What will Romney do yo put the US back in the black?

**Robbie** · 09-05-2012, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by tony286

Maybe you dont know but oil is traded globally so it doesnt work that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ort/52298812/1
"For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is ? wait for it ? fuel."
so all that drill baby drill is another lie you are told so you serve others interests.

That's why I think that the U.S. govt. should make a deal with the oil companies. Right now they aren't allowed to drill our oil in so many places that are now verified to have HUGE reserves.

But if the U.S. govt. would relax some regs and allow more refineries to be built in the U.S. and then required that every drop of oil and natural gas that is gotten on U.S. soil can only be sold in the U.S., well...then the U.S. will have a giant surplus of oil and gas and the global market won't matter one little bit to the price of oil in the U.S.

The global market and speculation is what makes it so high now...not the actual cost of getting it and refining it.

But our govt. COULD make it much, much, much cheaper for us. And also create millions of high paying jobs at the same time. And that's no "myth".
The "myth" is that somehow keeping gas prices high, raising taxes, and doubling the amount of people on food stamps over the last four years is going to help people who need JOBS.

**theking** · 09-05-2012, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

That's why I think that the U.S. govt. should make a deal with the oil companies. Right now they aren't allowed to drill our oil in so many places that are now verified to have HUGE reserves.

But if the U.S. govt. would relax some regs and allow more refineries to be built in the U.S. and then required that every drop of oil and natural gas that is gotten on U.S. soil can only be sold in the U.S., well...then the U.S. will have a giant surplus of oil and gas and the global market won't matter one little bit to the price of oil in the U.S.

The global market and speculation is what makes it so high now...not the actual cost of getting it and refining it.

But our govt. COULD make it much, much, much cheaper for us. And also create millions of high paying jobs at the same time. And that's no "myth".
The "myth" is that somehow keeping gas prices high, raising taxes, and doubling the amount of people on food stamps over the last four years is going to help people who need JOBS.

Have you ever stopped to consider that as long as the U.S. can import oil at a reasonable price...which is the current case...that it is a good thing to use the oil from the rest of the world and keep our oil for when it is really needed?

Oil is finite and when the rest of the world is so low on oil that it has really driven the price to high to import it then that would be the time to begin to use our own resource.

**PornMD** · 09-05-2012, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by PR_Tom

The same won't be exactly true if Obama wins because Obama has nothing left to run for if he gets a second term. He simply won't have to give a damn about polls and whether he's viewed as re-electable ever again. That's the beauty of a second term. He won't need to "compromise" with people who want to destroy him anymore to look like he's playing nice.

I have a serious question because I haven't paid enough attention to timing of what presidents have done - looking at the last 3 presidents that had 2 terms (W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan), did they accomplish more good in their 2nd term than in their 1st because of not having to give a shit about re-election?

I'm genuinely curious about this. Granted Bush started 2 wars in his first term so it's hard for his 2nd term to be any worse, but then all the bailout shit started happening. Clinton I'm not sure but the bubble burst happened under his 2nd term. Reagan was while I was a kid so I simply don't know what he accomplished in his 2nd term vs. his first except his "tear down this wall" speech.

**Robbie** · 09-05-2012, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by theking

Have you ever stopped to consider that as long as the U.S. can import oil at a reasonable price...which is the current case...that it is a good thing to use the oil from the rest of the world and keep our oil for when it is really needed?

Yeah, I have thought that maybe that is the overall strategy...to drain the rest of the world first. But we've been doing that for decades, and I'm thinking it's time to move to "plan b"

I've heard a couple of reports saying that they have discovered new oil reserves in the U.S. that could last us well over a century into the future. And with the economy falling to pieces...I think it's time we made our move.

**KillerK** · 09-05-2012, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by stevecos

Nothing to worry about. Wheres Romney's taxes

A record 44.7 million people received food stamps in fiscal 2011, up from 28.2 million as recently as 2008. The cost has more than doubled in that same period, to $78 billion, One in seven Americans now qualifies.

Hey, we are better off right?

**KillerK** · 09-05-2012, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by tony286

Actually I don't but I work in adult and the president will be picking supreme court justices. Also the market is at 13k and corp profits are at record highs. Jobs sent overseas ain't coming back no matter who is president. I'm a liberal and Obama isn't , he is a Rockefeller republican at best.

Who appointed the Justice who wants Gay Marriage?

**kane** · 09-05-2012, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by TheSquealer

I hardly think that when the democrats control the white house, house and senate, anyone can be accused on "blocking" them from doing anything.

However, one of Obamas best political moves was characterizing Republicans as "the party of no" - so it would always be win/win for him no matter what the facts where.

Obama wasn't labeling them the party of no, he was calling them exactly what they were. Between 2007-2010 (the period of time the democrats held both houses) there were 272 votes brought to the floor in a effort to end a filibuster. This means the republicans were filibustering at least 272 times.

To put that into perspective that is more than the total number between 1999-2006 combined.

Add to this that the republicans moved to block Obama judicial nominees at such a rate that he has been able to pass the get the fewest number of nominees approved since Carter and only 42% of his nominees get confirmed. Since Cater the next lowest number is 79% that was Bush 1.

Mitch McConnell stated that the republican's number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. It wasn't to help fix the economy or get the country moving again, it was to make Obama a one term president and that is exactly what they set out to do.

I'm not defending Obama. We can only speculate as to whether or not things would be better if he were able to pass anything he wanted, but to think for a minute that the republicans have not been stonewalling is to be wearing blinders and not accepting reality.

**Barry-xlovecam** · 09-05-2012, 08:17 PM

America has a negative growth rate for a reason -- the cost of fossil fuel and the stubborn insistence on extending its use.

**GrantMercury** · 09-05-2012, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by kane

Nothing. If he wins the democrats will likely still hold the senate and they will likely block pretty much anything he wants to do that they don't approve of just as the republicans have to Obama.

In short it will be four more years of gridlock.

The same is likely true if Obama wins.

So vote out every fucking shitbag Republican that has folded their arms since Obama set foot in the White House. That party has gone off the rails, and they need to be tossed. They're not the same party they were 40 years ago.

**GrantMercury** · 09-05-2012, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by kane

We can only speculate as to whether or not things would be better if he were able to pass anything he wanted, but to think for a minute that the republicans have not been stonewalling is to be wearing blinders and not accepting reality.

Thank you. The truth is refreshing.

**GrantMercury** · 09-05-2012, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

That's why I think that the U.S. govt. should make a deal with the oil companies. Right now they aren't allowed to drill our oil in so many places that are now verified to have HUGE reserves.

But if the U.S. govt. would relax some regs and allow more refineries to be built in the U.S. and then required that every drop of oil and natural gas that is gotten on U.S. soil can only be sold in the U.S., well...then the U.S. will have a giant surplus of oil and gas and the global market won't matter one little bit to the price of oil in the U.S.

The global market and speculation is what makes it so high now...not the actual cost of getting it and refining it.

But our govt. COULD make it much, much, much cheaper for us. And also create millions of high paying jobs at the same time. And that's no "myth".
The "myth" is that somehow keeping gas prices high, raising taxes, and doubling the amount of people on food stamps over the last four years is going to help people who need JOBS.

WTF are you talking about?

Who is "keeping gas prices high"?
Obama has CUT your taxes. (look it up)
And if the number of people on food stamps has doubled (assuming that's true) what do you attribute that to?

**Robbie** · 09-05-2012, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by kane

Obama wasn't labeling them the party of no, he was calling them exactly what they were. Between 2007-2010 (the period of time the democrats held both houses) there were 272 votes brought to the floor in a effort to end a filibuster. This means the republicans were filibustering at least 272 times.

To put that into perspective that is more than the total number between 1999-2006 combined..

The real question is: Was the number of attempted filibusters a result of Dems shutting the Republicans out of the process and trying to shove through legislation without reaching across the aisle?

Because if they had successfully gotten the Republicans on board then there wouldn't need to be a filibuster. Right?

I read these kind of things and try to figure out how and why they happen. You got to be careful not to put all your faith in either sides propaganda.

Fact is...apparently in the years between 1999 and 2006, the house and Senate leadership did a MUCH better job at reaching across the aisle to Democrats and getting them to compromise instead of filibustering.
I'd say that Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House both have shown their huge ego's and unwillingness to work with the other side of the aisle.

If I were Obama I would blame those two clowns first for fucking everything up for him.

Then if I were Obama I would blame myself second for not picking up the phone and twisting some arms. Everybody on BOTH sides have said he does not do that (people like Clinton, Reagan, and even Bush were masters at LEADING by reaching out personally...Obama is horrible at it)

**Robbie** · 09-05-2012, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by GrantMercury

WTF are you talking about?

Who is "keeping gas prices high"?
Obama has CUT your taxes. (look it up)
And if the number of people on food stamps has doubled (assuming that's true) what do you attribute that to?

There is no talking intelligently to you about this. You refuse to see or hear anything.

Gas prices could be brought down by opening up Federal lands where huge oil reserves are located. More oil in the supply means less price. Also if the feds and states would allow more refineries to be built in the U.S.

Obama hasn't "CUT" my taxes at all. I make a lot more money than you do obviously.

The number of people on foodstamps has doubled (YOU look it up) during Obama's administration. The poverty level has risen dramatically under his 4 years as well. Probably all Bush's fault in your world I'm sure.

**kane** · 09-05-2012, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

The real question is: Was the number of attempted filibusters a result of Dems shutting the Republicans out of the process and trying to shove through legislation without reaching across the aisle?

Because if they had successfully gotten the Republicans on board then there wouldn't need to be a filibuster. Right?

I read these kind of things and try to figure out how and why they happen. You got to be careful not to put all your faith in either sides propaganda.

Fact is...apparently in the years between 1999 and 2006, the house and Senate leadership did a MUCH better job at reaching across the aisle to Democrats and getting them to compromise instead of filibustering.
I'd say that Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House both have shown their huge ego's and unwillingness to work with the other side of the aisle.

If I were Obama I would blame those two clowns first for fucking everything up for him.

Then if I were Obama I would blame myself second for not picking up the phone and twisting some arms. Everybody on BOTH sides have said he does not do that (people like Clinton, Reagan, and even Bush were masters at LEADING by reaching out personally...Obama is horrible at it)

The house and senate leadership on both sides is a major problem.

One of the issues is that when the republicans took back the house in the mid term election many of those seats were won by Tea Party candidates who will not negotiate with anyone including the republicans. In order to make them happy and to be able to count on their votes the republicans have to give into them which is to say they will pretty must just say no to anything the democrats want. That helped drive the divide between the parties.

There was more than one occasion where Obama invited republican leaders to the table with him and they literally got up and walked out in the middle of negotiations. They had a tantrum because they weren't getting their way and the completely disrespected the office of the president. You can only do so much of that shit before they finally just stop dealing with you.

In the end all of the leaders wouldn't budge and I'm sure both sides were pissed off and pointing the finger. In the event that Obama gets elected for a second term hopefully he can pull them all into his office and tell them that they need to do a better job of doing the people's business and worry less about their personal feelings and egos.

**kane** · 09-05-2012, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

There is no talking intelligently to you about this. You refuse to see or hear anything.

Gas prices could be brought down by opening up Federal lands where huge oil reserves are located. More oil in the supply means less price. Also if the feds and states would allow more refineries to be built in the U.S.

Obama hasn't "CUT" my taxes at all. I make a lot more money than you do obviously.

The number of people on foodstamps has doubled (YOU look it up) during Obama's administration. The poverty level has risen dramatically under his 4 years as well. Probably all Bush's fault in your world I'm sure.

I have often thought that oil is yesterdays energy source and we need to do away with it where we can. Sure, right now we can't fly a jet or run a big semi-truck on electricity so we will still need it, but we are sitting on an ocean of natural gas in the gulf and we have infinite sun and wind power in many parts of this country. We can also do nuclear so long as we do it correctly. If we wanted to we could create enough energy to run all commuter cars and basic everyday cars and trucks as well as all the households in this country and most of the industries in this country just using wind, solar and natural gas.

We could all but put an end to importing oil and that would remove much of our interests from the middle east. We wouldn't be giving billions to countries that hate us and we would create a ton of permanent jobs in this country not to mention the money we can make once we start selling this technology and information to other countries.

But sadly, our leaders are bought and paid for by oil companies who have no interest in in any of this so we will continue to on as we are now.

**kane** · 09-05-2012, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by GrantMercury

So vote out every fucking shitbag Republican that has folded their arms since Obama set foot in the White House. That party has gone off the rails, and they need to be tossed. They're not the same party they were 40 years ago.

I am all for voting everyone out. I still think there should be term limits on house and senate members. I don't think those positions were intended to be lifelong careers which is exactly what they have become. If people go into the job knowing they are out in specific number of years they might worry less about getting themselves reelected and more about doing their job.

**Paul Markham** · 09-05-2012, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by stevecos

Looks like its all fine until you read the facts, Yes we can pay more

U.S. Debt Now $16 trillion
U.S. Debt Now $136,260 Per Household?Up 50% Under Obama
interest rates near 0% 12 Months CD paying 0.90%
largest tax increase in U.S. history coming with Obama Care

The median U.S. family income is about $50,000. Family health coverage can easily run $20,000 a year ? and rising quickly. In that scenario, the coverage mandate is essentially a 40 percent tax on that family, which is now required by law to ensure that every family member has qualifying coverage.

Steve, I agree debt isn't good.

But imagine how America would be if that money had not flowed into the US economy. So how will Romney remove the debt?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ey-i-will.html A lot of I will's and few How I will's.

On one hand he will cut and on the other spend. Has he got a calculator to show us how he will do both?

What he will do is cut taxes. Spend less, spend more and cut taxes. Just another Snake Oil salesman selling a dream to get mugs to buy into it.

This was funny.

I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination.

I will begin organizing all of our diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with the authority and accountability necessary to train all our soft power resources on ensuring that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.

What Muslims most hate about the US is it's backing of Israel. They see it as a country that stole from Palestinians and continue to bully, roll over them and continue to steal their land.

So he will pour money into both and create more terrorists.

As president of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever, apologize for America.

So he's going to devote himself to the 20th Century?

America will not be the most powerful country in the world by 2050. Despite having a great Army.

will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.

Does that mean more Bain factories down there?

He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

America isn't the Greatest nation in the history of the Earth. It's the greatest now and won't be in 50 years.

Read these as well

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80406.html

He and Americans need to take a big dose of reality.

The rest of the World is catching up with it and taking it's slice of america's cake.

**Paul Markham** · 09-05-2012, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

There is no talking intelligently to you about this. You refuse to see or hear anything.

Gas prices could be brought down by opening up Federal lands where huge oil reserves are located. More oil in the supply means less price. Also if the feds and states would allow more refineries to be built in the U.S.

Obama hasn't "CUT" my taxes at all. I make a lot more money than you do obviously.

The number of people on foodstamps has doubled (YOU look it up) during Obama's administration. The poverty level has risen dramatically under his 4 years as well. Probably all Bush's fault in your world I'm sure.

So bring down the cost of gas and add taxes to it for the general consumer only. Like VAT in the EU. What businesses pay, is charged on to the customer and rebated to the business.

The US is in debt, that means you. Why should you live beyond your means in this time. Pay your debts.

So you're doing fine and complaining too many are getting food stamps. AND your solution is?

Seriously Robbie you've made some screw ball posts and this is one of them.

**KillerK** · 09-05-2012, 11:28 PM

Paul everyone knows you are an idiot, I don't know why you bother posting.

**theking** · 09-05-2012, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

Steve, I agree debt isn't good.

But imagine how America would be if that money had not flowed into the US economy. So how will Romney remove the debt?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ey-i-will.html A lot of I will's and few How I will's.

On one hand he will cut and on the other spend. Has he got a calculator to show us how he will do both?

What he will do is cut taxes. Spend less, spend more and cut taxes. Just another Snake Oil salesman selling a dream to get mugs to buy into it.

This was funny.

What Muslims most hate about the US is it's backing of Israel. They see it as a country that stole from Palestinians and continue to bully, roll over them and continue to steal their land.

So he will pour money into both and create more terrorists.

So he's going to devote himself to the 20th Century?

America will not be the most powerful country in the world by 2050. Despite having a great Army.

Does that mean more Bain factories down there?

America isn't the Greatest nation in the history of the Earth. It's the greatest now and won't be in 50 years.

Read these as well

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80406.html

He and Americans need to take a big dose of reality.

The rest of the World is catching up with it and taking it's slice of america's cake.

Stupid...stupid...stupid...person...and simply does not have a clue.

**papill0n** · 09-05-2012, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by KillerK

Paul everyone knows you are an idiot, I don't know why you bother posting.

**Paul Markham** · 09-05-2012, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by KillerK

Paul everyone knows you are an idiot, I don't know why you bother posting.

And that's the best you can offer?

Come up with something to prove you're not an idiot.

**papill0n** · 09-05-2012, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

So bring down the cost of gas and add taxes to it for the general consumer only. Like VAT in the EU. What businesses pay, is charged on to the customer and rebated to the business.

The US is in debt, that means you. Why should you live beyond your means in this time. Pay your debts.

So you're doing fine and complaining too many are getting food stamps. AND your solution is?

Seriously Robbie you've made some screw ball posts and this is one of them.

youre incredible

he never said a WORD about tax

he made a suggestion and then you ask him what his solution is ? wtf lol

youre just fucked in the head mate

talk to yourself and read the insults loser

**Paul Markham** · 09-05-2012, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

That's why I think that the U.S. govt. should make a deal with the oil companies. Right now they aren't allowed to drill our oil in so many places that are now verified to have HUGE reserves.

But if the U.S. govt. would relax some regs and allow more refineries to be built in the U.S. and then required that every drop of oil and natural gas that is gotten on U.S. soil can only be sold in the U.S., well...then the U.S. will have a giant surplus of oil and gas and the global market won't matter one little bit to the price of oil in the U.S.

The global market and speculation is what makes it so high now...not the actual cost of getting it and refining it.

But our govt. COULD make it much, much, much cheaper for us. And also create millions of high paying jobs at the same time. And that's no "myth".
The "myth" is that somehow keeping gas prices high, raising taxes, and doubling the amount of people on food stamps over the last four years is going to help people who need JOBS.

Here's the solution to the oil situation. Stop driving huge gas guzzling cars, not saying you, I've visited America often and the freeways are full of big cars, even trucks and SUVs, with one person in them. This is all most people need.

If you want to drive this, pay for the fuel.

If it's only one person going to work.

This is great.

You know exactly what I mean.

As for speculation on commodities. That's what Wall Street does and why we are in the shitter.

How can the Government create millions of jobs?

**theking** · 09-06-2012, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

Here's the solution to the oil situation. Stop driving huge gas guzzling cars, not saying you, I've visited America often and the freeways are full of big cars, even trucks and SUVs, with one person in them. This is all most people need.

If you want to drive this, pay for the fuel.

If it's only one person going to work.

This is great.

You know exactly what I mean.

As for speculation on commodities. That's what Wall Street does and why we are in the shitter.

How can the Government create millions of jobs?

Goddamn man...he explained how in the post you quoted...you make my fucking head hurt with your fucking stupidity.

**Paul Markham** · 09-06-2012, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by theking

Goddamn man...he explained how in the post you quoted...you make my fucking head hurt with your fucking stupidity.

No dick head.

He just wants to reduce his gas bill by making gas cheaper. I'm saying reduce it by using less. Are you sure you never took a bullet in the head when you were in the army?

It's an excuse for stupidity.

Originally posted by kane

I have often thought that oil is yesterdays energy source and we need to do away with it where we can. Sure, right now we can't fly a jet or run a big semi-truck on electricity so we will still need it, but we are sitting on an ocean of natural gas in the gulf and we have infinite sun and wind power in many parts of this country. We can also do nuclear so long as we do it correctly. If we wanted to we could create enough energy to run all commuter cars and basic everyday cars and trucks as well as all the households in this country and most of the industries in this country just using wind, solar and natural gas.

We could all but put an end to importing oil and that would remove much of our interests from the middle east. We wouldn't be giving billions to countries that hate us and we would create a ton of permanent jobs in this country not to mention the money we can make once we start selling this technology and information to other countries.

But sadly, our leaders are bought and paid for by oil companies who have no interest in in any of this so we will continue to on as we are now.

Kane has good points. We will need gas for planes, lorries and ships until they go "nuclear" and a few other things that we can't do without and oil is the only fuel we have at the moment.

So do we waste it on cars that are clearly to big for what they're needed most of the time, or do we conserve it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...il_consumption

He gets it 100% right, our leaders are bought and paid for by oil companies who don't have to worry about gas prices.

**tony286** · 09-06-2012, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Robbie

The real question is: Was the number of attempted filibusters a result of Dems shutting the Republicans out of the process and trying to shove through legislation without reaching across the aisle?

Because if they had successfully gotten the Republicans on board then there wouldn't need to be a filibuster. Right?

I read these kind of things and try to figure out how and why they happen. You got to be careful not to put all your faith in either sides propaganda.

Fact is...apparently in the years between 1999 and 2006, the house and Senate leadership did a MUCH better job at reaching across the aisle to Democrats and getting them to compromise instead of filibustering.
I'd say that Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House both have shown their huge ego's and unwillingness to work with the other side of the aisle.

If I were Obama I would blame those two clowns first for fucking everything up for him.

Then if I were Obama I would blame myself second for not picking up the phone and twisting some arms. Everybody on BOTH sides have said he does not do that (people like Clinton, Reagan, and even Bush were masters at LEADING by reaching out personally...Obama is horrible at it)

Has nothing to do with Reid and Pelosi. Their goal was to make him a one term president since the day he got in. And they did everything they could to do it and it was screw the country.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...dget-deal.html

"Mr. Ryan’s enormous influence was apparent last summer when Representative Eric Cantor, the second most powerful House Republican, told Mr. Obama during negotiations over an attempted bipartisan “grand bargain” that Mr. Ryan disliked its policy and was concerned that a deal would pave the way for Mr. Obama’s easy re-election, according to a Democrat and a Republican who were briefed on the conversation."

Jeffrey Liebman: Republicans Are Blocking Obama's Jobs Plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...344765926.html

**Robbie** · 09-06-2012, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by tony286

Has nothing to do with Reid and Pelosi. Their goal was to make him a one term president since the day he got in. And they did everything they could to do it and it was screw the country.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...dget-deal.html

"Mr. Ryan’s enormous influence was apparent last summer when Representative Eric Cantor, the second most powerful House Republican, told Mr. Obama during negotiations over an attempted bipartisan “grand bargain” that Mr. Ryan disliked its policy and was concerned that a deal would pave the way for Mr. Obama’s easy re-election, according to a Democrat and a Republican who were briefed on the conversation."

Jeffrey Liebman: Republicans Are Blocking Obama's Jobs Plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...344765926.html

Tony the Dems wanted Bush to be one term as well...from day one. Matter of fact there were INFURIATED because they were convinced that Bush "stole" the election from Gore. Remember?

The difference was in the LEADERSHIP. Bush and the Republican leadership reached out and the Dems followed.

That is documented that it did NOT happen when Obama first took office. Reid & Pelosi ran wild.

I have an idea why. Obama was just a junior Senator with absolutely no executive experience at that time. Clinton, Bush, & Reagan (who all got things done) were all Governors and knew how to be the boss. Obama deferred to Reid & Pelosi as he just didn't know how to be the leader yet.

I think he DOES know how to be the boss now. But he lost that critical first couple of years. Remember? He said on television that health care was going to be the number one priority...but he was going to let Congress write it.
Then he backed up and Reid & Pelosi ran the show and pissed off the other side (and the country, in case you didn't notice the 2010 elections).

It was a huge mistake.

Obama just didn't have the confidence and ability to be the guy in charge. And he paid the price. And still is.

IF he wins this election it's gonna be by a slim margin. No matter how you try to re-write it or put a fresh coat of paint on it...people are disillusioned by Obama.

**tony286** · 09-06-2012, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Robbie

Tony the Dems wanted Bush to be one term as well...from day one. Matter of fact there were INFURIATED because they were convinced that Bush "stole" the election from Gore. Remember?

The difference was in the LEADERSHIP. Bush and the Republican leadership reached out and the Dems followed.

That is documented that it did NOT happen when Obama first took office. Reid & Pelosi ran wild.

I have an idea why. Obama was just a junior Senator with absolutely no executive experience at that time. Clinton, Bush, & Reagan (who all got things done) were all Governors and knew how to be the boss. Obama deferred to Reid & Pelosi as he just didn't know how to be the leader yet.

I think he DOES know how to be the boss now. But he lost that critical first couple of years. Remember? He said on television that health care was going to be the number one priority...but he was going to let Congress write it.
Then he backed up and Reid & Pelosi ran the show and pissed off the other side (and the country, in case you didn't notice the 2010 elections).

It was a huge mistake.

Obama just didn't have the confidence and ability to be the guy in charge. And he paid the price. And still is.

IF he wins this election it's gonna be by a slim margin. No matter how you try to re-write it or put a fresh coat of paint on it...people are disillusioned by Obama.

Actually go back and re read your history. Im not disillusioned by anyone, I can see republicans are for something. Obama agrees then they are against it. They hold the record for filibusters.

Harry Reid the demon in your eyes could of killed the filibuster but he didnt do that which was stupid on his part.

**Robbie** · 09-06-2012, 06:17 AM

Tony...as I said earlier, when I see one side filibustering it means that the other side has a serious lack of LEADERSHIP.

The Republicans went after Clinton harder than any other president in history. But he knew what he was doing and turned it around and had one of the greatest presidencies in history...all the while the Republicans attacked and attacked (drug him in front of Congress, threw his friends in jail, and IMPEACHED him)

Reid is a joke. And Nancy "We have to pass the bill before we can read it" Pelosi is a bigger joke.

They screwed Obama. And I'm not the only one who thinks that in this country.

The filibuster happens when one side has no other recourse. That's why you did not see a lot of them during other administrations. "Cause and effect" is what happened.

**Tom_PM** · 09-06-2012, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by PornMD

I have a serious question because I haven't paid enough attention to timing of what presidents have done - looking at the last 3 presidents that had 2 terms (W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan), did they accomplish more good in their 2nd term than in their 1st because of not having to give a shit about re-election?

I'm genuinely curious about this. Granted Bush started 2 wars in his first term so it's hard for his 2nd term to be any worse, but then all the bailout shit started happening. Clinton I'm not sure but the bubble burst happened under his 2nd term. Reagan was while I was a kid so I simply don't know what he accomplished in his 2nd term vs. his first except his "tear down this wall" speech.

It's a brand new phenomenon to have the opposing party leader in the Senate say out of his own mouth on the record and on camera that his party's primary goal is to prevent a second term for the sitting president though.

When I think of things Obama was on track to do and then seemingly felt he had to compromise with such ilk I just have to think he would never have needed to do that if he hadn't had to think long term about his own re-election. Single payer healthcare would have been by far the best way to implement universal healthcare but first we had to deal with Palin's nonsense about "death panels" and then we had old Chuck Grassley and his "pull the plug on grandma" bullshit AFTER he pretended to negotiate. It was just a fiasco that didn't have to happen and probably wouldn't have.

Bush tried to "spend his political capital" that he thought he'd won in his re-election by going on a country wide tour giving speeches to groups of people about privatizing Social Security.. a giant flop. He'd have never attempted that in term 1 even if he had nothing else to do. Your re-election committee's just don't allow you to do stupid things (of course they can't help you if you mispronounce things, spit on the whitehouse lawn and try to open locked doors etc..) Clinton and Reagan had their giant scandals to deal with yet still managed to pass pet projects. Wikipedia (yeah not exactly the greatest) and the whitehouse sites have info if you search for accomplishments.

And on the topic of green energy, I can't believe someone in this thread said that green energy is OK as long as it stands on it's own and then didn't mention the 10's of billions of our tax dollars being gifted annually to oil companies who are the most profitable corporations in the history of this planet. Some people say weird things. How about oil and coal and natural gas companies stop lobbying congress for more free money and stand on their own and then we'll talk about it? A crazy concept?

**Barry-xlovecam** · 09-06-2012, 09:08 AM

Americans get off your asses start working together again.
If you are not in this list your country's GDI is not world class

Code:

Country	       Population	        % employed
United States	      314,303,000	58%
Japan	              127,570,000	57%
France	                65,350,000	51%
Sweden	                 9,360,113	58%
Denmark	                 5,431,000	60%
Netherlands	        16,299,000	62%
Finland	                 5,249,000	55%
Belgium	                10,419,000	50%
Germany	                82,689,000	55%
Switzerland	         7,252,000	65%
Canada	                32,268,000	61%
Norway	                 4,620,000	64%
Singapore	         4,326,000	63%

**Australia also

A lot of countries didn't make the cut ...

America is just trying to adjust to our own failures. There never has been a world empire like America. It will stand longer the the Roman Empire.

There are over 300 million of us and 100 million gun toting cowboys ... The world would be wise to recognise that fact.

**Paul Markham** · 09-06-2012, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam

America is just trying to adjust to our own failures. There never has been a world empire like America. It will stand longer the the Roman Empire.

There are over 300 million of us and 100 million gun toting cowboys ... The world would be wise to recognise that fact.[/INDENT]

I assume you're joking. America will not achieve 100 years as the top power in the world.

**theking** · 09-06-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

No dick head.

He just wants to reduce his gas bill by making gas cheaper. I'm saying reduce it by using less. Are you sure you never took a bullet in the head when you were in the army?

It's an excuse for stupidity.

Kane has good points. We will need gas for planes, lorries and ships until they go "nuclear" and a few other things that we can't do without and oil is the only fuel we have at the moment.

So do we waste it on cars that are clearly to big for what they're needed most of the time, or do we conserve it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...il_consumption

He gets it 100% right, our leaders are bought and paid for by oil companies who don't have to worry about gas prices.

You stupid...perverted old motherfucker...you asked him one question and that question was..."How can the Government create millions of jobs?" and his post explains how...and he thinks his idea will not only create millions of jobs but lower gas prices at the same time.

**Barry-xlovecam** · 09-06-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

I assume you're joking. America will not achieve 100 years as the top power in the world.

As of today there is no serious challenger to the title -- America farts and the word sniffs. Witness the "great recession" and its global affect ...

**Robbie** · 09-06-2012, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by PR_Tom

It's a brand new phenomenon to have the opposing party leader in the Senate say out of his own mouth on the record and on camera that his party's primary goal is to prevent a second term for the sitting president though.

Keep in mind that McConnell said that on Dec. 27, 2010

Not when Obama first took office...but AFTER the 2010 elections swept Republicans into power in the House in what was a giant repudiation of Democrat policies.

So yeah...at that point the mandate from the people was for a change. But that quote is often cited like it was said in the very beginning of Obama's presidency.

In all fairness it was NOT.

And of course every Republican wants to unseat the Democrat. And every Democrat has always wanted to make the Republican president a "one term" president too.

That's why it takes a great leader like Clinton or Reagan to be able to persuade the opposition to come to the table no matter how bitter the politics.

**Robbie** · 09-06-2012, 12:33 PM

Just read about the presidency of John Quincy Adams.

Congress made SURE he was a one term president. The Congress in bulk reversed their own positions just to make sure that ANY thing that Adams tried to do would fail.

It makes the Republicans/Democrats look like boyscouts! lol

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jo...ncy_Adams.aspx

**tony286** · 09-06-2012, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

Keep in mind that McConnell said that on Dec. 27, 2010

Not when Obama first took office...but AFTER the 2010 elections swept Republicans into power in the House in what was a giant repudiation of Democrat policies.

So yeah...at that point the mandate from the people was for a change. But that quote is often cited like it was said in the very beginning of Obama's presidency.

In all fairness it was NOT.

And of course every Republican wants to unseat the Democrat. And every Democrat has always wanted to make the Republican president a "one term" president too.

That's why it takes a great leader like Clinton or Reagan to be able to persuade the opposition to come to the table no matter how bitter the politics.

Here you go http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinio...ein/index.html
and the guy who wrote it worked for W.

**theking** · 09-06-2012, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by tony286

Here you go http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinio...ein/index.html
and the guy who wrote it worked for W.

What is the specific point you intended to make with this link?

**Struggle4Bucks** · 09-06-2012, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

I assume you're joking. America will not achieve 100 years as the top power in the world.

Don`t fuck with our lebensraum project... The United States of European immigrants!

They are doing pretty well.... for now....

**KillerK** · 09-06-2012, 11:02 PM

Paul, rich people who drive nice cars dont give a shit about gas prices. It's all the people who drive piece of shit cars and work for $12 an hour that could use $1-2 a gallon gas.

I fill my car once a week, I get 12 miles per gallon, I could car less if it goes to $10 a gallon. In fact it would mean less traffic on the road.

**GrantMercury** · 09-06-2012, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

If it were me...I would take the reigns off the energy companies a bit and let them build the keystone pipeline (1 million new HIGH PAYING jobs....

Where did you get that number?? That's pure horseshit!

And the oil transported by the pipeline from Canada - through some of our very sensitive and important environmental areas - would be for export to Europe, not national consumption.

**GrantMercury** · 09-06-2012, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

There is no talking intelligently to you about this. You refuse to see or hear anything.

Gas prices could be brought down by opening up Federal lands where huge oil reserves are located. More oil in the supply means less price. Also if the feds and states would allow more refineries to be built in the U.S.

Obama hasn't "CUT" my taxes at all. I make a lot more money than you do obviously.

The number of people on foodstamps has doubled (YOU look it up) during Obama's administration. The poverty level has risen dramatically under his 4 years as well. Probably all Bush's fault in your world I'm sure.

We have plenty of gas. http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ed-last-year/1

U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...r-in-2011.html

If Obama hasn't cut your taxes, it means you're rolling in dough, and two unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts for the rich now need to be paid for. Sorry. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-class-famil/

And yes, if food stamp use is up, you don't think the disastrous Bush presidency had anything to do with that?

**Paul Markham** · 09-07-2012, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by KillerK

Paul, rich people who drive nice cars dont give a shit about gas prices. It's all the people who drive piece of shit cars and work for $12 an hour that could use $1-2 a gallon gas.

I fill my car once a week, I get 12 miles per gallon, I could car less if it goes to $10 a gallon. In fact it would mean less traffic on the road.

It goes further than the price of gas. I read here from some people's posts who want to get money for doing nothing more. Greed or need?

When I see them complaining about the disadvantaged getting anything. I see pure greed.

**nico-t** · 09-07-2012, 02:19 AM

i can't believe how much members start to turn into Paul Markham with walls off text. What do you gain by posting hours on gfy? Get a life people

What will Romney do yo put the US back in the black?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment