Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Jun 4, 2009.
I did not realize that was his intent!
according to obama it was never his goal, his goal was to run up the deficit, thats he said.
Got a link to support this?
Considering he took over in near depression times I don't find it fair to measure him by his ability to cut the deficit. I think it's enough if he can get us out of this recession and get people back to work.
Reagan quadrupled the deficit and Bush didn't cut it any slack so I don't see why the GOP thinks Obama will be any different.
I guess they have a different measuring stick when the Democrats are at the wheel.
I believe it is the goal he is most likely to achieve.
If you look at the size of the deficit he has run up, massive cuts are possible and we will still be deficit spending.
He is once again setting himself up to appear to succeed while actually failing.
His adoring public won't notice.
Reagan led us in rebuilding our emasculated military and staring down a worldwide threat.
Bush spent way too much money in domestic giveaways.
Obama's busy taking our money, buying up our production and financial industries, and then telling them what to do.
Anytime you feel like comparing apples to apples, feel free. It would be a welcome change.
Obama apologists usually don't
He was forced to spend on our military. When Obama leaves office, most likely after one term, the next Republican President will again have to do the same thing.
No you don't.But it makes good political rhetoric doesn't it.
It wasn't. His intention was to pull America and the rest of the world out of Bush's depression.
I guess we can call him a failure, then.
Obama is rebuilding the Smokey ruins of the economy. So the difference is what, Reagan was republican and Obama is a democrat?
No, here's the difference, though you will ignore it:
Reagan rebuilt the military. That means, tanks, ships, and missiles were constructed. Personnel was added. That kind of thing...not to mention, that task was Constitutional.
Obama is simply printing money to spend it, and taking over businesses that aren't his Constitutional right to take over.
In addition, we know that building and improving equipment, systems and enhancing personnel does make the military better. We're just being asked by King Obama to "trust him" that all this massive government spending, takeover, and rights erosion will "make our economy better." We have nothing to support that it will...and in fact, my contention is (and many agree) that this borrowing will have dire economic impact (dollar devaluation, massive hyperinflation, and the debt will eat up our GNP).
So, in summary:
Reagan: constitutional action; direct result...improvement.
Obama: unconstitutional action; direct result...not known, but very likely catastrophic.
I think my point is clear...but I'm quite sure on threads critical to Obama, you will continue to bring up Reagan.
I know that you're profoundly disappointed to learn that I've actually thought this out. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Actually, President Obama has done very considering his length of time in office, but I don't expect the Obama-haters to call him anything except a failure.
I don't expect the kool-aid drinkers to admit he's inept, inexperienced, and making things worse.
Call me a hater, if you want. I wear it like a badge, Bob.
He's done unimaginable damage in his short term in office.
More to come.