Obama is the most incompetent and most polarizing president in American history!

Excellent response, Bluesguy.

This proves without doubt "17thAndK" simply makes stuff up and has absolutey no idea what he is taking about!

 

Obama is the polarizing one because he always comes up with foolish solutions that never work! All his solutions do is cost the U.S. taxpayers a lot of money (trillions od dollars!) and never produce any useful results!

 

Like believing that on the same income, you can as easily afford twelve children as one. The dumbness of such a notion shouldn't have to be pointed out. Keeping government "the same" requires that it grow at no less than the rates of inflation plus population growth. That much is a no-brainer.

The usual meaningless string of homilies. No one wants to be "on welfare". People reluctantly turn to assistance programs when times get tougher than what they are able with all their means to handle. You will (quite hypocritically) do just the same if your turn should ever come around. In that case, your puffery above will all come to seem like the pure and silly rot that it is.

Your persistently clueless and saccharine superciliousness may be causing some people to puke, you know.

 

This isn't Aisle-6. There isn't a unit-price.

The population since 1990 has grown by just over 24%. The growth in state government employees reported in your chart is right on that mark. Those in local government are about a million over the mark, most of which is offet by the federal govenrment's being some 700,000 short of it. This of course would assume without evidence that there were somehow optimal numbers of employees at each level in 1990.

More to the point however, your chart's only value lies in its pretty colors. It does nothing at all to refute, contest, or even call into question the notion that government must grow with population and inflation merely to remain the same size.

 

The Toadie-in-Chief is -- as seems always to be the case -- once again speaking to us from farthest reaches of being out in left field. He has crossed the warning track and reached the wall. He is in fact facing the wall instead of looking back in toward the infield. His defintion of not working in this case comprises the saving or creating of 3+ million jobs in two years, shaving two points off the unemplyment rate, and adding a like amount to GDP growth rates, all while not taking a single dime out of taxpayer pockets. The Toadie-in-Chief is completely clueless.

 

I have to say that this is just about the silliest thing I've read all week.
Following this odd line of thinking...tell me...were a company to double in number of staff over a couple of years...do you think the company would require more management...or less?

Lift the human spirit?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut4kdKwXwhE&feature=related"]Republican Morons - YouTube[/ame]

ya right...

 

It depends on the company and what efficiency experts determine.
With automated production lines there may be more need for technicians
and less need for foreman or managers.Personel can be handled with
fewer with efficiency in clerical work.
Don't forget the Lie that motivates Obama and the Democrat party.
Big Government is a Tax liability because it means THE PEOPLE as in
We the People have to Pay for that Big or Bigger government.
The private sector relies on purchase of goods or services whereas the
Government relies on taxes.
So when you hear Obama insist on Government building,fixing,repairing
roads and bridges,that means it will be paid by taxpayers.Or shifted
around like Mitch McConnell complained about where Green companies like
Solyndra got more $ 535 Million to start a company than did the whole
of Kentucky for their Roads/bridges.
Which is what the Stimulus did.It rewarded blue states with shoring up
their state balance sheets where government jobs and teachers who
needed to be layed off were kept on a little longer making it appear
as if a Created job { saved job } and also those Government or union type
saved jobs would likely Vote Democrat in apprecialtion for keeping their jobs.
It's Graft.Old Fashioned Graft.

 

Oh I get it...so an "efficiency expert" like Romney should actually come in and do the "hack and slash" in order to show a profit. It should make huge lay-offs of some of those, "We The People" so that more people are on unemployment and less cash is available for purchasing the goods and services of the private sector.
Ya man...that makes sense...

And because Solyndra went up in smoke...that means funding "Green" tech is a bad thing. Much better to continue to burn "Clean Coal" right?
Ya know...I'm all for more drilling for oil and such...it just seems sensible to become self-sufficient, or more-so...but to turn your backs on cleaner and less destructive forms of energy sounds...dumb. Shouldn't you people be in support of doing both right now? Or do you like "Clean Coal"...cough cough...

Graft...yes I know what you mean. Like the the aprox. $7,000,000/hour being spent on Iraq? Like how Haliburton has cashed in on this debauchery? Like how the Carlyle Group and its killing-machines-division is also making a pretty penny? You mean that kind of graft? Do you doubt who these companies might throw their support behind?

Ya know...maybe "Green" technology is a better investment in the long haul...then is "Killing" technology?

Just a thought...

 

You forgot to mention that Barack Obama has supported the U.S. spending $7,000,000/hour on the occupation of Iraq since he has been in office as president! He also supports and continues our military extentrion and support contracts in Iraq with Haliburton and the Carlyle Group!

Has Obama sold out to the Republicans who also support these objectives to project American power in the Middle East?

 

You are very correct foolardi.

What the liberals in this group often fail to realize is,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher

 

You are very correct, Bluesguy.

These discussions by another of our well-read members were also very good.

"The damage that the democrats have done is going to be with us for a very long time. I for one will be thinking about it every time I take out my checkbook to write a check to the Department of the Treasury every three months for the rest of my life.

Here is one example: Obama stole half a trillion dollars from Medicare to fund that abomination of a health bill. This is not going to go away. When people see their Medicare benefits being cut, because the money just isn't there. It will be made very clear why that is the case. People are going to be reminded of the damage these morons have done for a very long time. What is truly amazing though, is for all they tried to do to really consolidate their power, they are going to be booted out in the next election, so it was all for nothing. They really were convinced that they were setting themselves up for that 40 years of democrat rule.

Our children and grand children will be picking up the tab the this administration's failures. This will not be soon forgotten, because it is coming out of where it hurts the most, the pocket book.

Now will another socialist come along and make absurd promises like Obama? Of course. The "something for nothing crowd" will always be there with their hands out with envy and resentment for people who are more successful than they!"

 

That's an example of being unable to tell the difference between cost cuts and benefit cuts. Doesn't say much for the intelligence of the people who have said it.

 

You say po-TAY-to and I say po-TAH-to... So, without your usual deflections, did President Wonderful screw people who have contributed into MediCARE all their working lives or not? Surely, even to a hyperlib Democrat, a half-trillion dollars is a half-trillion dollars, by anyone's calculation.

MediCAID is supposed be the welfare component; MediCARE is the benefit that United States taxpayers have been forced to PAY for, and we should get it, on the basis of whether we paid or not... right?

Of course not! Socialism always steals from the contributors to subsidize those who do not....

 

Great comments, Pollycy!

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher

 

This review was very good.

Why is Obama so naive and unschooled when it comes to workable solutions and the best ways to save our economy?

 

You are very mistaken, Frowning Loser.

Your Mama should have taught you long ago when you were very young you can't justify bad behavior on Obama's part by pointing to equally bad behavior on Mitt Romney's part!

 

Unfortunately, you are saying to-MAH-toe, when the subjects is spuds. Seniors get exactly the same coverage and care. It costs less. Part of that is through elimination of the 14% fraud for billing through Medicare Advantage. Another part is from all those awful agreements that Obama negotiated with people like drug and device manufactures so that Product-X will now have a unit price of $11.64 instead of the former $14.89. You see, some of these capitalist types are able to realize that they can significantly increase their profits by lowering prices if that allows HCR to be passed and they all then get access to a potential 30 million new customers.

No, in case that wasn't clear enough from the above.

 

No, it was another piece of ridiculous garbage. It would be like a car dealer refusing to sell a car to someone because of uncertainty over whether the guy would come back and buy another car when this one was worn out. Talk about dumb.

By the way, your link doesn't work. Not that it would have been worth anyone's while to have clicked on it anyway.

 

Again, your assessment is very misguided and it has absolutely no credibility with anyone!

 

Not really. I just agree with Steve Jobs.

 

You are vewry correct, Bluesguy.

Especially when you say, "I think it is more like you would still be praising him if he hadn't discovered the cure even though he took all the research money and blew it!"

These people will forgive Obama for anything and would agree with him if he wanted to sell our national momunemts and the "Twin Towers" at Ground Zero to China!

 

What started the US's steady and progressive slide into economic mediocracy? Easy - you spent more than you earned. And who was responsible for that spending with time. Again, let me tell you. It started with Ronald Reagan, was continued by George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton made a valiant attempt to curb the excesses, but then along came Dubya and blew his good work to smithereens. Obama picked up the massive costs of bail-outs caused by that idiot and is now blamed for the cost of trying to stimulate the economy back into action after the ludicrous Fanny May, Iran, Afghanistan, and other excesses of the Bush II regime. Now answer this: On which party's watch did the greatest bunglings occur?

But don't you 'Murkans know all of this? If not, let me know and I can supply you with some graphs and other illustrative facts. And please, don't try to blame it all on Congress. That lame argument cuts both ways. Besides, remember that famous admission by a great US president which most modern presidents would hate to make: "The Buck Stops Here!!".

 

I want us to be more like The America of 1959 !

 

Reagan submitted budgets with lower spending than Congress authorized every year in office, in fact that last deficits would have fallen to under $100 billion had the Congress passed his budgets.

Did you vote for Republicans to help support him in his efforts to curb spending?

George Bush 41 (he is not a Sr and Bush 43 is not a Jr) made the mistake of believing the Democrats when they said give us tax increases now and we will cut spending later. They are saying the same thing now surely you don't believe them.

Where do you get this stuff? Clinton slowed down the economic recovery he inherited costing us revenues with his tax increas, he then submitted higher spending request than the Congress would pass. He fought lower spending, remember the Government shutdown?, he fought welfare reform and he fought the tax cuts that got the economic growth up to where it should have been producing the revenue needed to create the brief surplus. It was Gingrich and Kasich who balanced the budget while Clinton fought them.

Bush43 inherited a slowdown that went into recession weeks after he took office. The surplus was going away before he was even elected. He did the right thing and cut taxes, , twice, showed leadership after 9/11 and gave confidence to investors to turn the economy around and as a result of that and restrained spending by the Republican congress the deficits fell in 2005, 2006 and 2007, down toe $161 billion.

Then the Democrats were elected back into power. We now see the results.

He did nothing of the sort, the TARP money was paid back with interest by the banks that used it. Obama poured out massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on his dumb stimulus bill which totally failed to do what is was suppose to do, put us into a recovery.


Why don't your Obamatards know this?

 

You are very correct, Bluesguy.

Thanks very much for this very accurate history lesson!