Running on President Obama’s record.

And what is President Obama’s record?

No, he can’t. Hat tip to Donald Douglas.

This is why President Obama wants to make this election about anything other than his own record, his own job performance. Oh, his apologists will make all of the standard excuses, that things were just so bad that he couldn’t have done any better, but the American people aren’t interested in excuses; they are interested in performance.

This ad doesn’t say anything about the President’s personality, doesn’t try to put a question in your mind about whether he is a native born American citizen, doesn’t mention his collegiate associations with Marxists, doesn’t mention his vacations or the Rev Jeremiah Wright, or anything like that. All that it mentions is the record of the economy under his stewardship. And that ought to be devastating.

72 Comments

  1. The ad doesn’t go off into the territory of wild claims or speculation, but it nails Barack Obama for the simple truth. His policies have been an abject failure, a textbook example of what does not work to instigate an economic recovery in America. You are right, it should be devastating.

  2. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  3. “This ad doesn’t say anything about the President’s personality, doesn’t try to put a question in your mind about whether he is a native born American citizen, doesn’t mention his collegiate associations with Marxists, doesn’t mention his vacations or the Rev Jeremiah Wright, or anything like that. “

    No it doesn’t, Mr Editor, but you did, you filled in the blanks with your extremist, right wing rhetoric on guilt by association. This approach did not work in 2008; I don’t think it will now. However, voter suppression might make a dent. Shame on you for that, win or lose.

    Now shall we talk about Romney running on his record and that of the Republican Party. Put those “records” up here, Mr Editor. Here, I’ll get you started:

    * Created conditions for a Great Recession,

    * Do-nothing Congressional Republican record,

    * Romney 47th in job creation in MA,

    * Romney made a fortune on killing jobs with Bain Capital,

    * Romney has no core values, thus flip-flopper.

    Now we must not forget to give Romney credit for a health care insurance model which has practically all of his state covered, and which has been adopted by the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress for the rest of the country.

  4. WW complained:

    No it doesn’t, Mr Editor, but you did, you filled in the blanks with your extremist, right wing rhetoric on guilt by association.

    Clearly, you missed the point. The point was that the ad wasn’t focusing on those questions, which will probably influence few truly undecided voters, but on the issue that will: the economy.

    This approach did not work in 2008; I don’t think it will now.

    No, it didn’t work in 2008, but, again, that’s the point: this ad focuses on what did work in 2008, the focus on the economy. And that, of course, is just what President Obama and his supporters don’t want to talk about, because if the election turns on the economy, President Obama gets a four-year head start on his presidential memoirs.

  5. I think this piece from President Obama’s campaign kick-off speech in Ohio pretty well says it all about the failed policies which the Republicans followed before, and intend to follow in the future were they returned to power headed by Mitt Romney:

    “When a woman in Iowa shared the story of her financial struggles, he responded with economic theory. He told her, “our productivity equals our income.” Well, let me tell you something. The problem with our economy isn’t that the American people aren’t productive enough — you’ve been working harder than ever. The challenge we face right now — the challenge we faced for over a decade is that harder work hasn’t led to higher incomes. It’s that bigger profits haven’t led to better jobs.

    “Governor Romney doesn’t seem to get that. He doesn’t seem to understand that maximizing profits by whatever means necessary — whether through layoffs or outsourcing or tax avoidance or union-busting — might not always be good for the average American or for the American economy.

    “Why else would he want to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Why else would he propose cutting his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families? Why else would he want to slash the investments that have always helped the economy grow, but at the same time, stop regulating the reckless behavior on Wall Street that helped the economy crash?

    “Somehow, he and his friends in Congress think that the same bad ideas will lead to a different result. Or they’re just hoping you won’t remember what happened the last time we tried it their way.

  6. Now shall we talk about Romney running on his record and that of the Republican Party. Put those “records” up here, Mr Editor. Here, I’ll get you started:

    SINP wants to avoid the all-too obvious. He blasted George W. Bush for that which he barely utters a significant “so?” regarding Obama. To wit:

    – Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year. Oops.

    – Obama has continued rendition and has even upped the ante with targeted drone killings. Oops.

    – Obama upped the ante with approving indefinite detentions of American citizens w/o trial. Oops.

    – Obama promised unemployment would be below 8% w/the stimulus. It has to drop below 8%. Oops.

    – Participation in the labor force is the lowest in 30 years. Oops.

    – Obama has more debt accumulated than all previous presidents before him. Oops.

    – Economic growth is the slowest since the Great Depression. Oops.

    I also love how SINP only blames the GOP “for the conditions” which led to the “Great Recession.” Of course, he always overlooks Bill Clinton’s deregulatory actions, Democrat-led laws mandating risky loans, the mishandling of FM/FM, etc. etc. etc.

    What a joke.

  7. “– Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year. Oops.

    – Obama has continued rendition and has even upped the ante with targeted drone killings. Oops.

    – Obama upped the ante with approving indefinite detentions of American citizens w/o trial. Oops.”

    True, but guess who started all this stuff, koolo? So it’s OK when Bush does it, but not OK when President Obama does, is that your point?

    “– Obama promised unemployment would be below 8% w/the stimulus. It has to drop below 8%. Oops.

    – Participation in the labor force is the lowest in 30 years. Oops.

    – Obama has more debt accumulated than all previous presidents before him. Oops.

    – Economic growth is the slowest since the Great Depression. Oops.”

    True also, but guess whose policies were principally responsible for this Great Recession, which is not over yet?

    We had a Republican President and a Republican Congress in power, nevertheless extremists like koolo still want to pin the blame on President Obama and the Dems. Figures!

    And worse, the Republicans seek to regain power with essentially the same policies to be renewed, plus a good dose of austerity on top.

    Thus, we can trust that the Republicans, were they in power, would’ with their tax policy proposal, tax cuts amounting to $225,000 for millionaires, will continue to move more power and wealth to the upper 1% – just what we need!

    I hardly think that the rest of us 99% will vote for this, except for those like koolo, who will idiotically cast their ballots for ideology, against their own best interests. Would the word “insanity” fit here?

  8. True, but guess who started all this stuff, koolo? So it’s OK when Bush does it, but not OK when President Obama does, is that your point?

    No, the point is on your head. In case you missed it, which was plainly obviously, the point is your pathetic hypocrisy. Let me copy and paste what I wrote: He (SINP) blasted George W. Bush for that which he barely utters a significant “so?” regarding Obama. Why are these issues not significant to you now, SINP? Where is your concern for the Constitution now, SINP? The answer is: Nowhere, b/c you’re a dogmatic partisan hack. Where GW Bush was a Constitution-shredding ogre, Obama is “the greatest president of our generation” to you. Despite doing precisely what Bush did … and even upping the ante on such.

    True also, but guess whose policies were principally responsible for this Great Recession

    You apply your radical moonbattish dogma here, too, SINP. You completely and outrageously ignore your party’s role in the whole mess, just as you look the other way while Obama continues Bush’s anti-terror policies and even ups them. It’s sadly hilarious, makes Obama look like a two-faced fool, and makes you look like you always have in here: a ridiculous moonbat hypocrite.

  9. The Ad compares the President’s record to the standard he set for himself, and Obama just doesn’t measure up.

    That ugly fact can’t be explained away or blamed on George W Bush, although Obama’s spent most of his time in office attempting to do just that and making himself small and ridiculous in the process.

    Improving the economy requires reducing taxes, eliminating overly burdensome regulation, and cutting government spending. And, these are the very things that Obama stupidly refuses to do, that’s why he’s failed and that’s why he’ll continue to fail.

    You can’t fix stupid, you can only vote it out of office.

  10. “Why are these issues not significant to you now, SINP?”

    Who said they are not significant, koolo? Not I, so kindly do not put words in my mouth. I’ve been very troubled with President Obama’s continuance of the Bush policies, unlike you, who liked it what Bush did it, but don’t like it when Obama does. Talk about that word “hypocrite” that you toss around all the time, when the word fits your behavior to a tee. We all are hypocrites, you included.

    “You completely and outrageously ignore your party’s role in the whole mess, just as you look the other way while Obama continues Bush’s anti-terror policies and even ups them.”

    Also not true, koolo! Did you happen to see the word “principally” in my statement? However, you know the Republicans held the power in all three branches of government during most of those years, but somehow you will not acknowledge their responsibilities for creating this mess. That’s on you, koolo, and your partisan approach to everything and your hypocrisy! That qualifies you quite well as a “ridiculous moonbat hypocrite”.

  11. Who said they are not significant, koolo?

    You. You were at CSPT every day blasting the policies. But Obama is the “greatest president of our generation.”

    However, you know the Republicans held the power in all three branches of government during most of those years, but somehow you will not acknowledge their responsibilities for creating this mess.

    Oh, I see. Bush and the GOP totally wrecked the economy in six years, yet Obama shoulders NO blame whatsoever for his stewardship for four years. Check. As I said, you totally ignore the EIGHT years of Clinton’s deregulatory policies as well as those of the Democrat Congressfolk.

    You give “moonbat” a whole new meaning, moonbat.

  12. “You can’t fix stupid, you can only vote it out of office.”

    “Stupid”s were already voted out of office in 2008, and we have made progress since, but not enough, granted.

    Are you in the upper 1%, ropelight. You talk like you are, as you exhibit no compassion for anyone else having hard times through no fault of their own.

  13. WW wrote:

    “– Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year. Oops.

    – Obama has continued rendition and has even upped the ante with targeted drone killings. Oops.

    – Obama upped the ante with approving indefinite detentions of American citizens w/o trial. Oops.”

    True, but guess who started all this stuff, koolo? So it’s OK when Bush does it, but not OK when President Obama does, is that your point?

    It doesn’t matter; Senator Obama criticized President Bush for all of those things, and made specific promises on how he would act differently. Those things all count as breaking his word.

    “– Obama promised unemployment would be below 8% w/the stimulus. It has to drop below 8%. Oops.

    – Participation in the labor force is the lowest in 30 years. Oops.

    – Obama has more debt accumulated than all previous presidents before him. Oops.

    – Economic growth is the slowest since the Great Depression. Oops.”

    True also, but guess whose policies were principally responsible for this Great Recession, which is not over yet?

    Actually, the recession has been over, officially, since June of 2009. President Obama has had eleven straight quarters of economic expansion, yet the economy is still so sluggish that you perceive it to still be in recession. For whatever reasons they have, the public don’t seem to believe that this is a good time for added consumer spending or business expansion. The stimulus plan that President Obama and his minions told us would hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8% hasn’t gotten unemployment down to 8% yet.

    We had a Republican President and a Republican Congress in power, nevertheless extremists like koolo still want to pin the blame on President Obama and the Dems. Figures!

    Regrettably, we had a Democrat-controlled Congress, under whom spending, and the deficit, skyrocketed. But placing the blame doesn’t really matter all that much; the fact is that President Obama ran for President saying that he would fix things, that he was the solution to our problems. If he actually had fixed our problems, his re-election wouldn’t even be in doubt, and the Democrats would probably have retained control of the House of Representatives. Because he hasn’t been able to fix our problems, he, and you, resort to the only thing you have left: blame George Bush!

    Well, President Bush has been living quite well, thank you very much, in retirement, and has been for three years, three months and sixteen days. It’s time for President Obama to step up and take responsibility for his own record. He won’t do that, of course, because it is a record of failure.

  14. WW wrote:

    I hardly think that the rest of us 99% will vote for this, except for those like koolo, who will idiotically cast their ballots for ideology, against their own best interests. Would the word “insanity” fit here?

    Well, if that’s true, then there’s really no election contest at all, right? President Obama will win something like 87% of the vote, right?

    What you don’t realize, and what you will probably never accept, is that, in the words of a great and terribly underappreciated American President, “The business of America is business.” In voting for Mitt Romney, and against President Obama, we will be voting for our best interests, and our best interest can be summed up in one point: a strong and business-friendly economy is the greatest thing that can ever happen for the American worker. The way to help our economy is to help American businesses, to help those wicked old corporations to make a profit and see reasons to expand business and create more jobs to make more profit. All of the bovine feces on which the Democrats are trying to run pales in comparison to the single, greatest need of any family, to have a job.

  15. Pingback: (Video) Make Obama Cry | Conservatives for America

  16. “Oh, I see. Bush and the GOP totally wrecked the economy in six years, yet Obama shoulders NO blame whatsoever for his stewardship for four years. Check.

    I didn’t say that koolo, you did!

    As I said, you totally ignore the EIGHT years of Clinton’s deregulatory policies as well as those of the Democrat Congressfolk.

    Interesting that you would bring up that argument, when you criticize me for using the same argument re Bush

    You have no core, koolo!

  17. “It doesn’t matter; Senator Obama criticized President Bush for all of those things, and made specific promises on how he would act differently. Those things all count as breaking his word.”

    True! But I repeat: “It’s OK when President Bush does it, but not OK when President Obama does it”. That’s duplicitous, Mr Editor!

    “The stimulus plan that President Obama and his minions told us would hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8% hasn’t gotten unemployment down to 8% yet.”

    True! But unemployment has been lowered from 10.1 to 8.1%, and job growth has been positive for 27 straight months. That’s not good enough, but we are on the right track.

    “He won’t do that, of course, because it is a record of failure.”

    Not true! In addition to the above, the stock market has doubled, corporate income is strong, exports have increased 30%, taxes have been cut, children can stay on their parents health insurance until age 26, just to list a few of President Obama’s and the Dems accomplishments, which are pretty damn good following a major recession! All this done, in spite of a do-nothing Republican attitude in Congress.

  18. True! But I repeat: “It’s OK when President Bush does it, but not OK when President Obama does it”. That’s duplicitous, Mr Editor!

    That’s your silly projection. The criticism, once again, is that Obama campaigned on and promised to REVERSE all those Bush policies. He hasn’t, and in fact has increased them. He’s a hypocrite and a liar. And perhaps more. That’s probably why you like him so much — you’re kindred spirits.

  19. “In voting for Mitt Romney, and against President Obama, we will be voting for our best interests, and our best interest can be summed up in one point: a strong and business-friendly economy is the greatest thing that can ever happen for the American worker.”

    This we already have in President Obama, as delineated earlier!

    If Romney is elected, we will get the Ryan Plan, which is a code word for austerity. As we speak we are watching the results of austerity taking its toll in Europe, even the potentially stronger economies of the UK, Germany, and France. The UK has had two successive quarters of retraction. Germany’s growth is 40% of ours. Why would you want to impose this on us, when stimulus worked and when we need more stimulus, while we simultaneously phase in spending cuts over time?

    President Obama’s solutions are working. However, it must be borne in mind that not everything on the globe is in our control, like fuel prices, like a recession in Europe, like a slowdown in emerging markets, a fact of which you opposition folks are in denial.

  20. “That’s your silly projection. The criticism, once again, is that Obama campaigned on and promised to REVERSE all those Bush policies. He hasn’t, and in fact has increased them. He’s a hypocrite and a liar. And perhaps more. That’s probably why you like him so much — you’re kindred spirits.”

    No projection, but fact! You wouldn’t know a fact or the truth if you tripped over it, koolo. It’s all partisan with you, it seems – no credit, nothing positive, only criticism and negativity – black and white!

    President Obama has followed up on Bush and withdrawn our troops from Iraq, as promised. Check. President Obama has just signed an agreement with Afghanistan to withdraw our troops in 2014. Check. President Obama has so far successfully defended this nation against attack by terrorists. Check. What’s not to like about these accomplishments? Nothing, unless one thinks like koolo.

  21. President Obama has so far successfully defended this nation against attack by terrorists. Check. What’s not to like about these accomplishments? Nothing, unless one thinks like koolo.

    Oh, I see. But when President Bush was doing just this, you were at CSPT constantly screaming about how he was “shredding the Constitution!” You know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it. So I ask YOU, SINP — what was not to like about Bush’s anti-terror accomplishments? Did you not say a positive word because you’re a dogmatic partisan? A fake “gap-bridger?” Yes, indeed.

    I and most of us conservatives applaud Obama’s anti-terror efforts. Except that he and all his acolytes protested loudly when his predecessor used them. Including, again, you.

  22. Koolo wrote:

    Who said they are not significant, koolo?

    You. You were at CSPT every day blasting the policies. But Obama is the “greatest president of our generation.”

    To be fair, even though it seems longer, Wagonwheel’s first comment on CSPT was posted on May 2, 2009, after President Bush had left office. However, Wagonwheel specifically condemned indefinite confinement of the terrorists at Guantanamo, and the Bush Administration not to grant habeus corpus rights to them, and also said, on June 14, 2008:

    Let the President, as Commander in Chief, call anyone he/she choses a terrorist and detain that person until he/she determines arbitrarily the end of the war — is this what we want? Not I, because in my mind it holds the door open for the continued movement toward an imperialist Executive Branch!

    Don’t you see this danger, and how this court decision nullifies the danger?

    Of course, Wagonwheel wrote here:

    President Obama has followed up on Bush and withdrawn our troops from Iraq, as promised. Check. President Obama has just signed an agreement with Afghanistan to withdraw our troops in 2014. Check. President Obama has so far successfully defended this nation against attack by terrorists. Check. What’s not to like about these accomplishments? Nothing, unless one thinks like koolo.

    You know, it’s almost as if Wagonwheel’s judgement about particular policies depends not on the policies but who is President when the policies are in place.

  23. Indeed, one has to wonder: if Wagonwheel didn’t like the President Bush’s policies concerning terrorists, and say you don’t really like them now that Barack Hussein Obama is our President, and told us that President Bush and the Republicans deserved to be voted out due to a lousy economy, why would he so strongly support President Obama when he has continued almost all of the Bush Administration policies he didn’t like and the economy is still in the crapper? The very things he said were reasons to vote out the Republicans he ignores when it is a Democrat running for re-election!

  24. Wagonwheel wrote:

    If Romney is elected, we will get the Ryan Plan, which is a code word for austerity. As we speak we are watching the results of austerity taking its toll in Europe, even the potentially stronger economies of the UK, Germany, and France. The UK has had two successive quarters of retraction. Germany’s growth is 40% of ours. Why would you want to impose this on us, when stimulus worked and when we need more stimulus, while we simultaneously phase in spending cuts over time?

    Yet, on February 17th, 2009, he said:

    Or we can all tighten our belts now and forever, focusing on the necessities, doing without the big houses, luxuries, and grandiose salaries of the upper 1%. We can recycle our resources. We can go green. We can enhance technology more rapidly to increase productivity. We can reduce our birth rates. We can reduce populations by making more wars.

    And on July 27, 2008, he said, concerning energy:

    Short term, there is no solution, except to tighten our belts and conserve the best we can.

    Belt-tightening, austerity by another name, was perfectly reasonable to Wagonwheel, when it wasn’t a Republican call.

  25. Careful, Editor! SINP will accuse of

    1. taking things out of context,
    2. being partisan,
    3. projecting,
    4. not being nuanced enough,
    5. not “recognizing” that “times have changed.”

  26. Wagonwheel says:

    Not true! In addition to the above, the stock market has doubled, corporate income is strong, exports have increased 30%, taxes have been cut, children can stay on their parents health insurance until age 26, just to list a few of President Obama’s and the Dems accomplishments, which are pretty damn good following a major recession! All this done, in spite of a do-nothing Republican attitude in Congress.

    In spite of everything you have just listed, the economy is not doing better. I work in the automotive service industry. My employer has been in the same business for about 30 years. I have been with him for 9 years. This is the hardest time I have ever seen him have of making ends meet. The main reason for that is the policies of the Obama administration. I don’t know where you get the idea that taxes have been cut, because it just isn’t so. My boss is paying more taxes than he ever has.

    Wagonwheel also says:

    Why would you want to impose this on us, when stimulus worked and when we need more stimulus, while we simultaneously phase in spending cuts over time?

    The stimulus worked, you say? If you wanted to see our government waste billions of dollars and go further into debt, I suppose you could say it worked. As for seeing spending cuts phased in over time, I have never seen a spending cut a Democrat liked or would vote for. Not anything meaningful, anyway. If you really believe the Democrats are going to allow spending cuts to be enacted, I have some swamp in Arizona I will sell you.

  27. “You know, it’s almost as if Wagonwheel’s judgement about particular policies depends not on the policies but who is President when the policies are in place.”

    That’s your version, Mr Editor. Please show me where I said that I supported President Obama’s policies such as rendition and unlimited detention. I didn’t and I don’t! All I said was that President Obama has successfully protected us from a terrorist attack. So you, and koolo, have connected some dots on me which I have not connected myself. That’s not right, even for a Rightie!

    My problem with you is that you continue incessantly to classify the Obama presidency as a failure. Well that is false, as I have indicated some of his successes which, in all honesty, I trust that you agree, but in silence, because after all, you do have to maintain your political correctness in lieu of open honesty, don’t you?

  28. That’s your version, Mr Editor.

    I hope you know, SINP, we’re all enjoying a big guffaw right now at your expense. After all, how can you go from calling Bush a “Constitution shredder,” yet then dub Obama “the greatest prez of our generation”? Virtually every economic indicator was better under Bush, and Bush kept the country safe, as well. (Ironically, however, SINP like other radical moonbats blames Bush for “ignoring” the warning about the 9/11 attacks after being in office only a few months. Yet, virtually nothing can be blamed on Obama after three years. Maybe if Clinton didn’t pass up those opportunities to nab OBL then Bush wouldn’t have even needed those warnings …)

  29. But my absolute favorite was this one. Wagonwheel wrote, on February 18, 2009:

    I will agree that Obama is taking an extreme path that could in part fail, possibly catastrophically. In my view, the depth of this crisis demands taking a risk with this massive spending, and there are historical bases for believing that the risk is reasonable. . . .

    When you criticize the spending part of this R&R Act package, have you considered how small it actually is, put in the context of historical experience?

    Specifically, repeating previous comments, our debt is presently at 70% of GDP. The R&R Act spending and tax cuts, about $800 billion, will raise this to 76% of GDP. In the context of FDR at 120% of GDP at WWII end which turned out to be manageable during the immediate post-war period, the argument then is that Obama’s approach will also be manageable.

    The idea is that once the economy turns around, we must address this additional debt by empolying very conservative spending policies, as Obama has stated.

    Well, the risk was taken, and it turned out that the “extreme path” President Obama has taken has failed, close to catastrophically. The national debt was, you stated, 70% of GDP, and the 2009 stimulus plan would, you stated, raise it to 76% of GDP.

    Well, guess what? The national debt, as of last Thursday, was $15,671,202,480,642.98. The US’ GDP for 2011 was $15.04 trillion, and if we assume 2% inflation, and a 2.2% annual growth (that was the last number), our GDP for 2012 should be $15.678 trillion. Of course, we are still borrowing, every fornicating day, so our national debt, already at 100% of GDP, will be well above it by the end of the fiscal year.

    But that’s hardly the end of it. According to President Obama’s own FY2013 Budget proposal, we will keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, even in years when he projects strong economic growth (see this post for the tables).

    Where do any of President Obama’s policies match your statement, “once the economy turns around, we must address this additional debt by empolying very conservative spending policies?”

  30. “In spite of everything you have just listed, the economy is not doing better. I work in the automotive service industry. My employer has been in the same business for about 30 years. I have been with him for 9 years. This is the hardest time I have ever seen him have of making ends meet. The main reason for that is the policies of the Obama administration. I don’t know where you get the idea that taxes have been cut, because it just isn’t so. My boss is paying more taxes than he ever has.”

    Mr Jackson, there is so much which I find wrong with this statement that I hardly know where to begin, but let me try:

    * Both your employers’ 30 years and your 9 years span the occurrence of the great recession which we continue to feel the after effects, so should this be a surprise.

    * I do not understand how you can blame the Obama administration for that. You need to give some details.

    * Why do you not hold the Bush administration accountable, when the great recession occurred on his watch?

    * There have been no tax increases under Obama, only tax cuts, so I don’t understand the increases your boss is experiencing. Perhaps this has to do with the state of OK or your city. Since the stimulus has run out, many states and localities have had to raise taxes and lay off public servants like police, fire, and teachers.

    “The stimulus worked, you say? If you wanted to see our government waste billions of dollars and go further into debt, I suppose you could say it worked. As for seeing spending cuts phased in over time, I have never seen a spending cut a Democrat liked or would vote for. Not anything meaningful, anyway. If you really believe the Democrats are going to allow spending cuts to be enacted, I have some swamp in Arizona I will sell you.”

    “The stimulus worked, you say? If you wanted to see our government waste billions of dollars and go further into debt, I suppose you could say it worked. As for seeing spending cuts phased in over time, I have never seen a spending cut a Democrat liked or would vote for. Not anything meaningful, anyway. If you really believe the Democrats are going to allow spending cuts to be enacted, I have some swamp in Arizona I will sell you.”

    If you compare our performance with the stimulus to Europe, specifically the UK with austerity, with respect to GDP growth, you must conclude that the stimulus worked. Regarding spending cuts, in recent years, since Clinton, it is true, we’ve had none. But Clinton cut spending, raised taxes, and produced a surplus. But let’s forget that, because Clinton is a Dem. :)

    On the other hand, Obama has proposed a $4.7 trillion cut over the next ten years. That’s not too shabby now, is it?

  31. No it doesn’t, Mr Editor, but you did, you filled in the blanks with your extremist, right wing rhetoric on guilt by association.

    Guilt by Association means if you hang around with scum, people will judge you accordingly.

    This approach did not work in 2008

    That’s because it wasn’t tried. McCain never brought up Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or the rest of the vermin Obama associated with.

  32. I think this piece from President Obama’s campaign kick-off speech in Ohio pretty well says it all about the failed policies which the Republicans followed before

    Yawn. Boooooring. Let’s instead talk about the failed economic policies of Obama the past 4 years, since that’s MUCH more relevant to today’s voters.

  33. Democrats seem to be allergic to budget cuts, even the hint of a cut sends them into apoplectic shock. Any attempt to slow the runaway rate of growth in annual spending is automatically labeled a cut.

    It’s absurd, but Democrats have a history of screaming bloody murder about budget cuts when the debate is actually about an increase in spending.

    We’ve seen it over and over again, let the GOP even suggest the proposed increase in next year’s funding be reduced some small fraction of a percent from the previous year’s increase (even after being adjusted for inflation) and Democrats get red in the face, start sneezing, and begin caterwauling in unison that the heartless Republican meanies are taking food out of the mouths of children while simultaneously shoving grandma off a cliff.

    The Sky is Falling Democrats have demonstrated that as a political party they’re every bit as incapable of fiscal restraint as they are of insisting their leaders live up to their own campaign promises.

  34. LD Jackson:
    In spite of everything you have just listed, the economy is not doing better. I work in the automotive service industry. My employer has been in the same business for about 30 years. I have been with him for 9 years. This is the hardest time I have ever seen him have of making ends meet. The main reason for that is the policies of the Obama administration. I don’t know where you get the idea that taxes have been cut, because it just isn’t so. My boss is paying more taxes than he ever has.

    I’m sorry I didn’t get to this statement earlier. As usual, WW would just call this anecdotal evidence with no basis in reality. We’ll try to keep you caught up.

  35. I hope you know, SINP, we’re all enjoying a big guffaw right now at your expense.

    And you’ve polled everybody in order to conclude this, koolo. What a phony. You are one big arrogant joke!

    After all, how can you go from calling Bush a “Constitution shredder,” yet then dub Obama “the greatest prez of our generation”?

    Did I call Bush a “Constitution shredder”. Citation please! If I didn’t, I should have. And yes, President Obama deserves the same label.

    Virtually every economic indicator was better under Bush, and Bush kept the country safe, as well.

    Well sure, starting out with a budget surplus thanks to Clinton, and before the great recession hit. Brilliant!

    (Ironically, however, SINP like other radical moonbats blames Bush for “ignoring” the warning about the 9/11 attacks after being in office only a few months.

    Absolutely, like the PDB on August, a month before 9/11, warning of an imminent attack. Bush continued his vacation!

    Yet, virtually nothing can be blamed on Obama after three years.

    Not at all true. You’re just not paying attention.

    Maybe if Clinton didn’t pass up those opportunities to nab OBL then Bush wouldn’t have even needed those warnings …)

    The 9/11 attack was in preparation for years. This illustrates again your lack of knowledge, instead again your zest for making ridiculous partisan points.

  36. Permit me to correct ropelight:

    The Sky is Falling Democrats Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated that as a political party they’re every bit as incapable of fiscal restraint as they are of insisting their leaders live up to their own campaign promises.

    Was “Mission Accomplished” really mission accomplished? Unfortunately, no!

    Was Bush successful in privatizing SS? Fortunately, no!

  37. WW wrote:

    If you compare our performance with the stimulus to Europe, specifically the UK with austerity, with respect to GDP growth, you must conclude that the stimulus worked.

    Did it? If you look at the very short term, you could make that argument, since we are not, technically, in a recession. But the austerity programs are not meant — or shouldn’t be thought to mean — that economic performance will suddenly jump. What they are intended to do is to reduce future expenditures on the nation in the form of loan repayments, so that the economy and the government can regain a sound footing. Yeah, we could borrow an extra trillion bucks from China, and stimulate the Hell out of the economy, and it would look good for maybe a year. Then the reality of the ever-increasing debt service would weigh down and slow down the economy yet again.

    On the other hand, Obama has proposed a $4.7 trillion cut over the next ten years. That’s not too shabby now, is it?

    Well, it wouldn’t be, if that meant that he was balancing the budget, and getting us down to where we were repaying the national debt. But over the next six fiscal years (including FY2012) he is projecting an accumulated deficit of $4.769 trillion. And even those projections are based on the expiration of all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, and the return of the Social security tax rate to 6.2%.

    But Clinton cut spending, raised taxes, and produced a surplus. But let’s forget that, because Clinton is a Dem. :)

    You can thank Newt Gingrich and the congressional Republicans for many of those spending cuts! :)

    However, even if you give every bit of the credit to President Clinton, as I know you do, what happened under President Clinton is that total federal spending decreased from 20.6% of GDP in FY1995 (the last budget passed when the Democrats controlled the Congress) to 18.2% if GDP in FY2001, the last budget signed by President Clinton. President Obama projects total federal spending to range from 22.2% to 24.3% of GDP for every year as far into the future as he projected (FY2017). In FY2001, total federal receipts equaled 19.5% of GDP, while spending was only 18.2%, for a budget surplus of 1.3% of GDP; in FY2017, President Obama projects total federal receipts to be 19.2% of GDP — not all that far from the Clinton levels — but total federal spending of 22.2% of GDP, for a 3.0% of GDP deficit.

    Even if you admire President Clinton, even if you give him 112% of the credit for the federal surplus, you have to admit that President Obama is not taking the same path as did President Clinton.

    In FY2001, we had GDP growth of 4.12%, which is less than we’d have liked, and the economy was in a recession for the latter half of FY2001, but total federal spending was still just 18.2% of GDP. In FY2017, President Obama projects GDP growth of 5.75%, much better than in FY2001, but still sees the need to spend 22.2% of GDP at the federal level.

    The numbers don’t lie: we spend too much money!

  38. “Yawn. Boooooring. Let’s instead talk about the failed economic policies of Obama the past 4 years, since that’s MUCH more relevant to today’s voters.”

    Did you listen to it or read it Eric? I didn’t think so.

    Considering the Great Recession President Obama inherited from your party, I think the President has done pretty well.

    Come November, I think “today’s voters” will understand that.

  39. On the other hand, Obama has proposed a $4.7 trillion cut over the next ten years. That’s not too shabby now, is it?

    He also proposed not adding a single dollar to the deficit. He also promised to close Gitmo. And stop rendition. And stop military tribunals. And to get unemployment under seven percent. Etc. Etc.

    If you believe that nonsense quoted, you also must believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen!

  40. True! But unemployment has been lowered from 10.1 to 8.1%, and job growth has been positive for 27 straight months. That’s not good enough

    An unemployment rate of 8 – 10% is COMPLETELY unacceptable, and if I were Romney I would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  41. Considering the Great Recession President Obama inherited from your party, I think the President has done pretty well.

    That’s like saying “Considering that Bill Clinton could have gotten Osama, I think George Bush did pretty well.”

  42. Considering the Great Recession President Obama inherited from your party

    Blamebush! Blamebush!! Squawk, squawk, Perry wanna cracker!!

  43. On the other hand, Obama has proposed a $4.7 trillion cut over the next ten years. That’s not too shabby now, is it?

    That’s like saying “I currently drink 20 bottles of whiskey a week, but I promise to cut down to 16 over the next ten years”.

    I mean, how impressed are we supposed to be?

  44. “Where do any of President Obama’s policies match your statement, “once the economy turns around, we must address this additional debt by empolying very conservative spending policies?””

    The economy is turning around, Mr Editor, as I indicated earlier. Only someone on the extreme right would deny that. Here is what the President said in his speech which I think will be a good indicator that the economy had finally turned around:

    “”We came together because we believe that in America, your success shouldn’t be determined by the circumstances of your birth. If you’re willing to work hard, you should be able to find a good job. If you’re willing to meet your responsibilities, you should be able to own a home, maybe start a business, give your children the chance to do even better — no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what your last name is. “

  45. “That’s like saying “I currently drink 20 bottles of whiskey a week, but I promise to cut down to 16 over the next ten years”.

    I mean, how impressed are we supposed to be?”

    You are terribly confused, Eric, or maybe you drank too much of that whiskey today.

  46. The economy is turning around, Mr Editor, as I indicated earlier.

    The economy turned around, too, eventually during the Great Depression. WW II really helped it. Without it, who knows how long the Depression would have dragged on, considering FDR’s policies.

  47. That “Speech” is a waste of time, since it said nothing about the horrible 8% unemployment rate that we all know is really worse because of all the people who’ve given up finding a job.

    Face facts, Perry. Obama’s economic performance has been a disgrace!

  48. “An unemployment rate of 8 – 10% is COMPLETELY unacceptable, and if I were Romney I would be shouting it from the rooftops.”

    The question is: What is Romney’s plan? Answer: The Ryan Plan. If Romney wins, good luck America. Scratch that, Romney will not win, at least not in an honestly held election. But honesty is not in the Republican playbook, as we saw in 2000 and 2004.

  49. at least not in an honestly held election. But honesty is not in the Republican playbook, as we saw in 2000 and 2004.

    In that line of “thinking,” Obama should come clean about his actual place of birth. And Bush should admit how he planned the 9/11 attacks. And Nixon should’ve come clean about the fake moon landings …

  50. “The economy turned around, too, eventually during the Great Depression. WW II really helped it. Without it, who knows how long the Depression would have dragged on, considering FDR’s policies.”

    Could be true, though we’ll never know. But if by some quirk the Republicans regain power, we will go the way the UK is going, negative, having premature austerity being put upon us by Conservatives, and the same governing philosophy which produced this Great Recession to begin with.

  51. He has!

    Nope! Forgeries!!

    Could be true, though we’ll never know.

    Actually we do as has been cited here and at CSPT several times, but I like how you “know” that Obama’s policies will work! LMAO!!

  52. Wagonwheel asks and answers: “The question is: What is Romney’s plan? Answer: The Ryan Plan.”

    First of all if it were Mitt Romney’s plan it would be called the Romney Plan not the Ryan Plan, now wouldn’t it? I guess since you’re beginning to make up things and attribute them to Romney you have officially kicked-off your re-elect Obama campaign. So now we’ll be listening to 6 months of DNC talking points and prevarications from Wagonwheel. How ’bout this Wagonwheel, try waiting until Romney actually gets the nomination and actually puts his plan out there before you decide what his plan is? Fair enough?

    Then, just to show his honesty and objectivity Wagonwheel adds: “Scratch that, Romney will not win, at least not in an honestly held election.”

    I assume that means if Romney should happen to win the election was rigged. Couldn’t be a majority percieved Romney’s plan to be better than Obama’s? You know Wagonwheel, it could just mean the Democrats couldn’t get enought dead people, felons and illegals to the polls cause it rained on election day.

  53. “The numbers don’t lie: we spend too much money!”

    I agree, Mr Editor. And I admire the effort you have exerted to demonstrate this in numbers.

    The question is how to reduce spending without stopping growth and losing lots more jobs, like the UK is doing.

    I like the gradual phasing out of stimulus, and the phasing in of spending cuts, which President Obama is planning to do.

    We need to make sure that the President is reelected, and that the House reverts to Dem, then focus on the Republican Senate for the compromise solutions. I just refuse to believe that they will continue their do-nothing approach to governing, thus further stifling our recovery.

    And yes, we will need a Dem President in 2016, because the recovery job must be continued.

  54. “Nope! Forgeries!!”

    Oh please no, not another birther. I thought we were past that!

    “Actually we do as has been cited here and at CSPT several times, but I like how you “know” that Obama’s policies will work! LMAO!!”

    They have so far, as we are recovering, though not enough. I see nothing from the do-nothing Republicans, nothing!

  55. “And yes, we will need a Dem President in 2016, because the recovery job must be continued.”

    So you just want a one party system like Nazi Germany, North Korea, Comminist Russia and China and Cuba. How American of you. Never any room for other thought. You’re always right and we’re always wrong.

  56. Oh please no, not another birther. I thought we were past that!

    You really are thick. I am merely mocking your lunatic election conspiracies with comparisons to Birthers and Truthers. Because you’re no better than those morons. You know that, right? With your 2000 and 2004 elections BS?

  57. “An unemployment rate of 8 – 10% is COMPLETELY unacceptable, and if I were Romney I would be shouting it from the rooftops.”

    The question is

    The question is – Why is unemployment still above 8%? Why is Obama’s economic record so abysmal?

    That is the ONLY question voters need ask this November!

  58. “That’s like saying “I currently drink 20 bottles of whiskey a week, but I promise to cut down to 16 over the next ten years”.

    I mean, how impressed are we supposed to be?”

    You are terribly confused, Eric, or maybe you drank too much of that whiskey today.

    It has to do with drunken spending.

  59. WW wrote:

    “The numbers don’t lie: we spend too much money!”

    I agree, Mr Editor. And I admire the effort you have exerted to demonstrate this in numbers.

    The question is how to reduce spending without stopping growth and losing lots more jobs, like the UK is doing.

    I like the gradual phasing out of stimulus, and the phasing in of spending cuts, which President Obama is planning to do.

    No, he isn’t. How on God’s earth can you call planning to spend over 22% of GDP, every year, for as far into the future as the President can project, “the phasing in of spending cuts?” We didn’t spend that much during the Depression!

    You see, it’s really very simple: President Obama says that he is phasing in spending cuts, but his actual proposals say something very different. The hard truth: President Obama is lying to you!

    And another hard truth: you already knew that, and apparently don’t care.

  60. Hoagie wrote:

    Then, just to show his honesty and objectivity Wagonwheel adds: “Scratch that, Romney will not win, at least not in an honestly held election.”

    I assume that means if Romney should happen to win the election was rigged. Couldn’t be a majority percieved Romney’s plan to be better than Obama’s? You know Wagonwheel, it could just mean the Democrats couldn’t get enought dead people, felons and illegals to the polls cause it rained on election day.

    We know that the Democrats are very, very concerned with making sure that nobody needs to present an identification to vote; a cynical man would sugest that this is because it would interfere with Democratic vote fraud.

    I wrote this, last October:

    What you see here is a preview of what Perry will be claiming, thirteen months from now. If President Obama is defeated — from my keyboard to God’s monitor screen! — and the Republicans win control of the Senate and retain control of the House, Perry will be wasting little time telling us that the results of the election were due to Republican dirty tricks, Republican voter-suppression, and outright Republican vote fraud. If, on the other hand, President Obama is re-elected — Heaven forfend! — and the Democrats retain the Senate and regain control of the House, it will be due entirely to the expressed will of the people being so strong as to have overcome the best efforts of the GOP to steal the election.

    Of course, this is simply another of those “predictions” as difficult as predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

  61. Another new ad from the Romney campaign:

    Hat tip to Donald Douglas.

    Just like the previous ad, the one in the main article, this one focuses on President Obama’s record on the economy. No extraneous issues, no “Life of Julia,” no controversial social issues, but just pointing out, directly, what the economy is like under President Obama’s stewardship.

  62. Eric says:
    May 6, 2012 at 20:59

    “An unemployment rate of 8 – 10% is COMPLETELY unacceptable, and if I were Romney I would be shouting it from the rooftops.”

    The question is – Why is unemployment still above 8%? Why is Obama’s economic record so abysmal?

    That is the ONLY question voters need ask this November!

    Eric, please remember this: THE 8.1% is a FUDGED NUMBER by the B(L)S. They have been warming up for six months gradually making new formulae to bring the fudged number DOWN. If this were Bush, instead of using the BLS U-3 of 8.1%, they would use the U-6 number of around 15% which counts people looking and have given up on looking for a job. U-3 only counts the unemployed looking for work. But when Figures Lie, and Liars Figure, the number in October will be “(fudged) Seasonally Adjusted to 7.8% or 7.9%. Remember THIS!

  63. And this one, not from the Romney campaign, but from the Republican National Committee:

    Senator Obama said, four years ago, “The question in this election is not, are you better off than you were four years ago, the real question is, will this country be better off four years from now.” If that was the real question, the answer isn’t just no, but Hell no!

  64. “If that was the real question, the answer isn’t just no, but Hell no!”

    The appropriate and fair question is: Are we better off following the turnaround efforts of the Obama administration? The honest answer to that is “yes”! And compared to how the Euro nations are doing, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

    It is hardly fair to pin the recession on the Obama Administration from day one, since the Great Recession was not of his making.

    But of course, you Republican folks refuse to be honest about this, therefore how can you be taken seriously about ANYTHING you say?

  65. “Eric, please remember this: THE 8.1% is a FUDGED NUMBER by the B(L)S. “

    Then the 4% during Cheney/Bush was also a “forged number”.

    It’s all relative, Yorkshire!

  66. But of course, you Republican folks refuse to be honest about this, therefore how can you be taken seriously about ANYTHING you say?

    Then I suppose we’re as “honest” as Obama has been about his predictions and outright statements. And you continue to buy this shyster’s lies and promises. Not surprising, since you’re really two peas in a pod.

Comments are closed.