[quote]ZEB wrote:
No…that won’t work. Hmmm…hope he has a plan “B”.
[quote]
This made me LOL.
I was not advovating against subsidies as an idea I was arguing against the notion to subsidize certain majors over other ones which is being discussed in the media.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Dear Hu,
We already have your money and we are going to keep it, so you don’t have to lend us shit anymore. We will happily have our shitty plastic toys made in your other shitty little asian satellites. Then when we establish diplomatic relations with them we will borrow trillions from them and then tell them to fuck themselves.
We will try to ensure that you are heavily invested in those countries as well, so that we can fuck you twice.
As far as our purity, a sewer is pure to you, so compared to you we are pure as the fresh driven snow.
Then we are going to stand in front of the UN and tell them to fuck themselves.
We like the Japanese way better anyway. They make quality cars and have sushi. Their chicks are hotter too. You eat rat and make complete crap.
I am thankful we can have this meaningful dialog.
Regards,
King Obama (mother fucker!)[/quote]
Your most venerable majesty King Obama of America,
I humbly agree with everything you so eloquently said, especially your fair assessment of japanese women.
That’s why i hope you won’t mind if we have already bought all of them while you were busy borrowing money from our sattelite and buying indian ipads.
I’m sure you will understand that, just like you, i have graying middle and upper classes to satisfy.
By, the way, I heard Europe planned to export its ugly infertile feminists, and i promise we will let you seize this great opportunity without interfering.
Kind regards and best of luck
Hu.[/quote]
Dear Hu,
I am so glad to hear we are on the same page. I think taking the $12,000,000,000,000 out of your economy will certainly go help reduce the population and hence solve your issues in that respect.
We welcome the ugly infertile feminists from Europe. We have already started the visa process. See, in America we fix things, we shave these bitches up, throw some fake tits on them and release them to the public. We have a large population of exceedingly stupid people, who will fuck anything and who have no business procreating. And a good dicking will humble any uppity self righteous feminist. They are only feminists because they are to ugly to fuck, but we can fix that. Under my new health care plat form, free tits for everybody!
This solves problems for both of us.
In 'merica we call this a ‘win-win’.
Thanks so much for understanding. We are going to send you some good old fashion American rats. Our rats, like our population are fat and could feed many. So we figure as a consolation gift, we can help put food on your table.
We are sending them with our good mutual friend Nancy Pelosi. The rats seem very fond of her pervasive and penetrating cooter-oder which we haven’t managed to control. She is drawing buzzards to the capitol building and we feel it best that she take a break. Please feel free to bed her down, hell put a rat in her. She’s into that kind of shit.
Regards,
Your Master Obama
[/quote]
Noble and Distinguished Massa Obama,
We gratefully accept your generous gift.
I sincerely hope Ms Pelosi will appreciate her new diplomatic residence.
Here is the mailing adress : Laogai Bureau, Urumqi, Xinjiang Province.
Regards,
your obliged Hu
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
I was not advovating against subsidies as an idea I was arguing against the notion to subsidize certain majors over other ones which is being discussed in the media.[/quote]
Without bringing up whether the subsidies are good or bad (I am personally against them). If the federal government is going to subsidize student loans, which it will. Why would they not do a risk assessment as any other loan granter. That is based on the ability to potentially repay and future earnings. This would also align with the strategic interests in domestic job availability. Chemical engineers, geologists etc. I am not saying whether this would be rationally assessed, but is probably better than the current situation.
If someone is really talented and wants to study Eng Lit, they can certainly get a departmental scholarship.
I have nothing against liberal arts majors, I think everyone should have a firm grounding in them. The problem is, many that pursue them, do not realize the big picture or ways to make those skills marketable. Their 3.4% undergraduate loan, 6.8% graduate, is then the burden of the taxpayer.
I also will address your point of over saturation: We are not there yet. If these fields were more prominant in our country, there would be less intellectual capital flowing from other countries.
the concept of market saturation from STEM degrees also assumes a constant level of output and innovation. Look what happened when Comp Sci became popular, you had more start ups than ever before. These people create and build things as a result of those degrees.
But you cannot assume those who study a certain major because it is affordable and subsidized will have the desire and passion to be entrepeneurial. An individual who studies computer science may never have the passion to start their own business. The return on investment argument is fine and has merit but I just do not think a government should pick or choose what people should study. Choose what you want to study with your own time and resources and live with benefits and costs of that action. If an undergrad in political science requires you to do an MBA then so be it.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
You forgot to mention that raising taxes is absolute suicide when you are in a recession.[/quote]
Then why is obama threatening to do it in the midst of the single worst recovery in history. Oh wait…that’s right it was just class warfare to win an election. I agree he probably will extend the Bush tax cuts. Gee…Bush is so bad and obama so wonderful why would he want to extend FOR THE SECOND TIME the Bush tax cuts? I guess those cuts were a pretty good idea.
Psst…I think I know the answer here. It’s called obama not creating any new private sector jobs. Did you know that Bush created 4 million jobs during his term in office. Ah…doesn’t matter Obama is just inherently better. He’s oh so cool that’s all that matters.
Spin a narrative? Are you even paying attention? Never mind I know the answer to that. Romney lost because Obama is a better politician and did super cool things like go on all the late night talk shows and impressed the 18-24 crowd. He gave unions more power whenever he could (See GM deal) and scared single women…remember “the republicans war on women” Brilliant! He also called Romney a murderer and a tax cheat. We all know why Obama won.
And YOU know WHY he had to do it that way.
He had no record to run on.
And if I’m wrong you can list all the many wonderful things that Obama did in his first term.
Go ahead…DO IT! [/quote]
LOL I feel like I’m reading my 12 year old niece’s facebook posts whenever you post your long-wided, rhetorical question filled diatribes Zeb. That would be fine if you weren’t in your mid 40’s.[/quote]
This coming from someone who doesn’t understand how the hurricane helped Obama. (eye roll) you are an idiot. But it’s okay I deal with many of them on a daily basis. The public school system has failed you my man!
And I noticed that you cannot name the many accomplishments that your hero had in his first term.
Oh wait I bet you want another chance at it right? RIGHT?
I usually have to give little piss ants like you several offers before they actually understand the question.
So here you go again junior…
…name all of Obama’s many accomplishments as President in his first term.
Go ahead name them.
If you come back with anything other than a long list of his accomplishments I will have to post his many, many failures. And that will break your bleeding heart…so get busy Sparky!
It is not forcing anyone to do anything, but pricing the risk inherent with the course of study.
Sure, there will be people swayed at the margin. They may not be entrepreneurial, but they can certainly contribute more in terms of growth in the economy. And for those that are entrepenuerial and would have went towards a more liberal arts curriculum, it gives them technical know how in order to do so.
Once again, I am not saying anyone should be forced, but that their risk should be priced.
If i want to purchase a rolls royce at my current income, and Derek Jeter wants to do the same, what auto financing company in their right mind is going to offer me the same rates? And thats considering an item that has re-sale value, a car. A college degree has no resale value.
The problem is I am on the hook as a taxpayer, for the poor decisions of others, or simply lack of a market for their skills. Furthermore, why do I have to pay the same price for my loans that your womens lit student does?
You can say I didnt have to take loans, true. Nobody has to take loans for anything including houses. So its a moot argument. Ask yourself this, if someone with a STEM degree and perhaps advanced professional degree and a liberal arts student are applying for a mortgage, who gets the better rate.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Dear Hu,
We already have your money and we are going to keep it, so you don’t have to lend us shit anymore. We will happily have our shitty plastic toys made in your other shitty little asian satellites. Then when we establish diplomatic relations with them we will borrow trillions from them and then tell them to fuck themselves.
We will try to ensure that you are heavily invested in those countries as well, so that we can fuck you twice.
As far as our purity, a sewer is pure to you, so compared to you we are pure as the fresh driven snow.
Then we are going to stand in front of the UN and tell them to fuck themselves.
We like the Japanese way better anyway. They make quality cars and have sushi. Their chicks are hotter too. You eat rat and make complete crap.
I am thankful we can have this meaningful dialog.
Regards,
King Obama (mother fucker!)[/quote]
Your most venerable majesty King Obama of America,
I humbly agree with everything you so eloquently said, especially your fair assessment of japanese women.
That’s why i hope you won’t mind if we have already bought all of them while you were busy borrowing money from our sattelite and buying indian ipads.
I’m sure you will understand that, just like you, i have graying middle and upper classes to satisfy.
By, the way, I heard Europe planned to export its ugly infertile feminists, and i promise we will let you seize this great opportunity without interfering.
Kind regards and best of luck
Hu.[/quote]
Dear Hu,
I am so glad to hear we are on the same page. I think taking the $12,000,000,000,000 out of your economy will certainly go help reduce the population and hence solve your issues in that respect.
We welcome the ugly infertile feminists from Europe. We have already started the visa process. See, in America we fix things, we shave these bitches up, throw some fake tits on them and release them to the public. We have a large population of exceedingly stupid people, who will fuck anything and who have no business procreating. And a good dicking will humble any uppity self righteous feminist. They are only feminists because they are to ugly to fuck, but we can fix that. Under my new health care plat form, free tits for everybody!
This solves problems for both of us.
In 'merica we call this a ‘win-win’.
Thanks so much for understanding. We are going to send you some good old fashion American rats. Our rats, like our population are fat and could feed many. So we figure as a consolation gift, we can help put food on your table.
We are sending them with our good mutual friend Nancy Pelosi. The rats seem very fond of her pervasive and penetrating cooter-oder which we haven’t managed to control. She is drawing buzzards to the capitol building and we feel it best that she take a break. Please feel free to bed her down, hell put a rat in her. She’s into that kind of shit.
Regards,
Your Master Obama
[/quote]
Noble and Distinguished Massa Obama,
We gratefully accept your generous gift.
I sincerely hope Ms Pelosi will appreciate her new diplomatic residence.
Here is the mailing adress : Laogai Bureau, Urumqi, Xinjiang Province.
Regards,
your obliged Hu
[/quote]
Dear Hu,
Thank you for taking that horrendous horrible bitch off or our hands. Despite having to fuck yourself with the debt we owe you, you are damned gracious.
Regards,
master and chief the obaminator.
Drop-dead gorgeous and sublimest imperator Obama,
You’re very welcome.
It will only took us a few years to instruct this archeosocialist bitch and teach her into the ways of the authentic neo-confucian communism of the 21st century.
When it’s done, we will sent her back to your country.
Then she will be able to train your citizens in basic sinonomics and prepare them for the next step of your democractic development.
That being said, our experts are not certain that her bizarre paraphilia about buzzards is actually curable. Not even with our most powerful Qigongs.
In any case, we won’t fail to keep your glorious majesty duly informed.
Regards
Hu
[quote]666Rich wrote:
It is not forcing anyone to do anything, but pricing the risk inherent with the course of study.
Sure, there will be people swayed at the margin. They may not be entrepreneurial, but they can certainly contribute more in terms of growth in the economy. And for those that are entrepenuerial and would have went towards a more liberal arts curriculum, it gives them technical know how in order to do so.
Once again, I am not saying anyone should be forced, but that their risk should be priced.
If i want to purchase a rolls royce at my current income, and Derek Jeter wants to do the same, what auto financing company in their right mind is going to offer me the same rates? And thats considering an item that has re-sale value, a car. A college degree has no resale value.
The problem is I am on the hook as a taxpayer, for the poor decisions of others, or simply lack of a market for their skills. Furthermore, why do I have to pay the same price for my loans that your womens lit student does?
You can say I didnt have to take loans, true. Nobody has to take loans for anything including houses. So its a moot argument. Ask yourself this, if someone with a STEM degree and perhaps advanced professional degree and a liberal arts student are applying for a mortgage, who gets the better rate.[/quote]
I completely agree with your utility and risk argument but then should we take it further and argue for a German education model?
Germany streamlines all of its students since childhood into different schools and some end up in government run vocational schools where others end up in universities.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I have the solution. We tell China to go fuck themselves and be done. That should knock out about 2/3rds of the debt. Seriously what are they going to do?
We’ll just tell them the difference has long been made up with their artificial devaluing of the yuan.
I will even pen the letter, it goes like this:
Dear Hu,
I know you think we owe you $12,000,000,000,000 or some such shit. Since you guys are a bunch of communistic, pig headed, human rights violating, currency cheating cock suckers, we have made a decision on how best to handle the debt situation.
Go fuck yourself. Take every yuan you think we owe you, and shove that imaginary bullshit strait up your ass. You ain’t getting shit and there is nothing you can do about it.
We don’t need your shitty plastic toys and we can make ipads anywhere. Apple sucks anyway, android is better, so you can shove Apple strait up your cornhole too.
I hope this does not hurt our diplomatic relationship, but if it does, we don’t give a fuck. We think your a bunch of piece of shit tyrants who would feed your citizens the worms off of dogshit if you thought you could get away with it.
Kind Regards,
Obama
If he did that, I might eek out some respect for the man…[/quote]
This was the boost I needed today, a good laugh, after I read a poll that 46% of Californians say they want to leave now. [/quote]
Your welcome!
I recommend you show them the door.[/quote]
The problem is they are the 46% with all the money.
Vocational schools are only useful if your country actually has an industry.
Not too bad in Germany.
Not that good in France, for example.
If the only remaining “vocations” are in the tertiary sector of the economy, you will quickly end up with the same problem of “saturation”, lack of opportunities, overqualification and “overexpectation” than with university degrees.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Subsidizing education especially the notion out there today to make subsidies focus on SMET (Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology) is not the answer either as it will increase the amount of those degrees in the market leading to a saturation. A saturated supply of engineers is worthless if the market cannot incorporate them all. In turn all the current engineers will have less leverage to negotiate salaries and instead make less. India is saturating the American market with accountants and software engineers already.
There was a saturation of Phd’s in physics after Sputnik and a lot of them could not find jobs at universities. Let people study what they want. No subsidies based on what you study.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, but you don’t just go from 100 to 0 mph. At least I don’t think so. I could see phasing down visa’s for the above while matching the subsidization of SMET majors to compensate. And, not just SMET. It’s not like we want an absence of degrees in the arts, humanities, and social sciences though, either. But they should be reduced (relative to SMET/STEM), targeting top prospective students in those areas. Yeah, eventually, maybe we could move away from subsidies entirely, but that shouldn’t be part of the conversation at all for a good long while. That’s the kind of talk that will completely shut down the audience you need to convince.
And it needs to happen alongside making a High School degree an accomplishment again. Plus, alternatives for entering career fields. If that High School diploma actually means something, and employers know it, they’ll train them in the craft, the skills, the trade, the market, the business, or whatever. And if that happens most of our students, as in my article above, might very well tell us to shove our subsidies and loans. Heck, they’d rather go learn a paid skill set, making some money doing it, while avoiding a sizable debt.
[/quote]
The German and the Austrian model.
Seriously, look into it.
This we have actually done right.
Jumping into the fray a bit late…
The current economic philosophy exhibited by Democrats prohibits them from making any meaningful contributions toward the debt crisis.
First, they operate under the impression that deficit spending is a perfectly fine means of stimulating the economy. After 70 years of abysmal failure on this regard, it’d be nice to put that philosophy to bed. Unfortunately, that philosophy yields modest short term benefits, which are enough to ensure Congress-critters a pleasant record to run on, and thus reelection, with subsequent life-long pension.
Second, for Democrats, its all about money: a problem is solved by throwing money at it. The past 40 years of welfare and social programs have, in all reality, done nothing to solve the riddle of poverty. In fact, it could be legitimately argued that private charities are more effective at meeting the needs of the poor, and more efficient with their funds, than public agencies. A poster has already mentioned the rampant waste within the military…there is just as much, if not more, waste in each and every social program (and indeed in EVERY federal agency), yet we don’t hear a single word about cutting funding to those programs. Democrats like to regulate or attach strings to their funding, so they [u]could[/u] just cut funding with the stipulation that monetary distributions stay the same or increase, which would force these bloated bureaucracies to cut their fat and work more effeciently. That won’t happen, because evidence shows that the current crop of Democratic leaders is convinced that the more money we spend on a program the more efficient it is.
Third, it appears to be a common mantra amongst Democrats that the federal government is the best way to solve problems. I think it obvious that the past 40 odd years can effectively disprove that belief, and yet here we are. If we can grant the premise that government can indeed solve problems effectively, then it is still permissible for federal Congress-critters to allocate funds to state governments to solve their problems (states having a better knowledge of the problem, and thus more effective means of solving it). Again, Democrats balk at this, and when Governor Romney, who had experience in this regard, was essentially laughed at.
Fourth, Democrats are functioning under the faulty assumption that tax revenues will increase when tax rates increase. The data reveals that the connection between tax revenue and tax rates is inverse, if anything. Quite simply, tax revenue is dependent upon the interplay of tax rates, tax base, and the income/revenue of that tax base. Currently, our tax base is lower than at any time in the past 20 years, AND the income/revenue of that base is likewise lower. Raising tax rates isn’t going to effectively increase revenues to the amounts needed to stave off financial collapse, much less lower the deficit. Hell, you could raise taxes on the top 5% to 100% and it’d do hardly anything in terms of tax revenue. It should be worth noting that between 2004 and the when the recession hit in 2008, tax revenues were HIGHER than those during the Clinton administration due to the increase in tax base AND increase in the income of that base, DESPITE lower taxes. On this point Governor Romney was correct (but poorly articulated it after the first debate).
Fifth, we’ll assume that there are some Democrats in Congress who are willing to buck their party’s tendencies to solve the fiscal problem that 30 years of reckless spending have put us in. The final hurdle is the obvious desire of those in power to manipulate the workings of Congress to maintain their power. I don’t think we need any further evidence than the desire of President Obama to force Gen. Patraeus to wait until after the election to resign, to save the President some potential political backlash. We could also point to the spineless Republicans who elected to hold potentially damning Benghazi hearings after the election. When types like this are in leadership positions (R or D) it is nearly impossible for real, meaningful change to get done.
I will grant that there is the possibility of items 1-4 yielding some kind of positive effect, in some way. However, any positive effect will be undermined by the power-hungry, self-serving politicians (D and R) that inhabit leadership positions. In short, leadership positions are not filled by leaders, but by moochers. Regardless of party, we need individuals with the guts to do the things necessary to right the ship, even at their own political expense. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and certainly not Barack Obama are not that type on individual
[quote]pat wrote:
I have the solution. We tell China to go fuck themselves and be done. That should knock out about 2/3rds of the debt. Seriously what are they going to do?
We’ll just tell them the difference has long been made up with their artificial devaluing of the yuan.
I will even pen the letter, it goes like this:
Dear Hu,
I know you think we owe you $12,000,000,000,000 or some such shit. Since you guys are a bunch of communistic, pig headed, human rights violating, currency cheating cock suckers, we have made a decision on how best to handle the debt situation.
Go fuck yourself. Take every yuan you think we owe you, and shove that imaginary bullshit strait up your ass. You ain’t getting shit and there is nothing you can do about it.
We don’t need your shitty plastic toys and we can make ipads anywhere. Apple sucks anyway, android is better, so you can shove Apple strait up your cornhole too.
I hope this does not hurt our diplomatic relationship, but if it does, we don’t give a fuck. We think your a bunch of piece of shit tyrants who would feed your citizens the worms off of dogshit if you thought you could get away with it.
Kind Regards,
Obama
If he did that, I might eek out some respect for the man…[/quote]
This would be great, had not #2 (Biden) already heaped much praise on the Chinese government
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
In short, leadership positions are not filled by leaders, but by moochers. Regardless of party, we need individuals with the guts to do the things necessary to right the ship, even at their own political expense. [/quote]
Good post, and this part hits it out of the park.
In this thread Zeb melts down, people laugh at him, and he makes a post saying everyone is laughing at everyone else. Liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals. Conservatives have done nothing in the past 30 years but shrink government (well if they didn’t, we can blame it on the liberals), stay out of personal lives (well Patriot Act, but some liberals voted for it), reduce the national debt (maybe not, but you know liberals and congress.), increase liberty (oops bank bailouts). If it wasn’t for that DAMN OTHER SIDE doing everything wrong.
Conservatives have governed as small government, pro liberty, fiscally conservative, leave us alone big time for the past 30 years. It’s just that damn other side guys. Sounds like a 12 year old kid when caught. “But those guys were the ones who started it!” Keep going Zeb, the hypocrisy is seriously hilarious. It’s fun watching the GOP pretend to be the party of small government as if we’ve forgotten the expansions when they have the reins. But the spending and taking away liberty and wars and banning shit like online poker for God sakes, that’s all necessary. It’s a big problem when liberals do it though.
The Democrats want to expand government. The Republicans want to expand government (well, they talk as if they don’t but govern opposite of their talk). Maybe ONE DAY you will understand this. Maybe one day you will rip off the glasses that apologize for your side and demonize the other for the same thing. I doubt it though. You’re having too much fun playing the game just like the millions who continue to vote for the status quo of two big government parties with slightly different flavoring.
I’m sure you’ll come back with your party given stats. Point at Obama. Point at Democrats. Ignore the issue with the system. Maybe show some debt numbers. After all now is the time to worry about that debt. We didn’t need to think about it when we cut taxes while starting two wars. Ignore exactly what I’ve been saying and boo the other side.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
In short, leadership positions are not filled by leaders, but by moochers. Regardless of party, we need individuals with the guts to do the things necessary to right the ship, even at their own political expense. [/quote]
Good post, and this part hits it out of the park.[/quote]
We can all dream. All bullshit aside, the only non lying, worth trusting politician is a dead one.
They really are all cut from the same cloth worldwide.
[quote]H factor wrote:
In this thread Zeb melts down,[/quote]
Not at all sparky…but keep wishing.
VT laughed but if you’ve followed some of his posts on other threads I don’t think you’d want him on your side, but that’s your choice. You’ve said other stupid shit on this site so who knows?
Dang…not easy debating those who are ignorant of history. Ronald Reagan would have had this problem solved. Do you know how many balanced budgets that he sent to Congress? Do you? Well…why don’t you take both of your hands pull your head out of your ass and go google it. You’d be surprised. And he’s not the only republican President that tried to solve the problem only to be rebuffed by the left. The truth sucks for you guys. But fortunately you have obama in the White House for another four years so you dont’ have to worry about the truth for a while. The corrupt MSLM won’t talk about the debt or anything else that might make Obama uncomfortable. And Obama wouldn’t know the truth if he stepped in it.
But wait your hero vowed to close Gitmo, end the Patriot act, lower the debt (called Bush unpatirotic for it) and end the Bush tax cuts. Seems to be that he is the hypocrit and all his many followers who protested Bush for those same things. But…it’s okay when obama does them-Hypocrits! You and your entire generation are SUCKERS H Factor, played by the Chicago slime machine. How does it feel? You like it? You won’t in four years.
It seems that the only things Obama was able to do correctly were first republican ideas. Remember how the naive one was going to send terrorists to trial in a civil court in NYC? LOL he’s a piece of work…
Cling to him H grab a leg and keep humping because he’s all you guys got now.
In four more years it will be so painfully obvious to even the leg humpers like you that obama was a horrible President that more people will turn to the only party that can actually dig us out of this mess --The Republcans!
By the way if you’d like to post an extensive list of Obama’s first term accomplishments I’d love to read them. If you don’t want to I’d be more than happy to post his many, many failures.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dang…not easy debating those who are ignorant of history. Ronald Reagan would have had this problem solved. Do you know how many balanced budgets that he sent to Congress? Do you? Well…why don’t you take both of your hands pull your head out of your ass and go google it. You’d be surprised. And he’s not the only republican President that tried to solve the problem only to be rebuffed by the left. The truth sucks for you guys. But fortunately you have obama in the White House for another four years so you dont’ have to worry about the truth for a while. The corrupt MSLM won’t talk about the debt or anything else that might make Obama uncomfortable. And Obama wouldn’t know the truth if he stepped in it.
But wait your hero vowed to close Gitmo, end the Patriot act, lower the debt (called Bush unpatirotic for it) and end the Bush tax cuts. Seems to be that he is the hypocrit and all his many followers who protested Bush for those same things. But…it’s okay when obama does them-Hypocrits! You and your entire generation are SUCKERS H Factor, played by the Chicago slime machine. How does it feel? You like it? You won’t in four years.
It seems that the only things Obama was able to do correctly were first republican ideas. Remember how the naive one was going to send terrorists to trial in a civil court in NYC? LOL he’s a piece of work…
Cling to him H grab a leg and keep humping because he’s all you guys got now.
In four more years it will be so painfully obvious to even the leg humpers like you that obama was a horrible President that more people will turn to the only party that can actually dig us out of this mess --The Republcans!
By the way if you’d like to post an extensive list of Obama’s first term accomplishments I’d love to read them. If you don’t want to I’d be more than happy to post his many, many failures.
[/quote]
Yes I knew it would eventually come to this. RONALD REAGAN would have wiped this out? Based on what evidence? The man exploded government and the debt. He raised taxes which is undoable under the Grover Norquist “law” Republicans need to follow. Raising taxes is almost always bad, but Republicans did the unthinkable. Slashed revenues while drastically increasing spending. And you want to blame Obama for the deficit? Give me a fucking break.
Ronald Reagan is the biggest myth ever perpetuated on the conservative people. Here you go touting him as some kind of economic God when the man increased the national debt and size of government greatly. Why don’t you give this a read (see bottom) and maybe if you’re intellectually honest your Reagan boner will disappear? Nah, you got a big stiffy for big government when Republicans are in charge and when Democrats are it’s what about the debt. Fuck you wouldn’t have made this thread if Romney won. It’d have been defend defense increases because bad guys and yay tax cuts even if we increase spending because more money in your pocket and all the other fairy tales.
Now granted you will come in and here and say stuff like blah blah blah defense, but good God how full of shit can one guy be when they claim a President who accumulated much more debt than Bill Clinton is the one we should listen to. And I’m sure you’ll do what ALL Republicans do and talk about how it was the Republican Congress that was the reason for the Clintion minimal debts. It’s Obama’s fault now (even though we have a divided Congress) and all the good things were Reagan. Your party cheerleader clothes come out again. Grab the pom poms. When R President’s screw up if we have Dems in Congress it’s their fault! If Republicans are in power in Congress and a Dem President then yay Congress! Look at what all THEY got done.
Then you finish by saying what I’ve already said! What makes Obama so shitty is he has continued what YOUR GUY DID! Obama has been horrible because he was hired to undo the nightmare of the last 8 years of Republican rule. He didn’t get it done. He’s a piece of shit for not undoing the colossal fuckup of expansion of government and the national debt and the erosion of liberty that was helped out by people like RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.
But you want to pin all the blame on him. You’re such a Republican slurper and you can’t help it. Clinton surplus? Republicans did it. Bush deficits (uhmm, some Democrats did it). Reagan passing the debt ceiling multiple times (hey Democrats fault!). Starting a war while cutting taxes greatly wasn’t Republicans fault. And you have the gal to talk about anyone else as slimy? Trust me I’ve seen both sides do it. We can always pin the blame somewhere else when we’re really big fans of a team.
You don’t need to blame Obama or the people who voted for him for the mess. The Democrats were put into power after your party fucked everything up. They were given all the cards because no one wanted the piece of shit Republican brand to have any power after what they did. And guess what the Democrats sucked ass just like the Republicans sucked ass. Big surprise. They are the exact same big moneyed interest big government machines. You can’t see that and you’ve built your life defending what you claim to despise as long as your guy is the one doing it. You’re just like every other hypocritical party cat who voted straight down the ticket last Tuesday without having any idea.