Originally Posted by
.blank cd
Lets have some fun and do a little fact checking. Maybe I can enlighten some in the process. This may get a little lengthy. I might not address every point, just the ones that need to be addressed, and I will address them in the simplest manner possible.....
Here's some little-refereced facts about deficits. A fiscal year for the U.S. is around Oct.-Sept. The budgets are created, voted on, and passed on the last quarter of the year to take affect for the next fiscal year. It has nothing to do with when the presidents take office in January, other than a spending/revenue plan is created toward the beginning of a calendar year. Obama and congress in 2012 will be responsible for the spending, deficits, and surpluses that take place in 2013, despite whatever Obama's status is as the president. The budget for fiscal year 09 begins as a spending request from Bush, which takes affect in October of 08. Bush's administration predicted a 400 billion dollar deficit, and when the bill was finally signed into law, with extreme hesitations and reservations, in March 09, after Obama took office, the deficit ended up totaling over 1.4T. This late signing was also a consequence of two Continuing Appropriations Resolutions in 2009, to avoid a complete government shutdown, which was the reason for the reservation in signing the bill. So, "Liberals blame Bush" rhetoric aside, Bush TRIPLED the deficit before he left office, and the only reason the extreme spending bill was signed was to avoid a complete government shut down. The deficit has dropped every year Obama has been in office. It is a common psychological tactic to dismiss Bush's fault as left-wing rhetoric, when the "meme" doesnt explain the whole story. Factually, this is what Bush is responsible for. It is irresponsible, non-factual and short sighted to claim that Obama is solely responsible for tripling the deficit in his first year in office.
Im not gonna spend much time on this, but BOTH parties are EQUALLY involved in smear tactics. Im not someone who is of the mind to be swayed one way or the other from a smear campaign.
See my other thread on this. The GOP played that game since before he got in office, and during the democratic supermajority, republican legislators racked up a record number of filibusters, which invariably tells a tale much different than the standard "we republicans like to reach across the table". They will continue to obstruct until he's out of office whether it be next year or 4 years from now. And its not just record amounts of filibusters that set out the GOP, they've been caught on video, in public, annoucing to the world just what their intentions are.
This is a good one. "We DID Build That!" The GOP convention's rally cry atop a taxpayer-funded, volunteer-built stage. A psychologically simple minded, Orwellian mantra based on words twisted out of context in order to deliver some kind of communistic image of the president.
Pandering, a tactic both parties are guilty of doing.
False. Out of a total of 63 companies that the Department of Energy and the House Committee of Energy and Commerce invested in, 5 went bankrupt. Some were independently purchase before declaring bankruptcy, a net total Obama administration success rate of 92%
It spiked during the recession and has fallen every year he's been in office.
Women's choice. The issue isnt abortions. Lets first look at a little thing called trigger laws. These are state laws that are unenforceable now, that would become enforceable once a federal law is overturned. Among those states are Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota, plus others that haven't decriminalized abortion. As a consequence, abortions would immediately become criminal. Its almost not even worth mentioning as public support for Roe v. Wade is overwhelming, and politicians would be playing Roulette with their careers for even thinking of overturning it.
Another issue, the president has little control over, yet catches so much flack for. Gas prices spiked to +$4 during Bush's last term, and leveled off at ~$3 until the markets crashed and brought energy prices with them.
I dont know what you're implying here. Obama is not the first presidential Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter have won, the United Nations have won multiple. Obama in fact did NOT win the NPP for "being black", but, per the NPP committee: "...for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
This is called a red herring. Something that is not an issue, made into an issue to distract from the real issues. It is not obligatory anywhere in the U.S. to put your hand on your heart during a national anthem. I've never done that, doesnt mean anything about anything. And as a side note, if I were there at that particular event and the girl butchered the national anthem the way she did, I probably would have shook my head, walked off stage, and slapped the singer in the mouth
Another red herring. Obama has played more than 100 rounds of Golf. Obama could pay his dog trainer a million dollars if he wanted to, and it wouldn't matter in the least. Obama has a salary of $400,000 of tax payer money, plus whatever he makes in investments and royalties. His $400k of tax payer money is his to do with what he wants. It should also be noted that people that work for the USPS make around $40k and they buy their own cigarettes and alcohol with...taxpayer money! ::gasp:: Every single president in history has had servants, Obama himself has hundreds of taxpayer funded servants, and will keep some of them even after his terms expire (See: United States Secret Service).
So now that I've ripped apart all your reasons to hate Obama, do you have any more? Do you think it's more progressive to debate reasons to hate the president, or to debate ways to solve problems?