who thinks amarican need new president.

[double r]

Who thinks we should replace Obama and get some else to fix or economy.:yes:

[Jupiter]

who is going to "fix" the economy? do you know how hard that would be??

[Stryker125]

Economy's actually been improving over the last two years.

[Jupiter]

oh, and also, it's America.*

[double r]

You guys need to watch some more TV
we are 14 trillion in debt as soon today, when bush left we were .1 trillion.
And it is not going to be easy.

And the economy is not improving.

Also the world is in a global recension. And everything hit the fan

Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[Jupiter]

what tv are you watching?

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt \

read that

[double r]

We will never recover in the next 20 years

[Jupiter]

did you not read the article i just sent you? plus, obama won't be president for 20 years :P

[double r]

Alot of things

No really


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[Jupiter]

what in fucks name are you saying?

[double r]

I said we will be screwed for the next 20 years

I am talking about what you posted up
It is just that my post come after your posts


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[Jupiter]

okay, let me tell you something.

obama is NOT THAT BAD. have you ever thought about the good things he has done for us?

[double r]

no what good things has he done

[Jupiter]

i'll let the more experienced debaters take it from here....

[double r]

what

on what right


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[User_Does Not Exist]

He's done more harm than good, but with where every little mistake from ALL presidents has landed us, it's hard to fix. People thought Bush was bad, but in reality he was cleaning Clinton's shit. People don't agree with War on Terror, but having planes crash into two buildings on our soil wasn't an expected event, so that took place during his presidency and not everyone agrees with what he did with it. Obamacare doesn't fly with everyone but it does help those in poverty who truly do need the help. Everything right now is FUBAR'd and personally I don't think it will ever get fixed, at least not in next 5-6 decades.

And as for you comment about nation debt...Bush over 8 years accumulated roughly 5,000,000,000,000 whereas Obama has done more than that in 3 years.

Roosevelt skyrocketed our debt while Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter brought it back down. Then Reagan brought it back up along with the help of the first Bush, then Clinton dropped it slightly, which was later jumped by Bush and the 9/11 incident being a huge contribution, and now were at Obama who has added to it incredibly quickly in very little time.

[double r]

Please name me because we have a really different political view and I just want to see what you say. I agree Obama is not a bad man he does not want to cause harm to any one , but he is not that good of a president.

[Stryker125]

http://heyimstryker.tumblr.com/post/12069122860

[double r]

I disagree with Reagen we had the best economy when he was in office, and unemployment rates were the lowest in history.

What


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[User_Does Not Exist]

Personally I don't like him either, I will not vote for him in the upcoming election. He was started in a bad spot, and it's hard to look good when everyone's blaming other people for why our debt is so outrageous and our economy isn't ing reat shape. Fixing something with so much damage already done is rather difficult. It doesn't help that everyone points out the bad's of the presidents (especially Obama) instead of the good's. Again, more bad than good, he is trying, but it's nearly impossible to fix and it will take a tremendous amount of time. In a debate like this you can't be biased and just try and win the argument over saying "Obama's bad he didn't fix the economy in his first term we need someone new"

[double r]

Thank you god

I love Texans they are hard core republicans

I agree he is stupid in his decisions and I can't believe we are not going to import oil anymore. That fuck. He also said we can't drill in this country. We have enough things why not export that and make some money.


Please do not triple post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[User_Does Not Exist]

I've lived in many other places than Texas bud, I'm not stating I am a die hard Republician, I really don't have nor care for any political issues anyway because my voice has zero say. If I had to choose a side though it would probably be Republician.

I agree he is stupid in his decisions and I can't believe we are not going to import oil anymore. That fuck. He also said we can't drill in this country. We have enough things why not export that and make some money.

Ok Mr. Los Angeles read this:

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-canada-saudi-oil-20120328,0,7827555.story


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

We are still importing oil just not as much.

[double r]

The same here i am not a die hard republican I don't support many thing with the party but I like your views that what I meant.

Sorry screwed up with the news read something wrong, just saying don't always trust what foreign papers say


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[Angel Androgynous]

i'll let the more experienced debaters take it from here....

What the hell is there to debate even? This thread is poopies.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx264nNEAy1r8u1sfo1_500.png

[User_Does Not Exist]

What the hell is there to debate even? This thread is poopies.
image (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx264nNEAy1r8u1sfo1_500.png)

There really isn't a debate just an unknowledged person stating incorrect facts from one point of view, but I think he's good now....

[double r]

This for people who are going to be giving you a job in the future so don't say negative things please

And thanks
xblh87r


Please do not double post, the Edit button is there for a reason. ~TheMatrix

[Genghis Khan]

8mA4HYTO790



Escalated the war in Afghanistan, threatening a break up of America’s ally Pakistan
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a radical Islamic atmosphere, both of these are supported by Obama
Obama vetoed the security council resolution calling settlement expansion in Israel, even though this resolution was not remotely controversial
Directly involved in criminal actions carried out in Israel
Stands with Israel when it threatens to bomb Iran, while Israel sits on its illegal stockpiles of nuclear weaponry
Playing a strategic game to gain control of Arab energy supplies
The West supported dictators until the point where the revolutions rendered them powerless


There comes a point when you cannot support your favorite dictator any longer...support them as long as possible, when the judgment is it can't be done any more...come out with ringing declaration for your love of democracy, and how you are on the side of the people and preserve the regime.

[Mortal Coil]

I think the country should definitely get a new president if the education system is so bad that teenage Americans don't even understand grammar...
My grammar-Nazi ways aside though, I think Obama is a better man for the job than anyone else who is running.

[BOSS]

Of course, Obama is crap. And that's putting it lightly. What we NEED is a Republican president at least he will know what the crap he's doing.

[Mortal Coil]

What we NEED is a Republican president at least he will know what the crap he's doing.

Oh, of course. A far-right president is the perfect fix: more children would be born because of the potential ban on abortion, leading to higher poverty rates since the families that want abortions usually cannot support a child, religious persecution will become much more prominent, destroying the purpose of the constitution which states and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." which would be moot if prayers are introduced into public schools. Aside from this, LGBT rights protests would be overturned, resulting in significantly less satisfaction.
You NEED to think of things from the perspectives of people who aren't necessarily people with rich christian families.

[Genghis Khan]

Oh, of course. A far-right president is the perfect fix: more children would be born because of the potential ban on abortion, leading to higher poverty rates since the families that want abortions usually cannot support a child, religious persecution will become much more prominent, destroying the purpose of the constitution which states and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." which would be moot if prayers are introduced into public schools. Aside from this, LGBT rights protests would be overturned, resulting in significantly less satisfaction.
You NEED to think of things from the perspectives of people who aren't necessarily people with rich christian families.

Not to mention the controversial actions certain candidates plan to take internationally, like Santourum for example. Although I more or less agree with Ron Paul's stance on withdrawing from Afghanistan and minimising intervention in the Middle East. If these policies were undertaken years ago, the present crises would've ceased to exist.

[DerBear]

No man will satisfy everyone.

But Obama is helping the poor and those who struggle

Much better than the republican candidate who says he would see a man die if he could not afford health care

[double r]

I totally agree with all of your guys. We just need to get a new one fix everything wrong with our country before we actually go bankrupt or stick our big mouths into something that we did not attend to say.

[Genghis Khan]

I totally agree with all of your guys. We just need to get a new one fix everything wrong with our country before we actually go bankrupt or stick our big mouths into something that we did not attend to say.

The trouble is the fault is not entirely that of the president. The constitution of the United States is so sovereign that even if Obama wanted to pass liberal-democratic laws the Republicans who make the majority of the government will refuse to pass them. If the president spoke against Israel he/she would lose a lot of financial support. So it's very much the governing body that needs to change along with the leading character i.e. the president. I find it quite useless and petty to put the blame on the person who may well be the world's most powerful (in theory) but only because he/she is sustaining the support of the real powerhouses. Without the governing body and financial support of the Zionist community in the U.S and Israel, the president doesn't hold but a modicum of potential power.

[double r]

One man can not screw up something this large yes, but I always thought their were
democrats then republican since most the east and west coast and the Great lakes being mostly democratic.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

And as for you comment about nation debt...Bush over 8 years accumulated roughly 5,000,000,000,000 whereas Obama has done more than that in 3 years.

Roosevelt skyrocketed our debt while Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter brought it back down. Then Reagan brought it back up along with the help of the first Bush, then Clinton dropped it slightly, which was later jumped by Bush and the 9/11 incident being a huge contribution, and now were at Obama who has added to it incredibly quickly in very little time.

Hello, read this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html)

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________

And OP, I disagree 100%, Obama has done a much better job than both Bush's combined. Bush (Jr. that is) got us into 2 wars, that cost us trillions of dollars, and was in no way focused on us as the people. Why do you think we even got involved in the middle east? Oil. They want oil, and they want it cheap and to themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
Oh, of course. A far-right president is the perfect fix: more children would be born because of the potential ban on abortion, leading to higher poverty rates since the families that want abortions usually cannot support a child,

I don't think abortion will ever become illegal again, even with a republican, there are too many who agree with it.

religious persecution will become much more prominent, destroying the purpose of the constitution which states and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." which would be moot if prayers are introduced into public schools.

Also, not necessarily true, but much more likely with a republican.

Aside from this, LGBT rights protests would be overturned, resulting in significantly less satisfaction.

Now this I agree with 100%. Almost all republicans don't like homosexuality.

You NEED to think of things from the perspectives of people who aren't necessarily people with rich christian families.

I agree essentailly. I am Christian, but in no way rich, but see how republicans are like that

[double r]

I liked your article and your comments are all 100 % but one question how the hell do we have 14 trillion in debit currently during Obama's administration. And one thing that really drives my nerves are that the republican candidates will never legalize gay marriage. But they are going to be much better then Obama hopefully.

[User_Does Not Exist]

Hello, read this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html)

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
[/COLOR]

Ending of 2008 our debt was 9.59 Trillion we are now at 15.6 Trillion. Obama was elected in September 2008. Again over the course of time where Obama was in charge the National Debt Toll has risen 6.01 Trillion within the 3.5 years that Obama has been in the office.

[ImCoolBeans]

Land of the free and the home of the Fox News Patriots.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XcLJqZsrnJA/TU6h_kxtlyI/AAAAAAAADto/zAEr-3Jt6bs/s1600/Bill+O%2527Reilly.jpg

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Ending of 2008 our debt was 9.59 Trillion we are now at 15.6 Trillion. Obama was elected in September 2008. Again over the course of time where Obama was in charge the National Debt Toll has risen 6.01 Trillion within the 3.5 years that Obama has been in the office.

I would like to know where you are getting your information, because it does not match up to my information from an accredited source.

[User_Does Not Exist]

I would like to know where you are getting your information, because it does not match up to my information from an accredited source.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Newspapers aren't always correct..... especially online articles

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Your Washington Post article isn't accurate at all.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

So a newspaper is not accurate, but these sites are. They are not accredited, and have almost no reliable sources for information.

The only one even legitimate is the "http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway" site, and it was updated in January of 2007, before the elections were even held; and 2 years before Obama took office.

Newspapers wouldn't/couldn't release a false or misleading articles unless they are true, and this is true.

[double r]

Not to sound arrogant but double check your info. That what I do most of the time.

And I agree with xblh87r on this

[Thunduhbuhlt]

I have checked my info, it's right.

Another source with the same results as the first. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/)

Don't buy into those false accusations of "double the debt in half the time" it's not true. You have to break it down further than just total debt.

[double r]

OK then, yes you are right, and some how everything else is wrong but OK, I will look into this further, just to learn a bit more about what you said:) and I do not buy that I am just saying that our debt is high currently but who Know it might be just a bit of everything.

[User_Does Not Exist]

Please do explian where:
-USA Today
-Wall Street Journal
-BBC News
-Washington News
-ABC News
-CBS News

Aren't credible sites?

As for the .gov source it was updated October 1st 2010, still trustworthy from the debt addition from 2000-2008, considering that its still 2years away from when it was updated.

Again:
- http://moneymorning.com/2012/01/09/how-the-u-s-national-debt-could-drain-your-savings/
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/02/26/national-debt-not-largest/2/
(on the above article notice how 2009 are the highest points since 1950's, again when Obama was in office....)
- http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_national_debt_chart.html
(there we are again with charts going up since 2009)
- http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/20/change-obamas-addition-to-national-debt-now-surpasses-bush/
(yet again the same information from CBS News reporters)
- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
(same information....)
our debt is up to 15+trillion where as ending in 2008 it was barely over 10trillion (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm).

See the pattern? It has been going up there is no doubt about that, what I'm trying to say is that it has gone up an outrageous amount during Obama's presidency, not only by him personally but also by Congress, again still relating to him.

So your defense in Obama has only risen it 1.4 Trillion since he's been in office is false information. You seem like a die hard Democrat who's very close minded in political views.

[double r]

They are all creatable and some one should triple check again.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Please do explian where:

our debt is up to 15+trillion where as ending in 2008 it was barely over 10trillion

You seem like a die hard Democrat who's very close minded in political views.

Programs such as the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars roll over as Bush costs, NOT Obama costs. It may be $15 trillion now, but does that mean Obama caused that debt? No. If you look at government documents, programs roll over to one president. World War II costs didn't go to Truman because Roosevelt declared war. Same thing with the programs and wars Bush started. Bush costed us a lot more than Obama if you look at it in the proper way, the way the government shows it as. The debt may be $5 trillion more, but Obama didn't create $4 trillion (or so) of that.

Democrats are OPEN minded. Not closed. Republicans are closed minded to things such as abortion, gay marriage, and anyone who isn't a rich southern American Christian. (My opinion of course)

And from the looks of it, that description matches several of our republican presidents.

Look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png), too. This is total debt, I'll find another chart.

Here we go. (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-58477.php)

Many people have written to ask how the impact of the "Bush-era tax cuts," enacted under George W. Bush and extended under Barack Obama (with the help, as you will recall, of huge pressure from Senate Republicans), is divided between the two presidents. I don't know and have written the creators of the chart to ask. (They have responded to say: it indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of tax cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too.)

[User_Does Not Exist]

Programs such as the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars roll over as Bush costs, NOT Obama costs. It may be $15 trillion now, but does that mean Obama caused that debt? No. If you look at government documents, programs roll over to one president. World War II costs didn't go to Truman because Roosevelt declared war. Same thing with the programs and wars Bush started. Bush costed us a lot more than Obama if you look at it in the proper way, the way the government shows it as. The debt may be $5 trillion more, but Obama didn't create $4 trillion (or so) of that.

Democrats are OPEN minded. Not closed. Republicans are closed minded to things such as abortion, gay marriage, and anyone who isn't a rich southern American Christian. (My opinion of course)

And from the looks of it, that description matches several of our republican presidents.

He is partially to blame because he is the one in charge and is the main one calling the shots as to what to do. I never once said it is 100% his fault and he sucks becuase he couldn't deplete the debt in 3 years. Pretty sure I'm Republician, not that rich, I am southern, I'm Bisexual, and I support gay marriage. Don't generalize Republicians as one. I said YOU were close minded not Democrats as a whole. For the most part it does.

[double r]

The wars did help our economy expect it was kinda screwed up when Obama entered office, and since Obama is the one that is going to do everything himself, he is some what in fault, but still the recession started with the housing and car market collapse during bush and got worse in Obama's term.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

He is partially to blame because he is the one in charge and is the main one calling the shots as to what to do. I never once said it is 100% his fault and he sucks becuase he couldn't deplete the debt in 3 years. Pretty sure I'm Republician, not that rich, I am southern, I'm Bisexual, and I support gay marriage. Don't generalize Republicians as one. I said YOU were close minded not Democrats as a whole. For the most part it does.
You were implying that it's his fault.

If you know so much about presidency, why don't you reduce the ever-growing deficit with 2 wars going on, an almost 10% unemployment rate, a whole load of companies almost going out of business, (which we bailed out), and failing stimulus programs and acts, such as the patriot act and bush tax cuts?

He has done more good than harm. He got us out of the wars (in progress) that have costed a lot, has cancelled failing programs, and gave us Obama Care, which CAN work if you use it right. My teacher read the bill and said that she agreed with it, and wanted it, and gave us a summary of it. I agree with it, and it will save Americans money and help boost the economy.

It's one thing to generalize and use the stereotypical republican name, but you don't know me. Am I closed minded? Maybe on this ONE topic, but if you haven't made any effort to try to know all sides of me, then don't tell me what the fuck I am. That's like saying you are bad at grammar because you don't capitalize your posts. maybe it's just in the circumstances, or maybe it is true, but you don't know until you actually know them to a certain extent. 10 posts do not define who people are, they define what their opinion of that one topic is, (in ROTW in this case). You let me and the people who actually know me decide who I am, I don't need you for that.

[Neptune]

I do, but, not a Republican. Obama is too soft. He can't get anything done. I wish Hillary Clinton would run. If the dems take over congress and senate, then, I suppose we'll be fine with Obama. But Mrs. Clinton has experience in dealing with Republicans.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

The wars did help our economy expect it was kinda screwed up when Obama entered office, and since Obama is the one that is going to do everything himself, he is some what in fault, but still the recession started with the housing and car market collapse during bush and got worse in Obama's term.

The war helped our economy? Yeah, trillions of dollars being spent on wars helps our economy. I fail to see your logic there.

And when the recession hit, it was mostly in 2007-2009, and Obama wasn't in office until January 20, 2009, after the recession hit.

The economy has slowly and steadily gotten better since Obama took office. Would this be the same for any president? Probably, unless they really screwed up. Bush made it worse for the poor and better for the rich in his term, plain and simple.

Obama has no faults in either of those claims. In a lot of other situation he may have that problem, but not there. You need to come up with some better things that Bush had that Obama screwed up, because those aren't it.

[double r]

It created jobs! It keep people making tanks and Humvee their jobs. It is like an investment some times it work some times it does not work. Also the government gives contract with companies giving more people jobs, and the lists goes on!

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Maybe it created jobs, but you can still be in the military whether a war is going on or not.
And for basic soldiers, a regular yearly salary for an under-experienced soldier is $17,892. That's not even enough to live off of. I would rather make a 50,000+ salary and choose to make money without the chance of being killed than only get 18,000 and have a much greater chance of death.

[double r]

You are getting a bit topic. And Yes but GDP ever heard of it?

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Yes, Gross Domestic Production?. What about it?

[double r]

OK you know that it is the buying and selling off good in services that adds up in an country economic growth , well if one of those is done it goes into our GDP and that is the result of economic growth. But you see our GDP is low so with the military that solider gets paid money, that person is going to spend it, that adds GDP value( like .000000000000001 etc) but GDP helps our economy; every pay check earned is also an benefit see the point.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

I understand, but there are still better opportunity for people who go to college and earn 50000+ rather than less than 20000.

[User_Does Not Exist]

You were implying that it's his fault.

If you know so much about presidency, why don't you reduce the ever-growing deficit with 2 wars going on, an almost 10% unemployment rate, a whole load of companies almost going out of business, (which we bailed out), and failing stimulus programs and acts, such as the patriot act and bush tax cuts?

He has done more good than harm. He got us out of the wars (in progress) that have costed a lot, has cancelled failing programs, and gave us Obama Care, which CAN work if you use it right. My teacher read the bill and said that she agreed with it, and wanted it, and gave us a summary of it. I agree with it, and it will save Americans money and help boost the economy.

It's one thing to generalize and use the stereotypical republican name, but you don't know me. Am I closed minded? Maybe on this ONE topic, but if you haven't made any effort to try to know all sides of me, then don't tell me what the fuck I am. That's like saying you are bad at grammar because you don't capitalize your posts. maybe it's just in the circumstances, or maybe it is true, but you don't know until you actually know them to a certain extent. 10 posts do not define who people are, they define what their opinion of that one topic is, (in ROTW in this case). You let me and the people who actually know me decide who I am, I don't need you for that.

Perception is reality. As for the the comment of me running because I know so much about Presidency? When did I say I know alot?

The war was nearly over to begin with, and he wasn't the one out there doing anything when it came to capturing Bin Laden, he just took all the credit for it.

Obamacare, for those of the middle class who pay for insurance, just got severly fucked with this being passed. In today's society it COULD work if those who need it actually use it, but it won't, people will abuse it and it will end up hurting those who truly do need it and those who actually pay for their medical bills. It's kind of like a minor form of socialism. Why the hell should working families have to pay for the lazy bums who refuse to get jobs and pay for things, while they spend their money on useless shit such as drugs. There is no morally correct justification for that.

As for your "close minded" statement: If your going to have a political debate you need not to be biased which you have admitted to being (Am I closed minded? Maybe on this ONE topic), so yes on this topic you are close minded and refuse to look at both sides of the arguement at hand. Your just defending the Democratic views to the best of your ability, which is fine, but to shun out other contributing factors to the nations current state and act as if the Democrats have had ZERO contribution at all is immature and makes you sound like an arragont imbecile.

"then don't tell me what the fuck I am. " I don't know where to start? Um... calm the fuck down? Nowhere did I directly insult you calling you a Democrat. It was implied due to your defensive arguing to protect Obama. Again, didn't say you were, simply said "You seem like a die hard Democrat who's very close minded in political views." Pay attention to the word "seem" it is not a direct accusation, simply a proposal of what I personally think. Finally, still no direct label to you.

"You let me and the people who actually know me decide who I am, I don't need you for that" I never gave you advice on telling you what you are, nor did I suggest I should help you decide, not once. If you really wanted to get technical with that statement; why should other people help you decide YOUR political views? That's based on you, that's your job to decide where you want to politically stand, if you want to side with one or another.

As for the newer comments of salaries, I think you need to get a job first and understand Economics a tad more before you ramble about average salaries from those in college and those who aren't. Again, maturely argue and look at both sides Mr. I'm going to call my self close minded in this politcal debate....

[Jmihas]

I don't believe in this. 20 years? Trololol.

[JJSSHH]

No. Obama inherited the worst economic crisis in a century. He needs a least 8 years in office to to squat.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Perception is reality. As for the the comment of me running because I know so much about Presidency? When did I say I know alot?

The war was nearly over to begin with, and he wasn't the one out there doing anything when it came to capturing Bin Laden, he just took all the credit for it.

Obamacare, for those of the middle class who pay for insurance, just got severly fucked with this being passed. In today's society it COULD work if those who need it actually use it, but it won't, people will abuse it and it will end up hurting those who truly do need it and those who actually pay for their medical bills. It's kind of like a minor form of socialism. Why the hell should working families have to pay for the lazy bums who refuse to get jobs and pay for things, while they spend their money on useless shit such as drugs. There is no morally correct justification for that.

As for the newer comments of salaries, I think you need to get a job first and understand Economics a tad more before you ramble about average salaries from those in college and those who aren't. Again, maturely argue and look at both sides Mr. I'm going to call my self close minded in this politcal debate....

I never said you know a lot, but you said that Obama has ruined the economy with the amount of debt that we had.

When did I ever talk about bin Laden? I didn't. That wasn't even part of this. The war wouldn't even be close to over if Obama hadn't stopped it. If Bush could have unlimited terms, the war would never end, and even if it did, he still would secretly be spying and waiting for any reason to attack again.

Don't tell me how economics work. I know. I do all of my parents financial work and know that a college education is much more preferential to a meager salary from the military, and he was claiming that it created jobs, and at any time, anyone can join the military, peace or wartime. And I do have a job, and yet again, YOU know my life, and YOU know that I don't have a job. Get real.

Don't you think there are going to be laws and regulations and punishments to the people who take advantage of it? There are lwas against insurance fraud, which is a matter that is comparable, because everyone is required to have car insurance, same as health insurance with Obamacare.
That's like saying "Let's not tax increase the richest Americans because it would be a burden on them, when there are millions of Americans out of work and poor."

I am ignoring the parts in the middle because all they are are rambling and incoherent remarks that make it sound better than it really is.

[Jean Poutine]

Obamacare, for those of the middle class who pay for insurance, just got severly fucked with this being passed. In today's society it COULD work if those who need it actually use it, but it won't, people will abuse it and it will end up hurting those who truly do need it and those who actually pay for their medical bills. It's kind of like a minor form of socialism. Why the hell should working families have to pay for the lazy bums who refuse to get jobs and pay for things, while they spend their money on useless shit such as drugs. There is no morally correct justification for that.

So basically you're saying that some people's lives are worth more than others. I'd give a few shakes to my moral compass if I were you because it's clearly not working correctly.

I'll tell you what's morally correct. I'm from a working class family, my mom raised me alone all her life, she can't work anymore because her body won't let her and nobody will employ her because she's over the age of retirement. She's been cheated out her life savings by unscrupulous individuals and lives by the day with what meager support I can give her with my scholarship. She has recurring problems with her heart and due to a genetic condition may very well have to get her aorta surgically removed and replaced. Such an operation would cost a fortune in the American system, probably in the seven figures and even with your present low-income coverage, we wouldn't be able to afford it.

So the "morally correct" choice would be to let my mother, who does not spend her money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, cinema, high technology but rather bread, water and butter, die of a heart failure rather than save her life?

No. Get real. Each life is worth preserving.

Let's rely on insurance companies who'll find any excuse worth a damn to not pay you a dime even when it could save your life. I may not entirely agree with how health care is up North but it's sure as hell better than putting your life in the hands of corporations and basically letting the dice roll.

Not only are you grossly generalizing that people with low incomes are crackheads that put a strain on true and honest middle income people, but you're also proposing that they deserve a less humane treatment. Even crackheads have the right to live in good health. What was it about the American Constitution and "pursuit of happiness"?

[double r]

No he did not say that, and so do I come from working class family but some things do not work, and like Obama care was useless and costly.

[Electra Heart]

The fuck is this shit...?

Answer: Nuke everything~ 'MURRICA! FUCK YEAH!

[Thunduhbuhlt]

So basically you're saying that some people's lives are worth more than others. I'd give a few shakes to my moral compass if I were you because it's clearly not working correctly.

I'll tell you what's morally correct. I'm from a working class family, my mom raised me alone all her life, she can't work anymore because her body won't let her and nobody will employ her because she's over the age of retirement. She's been cheated out her life savings by unscrupulous individuals and lives by the day with what meager support I can give her with my scholarship. She has recurring problems with her heart and due to a genetic condition may very well have to get her aorta surgically removed and replaced. Such an operation would cost a fortune in the American system, probably in the seven figures and even with your present low-income coverage, we wouldn't be able to afford it.

So the "morally correct" choice would be to let my mother, who does not spend her money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, cinema, high technology but rather bread, water and butter, die of a heart failure rather than save her life?

No. Get real. Each life is worth preserving.

Let's rely on insurance companies who'll find any excuse worth a damn to not pay you a dime even when it could save your life. I may not entirely agree with how health care is up North but it's sure as hell better than putting your life in the hands of corporations and basically letting the dice roll.

Not only are you grossly generalizing that people with low incomes are crackheads that put a strain on true and honest middle income people, but you're also proposing that they deserve a less humane treatment. Even crackheads have the right to live in good health. What was it about the American Constitution and "pursuit of happiness"?

Thank you. This is basically the long and story version of my answer.

I only hope the best for your family; especially your mother.

[User_Does Not Exist]

I never said you know a lot, but you said that Obama has ruined the economy with the amount of debt that we had. Stop putting words in my mouth... I never blamed him at all saying its 100% his fault. My answer was "perception is reality" meaning that the man in charge is who everyone is going to look at and want to blame.

When did I ever talk about bin Laden? I didn't. That wasn't even part of this. The war wouldn't even be close to over if Obama hadn't stopped it. If Bush could have unlimited terms, the war would never end, and even if it did, he still would secretly be spying and waiting for any reason to attack again. You act as if he flew a plane over there and said "Knock this shit off!!" We started because of 9/11, wanted to scold and punish those responsible (Al Queda) Saddam and Osama... notice the war ended after they were both out of the picture.

Don't tell me how economics work. I know. I do all of my parents financial work Of course you do Warren Jr.and know that a college education is much more preferential to a meager salary from the military, Not according to your outrageous stands of unemployment rate people can't do shit with their degrees. There are tons and tons of people who are leaving college with good degrees having serious trouble finding jobs. So for those who can't find anything and need to survive I'm pretty sure that 20K a year sounds better than mooching off your savings, for the most part a college degree is better than not having one, but not for everyone. Plenty of people who go to vocational schools and make good money and plenty of people who don't go to college and make great money.and he was claiming that it created jobs, and at any time, anyone can join the military, peace or wartime. And I do have a job, and yet again, YOU know my life, and YOU know that I don't have a job. Get real. Yes, your totally right I just know EVERYTHING about you. Don't you see me labeling you and telling you how you live? Oh wait I'm not...sarcastic douchebag. And no you cannot legally work in the U.S. at the age of 14 recieving a paycheck and paying taxes. You can do some basic job family owned or really small business, but your not paying into SSC, medicare/medicade. What I was talking about was a real job, for a real company, paying taxes.

Don't you think there are going to be laws and regulations and punishments to the people who take advantage of it? There's plenty of laws that people get away with daily, not just basic laws. It will be abused that is more than certain.There are lwas against insurance fraud, which is a matter that is comparable, because everyone is required to have car insurance, same as health insurance with Obamacare. Do you believe in magical money or something? Where do you think the funding for Obamacare is going to come from.... oh yes, again from the working people who are now going to have higher medical taxes and higher insurance premiums.
That's like saying "Let's not tax increase the richest Americans because it would be a burden on them, when there are millions of Americans out of work and poor." Yes, yes there are plenty of people out of work. Not all of those people are innocent, plenty of lazy people who just don't care to get one and know that they can float by with the welfare system.

I am ignoring the parts in the middle because all they are are rambling and incoherent remarks that make it sound better than it really is.Why thank you :)

....

So basically you're saying that some people's lives are worth more than others. I'd give a few shakes to my moral compass if I were you because it's clearly not working correctly.

I'll tell you what's morally correct. I'm from a working class family, my mom raised me alone all her life, she can't work anymore because her body won't let her and nobody will employ her because she's over the age of retirement. She's been cheated out her life savings by unscrupulous individuals and lives by the day with what meager support I can give her with my scholarship. She has recurring problems with her heart and due to a genetic condition may very well have to get her aorta surgically removed and replaced. Such an operation would cost a fortune in the American system, probably in the seven figures and even with your present low-income coverage, we wouldn't be able to afford it.

So the "morally correct" choice would be to let my mother, who does not spend her money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, cinema, high technology but rather bread, water and butter, die of a heart failure rather than save her life?

No. Get real. Each life is worth preserving.

Let's rely on insurance companies who'll find any excuse worth a damn to not pay you a dime even when it could save your life. I may not entirely agree with how health care is up North but it's sure as hell better than putting your life in the hands of corporations and basically letting the dice roll.

Not only are you grossly generalizing that people with low incomes are crackheads that put a strain on true and honest middle income people, but you're also proposing that they deserve a less humane treatment. Even crackheads have the right to live in good health. What was it about the American Constitution and "pursuit of happiness"?

Not at all what I said, your a working family and you NEED it and DESERVE it. My arguement was geared to those who DO NOT NEED it nor DESERVE it.

Every life is worth preserving hmm... let's see:
-rapists
-serial killers
-sex trafficers
-murderers
-abusive deadbeats

Totally correct they're the same as a good family who donates old stuff to good will and gives charity and partakes in community service, yup agreed.

Low incomes do not equal crackheads, never said that..... They were two seperate groups. Yes it is a strain on the middle class for those who abuse it. How is it not? Middle class isn't rich so therefore increasing expenditures on top of what they have so that those who refuse to work and use solely the system to survive, IS in fact a strain for the MIDDLE CLASS.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Your "perception is reality" said in my mind that you were blaming it on him.

Also, Suddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 from what the government tells us, but since I am a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe that anyone besides our own government is to blame. (I am getting off topic)

I assume you calling me Warren Jr. is a compliment, so thank you, if it's not, then that just sucks to be you then cuz I don't give a fuck.

And I CAN legally work and DO legally work. Yet again, you know EVERYTHING about my life and the things I do with it. Stop making assumptions and forget it was even mentioned.

In this time, and in the future, college degrees are almost necessary to get any well paying job. How many doctors, lawyers, architects, store and business managers, store owners, small business owners do you see that have no college coursework completed. It's a rare occasion that anyone is doing very well that has not been to at least some college. And when the economy grows again, which will be better, a person with a degree, or a person with no degree and was in the military. Unless they are moved by having a military personnel at that business, they will almost always hire the college graduate. The economy won't stay this low forever. The economy rose after the Great Depression didn't it? And that was worse. Obama can get us out of our recession, just like Roosevelt did in the 30's.

Would you rather turn away people in the lower class because they can't pay. When my mom was in her car accident, it cost $6000 for medical bills, and we didn't have health insurance because we can't afford the monstrous cost of it. Thank God that her car insurance paid for most of it, or else we would be totally screwed. If a middle class family like mine can't afford health insurance, what makes you think that any other lower or middle class family can too? You don't know everything, sorry. Not every poor person is a crack head or an alcoholic, but are just people down on their luck, and looking for a break.

Read this. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1670931&postcount=64) Not everyone in the lower class is "bad" or "lazy" as you state, and they don't just "float" around the welfare system.

[jackson94]

I consider myself a Democrat, and although I don't agree with everything Obama does, I find his decisous hugely better than those the Republicans support. The way I see it, we have one party of compromisers and wussies, and the other party is socially behind 100 years, and holds halfway-developed economic ideals.

[Jean Poutine]

Not at all what I said, your a working family and you NEED it and DESERVE it. My arguement was geared to those who DO NOT NEED it nor DESERVE it.

It's exactly what you said once you read between the lines. You're against socialized health care 'cause you don't want to pay for "bums who won't get a job". I'm sorry to break it to you but that's a slim, slim minority of those who would benefit under universal health care. You'd give up the chance to help people like my mother because of a few bad apples? Are you in the habit of throwing babies along with the bath's water while you're at it?

The government of Quebec in the 70s decided to legislate a corps of inspectors who would go around and sniff around the homes of people receiving welfare checks in the hopes of catching cheats.

It didn't work. It's either you help everybody of a low social standing or nobody. Distinguishing based on "worth" is just a fancy expression for classism. Besides, it's hard enough to catch drug users, how in the world is the government going to raise proof that so-and-so buys drugs with his month's check and thus does not deserve healthcare insurance?

Every life is worth preserving hmm... let's see:
-rapists
-serial killers
-sex trafficers
-murderers
-abusive deadbeats

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. The right to life is not extinguished according to a person's deeds. Freedom of movement, right to privacy etc can be.

Anybody can reform. The Son of Sam is currently busy helping inmates finish their high school education. Just an example among others.

Totally correct they're the same as a good family who donates old stuff to good will and gives charity and partakes in community service, yup agreed.

Both homo sapiens sapiens...yeah they're the same. Serial killers and the general population can interbreed. No?

Seriously though. The right to life is universal. If we start protecting it for some and not for others through an uneven universal-but-only-if-you-deserve-it health care system, where does it start and where does it end? What next is going to be based on merit and where will the bar be set? This is eugenics in a nutshell, especially given how most criminals aren't exactly right in the head to begin with.

Low incomes do not equal crackheads, never said that..... They were two seperate groups. Yes it is a strain on the middle class for those who abuse it. How is it not? Middle class isn't rich so therefore increasing expenditures on top of what they have so that those who refuse to work and use solely the system to survive, IS in fact a strain for the MIDDLE CLASS.

And I believe that strain is an acceptable societal compromise. I live in a country with universal health care. My mother (yes, her again) had a brain aneurysm three years before my birth. I'm just glad we're not still paying down the huge six or seven figures debt she incurred by surviving.

There will always be welfare cheats and drug dealers and pimps and wife beaters. The government doesn't have the means or the time to sit down with every person you deem "unworthy" prima facie and find out what story they have to tell, if they have a chance at redemption or reform, if they have kids at charge and what chances they have to become productive members of society. You can't write off people who look "unworthy" because everybody is different and their circumstances are, also. Meritocracies quickly, and very quickly turn into aristocracies. It's simply untenable from a sociological and practical point of view, no matter how the numbers look like on paper.

You either help 100% of low-income people and you take the risk of letting a, say, 5% amount of bad seeds profit from it, or you help nobody and let everyone lose out. There are better ways to cut costs on universal health care than this.

[double r]

There is a lot of tension here. So far Obama supporters do not know what they are talking about, and the republicans and others who don't support him are getting beaten down but are winning debate. Everybody here can agree with this, politics are fucking complicated and screwed up. But like everyone else Obama was all talk and no action, but he was the best in that and the best in making very bad decisions, and needed more experience for running an government, being an senator is just no good enough, he should have done more fucking research on how to run a god damn country.

[Noirtier]

Obama hasnt done a bad job with the economy--in fact its beginning to pick up steam again. I disagree with him on other issues, but he has handled the economy well. Seeing as Romney will be the nomination for the Republicans, I am forced to bow out and wait another 4 years to vote for someone decent. Obama isnt awful, but I also disagree with him on a lot of stuff, especially socially. His foreign policy is good, as is his dealing with iran, and his dealing of the economy isnt bad. its the other things that tangle me up so i cant support him. I cannot and will not support romney either though

[Mirage]

who is going to "fix" the economy? do you know how hard that would be??

Exactly. The economy is severely damaged, and it will take MULTIPLE miracles to happen in order to remedy the current economic situation.

[Suicune]

Who thinks we should replace Obama and get some else to fix or economy.:yes:

You know this thread reminds me of a comic I saw a few days ago:
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/306658_2668240315812_1550191083_31814308_1891699583_n.jpg

[Kotaro]

Yes, but all the current people running are trash :/

[crzy15]

i honestly dont think Obama will get re-elected. A lot of Americans are upset over this healthcare he pushed through, his refusal to explore for more oil right here in the US,, and his uncontrolable spending. You cant blame ONE person for everything, nor could you ever expect one person to fix it, but americans need to send a messege to government telling them enough is enough.

[double r]

True I agree, and we are going to owe more money to China and Russia. It is just that this decade is fucked up and people are going through hard times and it is going to get worse before it gets better. And for the people who think the economy, is getting better you are fucking blind, just saying read the papers, watch the news, and look at our spending and budget.

[jackson94]

There is a lot of tension here. So far Obama supporters do not know what they are talking about, and the republicans and others who don't support him are getting beaten down but are winning debate. Everybody here can agree with this, politics are fucking complicated and screwed up. But like everyone else Obama was all talk and no action, but he was the best in that and the best in making very bad decisions, and needed more experience for running an government, being an senator is just no good enough, he should have done more fucking research on how to run a god damn country.

Yeah, you're right, no Obama supporter knows what they are talking about :what:

Anyway, I am not sure about this illusion that Obama has not gotten much done. I mean, he passed a stimulus bill, reformed healthcare (although that may get stricken down), and repealed DODT.

He has hugely increased the respect America gets from across the world. He made it very public that we would not be torturing terror suspects as we had been under the last administration, he closed secret detention facilities across Europe, has done a good job of keeping us out of another stupid war with Iran so far, reformed the student loan programs, and despite what you would hear has done more to lower gas prices than just about any president before him. The matter of the fact is, gas prices will be high now.

Maybe this illusion that he doesn't accomplish much comes from the fact that over the last 2 years of his term, he was unable to pass ANY legislation that at all raised taxes because of that stupid pledge all the Republicans sign (despite the fact that because of the Republican party we have had two wars lasting around a decade, completely unpaid for, and they would have us marching out to another one).

[tHe_Jester1080]

I would get rid of Obama and burry him alive and pretend he never happend, but that would be hard to forget considering he would already have left 5 trillion more dollars in debt in just 3 1/2 years. Then I would put Donald Trump as the president as he obviously knows how to deal with China, punish the Middle East, china, and north Korea, and he also has many friend world wide in some...let's say, very high up places.


OMG
Obama Must Go

[tHe_Jester1080]

RECESSION
is when your neighbor loses his job
DEPRESSION
is when you lose yours
RECOVERY
is when Obama loses his

[double r]

Jester I love how there is another person(other then myself ) who would vote for Donald Trump for president, he takes no shit from any one and ran multimillion companies( had shares that what that mean) , and that is someone we need in office, some one who has experience, in the political, economic, social. world.

[Sugaree]

RECESSION
is when your neighbor loses his job
DEPRESSION
is when you lose yours
RECOVERY
is when Obama loses his

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Waynes-World-Get-A-Load-Of-This-Guy-Cam.jpg

Also, anyone who seriously thinks Donald Trump would be a good president shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[StoppingTime]

Donald trump doesn't run multimillion dollar companies. He's a fake badass with a reality show who's name is worth more than him.

[Sugaree]

Donald trump doesn't run multimillion dollar companies. He's a fake badass with a reality show who's name is worth more than him.

No, he actually is a multi-millionaire. The only problem I have with him is that he's so hot headed and full of himself that he doesn't know which end to shit from. On top of that, he's insanely rich. Do people really think this guy wants to look after the lowest income families? He'll be more concerned with his other rich friends, giving them positions of power and letting the rich take more tax breaks than they need while raising taxes on those of us in the middle class. It's disgusting.

[Coolboi]

some thing has to change it mightt as well be him (Obama) !
remember he said change he ment that all u have in your pocket !
so rub those two penny's together an vote him out !

[Outside The Box]

America needs more than a new president, it needs a revolution. And even then, it still would have a slim chance of making it.

[Sugaree]

some thing has to change it mightt as well be him (Obama) !
remember he said change he ment that all u have in your pocket !
so rub those two penny's together an vote him out !

Again, I repeat:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Waynes-World-Get-A-Load-Of-This-Guy-Cam.jpg

[Jean Poutine]

"fix our economy" is such a huge buzzword with Americans when half don't even know what the economy consists of.

[double r]

Blame our society. Governments love to cut education and love to keep the public stupid.

[Sugaree]

"fix our economy" is such a huge buzzword with Americans when half don't even know what the economy consists of.

Half of them don't know what the economy is to begin with.

[Nihilus]

NO I wouldn't get rid of Obama. He is the best President we've had in a very long time. The problem isn't Obama, it's Congress and how divided it is.

[double r]

Well I would disagree with that but some people are just stupid do to media and etc.

And you are in the wrong track Nihilus about Obama do you know anything about what he did and said about what he would do.

[xStephie9x4]

Jester I love how there is another person(other then myself ) who would vote for Donald Trump for president, he takes no shit from any one and ran multimillion companies( had shares that what that mean) , and that is someone we need in office, some one who has experience, in the political, economic, social. world.

Hasn't he gone bankrupt a couple times as well? the stakes in the White Houes are a bit high for risky businessmen.

[double r]

Read this on several papers about Trump and he has been doing that in order to get the banks off his back, but he has been and is an very successful man with his shares and ownership is worth about 4.8 trillion American dollars. Plus a benefit is he is also known to pay everything by himself so he can pay stuff off in office and get rid of people that sit around ton heir ass's and spend our tax money doing nothing.

But like everyone he has his pro's and cons.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

NO I wouldn't get rid of Obama. He is the best President we've had in a very long time. The problem isn't Obama, it's Congress and how divided it is.
I agree, the House of Representatives has a majority of republicans, and the senate has a majority of democrats.
They should have them equal so that they have to make some sort of an agreement to create a bipartisan stance. It's really not fair that a bill can pass through one, but not another. That's why we are having so much trouble, because nothing can be passed by congress. They need to get their shit together, because it's not only making Obama look bad, but us all bad as a nation.

Also, Donald Trump is a good business man, but would be an awful president. he has declared bankruptcy like 2 time, and is risky. The last thing the U.S. needs is someone that will put our governments in risks that are improbable to receive any gain from. Him as a president would be the worst thing for us at this time.

[Sugaree]

Another note on Donald Trump: he's got no solid foreign policy. Being a President is more than just dealing with issues at home, but also abroad. You need to be an accessible world leader, and Trump is just not striking people to be that.

[StoppingTime]

No, he actually is a multi-millionaire. The only problem I have with him is that he's so hot headed and full of himself that he doesn't know which end to shit from. On top of that, he's insanely rich. Do people really think this guy wants to look after the lowest income families? He'll be more concerned with his other rich friends, giving them positions of power and letting the rich take more tax breaks than they need while raising taxes on those of us in the middle class. It's disgusting.

I never said he wasn't rich, but now, he really isn't doing much but counting his money.
And, we don't really want a businessman as a President, do we?
How would he deal with other issues, if he could even manage the ones in the US?

[double r]

But if he only had good public relations we would be set, but we need some one that ether has experience in office, or is an good businessman man with connections around the globe.

[Quercus]

Truth is none of us reallly know whats going on with the economy. 98% of the countrys populationn doesnt know whats going on. No ONE person is going to fix the economy! Fuck Obama, Fuck Romney, Fuck Bush. They cant do shit, but WE as Americam citizens can do anything, including fixing the ecomomy!


Enough said!

[double r]

That was a lot but how are the poorly educated Americans going to fix something that they do not know fuck about( pardon my french).
Also that was not meant for every American.

[Professional Russian]

Truth is none of us reallly know whats going on with the economy. 98% of the countrys populationn doesnt know whats going on. No ONE person is going to fix the economy! Fuck Obama, Fuck Romney, Fuck Bush. They cant do shit, but WE as Americam citizens can do anything, including fixing the ecomomy!


Enough said!

I tiotally agree with this. Not one person can fix the economy but as a country we can. I dont know how but im pretty sure its possible.

[Quercus]

That was a lot but how are the poorly educated Americans going to fix something that they do not know fuck about( pardon my french).
Also that was not meant for every American.

They have enough sence to know what needs to happen!! And that should be good enough.

[zuhvi113an]

I dont personally like obama but it took bush 8 years to mess up the economy its prbbly gonna take alot more to fix

[Professional Russian]

If you ask me. I think every president except a few have been total Dumb asses. They got us into debt then let the next president try to dig us out. This would be a good time for another FDR. He did a good job at helping to fix the economy.

[double r]

Yeah FDR is an bad ass when fixing this shit, but the problem is if he came back and fixed this economy he would be screwed. Because back then it was way simpler but now everything is so dam complex.

But yeah PR awesome idea.

[Professional Russian]

Yeah FDR is an bad ass when fixing this shit, but the problem is if he came back and fixed this economy he would be screwed. Because back then it was way simpler bu know everything is so dam complex.

But yeah PR awesome idea.

The biigest flaw to this. Hes Dead

[double r]

True.

[Sugaree]

Yeah FDR is an bad ass when fixing this shit, but the problem is if he came back and fixed this economy he would be screwed. Because back then it was way simpler bu know everything is so dam complex.

But yeah PR awesome idea.

Franklin Delano was president during a time when direct and abrasive partisanship did not rule the House or Senate. He had the confidence of every citizen and congressman in the nation and they trusted him to do a good job. The only reason the nation got back on its feet was because of the citizens, not FDR. FDR simply provided the basic foundations and had the government encourage investment in the economy. Economies have always been complex, all the way back to ancient times. It's only now that people are realizing a bigger picture instead of the common corporation/consumer relationship.

[Professional Russian]

Franklin Delano was president during a time when direct and abrasive partisanship did not rule the House or Senate. He had the confidence of every citizen and congressman in the nation and they trusted him to do a good job. The only reason the nation got back on its feet was because of the citizens, not FDR. FDR simply provided the basic foundations and had the government encourage investment in the economy. Economies have always been complex, all the way back to ancient times. It's only now that people are realizing a bigger picture instead of the common corporation/consumer relationship.

But he did help the economy did he not?

[Sugaree]

But he did help the economy did he not?

In a very small way, almost too small for all the recognition he gets for it.

[double r]

We got back on our feet because of the war and many partnerships with privet and international companies and governments.
But your right it was the people and the government.

[Sugaree]

We got back on our feet because of the war and many partnerships with privet and international companies and governments.

We weren't even involved in World War II until the 1940s. The Great Depression lasted from the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and ended in 1939. The increase of American business and manufacturing took place in this time period with companies like General Motors and General Electric building an oversupply of factories and hiring more than enough people to fill them. The workers helped get the economy going again because they manufactured a sound and stable product. The companies were there for the profits. Also, by my recollection, we took no aid from any government. We continued overseas trading, like we do today, but that's it.

My great grandfather was a milk truck driver from 1938 to 1971. My great grandmother even worked for General Electric and was a strong force in local unions here in Dayton, Ohio. I can see that their work paid off because it raised the goals and hopes of the American people. Without them, and many others, we wouldn't have been so successful during the mid-20th century. That's why I'm oftentimes disgusted when people give FDR all the credit. He was a great leader, but he was no economic force to be reckoned with.

[double r]

First off ,Great Depression ended in the late 30's early 40's as we were producing guns tanks, etc for Britain and France, which created jobs, and etc. You are right but the war was the biggest boast, not anything else.If this what your great grand parents told you. Well then I would believe it. After all my family is not even from the US and did not come until the late 70'. But what I know, and what statistics show , the war helped more then anything else. General Motors and General Electric they hired more people to build aircraft and tanks. And some regular American products. But in the Late 39's most of the companies did not have money to hire people like GM and GE. You can look this up in the Library of Congress.

For every one ,please type this in and see how screwed up we are. In poor economic and debt situation http://www.usdebtclock.org/.