Well Mr. Obama, we know you are in for some tough times ahead!

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You can however, try something that has worked for you before: Blame the LAST president!




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wulff
You can however, try something that has worked for you before: Blame the LAST president!
Exactly! Look at the awful state of the economy he has "inherited" this time.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wulff
 


cute

but how does this thread help me understand the world better or inform me in any way. It simply divides us and starts the same old arguments that continue to go round and round between the left and the right.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Its a valid point.....now he has no rock to hid behind.

Of course they will just come up with more excuses why he didn't do ANYTHING he promised first go around.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I'm sure the media will use the word "bipartisanship" a million times in the next 4 years. Of course their definition of bipartisanship is Democrats getting anything they want.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


That was the best one line OP that ive seen on this board in years...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I must admit I've been wondering about this. The current recovery is the slowest and weakest in the last 65 years. Some are wondering if the numbers should be interpreted to indicate that we have not left the recession. This recovery is strikingly different from anything in the past, even the 1980's Savings and Loan crisis, which also dealt with banks.

At what point, and using what economic measures, may we pass judgment on the success or failure of Obama's policies? There are at least three possible starting points, his inauguration, the bottom of the recession dip, or the time, a few months later, when things plateaued.

I would consider that good measures of success or failure would include the GDP, the labor participation rate, and median annual income. Of course I'm open to other ideas. But without some established standards, we could blame Bush for the next twenty years.

So, how do we measure the President?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952


So, how do we measure the President?


Simply put....Adherence to their promises and their actions. If they do nothing for the country they get the axe!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkofmimir
reply to post by wulff
 


cute

but how does this thread help me understand the world better or inform me in any way. It simply divides us and starts the same old arguments that continue to go round and round between the left and the right.


One line is all that is necessary, that you don't understand this OR the world any better is proof positive that the left needs to be handled like children.... if I had the time I would explain to you how my one-liner says it all!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 

Dear shaneslaughta,

I'm the most easily confused poster here.

Simply put....Adherence to their promises and their actions. If they do nothing for the country they get the axe!
If that were true, how did Obama get . . . never mind, no need to start a fight.

Isn't there some objective way we can measure these things?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I do not see "it's Bush's fault" being the catch phrase the next four years.

What I do expect to see a lot is "it wouldn't matter who was president".

It's another way to shift blame away from the administration's failures and it has started already. It's only day two



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The only objective way to measure is to see what he has done and compute that info into the whole ball of wax.

Obama lovers please insert heads into sand now.
edit on 8-11-2012 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
I do not see "it's Bush's fault" being the catch phrase the next four years.

What I do expect to see a lot is "it wouldn't matter who was president".

It's another way to shift blame away from the administration's failures and it has started already. It's only day two


No, actually, I think I caught a couple of sentences he said yesterday when channel surfing. Basically he said, we had a lot of work to do last term because of the previous administration and we made a lot of progress, now its time to finish the job (and I am paraphrasing)
So, yea he will find a way to keep blaming bush... boy, he and his zombies are delusional.
edit on 11/8/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
May I offer an example of what I'm talking about? I don't know how to grab the chart, please go to the link. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since January of 2007 the percentage of Americans working has dropped continually (With the exception of a couple of months in the Spring of 2010, when Census workers were hired.)

That drop has not slowed down or changed during Obama's four years. I don't see a sign of recovery here, or even that we've stopped falling.

data.bls.gov...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


In your instance posted a lot of that trend is because of the aging workforce, the baby boomers are retiring. the good paying jobs are being left open so companies can save a few bucks.

Their are less and less jobs and more and more people looking for work.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 

Dear shaneslaughta,

That retirement age idea is a good one, thanks for bringing it up. I think the people who drew up the data were thinking along the same lines when they decided not to consider people over age 65 as part of the population. They're only looking at working age people, so I don't think the boomers are a big factor in this data.

If companies are not hiring in order to have a better bottom line, then you must be saying it makes more financial sense for companies not to expand. What kind of economy have we created where it makes more sense not to grow?

Look at it this way. Say an employee costs $100,000 a year, benefits and all. If he can add $100,001 to the companies profits, he gets hired. If $99,999, he doesn't. What's causing cost to go up, or make owners believe they will go up? Health care mandates, for one. What's causing profits to go down? Regulations and taxes, among other things. In a situation like that it doesn't make sense to hire someone who will cost you more than you make from him. Hirings, reasonably, go down.

Can you blame it on greedy businessmen? I can't see that, because this is a pretty sharp and sustained dip. Are we saying they got greedy all of a sudden? Or that they're becoming more and more greedy over the last five years than in the past? No, that doesn't sound right.

I'm not sure that this chart is caused by an aging population or stingy employers, but if I misunderstood you, please correct me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by 200Plus
I do not see "it's Bush's fault" being the catch phrase the next four years.

What I do expect to see a lot is "it wouldn't matter who was president".

It's another way to shift blame away from the administration's failures and it has started already. It's only day two


No, actually, I think I caught a couple of sentences he said yesterday when channel surfing. Basically he said, we had a lot of work to do last term because of the previous administration and we made a lot of progress, now its time to finish the job (and I am paraphrasing)
So, yea he will find a way to keep blaming bush... boy, he and his zombies are delusional.
edit on 11/8/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)


Well said, that is exactly what I meant by my OP, Obama's favorite fall guy is getting further away..... he will have to find other people to blame!
Watching the news tonight you can see he is up to the dirty tricks that the left finds nothing wrong with, waiting till after the election to announce the Iranian attack on a US drone in International waters. Letting four American die when a Specter Gunship was standing by to help! The blood of these 4 innocent and brave Americans are on the hands of the people that voted this murderer back into office! That might sound strong calling him that but anyone that simply lets others die (because he already had said terrorists were pretty much on their heels because HE killed Bin Laden!).
How ca so many people let someone do these things and then want him to lead them again?
It happened before, in NAZI Germany!





top topics
 
4

log in

join