Shutdown

quote:
Originally posted by MarcelR

So I open the Wall Street Journal today, and there on page 5 are the results of the most recent polls done for the WSJ.

What do you guys think of the poll results stating that Republican Congressional approval is at the lowest point since the Journal started polling, 26%, and 53% of those polled blame the Republicans for the shutdown. About 70% disapproved of how the Republicans were running Congress.

Click to expand...


It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Obviously, you didn't take the time to look at the underlying statistics as to who was polled. I'll make it easy for you, 20% were federal workers (even though they only make up 7% of the workforce). Now why would FEDERAL workers blame the Republicans? I'll let YOU try to figure that out.

So Obama personally doubled your wealth (on paper). Did he do that before, or after he personally killed bin Laden? Guess who controlled the purse strings when the recession started under Bush (hint: Democrats).

Now guess who controls the purse strings since 2010? (hint: Republicans).

Marcel, you really need to understand how the US operates before you go spouting off...
 
"How many of the people on here get at least part of their income from the Gubmint?"

Not me!

If too many people get their income from the "Gummint" then pay it back in taxes you know what you end up with? A Circle Jerk.
 
You can't contribute any gains in stocks or anything to a president.
Should i blame Obama for the fact that my house went down $200k in value.

Your investments went up because you did smart investments. They move with the world not one country.
You should be able to double every 8 years if smart.

I can say the same thing for almost any president.
Actually considering I have no debt I wish the 10% interest I got on money back in Carter days was back!
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeeBee

"How many of the people on here get at least part of their income from the Gubmint?"

Not me!

If too many people get their income from the "Gummint" then pay it back in taxes you know what you end up with? A Circle Jerk.

Click to expand...
Not a single person in my immediate family or my extended family receives government aide, Greg.
Marcell, it's the rate of expansion of previous adminstrations programs that is unprecidented under the current regime, emphasis placed on regime.
Bill
 
Please explain which Obama policies affected the stock market in any positive manner.

If you stock portfolio doubled in the last five years, it was purely due to the hard working men and women of the companies in which you own stock. And, that includes those ever so evil CEOs.

Your comment is still patently absurd.
 
Wait, are you telling me that Obama DOESN'T control the stock market????
 
Imagine that.

Now, if he had said that Federal Reserve policies - near zero interest - had artificially pushed people into the market to try to get some sort of return, then we would have had the beginnings of a discussion.

But, to say that Obama policies have in any way been pro-business is just plain silly.
 
OK, let's get to work.

quote:
Crickets on the Olberman B.S. video. .... And crickets on the Democrat WMD quotes.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17web-elder.html?_r=0

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.html

So, if the video is misleading, why did 70% of the people polled, in numerous polls, arrive at the belief that Hussein was involved in 9/11?

And, before you discount those polls, what would be the purpose of tampering with them?

On the Democratic WMD quotes, they just show that the Bush CIA, NSA and other agencies purposely lied to them and they were dumb enough to believe them. Just proves that you can fool some of the people some of the time.

But there was at least one smart person not taken in by the BS. You don't have a quote from Senator Barrack Obama, because he was not fooled by the lies, and that got him into the Presidency.

Even Secretary of State Colin Powell admits that he was lied to about WMD, and has deep regrets about it.

Read this and weep.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/colin-powell-iraq-wmd/2011/02/16/id/386373

quote:
I am mad mostly at myself for not having smelled the problem," Powell writes about his role. "My instincts failed me."

From the excerpt, I also can't tell whether Powell discusses political pressure within the Bush administration that may have helped his instincts to fail. In the last days before the U.S. attack on and invasion of Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors -- who at that point were getting full cooperation from the Saddam Hussein government -- were strongly signaling that they could find no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons stockpiles or ongoing programs to develop them. It's impossible to say what might have happened if someone with Powell's credentials and credibility had broken ranks with the administration's push for war, but it's possible the long, costly, unnecessary war could have been averted.
Click to expand...


http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/05/colin-powell-discusses-wmd-blot-his-record

quote:
"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
Click to expand...


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Still hearing crickets?
 
quote:

But, to say that Obama policies have in any way been pro-business is just plain silly.
Click to expand...


Oh, really? In any way? Clearly, sir, many in the business community disagree with you. But, of course, they do not live in a bubble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/obamas-real-record-on-business/2012/06/11/gJQAcvr7UV_blog.html

quote:
Let’s weigh Zuckerman’s arguments against Obama’s actual policies. First, Obama continued the Bush crisis-fighting policy of bailing out and stabilizing the banking sector, effectively saving Wall Street from a complete disaster it created on its own. Then he went on to rescue the American automobile industry. On taxes? He continued the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans over fierce opposition from his own party. Now he’s offering even more tax cuts. In his $447 billion jobs plan, Obama has recommended slicing the payroll tax paid by businesses. And on trade? Obama this week sent free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama to Congress for final approval, again over some opposition from his party. Any of these measures sound “anti-business” to you?

Read more: http://business.time.com/2011/10/04/is-obama-anti-business/#ixzz2hknbWUPh

Click to expand...


http://www.thestreet.com/story/11378728/1/obama-outdoes-pro-business-republicans.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/business
 
quote:

Obviously, you didn't take the time to look at the underlying statistics as to who was polled. I'll make it easy for you, 20% were federal workers (even though they only make up 7% of the workforce). Now why would FEDERAL workers blame the Republicans? I'll let YOU try to figure that out.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that is a complete fabrication. I'm fairly certain where you heard that, but it is false, and if you believed it you were chumped.

Do you really believe that the Wall Street Journal would pay for a poll with those parameters?

Here is a link to the actual poll questions. Scroll to the last question at the bottom and you will clearly see that 9% of those polled were federal employees. You were chumped.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

Actually, I did look at the underlying statistics, and you obviously did not.

Do you or an immediate family member living with
you work for the federal government or a state or local government? (IF YES, SPECIFY, ACCEPT ALL THAT APPLY)

Total Yes 20
Yes, federal ................ 9
Yes, state .................. 8
Yes, local.................... 5
No .............................. 79
Not sure.................... 1

The numbers are off by a percent or two because of fractions of a percent variation, for those that are mathematically challenged, LOL.

SLAM DUNK!

As for "shooting fish in a barrel", guess what? You missed, big time.
 
MarcelB wrote:

<<...."On the Democratic WMD quotes, they just show that the Bush CIA, NSA and other agencies purposely lied to them and they were dumb enough to believe them."....>>

Before you go any further, you did notice that several of the Democrat quotes about Saddam's WMDs were from BEFORE GWB was President. You did notice that, right? Clinton was president when the Dems started those WMD quotes.

So, as far as "Bush lying about WMDs", are you going to tell us that Bush was magically controlling the information and spreading propaganda from the Governor's office of TX, while Clinton was President? Really??!!!

And, as far as "Saddam had no WMDs", ... were the photos and reports of thousands of gassed and dead Kurds totally faked? Seriously? That's a heavy accusation.
 
quote:
And, as far as "There were no WMDs", were the photos and reports of thousands of gassed and dead Kurds totally faked? Seriously? That's a heavy accusation.
Click to expand...


There were no WMD's in Iraq at the time that our Commander-in-Chief started the Iraq invasion.

That has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

Resurrecting quotes from a time when Saddam had WMD's, does not justify losing thousands of American lives at a time when Saddam had no WMD's.

Does it?

You did read what General Powell had to say about the matter, didn't you?

quote:
Even Secretary of State Colin Powell admits that he was lied to about WMD, and has deep regrets about it.

Click to expand...


So who lied to General Powell, Bill Clinton? Oh, oh, I know, it was Nancy Pelosi.
 
<<..."There were no WMD's in Iraq at the time that our Commander-in-Chief started the Iraq invasion.

That has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt."...>>

Number one, that can't be proven. You can't prove a negative. No way am I believing inspector Hans "Clouseau" Blix and the rest of the inept UN asshats.

Second, Powell did not say that BUSH lied to him. And, as we later found, Powell had political axes to grind.

Third, the libs have been saying for years now that "Saddam NEVER had any WMDs." Well, we know that's not true. He killed 1,000s Kurds with them.

Fourth, Do you HONESTLY believe that Saddam, one of the world's greatest mass killers, actually gave up EVERY last bit of his WMDs? Really? He can't manage to hide a canister or two (enough to kill 10s of thousands) in an area the size of California?

If you believe that Saddam got rid of ALL of his WMDs, I have bridge to sell you!

So, according to you, Bush lied, but Saddam got rid of all his WMDs and is to be believed?

YHGTBSM!!
 
And ... if you still think that Saddam actually got rid of all of his WMDs, it seems that wouldn't have even mattered to Clinton, either. Clinton (wisely) didn't even want Saddam to even have a chance of building more weapons.

*******************
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
*******************

How was Clinton planning on "denying Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs" ? Asking them nicely?
Nope. It looks like Clinton was not opposed to going in after Saddam, as well.
 
Look - I can do an Internet search too:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577558902952036454.html
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/06/top-10-obama-anti-business-anti-job-actions/
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/12/is-obama-administration-the-mo
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=8876#.Ul06lVCfiwo

I can show more anti-business articles than you can pro-business articles.

If all else fails, you should try to escape out of your bubble.
 
"So, if the video is misleading, why did 70% of the people polled, in numerous polls, arrive at the belief that Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Sort of makes the case that polls are nothing but surveys of informed people does it not? If that is the case, polls are irrelevant. (Hint, any poll with a media name with it is merely an attempt to validate editorial positions)
 
quote:
I can show more anti-business articles than you can pro-business articles.
Click to expand...


quote:
But, to say that Obama policies have in any way been pro-business is just plain silly.
Click to expand...


The quote above is what I responded to. So even you admit that there are numerous opinions that Obama is pro-business, but that you can find more articles that say he is anti business. I'm OK with that, since I know why.

So I Googled "Obama pro business articles" and got 99,800,000 hits.

Then I Googled "Obama anti business articles" and got 156,000,000 hits.

So the quote I responded to, "to say that Obama policies have in any way been pro-business is just plain silly" is obviously wrong.

Some might say that since most business articles are written in the business press, and most business press is definitely right-wing (Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investors Business Daily) then having somewhat more Obama anti business articles is not really surprising, is it? But yet he managed to get 99,800,000 hits. So we have a difference of opinion, certainly nothing definitive either way. Sorry.

quote:
"So, if the video is misleading, why did 70% of the people polled, in numerous polls, arrive at the belief that Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Sort of makes the case that polls are nothing but surveys of informed people does it not? If that is the case, polls are irrelevant. (Hint, any poll with a media name with it is merely an attempt to validate editorial positions)
Click to expand...


OK, are you saying that the 70% just fabricated their opinion out of thin air? Interesting theory.

And are we still not past the point of downplaying polls? One would think that the 2012 Presidential election would have shown the folly of that position. Remember this?

I particularly enjoyed the RedState.com take on the subject, LOL.

http://www.redstate.com/imperfectamerica/2012/11/03/despite-what-the-polls-say-mitt-romney-will-win-by-double-digits-heres-why/
 
quote:
Oh, Obamaphones? If you believe that, well, let's be kind and say that you were fooled.
Click to expand...


quote:
Keep up the good work, guys. Rafael is absolutely Presidential material, even if he was born in Canada, and I sincerely hope that he gets the Republican nomination for President. Really, I sincerely hope that he does!
Click to expand...


http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

quote:
As for "shooting fish in a barrel", guess what? You missed, big time.
Click to expand...


Crickets, crickets and more crickets.

Are we at that stage in this discussion where some participants go off in a huff, saying that they don't have the time to spend on this?

I've had it happen before.
 
quote:
You can't contribute any gains in stocks or anything to a president.
Should i blame Obama for the fact that my house went down $200k in value.
Click to expand...


Yes, you absolutely should if his policies caused that loss in value. But I'm afraid, as painful as it may be for you to accept this, that you lost immensely more value in 2008, under you-know-who, than under Obama. Now, this is not my opinion, this is simple arithmetic. Here is the proof.

quote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- American homeowners will have lost nearly $500 billion in home value by year's end.

Still, that's a big improvement over 2008, when values fell by $3.6 trillion, according to a report released Wednesday by real estate Web site Zillow, which provides online appraisals for tens of millions of properties nationwide.
Click to expand...


http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/09/real_estate/home_value_loss/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aE29HSrxA4rI

quote:
Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. housing market lost $3.3 trillion in value last year and almost one in six owners with mortgages owed more than their homes were worth as the economy went into recession, Zillow.com said.

The median estimated home price declined 11.6 percent in 2008 to $192,119 and homeowners lost $1.4 trillion in value in the fourth quarter alone, the Seattle-based real estate data service said in a report today.

“It’s like a runaway train gaining momentum,” Stan Humphries, Zillow’s vice president of data and analytics, said in an interview. “It’s difficult to say when we’ll see a bottom to the housing market.”
Click to expand...


quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/home-value-highest-since-07-as-u-s-houses-make-cash-mortgages.html
Click to expand...


Home prices started to plummet in 2007, and 2008 was much worse. That is why Bush signed the TARP program, to bail out the banks.

quote:
Definition of 'Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP'
A government program created for the establishment and management of a Treasury fund, in an attempt to curb the ongoing financial crisis of 2007-2008. The TARP gives the U.S. Treasury purchasing power of $700 billion to buy up mortgage backed securities (MBS) from institutions across the country, in an attempt to create liquidity and un-seize the money markets. The fund was created by a bill that was made law on October 3, 2008 with the passage of H.R. 1424 enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Treasury will be given $250 billion immediately, and the President must certify additional funds as they are needed. The additional funds will be distributed as $100 billion, and then as the final $350 billion is given, Congress has the right to not approve the additional amounts.
Click to expand...


So now you know who to blame for the drop in value of your home, because the drop was not caused by the current President, no matter what you heard.
 
<<>..."So now you know who to blame for the drop in value of your home, because the drop was not caused by the current President, no matter what you heard."....>>

MarcelB -

I was not part of the discussion about real estate values, but the crash was neither the fault of Obama, nor Bush. Hint: It goes back farther than that. .... Much farther.
If you want to discuss it, it should be in another whole topic on it's own. Here's a starting point if you want to start another topic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top