Kitchen Sink (Misc) - Big shocker the "One" wants to raise the debt limit again

Big shocker the "One" wants to raise the debt limit again

alanleroy

Dec 28, 2011
10:52pm

Quote

Originally posted by: franksynopsis
Yeah. Many people prefer that Obama. I like the current one just fine. (Let me know if you find a clip where he demands to see someone's birth certificate. That would make my day.)

I guess I do prefer 'that' Obama....the one who seemed concerned about running up the debt...the one who contunually voted against raising the debt ceiling. I think he was right about Bush being irresponsible and unpatriotic in that regard. Now, we all know that he doesn't think anybody 'needs no stinkin' birth certificates'.

jphelan

Dec 29, 2011
12:23am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: marcr

Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
Your figures agree with my statement. Unemployment was much much higher three years after Reagan took office than it was under his predecessor. You folks kill Obama for this, but worship at the feet of Reagan.
The socalled Misery Index was a nonsensical campaign gimmick put out by Reagans campaign advisors. I can't believe you are still trying to foist it about thirty years later. I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks, even when the olds ones have been discredited for a generation.

Ummmm, not even close. The misery index was developed by Yale economics professor Arthur Okun in the late 60s. Mr Okun was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors 1968-69 under President Johnson.
https://www.miseryindex.us/

As to use by politicians it was first really used by President Carter in his run for the Presidency in 1976. This extracted from Wikipedia but is a fair summary:
During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.

So, can we all agree that the Misery Index under President Obama is on pace to be as bad as it was under President Carter? And significantly WORSE THAN ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE CARTER?

Change somebody must believe in......

pjstroh

Dec 29, 2011
1:25am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan

Quote
Originally posted by: marcr
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
Your figures agree with my statement. Unemployment was much much higher three years after Reagan took office than it was under his predecessor. You folks kill Obama for this, but worship at the feet of Reagan.
The socalled Misery Index was a nonsensical campaign gimmick put out by Reagans campaign advisors. I can't believe you are still trying to foist it about thirty years later. I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks, even when the olds ones have been discredited for a generation.

Ummmm, not even close. The misery index was developed by Yale economics professor Arthur Okun in the late 60s. Mr Okun was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors 1968-69 under President Johnson.
https://www.miseryindex.us/

As to use by politicians it was first really used by President Carter in his run for the Presidency in 1976. This extracted from Wikipedia but is a fair summary:
During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.

I guess it just depends if you want to continue the path that has improved that index for the last 2 years or go back to the path that caused the collapse in the first place

MIKEY7777

Dec 29, 2011
1:47am

Block User

Reagan was not president in 1980 either, he took office in 1981, just as the next president will take office, January, 2013. Come on people get the facts straight.

Sure Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, and they will be placed elsewhere.

Afghanistan is now Obamas war, and the troops have increased and we are not pulling out, they are building huge stuctures there,(one rumored to be a huge military base) my friend went there and they said you take any pictures of the airport or anything else we will take your camera or phone.

Housing market and employment are at their worst in my life-time right now. And small business is a joke right now.

But, I have the solution that the Dems and GOP refuse to do because of the big 7 families.....We have more oil in Alaska than the entire middle east. So lets start pumping. Refineries do not take 10 years to build that is a myth(offer them a 100 million bonus if they do it in 2 years and watch it get done).
Gas goes down to buck a gallon and the economy soars, also it is a great way to keep the middle east in check. You stay in line we will pump less oil and gas might be buck and a half. You hide the terrorists we will pump more oil and under-cut you. Wow a peacefull solution but we cant have that.

Dan Svatass

Dec 29, 2011
3:18am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: lvfritz
Now, remind me PJ, which party is it that controls the Senate? Oh, that's right, it's the Democrats!

Sheesh, what an ignorant statement.

It presently requires 60 senators from one party for that party to control the Senate. The Democrats only have 51 right now.

The Dems peaked at 58 when Sen. Franken was sworn in in July 2009, but began sliding back when Sen. Brown was sworn in seven months later.

I'm sure President Obama would like to have a Senate controlled by the Democrats. He'll probably never get it.

Dan Svatass

Dec 29, 2011
3:23am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MIKEY7777
We have more oil in Alaska than the entire middle east.

Completely false. Completely.

You don't know what you're talking about.

MarcR

Dec 29, 2011
4:44am

Block User

Quote

The Dems peaked at 58 when Sen. Franken was sworn in in July 2009, but began sliding back when Sen. Brown was sworn in seven months later.

I'm sure President Obama would like to have a Senate controlled by the Democrats. He'll probably never get it.

While technically correct it is not accurate. Though nominally "Independents" Senator Lieberman of CT and Senator Sanders of VT caucus with and usually vote along with the Democrats. With Senator Franken the Dems had effective control of the Senate.

Beneath you to parse words like this.

MarcR

Dec 29, 2011
4:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: MIKEY7777
We have more oil in Alaska than the entire middle east.

Completely false. Completely.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The US is currently ranked 13th in proven oil reserves (that is the entire US) with 20 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia alone, which is first, has 262 billion barrels.

Dan Svatass

Dec 29, 2011
5:02am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: marcr

Quote

The Dems peaked at 58 when Sen. Franken was sworn in in July 2009, but began sliding back when Sen. Brown was sworn in seven months later.

I'm sure President Obama would like to have a Senate controlled by the Democrats. He'll probably never get it.

Though nominally "Independents" Senator Lieberman of CT and Senator Sanders of VT caucus with and usually vote along with the Democrats. With Senator Franken the Dems had effective control of the Senate.

You don't exhibit much appreciation for Sen. Lieberman's history these past five years.

Democrats refused to nominate him in 2006. He noticed. In 2008, he endorsed John McCain, not Barack Obama.

Since then, he's largely opposed President Obama's agenda: he supported the filibuster against the public option, and frequently undercuts the President in foreign affairs.

It'll be nice to get his seat back in Democratic hands next year. Lieberman's no Democrat, and he hasn't been for many years.

It's a persistent right-wing myth that Democrats control the Senate. They have more members than the Republicans do, but they don't control it.

MIKEY7777

Dec 29, 2011
5:05am

Block User

Completly true, sorry boys, we are number 1 in oil. It is all kept quiet. The main minister for the oil companies blew the whistle on the Alaskan oil fields, and more resently the oil companies themselves have admitted to the huge quantities of oil. So do not believe me and believe the"100 percent honest" polititians instead. But mark my words!

«‹5 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now