 2004 and he basically says ... he can't talk about it cuz some of it wasn't totally legal ...
Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!
WOOT
Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?
Pffft.
That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.
That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.
Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.
See. I disagree.
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.
IMHO, this type of financial kick back to ex-presidents is anathema to what the position of President is supposed to be about in the first place. It goes against the "disinterestedness" of which our first President (old G-Dub) was so concerned. And, to me, if flies in the face of every day people. People here rail against CEO's and their absurd pensions, but when the President gets one, oh, "he earned it" and "it's a hard job" and "it's 24\7". I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen the golf courses they play on. I've seen Camp David. I've seen plenty of times where the president didnt address some international concern until the next day. "24\7" is kind've a horseshit line. But whatever.
Sorry to thread hijack. I just don't see how we got from President SERVING the country, to the country serving ex-presidents in perpetuity (for a job they may not even have done "right").
:?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be President.
I don't disagree.
But this logic is getting kind of absurd.
I mean, we are defending someone's pension because the job is really hard?
This line
you don't have "a clue of what it is like to be President"
Really? This is the defense?
These people weren't DRAFTED in to the fucking presidency.
They goddamn signed up for the job.
Hell, I'll go one further, they fucking CAMPAIGNED for it. They sucked corporate dick here, and bum-thumbed private ass there, and brown nosed the public here, and bullshitted the people there ... they lied, they misrepresented, they did everything it could possibly take, including talking shit about others, and firing off cheap shots, and endorsed shitty ads left right and up and down to get there. Then, by and large, they turned their back on all the promises they made to the people, and continued to coroporate cock gobble and lobbyist bum-thumb. Jeez. boo hoo.
Here. See how well THIS sits with you:
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
???
How is that any less laughable? and how, in gods name, does it defend the pension itself?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?
Pffft.
That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.
That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.
Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.
See. I disagree.
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.
IMHO, this type of financial kick back to ex-presidents is anathema to what the position of President is supposed to be about in the first place. It goes against the "disinterestedness" of which our first President (old G-Dub) was so concerned. And, to me, if flies in the face of every day people. People here rail against CEO's and their absurd pensions, but when the President gets one, oh, "he earned it" and "it's a hard job" and "it's 24\7". I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen the golf courses they play on. I've seen Camp David. I've seen plenty of times where the president didnt address some international concern until the next day. "24\7" is kind've a horseshit line. But whatever.
:?
I look at it the other way... I think the pension (and related entitlements) actually protect the office of the President. It keeps former presidents out of the private sector.
Whatever your view of any former president it is, anything he says has geopolitical repercussions. Keeping them on the sidelines on major issues, is a good thing I think.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be President.
I don't disagree.
But this logic is getting kind of absurd.
I mean, we are defending someone's pension because the job is really hard?
This line
you don't have "a clue of what it is like to be President"
Really? This is the defense?
These people weren't DRAFTED in to the fucking presidency.
They goddamn signed up for the job.
Hell, I'll go one further, they fucking CAMPAIGNED for it. They sucked corporate dick here, and bum-thumbed private ass there, and brown nosed the public here, and bullshitted the people there ... they lied, they misrepresented, they did everything it could possibly take, including talking shit about others, and firing off cheap shots, and endorsed shitty ads left right and up and down to get there. Then, by and large, they turned their back on all the promises they made to the people, and continued to coroporate cock gobble and lobbyist bum-thumb. Jeez. boo hoo.
Here. See how well THIS sits with you:
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
???
How is that any less laughable? and how, in gods name, does it defend the pension itself?
As my post clearly states, I am not defending the pensions. I am simply commenting on the idea that being President is not a difficult job. It is a 24/7 job.
People do not have a clue what it is like to be President. That is quite simple and quite accurate.
You are distorting the meaning of my words/post to and going off on tangents.
Politicians need to be paid well. Pay and pention is incentive for them just like anyone else (along with power for their huge egos). Pay for such roles have to be competitive with what qualified candidates could make in the private sector (which is generally a LOT), or else the government would be filled wi5h even bigger idiots than we already have, who are even more driven by power alone, which would be even scarier and as hard as that is to imagine. Anyone who thinks it might encourage the truly righteous to politics, those who care only for the public good, are feeling themselves, because those people generally are not cut out to wade around in the shit and don't desire that kind of power in the first place. So not only does that explain good monetary incentive, but also why we're all fucked.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.
And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?
I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.
And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?
I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.
Obama made it worse?
But the banks and Wall St. had nothing to do with it? They are saints.
Republican obstructionism?
This is not a defense of Obama, but can we look at the whole picture here?
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.
And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?
I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.
Obama made it worse?
But the banks and Wall St. had nothing to do with it? They are saints.
Republican obstructionism?
This is not a defense of Obama, but can we look at the whole picture here?
The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?
Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?
Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.
Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?
The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.
And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?
I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.
The death tax is one area that I can not defend. It is a stupid concept.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?
Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.
Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?
The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.
Again, no President has had both houses in their party. And, it's no more divisive than it ever was. That's revisionist. Leaders learn the art of compromise, etc. Ask Bill Clinton if he got his way on everything.
Am I smarter than him? Not sure. I haven't seen his IQ score. Perhaps. But, whether I could or not is irrelevant.
When you cry and pout when you don't get your way - that's not a leader. That's a 5 year old brat. It is extremely clear he is a good speaker (teleprompter aside), but an extremely poor leader.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?
Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.
Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?
The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.
Again, no President has had both houses in their party. And, it's no more divisive than it ever was. That's revisionist. Leaders learn the art of compromise, etc. Ask Bill Clinton if he got his way on everything.
Am I smarter than him? Not sure. I haven't seen his IQ score. Perhaps. But, whether I could or not is irrelevant.
When you cry and pout when you don't get your way - that's not a leader. That's a 5 year old brat. It is extremely clear he is a good speaker (teleprompter aside), but an extremely poor leader.
Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.
If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.
Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.
If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.
Again - you're only seeing things the way you want to. Perhaps, Clinton gave enough to be given what he wanted (no pun intended, though that did come out very ironically).
Obama's first 2 years should have impacted the economy more than the last 2. Correct? If so, he had both houses his first 2 years. He could have used the same process he used to ram through his health care plan.
Also intersting that the previous economy is all Bush's and not the Democrat ruled Congress. Yet, now it's the Republican's fault. The fact is, the housing bubble that did the most damage to the economy was caused by CLINTON and his insistence that everyone should eat cake..err.. I mean own a house and bullying Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks into issuing loans folks couldn't afford driving up housing prices and resulting in the mortgage mess 12 years later. Unfortunately, Bush did nothing to slow that process, so he holds blame, as well. He just didn't set the wheel in motion. It can now be argued this Congress is trying to prevent the next wheel from heading down the hill.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Again - you're only seeing things the way you want to. Perhaps, Clinton gave enough to be given what he wanted (no pun intended, though that did come out very ironically).
That's quite rude. I am not only seeing things the way I want to. I don't spend hours everyday studying politics and economics, et al, to be a close-minded fool.
Obama's first 2 years should have impacted the economy more than the last 2. Correct? If so, he had both houses his first 2 years. He could have used the same process he used to ram through his health care plan.
Also intersting that the previous economy is all Bush's and not the Democrat ruled Congress. Yet, now it's the Republican's fault. The fact is, the housing bubble that did the most damage to the economy was caused by CLINTON and his insistence that everyone should eat cake..err.. I mean own a house and bullying Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks into issuing loans folks couldn't afford driving up housing prices and resulting in the mortgage mess 12 years later. Unfortunately, Bush did nothing to slow that process, so he holds blame, as well. He just didn't set the wheel in motion. It can now be argued this Congress is trying to prevent the next wheel from heading down the hill.
To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.
So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
And the fault of the people who voted for him... the people who helped pass all of his silly tax cuts, approve his wars and cheered as he fiddled and Rome burnt.
Trying to "lol" your way out of it doesn't change that 4 years ago the stock market was worthless, the housing market was worthless, the banks were dropping like dominoes, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month and companies that were the backbone of the county's economy were about to go under.
It's not like that anymore.
Are things perfect? No. they're not. And things haven't happened as fast as many of us would have liked.
But no amount of trying to say "yeah... blame Bush" in your sarcastic tone is going to change that in fact... it wasn't just the fault of George W Bush.. but the fault of every idiot who voted for him.
We haven't fixed the mess you made yet. How about you let us finish before playing that?
Comments
Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!
WOOT
Once again, thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?
Pffft.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
they get ANOTHER $100K\YR for life for "staff and office"?
Become president for 4 years,
earn a half mil. for life for jack shit.
:>?
L-A-M-E
err.
i'm sorry.
should have said,
be hand picked by your elitist backers to be king-made as "president" for a term,
and get a half mil for life.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.
Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.
Agreed
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
that's kinda funny ... the documentary i saw the other night (queen of versailles) is about david siegel and his wife ... he started westgate resorts (timeshare) ... anyways ... the guy says he was responsible for bush winning florida in 2000 and says he had a few regrets about it (iraq war) but then he's asked how bush got elected in 2004 and he basically says ... he can't talk about it cuz some of it wasn't totally legal ...
See. I disagree.
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.
IMHO, this type of financial kick back to ex-presidents is anathema to what the position of President is supposed to be about in the first place. It goes against the "disinterestedness" of which our first President (old G-Dub) was so concerned. And, to me, if flies in the face of every day people. People here rail against CEO's and their absurd pensions, but when the President gets one, oh, "he earned it" and "it's a hard job" and "it's 24\7". I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen the golf courses they play on. I've seen Camp David. I've seen plenty of times where the president didnt address some international concern until the next day. "24\7" is kind've a horseshit line. But whatever.
Sorry to thread hijack. I just don't see how we got from President SERVING the country, to the country serving ex-presidents in perpetuity (for a job they may not even have done "right").
:?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be President.
I don't disagree.
But this logic is getting kind of absurd.
I mean, we are defending someone's pension because the job is really hard?
This line
you don't have "a clue of what it is like to be President"
Really? This is the defense?
These people weren't DRAFTED in to the fucking presidency.
They goddamn signed up for the job.
Hell, I'll go one further, they fucking CAMPAIGNED for it. They sucked corporate dick here, and bum-thumbed private ass there, and brown nosed the public here, and bullshitted the people there ... they lied, they misrepresented, they did everything it could possibly take, including talking shit about others, and firing off cheap shots, and endorsed shitty ads left right and up and down to get there. Then, by and large, they turned their back on all the promises they made to the people, and continued to coroporate cock gobble and lobbyist bum-thumb. Jeez. boo hoo.
Here. See how well THIS sits with you:
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
???
How is that any less laughable? and how, in gods name, does it defend the pension itself?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I look at it the other way... I think the pension (and related entitlements) actually protect the office of the President. It keeps former presidents out of the private sector.
Whatever your view of any former president it is, anything he says has geopolitical repercussions. Keeping them on the sidelines on major issues, is a good thing I think.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
As my post clearly states, I am not defending the pensions. I am simply commenting on the idea that being President is not a difficult job. It is a 24/7 job.
People do not have a clue what it is like to be President. That is quite simple and quite accurate.
You are distorting the meaning of my words/post to and going off on tangents.
Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.
And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?
I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.
Obama made it worse?
But the banks and Wall St. had nothing to do with it? They are saints.
Republican obstructionism?
This is not a defense of Obama, but can we look at the whole picture here?
The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?
Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.
Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?
The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.
The death tax is one area that I can not defend. It is a stupid concept.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Again, no President has had both houses in their party. And, it's no more divisive than it ever was. That's revisionist. Leaders learn the art of compromise, etc. Ask Bill Clinton if he got his way on everything.
Am I smarter than him? Not sure. I haven't seen his IQ score. Perhaps. But, whether I could or not is irrelevant.
When you cry and pout when you don't get your way - that's not a leader. That's a 5 year old brat. It is extremely clear he is a good speaker (teleprompter aside), but an extremely poor leader.
Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.
If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.
Again - you're only seeing things the way you want to. Perhaps, Clinton gave enough to be given what he wanted (no pun intended, though that did come out very ironically).
Obama's first 2 years should have impacted the economy more than the last 2. Correct? If so, he had both houses his first 2 years. He could have used the same process he used to ram through his health care plan.
Also intersting that the previous economy is all Bush's and not the Democrat ruled Congress. Yet, now it's the Republican's fault. The fact is, the housing bubble that did the most damage to the economy was caused by CLINTON and his insistence that everyone should eat cake..err.. I mean own a house and bullying Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks into issuing loans folks couldn't afford driving up housing prices and resulting in the mortgage mess 12 years later. Unfortunately, Bush did nothing to slow that process, so he holds blame, as well. He just didn't set the wheel in motion. It can now be argued this Congress is trying to prevent the next wheel from heading down the hill.
That's quite rude. I am not only seeing things the way I want to. I don't spend hours everyday studying politics and economics, et al, to be a close-minded fool.
Nice pun.
Not true. It is explained here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html
It can be argued, no doubt.
truth be told.
WE BUILT THIS! But the governement wants to make heirs pay so much in taxes that they have to sell the business, family farm, etc.
DUMB DUMB DUMB. It's not rocket surgery...
So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
OH please.
Honestly... YOU don't even buy that.
In fact... yes. It is.
And the fault of the people who voted for him... the people who helped pass all of his silly tax cuts, approve his wars and cheered as he fiddled and Rome burnt.
Trying to "lol" your way out of it doesn't change that 4 years ago the stock market was worthless, the housing market was worthless, the banks were dropping like dominoes, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month and companies that were the backbone of the county's economy were about to go under.
It's not like that anymore.
Are things perfect? No. they're not. And things haven't happened as fast as many of us would have liked.
But no amount of trying to say "yeah... blame Bush" in your sarcastic tone is going to change that in fact... it wasn't just the fault of George W Bush.. but the fault of every idiot who voted for him.
We haven't fixed the mess you made yet. How about you let us finish before playing that?
Thanks.