Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Obama at nearly all time low), page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 02:55 AM by plumranch
reply to post by badgerprints




Obama passed the 'stimulus' which was nothing more than a democratic grab bag of pet projects and state screwing activities that provided nothing stimulating at all for the economy. He paid billions to banks that had destroyed the wealth of a nation so that they could stay solvent long enough to do it again. He has his psycho tzar team out there parroting mao, stalin, hitler, Dr Seuss and anything they can think of to piss off the populace. We are losing jobs all over the country and it isn't slowing down. Health care...............not even going to try to explain that. The Titanic had a better record than this healthcare thing will, except the healthcare bill only has lifeboats for congress and the administration. The rest of us will be locked in steerage


That was good! So good!


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 11:15 AM by sos37
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Wow, at least now you're starting to see how Republicans felt during Bush's administration with regard to the economy. "It happened on his watch."

Bush didn't start the economic downfall. Clinton did by loosening the restrictions on economic entities. That started the downfall. But it took years to finally manifest itself and 9/11 certainly didn't help matters. When it finally did, people blamed Bush because "it happened on his watch".

Now Obama is getting the same treatment from the same simple-minded Americans who would rather watch "Dancing with the Stars" or "Survivor" than be troubled to read a piece of legislation being passed or get involved in community affairs. Stuff is happening on his watch and people are blaming him. The only reason there was a delayed reaction is because of the stellar campaign he ran and the constant shilling by the media.

It doesn't make sense does it? Especially when you try to reason with an average American who makes stupid accusations.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 11:34 AM by Stormdancer777
reply to post by sos37




"Dancing with the Stars" or "Survivor"


That would be me.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:21 PM by sos37
Originally posted by Sestias
Actually, the first stimulus package was passed under Bush.

Obama is only responsible for the second one.

Can anyone explain why they support Bush's stimulus but not Obama's?



You mean the $170 billion economic stimulus package that Bush passed which sent a check directly to U.S. taxpayers?

Or the $787 billion stimulus package Obama passed that sent a check directly to companies and organizations, whom some of which turned out to be Obama's largest campaign contributors ($87 billion for the teacher's union, $111 billion for 'infrastructure' which benefits the labor union, $6.8 billion earmarked for the Service Employees International Union which managed to raise $33 million for Obama during his campaign - including this nice little scandal in which Obama's administration tried to force California's legislature to undo a SEIU wage cut or else lose that $68 billion)

Or maybe it's the bank industry bailout Obama and Senate Democrats pushed for at a cost of $700 billion - which cut checks to many mega corporations who then turned around and started giving outrageous bonuses to their executives?

Or maybe it was the auto industry bailout that Obama pushed Bush to pass while Bush was still in office - at a cost of $25 billion to save the auto industry which so far we're not sure if it has worked or not. But GM and Chrysler are still giving their execs bonuses.

So let's see - Bush's stimulus put money directly in our pockets which sales reports showed many people went out and blew immediately, thus stimulating the economy.

Obama's three stimulus/rescue packages gave money to unions and companies and organizations. We're not sure what, if anything they have done to benefit the country.

Huh. Guess that answers your question.


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 10:19 AM by maybereal11
Originally posted by sos37

So let's see - Bush's stimulus put money directly in our pockets which sales reports showed many people went out and blew immediately, thus stimulating the economy.


"Thus stimulating the economy"?? Hmm, that is confusing. If the Bush stimulus package worked then why did the largest banking institutions around the world continue to collapse, retailers continue to declare bankruptcy and the US economy nose-dive?

"Mission accomplished!!!"


Obama's three stimulus/rescue packages gave money to unions and companies and organizations. We're not sure what, if anything they have done to benefit the country.


President Obama's Stimulas bill included $237 Billion in Tax breaks for individuals...more in tax cuts then any other President in history, Republican or democrat.

"gave money to unions"...by this you mean the bill included infastructure projects that would employ Blue Collar workers who often belong to Unions?...and employing these folks is bad how? Improving the US infastructure is bad how...Levies breaking? Bridges collapsing?

Actually fact checking your post is a waste of time. What is accurate there? Try supporting your argument with links rather than just claiming BS.

That "nice little scandal" you linked to...read the whole article...research how it evolved and where the issue stands now and then tell me if it is actually a scandal of any kind...LOL

Anyone that wants to know where the last stimulus went...

As of the end of August...Only about 20% had been spent.

As for what the bill had in it....see here...scroll down to the bottom for a breakdown of the final bill that passed and how the money was allocated..
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 27-10-2009 by maybereal11]


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 04:05 PM by jdub297
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
I'm not going to go through the whole laundry list of broken promises, pledges and proclamations.

Your's is an excellent point all its own:
You do not give money away to banks to loan to citizens who cannot already afford the loans their houses are being foreclosed on, you do not give money to banks to loan to citizens who are having their care repossessed because they cannot afford the loan they have, and you do not give banks money to loan to citizens who have no job, have lost their job, who have worked for companies that are downsizing due to an economic depression, you do not give money to banks without having a clearcut contract as to how and where the money is to be spent and flat out telling the banks they cannot give that money to their C.E.O.'s as bonuses.


If Obama, Geithner, Bernanke and Emmanuel were serious about getting money to local borrowers, they could've done to banks what they did with Student Loans; eliminate the lender "middle men" and make the loans from government funds themselves!

We've got the 50-state stimulus funding framework already in place, they could just broaden the definition of "qualified applicants." Many stimulus programs are loans and "loan facilities," so it's not much of a stretch.

(Note that last Saturday Obama "promised" to re-invigorate SBA government-guaranteed loans directly to small businesses.)

Deny ignorance.

jw


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 04:14 PM by jdub297
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Maybe she read the New York Times Magazine May 15 interview (especially pages 4 thru 6) where he described how medical resources should be rationed, with questions about the value of elder care versus treatment options.

jw
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^