It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seven Good Reasons Not to Support Obama in 2012

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Unemployment rate. % of Americans on Foodstamps. Debt. Poverty Rate. etc
It's been three years .. he (Obama) can't keep blaming Bush43 for these things.
Sure Obama inherited a problem. But he's made it a whole lot worse.
And Obama can't put all the blame on congress. (well, he can try .. but it would be wrong)
'The buck stops here' ... the Oval Office.

Think these figures aren't accurate? Think Obama is the best choice?
Prove this wrong and convince the world how we are better off now than we were four years ago ...

American Thinker



Unemployment rate:
January 2008 -- less than 5%
January 2012 -- 8.5%

Workforce increases/decreases between January 2008 and January 2011:
Federal Government -- +11.79%
Private Sector -- -6.6%

Percent of people who pay no federal income taxes:
January 2008 -- 36.3%
January 2012 -- 51%

Deficit as a percent of GDP:
January 2008 -- 3.21%
January 2012 -- 6.96%

Debt as a percent of GDP:
January 2008 -- 69%
January 2012 -- more than 100%

U.S. poverty rate:
2008 -- 13.2%
2010 -- 15.1%

Percent of population on food stamps:
2008 -- 12%
2011 -- 15%


Providing Monthly unemployment rates for 2003-2008
Wall Street Journal Food Stamp Info (from Feb 2011
US Census - poverty rates
edit on 1/8/2012 by FlyersFan because: provide links




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I'm no Obama supporter, but I'm also no supporter of false and misleading information. Obama is bad enough without skewing the numbers.

Those Bush figures are pre-financial crisis (caused by Bush and his policies). Quote the numbers from Jan 2009, not 2008, if you want to make a fair comparison. Then compare the numbers between Jan 2008 and jan 2009 to see just how far things fell in just 1 year under Bush.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
LOL...why compare to January 2008 instead of 2009 when Obama took office???

2008 was one of the worst years in US history...hilarious.

January 2009 unemployment rate when Obama took office...7.8%...yeah...makes a bit of a difference.


Nice try in attempting to spread lies and misinformation...you should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You actually needed seven reasons? I have your reasons.

1. He's a Democrat
2. He's a Democrat
3. He's a Democrat
4. He's a Democrat
5. He's a Democrat
6. He's a Democrat
7. He's a Democrat.

Your shtick has been the same for years. We all get it-Vote for a republican or shut up


I'd rather kill myself than vote for any of these idiots.
edit on 8-1-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
why compare to January 2008 instead of 2009 when Obama took office???

Obama was elected in Nov 2008. Markets and employers react to the change in Washington. 2008 is the solid Bush43 years. It's just that simple.

Nice try in attempting to spread lies and misinformation...you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nope .. either they are facts or they aren't. Prove 'em wrong.
And by posting an article and saying 'prove it wrong' I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Originally posted by antonia
Your shtick has been the same for years. We all get it-Vote for a republican or shut up


Poooooor antonia.
Backatchya. If my 'shtick' has been the same for years then you'd know better than to say it's 'vote republican or shut up'. I've already said many times there isn't anyone worth voting for this time around and that all the Republicans - except for Huntsman - either aren't qualified or are full of corruption.

Your attempt to deflect this to partisanship = EPIC FAILURE.
Because you couldn't argue against the information in the article, it must mean that the information is correct.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


So at the very least, you should be comparing to Nov. 2008...but those numbers are horrible as well.

So you will just continue to be completely dishonest and go with Jan 2008...when everyone thought Obama had zero chance of even getting the nomination.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So you will just continue to be completely dishonest and go with Jan 2008...when everyone thought Obama had zero chance of even getting the nomination.

backatchya. You just aren't getting it - or you are trying to deflect. Either way ....

- Already said Bush43 was a mess. BUT Obama made it worse.

- You have to take the Jan 2008 number with Bush43 to get a solid BUSH number to compare to.

- The further into 2008 you go, the more the markets and business' will react to the prospect of an Obama administration. Just as the further you get in 2012 the more influence you'll see in the markets and business' if they think Obama will be out and Romney will be in.

- As for 'dishonesty' ... you'd best look in the mirror. Your attempt at DEFLECTION away from what the fact is .. how Obama's administration has failed ... THAT is what is dishonest.

- You still haven't answered the question .. is America better off or worse off after four years of Obama?

Side note - Obama never had a 'zero chance'. He was the golden boy from the start.
You know it's true.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Why use skewed info as argument?

I would have just said, started two new wars, didn't end the first two, will likely take us to at least 1 more, didn't close gitmo, signed 2012 NDAA without removing indefinite detention without trial bit.

Don't have to lie to make Obama look bad.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Unemployment rate. % of Americans on Foodstamps. Debt. Poverty Rate. etc
It's been three years .. he (Obama) can't keep blaming Bush43 for these things.
Sure Obama inherited a problem. But he's made it a whole lot worse.
And Obama can't put all the blame on congress. (well, he can try .. but it would be wrong)
'The buck stops here' ... the Oval Office.

Think these figures aren't accurate? Think Obama is the best choice?
Prove this wrong and convince the world how we are better off now than we were four years ago ...

American Thinker



Unemployment rate:
January 2008 -- less than 5%
January 2012 -- 8.5%

Workforce increases/decreases between January 2008 and January 2011:
Federal Government -- +11.79%
Private Sector -- -6.6%

Percent of people who pay no federal income taxes:
January 2008 -- 36.3%
January 2012 -- 51%

Deficit as a percent of GDP:
January 2008 -- 3.21%
January 2012 -- 6.96%

Debt as a percent of GDP:
January 2008 -- 69%
January 2012 -- more than 100%

U.S. poverty rate:
2008 -- 13.2%
2010 -- 15.1%

Percent of population on food stamps:
2008 -- 12%
2011 -- 15%


Providing Monthly unemployment rates for 2003-2008
Wall Street Journal Food Stamp Info (from Feb 2011
US Census - poverty rates
edit on 1/8/2012 by FlyersFan because: provide links


WOW, THIS IS brilliant, true, and the actual numbers
I checked them myself.

THE COUNTRY IS IN no better position since OBAMA took office
it is in WORSE condition, which is why we need to see him go and let
someone else have a chance at fixing this, because the B.O policy STINKS
TO HIGH HEAVEN!!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
why compare to January 2008 instead of 2009 when Obama took office???

Obama was elected in Nov 2008. Markets and employers react to the change in Washington. 2008 is the solid Bush43 years. It's just that simple.


You need to look at a calendar. You are saying that Obama being elected in the 11th month of the year is why the years numbers look like that?
Fail 2.
Try again.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Actually, yes a bit.





posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Your attempt to deflect this to partisanship = EPIC FAILURE.
Because you couldn't argue against the information in the article, it must mean that the information is correct.


No, it means I won't waste my time trying. Jesus himself could tell you how full of it you are and you'd argue with him. You just want to believe something and far be it from me to take that from you. You will vote for whoever the GOP nominates while proclaiming to be an independent. You never change and you aren't worth my time.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Why use skewed info as argument?

I would have just said, started two new wars, didn't end the first two, will likely take us to at least 1 more, didn't close gitmo, signed 2012 NDAA without removing indefinite detention without trial bit.

Don't have to lie to make Obama look bad.


It's like when someone in the family is molested by another family member. No one wants to acknowledge it or talk about it, they just turn the other cheek. Worst case scenario, it just keeps happening, making the whole family complicit in the act. People act the same way in regards to the wars and ultra-violence committed on a daily basis. The big dark, evil elephant in the dark, evil room.

The economy is more important. QUICK! Look at the jobs! Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Steve Jobs. Jobs!

Republicans, Democrats.. same fascist empire.
edit on 8-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Wait until the year is over and gas has creeped up to the new floor of 4 dollars a gallon. You think these partisans are screaming now, just you wait. They will be exploding their heads. There is no stopping this crisis as it's roots are not in bad mortgages or corrupt banks. They are part of it to be certain, but the truth is none of this would have fallen apart so fast without high energy prices. High energy prices are the norm for our future and no politician on the scene is intelligent enough to deal with it...well, maybe Bernie Sanders, but no one takes him seriously anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Well, don't get me wrong.. the economy is important. It just gets to the point where.. isn't there something of better value to argue against in partisan politics? Like, for instance.. which presidential candidate is going to get the least amount of people killed? I've noticed that isn't in any of the debates.

There is definitely a greater sickness to all of this, that all the pundits, and lefties or righties refuse to acknowledge. The economy is merely a symptom, similar to how a crippling headache is merely a symptom.

You can't just switch the economy on and off like a light switch. This nonsense isn't going to change until there is a drastic, fundamental change in politics. None of this can start until we cease the sacrificing of human life on the MIC altar.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Regardless of where you started, it's where we are now that matters.

Obama has made a bad situation worse, and he's done it deliberately.



Nice thread. Nice reminder.
edit on 8-1-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Don't have to lie to make Obama look bad.

I didn't lie. If you don't believe the facts, then post what it really is.
Is the Unemployment Rate up to 8.5% with the Obama Administration?
(or I should say down ... it was up to 10% under Obama not too long ago)
Is the % of people not paying federal income taxes up to 51% with the Obama Administration?
Is the deficit as a percet of GDP up to 6.96% with the Obama Administration?
Is the Debt as a percent of GDP up to more than 100% with the Obama Administration?
Is the U.S. poverty rate up to 15.1% with the Obama Administration?
Is the percent of population on food stamps up to 15% with the Obama Administration?

Simiple yes or no.

Again - Is the USA better off or worse off fiscally with Obama in the White House?
Simple question. All the O-bots refuse to answer. Gee .. wonder why.


Originally posted by antonia
You will vote for whoever the GOP nominates while proclaiming to be an independent.

LIAR.


And all your personal off topic insults are nothing more than DEFLECTIONS ....
Prove the Obama administration numbers wrong. Go ahead ... give it a try ...


edit on 1/8/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Okay, folks..


Attack facts -- not each other



Let's keep it civil.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
You know what, fine, I will attack these "facts" even if it's a grand waste of my time considering the person in question won't admit how wrong they are anyway.

Why pick 2008? Obama wasn't in office in 2008. Why not pick 2010? He was in office at least a year then. I think that would be a better comparison. If you are going to spout numbers at least be fair enough to give numbers he is actually responsible for otherwise it's just more partisan hackery.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


You all are missing the point. (Or deliberately ignoring it)

Since Obama has come to office, things have gotten worse, not better.

Goverment has gotten bigger and more people are suffering.

Trying to obfuscate that issue is not going to work.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join