What the 2012 election taught us

Nov 6, 2012 Full story: The Washington Post 10,324

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Full Story

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#5962 Jan 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Why would the US go'vt collapse? Which gov'ts don't have debt?(well, some more socialist gov'ts don't or at least not nearly the debt the US has...but that would be beyond your level of discussion...)
So, everyone doing what the government needs to be done is going to do it without being paid, right? If that's the case, then why are we paying them now? There's a cut right there.
Workers need to be paid... with money, not sea shells.
Contractors need to be paid... with money.
The debt needs to be paid... with money.
Everything the government does needs money to tender the arrangement.
If you run out of money, nothing happens.
If nothing happens, the government doesn't exist.
If the government doesn't exist, it has collapsed.

And, just because the condition "debt" exists doesn't mean that it is the same as a household with a 50 thousand dollar a year income having a 332 thousand dollar credit card debt, which is the exact analogy of the condition of our government. Only an idiot would believe that household won't suffer a dramatic decline in living standard.

Since you opened up the discussion with an ignorant assumption that I would be unqualified to discuss social ideologies...

The Democrat agenda is obviously Marxist.

To counter that statement, first prove you are qualified to participate in the discussion and tell us what the definition of "Marxism" is.
I'm betting you're so ignorant you don't know.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#5963 Jan 4, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Taxpayer Bill for Obama’s Hawaii Vacations:$20 Million
by Keith Koffler on January 4, 2013, 10:07 am
Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say,“We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough.
But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it’s an expensive one.
The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to maintain a “family tradition” and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.
The $20 million figure is based on estimates of the cost of the four Hawaii vacations the Obamas have taken during Christmastime 2009-2012. According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.
New Year's Day, 2012
But $4 million almost certainly underestimates the true tally, as it does not include many miscellaneous items like the cost of flying advance teams out to Hawaii and separate flights Michelle Obama took in 2010 and 2011, when she left ahead of her husband, who was forced to stay in Washington to finish up work with Congress.
This year, Obama returned from Hawaii to complete a deal on the Fiscal Cliff and then jetted back to Honolulu, where he is now engaged in Part 2 of his vacation. The second roundtrip flight added about $3.24 million to the tab this time, bringing the cost of the 2012-1013 vacation to well over $7 million.
Where would you like me to send the box of tissue and magic underwear?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5964 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Dufus, you still haven't identified a source of the money.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
You can't grow a nation without money, dufus. Where are you going to get the money from?
You actually have to identify a source of the money to answer the question.
And, growing the government isn't growing the nation. The fact is, government is an expense on the economy, not an asset. Every dollar the government spends has to be taken out of the economy.
... you'd know that if you had anything that resembles an education.
Did Obama make the trillions of SS/medicaid/medicare liabilities? no. Did Obama make the debt form two wars started across the globe. no.

you need to quit with your hyperpartisan rhetoric isf you ever want to truly understand the isssues you are talking about...

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#5965 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Dufus, you still haven't identified a source of the money.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
You can't grow a nation without money, dufus. Where are you going to get the money from?
You actually have to identify a source of the money to answer the question.
And, growing the government isn't growing the nation. The fact is, government is an expense on the economy, not an asset. Every dollar the government spends has to be taken out of the economy.
... you'd know that if you had anything that resembles an education.
Bitch and whine all you would like, the question has been answered, but as a typical neanderthal, you refuse or can't comprehend the facts of the case...So be it.

Your support of supply side ecomomics and "less government" is bullshit. You and your herd are still pretty butt hurt over the election. Not my problem. Deal with it the best possible way you can. Your dog and pony show is over. The smoke and mirrors have been removed. Your cover has been blown. The educated public no longer is fooled by your double talking or lack of understanding on how things really work today.

I, for one, am glad to see you grasping for straws and flipping about on subjects like a fish out of water. It's entertaining.

Your "point" is moot. Your party is moot. Your entire Faux news based argument it moot.

The money will always be there for the government to do what they need to, period. You and your herd should concentrate on bettering youselves and furthering your education. Because you, as a whole, are the dumbest fks on the planet.

Good day.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#5966 Jan 4, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
Black Rhino is a product of the ghetto, their money comes in the mail from the govt. They don't axe questions, just get it and head to the likka stow
Like you being a product of backwoods welfare programs that teach the youngsters to wear wife beaters and fix F-150s in the front yard.

Git-r-dun.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#5967 Jan 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Did Obama make the trillions of SS/medicaid/medicare liabilities? no. Did Obama make the debt form two wars started across the globe. no.
you need to quit with your hyperpartisan rhetoric isf you ever want to truly understand the isssues you are talking about...
Medicaid is just another Marxist welfare program to give equal-outcome results to people who won't do anything for themselves. If things like Medicaid didn't exist, there would be a hell of a lot fewer people who actually choose to be what is erroneously called "poor" here. They would become self-reliant and Medicaid wouldn't even be necessary.

Well, yes, he has a very strong relationship to the Social Security problem. The Democrats hijacked Social Security and turned it into a catch-all welfare program hidden inside a retirement insurance program people actually paid for.
But, I have a solution that will fix Social Security overnight.

IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DONT' GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.

Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
Oh, yeah. The problem of funding the government.

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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5968 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm goiong to guess
I don't have time for guesses.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5969 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
Same place George Bush got his.

Of course, Bush was more interested in putting costs on the credit card.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#5970 Jan 4, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitch and whine all you would like, the question has been answered, but as a typical neanderthal, you refuse or can't comprehend the facts of the case...So be it.
Your support of supply side ecomomics and "less government" is bullshit. You and your herd are still pretty butt hurt over the election. Not my problem. Deal with it the best possible way you can. Your dog and pony show is over. The smoke and mirrors have been removed. Your cover has been blown. The educated public no longer is fooled by your double talking or lack of understanding on how things really work today.
I, for one, am glad to see you grasping for straws and flipping about on subjects like a fish out of water. It's entertaining.
Your "point" is moot. Your party is moot. Your entire Faux news based argument it moot.
The money will always be there for the government to do what they need to, period. You and your herd should concentrate on bettering youselves and furthering your education. Because you, as a whole, are the dumbest fks on the planet.
Good day.
Don't you even wonder what the definition is of the words in the material you are being indoctrinated with?
You don't even know what "supply-side economics" is. Evidence of that is your reference to it in this discussion. We have not opened that door yet.
But, you can prepare for that discussion by reading up on economics. For that discussion, I'd suggest adding to any indoctrinated economic knowledge (Keynes) you have with some Thorstein Veblen, Malthus, and a little Nash wouldn't hurt.
You would be equaly ill-qualified to discuss governmental philosophies. I'm thinking you're possibly at the level where you actually think Plato was writing seriously in his First and Second Republics. You couldn't possibly be more advanced than that kindergarten stage.
You still haven't answered the most basic question.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5971 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
So, everyone doing what the government needs to be done is going to do it without being paid, right? If that's the case, then why are we paying them now? There's a cut right there.
Workers need to be paid... with money, not sea shells.
Contractors need to be paid... with money.
The debt needs to be paid... with money.
Everything the government does needs money to tender the arrangement.
If you run out of money, nothing happens.
If nothing happens, the government doesn't exist.
If the government doesn't exist, it has collapsed.
And, just because the condition "debt" exists doesn't mean that it is the same as a household with a 50 thousand dollar a year income having a 332 thousand dollar credit card debt, which is the exact analogy of the condition of our government. Only an idiot would believe that household won't suffer a dramatic decline in living standard.
Since you opened up the discussion with an ignorant assumption that I would be unqualified to discuss social ideologies...
The Democrat agenda is obviously Marxist.
To counter that statement, first prove you are qualified to participate in the discussion and tell us what the definition of "Marxism" is.
I'm betting you're so ignorant you don't know.
You are the one tha obviously does not know what the definition of Marxism is. nothing in the Obama agenda even comes close to marxism. Sorry charlie...

you still hae to show how the US gov't will collapse. did you forget about that in your rantings about off topic issues?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5972 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Medicaid is just another Marxist welfare program to give equal-outcome results to people who won't do anything for themselves. If things like Medicaid didn't exist, there would be a hell of a lot fewer people who actually choose to be what is erroneously called "poor" here. They would become self-reliant and Medicaid wouldn't even be necessary.
Well, yes, he has a very strong relationship to the Social Security problem. The Democrats hijacked Social Security and turned it into a catch-all welfare program hidden inside a retirement insurance program people actually paid for.
But, I have a solution that will fix Social Security overnight.
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DONT' GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
Oh, yeah. The problem of funding the government.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
But we have already decided, as asociety, to not let people die on the curbs of the hospital. medicaid is one of the ways we pay for that. would you prefer to let the hospital ER's suck up all the costs? that is not very cost effective.

you really do not understand the entirety of the issues you talk about, do you? you are at the parroting of media sounbytes level of political discussion...i think there is a kiddies version of topix for people like you...try it out!

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5973 Jan 4, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
My God.
Your minuscule brain cell has to deal with this kind of fkn lunacy on a daily basis.
Just like the money was there for Bush 1 & 2, Reagan, Nixon, etc...
We will continue to grow this great nation even with sheep like you throwing monkey wrenches in the machine. You're too fkn stupid to see that your total disregard for fair play or tolerance will be your demise, not ours.
Tragic.
Yep, you bought into the whole fantasyland Obama dream teams Money Grows On Trees, and Watermelon hootenanny extravaganza.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5974 Jan 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one tha obviously does not know what the definition of Marxism is. nothing in the Obama agenda even comes close to marxism. Sorry charlie...
you still hae to show how the US gov't will collapse. did you forget about that in your rantings about off topic issues?
Before making a post this stupid, I suggest you look up the definition.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5975 Jan 4, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
You don't even know what "supply-side economics" is.
Clearly- you are the one who is confused.

Perhaps you should put more work into passing your GED first, and then work your way into (macro) economics.

Take history first...
Responsibility

San Mateo, CA

#5976 Jan 4, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>.
Jumbles, did you whine, bitch and moan when other presidents went on vacation, went on safari to Africa, back to their homes, etc.?

Or is just this one you feel so jealous about?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5977 Jan 4, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Before making a post this stupid, I suggest you look up the definition.
And here you could have just shown where it is in error, if it is..(which it isn't)

Why is it you NEVER can back up what you say? i mean NEVER...

“have seen the years,”

Since: Mar 10

and the slow parade of fears"

#5978 Jan 4, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Thank the Black One, he used the money on jet fuel to fly in circles. He might pivot on jobs just any day now.
UNEMPLOYMENT UP TO 7.8%
DEBT HITS $16,432,706,000,000.00
Wrong. Unemployment is exactly the same as last month.
Spin, lying or ignorance? You pick. They're all typical repugnantcan traits. Obviously, we should add 'oblivious' to the list as well because you losers just don't seem capable of learning anything from your mistakes. You continue to make total fools out of yourselves by thinking that the rest of us aren't at least as intelligent as you. Somehow, on you, it looks even stupider.
Wonder why, dumbospam.
Stoneman

Boise, ID

#5979 Jan 5, 2013
Doctor My Eyes wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Unemployment is exactly the same as last month.
Spin, lying or ignorance? You pick. They're all typical repugnantcan traits. Obviously, we should add 'oblivious' to the list as well because you losers just don't seem capable of learning anything from your mistakes. You continue to make total fools out of yourselves by thinking that the rest of us aren't at least as intelligent as you. Somehow, on you, it looks even stupider.
Wonder why, dumbospam.
Actually, by some measures the rate ticked up from 7.7% to 7.8%, which is why he referred to it as going up. Nonetheless, it's still more than when Lord Obama ascended the throne FOUR YEARS ago.

And it would be higher if there weren't so many people that have simply given up looking for work. See, people that drop out of the labor market don't count into the unemployment figure, and there are FEWER JOBS today than there were when Lord Obama took over.

And the national debt IS almost double what it was when he ascended, which you don't address.

Which means his point was valid: in spite of a totally incompetent economic policy, you leftists still love him. When GWBush briefly had 6.3% unemployment during his first four years, you lefties shrieked about how it was the "WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!". When gasoline briefly hit $4/gallon you shrieked about how Bush was profiteering (somehow).

But when gas stays above $3/gallon for almost 4 years, and Lord Obama can't get the unemployment rate below 7% for the entire time he has been on the throne, he's still DAMN COOL. Ever notice that? He's SO freakin' cool! He's got that smile. When he tells a joke, DAMN he's cool! He plays BASKETBALL! He can SING! Can't lead a nation worth a damn, but man-oh-man, have you seen how good he looks in a suit?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5980 Jan 5, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, by some measures the rate ticked up from 7.7% to 7.8%, which is why he referred to it as going up. Nonetheless, it's still more than when Lord Obama ascended the throne FOUR YEARS ago.
One picture: thousand words...

http://leftcall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/0...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5981 Jan 5, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<
And it would be higher if there weren't so many people that have simply given up looking for work.
Same for Bush and for every other president going back to FDR: in the English language, and according to the BL, if you aren't looking for work, you are (and here is the tricky part) not looking for work.

And we can look at the 112th Congress for the "success" of finding new jobs.

That is the way the US government works... or doesn't.

And the 'fiscal cliff' is an excellent example of why the jobs picture isn't better than what it is now...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min woodtick57 1,125,423
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Frank 179,284
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Ari son of Anarchy 158,768
GOP governors don't see 'Obamacare' going away 55 min MITT from URANUS 43
First Lady To Rally Voters In Minneapolis 1 hr goose 1
Dems want White House shakeup 2 hr Shakeup the TOP f... 174
Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, som... 3 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 24

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE