Obama's last ditch strategy to save his job, BLAME BUSH!!!
That isn't exactly late breaking news,but clearly that is now the strategy. Team O has burned through all their campaign options in record time due to none of them resonating with voters. To his not so intelligent base, invoking the name of George W Bush may get the old emotionally unhinged feelings flowing again among his true believers, but it won't work among mainstream result orientated voters. I watched a segment from MSNBC Morning Joe of Obama at a town hall in which he was blaming the GOP for the huge deficits and debt prior to him being elected.
I need to mention something real quick. Mika Brezezinski who said after the clip "A-h-h-h, well, I'm hopin'. But I think it's a tough sell. She is suppose to be "journalist". What you heard was a journalist hoping that Obama is able to dupe people by blaming Bush for his own failures. Yes, Journalism is dead. Back to the story. The facts are toxic to Obama and his cult. They can't handle them. I wasn't a fan of Bush but facts are facts. The last year of the Bush administration in 2008, the annual budget deficit was $ 438 billion dollars. Three years and six months into the Obama "error" the annual budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 is now $1.2 trillion dollars. That is tripling of annual deficits for you progressives who aren't prone to the truth. The national debt just two months before the 2008 election in Bush's last year was a little over ten trillion dollars. That would mean that the national debt increased by five trillion in over eight years under Bush. The national debt in 2012 in the three years and six months under Obama is now fifteen point seven trillion dollars. So the national debt under Obama has increased by the same amount in less then one term under Obama, then it did under two terms under Bush. Instead of trying to milk the dry utters of the blame Bush cow, Obama should be out talking up his economic record to the American people. That should be his bread and butter right? Oops, I forgot. This is the reason why he needs to use this last ditch effort to try and run against Romney via Bush, because he can't run on his economic record, silly me. This is what the true believers aren't getting. This isn't about Bush. Polls after polls show that most Americans believe the economy is going in the wrong direction under Obama.
He nor the media can change reality either under the previous administration nor under this one. So is there anything else up Obama's sleeves? For his sake he better hope so. He's going to need more then this.
I need to mention something real quick. Mika Brezezinski who said after the clip "A-h-h-h, well, I'm hopin'. But I think it's a tough sell. She is suppose to be "journalist". What you heard was a journalist hoping that Obama is able to dupe people by blaming Bush for his own failures. Yes, Journalism is dead. Back to the story. The facts are toxic to Obama and his cult. They can't handle them. I wasn't a fan of Bush but facts are facts. The last year of the Bush administration in 2008, the annual budget deficit was $ 438 billion dollars. Three years and six months into the Obama "error" the annual budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 is now $1.2 trillion dollars. That is tripling of annual deficits for you progressives who aren't prone to the truth. The national debt just two months before the 2008 election in Bush's last year was a little over ten trillion dollars. That would mean that the national debt increased by five trillion in over eight years under Bush. The national debt in 2012 in the three years and six months under Obama is now fifteen point seven trillion dollars. So the national debt under Obama has increased by the same amount in less then one term under Obama, then it did under two terms under Bush. Instead of trying to milk the dry utters of the blame Bush cow, Obama should be out talking up his economic record to the American people. That should be his bread and butter right? Oops, I forgot. This is the reason why he needs to use this last ditch effort to try and run against Romney via Bush, because he can't run on his economic record, silly me. This is what the true believers aren't getting. This isn't about Bush. Polls after polls show that most Americans believe the economy is going in the wrong direction under Obama.
He nor the media can change reality either under the previous administration nor under this one. So is there anything else up Obama's sleeves? For his sake he better hope so. He's going to need more then this.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 9:14 AM
15 Comments:
I love how Obama describe how he inherited a trillion dollar deficit from Bush, and a heckler in the audience said, "Just like you." His face went blush. lol. Makes me wonder if that heckler got disciplined by his cronies.
Hey Tyrone, I got done reading a book by Deneen Borelli of Project 21 called "Blacklash". In her book she reminds me so much of you and how you are on top of things. Deneen Borelli is black woman who too is a conservative.
I encourage you liberals and progressives to read the book; you might be educated.
Here's how you can fix the economy Mr. President:
Stop your green agenda, your cap-and-trade policies, stop raising the gas price, outsourcing our jobs overseas, go back to mining for coal and drill for oil and natural gas.
P.S.
Tell your wife to stop spending our tax dollars on extravagant trips!
BLAME BUSH!
Hmmmm...I'm almost am hearing a tune to "Blame Canada" from South Park for this, with different lyrics.-lol.
Spin, Spin, Spin....
President Obama isn't blaming Bush. He's attacking conservatives policies of tax cuts for the rich, which doesn't produce jobs or economic growth. Conversely, over the past 12 years such policies have been shown to make the economy, and the national debt worse.
"Major rounds of tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have also contributed to the deficit and renewing them — and their $200 billion-plus annual cost — when they expire at the end of 2010 would make it extremely difficult to balance the budget anytime soon.".
That quote is from the USA Today article "YOU" linked to! Even back then they knew the deficit would continue to grow if the Bush tax cuts were renewed.
The fact is that, eventually taxes will have to be raised on some part of the American tax paying society. If Romney wins in November he's already indicated that he will do everything in his power to cut taxes on billionaires. However, it's a sure bet that the upper-middle to lower class wage earners of the country will be hit with huge federal tax increases.
p allen "President Obama isn't blaming Bush. He's attacking conservatives policies of tax cuts for the rich, which doesn't produce jobs or economic growth. Conversely, over the past 12 years such policies have been shown to make the economy, and the national debt worse."
Get a clue allen. Bush was the leader of the Republican Party as president.All polices passed in the house and senate that were signed into law were referred to has "his" polices or legislation. What other Republican besides Bush was president after Clinton and before Marxist O?Fill in the blank. Also the tax cuts for the rich BS is worn out. Tell us how tax cuts add the national debt and the annual deficits. The talking point is good to gin up the progressive drones, but try snowing me who happens to know better. As I said before, the last year deficit under Bush was little over $400 billion and it's now $1.2 trillion under Obama.
p allen ""Major rounds of tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have also contributed to the deficit and renewing them — and their $200 billion-plus annual cost — when they expire at the end of 2010 would make it extremely difficult to balance the budget anytime soon"
LOL LOL LOL LOL. Genius, tax cuts do NOT lead to deficits, SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING leads to higher deficits. Income to the federal government increaed year over year over year with the Bush tax cuts in place. Also, the Bush tax cuts were UNIVERSAL NOT JUST FOR THE RICH. Ask yourself this question if you aren't afraid what the answer is going to be. Why hasn't Harry Reid and the Democratic controlled Senate passed a budget in over three years?
p allen "That quote is from the USA Today article "YOU" linked to! Even back then they knew the deficit would continue to grow if the Bush tax cuts were renewed."
That part of the story was false. If spending was addressed, the tax cuts were a mute point. Progressives never talk about deficits and debt reduction. These are the idiots who say YOU HAVE TO SPEND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING. You can't have it both ways!! Also, the left said that the main reason the deficits and debt was going up was because of (Bush's Wars). Dam, my memory is good. So which direction do you want to chase your tail allen?
p allen "The fact is that, eventually taxes will have to be raised on some part of the American tax paying society. "
Why? The tax payers didn't create this debt. The politician did and continue to do. Furthermore, no nation can tax their way out of debt. States and municipalities have proven that. They raised ever tax imaginable and created new ones along the way, and their debt continues to rise. You live in Detroit, tell me allen, how may taxes have been created or raised in order to keep Detroit afloat, has it worked? California, Illinois and other states along with my state of Maryland continue to raise taxes and their debt continues to grow. Let me guess, the Bush tax cuts is the reason they can't pay down the debt even with their continuous tax increases right? lol
p allen "If Romney wins in November he's already indicated that he will do everything in his power to cut taxes on billionaires. However, it's a sure bet that the upper-middle to lower class wage earners of the country will be hit with huge federal tax increases."
Good, I hope he does. Obama wants the rich to bring their money back to America, but what person in their right mind would do something so retarded knowing that Obama is going to tax the hell out of those repatriated profits and working capital. I sure as hell wouldn't do it. I would be a sucker to do such a thing. You mentioned the term "upper middle class". I thought you progressives didn't believe in such a thing. I mean hell, you consider anyone who makes $250k a year (rich), so what is the income bracket for upper middle class according to the left. To me $250k a year is upper middle class but not rich.
anon "Hmmmm...I'm almost am hearing a tune to "Blame Canada" from South Park for this, with different lyrics.-lol."
It might happen give it time. Obama has plenty of blame to go around just not at him of course.
anon "Stop your green agenda, your cap-and-trade policies, stop raising the gas price, outsourcing our jobs overseas, go back to mining for coal and drill for oil and natural gas. "
$16 billion dollars pissed away on green energy BS. Back during the days of W, the left were screaming about "corporate welfare". It's deafening how silent they have been as tax payers have to flip the bill for one BS green company going bust after another. Obama gave tax payer money to his high end donors to finance this crap.
Let me take this "NONSENSE" claim on first;
CB;"Genius, tax cuts do NOT lead to deficits, SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING leads to higher deficits. Income to the federal government increaed year over year over year with the Bush tax cuts in place".
With all due respect Tyrone... your deepest heartfelt wish to be a "true conservative" has caused you to be duped by your mentors (most if not all of them filthy rich) by one of the most simplest forms of propaganda. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT TAX CUTS PRODUCE INCREASED REVENUE. NONE!
However, it can be proved that increase's in employment (more people paying taxes) increase's revenue. It's simple math! Yet, in your quest to agree with right-wing propaganda spin, you refuse to do your own thinking!
Let me show you how easy it is to think "SOUNDLY." I agree totally that "spending" leads to deficits. (see how easy that was?) But when "SPENDING" is combined with decrease's in "INCOME" (or tax collection) DEFICITS" will occur.
G.W. Bush cut taxes and lowered the marginal tax rates for almost all U.S. taxpayers. Sounds nice, and on it's surface it appears to be a plus for the American people. However, there is no way to calculate an "INCREASE" in government revenue from lowering the amount you're taking in, unless you "INCREASE" the number of people paying you! How do you do that you ask? You did what Bush did, you increase "DOMESTIC" spending to levels this country has never seen.
The 2002 Farm Bill, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, $5 billion Transportation Security Administration new personnel and a high-speed national computer network, uncounted billions into The Department of Homeland Security, more than $14 million contractors, $100 million for Coast Guard projects to name a few.
So, what did all those "DOMESTIC" programs do? They spent the money by "HIRING WORKERS, PURCHASING GOODS AND SERVICES, WHICH FUELED THE ECONOMY AND ALLOWED "MORE" PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES TO PAY THEIR TAXES."
So isn't it easy to see where all that "REVENUE" you speak of came from? Yet the federal deficit grew while tax receipts increased? Simple math (and common sense) will show that a "DEFICIT" will occur because you are effectively discharging one debt by incurring another. (robbing Peter to pay Paul)
Now that I've given you the actual data for the Bush years, try to prove that it was "tax cuts" that increased the governments revenue. You can repeat the right-wing talking point over and over again, and it still wont make it provable.
CB;"You live in Detroit, tell me allen, how may taxes have been created or raised in order to keep Detroit afloat?.
Over the past 14+ years... NONE HAVE BEEN RAISED!.
As a matter of fact, from 1999 to 2003 the taxes were "LOWERED."
"Public Act 500 of 1998 amended the City Income Tax Act to reduce the income tax rates for resident and nonresident taxpayers in Detroit. Beginning with a tax rate of 3% on residents (1.5% on nonresidents) in 1999, the law provides that the resident tax rate is to be reduced by one-tenth of a percentage point per year, with the nonresident rate reset to one-half of the resident rate. The City’s income tax rates were reduced each year from 1999 until 2003, until the rates were 2.5% for residents and 1.25% for nonresidents".
However, according to your "right-wing propaganda inspired mush brained idea", the City of Detroit's "REVENUES" should have increased...right? Detroit, like most municipalities, have made huge cuts in personnel, wages and services, yet the city continues to run a deficit. The reason? Not enough people employed... paying taxes!
In a ten year period, Metro Detroit lost nearly 300,000 jobs. There has been a slight recovery over the past 2 years, but hardly enough to make up for the huge losses in tax base and revenue. Reducing taxes has done nothing to help the economy in Michigan. It was the "OBAMA STIMULUS" and the GM/Chrysler loans that help to revitalize Michigan's slumping economy.
p allen "With all due respect Tyrone... your deepest heartfelt wish to be a "true conservative" has caused you to be duped by your mentors (most if not all of them filthy rich) by one of the most simplest forms of propaganda. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT TAX CUTS PRODUCE INCREASED REVENUE. NONE!"
Sorry, my mentor is common sense allen, you should meet him, you two probably wouldn't get along very well though. Let me lead you through how tax cuts do create more revenue. Try and keep up if you can. Our country has one of the lowest saving percentages per citizen of any industrialized country. Japan has the highest saving percentage. We spend money as soon as we get it. So using that as the foundation, THE MORE PEOPLE HAVE OF THEIR OWN MONEY, THE MORE TAX REVENUE THAT IS GOING TO BE GENERATED FROM THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT THEY SPENT THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY ON. Obama and the left talk about the need for "middle class tax breaks", using that premise, why give tax breaks to the middle class if tax breaks don't work? We can agree I that consumers pay taxes on the goods and services they consume right? So the more of their money they have to spend, the more taxes that will be generated. It's just simple 1+1=2 allen. Tell me how logic is propaganda so that I can laugh at you some more.
p allen "However, it can be proved that increase's in employment (more people paying taxes) increase's revenue. It's simple math! Yet, in your quest to agree with right-wing propaganda spin, you refuse to do your own thinking!"
Maybe you need to listen to John F Kennedy, when he talked about tax cuts are what spur economic growth. He wasn't a right winger. Oh, did I just burst your bubble of what you believe a typical right winger is allen? I don't believe JFK was a conservative talk show host. Too easy. John F Kennedy, JFK & Tax Cuts to Spur the Economy
p allen "However, there is no way to calculate an "INCREASE" in government revenue from lowering the amount you're taking in, unless you "INCREASE" the number of people paying you! How do you do that you ask? You did what Bush did, you increase "DOMESTIC" spending to levels this country has never seen. "
If government tax revenue is increasing, it is what it is. If I am selling a product and my sales revenue is increasing quarter after quarter year over year, that is a good thing, the problem occurs that if my company is spending more money then it's taking in. Furthermore, you still can't address that at the end of Bush's term the defecit stood at $400 billion, yet under Obama it's now $1.2 trillion. Also if the Bush Tax Cuts are such a bad thing, WHY DID OBAMA EXTEND THEM FOR TWO MORE YEARS?!Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years It looks like he is playing you and others on the left for fools. He talks in his stump speeches about not giving tax breaks to "millionaires and billionaires" yet look what he did. Again, do you homework allen.
CB;"THE MORE PEOPLE HAVE OF THEIR OWN MONEY, THE MORE TAX REVENUE THAT IS GOING TO BE GENERATED FROM THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT THEY SPENT THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY ON".
Right! I said the same thing. So now put it together with the idea "tax cuts" are not responsible for "increased government revenue." More people working and paying taxes are. I am fully aware of all the voo-doo economic trickle down theories. They've been tried, and they don't work. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that "tax cuts" will spur job growth, leading to tax revenue increases...NONE! You keep repeating what right-wingers have told to to say, yet you can't give one example of where a "federal tax cut" directly caused businesses to increase hiring. Hell, presently taxes are lower than they've been in decades, and you know it! How long will it take for you to realize your "rich mentors" are lying to you.
Conversely, there is a ton of evidence that government spending can, and has led to job growth. Although it might cost the government, the positive growth outcomes can be categorized as an investment. Such is the case with GM and Chrysler.
CB;"WHY DID OBAMA EXTEND THEM FOR TWO MORE YEARS?".
Both the president and the republicans claim it was a "compromise." I say the president was partially "duped", and gave in part to extend unemployment benefits. He shouldn't have given in raising the taxes on millionaires.
Now Obama is blaming congress for the poor economy.
Who's he going to blame next? Oh, it wouldn't surprise me at the last ditch effort he's going to pull out the race card.
Anon;"Who's he going to blame next? Oh, it wouldn't surprise me at the last ditch effort he's going to pull out the race card.".
I've also heard many on the right claim that they're tired of the left play the "race card." It's become evident that the right-wingers are using that assertion to hide their true sentiments. It's also evident that they're the ones playing the race card, they're just playing it "FACE DOWN." Here's what Sam Donaldson had to say about the recent incident of utter disrespect from a right-wing reporter towards the President of the United States.
"Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president".
I believe many of those right-wingers are using the claim as a "push back" while hiding their true sentiments. I also believe that black right wingers who support the race card assertion do so merely to be accepted. (Which is basically the same as being told what to do, say and think)
Herman Cain is a perfect example. Between 1984 and 1989, discrimination law suits were filed by Black employees against the Pillsbury Corporation. Here's a photo of Jesse Jackson in 1983 schmoozing and playing Burger King executives. By 1990 Cain had moved moved up through the Pillsbury ranks with Affirmative Action lawsuits leading the way.
Another Cain-ism came during the GOP campaign with the "Niggerhead Ranch" situation. At first reports of the N-word on a rock, Cain came out strongly in condemnation. However, when (white) right-wingers began to attack him for his remarks, his previous condemnation turned into; "I don't care about the word."
I know that some blacks indeed use the so-called "race card" as an excuse when involved in stupid behavior. There are those who do don't understand crying wolf only allows the real wolves to decimate the flock, and control the narrative. The right-wing has already branded President Obama as a racist. Therefore there's nothing he could say or do that would not be considered as a "race-card."
p allen "
"Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president".
If I said that everybody on the left are communists, would I be making a statement without facts to back it up allen? If you answer yes, then how does Sam Donaldson have any credibility in making the statement that many on the political right wants Obama gone because of the color of his skin?
He is merely spouting what he believes with no facts to back it up. Opinions are like assholes and Sam Donaldson is one who has one. I posted the story about the white house exchange between the Daily Caller Corespondant and Obama. Notice I posted the video of George Bush being "disrespected" while giving a speech at the NAACP meeting. Was that racist for that to have happened to Bush allen? Speak right up. This constant cry of racism and racism allegations is beyond sad. It's sad that you and others on the left have to wrap Obama in a political bubble wrap. You all are the ones who are making every single dam thing about Obama about race. I will be so glad when Obama is gone so that things racially can get back to normal, meaning that the race card can take a breather. It sure needs one.
p allen " I believe many of those right-wingers are using the claim as a "push back" while hiding their true sentiments. I also believe that black right wingers who support the race card assertion do so merely to be accepted. (Which is basically the same as being told what to do, say and think)"
lol, yeah we all know. Certain words are right out of the vast right wing conspiracy's racially coded dictionary. You can buy a copy for $19.99 at www.thekochbrothers.com You all are coming off as deranged kooks with the constant overplay of the charges of racism. If I was Neil Nunro, and I would have done the exact same thing. What it have been an issue to Sam Donaldson and the left? Of course it wouldn't have been. Point blank, this is all about perception of racism due to Sam and the left's bias against conservatives. It doesn't take a freaking idiot to figure that one out.
p allen "Herman Cain is a perfect example. Between 1984 and 1989, discrimination law suits were filed by Black employees against the Pillsbury Corporation. Here's a photo of Jesse Jackson in 1983 schmoozing and playing Burger King executives. By 1990 Cain had moved moved up through the Pillsbury ranks with Affirmative Action lawsuits leading the way."
I have some time to kill. Can you post the alleged affirmative action lawsuits you said Herman Cain filed allen? Thanks
p allen "Another Cain-ism came during the GOP campaign with the "Niggerhead Ranch" situation. At first reports of the N-word on a rock, Cain came out strongly in condemnation. However, when (white) right-wingers began to attack him for his remarks, his previous condemnation turned into; "I don't care about the word."
lol, the niggerhead controversy was a non starter to begin with. Perry never painted it on the rock. Cain expressed his condemnation over it and went on with his campaign, Of course, you and others would have loved for him to have gotten stuck on it so that he could have been a useful idiot in attacking the GOP via Perry as being racists over something that happened 20 years ago that Perry was even involved in. Sorry Cain didn't play into your hands on that one allen.
p allen "I know that some blacks indeed use the so-called "race card" as an excuse when involved in stupid behavior."
For you to admit the obvious is a revelation in itself, shocking.
p allen "There are those who do don't understand crying wolf only allows the real wolves to decimate the flock, and control the narrative."
Wow, you're two for two. Even a frog bounces it's ass when it hops I guess. Go figure. You are right though. The constant crying of racism by the left only dilutes the potency of the charge and belittles any situation when TRUE FACTUAL acts of racism occur. It needs to stop but I know it won't. I remember when Bush was still president, the left repeatedly called him a racist without ever backing it up how. I can't remember a conservative or member of the GOP who hasn't ever been labeled a racist without any evidence to prove it. People on the left have called me a racist many times(because they didn't know I was black) when engaging me on other political forums.
CB;"If I said that everybody on the left are communists, would I be making a statement without facts to back it up allen?.
You couldn't back it up because "EVERYBODY" on the left are not communists.
CB;"If you answer yes, then how does Sam Donaldson have any credibility in making the statement that many on the political right wants Obama gone because of the color of his skin?.
Because "MANY" on the right cannot cope with the realization that the president is black. That is a fact. If you wish not to believe it, you have a problem...a big problem.
CB;"Can you post the alleged affirmative action lawsuits you said Herman Cain filed allen?".
Did I say that Cain filed a lawsuit Tyrone? NOOOO! Did I even imply that Cain filed a lawsuit? NOOOO! So what makes you ask that Cain filed a lawsuit, when both you and I know that he did not? I'll say it again so you can understand. Herman Cain road the wave of Affirmative Actions lawsuits filed while he was in the employ of Pillsbury and Burger King. So, can you prove that he "wasn't" there during the lawsuits? Can you honestly say that a black man didn't benefit from the "racial discrimination" lawsuits? If your don't believe it, your just as clueless as him.
Post a Comment
<< Home