Bring Back Bush -- Obama Stinks!


After a year of 10 percent unemployment under the leadership of Marxist Chicago-Thug-In-Chief Barack Obama, this Will Farell's performance makes me nostalgic for the Bush years, when unemployment topped out at 5 percent.

reply

[deleted]

retards like you shouldn't be allowed to start a thread.

reply

Bush -- 5 percent unemployment.
Obama - 10.5 percent unemployement, and climbing, and he's been in office nearly a year now.

Bush -- No terrorist attacks on US soil since 911.
Obama -- 13 killed in Ft. Hood by a Muslim terrorist, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama seems to deny it's terrorism.

Bush -- Decisive in war, supported troops every way he could. Surged troops into Iraq.
Obama -- Can't make up his mind in Afghanistan. Has four choices delivered to him by his advisors, wants them to come back with more options.

Bush -- Captalist.
Obama -- MARXIST.

reply

Bush -- No terrorist attacks on US soil since 911.

So are you completely overlooking the fact that 9/11 happened while Bush was in office?

So if Obama is in office 8 years and nothing as bad as the Ft. Hood tragedy happens, would it be prudent of me to say "No more shootings by Muslim terrorists since Ft. Hood"?

And as for the unemployment argument, are you trying to say that, had Bush been allowed to run for a 3rd term and won, employment would still be at 5 percent?

If in 2012 things are worse than when Bush left office then you can gloat all you want and rejoice at how much you wanted Obama to fail and how it came true. Until then, he's been in office for 10 freaking months! And comparing 9/11 with the Ft. Hood tragedy is tacky and mean as well as making you look like a psychopath.

http://stuffblackpeopledig.wordpress.com/

reply

So now Barack HUSSEIN Obama plans to put the 911 terrorists on civlian trial in New York City -- giving them the same rights as U.S. citizens. This is more of a political decision than a smart decision. Barrack HUSSEIN Obama will put the CIA, George Bush, and Dick Cheney on trial instead of the terrorists. The agenda is to put Americans on trial, not the terrorists.

Meanwhile, not much talk of Ft. Hood --- the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 911 ---- lately, is there? Gee, I wonder why.

Don't you just love to see a U.S. president BOW to a Japanese Emperor?

Do I want to see Barrack HUSSEIN Obama fail in his Marxist agenda for America?

YES!

Huckabee in 2012 -- or even Hillary.

Every Democrat Representative and Senator OUT in 2010.

reply

Why do you use his middle name like that? Everyone knows his middle name is Hussein. They knew it before the election, and they haven't forgot.

reply

When are you people going to get used to the fact that you got flim-flamed into electing this smooth talking Chicago Thug-Rookie Barrack Hussein Obama (mmmm mmmm mmmm)?

Trillions of dollars for "stimulus?" Jobs "saved?"

And, these incompetents now want to "take over" the health care industry!

Are you people that naive?

Don't you realize they are stuffing the money into their pockets (and the pockets of their union/bureucrat pals) as fast as they can?

They ought to be cutting taxes and red tape and letting business - big and small -- thrive and hire workers. They ought to be encouraging developing new sources of REAL energy, like nuclear power and untapped riches of oil and other fossil fuels beneath our feet. It's the private sector, stupid, not the GOVERNMENT!

And you stand by while your country is disintegrating?

I cannot believe that the "hip" generation, the generation that supposedly was so suspicious of "the man," is now entrusting its liberty and freedom to a Leftist government bureaucracy.

DON'T YOU SEE IT?

Admit it. YOU WERE BETTER OFF WITH BUSH THAN YOU ARE WITH THIS THUG.

reply

God damn you are beyond STUPID.
jesus told me that he hates you and that you should shut the *beep* up.

reply

It disappoints me that people refer to silentmovie as stupid instead of combating his remarks. Others may argue that it's not worth their time, and you may be right. But, I want to address the issues brought forth.

Unemployment was 7.5% when Bush left office and was climbing. The current unemployment rate is 10.2%, and it may climb. But I have to ask: How is this Barack Obama's fault? Even after the stock market crashed in 1929 and unemployment hit 20%, the jobs still hadn't recovered by 1937 (12%) even if the market had. Would you argue that the 20% unemployment was the fault of FDR? Did the numbers begin declining as soon as he entered office or did unemployment rise before he even took his oath?

The stimulus has not cost trillions of dollars. It was 0.75 trillion which is still a lot, but Bush also signed the TARP legislation into law costing taxpayers $700 billion. If you are using the stimulus as your basis for President Obama being a socialist, then you have to acknowledge that former President Bush made a similar "socialist" decision with TARP. It should also be noted that the economic collapse began in October 2008 during President Bush's term. How is this President Obama's fault?

The government is not taking over health care. They are reforming it. There is a difference. A public option has been proposed that would cover two-thirds of the uninsured (hopefully) at a cost to those who make over $250,000 a year. Now, here, you may have an argument for a socialist type tax system, but it has existed for many years. President Bush didn't institute a flat tax even though the Republicans could have been able to nor was it discussed as an option.

As for 9/11 (the greatest tragedy to occur on American soil) leading to the loss of 3000 American lives occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush. Now, could he or someone else have stopped it? It's debatable, but the actions of one man killing 13 troops are no where near the magnitude of 19 men killing 3000. Still, it is a tragedy which maybe could have been avoided, but it is difficult to know. And, if Hasan is a terrorist, it has not been confirmed yet.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think we should have been involved in these conflicts in the first place. With the lives of 5000 American soldiers (not to mention the causalities, both mental and physical) and the untold loss of civilian lives in these countries, these wars have left us in a precarious situation. There has been no evidence for Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Afghanistan supposedly harbored bin Laden. However, one fact is clear. These invasions were botched at the beginning with inadequate troop levels in both nations leading to disorder and poor living conditions. The troop surge may have helped, but I personally give the credit to General Petraeus who focused on civilian protection and trust to reduce conflict. I can't say that a surge in Afghanistan will work or not work, but I don't consider the lives of men and women to be an easy quick decision. You may, but I don't.

Finally, if all of these taxes were to be cut, where would you cut? Before you say education or welfare, remember that these two combined don't even constitute 10% of the yearly federal budget (education is 1.75% or slightly less, welfare is a little more difficult to determine, but we'll call it 5% as a safe estimate). Now, also remember that three sources of spending account for 2/3 of our federal spending (Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security). Veterans' Affairs receives about $45 billion dollars as well ($10 billion less than education). Iraq and Afghanistan account for $142 billion a year (about 5% of the budget and is not included in defense).

Finally, I want to address this issue of supporting the troops, but I don't know what this means to you. So, I was hoping you could tell me what supporting the troops means to you.

reply

Doing nothing about the economy would have been better than putting this nation trillions of dollars into debt. That only worsened the situation and made it a full fledged depresssion. Obama's plunging popularity shows that the huge numbers of unemployed are not falling for the "stimulus" scam. WHAT STIMULUS?

njkuvaas <"...Finally, I want to address this issue of supporting the troops, but I don't know what this means to you. So, I was hoping you could tell me what supporting the troops means to you....">>>


It means making a decision about Afghanistan. One way or another. Either stay in and win, or get the hell out. And, don't make your decision based on popularity polls. Act like a commander in chief. Even Obaman's biggest cheerleader, David S. Broder, says it's time to either s**t or get off the pot. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111303344.html).

reply

You're right that not much of the stimulus money has been spent. Again, the stimulus is purported to cost 0.75 trillion dollars, and, while it would appear that future budgets will put the US trillions of dollars into debt, we aren't there yet. Right now, it looks like a $1.25 trillion federal deficit for this year. However, this wouldn't be so dramatic had previous federal budget spending not been so frivolous. When President Bush came into office in 2001, the national debt was being paid off. It was below $6 trillion (no small sum) and falling. By the end of 2008, it was almost $11 trillion dollars. If that $6 trillion had been maintained, our national debt would be $7.5 trillion dollars with the TARP and stimulus spending.

President Obama's popularity has decreased, and the economy is part of it. However, I am failing to see how we are in a full fledged depression. Times are tough, and doing something doesn't mean that there will be an immediate recovery. If it's still this bad in two years (or even a year), you may then have a case for a depression. However, the stock market is already higher than it was before the crash which could be for many reasons, but, again, this doesn't point to a depression.

As for Afghanistan, President Obama made an unfavorable decision which included increasing the troops there. I think that this issue has also hurt his popularity along with the economy.

Finally, supporting the troops to me is much more than a decision about war. Support includes but is not limited to excellent pay, education, excellent health care and treatment, excellent mental health treatment, the best armor and equipment money can buy, excellent disability, and anything else which enhances the safety of our troops.

Again, to prevent more national debt (or hopefully reduce it), what should be cut from the federal budget or what should be taxed?



reply

<<<...Again, to prevent more national debt (or hopefully reduce it), what should be cut from the federal budget or what should be taxed?...>>>

For what this government "stimulus" cost, you could have given every working man and woman in this country a one year income tax vacation -- and then you would have seen INSTANT stimulus by people buying things.

So the answer is to cut taxes -- for businesses, and yes, the RICH -- so that they will hire people and get the economy going again.

And stop with the "green" fraud.

This country runs on energy. Develop clean, cheap nuclear power, and DRILL for oil, and dig coal, and use natural gas, all of which we sit on, and THAT would stimulate the economy.

TWO AMERICAN-BUILT SUVs IN EVERY GARAGE!

SHRINK government, not GROW government.

reply

IMHO, this is NOT the way to increase employment. ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION. The man means well, but does not have a clue. He's stuck in the leftist, government must control and solve everything mode. This approach is doomed to failure, unfortunately. BAD IDEAS.
---------------

Obama to promote new job ideas in Tuesday speech
By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Sunday, December 6, 2009 9:00 AM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — In his latest job creation effort, President Barack Obama is trying to find practical and politically feasible ways of spurring hiring among skittish employers.

Among the ideas expected in his economic speech Tuesday is an expanded program that gives people cash incentives to fix up their homes with energy-saving materials, senior administration officials have told The Associated Press. Obama is leaning toward new incentives for small businesses that hire new workers and new spending on roads, bridges and other public works, the officials said.

The president also is open to a federal infusion of money to cash-strapped state and local governments, considered among the quickest and most effective — though expensive — ways to stem layoffs.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the package and Obama's speech were being developed. The officials emphasized that Obama probably won't mention in his speech every job idea he will eventually support, and that his address is meant only as one step in a debate that's sure to keep going.

Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address that the country is emerging from an "economic storm" and that he's working to put people back on the payroll after a painful recession.

Two years of drastic job cuts all but ended in November, according to the latest figures, and the jobless rate inched down to 10 percent. Putting that in perspective, he said in the address, "For those who were laid off last month and the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession, a good trend isn't good enough."

The White House is not yet commenting publicly on the details of Obama's speech.

Job losses in the U.S. have been the worst since the 1930s, but new statistics out Friday showed a relatively moderate loss of 11,000 jobs last month. The unemployment rate dipped from 10.2 percent in October to 10 percent in November, but remains at a troubling double-digit level.

Rising frustration over joblessness threatens the president's agenda. The president must connect with voters to boost the chances of his legislative efforts and for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and his own in 2012.

Obama held a jobs forum at the White House on Thursday, made a trip Friday to visit business owners, workers and the unemployed in Allentown, Pa., and set the jobs-bill speech for Tuesday at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

"History tells us this is usually what happens with recessions — even as the economy grows, it takes time for jobs to follow," Obama said in the weekend address. "But the folks who have been looking for work without any luck for months and, in some cases, years, can't wait any longer."

Obama said he has no intention of backing off his administration's efforts to overhaul health care, improve education, invest in a clean energy economy and deal with mounting federal debts. All, he said, are vital to strengthening the economy long term.

"I didn't run for president simply to manage the crisis of the moment while kicking our most pressing problems down the road," he said.

reply

Jesus Christ, if you were only as silent as you were stupid. Take a cue from your handle and shut the f!ck up.

reply

You'll be hearing from me, and millions like me, at election time when we throw the bastards out...

reply

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we heard that last election, and y'all got spanked pretty good. Keep talking, your IQ keeps dropping.

reply

It is exactly that kind of attitude “throw the bastards out…” that got Obama elected. Bush created such a backlash in this country that I believe just about any democratic candidate would have beat just about any republican candidate hands down. It is convenient but just plain mental laziness to assign people labels, such as democrat for instance, and expect that you have summed them up. You have to get beyond your anger and find specific solutions to what you perceive to be the problems we face. Drilling for more oil and nuclear power are not viable, long term solutions to our energy issues. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels available and we face the very real scenario that in the not too distant future there will be, for all practical purposes, none left. The same goes for uranides and the amount of energy that goes into extraction and refinement of the ores is often overlooked. The founding fathers of our country were politically astute indeed. George Washington argued strongly against political parties, Jefferson said “Banking institutions are more dangerous to a nation than standing armies” and the separation of Church and State was mandated for very good reasons.

reply

[deleted]


Ignorant close-minded republicans like you make me absolutely sick to my stomach. I'm ashamed that people like you live in this country and think George w bush was a GOOD president.
I can see Russia from my house!

reply

Just wait until the next election, loser.

reply

[deleted]

Just wait until the next election


How'd that go for ya Sparky?

reply

just wondering ... do Americans truly believe in bipartisanship ?
if so... thats truly sad.

although, not to take anything away from them because thats the way it SHOULD be.

reply