Obama shaping up to be one of the most succesful presidents since Reagan or FDR

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]Caught, you know prove shows up that no such thing happened, then what happens to sestak?MoonMarvel

And how do you propose proving that no private (potentially unscheduled) meeting occurred between Obama and Sestak a year ago?

If it's somehow proven to be a lie, there'll be some major questions on the reason for the lie. Beyond that, I really have no idea.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Net gains were posted in both March and April.

GabuEx

Census jobs accounted for like a quarter of the jobs in March. You can't tell me that all of those gains, and all of the shrinking losses that preceded them, were because of the census.

On how many consecutive months do jobs need to be added before people are willing to concede that they are "real" jobs? :P

also Obama is saying job are getting created everyday every where.

umm where are those places ill love to go to where a lot of people are getting hired for jobs. so far everywhere i go in CA businesses are closing down more and more people are geting laid off. os ill love to know where those places Obama says jobs are being created

acsam12304

Ronald Reagan gave weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight off the Soviets when what was then the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. LegendaryFox77

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] census jobs are not private sector nor are they productive, if the country was ran like a company that kind of work would be like taxes; a mandatory expenses that has nothing to do with the health or growth of the company. surrealnumber5

Census jobs accounted for like a quarter of the jobs in March. You can't tell me that all of those gains, and all of the shrinking losses that preceded them, were because of the census.

On how many consecutive months do jobs need to be added before people are willing to concede that they are "real" jobs? :P

Circular answer is circular. :|

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Census jobs accounted for like a quarter of the jobs in March. You can't tell me that all of those gains, and all of the shrinking losses that preceded them, were because of the census.

On how many consecutive months do jobs need to be added before people are willing to concede that they are "real" jobs? :P

Circular answer is circular. :|

If you call getting bills passed that the majority doesn't want success, he has been successful. If you call claiming "racial profilling" about bills that don't racially profile and putting cops in danger success, then yeah I guess.

narlymech

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] when real jobs are made real jobs are made. so far only the bureaucracy has grown MoonMarvel

Circular answer is circular. :|

Well there is a difference. Some jobs are created only for temporary measures (i.e. the census) and don't reflect much in terms of actual unemployment. Still, saying the majority of jobs gained are from census work is just wrong...

But, as for more permanent jobs, I do agree with you.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] when real jobs are made real jobs are made. so far only the bureaucracy has grown MoonMarvel

Circular answer is circular. :|

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Circular answer is circular. :|

surrealnumber5

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

ha yea right, absolutely nothing he is doing is helping the economy. The dollar continues to fall as does the stock market. Were doomed for the next few years the way it looks....

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]Jobs are Jobs, who cares who creates them as long as its legal work.chessmaster1989

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

he didn't close guantanamo. FAIL. The white house had nothing to do with don't ask don't tell. A couple senators are doing that and the white house "approved".

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]Jobs are Jobs, who cares who creates them as long as its legal work.chessmaster1989

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

only time will tell

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] a job is not a job, government jobs have a zero sum gain as their funding is imposed on the population. "real jobs" free market jobs provide goods and services that are voluntarily used and benefit all parties involved surrealnumber5

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

If you would care to link me to relevant articles, I'll be happy to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with some.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

chessmaster1989

If you would care to link me to relevant articles, I'll be happy to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with some.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] a job is not a job, government jobs have a zero sum gain as their funding is imposed on the population. "real jobs" free market jobs provide goods and services that are voluntarily used and benefit all parties involved kayne2000

That is not true. If government funding creates a job during a recession and the additional employment (in addition to other fiscal and monetary policy) helps to bring the economy out of the recession, the job will be kept. It is in this manner that the government creates real jobs. All you've done is define real jobs in a way that conveniently works with your philosophy of economics. This general strategy, which I see reflected in most Austrian school thought, is part of why I cannot take it seriously as a viable school of economic thought (in addition, of course, to a lack of mathematical rigour and a lack of historical evidence supporting it (and, indeed, historical evidence if anything suggests otherwise)).

The government has three major sources to fund its programs: taxes, debt, and seignorage. Obviously seignorage is absurd to rely upon to fund the government, so that leaves taxes and debt. Now, obviously if you are familiar with the theory of Keynes, at just the most basic level it involves deficit spending which will be repaid in the future, meaning the government does not actually necessarily take additional money from the private sector at the time it is working to create jobs (in fact, Keynes advocated accompanying the increased spending with tax cuts to induce consumer spending).

Complete government control of production would actually be socialism, not communism; and communism is the antithesis of "slavery" and "no freedom". I would suggest you read some Marx so you know what communism really is.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] if you want some homework read up on the crash of 1920 and then compare it to that of "great depression" i have gone into both and many other including world wide examples dating back to the 100 year war all the way to today here. its all been ignored and frankly i dont have the time or energy to do it any more. kayne2000

If you would care to link me to relevant articles, I'll be happy to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with some.

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are joking when you link me to Rush Limbaugh and tell me to read up on conservative values. Rush Limbaugh is a joke.

[QUOTE="kayne2000"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

If you would care to link me to relevant articles, I'll be happy to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with some.

chessmaster1989

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are joking when you link me to Rush Limbaugh and tell me to read up on conservative values. Rush Limbaugh is a joke.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ that is the product of defecit spending see socialism and comunnism are brothers both the same socialism is communism light all eads to same thing ive read up on both i know what they are and america is heading down that path see though read our constitution government is not supposed 2 make jobs its not there job its unconstutionall defceit spending doesnt work....u don t spend money u dont have its a rotten idea. especially not usdebtclock.org amounts if money maybe 2 buy a house but not that freakin much even then u make payments on it communism is slavery. read it up karl marx had no intention of having a free land. why do u think they hate guns....u cant enslave a gun owner. china the communish land censors google. so google is leaving. 2 examples there. and read the books i said to read then get back to me. read the commujnist manefesto then look up stalin and hitlet and tell me u want to live there i sure as hell dont. for petes sake man liberals call arizona racist for defending its borderkayne2000

Hitler was not a communist, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? Because Marx's communism is the antithesis of what you seem to think it is.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="kayne2000"] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html aka read up on conservative values or go read the real george washington or the book liberal fascismkayne2000

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are joking when you link me to Rush Limbaugh and tell me to read up on conservative values. Rush Limbaugh is a joke.

............

Wake me up when earned income from the private sector is no longer at the lowest points in American history.

Is this a joke?

[QUOTE="kayne2000"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are joking when you link me to Rush Limbaugh and tell me to read up on conservative values. Rush Limbaugh is a joke.

chessmaster1989

............

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="kayne2000"] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html aka read up on conservative values or go read the real george washington or the book liberal fascismkayne2000

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are joking when you link me to Rush Limbaugh and tell me to read up on conservative values. Rush Limbaugh is a joke.

.. This is hilarious, I honestly hope this is a trolling attempt.. Rush Limbaugh is the neo conservative extreme.. You should never listen and accept the radical majority the extremes on both ends have to say. They are heavily bias and rarely deal with any kind of objectivity, nor are they willing to criticize themselves or the ideals they uphold.

[QUOTE="kayne2000"]http://www.usdebtclock.org/ that is the product of defecit spending see socialism and comunnism are brothers both the same socialism is communism light all eads to same thing ive read up on both i know what they are and america is heading down that path see though read our constitution government is not supposed 2 make jobs its not there job its unconstutionall defceit spending doesnt work....u don t spend money u dont have its a rotten idea. especially not usdebtclock.org amounts if money maybe 2 buy a house but not that freakin much even then u make payments on it communism is slavery. read it up karl marx had no intention of having a free land. why do u think they hate guns....u cant enslave a gun owner. china the communish land censors google. so google is leaving. 2 examples there. and read the books i said to read then get back to me. read the commujnist manefesto then look up stalin and hitlet and tell me u want to live there i sure as hell dont. for petes sake man liberals call arizona racist for defending its borderchessmaster1989

Hitler was not a communist, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? Because Marx's communism is the antithesis of what you seem to think it is.

.. Not to mention that Kayne's blind support is JUST the nationalist support Hitler needed to get into power.. You go along and suggest that a extreme leaning man is the god send and every oen that is not just like him is either weak or the enemy.. Its quite ironic really.

Seriously, Obama has accomplished more in little over a year than most presidents wish to accomplish their entire run as president. Healthcare reform (its not a perfect bill but its a huge start) major nuke treaty signed with russia the biggest in 2 decades, Financial reform all but certain to pass, Dont Ask Dont Tell on the way to pass by the end of this year, revived our economy from a potential great depression part 2 (Jobs growing again, GDP growing for 3 consecutive quarters). So for no terrorist attacks (keyword attacks, those that attempted to attack us have been caught and are talking and giving valid information) the iraq war still on track to end in 3 months.

I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (I would consider myself a Reagan democrat) im a moderate with a slight left lean, i have to say Obama is doing on hell of a job.. His approval numbers might not show it now, but then again lets keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton where both at a 39% approval rating at this same poing in their presidencies.

ColonelDrakePS3

[QUOTE="ColonelDrakePS3"]

Seriously, Obama has accomplished more in little over a year than most presidents wish to accomplish their entire run as president. Healthcare reform (its not a perfect bill but its a huge start) major nuke treaty signed with russia the biggest in 2 decades, Financial reform all but certain to pass, Dont Ask Dont Tell on the way to pass by the end of this year, revived our economy from a potential great depression part 2 (Jobs growing again, GDP growing for 3 consecutive quarters). So for no terrorist attacks (keyword attacks, those that attempted to attack us have been caught and are talking and giving valid information) the iraq war still on track to end in 3 months.

I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (I would consider myself a Reagan democrat) im a moderate with a slight left lean, i have to say Obama is doing on hell of a job.. His approval numbers might not show it now, but then again lets keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton where both at a 39% approval rating at this same poing in their presidencies.

bobdood99

.. The Mexican government criticized the policy in Arizona, something Obama is critical of too.. He never "bashed" the United States, especially when Mexico depends off the United States for multiple things.

[QUOTE="bobdood99"][QUOTE="ColonelDrakePS3"]

Seriously, Obama has accomplished more in little over a year than most presidents wish to accomplish their entire run as president. Healthcare reform (its not a perfect bill but its a huge start) major nuke treaty signed with russia the biggest in 2 decades, Financial reform all but certain to pass, Dont Ask Dont Tell on the way to pass by the end of this year, revived our economy from a potential great depression part 2 (Jobs growing again, GDP growing for 3 consecutive quarters). So for no terrorist attacks (keyword attacks, those that attempted to attack us have been caught and are talking and giving valid information) the iraq war still on track to end in 3 months.

I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (I would consider myself a Reagan democrat) im a moderate with a slight left lean, i have to say Obama is doing on hell of a job.. His approval numbers might not show it now, but then again lets keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton where both at a 39% approval rating at this same poing in their presidencies.

sSubZerOo

.. The Mexican government criticized the policy in Arizona, something Obama is critical of too.. He never "bashed" the United States, especially when Mexico depends off the United States for multiple things.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="bobdood99"]Wow, thanks for giving me my laugh of the day. Considering Obama let's the president of Mexico come in and bash us around with his words, and Obama and regime stand up and applaud him..... Ya he's the greatest president we have.bobdood99

.. The Mexican government criticized the policy in Arizona, something Obama is critical of too.. He never "bashed" the United States, especially when Mexico depends off the United States for multiple things.

Because he wasn't bashing Arizona? He was being critical of the new immigrant law that was passed there? And who cares if its some one from out of country, of the cirticism is seen as being just and right who cares where it comes from .. (Not suggesting the ruling in Arizona is right or wrong).

Even if he is against what they are doing, he shouldn't let people come in and say what they want. What kind of president do we have?

YEAH what the hell is he thinking! Freedom of speech isn't that important! We have a real national leader.. One that takes diplomacy, and one who is critical of something occuring in Arizona.. Mexico is also allies, and Obama happens to agree with the Mexican leader as well.. It shouldn't be hard to realize why he wanted this.. Honestly who cares one way or the other, people have their opinions on the matter.. And its amainzlgy partisan in disagreement..

In all honesty I think it sad that THIS is the reason why people are being critical of Obama.. There are far more things they could be critical of that actually matter..

[QUOTE="bobdood99"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. The Mexican government criticized the policy in Arizona, something Obama is critical of too.. He never "bashed" the United States, especially when Mexico depends off the United States for multiple things.

sSubZerOo

Because he wasn't bashing Arizona? He was being critical of the new immigrant law that was passed there? And who cares if its some one from out of country, of the cirticism is seen as being just and right who cares where it comes from .. (Not suggesting the ruling in Arizona is right or wrong).

Even if he is against what they are doing, he shouldn't let people come in and say what they want. What kind of president do we have?

YEAH what the hell is he thinking! Freedom of speech isn't that important! We have a real national leader.. One that takes diplomacy, and one who is critical of something occuring in Arizona.. Mexico is also allies, and Obama happens to agree with the Mexican leader as well.. It shouldn't be hard to realize why he wanted this.. Honestly who cares one way or the other, people have their opinions on the matter.. And its amainzlgy partisan in disagreement..

In all honesty I think it sad that THIS is the reason why people are being critical of Obama.. There are far more things they could be critical of that actually matter..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="bobdood99"]Wow, thanks for giving me my laugh of the day. Considering Obama let's the president of Mexico come in and bash us around with his words, and Obama and regime stand up and applaud him..... Ya he's the greatest president we have.bobdood99

.. The Mexican government criticized the policy in Arizona, something Obama is critical of too.. He never "bashed" the United States, especially when Mexico depends off the United States for multiple things.

One who supports free speech, apparently. :|

"You can't criticize the US! That's wrong!"

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="bobdood99"] But why the heck would the president of the United States applaud someone coming in and bashing around one of our states?

Because he wasn't bashing Arizona? He was being critical of the new immigrant law that was passed there? And who cares if its some one from out of country, of the cirticism is seen as being just and right who cares where it comes from .. (Not suggesting the ruling in Arizona is right or wrong).

Even if he is against what they are doing, he shouldn't let people come in and say what they want. What kind of president do we have?

YEAH what the hell is he thinking! Freedom of speech isn't that important! We have a real national leader.. One that takes diplomacy, and one who is critical of something occuring in Arizona.. Mexico is also allies, and Obama happens to agree with the Mexican leader as well.. It shouldn't be hard to realize why he wanted this.. Honestly who cares one way or the other, people have their opinions on the matter.. And its amainzlgy partisan in disagreement..

In all honesty I think it sad that THIS is the reason why people are being critical of Obama.. There are far more things they could be critical of that actually matter..

bobdood99

trying to get rid of the second amendmentryangb

Geez, this thread is still going? I swear, every time someone makes a thread about Obama...

[QUOTE="ryangb"] trying to get rid of the second amendmentDanm_999

I assume you're talking about how Obama is anti-gun. Obviously he won't get rid of the Second Amendment, since he'd be extremely hated for that and possibly impeached for not upholding the US Constitution. However, in his ideal America where he would be able to do whatever he wanted, I think Barack Obama would make guns illegal.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="ryangb"] trying to get rid of the second amendmentryangb

do some research, he is trying to rid the U.S. of guns through international treaties. It's a loop hole around the second amendment.

That's why I think the US should withdraw from the UN.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="ryangb"] trying to get rid of the second amendmentryangb

do some research, he is trying to rid the U.S. of guns through international treaties. It's a loop hole around the second amendment.

[QUOTE="ryangb"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Err, when did this happen?Radiatedrich91

do some research, he is trying to rid the U.S. of guns through international treaties. It's a loop hole around the second amendment.

That's why I think the US should withdraw from the UN.

Even though I've never cared for politics, I get this odd feeling...

I have the feeling that when all is said and done, regardless of whether he did or didn't do anything wrong, Obama is going to be remembered as one of the worst presidents in U.S history.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="ryangb"] trying to get rid of the second amendmentryangb

do some research, he is trying to rid the U.S. of guns through international treaties. It's a loop hole around the second amendment.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="ryangb"]

do some research, he is trying to rid the U.S. of guns through international treaties. It's a loop hole around the second amendment.

Danm_999

That's why I think the US should withdraw from the UN.

No, but the UN does similar things.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

That's why I think the US should withdraw from the UN.

Radiatedrich91

No, but the UN does similar things.