Baracks self assesment

ononewheel wrote:

Thanks for your input.   I am significantly dumber for having read your post and trying not to store that crap.


I'd love to gear your arguments for Mitt, Rick, or Ron, besides the Faux news talking points that you are good at promoting.



I'll hear crickets I suppose.    Let's hear it.    Come on Rick Perry has to have something good. Hummmm.   I'll give you a minute.


( Imagine crickets in the heat of the summer )

And Mitt, nice. Doesn't he make $57k a day. I bet he will think he has the biggest cock if he makes it to November. His name is Willard, and the only putang he ever got was because his wallet was bigger than his bulge in his "just like you" jeans. Bring on the "Obamacare" argument, and how bad that was for MA and the US.   How do you think he will escape that?

Newt, have a good time defending him. His baggage has arrived and it is sitting out by the end of the driveway waiting to be picked up by the trash man.   

Ron Paul, good luck man. He'll need it.   He will need a deck of cards consisting of nothing but diamonds and hearts, because the spades and clubs are will get him.



By the way if you think Obama sat around for three years, I think your ship has sailed.   Listen to Dave, he understands Obama laid the ground work with his "overbearing" government regulations.   

Don't even bother to explain your "union only" comment. That ship is getting ready to sail too, wouldn't you like to have the benefits of a safe, secure, and honest days pay.   




[/QUOTE]

Whoa Seth, what happened here? I thought the left was the party of diversity and tolerance for alternatives thoughts and life styles. Or is that only the diversity that happens to agree with you? You are still conversing with fellow CCfans here. You are sounding an awful lot like and angry white male. I don't remember anything in the constitution that says there is a maximum income that disqualifies someone from being president. Nor pun-tang success rates or the "bulge in their pants", I wont even go after the spades comment. I have found it is easy to tell when someone is losing an argument on its merit but dont want to admit it. The first step is they give up on the facts and start to discredit the other side. Then the profanity starts and finally they will announce "There is no use talking to you anymore".

As for the unions, The crisis started with housing which is primarily non union construction workers. State and federal projects have gone mostly untouched. Every time Barack says he has a construction project to put construction workers back to work it is for union guys who are already working. The private contractors and their employees are struggling or out of business. Of course some of those projects are not as shovel ready as we thought( insert image of your president giggling at your situation). When he bailed out GM he told the creditors to pound sand but gave ownership to the unions who were not out a thing. There is a very clear pattern of the stimulus money going to pay back Obama's contributors and supporters in the typical "Chicago way" of politics.

Some good stuff, some facts that ain't.. I do think it is stretch to say that anyone sat around doing nothing for three years that inherited two wars a finacial system in collapse, housing market in free fall, and the american automotive industry in bankrupcy, osama successfully in hiding for years, and health insurance prices that had been growing double digits or decades. I mean seriously we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, housing prices in arizona were down 80 percent in some areas.

You may not love the results, I dont love the results but I sure dont think McCain would have done as well and seriously we were in free fall.   

Greg I do get your point on the light bulbs but you cant ignore what Obama has done to control oil demand in terms of Cafe standards increase and the cash for clunkers program. Yes it was considerable spending but it did double duty in stimulating demand for autos when the market was clearly broken do to the finacial meltdown and it certainly has contributed to our decreasing oil usage. Attacking oil from the supply side is basically fruitless.. .a little thing called OPEC controls supply. Until we get someone in office who is willing to say that there is no such thing as a free market when OPEC changes the supply to meet thier price goals all you can do is address demand.

I am in general not against efficiency standards. You can wait for companies to give you the right products for an awefully long time. I have been in way too many meeting rooms where product managers set product specs to save 4 dollars in initial cost on a 400 dollar unit even though that 4 dollar increase will save thousands of dollars in energy over the life of the unit. Product managers are in general morons who travel and take clients out to lunch for a living.. then make decisions that arent based on anything but what makes thier life easier.

There is a reason why car mileage went down in the 90s while horsepower levels continued to rise astronomically... in the absence of regulation moronic marketing folk always ask for more power and a quicker introduction cause the commercials are easier to make.

Most products could spend about another month in testing during the development stage and end up more efficient and not cost a dime more.. but instead something that is going to sell millions over ten years gets rushed out cause it is good enough... it is just a waste of all that gas that I am going to need to run classic correct crafts 60 years from now.

But I am an engineer I see it from my side.. the government sets minimum targets then the company with the best solution wins. Besides if you dont change the targets every 5 years or so the chinese can just wait till I design something and then copy it and sell it cheaper with the slave wages and no need for qualified engineering. If you change the targets they wont have as much time to sell the copies..

Dave the take in a dollar spend 1.50 thing is not only not a fact that I can find any math support for , but Clinton left us actually spending 95 cents for every dollar he sent in. Also its a smaller item (hundreds of billions but a small percent), government spending amount increases shouldn't pace inflation but rather the rate of economic growth which takes accounts for inflation and last quarter was 2.8 percent greater. That assumes the same amount of spending relative to the size of the economy, which is required due to population growth if nothing else. So by that measure in a healthy economy and with a an even money in/money out ratio we would be closer to 5 to 8% depending on inflation level .

If you only account for inflation that means less money per person in infrastructure, education, etc.. and that would contract growth under any economic rational.   

To On One Wheel, Thanks for explaining your position. I know alot more about you now. I am truely sorry for your misfortune. Good luck with your President, and your party, and have a nice day!

really, your running out of argument

Great news here in Illinois. Chrysler is hiring 1,400 employees at their Belvedere IL plant (I am sending this from the I-90 Belvedere oasis). They are adding a 3rd shift to keep production in line with their increased sales. This is a major development and Chrysler has contacted their many parts vendors in Rockford and prepared them for their increased demand for component parts.
This comes on the heels of Ford hiring 2,200 employees in the past 18 months at their Chicago Torrence AV assembly plant to add a third shift. They gave each new hourly employee a $6,000 signing bonus and included them in profit sharing as well.

OverMyHead wrote: eric lavine wrote: more good news, they are opening the west bank of the flats here in Cleveland...putting about 1300 more employees, (formerly LTV steel) you righties can blow all the bull*************** you want about Obama, chrysler up 44% Ford 18%, GM down a bit but on the way up. t The sun rose over this great nation this morning while Barack was in office. All hail the great president who through his sheer will, great speaking ability and tax policy makes the sun rise!!!!! This is especially nice since it never rose in the eight years Bush was in office. If Barack is so great why is government motors not at the top of the heap? Could this be happening despite him? If not are you calling this baracks economy now. It is a little too coincidental that EVERY good economic report is his doing but EVERY bad report is from bushes failed policy. Maybe the fact that all those that put off buying a new car for three years now have 36,000 more miles on their cars and they are not willing to wait anymore. Maybe.

The sun is rising on our new economy!

DJIA when Bush took office JAN 2000 = 11,723
DJIA when Bush left office, JAN 2009 = 6,547

DJIA when Obama took office JAN 2009 = 6,547
DJIA this morning = 12,716

And whose failed economic strategy are you talking about?
I vote where my money is.
BTW, thanks to ObamaCARE, for the first time my insurance company had to cover my wife's annual gynie exam and lab work and my physical therapy for a back injury. Remember the name, ObamaCARE. It is so much better than NOcare.

OverMyHead wrote: If Barack is so great why is government motors not at the top of the heap? Could this be happening despite him? If not are you calling this baracks economy now. It is a little too coincidental that EVERY good economic report is his doing but EVERY bad report is from bushes failed policy. Maybe the fact that all those that put off buying a new car for three years now have 36,000 more miles on their cars and they are not willing to wait anymore. Maybe.

It is just after the right wing propaganda machine spent 2009 and 2010 telling us how every job lost, puppy that died, iraqi target bombed, solar panel company failed, etc was the fault of obama and his evil plans to destroy democracy and impliment a muslim caliphate that somewhere along the way we got the faulty impression that one guy immediately and pervasivly effected everything in the country the second he took office as president.... are you saying this might not be the case?

OverMyHead wrote: eric lavine wrote: more good news, they are opening the west bank of the flats here in Cleveland...putting about 1300 more employees, (formerly LTV steel) you righties can blow all the bull*************** you want about Obama, chrysler up 44% Ford 18%, GM down a bit but on the way up. t The sun rose over this great nation this morning while Barack was in office. All hail the great president who through his sheer will, great speaking ability and tax policy makes the sun rise!!!!! This is especially nice since it never rose in the eight years Bush was in office. If Barack is so great why is government motors not at the top of the heap? Could this be happening despite him? If not are you calling this baracks economy now. It is a little too coincidental that EVERY good economic report is his doing but EVERY bad report is from bushes failed policy. Maybe the fact that all those that put off buying a new car for three years now have 36,000 more miles on their cars and they are not willing to wait anymore. Maybe.

Which way do you want it? Maybe you have forgotten that the GM bailout was Bush's legacy. It is one of the high points of his presidency. Obama just followed through on the decision that was already made.
Here is a little snippet of Bush's reasoning.

President Bush writes in “Decision Points" that saving American workers and families from economic collapse were important factors in his auto bailout decision. He also claims he considered what he’d be passing on to the Obama administration. The auto bailout package that was put into effect was actually less than what Bush favored, writes Automotive News. He’d wanted a $25 billion plan, but Senate Republicans balked at the price. In order to make the $17.4 billion version to work, President Bush diverted money from TARP that had been intended for Wall Street.

That is the sign of a good leader, Obama kept the few Bush policies that were advantageous to the economy and scraped the rest. It is not possible to deny that the economy is improving. Other than the GM bailout I can't really think of any other good Bush policies, oh maybe retaining Gates and I think Bush believed in no child left behind, but it didn't turn out that well. After all he asked the difficult question."Is our children learning?)

No one had to "blame bush".. he had 8 years, got his way on all his major policy goals and history and reality were the judge as to the results.. they were very bad btw... historically bad by any numerical measure you can come up with that is not blame that is a fact.


Obama has been in office for three years and took over in the middle of our second worst economic period in history, with the largest debt and deficit in history, with two wars on.. and all the same systemic problems that GW had to deal with... so far the results are a mixed bag.. one can blame or give credit for as they seem fit and lived to be proven wrong. What you can't do is blame him for everything bad that happened in the first two years while giving him no credit for the upturn in the last year.

Three guys, Romney, Gingrich and Obama are standing on the dock at a CCF reunion and each are looking to hitch a ride with someone for the day, which one do you want in your boat?

OK, Bruce. Fun question. I have not read 99% of this thread, not because its not good or I am not interested. Just don't have the time. That and, although a lot of good points are made, it is kind of the same old thing, over and over again. Hard core righties have their stand and arent going to change and hard care lefties have their stand and aren't going to change.    Just like in the upcoming election, and all elections, Hard core and not so hard core righties (say 30%) arent going to vote Obama. Hard core and not so hard core lefties (say 30%)arent going to vote for Mitt (my prediction). The election is going to be decided by the middle. In the middle there are those who are in the middle and need to be convinced who best meets their goals and there are the totally uniformed who dont know what is going on and get swept up by empty suits and claims of hope and change. And that middle 40% is going to decide who wins. Thats why politics is so goofy.

Anyway, to Bruces question. Even some folks who disagree with Obama's politics say he is a nice guy. I dont see it. I think he is painfully arrogant, he denies what is painfully evident when he brags about what a great job he has done and denies how bad things still are. He is covering up something, why no background, school records...., why 3 years to produce BC? Only with the help of an adoring media did he dodge the Bill Ayers/Rev. Wright connections. In the face of national sacrifice he is overly extravagant. So, no, I dont like him on a personal level. Don't know Newt real well but he has a lot of slimeball baggage and appears to be a hot head and a sore looser. Best I can tell, all Mitt suffers from is being a politician and doing what politicians do, so I would invite Mitt into the Tique. Never met the man, but my daughter has.

ok, this is a serious question. what has obama done that has helped improve the economy?? really it's a serious question.

Answer,
Romeny could buy gas and maybe lunch, hell, if he needed a ride he'd just buy a boat.
Gingrich would be entertaining and knowledgable about the area even though he'd keeep saying he wished his grand kids were here, they'd love this.
Obama, sorry were full. I can not be a hypocrite here. I just don't like him.

harddock wrote: Answer, Romeny could buy gas and maybe lunch, hell, if he needed a ride he'd just buy a boat. Gingrich would be entertaining and knowledgable about the area even though he'd keeep saying he wished his grand kids were here, they'd love this. Obama, sorry were full. I can not be a hypocrite here. I just don't like him.

All 3 of them would be welcome on my boat, just like any CCF member, if I have the room. Political views don't define a person. Hatred is a poison that destroys those harboring it.