If Romney wins, it will be 2008 all over again in 4 years or less.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


I am predicting that Romney will destroy the recovering economy he will inherit from Obama.

Romney will use the same failed policies of the last two Bush presidents.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by alternateuniverse

 

I am predicting that Romney will destroy the recovering economy he will inherit from Obama.

Romney will use the same failed policies of the last two Bush presidents.

Well, I hope you're wrong, as it looks like Romney will win.

We'll see regardless Novembr 7th.

everyone is a little dumber now having read the op.

good job.

dumbest post ever.

reply to post by beezzer


Wow, you actually made a break through here.

You seem to have a actually recognized what failures the two Bush presidencies were

reply to post by bjax9er


I'm soooo hurt! I'm going back to bed.

Some people choose to be ignorant all their lives.

You want to talk about predictions:

Romney (Governorship of Massachusetts/4 Year Term) Unemployment = 4.6%

Obama (Presidency of the United States/4 Year Term) Unemployment = 7.8%

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by alternateuniverse

 

I am predicting that Romney will destroy the recovering economy he will inherit from Obama.

Romney will use the same failed policies of the last two Bush presidents.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


With a super majority democratic legislature, that passed laws Romney opposed.

The legislature deserves the credit for the success that Romney takes for policies he opposed.

Romney will be Bush III, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

And what did Obama do his first two years?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by alternateuniverse

 

With a super majority democratic legislature, that passed laws Romney opposed.

The legislature deserves the credit for the success that Romney takes for policies he opposed.

Romney will be Bush III, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

pretty sure that when jeb runs that will be their attempt at a bush the third presidency,think he said hes eyeing a 2016 run as he didnt wanan try running this year but when he runs that will be the attempt to get bush the 3rd into office

reply to post by YourWIFI


Really great points.
I absolutely love your signature, how very true.
I hope we hear from you more often on these boards.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


Cut the deficit by A $100 billion.

Cut unemoyment from 10% to 7.8%.

Saved our economy from total destruction.

Dow Jones went from 877 to 1153.

We actually are currently in a economic recovery, despite the best efforts of the Repub house to make Obama fail.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


You brought up a good point.

That leads to the question of how long the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the 111th Congress. As this chart from Wikipedia reveals, it wasn’t for a very long period of time at all

there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
■From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
■From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
■For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

In order for Obama to succeed, you're saying he must maintain a filibuster proof senate and total control of congress?
reply to post by Grimpachi

reply to post by alternateuniverse


I didn’t say that but I feel facts make a difference.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


This is mildly off-topic but I don't see the objective of the GOP to continue its obstructionist tactics in the event Obama wins a second term. The past four years I can understand that they want him to look bad so that they can get him out of office.

It's been a long four years so I don't quite remember/understand why the GOP has been so adament at making the president look bad. So much so that they've gone to the extent that they have to make him look bad.

The democrats had a filibuster proof majority for all of five months, unsuprsingly every month after that we've seen a record number of filibusters and a record number of votes for cloture.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


Obama has succeeded. We are better off now than when Obama took office. We could be where we were when Hoover left office. Instead, we are starting an econonomic recovery.

If Obama hadn't foolishly tried to work with republicans in congress, and allowed the Bush era tax cuts to expire, we would be in a lot better shape them we are now. The Clinton era tax increase in the wealthy worked well back in 1993, and it would have worked in 2010.

Repubs in the house control spending, and they have increased the annual deficit.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
The economy was better. Ask anyone - in the WORLD even

Ask anyone in the world that looks at things objectively....and isn't blinded by hate for Obama.

The economy was in straight freefall from september 2008-January 2009. That's an absolute fact.
Yes, it continued to drop after Obama was in office, but the problems were so deep, if you expected anything otherwise, you were a moron. Now the economy is improving.
I'd take an improving economy, over an economy in straight freefall.

You are correct.

After the Democrats took over congress in 2006 and was in charge of all taxes and budget items, I blame Bush for not having his veto pen smoking. Bush let the Democrats set up the destruction so the blame game could fire up to full tilt to get a Democrat into the White House in 2008. Only they went too far and it got away from them. Bush by not vetoing gave them enough rope to hang themselves NOT taking into account that the ultra-liberal press would be so deep into the tank with the Democrats. Check out Dodd, Schumer, Frank banking laws passed that did this entire mess we're in just to get a Democrat in the W.H. in '08.

Republicans for the most part had control of Congressional Committees from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007.

Unemployment peaked down to 4.4% in Oct 2006 from a high of 6% in 2003.

Democrats took control of Congress in Jan 2007 (the Harry Reid - Nancy Pelosi steam engine).

Unemployment started spiking up since then.

Maybe no correlation, but why would the "failed" economic policies from 2001 to 2007 show good results ?

And why on Earth would Republicans be so hell bent on destroying those good results ?

very confusing.





And can someone explain why the spending deficit showed such a wild increase from 2008 to 2009 ? (Approx 300% increase)

The revenue decrease was only $419 billion.

The deficit increase was $954 billion

Good, then gas will go back to 1.87 / gallon!

Personally, I don't think it really matters who is elected president in a few weeks, the country is in a bad spot regardless.

The president has so many checks and balances they really can't do much except veto legislation that they do not agree with, and they are commander in chief which seems to supersede congress's ability to "wage war" these days.

Congress will be stagnate as usual, and there will be filibusters while they bicker about idiotic stuff and nothing ever gets accomplished.

The president's advisers and lobbyists are really the one calling the shots anyway because a lot of them have the same pull on Congress, and the Supreme Court as well.

With that being said, more emphasis and focus should be on local elections where it more directly affects you.