Remember when there was a surplus in 2001? Me too. --Ah yes, the first couple months of the Bush Administration living on Clinton's budget. Then came the 10-year tax cut for the rich and the surplus was blown up before the Trade Towers were. Remember what happened to the debt and deficit once the Dems gained control of congress in 2007, and the presidency in 2009? Me too. --That made the nation face up to Bush's false housing bubble that had hidden how he ruined the economy. Good thing they didn't take over any later or it'd be a lot worse now. Your Dems are even bailing ship on this loser, yet he's literally willing to double down with money that he doesn't even have. --I forgot. Did national debt triple or only double under Bush?
I think he didn't want to panic the children, and there wasn't much he could do immediately that his staff wasn't already doing (getting information about what was going on). I don't think they were going to let air force one fly until every plane in the sky either landed or was accounted for. This was pretty good: [video=youtube;x7OCgMPX2mE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE[/video]
This has been proven wrong here at least once, yet you keep repeating it. Do you think it will ever be true or something?
What happened to Obama's budget? Last I saw, his latest attempt was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Has he even had a real budget that has been passed during his term, other than a continuation without parameters?
my point is only an idiot thinks it's solely the fault of the president or those who are in charge of the senate and house.
My point is that shit starting going off the rails when Barry and the other freshmen joined the 2007 congress. Bush clearly played a big role, but the Dem House and Senate had to approve every spending bill during that time, including funding the wars. Also, the amazing thing about this book is that Obama apparently was interviewed for it for 6 hours by the author, and it's in the book. I can't wait to see those quotes!
Obama's making Palin look good. Wow. http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/20/v-fullstory/2417008/poll-finds-obama-losing-ground.html Poll finds Obama losing ground to Republicans A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him. Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican. The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.
Wait a second... I can understand independents not voting for Obama, but what in their right mind is turning them toward Palin? Has she cured cancer or efficiently engineered solar power while I wasn't paying attention?
People will say outlandish things like that, because it builds confidence in the base party. Basically they're trying to tell their vocal base that Obama is so bad that independents are turning towards crazy lady over him! You should be confident that he's going to lose. The same was done to Bush (and others) where they'd say that "X candidate has lost Y voting base, and they'd rather vote for extreme candidate Z". The people saying it don't actually believe it (or if they do, they don't understand what it truly means to be independent). They just know it benefits their belief system and base.
Good question. Her detractors remember her unsteadiness on the public stage as VP candidate, believe the Saturday Night sketches about her are the truth, and that she's a quitter for resigning as governor. Yet, since resigning as governor, she's taken to the road to speak on the issues and has honed her message and understanding of the issues. She's thrown her weight behind tea party candidates and helped most of those get elected. Thousands of people will sit in the rain to see her speak; for some reason she's extremely popular in that regard. Maybe there's a change of attitude towards her because of the failures of the people in office. If the people in office are abject failures, we the people are not doing so well, the people in office are belittling her, then she must be the answer. The failures aren't the answer.
Really interesting interview. [video]http://www.hulu.com/watch/280729/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ron-suskind#s-p1-sr-i1[/video] http://www.hulu.com/watch/280729/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ron-suskind#s-p1-sr-i1
http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...idence-men-economic-team-geithner-2011-9?op=1 Obama is a terrible manager The whole economic team knew the stimulus was doomed to fail But Paul Krugman was the voice inside Obama's head And then totally lost it after Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke Tim Geithner went behind everybody's back to save the banks The White House has a SERIOUS women problem It took Obama seven months to realize he needed to fire Rahm In short, Obama is a REALLY terrible manager Not much has changed — Obama hasn't had a message since 2008 :MARIS61:
Well, it's undeniable he has an agenda and that is to make silly $ by selling this book trashing the President through personal opinions and singled-out interpretations from admittedly biased individuals of little importance rather than do something connstructive for his country. Just another parasite looking to get rich without working for it. I hear he'll be a contestant on Dancing with the Stars next season.
Pretty obvious who's dragging their feet and who's suggesting solutions. Put the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of our dishonest senators and representatives.
Resigned immediately, selecting a child from the classroom at random to finish his term for him. Hindsight is golden but I think it's obvious we'd have been in safer hands with a random elementary student leading us rather than Bush.
Really though, where is the budget? I realize you're a gimmick account, as you've said in the past, but how about a simple fiscal-year budget from Failbama before we start talking about more spending and tax increases? Also, why hasn't a single House Democrat introduced the PASS THIS BILL!!! bill yet? It's been two weeks. It's tough to pass a bill that can't even be put through committee, isn't it?
julius would be OUTRAGED at you trivializing this grave day in our history. Since you're on his "team", he won't be though.
Articles like this, about conflicting personalities of presidential advisors, have appeared during every presidency, forever. When it's a Republican president, the conservative-owned media say he's too nice to fire people fast. When it's a Democrat, they say he's too incompetent to do so. The best thing Obama has is that the president before him was the worst one in at least a century. Obama is too conservative to fight Republicans, so he appears impotent and inexperienced. He's certainly less so than his predecessor, but as Maris says, that's a low standard and even a kid would look better than Bush. Obama's results are the same as would have come from a normal Republican president (not a crazy one like his 2012 opponent will be, which will make Obama's reelection a cinch which he doesn't deserve).
