Gungy
Lv 6
Gungy asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Why do libs think that everything other than the economy & jobs & debt makes Obama....?

... worthy of re-election?

$ 6 trillion more in debt,

2 federal credit downgrades,

42 cents borrowed from every buck it spends just to operate itself,

20+ million now out of work,

the unemployment rate up to 7.9%,

42% of America now on food stamps or some other government assistance which is up 17% in the last 36 months.

Bail out examples ---- Solyndra

$535 million of tax payer money, went bankrupt 12 months later

GM got hundreds of millions....funny how GM is still billions in the red while their union workers smile all the way to the bank.

Fiskars, Inc. in Finland. A 1/2 billion of our money they got. They kept our money in Finland and hired their own people with it.

This is what the nation's majority feels are the priorities. Why do dems feel they're not when deciding the next president?

Update:

Hey William....."budget policies".......what budget policies? Obama's buddy - Harry Reid's senate hasn't voted to pass a budget in over 3 years for Obama to even sign. Haven't heard Obama utter a single word about it in these 3 years. Is that his "budget policy"? Not to have one?

Update 2:

All the world sees is this man is the president and he has caused the nation to be in the biggest debt in U.S. history by spending more in less than 48 months than any president in history before him. And the longest sustained unemployment ever. No president has ever come close to the destruction of what Obama has done. To mention Reagan as a supporting comparison for Obama insults basic common sense.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Fed is laundering money by buying back debt it could not sell to international countries. Who's going to bail out the U.S. when the monetary system collapse had lost faith & trust on the U.S. dollar cause the U.S. keeps printing (Quantitative Easing) more than what the U.S. earn devaluing the U.S. dollar paying, loaning & trading with international countries money made from thin air not earned.

    More borrowing & spending won''t cut the deficit, just as it didn't cut the $9 trillion deficit in half to $4.5 trillion deficit & ended up with 17 trillion deficit instead. Australia's dollar use to be worth half that of the U.S. now ist worth more & probably 5 - 10 times more if the incumbent gets re-elected & will ultimately require austerity measure.

    Years back the incumbent campaigned on going through the budget line by line & cut programs that don't work, guess that's what sequestration is. Still the incumbent hasn't passed a budget ((D) control of house & senate on 09-11) since entering office.

    The incumbent tauts 4.5 Million jobs created but fails to mention 4.3 Million jobs lost 4.5 million added minus 4.3 million lost is only 200k NOT 4.5 million. There's been no surge for new start up, chains, mom & pops business, & expansion in existing industries, textile, manufacturing, retail, struggling USPO, refineries, educations, transportation, even finance & many others struggling, no replacement for solyndra/abound solar, closed coal plant/mining, & GM dealerships with a number of bankrupt cities such as stockton, prichard, & san bernandino.

    The incumbent's ideas in job creation amounts to loan guarantees, bonuses, subsidies, waivers, tax exemptions, tax credits, plum jobs & loop holes to Solyndra, Abound Solar, Solar Power, GE paid 0 taxes who outsourced more than half of its labor force to China & India, Unions, donors (imelt, corzine, george kaiser, pat stryker) Bundlers, MF Global, Fisker, GM who got bailed out 3 times in the course of 6 months till undergoing structured bankruptcy with bonuses to change its costly habits, got 45.5 Billion tax credits, closed down hundreds of dealerships, boost productions in foreign (china/russia) GM plants (outsourcing ring a bell?) to be imported back to the U.S. complete or assembled, molded & designed only in the U.S.A. instead of being 100% made in the U.S.A.

    The only thing the incumbent understand about economics is when you borrow money, the more money you can spend & since government can print money legally why not keep printing to fund runaway spending. Its not about making money through trade, materials, goods, manufacturing, entertainment, or service, but making money by exhausting every ones money.

    The ones attacking outsourcing are the ones championing outsourcing (with bailout money from tax payers) to cut cost in areas such as level entry work to install tires for $70 per hour (8 or 10 times minimum) that many or any mechanically inclined car owner can do. Expanding chrysler's jeep production in china is outright outsourcing of labor & production. Even if fiat keeps existing domestic plants in the U.S. operational, it doesn't prevent them from importing what's made in their foreign factories, increase production over seas & reduce it domestically like what GM does. Why expand overseas when you can expand domestically & employ U.S. locals? By making it over there, they're making it a more attractive purchase for all of asia (mid east & SE pacific included), possibly Europe & Africa as well. It certainly will be more attractive in the americas with a little shipping cost added, import tax, & bribes for South of the border countries. It is why a Chrysler Missouri plant moved to Mexico to cut cost & make it more affordable. The only job it will Create for Some American patrons will be in managerial, engineering, design, & sales, but not entirely as they have locals there who can do the job as well. I'm all for free trade just don't exhaust/waste the treasury or the public's taxes to support a private enterprise out of political favor.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201211...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487044...

    http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/06/12/akerson-admits-...

    http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/16/gm-pays-less-ta...

    http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/10/23/bailed-out-chry...

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-04/20/c...

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-invest-1-billion-...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-pa...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&pag...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/obama-tax...

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    A government that doesn't spend to help the economy is a government that endorses a bad economy. so that's the debt and government assistance thing,

    The downgrade was explained by the people involved, it was the result of congress taking so long to work out a deal for an issue that was typically a no brainier.

    Solyndra wasn't a bail out it was a loan.

    GM has paid back all it owes minus the stocks that came as part of the bail out deal, we could easily demand payment on those at any time.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    You quoted from the paper excellently for this question but you didn't take the time to really search for all these sources; which means you mean all of this political ranting as rhetorically basically unanswerable even if Democrats have one.

    NO OBLIGATION TO READ(just my rant):

    One reason Obama looks good is there are choices on the table that Mitt will take off the table. I for one don't want to see my male family members fighting a war that never ends while Mitt and his stay safe on American soil. Plus Mitten also believes Russia is a threat and he wants to bad mouth them and feels at home doing it. Not to mention Mitten's can't travel to Europe (He is hated by most European people) which means we would be practically DOA during another war the psycho Mormon seems itching to start so he can shuck responsibility to America even more. States with power is equal to disaster from the start cause they're still going to be sucking from the Federal teats. The not so smart Mitten's forgot that 47% could actually translate into 65% of the country. Glad to Edit: It's Obama/Biden for 2012 as I predicted cause in the end the 47% he didn't care about was 52 - 60% in the end.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    If a person has no knowldge and skills about Forex then it will be very difficult to trade in Forex. But if you use the right software you can make very good profit.

    The best software is called "autobinary signal" http://trading-secret.keysolve.net

    If you aren't a big expert this software is the only way to earn good money in Forex.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Because they have their realities just like conservatives have their own realities. For example Conservatives might pretend that beofore 2008 everything was perfect. A Liberal on the other hand might believe that things could be a lot worst than they are. So the question then becomes: who is right and who is wrong? And that all depends...on your own reality!

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Jeku
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    There is no such thing as Fiskars Inc.

    There is a company named Fiskars making tools in Finland and they have not received any money from the US.

    http://www.fiskars.fi/

    The company you are talking about is Fisker Automotive Inc, an American company making cars in Finland.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisker_Automotive

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    "The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster. An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.

    That is the context for the Nov. 6 election, and as stark as it is, the choice is just as clear.

    President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery.

    Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.

    We have criticized individual policy choices that Mr. Obama has made over the last four years, and have been impatient with his unwillingness to throw himself into the political fight. But he has shaken off the hesitancy that cost him the first debate, and he approaches the election clearly ready for the partisan battles that would follow his victory.

    We are confident he would challenge the Republicans in the “fiscal cliff” battle even if it meant calling their bluff, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and forcing them to confront the budget sequester they created. Electing Mr. Romney would eliminate any hope of deficit reduction that included increased revenues.

    In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

    Health Care

    Mr. Obama has achieved the most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The reform law takes a big step toward universal health coverage, a final piece in the social contract.

    It was astonishing that Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress were able to get a bill past the Republican opposition. But the Republicans’ propagandistic distortions of the new law helped them wrest back control of the House, and they are determined now to repeal the law.

    That would eliminate the many benefits the reform has already brought: allowing children under 26 to stay on their parents’ policies; lower drug costs for people on Medicare who are heavy users of prescription drugs; free immunizations, mammograms and contraceptives; a ban on lifetime limits on insurance payments. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Starting in 2014, insurers must accept all applicants. Once fully in effect, the new law would start to control health care costs.

    Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms. He wants to use voucher programs to shift more Medicare costs to beneficiaries and block grants to shift more Medicaid costs to the states."

    and please, please read more:

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Three years ago today, a freshly-inaugurated President Obama said of his plan to fix the financial crisis that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

    Make him a one termer people

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    so, your basic idea is... Obama spent a lot in a recession (which Reagan did too, and it worked) and that he hasn't fixed unemployment yet, which again, neither did Reagan in his first term...

    and then all you have is small ball with a few bad loans... some businesses go out of business... it happens...

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    THAT IS THE PROBLEM, THEY DON'T THINK

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.