Obama's America 2016

[martialartist]

Here we go again talking points.....

[martialartist]

Can you please explain to me precisely the steps he has taken that differs from Reagan and Bush and please no talking pointas I would like specifics.

Debt: When Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was below 1 trillion dollars
Fact: when Reagan left office the debt was inching up to 3 trillion

Fact: almost 300 Marines died in Lebanon in 1983 killed by whats now Hezbolla and how did Reagan responded, well read the news I was living that at the time...Reagans response was as weak as you will ever see...just read what he did.

I can go on and on with specifics to back up any thing I have said not just talking points...
The fact is Obama may not be the guy you want in office, his ideals may differ from yours, however, he has increased drone strikes almost 800% since taking over from Bush, so trying to say that he is anti America is inconsistent with the operations he is secretly conducting overseas...

I volunteered for the Republicans in 2008 and for Mike Huckabee, so I'm not some lunatic that blindly support anyone, but I believe in facts not just what perception and have hated the explosion of spending started under Reagan and carried on through this current adminsitration...As the xfile say the truth is out there...not someone making a silly movie but actually numbers and facts and it annoys me that nobody studies history anymore no one seems to want to be objective. I am a real fiscal conservative always been and not when it seem convenient as it is to Paul ryan whom Voted for medicare part D with telling us how we would actually pay for it and who voted for the bridge to nowhere....these are facts that too many of us ignored...when Bush took over the presidency the natl debt was approximately 5.6 trillion he left it at more than 12 trillion, lets all stop ignoring the real facts take a look at natl debt per president.

[contactmail]

Not sure exactly how Obama is destroying the country do you care to elucidate precisely how much his foreighn policy differs from George Bush's and the steps he has actually taken the detroy us? and please no talking radio talkign points I need specifics facts that differs from previous administrations and if you are an historian like I am all the major action activities occuring in the last 35 years can be utilise.

Actually, I would argue his foreign policy is very different than President Bush. One president started a war to get rid of a dictator and imaginary WMDs, which ended up costing 4,486 America soliders. The other president tried a different approach and got rid a dictator without any American soldiers being killed.

[martialartist]

I will not dispute that...That is actually a fact....not to mentioned that Reagan supplied arms to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in the 80's...so very interesting stuff..... talk about murky memories... I remember the conversation I would have with people overseas in the 80's when there were uprising in the middle east...Astounding that people seem to ignore history.

[gnpine]

Gov. Mitt Romeny will not destory this country and neither will President Obama. If you still don't believe that, well I got news for you... Obama is ALREADY president and, last I checked, the country is still here! If you really think he will destroy America please give us specific examples of things he has done in the last four years to start us on the sure path to America's destruction.

I also think he has handled "national security situations" very well but I'm not sure exactly what you are refering to so I won't comment about that.

Yeah, the country is still here. . . 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and skyrocketing, 24 MILLION people unemployed, and that does not take into account the unemployed who have given up looking for a job because they can afford their two cars, cable TV, cell-phones and drugs with their fat government checks. But, the worst is yet to come (if Obama is re-elected). Just like he told the Russians, he will "have more flexibility" after his re-election.

He's handled national security situations well, huh? Yeah, like skipping over half of his daily intelligence briefings with the CIA? Or crawling into bed as our ambassador in Libya is being killed?? Throwing our ally, Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt under the bus? And now Egypt is run by who? The Muslim Brotherhood? Yeah, they are some really great dudes . . . I'm sure they would love to come over for a beer and a hotdog on the 4th of July.

You are just regurgitating all the liberal talking points from BSNBC and every other government "news" station. I invite you to take an objective look at the facts for yourself.

[submissiongrappler]

Can you please explain to me precisely the steps he has taken that differs from Reagan and Bush and please no talking pointas I would like specifics.

Debt: When Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was below 1 trillion dollars
Fact: when Reagan left office the debt was inching up to 3 trillion

That's what happens when you increase defense spending.

Fact: almost 300 Marines died in Lebanon in 1983 killed by whats now Hezbolla and how did Reagan responded, well read the news I was living that at the time...Reagans response was as weak as you will ever see...just read what he did.

Hm. Exactly how did he "respond" to that situation since you so fondly remember it but failed to elaborate that position?

I can go on and on with specifics to back up any thing I have said not just talking points...

Talking specifics is talking points, but sure. Whatever tickles your fancy.

The fact is Obama may not be the guy you want in office, his ideals may differ from yours, however, he has increased drone strikes almost 800% since taking over from Bush, so trying to say that he is anti America is inconsistent with the operations he is secretly conducting overseas...

Yes, because drone strikes are so effective -- red herring, at best. I'm more concern how he is defending the America people. Homeland and abroad.

When Bush took over the presidency the natl debt was approximately 5.6 trillion he left it at more than 12 trillion, lets all stop ignoring the real facts take a look at natl debt per president.

It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.


Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Google is your friend.

[contactmail]

Yeah, the country is still here. . . 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and skyrocketing, 24 MILLION people unemployed, and that does not take into account the unemployed who have given up looking for a job because they can afford their two cars, cable TV, cell-phones and drugs with their fat government checks. But, the worst is yet to come (if Obama is re-elected). Just like he told the Russians, he will "have more flexibility" after his re-election.

He's handled national security situations well, huh? Yeah, like skipping over half of his daily intelligence briefings with the CIA? Or crawling into bed as our ambassador in Libya is being killed?? Throwing our ally, Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt under the bus? And now Egypt is run by who? The Muslim Brotherhood? Yeah, they are some really great dudes . . . I'm sure they would love to come over for a beer and a hotdog on the 4th of July.

You are just regurgitating all the liberal talking points from BSNBC and every other government "news" station. I invite you to take an objective look at the facts for yourself.

"Yeah, the country is still here. . . 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and skyrocketing, 24 MILLION people unemployed".

The number of unemployed is actually 12.5 million which is way too high but we are still getting out of a recession, if you want to blame Obama the recession that started before he was president then go ahead but that doesn't make any sense. The national debt was $10.6 trillion on the day Barack Obama took office. The debt is high because of both parties. In reality, Congress, Clinton, Bush, Bush-Era tax cuts, war and Obama share blame for that debt. However, you can blame just Obama if you want, but the other guy that is running for president wants to start his presidency by keeping the tax cut for people making over $250,000 which will increase this debt by trillions. He also refuses to provide hard numbers for how he will reduce the debt without decreasing defense spending.

"unemployed who have given up looking for a job because they can afford their two cars, cable TV, cell-phones and drugs with their fat government"

Proof that this is because of an Obama policy? I don't doubt some people have abused the system, but it has always been this way even under republican presidents, and it is not as as great as you portray it.

"But, the worst is yet to come (if Obama is re-elected). Just like he told the Russians, he will "have more flexibility" after his re-election."

Are you going to suggest something? Or are you just pulling out random stuff.

"He's handled national security situations well, huh?"

YES

"Or crawling into bed as our ambassador in Libya is being killed??"

Four Americans died in Libya. Four! How many American civilians were killed under the last Republican president's watch? If we chose any other method to deal with the Libya situation ALOT more American would have died. Maybe you advocate that but, while it is tragic that any Americas are killed, you do realize that 400 American TEENAGERS have died overseas because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were started by a Republican. I believe that is a more tragic statistic than 4 deaths.

"Throwing our ally, Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt under the bus?" and And now "Egypt is run by who? The Muslim Brotherhood?"

Republicans criticize Obama for saying that Egypt is not an ally and yet you say Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Muslim Brotherhood is so bad and running Egypt then why would we want Egypt to be an ally? What you said doesn't make any sense at all. You would be criticizing Obama no matter position he takes with Egypt. The people of Egypt were left to choose their own president because that is the democratic way. If we don't like that then we would need to invade and remove this person from power.

[martialartist]

Again your response shows whats wrong with this nation...Reagan increasing the national debt from under 1 trillion to alomost 3 is justified by the notion that defense spending is okay, however, a debt is a debt no matter how it was gained. Defense spending...domestic..etc is still a part of the national debt unless my math serves me wrong we still have to repay it. So there's no justification for debt....somebody will end up paying for it...adjusted for inflation Reagan debt would far exceed the current guy...but lets go back to my point...my point is the debt as been increasing rapidly and more under the Republicans than any other administration and theb outcry wasn't as bad until this guy came in...do I like his spending heck no...I have zero debt in my own life because of how I conduct my financial affairs I expect the same from our government no matter if its Rep or Dems.
And as to Reagans action regarding the Lebanon issues, I would imagine you already knew that since you are accusing this guy of being weak....it is publicly available information a little reading will not hurt.

Grappler: I stated facts quit with quoting msnbc and fixnews...the networks are lunatics..msnbc..fox...I don't care for any of them...I have lived in some of these countries so I don't have to follwo the silly news to know the facts....A simple macro and micro class would let you know long run and short run is....whats happening now is not just the current administration...stacking credit on top of credit resulted in the crises we now have. The debt is out of hand please try and comprehend my post before responding. Do you guys even comprehend the magnitude of what occured in 2008? do you understand how close to utter disaster we were? Bear Stearns..Lehman..Wachovia..Washigton Mutual... Merril Lynch...Etc...the list goes on... The amount of extraction of "wealth" from the global economy was astounding...Credit on top of credit...I remember the stock market at 6500 and thats from a high of almost 15000so I don't care who is president theres just no way we would have completly recovered in that short span of time....keep in mind that we do not have the manufacturing base we once had that would have expedited a recovery.....

I do care for either party I care first about facts and about my adopted country....this is a great nation, but we have gotten to the point where we are no longer objective...it is this guys fault its that guys fault...amazing....turn off Msnbc Foxnews and start studying history...darn the access to information has never been this great yet we refuse to truly objectively educate ourslves...quite pathetic.

I am not sure if Grappler is suggesting that having a dictator is better than people having the right to form their own style of a social contract....I know that region quite...quite well...so I can provide a thesis on American foreign policy for the last 45 years....I suggest that you study the real facts..travel there and talk to real people, you have pick a fight with someone that doesn't need a book to understand the crises there.

Drones strike is just herring huh...when was the last time you travel to this region? to Africa to Pakiston? Do you know what it feels like to not know whether the meal you are about to have will be blown up...I would rather have drone strikes than witness the shedding of blood by more Americans.

[contactmail]

Yes, because drone strikes are so effective -- red herring, at best. I'm more concern how he is defending the America people. Homeland and abroad.

Drone strikes are very effective if you defined effectiveness as killing the enemies of America without Americans dying - which I do.

[OE800_85]

It's good to see a lot of passionate debate on this topic.

Another few interesting facts to consider:

The cost of healthcare has increased at four times the rate of inflation.

The rich are paying ludicrously low taxes nowadays. Romney was at around 13% on his tax return. Several rich individuals (such as Buffet) have volunteered their tax records, and by percentage, many are paying considerably less than middle income families. Is that fair? That's mainly because of the taxes on capital gains and loopholes.

The financial industry put America in a huge hole. Mainly because of a lack of regulation and enforcement. The use of complex derivatives in the futures market, as well as borrowing on top of borrowing were extremely risky endeavors that people hope to regulate in the future. Also, corruption within this industry led to dishonest practices, including the manipulation of the LIBOR. They did these things because they knew they'd get away with them.

Defense spending is at a shocking level. Most would agree it's the number one source of debt. Bailouts pale in comparison to the money that's being blown on the military.

So, what's the republican plan?

I know, let's eliminate the national plan to make health insurance companies accountable and provide affordable care (the free market has spoken hasn't it? With the increases in costs and a higher and higher number of americans going to mexico for care).

Ooh, next let's preserve our current tax system. After all, Grover Norquist made us blindly sign a pact to NEVER increase taxes, no matter what! In fact, why don't we reduce taxes further. We won't tell you how we'll get the money. Perhaps we'll eliminate some "loop-holes" (loop holes many experts agree would include benefits for those with needs, often middle class people)

I've got it. We need to get rid of all these pesky regulations and "rules" in the financial industry. Let them do whatever they want. It's not like letting them roam free led us to a recession! By that logic, making murder legal would reduce the murder rate, wouldn't it?

Oh yes, and the cherry on top of it all. Despite it being our biggest expense, and the primary reason we're in debt. We want to increase defense spending. Let's spend as much as possible on this.


From my perspective, the republican party has become something totally different. They've become a group of rich; rigging the system in their favor. That's quite simply it. It's like, you win at a game and keep changing the rules so you can perpetually win forever, and never give opportunities to others. The whole platform benefits those from rich families, and does little to nothing for the middle and lower class. Sure, there's also the few successful entrepreneurs who accomplish the American dream. Seriously though, how many people actually do that? Republicans always seem to look down on the "worker."

What's so bad about being an employee? One who works hard, gets a fair salary, lives a comfortable life where he/she can spend time with their family. This person could have health insurance, considerably lower costs of educating their children, and a lot of work/life balance, and hence happiness. Is that so bad, that we encourage this ideal? Republican economics don't support this ideal.

Now, considering what I just wrote, I find it shocking that republicans can get 43% of the vote (according to the latest polls) and dominate congress. How is this possible? Somehow, they've combined their economics with traditional social values. Gay marriage, abortion, creationism, you name it. There are so many Americans who care more about these topics than economics. Why, it baffles me. Perhaps it's part of the reason they want to limit education. Whatever your belief system, I think choosing a party that is looking out for your interests should come first. Finally, the most baffling thing is all, is how all these hard-core religious people can accept a Mormon as the leader of their party. I personally wouldn't consider them Christians, they seem to reflect the values of a cult more so than a traditional church.

That's not to say there aren't problems in the Democratic party. I just think they're the lesser of two evils, by a huge margin.