I am waiting to see how successfully you shred Imported_2355's list.

I have already said that Barack Obama is a lifetime beneficiary of affirmative action. I am opposed to affirmative action at the local post office. I am certainly opposed to it in the White House.

Nevertheless, I am not sorry there is not a Republican president. I am sorry there is not a Democrat president who can out think, out maneuver, and defeat the Republicans, the way Franklin Roosevelt did again and again, while never losing his cool.

The only people who are definitely better off than they were when Barack Obama was inaugurated are those who get most of their income from stocks and bonds. These are not a Democratic constituency. I doubt many will express their appreciation by voting for Obama.

However, the economy was losing jobs in January 2009. Now it is gaining them. The economy was shrinking then. Now it is growing. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Osama bin Laden has been killed.

The President did pass a health care plan. I prefer a single payer plan, but the President's plan is better than nothing.

 

One more point...

Without endorsing Imported_2355's "come to bed" comments, which I thought were lewd and ungentlemanly, I would like to address your careless use of the word "socialist."

Many Americans on the right call anyone to the left of Joseph Lieberman a "socialist," or even a "Marxist."

In the United States Marxism has not been fashionable since the War in Vietnam. Even then it was a minority perspective limited to a few college campuses. Currently self avowed Marxist organizations have either ceased to exist, or like the American Communist Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party, they consist of little more than a membership list of a few hundred or a few thousand members, and a website.

*not_secure_link*www.cpusa.org/

*not_secure_link*revcom.us/rcp-e.htm

Yesterday I could not even find a website for the Progressive Labor Party. It, and the the Workers' League seem to have gone out of existence for lack of interest.

Very few people in the United States advocate socialism, even democratic socialism. I favor social democracy, but that is different from democratic socialism, and certainly different from the Communism many on the right try to associate it with.

Although those on the right like to call liberals - most of whom do not share my admiration of Scandinavian Social Democracy - "socialists," they refer to themselves as "conservatives."

Nevertheless, if a "conservative" is one who wants to conserve as much as possible of the status quo, the Republican Party since 1980 has not been conservative at all, but reactionary. It tries to repeal as many as possible of the economic reforms of the twentieth century.

In contemporary American parlance "socialist" is nothing more than a term of derogation. It is as distracting as the word "racist" to a serious political discussion.

 

Maybe a better end to the analogy is you have a friend who says he can fix your car but after 4 years it's still sitting under a tarp in his back yard, and now the tires are flat, the block is cracked and a family of squirrels has moved into the back seat.

So now another friend says he's got a plan to fix it. He's a cousin to the guy who wrecked it, but maybe he drives a damn fine car he's built from a stock model. So, four more years under a tarp, or a shot with the cousin, who at least you know has done it before.:excited:

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to comments Clarise initially made to me, starting in another thread. Sorry if you were offended, but it was something of an inside joke.

 

Clairse did not seem to like it. I did not really care.

 

This is why it is pointless to attempt civil discourse with you. When presented with facts, from credible sources, that clearly refute your position, you simply ignore, disappear or attempt to change the subject.

This makes your self-appointed title all the more hilarious.

I notice you never responded to the following post - which was yet another attempt to clarify your blatant misunderstanding of the subject matter:

 

From 1998 to 2001 there was a budget surplus. In other words, there was no deficit those years. The national debt declined, but it remained.

*not_secure_link*www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

George the Lesser changed that by cutting taxes for the rich while starting two expensive wars he could not win.

Examining arguments to the contrary is as much a waste of time as considering Holocaust Denial theories.

 

"George the lesser" did not start the wars. you refer to. They were started by a crazed radical and a bunch of his followers who flew commercial jets into buildings and killed 3,000 innocent Americans. If Clinton had done something when that nut job started his war with America besides get blow jobs from interns and lob a few missiles into the dessert, it's unlikely "George the lesser" would have had to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan.

And you also "forgot", when you posted your chart, to include the part that showed how the deficit AND the debt has grown exponentially under Your boy Barrack.

But, then we know you do that kind of stuff all the time. Which is why you keep getting your hat handed to you around here. Cmon man, at least be honest once in awhile.

 

And that's why we invaded Iraq?

Tell me how that worked.

 

It's amazing how some people can turn such a blind eye on the truth and history all at the same time. They were terrorists they were NOT connected with IRAQ. Making war on a some entity that is not a legitimate government is not easy to do. Bush the lesser as you call him had concrete information in their possession that there was going to be an attack yet he and is underlings ignored it. Invading IRAQ was Bush the lesser protecting his daddy because Saddam Hussein threatened him. 1 big lie (WMD) and 3 trillion worth of protecting daddy later we get to pay for it for the next decade. If he had dedicated that 3 trillion to the Afghanistan problem we would be much much better off. Hell we might have even saved a few of those trillion dollars.

 

It is a knotty problem that, isn't it?

Afghani terrorists commit an atrocity, so the response is... not against them? How very illogical.

 

I believe Bush went to Iraq to squash a sadistic murderer. Probably he figured, as long as we're in the neighborhood...........

I don't know if he thought he was getting rid of the reincarnation of Hitler, or trying to get daddy's respect (although George senior told him not to go to Iraq) or he really did believe the WMD intelligence he was being given.

I do know if Clinton had done his job, Bush wouldn't have had a reason to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

If some other President had not backed Hussein in the Iran - Iraq war Clinton would not have had to do anything...

Cheney was after oil...plain and simple..

 

Cheney was not after oil. He was after creating a situation in which his cronies at Halliburton could rape the US treasury via military no bid contracts. Then inflate their costs while doing the bare minimum under the contract and get away with it scott free.

 

yea...that too...

they had a plan to use the oil to rebuild the country and also dip into the profits for years...has never happened...never will...

 

These numbers should worry you.

*not_secure_link*www.usdebtclock.org/

 

The national debt cannot be reduced by cutting taxes for the rich. That is what Republicans plan to do.

 

and adding taxes to the rich only add 76 billion to the treasury a year that is borrowing 150 billion a month

 

WOW..."Currency and Credit Derivatives" growing 1 million bucks every 5 seconds...

we are about to hit the ceiling again which I think is 16 trillion (am I correct?)

 

on the other hand

Total National assets (all wealth in the USA)...92 trillion