Pres. Obama a "Leader"?

[ScareCrow57]

I wrote "since" he took office, not "when" he took office. Big difference.

You continue to prove through your inability to read simple English why a credit card agreement drove you into BK.

You're one of the few who believes the government is NOT a significant factor in a nation's economy.

Since he took office is the same as when he took office. The government through its growth has become a significant part of the economy. And as it becomes a bigger and bigger force we move closer to socialism, and then communism.

Certainly they can do things to screw up the economy, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae are prime examples. As are ever increasing taxes.

Government should be about 1% of our lives, not 20%

[neiowa]

Yet again, YOU ARE WRONG. It's up 20%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5ED...g=d&z=66&y=132

You're wrong also.
Since Nov 5, 2008 (the day after the election) down 4.7%.
Since Sept 1 (when it was obvious that the mainstream media and the morons were going to get Barry elected regardless of the damage to the economy) down 20.5%

George if SC is in the area make sure you keep your sheep locked up. Apparently has the hots for mutton on the hoof.

[ScareCrow57]

Originally Posted by numbnuts
Jan 20 2009 DOW closed at 7959 Aug 23, 2009 DOW closed at 9545, That is a 20% increase. However, what government does has very little to do with the DJIA. Investors buy stock based on how mush risk they are willing to take and well the stock will perform in relation to others. Some people buy stock in a company through the employee stock plan. Still others buy stock in a company because they like the name, GE, Microsoft, Cisco, etc.... You are only fooling yourself if you believe the government controls the economy.

I wrote "since" he took office, not "when" he took office. Big difference.

You continue to prove through your inability to read simple English why a credit card agreement drove you into BK.

You're one of the few who believes the government is NOT a significant factor in a nation's economy.

I was referring to the entire length of Obama's term to date. Why don't take a look at the DJIA during the entire length of Bush's term? When he took office the DJIA was roughly 10,700. When he left it was around 7,950.

So using your keen math skills, how about you tell us if the market was higher or lower from when he took office versus when he left.

Like shooting fish in a barrel!!!

So which is it? From the time the person took office or from the lowest point to the highest point while the person was in office? Define how you come up with the number and then apply the same math and principals to each. While I know libtards love to spin things the rest of the world works on consistency, obviously, something you know absolutely nothing about. Simply unbelievable!!!

[ScareCrow57]

You can't even decide which lie to follow. First, you state "since he took office" the DJIA was up 50%. That was proven a completely false statement; it's up 20%. Then you say you didn't mean the entire length of Obama's term, you meant since March 9, so the market is up 46%. Now you say you were referring to "the entire length of Obama's term to date."

Which do you want to use? I know it's asking a lot when you fudge numbers and fail to do any research of facts, but you really should try to stick to one topic.

Typical...you post something, get proven wrong, try to backtrack, get proven wrong again, and then say everyone just doesn't understand. And you wonder why so many Americans don't understand what the Democrats actually want to do with health care reform...

What do you want form a man who gets all of his information from three websites.

moveon.org, huffingtonpost.com, and ACORN.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Yup, I missed, it is 1% of the cars. $3 billion divided by $4,000 comes out to 750,000. I guess this makes it a worse program. Oh well.

Actually, your 10% estimate was closer...I think there are 6-7 million new cars sold in the US annually, not 63 million.

But at least you get a point for admitting fault, unlike someone else (from SoCal?).

[Jonathan Bastian]

You're wrong also.
Since Nov 5, 2008 (the day after the election) down 4.7%.
Since Sept 1 (when it was obvious that the mainstream media and the morons were going to get Barry elected regardless of the damage to the economy) down 20.5%

George if SC is in the area make sure you keep your sheep locked up. Apparently has the hots for mutton on the hoof.

Not quite...he stated "since he took office." That was January 20. One might argue the markets were reacting to future expectations, but that is a separate point.

[scfire86]

Like shooting fish in a barrel!!!

So which is it? From the time the person took office or from the lowest point to the highest point while the person was in office? Define how you come up with the number and then apply the same math and principals to each. While I know libtards love to spin things the rest of the world works on consistency, obviously, something you know absolutely nothing about. Simply unbelievable!!!

Take your pick. It doesn't matter. The market is still up from when Obama took office or since he's been in office.

The same can't be said of the Bush's tenure in office.

Now if you want to do some math. Look at the DJIA from when Clinton was sworn into office versus when he left.

DJIA was about 3200 in Jan. 1992.

Was over 10K when he left in Jan. 2001

I'm thinking the over 300% gain in the DJIA was a better legacy than Bush's loss during a similar time frame.

[ScareCrow57]

Actually, your 10% estimate was closer...I think there are 6-7 million new cars sold in the US annually, not 63 million.

But at least you get a point for admitting fault, unlike someone else (from SoCal?).

Yup, you are right, it is around 7 million. So I have no idea where I got 63 million from. And as I think about, 63 million cars is a lot of cars for a population of 350 million.

[ScareCrow57]

Take your pick. It doesn't matter. The market is still up from when Obama took office or since he's been in office.

The same can't be said of the Bush's tenure in office.

Now if you want to do some math. Look at the DJIA from when Clinton was sworn into office versus when he left.

DJIA was about 3200 in Jan. 1992.

Was over 10K when he left in Jan. 2001

I'm thinking the over 300% gain in the DJIA was a better legacy than Bush's loss during a similar time frame.

And we had the dot com bubble that burst. The Enron and World com fiasco, which took at least 10 years to create. So Bush was handed a complete mess by his predecessor and still did a descent job.

[scfire86]

And we had the dot com bubble that burst. The Enron and World com fiasco, which took at least 10 years to create. So Bush was handed a complete mess by his predecessor and still did a descent job.

How were the crooked business dealings of Worldcom and Enron the result of Clinton's actions?

Bush was handed peace and prosperity and handed off a nightmare to Obama that consists of an economy in shambles and being embroiled in two wars.

I can understand how your little frame of reference would consider that a decent job. Normal people would call it one of the worst examples of leadership in history.

[Jonathan Bastian]

How were the crooked business dealings of Worldcom and Enron the result of Clinton's actions?

The exact same way the banking collapse is Bush's fault. Take your pick...either you blame the executive or you don't. Of course, unless it doesn't match your blind beliefs, in which case, I guess you get to pick and choose.

If memory serves (and admittedly, sometimes it doesn't), you were the one who blamed Enron for California's energy woes, even though it is California's regulations that prevented a new power plant from being built in 20 years.

Dodge. Evade. Deny. Lie. Pretty predicatable pattern you have.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Take your pick. It doesn't matter. The market is still up from when Obama took office or since he's been in office.

It does matter. Why? Because you gave false information, got caught, changed your story, got caught again, then changed topic. Why don't you choose what topic and fact you want to discuss BEFORE you actually discuss it? Intelligent people have trouble following an amorphous argument.

[ScareCrow57]

How were the crooked business dealings of Worldcom and Enron the result of Clinton's actions?

Bush was handed peace and prosperity and handed off a nightmare to Obama that consists of an economy in shambles and being embroiled in two wars.

I can understand how your little frame of reference would consider that a decent job. Normal people would call it one of the worst examples of leadership in history.

They were allowed to fester under Clinton. If you are to blame Bush for the current collapse then to be consistent Clinton must be blamed for those collapses.

And face it, Bush was also handed years of neglect on the terror front that ultimately lead to the events of 9-11-2001. He was only 7 months in when that happened. Recall that his approval rating went to 90% after 9-11 and 70% when we invaded Iraq. Years of bashing by the liberal media eventually eroded his support.

[MarcusKspn]

By RICHARD LARDNER and MONIKA MATHUR, Associated Press Writers Richard Lardner And Monika Mathur, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 46 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Georgia's Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, voted against the $787 billion economic stimulus package, blasting the bill as a bloated government giveaway.

But their disdain didn't stop them from later asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money to a constituent's bio-energy project.

Gates didn't do it, but Chambliss, Isakson and other Republican opponents of the stimulus aren't going empty-handed.

Billions of dollars worth of Defense Department stimulus money is paying for repairs and construction at military installations in areas represented by lawmakers who said "no" to the legislation, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

The request from Chambliss and Isakson isn't the only one Gates and other top defense officials received before and after President Barack Obama signed the stimulus law in February. Their pitch stands out, though, because of the GOP's staunch opposition.

As Congress considered the legislation earlier this year, Republicans called it a partisan bill bound to make the size of government grow, not the economy. Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the bill; only three Senate Republicans did so.

Trashing the stimulus and also welcoming the money is a sore point for Democrats who say the GOP can't have it both ways. But Republicans say there's no inconsistency in opposing wasteful spending while also backing worthwhile projects.

The Pentagon is staying out of the fight. Navy Cmdr. Darryn James, a Pentagon spokesman, said political considerations were not a factor as defense officials put together the department's stimulus spending plan. The two main criteria were that projects could be started quickly to boost the economy and would also improve the quality of life for military personnel.

In statements, Chambliss and Isakson said helping their constituents is an important part of their jobs. In this case, it was Bell BioEnergy of Tifton, Ga., which is developing a process to convert waste into fuel.

Overall, Georgia is getting just over $200 million in defense stimulus money for work at installations that include the Army's Fort Stewart and Fort Gordon, and Moody Air Force Base.

Just a few days after criticizing the "staggering" cost of the stimulus, Rep. Brett Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, urged Gates to consider using stimulus money to renovate a military hospital at Fort Knox, a sprawling Army base located in his congressional district.

The Pentagon's stimulus spending plan shows no money for the hospital repairs. But of the more than $159 million in military stimulus money slated for Kentucky, almost $38 million is for other repair work at Fort Knox. Most of the total, $110 million, goes to Fort Campbell, home to the Army's 101st Airborne Division. It's in Republican Ed Whitfield's district.

Oklahoma Republican Mary Fallin joined her Democratic colleague, Rep. Dan Boren, in asking Army Secretary Pete Geren to use $8.4 million in stimulus money for repairs to buildings at two Oklahoma National Guard sites.

Fallin had called the stimulus a "Big Brother spending program" that didn't do enough to finance needed infrastructure projects. The money she and Boren sought isn't in the Pentagon's spending plans.

The Pentagon was allotted $7.4 billion in stimulus money, the bulk of it for overdue base repairs and new construction. About $5 billion is going to 16 states that top the Pentagon's stimulus spending list, including California, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Georgia and Kentucky, where the military has a significant presence.

About $1.2 billion is for new hospitals at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas Republican John Carter's district, and Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base in California Republican Darrell Issa's district. The two hospitals are the largest individual projects to be paid for with defense stimulus dollars.

Carter voted against the bill, saying the stimulus would pile debt on future generations. But he hailed the $621 million hospital project as a victory for the economy in central Texas, where Fort Hood occupies more than 217,000 acres.

Construction of the Fort Hood hospital is scheduled to begin in September 2010. Also planned for the base is $100 million more in stimulus money for work ranging from road repairs to replacing heating and cooling systems.

John Stone, Carter's spokesman, said the congressman has been pushing for several years to get a new hospital at Fort Hood. The new hospital is also supported by Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat who chairs the House subcommittee that controls military construction spending. Carter is also on the subcommittee.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is logging Republican names into a "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame," an online catalog of GOP lawmakers who voted against the stimulus package yet are "celebrating the benefits of President Obama's economic recovery bill in their districts."

One of the most recent names added to the Democratic list is Rep. Bill Young of Florida, whose congressional Web site contains a page with dozens of links to help Floridians "take advantage of federal stimulus money." Another is Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, a top House Republican who supports a high-speed rail project that's included in the bill.

Brad Dayspring, Cantor's spokesman, said the congressman has long backed the commercial rail project, which would connect Washington and Richmond, Va.

[DaSharkie]

Take your pick. It doesn't matter. The market is still up from when Obama took office or since he's been in office.

No one is arguing that Skippy. Apparently that lack education and you not being smart (your words here) really does not allow you comprehend even the simplest of things.

The same can't be said of the Bush's tenure in office.

Once again, no one denies this.

Now if you want to do some math. Look at the DJIA from when Clinton was sworn into office versus when he left.

DJIA was about 3200 in Jan. 1992.

Was over 10K when he left in Jan. 2001

And the nation was about a year into a recession as well. The "dot com bubble" had burst, and others were pending. Our nation was collapsing financially, had a little hiccup after 9/11, grew, then collapsed last year.

No president really exerts all that much influence over the market. Their policies may give some bumps here and there (such as the reappointment of Bernanke - the handpicked successor to the moron known as Alan Greenspan) and the introduction of stupid bailouts......but our stock market had been over valued for years. I had read numerous articles over the past decade predicting exactly what occurred last year while the Neros in D.C. continued to play their fiddles, oblivious to the writing on the wall and the impending failures.

I'm thinking the over 300% gain in the DJIA was a better legacy than Bush's loss during a similar time frame.

Not given the collapse that has occurred based upon several "bubbles" that occurred during both his and Bush's terms.

[DaSharkie]

They were allowed to fester under Clinton. If you are to blame Bush for the current collapse then to be consistent Clinton must be blamed for those collapses.

He will not, he cannot bring himself to say that any Democrat ever did anything wrong. His ideology blinds him. Besides, he is not smart and is not educated (his words) which makes it difficult for him to have a rational thought.

And face it, Bush was also handed years of neglect on the terror front that ultimately lead to the events of 9-11-2001. He was only 7 months in when that happened. Recall that his approval rating went to 90% after 9-11 and 70% when we invaded Iraq. Years of bashing by the liberal media eventually eroded his support.

Wrong. Clinton may not have been stellar in the terrorism fight, but to his credit he tried...though he was hampered by his over reliance on intelligence obtained from means other than field operatives. He was not aggressive, because you cannot locate these people all that easily and without the support of other nations.....this is why 8 years after 9/11 we are still prosecuting a war in Afghanistan using modern means against a guerilla group.....the guerillas will win every time. History bears this out.

Bush's approval ratings went up after those events (as any President's would) but they fell because Bush acted stupidly, lied, and was not as aggressive as he should have been. At least be factual and logical in your discussion points.

[ScareCrow57]

He will not, he cannot bring himself to say that any Democrat ever did anything wrong. His ideology blinds him. Besides, he is not smart and is not educated (his words) which makes it difficult for him to have a rational thought.



Wrong. Clinton may not have been stellar in the terrorism fight, but to his credit he tried...though he was hampered by his over reliance on intelligence obtained from means other than field operatives. He was not aggressive, because you cannot locate these people all that easily and without the support of other nations.....this is why 8 years after 9/11 we are still prosecuting a war in Afghanistan using modern means against a guerilla group.....the guerillas will win every time. History bears this out.

Bush's approval ratings went up after those events (as any President's would) but they fell because Bush acted stupidly, lied, and was not as aggressive as he should have been. At least be factual and logical in your discussion points.

I have to disagree here. Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden but stopped the exercise becuase the plane of a Saudi Prince was on the ground. After the terrorists hit the USS Cole Clinton completely dropped the ball and did nothing. He made feeble attempts like bombing an empty pharmaceutical factory. Most of his energies were devoted to taking the heat off of his own personal missteps by bombing the former Yugoslav republic into submission form 40,000 feet. Bombing has its place, but you have to wonder how many innocent lives were taken by doing this. Humanitarian my BUTT!!!

[ScareCrow57]

Trashing the stimulus and also welcoming the money is a sore point for Democrats who say the GOP can't have it both ways. But Republicans say there's no inconsistency in opposing wasteful spending while also backing worthwhile projects.
...

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is logging Republican names into a "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame," an online catalog of GOP lawmakers who voted against the stimulus package yet are "celebrating the benefits of President Obama's economic recovery bill in their districts."

Now this is funny. It is not hypocritical at all. They oppose the taking of tax dollars and wasting them on such a broad based basis. But once those tax dollars are taken and put into a big pot, then it is up to them to get as much back for the people they were taken from. Democrats once again prove their stupidity and lack of logic.

[scfire86]

They were allowed to fester under Clinton. If you are to blame Bush for the current collapse then to be consistent Clinton must be blamed for those collapses.

Except they didn't get caught doing anything illegal until after he left office. Unless you now believe anyone reporting extraordinary EPS should automatically be investigated.

And face it, Bush was also handed years of neglect on the terror front that ultimately lead to the events of 9-11-2001. He was only 7 months in when that happened. Recall that his approval rating went to 90% after 9-11 and 70% when we invaded Iraq. Years of bashing by the liberal media eventually eroded his support.

Blah blah blah. What neglect on the terror front? This is another urban legend put forth by folks like you and moonbat and other idiots.

[scfire86]

And the nation was about a year into a recession as well. The "dot com bubble" had burst, and others were pending. Our nation was collapsing financially, had a little hiccup after 9/11, grew, then collapsed last year.

I don't have the links handy. The Commerce Dept. detailed the recession you detail was a .4% shrink in GDP. It lasted less than six months. Not much of a recession at all considering Obama inherited a recession that had been in place about a year before he'd been elected.