Thinking of voting for 0bama?

H

Hemlock

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Despite what Republicans and the tea party would
like to have Americans believe, taxes, spending and the deficit are all lower
than when President Obama took office.

Think Progress:

In January 2009, before President Obama had even
taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross
domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top
out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are
lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO
projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent
of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.

One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to
be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the
CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is
expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

Read more
​
Another notable figure: When President Bush came
into office in 2001, he inherited a $281 billion federal budget surplus from the
Clinton administration. By the time Obama took over eight years later, the
deficit was $1.2 trillion. An interesting fact given that conservatives love to
blame Democrats—and in particular Obama—for America’s current economic problems.
—TEB
Click to expand...

So what is the deficit now............. ahhhh 14-15 trillion. yeah thats regression not progress
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
anything remotely negative that happens is 100% obama's direct fault.

but anything positive that happens is just mere circumstance. see the death of osama bin laden.
.
Click to expand...
According to you, anything remotely negative that happens is Bush's fault.

As far as Bin Laden......where's the proof?
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
According to all Obama supporters he was THE ONE who apparently shot Bin Laden, not really but saying he killed him is like saying he pulled the trigger. The seal team did all the work while he took the credit. Not that I am for what Bin Laden did, but what gives anyone the right to cheer for someone being murdered. Kinda sadistic if you ask me. I for one am not voting for Osama I mean Obama. Hell I probably wont even step my ass into a voting booth. Fuck em both. I wish Bill Clintons pot headed ass could be president again. Clintons views. " No need to fight, here, smoke this joint." :lol:

Fuck both of those ass twats.. Pot heads of the world unite.

Not to mention that ass hat thinks he is the 4th best president. Arrogant prick, go suck a fuck. "Gee sir how does one go about sucking a fuck" Fuck if I know.

Sorry, I've been up for nearly 2 days.. :lol:
 
H

Hemlock

Well-Known Member
Politicians recognize they give up a degree of privacy when they run for office.

But Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking.



Campaign trackers going too far? [h=4]Latest on POLITICO[/h]


While most serious campaigns on both sides use campaign trackers — staffers whose job is to record on video every public appearance and statement by an opponent — House Democrats are taking it to another level. They’re now recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.


That ratcheting up of the video surveillance game is unnerving Republicans who insist that even by political standards, it’s a gross invasion of privacy. Worse, they say, it creates a safety risk for members of Congress and their families at a time when they are already on edge after a deranged gunman shot former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 18 months ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top