^ none of that really matters. What is Norway doing on its own to protect itself? Not very much. It is literally relying on the US and England/Germany/France to protect it, should Russia get uppity. Yes, you can do things besides military to protect yourself, but Norway isn't doing that. It is simply hoping we will come to its rescue. Given that, it's easy to push entitlement spending up

7/26/2011 11:58:03 PM

^Its moot. If we were to match China for the highest military spending in the world, it would mean spending 378 dollars per person per year. This brings us down to just under 47k per person per year.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:06 AM. Reason : having a ton of people means we can make a military for much less per person. ]

7/27/2011 12:05:38 AM

Quote :

"Its immoral for someone who gets sick not to be able to get insurance."

It's immoral for the consequences not to be applied to someone for their own god damned actions? REALLY?

Quote :

"The idea is to make insurance not insurance because then maybe the insurance companies will convert to a morally sound business or simply cease to exist leaving room for the government to move in. "

The fuck? morally sound? what in the fuck are you talking about? There is shit that insurance companies do that really suck. Supplying insurance isn't one of them.

Quote :

"fill in the blank of the other thing everyone has a right to"

oh, life. I was not aware that life meant "taking shit away from other people to make liberals' panties fit better." Life is just that: life. The ability to live. To suggest it means anything else is intellectually dishonest at best, and downright retarded at worst.

Quote :

"We can easily afford it."

No, we really can't. Any program or set of programs that pushes our spending up to 50% of our GDP is NOT sustainable on any level. Period.

Quote :

"yeah only a moron would go out and catch cancer. "

yeah, because it's never anyone's choice not to purchase insurance. yep.

Quote :

"This was not efficient and put a strain on the system. "

yes, but it handled the extreme case of helping someone in need at the time of need.

Quote :

"I agree with you on this and believe that the government should provide health insurance like many of the more sophisticated governments do. "

Yes, because it works SO WELL in other nations. So well, in fact, that their people COME HERE when they need real surgeries or if they don't feel like waiting for 3 years for simple procedures. Yep, that's a GREAT idea.

Quote :

"Because some people will always find a way to hoard more than their fair share. At this point somebody, somewhere is going without and once 1 person has more than their fair share its impossible for everyone else to take care of themselves because resources have been hoarded. "

This is so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin. So I won't.

Quote :

"If there are 10 slices of pizza in the room and 10 people and I eat two before anyone else eats there is no longer a way that everyone can have a slice. No matter how hard they work, everyone can't possibly have a slice anymore. "

Because America's entire economy boils down to a 10-slice pizza and 10 people. The stupidity in this analogy is ASTOUNDING. it doesn't take an "equal slice" of the economic pie for everyone to live. That's the inherent flaw in your stupid analogy.

Quote :

"take the 47k down to 46 k and we still have more than double the military spending of any other nation."

Yes, and the military is part of our problem. It's NOT part of Norway's, because THEY AREN'T SPENDING ANYTHING ON IT. CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

7/27/2011 12:06:36 AM

Quote :

"Things could be different in a democratic society. Pure democracy alas? "

Pure democracy wouldn't have a representative government. It would literally be mob rule.

7/27/2011 12:10:13 AM

Welfare is a necessary evil. What do you think would happen if it vanished tomorrow? Homeless children would pile up on the streets, and then you would be facing a real problem that will be impossible to quench. Crime, poverty, and who knows what else. The USA would turn into Mexico or most of Central/South America.

Look, the health care issue, again, do you think that you are a lone cowboy out there making all of that money on your own? Who provides the roads, the transportation, the water, the parks that children play in? Uncle Sam does give back to you, and only the fool thinks that he does it all on his own. It's not unreasonable to think that he tax a small % of wealth so that others have access to health care.

Quote :

" It's immoral for the consequences not to be applied to someone for their own god damned actions? REALLY?"

Consequences, really? Don't be ignorant, you really think somebody working 40 hours a week making about $1300 has an extra $300 per month to pay for health care? Have you ever been in that situation before, do you know what it is like? If you are so quick to judge people's financial decisions then try living their life. Otherwise, you are basically telling me " I came from a supportive family, so fuck all of those that pick shitty parents"

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ef]

7/27/2011 12:10:50 AM

Quote :

"It's immoral for the consequences not to be applied to someone for their own god damned actions? REALLY?"

The really expensive sicknessses that people get denied coverage for are often not due to lifestyle.

Quote :

"The fuck? morally sound? what in the fuck are you talking about? There is shit that insurance companies do that really suck. Supplying insurance isn't one of them."

Yeah it is, insurance companies systematically have policies that drop patients after a certain amount of care limit has been reached which basically means, if you get really sick, we aint helping you. Also, every insurance company intentionally allows errors on forms to fly so they can collect money but then if they ever have to pay out, they go back and find these errors so they can drop coverage. Tons more, this is just the stuff I know about. The bottom line is private insurance companies will do whatever it takes to maximize profit within the law. Thats why we have to make sure the law mandates they provide care to everyone.

Quote :

"oh, life. I was not aware that life meant "taking shit away from other people to make liberals' panties fit better." Life is just that: life. The ability to live. To suggest it means anything else is intellectually dishonest at best, and downright retarded at worst."

Claiming someones ability to get vital life-saving care is part of someones right to live is dishonest?

Quote :

" yeah, because it's never anyone's choice not to purchase insurance. yep."

Its not really a choice. Goes back to the pizza example. They have been put into a situation where they can choose food or health insurance.

Quote :

"Yes, because it works SO WELL in other nations. So well, in fact, that their people COME HERE when they need real surgeries or if they don't feel like waiting for 3 years for simple procedures. Yep, that's a GREAT idea."

These are only rich people who buy their way out of the fairness of waiting in line for non- life saving procedures. If anything, this example shows why our system being all about money is wrong.

Quote :

" The stupidity in this analogy is ASTOUNDING. it doesn't take an "equal slice" of the economic pie for everyone to live."

It doesn't take 8 slices for two people to live either.

Quote :

"Yes, and the military is part of our problem. It's NOT part of Norway's, because THEY AREN'T SPENDING ANYTHING ON IT. CAN YOU FUCKING READ? "

You have failed to read. You claimed we coudln't pull off what Norway does because they have more money divided amongst less people. I have pointed out that the difference is only a few thousand per capita. Ours comes out to ~47k while theirs is ~48k. Even if you take out enough money to fund the highest military spending in the world, ours is still ~47k because we have so many people to fund it and it only costs ~400 per person.

Even with military spending, we have plenty of money to go around.

7/27/2011 12:25:02 AM

Quote :

"It's not unreasonable to think that he tax a small % of wealth so that others have access to health care."

Sure, if you want to break the health care system. I've got no problem paying taxes, though.

Quote :

"Don't be ignorant, you really think somebody working 40 hours a week making about $1300 has an extra $300 per month to pay for health care?"

No. And they shouldn't have to. But, the interference the gov't has put into the health care system is why it is the way it is. And YOUR solution is, surprisingly, MORE OF THE PROBLEM.

Quote :

"If you are so quick to judge people's financial decisions then try living their life."

I'm more than OK to judge the financial decisions of the people who CAN afford it, which is what I was talking about earlier. Sorry that you didn't get that.

Quote :

"The really expensive sicknessses that people get denied coverage for are often not due to lifestyle."

You still aren't getting it, are you? I'm not talking about the consequences of sickness. I'm talking about the consequence of not being insured when you didn't buy insurance. In my fantasy world, we have a system where regular care is affordable out of pocket for pretty much everyone and catastrophic care is taken care of via the insurance. This is a much more intelligent system than the insurance-for-everything model.

Quote :

"Yeah it is, insurance companies systematically have policies that drop patients after a certain amount of care limit has been reached"

And THAT should be illegal, as that is not how insurance works, at least not in a society that upholds contracts.

Quote :

"Also, every insurance company intentionally allows errors on forms to fly so they can collect money but then if they ever have to pay out, they go back and find these errors so they can drop coverage."

And that, too, should be changed. Companies should have a set time to find these errors. But that has nothing to do with your desire to make insurance companies not be able to deny the uninsurable.

Quote :

"Claiming someones ability to get vital life-saving care is part of someones right to live is dishonest?"

That's not at all what you were originally referring to, so don't try to play that game. Even still, no one has the right to the product of another man's work without paying for it unless said man agrees to it. THAT is truly immoral, because it amounts to out and out slavery.

Quote :

"Goes back to the pizza example"

Which I've already destroyed.

Quote :

"Its not really a choice."

You are showing your ignorance, dude.

Quote :

"These are only rich people who buy their way out of the fairness of waiting in line for non- life saving procedures."

hahahahaha. Wait, do people have a right to health-care or not? Which is it? A health system which has long lines for basic procedures, life-saving or not, is non-functional. Period.

Quote :

"It doesn't take 8 slices for two people to live either."

No, but it is IMMORAL to take what someone else has earned fairly simply because he has it. It's the epitome of immorality, frankly.

Quote :

"You claimed we coudln't pull off what Norway does because they have more money divided amongst less people."

And YOU can't read, because NOWHERE did I say that. They have more money to spend on entitlements because they aren't spending it on their military. Reading is fundamental, troll.

Quote :

"Even with military spending, we have plenty of money to go around."

No, we really don't.

7/27/2011 12:45:59 AM

Quote :

"In my fantasy world, we have a system where regular care is affordable out of pocket for pretty much everyone and catastrophic care is taken care of via the insurance. This is a much more intelligent system than the insurance-for-everything model."

In your world prices are gouged out of reach for people with preexisting conditions. Your world is great for healthy rich people though.

Quote :

"Which I've already destroyed."

all you did was laugh at it and say it was a bad analogy. (actually, now that i've spelled it out below, I've noticed it was a horrible analogy. Its actually more like 500 pies and 10 people with 2 people taking 495 pies. Holy batman. Every family of four could be earning 180k AND we could double military spending

Quote :

"hahahahaha. Wait, do people have a right to health-care or not? Which is it? A health system which has long lines for basic procedures, life-saving or not, is non-functional. Period."

Obviously, if you have more sick people than doctors, somebody is going to have to wait. You have a right to life, not cosmetic healthcare procedures. Things are handled in order of severity. Nobody dies waiting in line in these countries.

Quote :

"No, but it is IMMORAL to take what someone else has earned fairly simply because he has it. It's the epitome of immorality, frankly."

True but I'm sure your definition of "earned" has been severely perverted.

Quote :

"No, we really don't."

Do the math. (47,120)-(YOUR DESIRED MILITARY SPENDING)/300,000,000= 4X,XXX. Plenty of money to take care of everyone and live the same as they do(each child gets that much as well and we have way more % children).

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:16 AM. Reason : jeeze]

7/27/2011 12:59:50 AM

Quote :

"In your world prices are gouged out of reach for people with preexisting conditions."

You don't have a "pre-existing condition" if you purchase insurance before you get sick. You know, the way insurance actually works: buying it before you need it. And, when you divorce insurance from employment, then you have a model where insurance can be bought, and kept, despite changing jobs. And, when you make insurance for catastrophic care, only, then it quickly becomes affordable for most of the population. So now, in my world, insurance prices are not "gouged out of reach". In yours, they are, because you think more of the problem can fix the problem.

Quote :

"all you did was laugh at it and say it was a bad analogy"

Then you failed to read. In what way is our economy set up so that all that is needed is all that the economy produces? That's the flaw in your analogy.

Quote :

"Obviously, if you have more sick people than doctors, somebody is going to have to wait."

Really? A doctor can't see more than one person a day? Yes, there comes a time when the system is saturated and can't take any more. And gov't can make that saturation point come muuuuuuuuuuch sooner, and it usually does. But, there's no reason that England can't have enough doctors to meet demand, except for the fact that their gov't makes it so via its misguided policies. Here, in the US, we don't have crazy waits for simple procedures, precisely because our gov't isn't dictated how much care can be had at any time.

Quote :

"You have a right to life, not cosmetic healthcare procedures."

If I can pay for a cosmetic procedure, then the gov't shouldn't make it impossible to get it. Also, the waiting lines are for far more than just "cosmetic procedures." Do a little research.

Quote :

"Nobody dies waiting in line in these countries. "

Real life begs to differ. Again, do a little research.

Quote :

"True but I'm sure your definition of "earned" has been severely perverted. "

hahaha. when you can't win the argument, just claim your opponent has different definitions. classic admission of defeat.

Quote :

"Do the math. (47,120)-(YOUR DESIRED MILITARY SPENDING)/300,000,000= 4X,XXX."

Assuming everyone pays taxes. Which they don't. oooooooooh, just destroyed your argument.

7/27/2011 1:16:50 AM

Quote :

"You don't have a "pre-existing condition" if you purchase insurance before you get sick. You know, the way insurance actually works: buying it before you need it. And, when you divorce insurance from employment, then you have a model where insurance can be bought, and kept, despite changing jobs. And, when you make insurance for catastrophic care, only, then it quickly becomes affordable for most of the population. "

People can't be born into insurance. There has to a time at which they purchase it and they better hope they are not sick at that time. Also, what happens when someone has a hard time and can't foot their insurance bill anymore?

Quote :

"Then you failed to read. In what way is our economy set up so that all that is needed is all that the economy produces? That's the flaw in your analogy."

Yeah i fixed that its more like 500 pies and 10 people with 2 having 485 of the pies.

Quote :

" hahaha. when you can't win the argument, just claim your opponent has different definitions. classic admission of defeat."

Obviously when your idea of earning includes inheritance, collecting rent off of land, and selling the right to work.

Quote :

"Assuming everyone pays taxes. Which they don't. oooooooooh, just destroyed your argument."

So you admit we can afford it if everyone follows the law. The people who don't pay taxes get thrown in jail and we get to keep their whole cut.

Its quite remarkable that there is 47k for each man womean and child in this country and really only about 20k would be required.

7/27/2011 1:30:29 AM

Quote :

"“Happy Holidays America: Boehner plan would have the debt ceiling all over again during the holiday season, which is critical for the economy,” White House deputy spokesman Dan Pfeiffer declared today at 9.50 a.m. "

GOP WANTS TO RUIN CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!

Yay fear mongering

7/28/2011 11:49:31 AM

Quote :

"People can't be born into insurance. There has to a time at which they purchase it and they better hope they are not sick at that time. Also, what happens when someone has a hard time and can't foot their insurance bill anymore?"

And these are things that can be accomplished and discussed with reason and without resorting to a wholesale government takeover. Moreover, again, if we had a non-insurance-based system for basic care, then the fact that they couldn't afford catastrophic insurance would not be as much of a problem. At this point, though, you are compounding highly unlikely events together and then saying that we should make broad policy affecting everyone based on what amount to exceptions.

Quote :

"Obviously when your idea of earning includes inheritance, collecting rent off of land, and selling the right to work. "

Yes, because every single rich person got rich through an inheritance.
And collecting rent? You have a problem with that? Go back to Cuba and see how a no-rent society is helping them.
Selling the right to work? What in the fuck are you talking about?

Quote :

"So you admit we can afford it if everyone follows the law."

Absolutely not. You say "we make an average of 46k. 300 a year is affordable." The problem is that not everyone makes 46k, nor is everyone taxed. Thus, the notion that you are spreading 300 a year onto every single citizen is disingenuous. The fact is, our military spending is almost unsustainable on its own, especially if we keep getting involved in new and pointless wars, but coupled with entitlements, it's back-breaking.

Quote :

"The people who don't pay taxes get thrown in jail and we get to keep their whole cut. "

The stupidity in this statement is astounding. law-abiding citizens who end up having no tax liability should be thrown in jail? 50% of the citizens in the US have no income tax liability! Are you going to throw half the country in jail now?

7/28/2011 6:50:55 PM

Obama makes these speeches every day, but I can't help but feel that it's not helping in the way that Obama (or his advisers) probably think it is. When he's literally on TV every day, speaking the same platitudes but never offering any sound, hard-hitting solutions, it really undermines his credibility. It's becoming obvious that he's doing whatever he can to keep people from panicking.

8/5/2011 12:13:16 PM

Quote :

"The fact is, our military spending is almost unsustainable on its own, especially if we keep getting involved in new and pointless wars, but coupled with entitlements, it's back-breaking."

The military is just another entitlement program if you really look at it. Are you 18 or older and can't afford college, a place to live, food, healthcare etc.....? Join the military and they'll pay for all that and give you tens of thousands towards an education. But wait, why force them to join the military first? Why not just make it possible for anyone who want to go to college to be able to afford it and all their living expenses/healthcare without first asking them to "risk their lives for their country". It would be cheaper for taxpayers and better for the economy. It's not like we need the manpower. Unmanned drones have been more effective in the "war on terror" than the hundreds of thousands of troops we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. And we certainly don't need them to actually defend our borders. What we need is a new generation of educated young people entering the workforce, not chasing brown people with automatic rifles.

8/5/2011 1:56:06 PM

Quote :

"PRESIDENT: "So, when Congress gets back in September I want to move quickly on things that will help the economy create jobs right now. Extending the payroll tax credit to put a thousand dollars in the pocket of the average American worker. Extending unemployment insurance to help people get back on their feet. Putting construction workers back to work rebuilding America. "

Ahh...some wonderful sage advice:

1) Admitting cutting taxes (Payroll tax cut) creates jobs.
2) Claiming that extending unemployment benefits will create jobs.
3) Rebuilding America? From what catastrophe were her buildings destroyed?

8/5/2011 6:04:00 PM

3)time

8/5/2011 6:06:32 PM

Quote :

"It's becoming obvious that he's doing whatever he can to keep people from panicking."

Indeed. Always offering the words to give us calm and, dare I say, hope.

Quote :

"I just want to emphasize what I said earlier.  If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships.  If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service.  It means that we would not be funding critical medical research.  It means that food inspection might be compromised.  And I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break.  And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be."

Quote :

"This is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veteran's checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month. I can not guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

8/5/2011 6:14:59 PM

AA+

More like F-

8/5/2011 9:01:32 PM

Now there's some change.

8/5/2011 9:32:48 PM

Quote :

"Now there's some change. "

lol

Another Historic moment!!!

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2011 10:14:25 PM

For page 91:

"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
—President Obama, February 27, 2009"

That deadline is about to come and go with thousands of active duty still there, likely to stay until 2013.

Total War Cost: $4.4 Trillion

We are currently at war in six countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

I think the cost of these operations is about $1 billion per day. It's very difficult to find studies that keep up with this amount of escalation.
==========================================
And now something for the liberals, who used to oppose war but I guess they're over that now.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-marijuana

And Obama, this bastion of all that is left and progressive, still doesn't support gay marriage. He only stopped his lawyers from defending the Defense of Marriage Act this year.

Israel to receive $3.075 billion next year, as planned.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4101134,00.html
"George W. Bush agreed with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on a $30 billion aid package to spread over 10 years, starting in 2007. President Barack Obama has been adhering to the agreement despite the severe financial crisis in the US."

Obama Administration Continues to Seek to Punish Whistleblowers
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/30/whistleblowers/
Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers using the Espionage Act than ALL OTHER FORMER PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
A judge had this to say in quashing one such subpoena for a reporter to reveal his sources this week:
"Rather than explaining why the government's need for Risen's testimony outweighs the qualified reporter's privilege, the government devotes most of its energy to arguing that the reporter's privilege does not exist in criminal proceedings that are brought in good faith. Fourth Circuit precedent does not support that position. Moreover, the government has not summarized the extensive evidence that it already has collected through alternative means. Nor has the government established that Risen's testimony is necessary or critical to proving Sterling's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter's notebook."

Obama Pledges to Engage Iran in Respectful Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html
Instead, the Obama Administration calls Iran "the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today", ignores its nuclear progress otherwise.

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2011 10:32:22 PM

so why exactly does anyone still approve of him?

8/5/2011 10:33:41 PM

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 10:45 PM. Reason : ncm]

8/5/2011 10:45:04 PM

He delivered exactly what he promised, "Change you can count on."










Problem is he implied something different than what we thought.

8/5/2011 11:22:33 PM

Quote :

"so why exactly does anyone still approve of him?"

b/c they hate Michelle Bachman and her cohorts that much

and b/c Ron Paul believes in a Christian God

8/6/2011 12:14:11 AM

Quote :

"The military is just another entitlement program if you really look at it. Are you 18 or older and can't afford college, a place to live, food, healthcare etc.....? Join the military and they'll pay for all that and give you tens of thousands towards an education. But wait, why force them to join the military first? Why not just make it possible for anyone who want to go to college to be able to afford it and all their living expenses/healthcare without first asking them to "risk their lives for their country". It would be cheaper for taxpayers and better for the economy. It's not like we need the manpower. Unmanned drones have been more effective in the "war on terror" than the hundreds of thousands of troops we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. And we certainly don't need them to actually defend our borders. What we need is a new generation of educated young people entering the workforce, not chasing brown people with automatic rifles."

I can see the notion of an entitlement culture there, but the idea that we can do all of the same things with drones is absurd. You will always need boots on the ground at some point. It's just how war is, and until we have 'mechs, it's going to be foot soldiers doing the dirty work.

8/6/2011 1:37:49 AM

8/6/2011 8:46:17 AM

^wow

8/6/2011 10:00:43 AM

Yup, he's a shoe-in for reelection. I don't know why anyone else is even bothering running. It's impossible to unseat an incumbent president.

8/6/2011 12:34:50 PM

^^^That is extremely cooked data, anyone should be able to tell considering they cherrypicked their data and made it seem like they didn't.

8/6/2011 1:44:33 PM

Yeah, military conflicts is incorrect. We're in 6, not 3.

8/6/2011 1:46:46 PM

The only thing that could potentially be damning there is the unemployment rate, but that's been dropping for a while. The rest of the items there don't really speak to anything.

And if you look at the actual unemployment trends:
http://tinyurl.com/3pkw95n

He stopped the Republican-years free fall for a slight downward trend. I guess you could criticize him for things stagnating though if you wanted, but it's not like the Republican congress was offering any solutions. Their best choice was tax breaks for "job creators" which didn't seem to have actually done much.

[Edited on August 6, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2011 1:55:59 PM

move along, nothing to see here

the only people who disapprove of Obama's politics are racist, thats the only explanation

8/6/2011 3:42:50 PM

^dumb ass remarks like that make it difficult for people like to me to criticize Obama for fear of being associated with you and yours

8/6/2011 3:57:43 PM

Thats my point

8/6/2011 4:10:14 PM

There is nothing cooked about the data. Cherry picked, meh. The numbers aren't lying though.

8/6/2011 9:53:23 PM

yeah those sources reak of right wing tea party groups. US Census, FDIC, US Treasury..... man

8/6/2011 11:09:43 PM

Quote :

"That is extremely cooked data, anyone should be able to tell considering they cherrypicked their data and made it seem like they didn't."

imma have to agree with the Communist on this one.

Quote :

"He stopped the Republican-years free fall "

it had already almost bottomed out before he even got in the Oval Office. jeez, dude. he didn't do shit.

^ the sources aren't what's crooked. It's the timing of the data collection. Hell, the failed banks one is the worst. January 2009 was, more or less, at the beginning of the crisis, as banks were still trying to stay afloat. They couldn't retroactively fail after that and have their numbers count for pre-Jan 2009. So it should only be expected that that number would increase. Same with total debt, though what is more important is the growth of the debt, 40% in 2 years, which is most certainly squarely on the shoulders of Obama. Even then, it should be expected that debt would grow in a recession, and we can't completely blame Obama for the economy being in recession at the time he entered office, now can we?

[Edited on August 7, 2011 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

8/7/2011 1:51:33 AM

I think it is just a snapshot of a couple of indicators on where things were when O took office, that is all. Of course O doesnt get all the blame for the recent recession. (although one could argue that his party should share some). However, at what year do you start throwing some responsiblity on the party in power? Just when things go good?

The biggest accomplishments have been the stimulus, which only defense of it is that things would be much worse without it, and obamacare which half the people dont want. (probably the half that pay for everything as is)

8/7/2011 9:11:45 AM

Quote :

"it had already almost bottomed out before he even got in the Oval Office. jeez, dude. he didn't do shit. "

LOL...

8/8/2011 2:13:16 AM

Love it how people can claim he has any credibility as the Dow plummets WHILE HE SPEAKS.

He should just resign and let good ol' boy Joey B have a shot at it.

8/8/2011 2:38:35 PM

Do you think he's suppose to be moses and use magic to stop people from trading?

8/8/2011 3:09:56 PM

no but youre supposed to fuck off and quit defending him.

this loser is beyond all reprieve.

8/8/2011 3:11:26 PM

I think it just emphasizes the fact that he has zero ability to calm the markets.

8/8/2011 3:11:33 PM

God himself couldn't calm the markets today.

8/8/2011 3:13:19 PM

interesting you point that out-

obama carries himself as if he is God.

obviously self-deluded no?

8/8/2011 3:14:37 PM

BARACKALYPSE

8/8/2011 3:16:33 PM

NOW

8/8/2011 3:44:16 PM

So what will be the first thing to go when the Teabaggers take over in 2012? My guess will be the Affordable Care Act followed closely by any resemblance of environmental protection. Sorry other animals, $$$ is more important than your existence. Enjoy your tarball laden beaches North Carolina!

8/8/2011 4:01:16 PM

Been meaning to ask this...why the obsession of keeping species from going extinct? Is it the idea that maybe they hold disease cures or just because...well, just because?

8/8/2011 4:09:41 PM