Proof! President Obama Will Win 2012

[True Blue]

[quote name="PN-G bamakid" post="1065914" timestamp="1316974020"]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065911#msg1065911 date=1316973882]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

So your source gets thrown out by raw data and you won't even offer a response?

If you're going to continue to copy and paste blogs or articles, at least post the URL.
[/quote] So My data is wrong but your from Fox News is right ;D ;D ;D

[True Blue]

[quote name="SmashMouth" post="1065916" timestamp="1316974245"]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065911#msg1065911 date=1316973882]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

Even your beloved Obama would tell you you're NUTS!
[/quote]NO I just dont read Fox news week or Hannity Fox

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065918" timestamp="1316974283"]
[quote author=PN-G bamakid link=topic=87540.msg1065914#msg1065914 date=1316974020]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065911#msg1065911 date=1316973882]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

So your source gets thrown out by raw data and you won't even offer a response?

If you're going to continue to copy and paste blogs or articles, at least post the URL.
[/quote] So My data is wrong but your from Fox News is right ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]

Where have I used a source from Fox news in this debate? You used an internet blog. I used a chart comprised of information from three separate federal entities. Which do you think is more reliable?

[True Blue]

[quote name="PN-G bamakid" post="1065921" timestamp="1316974892"]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065918#msg1065918 date=1316974283]
[quote author=PN-G bamakid link=topic=87540.msg1065914#msg1065914 date=1316974020]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065911#msg1065911 date=1316973882]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

So your source gets thrown out by raw data and you won't even offer a response?

If you're going to continue to copy and paste blogs or articles, at least post the URL.
[/quote] So My data is wrong but your from Fox News is right ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]

Where have I used a source from Fox news in this debate? You used an internet blog. I used a chart comprised of information from three separate federal entities. Which do you think is more reliable?
[/quote] Well seeing that YOU are allways saying that the Feds cant get anything right What do you think??

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065931" timestamp="1316976242"]
Well seeing that YOU are allways saying that the Feds cant get anything right What do you think??
[/quote]

Where have I said that the federal government can't get anything right? Granted, I've been openly critical of many aspects of the federal government, but I've never said that they can't get anything right.

In any case, that's irrelevant. We're talking about debt - the numbers, not the opinions. You got yours from a poorly researched internet blog. I got mine from the raw data.

[stevenash]

Blue- You are saying that the debt problems are totally the product of the Republicans.  Lets assume you are correct ( even though you are not)  The Dems solution is to take on more debt to get rid of the old debt. They want to tackle the problem by compounding it.  Can you tell me just how that works, please?  It doesn't seem too logical that the solution to  overcoming alcoholism is to consume twice as much alcohol as you did in the past.  Since you get so much info from the internet, read the story about the $16 muffins (symbolic, of course, of the problems in Washington) and see if there isnt a better way to cure our monetary issues than borrowing more money and blaming it on Bush.  And if you will be honest about it, the Fed SELDOM (regardless of party) gets anything right.
http://news.yahoo.com/16-muffins-8-coffee-served-justice-audit-023623142.html

[True Blue]

No I do not think the Reps are the onlyones to blame. The Dem stood by like a bunch of sheep and let Bust have a blank check book. But now we have to make cuts AND raise Taxes to play the bill. And all this delaying is doing nothing to help. You keep saying that the top 1% does not wont to spend any money because they do not know what the goverment is going to do.. So Quite running around the bush, Raise the taxes and then they will know what to execpt, And they will deal with it , they all ways have. I can say this for the Rep. when they get controll they make crap happen, good or bad, the Dem cant agree and anything a they get nothing done.

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065968" timestamp="1316978873"]
No I do not think the Reps are the onlyones to blame. The Dem stood by like a bunch of sheep and let Bust have a blank check book. But now we have to make cuts AND raise Taxes to play the bill. And all this delaying is doing nothing to help. You keep saying that the top 1% does not wont to spend any money because they do not know what the goverment is going to do.. So Quite running around the bush, Raise the taxes and then they will know what to execpt, And they will deal with it , they all ways have. I can say this for the Rep. when they get controll they make crap happen, good or bad, the Dem cant agree and anything a they get nothing done.
[/quote]

The democrats stood back and let Bush do all of the spending? Are you sure about that?

[IMG]http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z370/pn-gbandkid/DebtbyTerms.jpg[/img]

This is a chart of US debt as a portion of GDP broken down by two-year congressional terms with presidential administrations overlayed at the top (this one also uses CBO numbers). Notice the upward jog in the last two terms (07-09 and 09-11)? Want to guess what the differentiating factor between those two terms and the six two-year terms before them is? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with which party controlled the two houses of Congress.

And in case you're colorblind, the party that controlled Congress when spending exploded happens to have a Donkey as the party symbol and uses the color blue.

[True Blue]

Why didnt you copy the first part of that page and show what Pres. party was in office when the debt rose the highest, are do you just wont to try and make your side look good.

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1066213" timestamp="1316994925"]
Why didnt you copy the first part of that page and show what Pres. party was in office when the debt rose the highest, are do you just wont to try and make your side look good.
[/quote]

First part of what page?

As a portion of GDP, the debt hit its highest point under President Roosevelt (as displayed by the chart), but I don't see how that's relevant.

If you're trying to say that Bush was the big spender and Congress's change in hands had nothing to do with it, keep in mind that Congress has the Power of the Purse. Also keep in mind that in January of 2008, the same President Bush issued the following executive order in an attempt to curb the exploding Congressional spending:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080129-5.html

[Guest The-NHS]

I'm not going to try and justify Bush's years. He did alot of unconservative things that I disagreed with and still disagree with. What I don't like is how democrats seem to think that failed Obama policies is somehow Bush's fault. I didn't blindly follow Bush when I disagreed with him and I'm not sure why some democrats blindly follow Obama. but it seems that is quickly changing as his own party is starting to show disagreement. There was ridiculous earmarking and spending in 04 and 05 under a republican congress just like there was under a democrat controlled congress under Bush and especially under Obama. Bottom line is, BUSH IS GONE. Get over it. Obama has implemented has had plenty of time to implement his own failed policies. We can only hope that the house doesn't let him implement any more failed ones.

[shorttexas1]

Bandkid you are very smart. So you know you can look the debt vs GDP and get a true vision of the debt gained!  Think about it... debt is the numerator and GDP is the denominator.  If the Denominator gets larger then the resulting number is smaller.  If the denominator gets smaller then the resulting number is larger!  Get it!  During Bushes years market value of all final goods produced in America were very high, especially housing, oil products, and weaponry.  Those inflated cost darn near caused the recession. 

The debt has been on an exponential growth spurt since the 80s Reagan Tax cuts.  If you know anything about exponential graphs (growth), by nature it leads to infinity!  In other words it had no choice but to end up here.  When we as a country began to decrease taxes on the wealthy we should have been simultaneously decreasing the government because those funds are what allows the government to operate!  But we didn’t and created this monster over the last 3 decades.  Not with just Obama!  That was too long winded.


See below
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-debt-by-president-political-party/

[True Blue]

[quote name="ABSENT!" post="1067708" timestamp="1317151697"]
Bandkid you are very smart. So you know you can look the debt vs GDP and get a true vision of the debt gained!  Think about it... debt is the numerator and GDP is the denominator.  If the Denominator gets larger then the resulting number is smaller.  If the denominator gets smaller then the resulting number is larger!  Get it!  During Bushes years market value of all final goods produced in America were very high, especially housing, oil products, and weaponry.  Those inflated cost darn near caused the recession. 

The debt has been on an exponential growth spurt since the 80s Reagan Tax cuts.  If you know anything about exponential graphs (growth), by nature it leads to infinity!  In other words it had no choice but to end up here.  When we as a country began to decrease taxes on the wealthy we should have been simultaneously decreasing the government because those funds are what allows the government to operate!  But we didn’t and created this monster over the last decade and a half.  Not with just Obama!  That was too long winded.


See below
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-debt-by-president-political-party/
[/quote] Becarefull there, your starting to make to much sence, they will want you band ;D ;D You have showen that the Bush Reagan Tax cuts only benfited the very rich and HURT THE WORKING CLASS. The top 1% income went up 12% under the Bush Tax Cuts, Did any of your go up anywere close to that????

[stevenash]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1067714" timestamp="1317152220"]
[quote author=ABSENT! link=topic=87540.msg1067708#msg1067708 date=1317151697]
Bandkid you are very smart. So you know you can look the debt vs GDP and get a true vision of the debt gained!  Think about it... debt is the numerator and GDP is the denominator.  If the Denominator gets larger then the resulting number is smaller.  If the denominator gets smaller then the resulting number is larger!  Get it!  During Bushes years market value of all final goods produced in America were very high, especially housing, oil products, and weaponry.  Those inflated cost darn near caused the recession. 

The debt has been on an exponential growth spurt since the 80s Reagan Tax cuts.  If you know anything about exponential graphs (growth), by nature it leads to infinity!  In other words it had no choice but to end up here.  When we as a country began to decrease taxes on the wealthy we should have been simultaneously decreasing the government because those funds are what allows the government to operate!  But we didn’t and created this monster over the last decade and a half.  Not with just Obama!  That was too long winded.


See below
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-debt-by-president-political-party/
[/quote] Becarefull there, your starting to make to much sence, they will want you band ;D ;D You have showen that the Bush Reagan Tax cuts only benfited the very rich and HURT THE WORKING CLASS. The top 1% income went up 12% under the Bush Tax Cuts, Did any of your go up anywere close to that????
[/quote]

There is another reason the top percentage earners continue to earn more.  They WORK at it instead of blaming somebody else for what doesnt go right.  If you take 300 people and half are the haves and half are the have nots, start them all at zero, chances are quite good that the "evil" ones will once again wind up with the wealth.

[BLUEDOVE3]

Money can sinful. It will make you lie and cheat.

[stevenash]

[quote name="BLUEDOVE3" post="1067860" timestamp="1317160478"]
Money can sinful. It will make you lie and cheat.
[/quote]

Dove- Would this mean, then, that the solution to all of our problems is simply for the government to confiscate all wealth and then nobody will lie or cheat?

[77]

[quote name="BLUEDOVE3" post="1067860" timestamp="1317160478"]
Money can sinful. It will make you lie and cheat.
[/quote]Just look at Washington theres lots of proof there.

[True Blue]

Back on topic .The leader of the Rep party Bill Christel ,said after the debat OUCH is this the best we got... FOUR MORE YRS FOUR MORE YRS ;D ;D ;D

[tvc184]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1067895" timestamp="1317163307"]
Back on topic .The leader of the Rep party Bill Christel ,said after the debat OUCH is this the best we got... FOUR MORE YRS FOUR MORE YRS ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]

Yep, four more years of the GOP controlling both houses and the presidency.

The primaries have not even started and no one knows who the nominee will even be.

[shorttexas1]

What is this "evil ones" talk?  That is a ridiculous over statement.  Give me 150 construction hands, tire techs, Wal-Mart stockers (have nots), And I promise you the rich suckers could not out work them.  You forget that alot of have-nots work strenuous jobs that just don't pay!  What the haves may do is organize the half-nots to work for haves. A small handful (maybe 10) of the haves would be superior in marketing plus be very influential and eventually the rest of the haves would be have-somes, half-few, & have-nots.  Then they all would work for “The Man” at some capacity.  10 companies would eventual end up at 1 because there would be no regulations to stop the monopoly, eventually putting the majority of the half-nots out of work and moving the have-few and have-somes into their jobs.

Capitalism at its finest!

[stevenash]

Disagree.  Sorry, but you dont get to specifically pick your "have nots" unless I get to specifically pick the "haves".  The fact that someone may do a strenuous job daily does NOT make them more noble or a better person.  Productivity is what matters and it is not always denominated/quantified by physical difficulty.  I submit to you that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never did any heavy lifting but have contributed more to our economy than most including Jimmy Hoffa.  I also dispute your contention about 10 companies ending up as one due to "competition" as well as the current regulatory environment.  Most mergers come about because of economy of scale.  Hewlett Packard bought compaq computer but there still is Apple, Microsoft, and a host of others.  Ford Motor Company bought Jaguar but there are plenty of other automakers out there.  In fact, I would suggest to you that if Ford had not bought Jaguar, the Jaguar would have gone out of business and many jobs would have been lost.  If you over regulate ( for the stated objective of protecting jobs) there will be nobody willing to put their capital at risk and, hence NO jobs.

[shorttexas1]

Productivity is relative… Who is more productive, the steel worker that frames 300 cars a week for $20 and hour or the owner of the car manufacturing factory earning 10 million?  Probably the steel worker!  There will always be a need for someone to do the heavy lifting if the Bill Gates is to make the product for the profit.

I assumed that this scenario was in some kind of a box with a controlled environment. I assumed that it was capitalist by its purest definition. I figured also that the have-nots would not have any Government support since that is not Capitalist, which would force the self preservation gene to kick!  I also assumed the haves have their education and skills which gives them an advantage. In my Model Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would still prevail because of there knowledge. I also assumed that they would not be regulated so monopolies are bound to occur.  Let’s say 2 power house companies instead of one.

Pure Capitalism subjects this system to move towards survival of the strongest/richest and to heck with everyone else!!

By the way there are plenty of Jobs lost in every merger!

[stevenash]

If a merger comes about because a company is failing, I would suggest that there are many jobs saved rather than lost.  Many mergers come about well ahead of a company getting into financial trouble(because management is far sighted enough to understand what the ultimate consequence could/would be- Perhaps Solyndra should have been so far sighted) so few perceive that the company being swallowed up had the potential to be in trouble in the future.  Lehman Brothers failed and therefore, EVERY single employee lost his job.  Shortly thereafter, Merrill Lynch was absolutely going under on a Monday morning and EVERY employee would have lost his job if Bankamerica had not purchased the company on the prior weekend. That merger PRESERVED many thousands of jobs. The knowledge of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates was self developed and was not given to them by rich family members or in some unfair manner.  You infer that the have nots are somehow deprived of an education.  I believe the current system in this country actually FAVORS the have nots when it comes to getting an education.  I had to borrow every nickel of my college tuition and yet, if my father had earned a little less, I could have gotten grants for that same education.  So it is very unfair to suggest that the "haves" are at an advantage when it comes to obtaining a college education.  By the way, the owner of that car manufacturing company has his own capital at risk and the steel worker does not.  If the owner does not take the risk, the steel worker is not employed.  And those who have done the heavy lifting for Mr. Gates have been more than adequately rewarded.

[shorttexas1]

Trust me when I say Mobil was not failing when it merged with Exxon, Texaco was not failing when it merged with Cheveron, Cingular was not failing when it merged with AT&T, Nextel was not failing when it was merged with Sprint!  Some companies get brought out or hostile taken over because they have a lot of liquid money and lok very attractive.  Yes mergers happen the other way too, nut most mergers are not to save or obtain the customers from a failing position.

Gates and Jobs were both from upper middle class families so yes the money was there for both private grade schools and college tuition.  I agree that some have-nots get grant money but most don't (plenty of white have nots out there with no grant money & Pell Grants are not pulled from a bottomless pit)!  Like I said I assumed NO government assistance out side of grade school education. 

By the way high risk is high reward if you have the capital to take the risk go for it!

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="ABSENT!" post="1068275" timestamp="1317224999"]
Productivity is relative… Who is more productive, the steel worker that frames 300 cars a week [u][b]for $20 and hour[/b][/u] or the owner of the car manufacturing factory earning 10 million?  Probably the steel worker!  There will always be a need for someone to do the heavy lifting if the Bill Gates is to make the product for the profit.

I assumed that this scenario was in some kind of a box with a controlled environment. I assumed that it was capitalist by its purest definition. I figured also that the have-nots would not have any Government support since that is not Capitalist, which would force the self preservation gene to kick!  I also assumed the haves have their education and skills which gives them an advantage. In my Model Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would still prevail because of there knowledge. I also assumed that they would not be regulated so monopolies are bound to occur.  Let’s say 2 power house companies instead of one.

Pure Capitalism subjects this system to move towards survival of the strongest/richest and to heck with everyone else!!

By the way there are plenty of Jobs lost in every merger!
[/quote]

Here is the real answer, and unless you spin it, will explain alot.

According to the Indianapolis Star:
Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says. - September 26, 2007 UNITED AUTO WORKERS OFF THE JOB, Striking back at globalization. By Ted Evanoff

According to the National Review:
Massive job cuts at General Motors, America's largest carmaker — coupled with the bankruptcy of Delphi, America's biggest autoparts maker — have provoked predictable handwringing from liberal pundits who worry that America is "losing its manufacturing base." But the wrenching change now buffeting the auto industry defies the usual press formulas. Just listen to Steve Miller a turnaround specialist who is steering Delphi's restructuring process. He exploded the myth of America's "endangered" union manufacturing jobs at his October press conference announcing Delphi's move into Chapter 11: "We cannot continue to pay $65 an hour for someone to cut the grass and remain competitive."
Take grass cutting. As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets. In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour.
But at least the grass cutters are working for their pay. The UAW contract also guarantees that 12,000 autoworkers get full wage for doing nothing. On the heels of Miller's straight-talk, the Detroit News reported that "12,000 American autoworkers, instead of bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank." These aren't jobs. And they certainly aren't being "lost" to China.
"We just go in (to Ford's Michigan Truck Plant) and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," The News quoted one UAW worker as saying. "Otherwise, I've just sat."
The coming months will be painful for many American autoworkers. Accustomed to a certain lifestyle, they will see their wages cut in half, jeopardizing second homes, college tuitions, and car payments. One blue-collar Delphi worker interviewed by the Detroit News makes $103,000 a year operating a forklift and fears the consequences if his pay is drastically reduced. But many Americans will ask how a forklift operator felt entitled to a six-figure income in the first place (according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average forklift operator wage in the U.S. is $26,000).