Since Obama took office:
- the GDP was -8% and today it's 2.2+% (it'd be over 3.2 if not for all
the gov't layoffs in state/local -- particularly teachers)
the new numbers are in: 1.5%. The AP says the following:
Growth at or below 2 percent isn't enough to lower the unemployment rate,
"Since Obama took office:
- US home sales rose 3.4% in April 12 from March"
The June numbers are out. Home purchase "unexpectedly" fell 5.4% in June
to an 8 month low.
Some analyst I heard said that they believe that the majority of bargains
(short sales and repos) have been scooped u
Three Pinocchios from Obama's own paper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
Sometimes dumbed down images are like that for a reason.
.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Here
Here are some more facts about Spending under Obama and Clinton.
http://imgur.com/b3q2X
And it's in a nice picture...easy to understand ;-)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-An
A correction in that last paragraph
In contrast, since 1898 there has been only one federal election in
Canada where the turnout was below 60% and that was four years ago.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Very true. Americans have a terrible record of showing up and vo
Very true. Americans have a terrible record of showing up and voting,
let alone voting for what they believe. The last time voter turnout
was over 60% for a national election was in 1968. The last election in
2010 the turnout was under 38%.
In contrast, since 1989 there has been only one federal
At the same time what is not mentioned is that the tax burden is at
its lowest since the 1920's. Its not a debt issue really, but an
revenue issue. If the Shrub tax cuts are allowed to sunset at the end
of the year, there goes a substantial portion of the debt. I think we
ought to have a more radi
This mess of spin and disinformation has been circling via the
propaganda machine for a quite a while.
Why don't you take each of those statements and look at current
reality and make your decision about who to vote for based on fact,
and not oppositional spin?
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, G
"Romney meanwhile is quite unashamedly out to engineer another massive wealth
transfer."
Another? Like the one Obama engineered?
You know, sending billions to his favorite unions, donors, and backers
(think GM, Buffet, Solyendra).
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percen
"But if Obama is elected theres a slim chance he might try something bold."
That is frightening.
Why wait though? Maybe we'll get an October surprise.
Will we invade Iran or Syria.
I'd say it's got to be Iran since Russia is parking cruiser at Syria now.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians g
I think Obama has decided that there is no point in trying to play nice.
And about time, I say.
Romney meanwhile is quite unashamedly out to engineer another massive
wealth transfer.
that's what *I* think.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> In many ways I can't disagree ..
In many ways I can't disagree ... But here's my calculus: if Mitt's elected his
next campaign will begin in Jan 2013 and he'll do everything in his power to
maintain status quo until then.
Like Obama has.
But if Obama is elected theres a slim chance he might try something bold.
On Jul 14, 2
"The bailouts were voted into agreement by both sides of Government. "
The bailouts certainly originated with both sides. Then again, both sides
suck, so . . .
"The current US Administration inherited an economic nightmare."
They were at rock bottom and kept digging.
"The current GOP Admi
"No, I'm saying we voting Americans have done a terrible job. We keep
voting for people who perpetuate the status quo, I.e. lobbyist-based
legislative and executive."
Can't disagree with this. It does lead one to ask if you'll continue the
trend?
"Vote Mitt. Won't matter. Bush=Bill=Bush=Bara
No, I'm saying we voting Americans have done a terrible job.
We keep voting for people who perpetuate the status quo, I.e. lobbyist-based
legislative and executive.
Vote Mitt. Won't matter. Bush=Bill=Bush=Barak.
If you're looking to break the cycle, he'll Mitt's the ultimate slow and steady
If all the rest is true that's actually a great record :-)
The bailouts were voted into agreement by both sides of Government.
The current US Administration inherited an economic nightmare.
The current GOP Administration has blocked nearly every attempt they have
made to implement plans to corre
" the DOW was <7000K and now it's over 10K "
Nice. The DOW was at 12000 in June of 2008. It was still at 1 at the
beginning of October. The smart investors steadily fled seeing the
imminent Obama Victory.
"the GDP was -8% and today it's 2.2+% (it'd be over 3.2 if not for all the
gov't l
" Despite the fact I'm probably voting for him (regretfully), I find the
list below interesting for this reason: "
That is terribly unsettling.
You seem to be admitting that President Obama has done a horrible job and
yet you won't be able to find another candidate on the ballot to vote for
(or
Unfortunately none of that changes the last 30 years of policy that's resulted
in massive US citizen and gov't debt via perverse incentives.
And all of it paid for with foreign savings funneled through a broken
under-capitalized banking system.
Bottom line is that no president of either party
Since Obama took office:
- the GDP was -8% and today it's 2.2+% (it'd be over 3.2 if not for
all the gov't layoffs in state/local -- particularly teachers)
- the DOW was <7000K and now it's over 10K
- the Recovery Act provided ~4million jobs (according to the CBO)
- over 26
Despite the fact I'm probably voting for him (regretfully), I find the list
below interesting for this reason:
If real wages aren't rising in our country (for ~30 years) and the middle class
is being gutted, then the 1%ers MUST fill the wage gap somehow.
Both parties have clearly decided to do
21 matches
Mail list logo
