Bill Clinton Nominates Obama For Re-Election At Dnc

[Ulysses G.]

If he does get re-elected, I'm sure jobs will rise under his second term and then presumably you'll say he must be a good president.

He has been claiming that the economy was just about to improve for 4 years. I have had enough "recovery summers". It is time to bring in someone who has experience fixing things and making a profit.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[jbrain]

If he does get re-elected, I'm sure jobs will rise under his second term and then presumably you'll say he must be a good president.

He has been claiming that the economy was just about to improve for 4 years. I have had enough "recovery summers". It is time to bring in someone who has experience fixing things and making a profit.

You maybe right about that, but you should know already that Romney for sure doesn't fit in that profile.

[Ulysses G.]

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

[koheesti]

The richest 10% of Americans pay 45% of the taxes.

Actually, it's worse than that. According to the spreadsheets available at irs.gov, in 2009 the richest 10% accounted for a 44.95% share of the income. They paid 69.64% of the income taxes.

If 10% of taxpayers paying 70% of the total tax isn't considered paying "their fair share", what percentage does Mr. Obama and his supporters want them to pay?

[jbrain]

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

I'm sure you are speaking tongue in cheek now,altough I can't imagine what an immense size your cheek must have

http://3chicspolitico.com/2012/05/31/mitt-romneys-broken-promises-examining-romneys-massachusetts-governor-economic-record-claims/

Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government. By the time Romney left office, state debt had increased, the size of government had grown, and Massachusetts had fallen behind almost every other state in job creation. Romney economics didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

Mitt Romney has drawn the wrong lessons from his experiences, both in business and in Massachusetts, and is using his misguided economic philosophy to shape the policies he’s promoting in his run for the White House. He’s making the same promises he made when he ran for governor, and America can’t afford the same results we saw in Massachusetts.

[koheesti]

http://www.treasuryd...d/mspd/mspd.htm

Public US-debts summarised in a nutshell:

Reagan - Jan 1981 – 1989

31.01.1981 935 billion - 100,00 %

31.01.1989 2.683 billion - 286,95 % - increase 186,95 %

Clinton Jan. 1993 - 2001

31.01.1993 4.076 billion - 100,00 %

31.01.2001 5.636 billion - 138,27 % - increase 38,27 %

Bush G.W Jan. 2001 – 2009

31.01.2001 5.636 billion 100,00 %

31.01.2009 10.569 billion 187,53 % - increase 87,53 %

Yes, I know Obamas government reached already 16.000 billion ( 16 trillion). That should be a wake-up call for all parties.

Fun with percentages.

Reagan upped the debt $1.75 trillion in 8 years and hasted the end of the Cold War.

Bush 43 added $5 trillion in 8 years, fought two wars, not a good value for the money.

What has Obama gotten us for $5 trillion in just 4 years? At the beginning of his term he said the Republicans drove the country into a ditch. Well, he's driving it over a cliff.

[maidu]

I was a brain-washed liberal living in San Francisco back then. I'm pretty sure that I was not the only one.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Often attributed to Winston Churchill

Hello Mr. Churchill, I got no brains. But I'm good at hugging trees, and if I see a very poor person on the sidewalk, I give them a few bills from my wallet - particularly if they're not asking for a hand-out. That's very un-conservative, but that's what you get from a no-brainer.

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

Adjust the wording to fit Thaksin: He ran from the law to the Olympics, he doesn't give a hoot about anyone unemployed, and increased the budget drastically. He made a ton of money in business. Maybe Thaksin would make a good VP choice for Romney.

[koheesti]

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

Big <deleted>' deal. How many memoirs did he write before he turned 50, eh?

[Jingthing]

Reagan would be WAY to left wing to be even nominated as the republican candidate for president these days.

Balderdash. Just because you read it in a Michael Moore propaganda piece doesn't make it so.

Hilarious! Michael Moore -- Jeb Bush, what's the difference, right?

(CNN) – One of the GOP's leading voices said Monday that former President Ronald Reagan, considered an idol among Republican politicians, would struggle to mesh with today's hyper-partisan attitude among some elected officials.

...

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad – they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party – and I don't – as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, according to the website Buzzfeed.

http://politicaltick...-in-todays-gop/ Edited September 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

Romney economics didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

www.3CHICSPOLITICO.com

.

Far be it from me to argue with the "3chickspoliticico" blog!

"As governor, Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes and created jobs.http://www.politifac...-romney-record/

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

If he does get re-elected, I'm sure jobs will rise under his second term and then presumably you'll say he must be a good president.

He has been claiming that the economy was just about to improve for 4 years. I have had enough "recovery summers". It is time to bring in someone who has experience fixing things and making a profit.

A profit at someone else's expense in every single case.

[Chicog]

He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well.

Romney economics didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

www.3CHICSPOLITICO.com

.

Far be it from me to argue with the "3chickspoliticico" blog!

"As governor, Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes and created jobs.http://www.politifac...-romney-record/

And with substantial help from the Federal government.

[puck2]

..................

Fun with percentages.

Here you are right, it's the loss of feeling for this giant numbers

Reagan upped the debt $1.75 trillion in 8 years and hasted the end of the Cold War.

…..what a historical joke

When Gorbatschow skipped the the Russian cold war doctrine, the Breschnjew doctrine, Reagan was still a stubborn cold warrior (Reagan doctrine). You are changing (manipulating) the facts.

Guess, who got the Nobel Price for Peace in 1990? Help for you: starting with „G“

Bush 43 added $5 trillion in 8 years, fought two wars, not a good value for the money.

What has Obama gotten us for $5 trillion in just 4 years? At the beginning of his term he said the Republicans drove the country into a ditch. Well, he's driving it over a cliff.

If you play down the burdon of Bush's 2 wars then take off your red tinted glasses. You forgot the trillions of war spending, caused by Bush and his cronies. Short memory? Initiating these wars and then pointing the finger on Obama for the expensive consequences what a mean and shabby style of politics. Bush and his Reps had an Irak-War-Plan for about 1 or 2 months, but he couldn't finish this ugly war within his presidency after nearly 6 years!

In which bag or cloude do the Reps hide their responsibility?

[Ulysses G.]

In which bag or cloude do the Reps hide their responsibility?

The Republicans have been out of power for 4 years. The buck stops with Obama.

There’s no excuse for the Obama record.

President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it’s not his fault he’s failed so far. He’s tried very hard, and he’s made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.

That’s a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it’s the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week’s Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it's not his fault he's failed so far. He's tried very hard, and he's made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.

That's a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it's the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week's Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes

It seems to be beyond your comprehension that the bigger the damage, the more costly and time-consuming the repairs.

And the Republicans left a mess so big the damage was global.

If they had their way, they would do it all again.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited September 11, 2012 by Chicog

[jbrain]

President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it's not his fault he's failed so far. He's tried very hard, and he's made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.

That's a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it's the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week's Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes

It seems to be beyond your comprehension that the bigger the damage, the more costly and time-consuming the repairs.

And the Republicans left a mess so big the damage was global.

If they had their way, they would do it all again.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

You are right about that, it has been compared several times with the great depression of the 30's. Oh, who was in power when the great depression happened?

[Jingthing]

The 1929 stock market crash occurred during the presidency of republican Herbert Hoover.

[jbrain]

The 1929 stock market crash occurred during the presidency of republican Herbert Hoover.

I know this,and it was also a Republican in 1987 namely the earlier in this topic praised Ronald Reagan, but I'm not sure if it is realised by Romney's defenders in this thread.It is clear that history repeats itself, however this is only possible if it is allowed to.

Let's hope the American population has learned something from history and that the whole world doesn't have to suffer again from their professionalism.

[puck2]

U., Obama's hands have been tied selfishly by the Reps in the Senat. And there is no excuse for the Reps.

There is a bird Jynx torquilla (wryneck). It's speciality, rotate the head by 180 °.

After the German reunion people who changed their political position quickly earned this bird's name (Wendehals).

We are now watching Romney „wrynecking“ some of his positions like some men change their underware.

• Obamacare
  
• Praising his team play with the Dems in Massachusetts; what about the debt cap last year?
  
• the rich should pay as many taxes as before (no details). This means: tax rate on income from capital (Romney: 15.4 % from income of 20,9 million) is much lower than tax on hard earnd job money (up to 35 %). A very fair tax system
  

[koheesti]

..................

Fun with percentages.

Here you are right, it's the loss of feeling for this giant numbers

Reagan upped the debt $1.75 trillion in 8 years and hasted the end of the Cold War.

…..what a historical joke

When Gorbatschow skipped the the Russian cold war doctrine, the Breschnjew doctrine, Reagan was still a stubborn cold warrior (Reagan doctrine). You are changing (manipulating) the facts.

Guess, who got the Nobel Price for Peace in 1990? Help for you: starting with „G“

It is not a historical joke at all. I was teaching English in Moscow in 1994. One group of students were scientists outsourced for Motorola. They told me themselves that it was Reagan's military spending and the USSR trying to keep up which ran the USSR into bankruptcy. I told them that some in my country think Gorbachov was the one who ended the Cold War and they all laughed. Another student when I was in Estonia confirmed that the USSR spent themselves into bankruptcy chasing Reagan and his Star Wars project. She was a missile scientist working on part of the project in Tallinn. So, I will take the word of the Soviet scientist citizens who were in the middle of it all over Leftist revisionist history. Feel free though to waste your time posting all kind of modern links twisting history to fit your position.

BTW - Arafat and Obama also won the Nobel Peace Prize. It has become nothing but a lefty popularity contest in our lifetimes.

Now, like Gorby, another popular Lefty is spending a Super Power into bankruptcy.

Edited September 11, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

.

Edited September 11, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it's not his fault he's failed so far. He's tried very hard, and he's made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.

That's a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it's the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week's Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes

It seems to be beyond your comprehension that the bigger the damage, the more costly and time-consuming the repairs.

I guess it was beyond the comprehension of that community organizer who claimed to be able to fix it all within 4 years. Beyond his comprehension that even though he kept talking about how great things were getting, they really weren't. Incompetent AND out of touch. No wonder the country is sinking fast.

And the Republicans left a mess so big the damage was global.

The facts show otherwise. The mortgage crisis was ALL on the Dems for pushing banks to loan to poor people who couldn't afford it. Obama made some money in the mid 90\s successfully suing on the behalf of 186 clients for such loans. Barney and his Dem friends fought tougher regulation on Fanny & Freddie and even declared they were both totally healthy two months before the collapse.

On top of all that, the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 election, TWO years before the sh*t hit the fan and at the beginning of rising unemployment. But, go ahead, keep pretending it was all the Reps fault. They do deserve some of the blame though, I'll give you that. When they lost control to the Dems in 2006 I thought that maybe that would wake them up from their spending nightmare.

[koheesti]

[Ulysses G.]

President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it's not his fault he's failed so far. He's tried very hard, and he's made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.

That's a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it's the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week's Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes

It seems to be beyond your comprehension that the bigger the damage, the more costly and time-consuming the repairs.

Obama should have thought of that before promising to cut the deficit in half, that his “stimulus” would “create or save 3.5 million jobs and that unemployment would be below 6% by now.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives.

If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed!

[samran]

It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives.

If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed!

If you haven't read it already, get your hands on a book called 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis. Explains the housing bubble and how the banks went on a frenzy. And how a small bunch of renegades bet against it.

Great book.

[maidu]

It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives.

If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed!

If you haven't read it already, get your hands on a book called 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis. Explains the housing bubble and how the banks went on a frenzy. And how a small bunch of renegades bet against it.

Great book.

Thanks, In looking up the book, I found this interesting list......

list of biggest trading loses in past 20 years (100 million $$'s and up)

[Ulysses G.]

The latest Washington Post/ABC poll oversamples democrats and still has a virtual tie. If Obama got a bump from the convention, it seems to be vanishing.

[Steely Dan]

The latest Washington Post/ABC poll oversamples democrats and still has a virtual tie. If Obama got a bump from the convention, it seems to be vanishing.

The only bump Obama is likely keep is if he encounters a phrenologist holding a hammer.

[puck2]

Let Mr. Koheesti and his students write a new history! Without Mr. Gorbatschow nothing had changed in the Cold War. Glasnost, perestroika, Reagan's ideas???

But I agree with K. that there are first- second- and third-class Noble Prize Winners

for Peace: Aung San Suu Kyi --> Obama

for Economy: Stieglitz --> Krugmann

Just a few days before great Nobel Prise Winner for Economy, Mr. Stieglitz, wrote in the other Thai newspaper concerning the US election:

Headline: Romney must pay his fair share of tax

(Romney means the rich)

….......

The billionaire investor Warren Buffet argues that he should pay only the taxes that he must, but that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that taxes his income at a lower rate than his secretary is required to pay. He is right.

Mr. Romney might be forgiven were he to take a similar position. Indeed, it might be a Nixon-in-China moment: a wealthy politician at a pinnacle of power advocating higher taxes for the rich could change the course of history.

But Mr. Romney has not chosen to do so. He evidently does not recognise that a system that taxes speculation at a lower rate than hard work distorts the economy.

Indeed, much of the money that acrues to those at the top is what economists call rents, which arise not from increasing the size of the economic pie, but from grabbing a larger slice of the existing pie.

Those at the top include a disproportionate number of monopolists who increase their income by restricting production and engaging in anti-competive practices; CEOs who exploit deficiencies in corporate-governance laws to grab a larger share of corporate revenues for themselves (leaving less for the workers); and bankers who have engegaged in predatory lending and abusive creditcard practices (often targeting the poor and middle-class households).

….....

Mr. Romney may not be a tax evador. But, given that the top US marginal income-tax is 35 % he certainly is a tax avoider.

Now, what I cannot understand. Why are there so many people supporting such a perverse system? Maybe I should be an US citizen to understand to be manipulated and influenced by the top rich and to sing their song?!