Barack Obama, our next President

[Truth is no SIN]

Downward Spiral of the US Economy
US economy contracted in fourth quarter of 2012
The Commerce Department on Wednesday reported that the US economy contracted in the fourth quarter of 2012, the first decline in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) since the second quarter of 2009, the final three months before the official end of the recession.

The report, showing a decline at an annual rate of 0.1 percent between October and December, stunned Wall Street and government economists, who were expecting a growth rate lower than the 3.1 percent recorded in the third quarter of last year, but still well above zero. The consensus projection was for an increase of 1.1 percent.

The dismal report on the US economy follows downwardly revised estimates for world economic growth issued this month by both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Commerce Department statement reflects the impact on the US of stagnation and decline in major centers of the world economy as well as the lack of any genuine recovery in the real economy of the United States.

The major factors in the plunge from slowdown to outright contraction were a sharp decline in government spending, centered in a 22 percent drop in defense spending, a pronounced drawdown in business inventories, and a 5.7 percent fall in US exports. While the scale of the declines in government spending and inventories may not be repeated in coming months, the drop in exports reflects a marked slowdown in global economic growth that shows no signs of ending.

The 17-nation euro zone is in recession and is expected to contract further in 2013, Britain is also in recession, Japan’s economy is barely growing, and growth in the so-called “emerging economies” of China, India and Brazil is decelerating. The result is a decline in markets for US exports, which fell for the first time since the beginning of 2009, the low point of the world recession.

For all of 2012, the US economy grew by 2.2 percent, according to Wednesday’s report. While a slight improvement over the 1.8 percent growth rate for 2011, this pace of economic expansion is far too slow to significantly lower the unemployment rate, currently at 7.8 percent. For that to occur, the US would have to enjoy growth of more than 3.0 percent over a sustained period.

In its biannual Global Economic Prospects report, issued January 15, the World Bank cut its projection for US growth in 2013 to only 1.9 percent.

The Obama administration sought to downplay the Commerce Department report. Alan Krueger, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, blamed the contraction on temporary factors such as the sharp drop in military spending, uncertainty in the run-up to the January 1 “fiscal cliff,” and the impact of Hurricane Sandy, which struck the East Coast in late October.“Both international trade flows and inventory accumulation could have been affected by disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy,” he said in a statement.

[Jean]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
The suicide bomber was OUTSIDE the embassy, dickwad. No Americans were killed or injured.
Obama has killed more of the Al Qaeda leadership than Bush. Dumbass.

I said "people killed" Dumbo. Learn how to read, idiot.

Yes, Obama is respopnsible for more deaths, I agree, including innocent people, Dumbass. In case you don't get it, killing more people does not equate to success. It actually can exacerbate the problem, Dumbass.

[OldRaider]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
It looks like Al Qaeda is bombing us again as if they are on a schedule, just like it was when Clinton was president before Bush and Chaney kicked the shit out of them.
Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question of why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack on the US later.)

No sane person would think that the President of the United States of America should be the person overseeing the security details of the hundreds of embassies we have around the world, moot question.

[Nuculur option]

You left out factual content.

Like how Bush was asleep at the helm when Al Queda attacked the USA, in an attack on our soil that was worse than Pearl Harbor.

Surely you mean Al Queda killed 3,000 people in the WTC before Bush realized Al Queda existed!!

Had Dubya listened to the FBI, CIA, or Clinton's team, 9-11 would not have happened.

But he didn't, and it did!!

Why was Bush never put on trial for failing to protect our Nation??

Why do you continue to defend a failed President, the worst in American History, according to most Americans??

And you remain blissfully ignorant!!

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
It looks like Al Qaeda is bombing us again as if they are on a schedule, just like it was when Clinton was president before Bush and Chaney kicked the shit out of them.
Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question of why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack on the US later.)

[Jean]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text> never lived in nj

liar

[DBWriter]

Nuculur option wrote:

Obviously , your Communist mentors are filling your small head with lies.
Clinton Vetoed two Welfare Bills before signing the thire.
His Veto was never overridden.
Bow, it's obvious that only Communists could have missed this fact.
Question for you is;
Who are your Marxist Communist handlers, and why do you believe what they tell you??
You've made a fool of yourself there with your wild eyed lies and Comunist propaganda.
Here's the FACTS, something you're completely unfamiliar with:
----------
"1996 Welfare Reform Bill -- Just the Facts
by Barry D. Bowen
President Bill Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill put forward by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then just before the Democratic Convention he signed a third version. Some liberals were upset. Conservatives continued to sell the line that Clinton did not believe in welfare reform.
Conservative and moderate democrats argued that Clinton stood fast against extreme welfare reforms before signing the best compromise he could extract from Gingrich/Dole.""
----------
I caught you in yet another lie, Dweeb.
This is getting old.
You lie, I demolish the lies.
Keep it up, Commie Traveler.
<quoted text>

I guess the indoctrination session to give you frauds the new party line about Al Qaeda bombing us as if they are on a schedule again, like it was when Clinton was president and before Bush and Chaney kicked the shit out of them, has ended.

Ok. What's the new party line mantra to explain Al Qaeda bombing us like they're on a schedule again?

And, where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question about why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack against the US later.)

And;

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

And;

Why is Al Qaeda able to bomb us as if they are on a schedule again?

[John Galt]

OldRaider wrote:

<quoted text>
No sane person would think that the President of the United States of America should be the person overseeing the security details of the hundreds of embassies we have around the world, moot question.

The President is the CEO of the government and is responsible for setting overall policy and assuring that his chain of command follows up on the details.

The current occupant of the White House is a lazy bastard who is too busy socializing and campaigning to carry out the responsibilities of the office.

[DBWriter]

Nuculur option wrote:

You left out factual content.
Like how Bush was asleep at the helm when Al Queda attacked the USA, in an attack on our soil that was worse than Pearl Harbor.
Surely you mean Al Queda killed 3,000 people in the WTC before Bush realized Al Queda existed!!
Had Dubya listened to the FBI, CIA, or Clinton's team, 9-11 would not have happened.
But he didn't, and it did!!
Why was Bush never put on trial for failing to protect our Nation??
Why do you continue to defend a failed President, the worst in American History, according to most Americans??
And you remain blissfully ignorant!!
<quoted text>

Because Bush actually arrested one of the hijackers before the 9/11(2001) attack, idiot.

[Jimmy]

OldRaider wrote:

<quoted text>
No sane person would think that the President of the United States of America should be the person overseeing the security details of the hundreds of embassies we have around the world, moot question.

True, but no sane person would think that the President of the United States of America would not know immediately when one is being attacked in todays age of technology, moron.

You are an idiot.

[Jimmy]

Nuculur option wrote:

You left out factual content.
Like how Bush was asleep at the helm when Al Queda attacked the USA, in an attack on our soil that was worse than Pearl Harbor.
Surely you mean Al Queda killed 3,000 people in the WTC before Bush realized Al Queda existed!!
Had Dubya listened to the FBI, CIA, or Clinton's team, 9-11 would not have happened.
But he didn't, and it did!!
Why was Bush never put on trial for failing to protect our Nation??
Why do you continue to defend a failed President, the worst in American History, according to most Americans??
And you remain blissfully ignorant!!
<quoted text>

Oh look - this due is as bad as the birthers.

[Nuculur option]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> It's just a damn shame!!!

Yes, we know how you hate to see the DOW hit 14,000 for the first time since 2007, the year Bush crashed the economy!!

Wasn't that Dubya fellow President then?? The guy who destroyed our economy??

Dow stands at 13,997 at this moment.

3 points from the significant 14000 level!!

Now let's see you nitwits attack capitalism some more, telling us how the Capitalists are all wrong, the market is really at 6,000!!

C'mon, Flake, you're as dumb as Emaam. Let's see you say something truly ignorant again!!

[sonicfilter]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Typical libtard response when the facts don't fit the template.

finding it hard to me make look the fool?

talk is cheap.

[John Galt]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
So, say you are 20 & smoke two packs a day.
You claim that quitting smoking will not make you live longer because there is no proof how long you would live without smoking.
Brilliant.
Climatologist have measured the increase of these gases in our atmosphere. They know what the effects are. They know how long it will take the Earth to remove these additional gases if emission are reduced.

No gases, whatever you are referring to, are ever removed from the environment. They can only be converted to something else.

[OldRaider]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess the indoctrination session to give you frauds the new party line about Al Qaeda bombing us as if they are on a schedule again, like it was when Clinton was president and before Bush and Chaney kicked the shit out of them, has ended.
Ok. What's the new party line mantra to explain Al Qaeda bombing us like they're on a schedule again?
And, where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question about why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack against the US later.)
And;
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
And;
Why is Al Qaeda able to bomb us as if they are on a schedule again?

<Quote DBWriter,> "Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to all the Republican legislation that made the government fiscally sound."
In the above quote you make the case that it's congress that drags the president to a fiscally sound government. Then you ask the question why can't the president drag congress. You need a proofreader.

No sane person would think that the President of the United States of America should be the person overseeing the security details of the hundreds of embassies we have around the world, moot question.

[Nuculur option]

Why did you walk away from your lies concerning Welfare??

Why do you never answer to your easily disproved lies??

Try answering to your lies, rather than change the subject to your idiotic questions, the answers of which are common knowledge to all bur Commie indoctrinated wingnuts.

NO soup for you!!

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess the indoctrination session to give you frauds the new party line about Al Qaeda bombing us as if they are on a schedule again, like it was when Clinton was president and before Bush and Chaney kicked the shit out of them, has ended.
Ok. What's the new party line mantra to explain Al Qaeda bombing us like they're on a schedule again?
And, where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question about why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack against the US later.)
And;
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
And;
Why is Al Qaeda able to bomb us as if they are on a schedule again?

[John Galt]

sonicfilter wrote:

The Tectonic Impact Of Obama's Re-Election
Is it just me or are more people surprised by the snowballing impact of Obama's re-election?
It's not just the return to Clinton tax rates for the very wealthy;

Tax rates for the wealthy are now much higher than under Clinton.

[sonicfilter]

Police in Arlington County, Va. have dropped an investigation into Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), stemming from an election-season "voter fraud" hidden-camera video released by conservative activist James O'Keefe.

Police told a local Patch reporter that both Morans had cooperated with the investigation, but that O'Keefe had not complied with several requests for the full, unedited video in his possession, along with the identity of the videographer.

"Who knows what else could be on the video? Our detective wanted to request those two things, and that party failed to comply," police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck told Patch.

"We want the full version. That's our job, to do a thorough investigation. And that's a huge piece of the process right there."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/p...

[DBWriter]

OldRaider wrote:

<quoted text>
No sane person would think that the President of the United States of America should be the person overseeing the security details of the hundreds of embassies we have around the world, moot question.

... another idiot.
The State Department is in control of the security, and who is responsible for stripping down the security detatchmment.
The Department of Defense is in control of the AC-130 and Force Recon Marine units specifically positioned to respond to an attack on the embassy in Libya.

Pay close attention here....

The State Department cannot give orders to the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense had a plan of action and default orders in the case of an attack on the embassy in Libya.

Only the White House had the authority to override the default orders of the units specifically positioned solely to respond to an attack on the embassy in Libya.

Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down embassy security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
(You can answer the question of why Obama lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda terrorist attack against the US later.)

[sonicfilter]

Dow Hits 14,000 For First Time Since October 2007

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/d...

[sonicfilter]

Senate Republicans Squandered a Big Opportunity Yesterday to Help Their Party

Matt Duss reviews yesterday’s spectacle and makes a good observation:

Any hopes that Republicans might be embracing a new reasonableness in the wake of their Election Day drubbing will have to be put off. They evinced a level of disdain for the nominee that I don’t recall ever seeing in a similar hearing [bold mine-DL].

It’s that seething disdain for Hagel that is so remarkable. Republican hard-liners have contributed to their party’s defeats in three of the last four elections, and they inflicted long-term damage on their party’s reputation on foreign policy by embracing the biggest foreign policy blunder in a generation, and now they are furious with Hagel because he’s one of the few national Republicans to recognize reality. McCain’s obsession with insisting on the rightness of the “surge” that failed on the Bush administration’s own terms is one example of this refusal to cope with reality.

If it were just McCain doing this, we could dismiss it as part of a long pattern of his embittered reactions to past political defeats. The amazing thing is that virtually every Republican member of the committee yesterday pretended to be just as incensed and outraged by Hagel as McCain was. Four of the Republican members are new Senators elected in 2010 or last year, and in some respects the new members were worse than McCain in trying to prove their hard-line credentials. Senate Republicans had an opportunity yesterday to demonstrate that they had learned something from the failures of the Bush era and the folly of hard-line policies, and they threw it away without giving it a moment’s thought.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...