Short and simple. Who do you want for president, Obama or Mitt Romney?

[Anouleth]

Well, I know for a fact that Obama didn't need to spend the obscene amount of money that he did in order to drop the unemployment rate in our economy. I know this, because despite his claims to the contrary, he did not inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression (he inherited a country with an unemployment rate of 7.8. Unemployment has climbed as high as 10.8 in the past).

So let me compare him to another president who also once inherited a bad economy, Ronald Reagan. Now, Ronald Reagan only inherited a 7.5 unemployment rate to Obama's 7.8, so it wasn't QUITE as bad as what Obama got, but it was pretty close. I am going to use this list of numbers for the unemployment rates...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

...And compare how Reagan did compared to Obama. One important thing to note is that Reagan's party controlled the Senate for all of his presidency, however the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for his entirely presidency. Obama's party, on the other hand, controlled BOTH branches of Congress from January 2009 to January 2011, but then only controlled the Senate from January 2011 to today...

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate

It seems to be to be pretty similar. When Reagan took office in January of 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. When his first term ended, it was at about 7.4%. Similarly, unemployment in Obama's first term began at 7.8%, and now, it's also at 7.8%. To me, it seems like this isn't really a vindication or a condemnation of either set of economic policies. If anything, it vindicates Obama because almost all of the rise in unemployment happened in the first few months of his presidency as a result of the 2008 crisis, before he could do anything to stop it. In fact, if you measure Obama's term as beginning in April, he actually reduced unemployment by 0.9% over the past four years. He can hardly have been expected to snap his fingers on January 21st and stop the increase in unemployment. The Stimulus wasn't even signed into law until February.

Moreover, the supposition that Obama had complete legislative control is incorrect. Obama relied upon the votes of three Republicans to pass the ARRA. If it had been bigger, like Obama's economics team recommended, he might not have been able to pass it. As it is, there were many compromises in the bill, and even at the time Democrats complained that it wasn't all they hoped for.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187#.UJZlrWdqA_4

House of Representatives Composition Throughout the Years: http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/partyDiv.aspx

Senate Composition Throughout the Years: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

...So Ronald Reagan already started off at at least a slight disadvantage by not having the support of both branches of Congress, and never had control of the House throughout his entire first term.

So, because Reagan was forced to compromise with Democrats, Democrats suck?

Now, Obama's term has not officially ended yet, so let's compare Obama's recent unemployment rate to the one Reagan had in October, during the 3rd year of his presidency...

Reagan: 7.4

Obama: 7.9

Compared to the beginnings of their respective 1st terms, which was...

Reagan: 7.5

Obama: 7.8

So, under Reagan's presidency, the unemployment rate DROPPED by 0.1% while under Obama, it RISED by 0.1%.

Such a tiny difference, it barely matters. And a lot of that is due to Obama taking office in the middle of a huge financial crisis.

Now, of course the pattern of the unemployment rates throughout their terms is very interesting. Obama's rate never rised higher than 10%, while Reagan's actually rose to 10.8% at one point, but it's not certain whether or not that was simply due to Obama having more control over Congress than Reagan did, since, a stubborn Congress can easily screw up the plans of a President.

Obama has had no control over Congress for the past two years, however. In fact, this has been the least active Congress in more than a hundred years of US political history.

The unemployment rate then proceeds to drop to 6.6% party under Reagan by January 1887, when his party then proceeds to lose control of the Senate. And yet, even then, the unemployment rate falls to 5.4% by the end of Reagan's presidency. So Reagan, whatever he did, did a pretty bang-up job of leading our country through a recession.

How do you know that all this won't be achieved in Obama's second term? In fact, evidence suggests that just that will happen regardless of who wins.

[FionordeQuester]

Obama did not add $4.7 trillion dollars to the deficit, since the deficit is currently lower than when he took office; in FY 2012 the deficit was 1.1 trillion USD, while when Obama took office midway through FY 2009 the deficit was 1.4 trillion USD.

First off, yes, I was probably misleading when I used the term "deficit" to describe our national debt. I assumed that people would know what I meant, which was a mistake. I'll admit that.

But onto the deficit. I don't know where you're getting your information when you say that the deficit was 1.4 trillion when Obama came into office, but that's certainly not what the White House says. Again, go to...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

...and download any table from 1.1 to 1.4. Personally, I would recommend Table 1.3, as that lists the federal deficit in terms of billions of dollars rather than millions, but it's your choice.

But at any rate, it lists what the federal deficit was at the END of each year, and not the beginning. I can only assume that you might've looked at one of these tables, and mistakenly thought that it listed what the amount was at the BEGINNING of each year, hence, you saying we had a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit when Obama got inaugurated. Well, no, unfortunately that was the federal deficit AT THE END of his first year in office, which I would like to point out, was more than three times higher than the federal deficit at the end of George Bush Jr.'s presidency, which was $458.6 billion dollars. So no, Obama has not been doing us any favors in terms of federal spending.

Under his presidency, the debt has increased by 4.7 trillion USD, but given that much of that is due to things beyond his control (cf. http://www.politifac...us-5-trillion/), and given that Congressional Republicans are hellbent on making Obama what McConnell called a "one-term president," this is not surprising.

First of all, the Republicans only control the House, and not the Senate, and even then, that wasn't until after two years of Obama as president. If you look at Table's 7.1 and 1.3, spending really has not changed one bit since they gained control of the House.

Now as for your source, first of all, if you try to click on it from here, it only leads to an empty page, which I think is simply a mistake of how you pasted it into your post. It's happened to me before, so I don't blame you. But after having found what you linked to myself, I have to say this. That website is flat out wrong...and yet, it's for completely understandable reasons.

See, here's the thing. Normally, you would be correct that Obama had little to do with the federal budget that was in place when he was signed into office in January 2009...except for one thing.

On that year, THERE WAS NO BUDGET SIGNED INTO LAW by the time Obama came into office. I don't know for sure why Congress did not get a budget passed before Obama got into office. I've heard that it was because they were afraid that George Bush Jr. would reject it, but I haven't found any 100% reliable source to prove that. But the point is, Obama WAS fully, and completely responsible for whatever spending happened in 2009, and he DID sign the 2009 budget into law according to the audio clip here...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/jan-june09/spendingbill_03-11.html

Now of course, he says that he wasn't happy about it at all, but still signs it anyways, claiming that it was necessary to keep the country running. I think that's false, but whatever. So you might say he was simply doing what he thought was necessary, and then had further difficulties in office trying to decrease the spending because of Congressional Republicans...except for one more thing!

After having signed that bill into law, he then goes on to talk at a Town Hall in Arnold, Missouri in April 29, 2009...and he says this...

I know you’ve been hearing all these arguments about, oh, Obama is just spending crazy, look at these huge trillion-dollar deficits, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me make a point. Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit -- that wasn’t from my -- that wasn’t me. (Applause.) That wasn’t me.

Video Source:

Text Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-arnold-missouri-town-hall

This right here, is direct, almost indisputable proof that Obama is not an honest politician. The federal deficit by the end of Fiscal Year 2008 was $458.6 billion dollars, and Fiscal Year 2009 didn't officially begin until March 11, 2009, when Obama signed the federal budget for 2009 into law. So in order for Obama's claim to be true, the Congress would have had to spend $954.1 billion dollars from October 1st, 2008 to January 3rd, 2009, the date Obama was sworn into office. And, according to Section 1, Article 9 of our Constitution...

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The only possible interpretations I can possibly think of is that Obama is either a liar, or that his whole Congress (which was ruled by Democrats) was corrupt enough to violate the Constitution itself. Combine that with the fact that he chose to let the Congress have their way rather than actually vetoing their budget, and I think I can safely say that Obama is completely, and utterly unsuited for the presidency.

But even if we take the website you linked to at their word, let's take a look at what they say...

Spending

Spending initiated by Bush policies: 4 percent of total deficits in 2009, 2010 and 2011

Spending initiated by Obama policies: 11 percent

Other increases in discretionary spending: 32 percent

Other increases in mandatory spending: 6 percent

Revenue reductions

Revenue reductions initiated by Bush policies: 11 percent

Revenue reductions initiated by Obama policies: 13 percent

Other unclassified revenue reductions: 5 percent

Interest

Net interest: 19 percent

According to the website, "The spending increases traceable to programs clearly attributable to Obama, combined with the increase in discretionary spending on his watch, account for about 43 percent of the three years worth of deficits...If you expand the definition from "Obama’s spending" to "Obama’s spending and tax cuts," you get to a total of 56 percent. Throw in 13 percentage points for the added interest costs of Obama’s policies and you’re at 69 percent."

Personally, I do include the expanded definition of the website, because those all include things Obama had a direct hand in. In fact, I would even argue that the Bush policies should be included in what Obama did considering he chose to sign the Bush tax cuts back into law...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4853enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4853enr.pdf (Go to page 3. The official title of the Bush Tax cuts are the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" and "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003" respectively)

But even if we go by the assumption that he really is only responsible for 69% of the federal debt increase, 69% still means that most of it was Obama's fault. And 69% of $5 trillion dollars is still $3.45 trillion dollars. So I don't know how one can say that Obama didn't play a huge role in how much our debt increased.

When you filibuster a bill intended to help 9/11 responders -- an ostensibly nonpartisan thing -- I must question your willingness to get things done. At least in Reagan's time it was still reasonable to address the opposing party as the "loyal opposition."

...I'm not sure I really know what you're talking about. If you're talking about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, that was passed in December 22, 2010, after being amended since it's rejection in December 9, 2010. Yes, it was filibustered in December 9...but then it was signed into law by a majority vote in the Senate on December 22, after being amended. And there were quite a few changes from the December 9 version to the December 22 version, if this site is anything to go by...

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/text?version=eas

Go here, and click "Show Changes". Whole paragraphs were added into the bill, some confusing terms such as "specified Federal procurement payment" were clarified, and they add deadlines to some of the bill's proposed actions. Personally, I think if anything, it's a testament to how wonderful our Republic is.

Deficits are determined by subtracting federal spending from federal revenues. Spending has not changed too much (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/); revenues, however, are uncharacteristically low because of the recession.

While that may be true, Obama doesn't seem to have done anything to stop that spending, and as I said, he chose to sign in these budgets that continued our tradition of out of control spending.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that a more competent president could have done more to bring in more revenues; if you think Romney can do that, then by all means vote for him, but your argument seems to be "Obama has not saved the economy, and I do not know what Romney is going to do, but it sure as hell has a better shot of succeeding than Obama's plans!", which is an odd thing to say given that a) no one has any clue how Romney's $5 trillion tax cut will be paid for since he has continually dodged the question

You're right in that Obama has drawn up a budget for 2013, far more detailed than Mitt Romney's plan...and you know what happened to that plan? EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE SENATE, EVEN THE DEMOCRATS, VETOED THAT BILL, IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION...

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?id=203215 (06:24:39)

Ignore what the man says at the beginning of the video, I have no idea what he was going on about, but they DID indeed vote on the budget that the President proposed, which is called "S.CON.RES.41"...

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?id=203215 (06:22:49)

And if you read the bill's text, on this site right here...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112W3gBGp:e0:

It specifically describes itself as "the President's budget request for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013" in big bold black letters on the first page.

But as for Mitt Romney and his apparent lack of details. Mitt Romney HAS answered that question. He's going to get together with Congress, the branch of the government who's supposed to have "the power of the purse", as said in the Constitution, to iron out those details. As he said in his first presidential debate...

Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what -- what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21695181/full-transcript-barack-obama-mitt-romney-presidential-debate

He doesn't have much in the way of details because he knows that those aren't the kind of details you can figure out until you've actually become president, and have had to talk to our nation's lawmakers, and found out as much of the situation as you can. In other words, he's being wise and prudent by not promising anything he knows he can't deliver.

Combine that with his previous record as the Governor of Massachusetts, and quite an effective one if Wikipedia is anything to go by...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

...of course, I haven't been able to find anything to actually VERIFY Wikipedia's claims, much as I tried (which is part of the reason why it wasn't until today that I responded to you guys), but I do know that at the very least, he's not a newcomer to having to balance a budget like Obama is.

And no, just because Massachusetts requires a balanced budget at the end of every year doesn't mean that that's what happened. Believe me, I would know. I actually LIVE in a state that requires a balanced budget every year, and yet has only had a balanced budget for ONE FRICKEN YEAR since...well, basically as long as the people I know can remember...and then immediately went back to a deficit after that.

and b) both Moody's and Macroeconomics Advisers agree that if the upcoming fiscal cliff is handled gracefully, 12 million new jobs will be created whether Obama or Romney wins the presidency.

...Not sure who those guys are unfortunately. But here's to hoping that's actually the case I guess.

But anyway, Moody's Analytics and CBO agree that the ARRA helped the economy:

But only in the short term, and only after having spent an obscene amount of money, which, as I believe we've gone over, CAN all be laid squarely at Obama's feet.

Although I agree that Obama has not been a great president, the alternative is someone who believes 47% of the country are moochers;

He already apologized for that and correct his mistake by saying...

I said something that’s just completely wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/for-obama-and-romney-campaign-gains-new-intensity-in-debates-wake.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all&

denies the existence of global warming

What he said is...

My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127273-503544/mitt-romneys-shifting-views-on-climate-change/

and has political allies who want to introduce the teaching of intelligent design in public schools;

I'm...not sure about that. But I guess if you're going to bring that up, I may as well bring up Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright and other such radical figures. Oh sure, he has condemned Reverend Wright's statements about America, but he HAS been going to his Church for 20 years...I'd say if anything, THAT'S a real flip flop!

Not that I'm saying that that's a bad thing. It's perfectly natural to change one's mind after a number of years, as Oskar Schindler once did, and frankly, I'm not sure I'd want to be associated with Reverend Wright either. But even assuming that your claim is actually correct, shouldn't we give Mitt Romney that same benefit of the doubt in terms of his choice of friends?

wants to deny a woman's right to control her body; endorses politicians who believe rape pregnancies are God-given gifts;

Mitt Romney has said, quote...

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/twisting-romneys-abortion-stance/

claims to "Believe in America" while hiding a significant chunk of his wealth outside of America;

He has a Swiss bank account...so?

and promises to make "tough choices" on Medicare while making the politically easy choice to irresponsibly spend $716 billion on rebates and subsidies for drug and insurance companies, respectively.

I believe you're referring to how he blasted Obama for cutting $716 billion out of Medicare? If so, I would like to point out that just because he opposed the decision (not that I'm deciding on whether or not the cut was good), doesn't mean that he's going to put all $716 billion dollars back into it. To me, that may just mean he'll put back SOME of it.

It seems to be to be pretty similar. When Reagan took office in January of 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. When his first term ended, it was at about 7.4%. Similarly, unemployment in Obama's first term began at 7.8%, and now, it's also at 7.8%. To me, it seems like this isn't really a vindication or a condemnation of either set of economic policies. If anything, it vindicates Obama because almost all of the rise in unemployment happened in the first few months of his presidency as a result of the 2008 crisis, before he could do anything to stop it. In fact, if you measure Obama's term as beginning in April, he actually reduced unemployment by 0.9% over the past four years. He can hardly have been expected to snap his fingers on January 21st and stop the increase in unemployment. The Stimulus wasn't even signed into law until February.

Obama had full control of whatever budget he signed into law, unless of course Congress decided to veto him. But that takes a pretty huge majority.

Moreover, the supposition that Obama had complete legislative control is incorrect. Obama relied upon the votes of three Republicans to pass the ARRA. If it had been bigger, like Obama's economics team recommended, he might not have been able to pass it. As it is, there were many compromises in the bill, and even at the time Democrats complained that it wasn't all they hoped for.

http://www.msnbc.msn...87#.UJZlrWdqA_4

But he still had MORE control over it than Reagan did, quite a lot more.

Edit: More evidence of bad-faith governing from the Republicans: http://www.nytimes.c...ef=general&_r=0

...How is this "evidence"? The only thing we know for sure is that the Republicans raised some concerns about the accuracy of The Congressional Research Service, told the Congressional Research Service about their concerns, and then the Congressional Research Service took down their report for some reason. The rest is only speculation, and newspapers are not always honest.

I remember a story my English professor once told me about a letter that a soldier in Afghanistan once wrote to his girlfriend. However, in covering the letter, whatever newspaper featured it only included one or two quotes that said something along the lines of "yep, I think my luck is going to run out" and "I'm kind of nervous. I'm going into a 3rd warzone", or something like that, and the way they spun it, they made it seem like the soldier was unhappy about being there...

But then his uncle saw the way the paper mangled the soldier's letter, got angry, and published the rest of the letter for the world to see. And in this full, unedited letter, the soldier went on to talk about how happy he was to be in Afghanistan, that he felt like he was really making a difference in fighting dictators who would run roughshod over their people, and talked about how much he loved her. Yes, he was scared, but to him, it was completely worth it to be in that country...

That, combined with my own experience in a newspaper job, in which I had to fill a quota of three stories per day, no matter how uninterested or uneducated I was in the stories I chose (even if they were complete fluff), is why I distrust newspapers and news channels, no matter if it's Fox News, or CSPAN, or whatever it is. Sure, I wrote about stuff like Courage2BeU, and other such important things, but there's really only so long you can go before scraping the bottom of the barrel for a good story.

Every interpretation of Republican actions in that story is nothing but speculation, so you can't use that as proof either.

So, because Reagan was forced to compromise with Democrats, Democrats suck?

What I meant was that he didn't have as much control over Congress as the Democrats did. And since the President and Congress were likely more opposed to each other, naturally, that would mean less things were being done.

Such a tiny difference, it barely matters. And a lot of that is due to Obama taking office in the middle of a huge financial crisis.

I'm getting the sense that you're looking at that as though it's just a number. The difference between 1% out of EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES getting employment, and 1% of everyone living here is a very significant one when you realize just what those percentages are representing. I'm not passing judgement on you, as I'm all too capable of falling into that myself, but, I'm just saying.

Obama has had no control over Congress for the past two years, however. In fact, this has been the least active Congress in more than a hundred years of US political history.

Sure he did, just as every other President does with the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.

How do you know that all this won't be achieved in Obama's second term? In fact, evidence suggests that just that will happen regardless of who wins.

I do not know that. But I do know that Obama's economic policies have been either failing, or not reaching close to their full result. And I also know for a fact that he is dishonest, if for nothing else than the way he has been handling Benghazi recently.

You know how he's been saying for 14 weeks after the Benghazi incident first started that it was a riot caused by a tape criticizing Muhammad? As said here?

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

And implied it at around 1:20 of this video?

Benghazi:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8JGohE0Yg0&feature=related

Yeah, well, turns out that's complete nonsense according to Obama in his 2nd Presidential debate, because...

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...

CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary --

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how --

OBAMA: Candy, I’m --

ROMNEY: -- this was a spontaneous --

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me --

OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation --

CROWLEY: I know you --

OBAMA: -- about foreign policy.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to -- I want to move you on and also --

OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.

CROWLEY: -- the transcripts and --

OBAMA: I just want to make sure that --

CROWLEY: -- figure out what we --

OBAMA: -- all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story_4.html (Go to Page 5)

(1:12:20-1:14:55)

So in addition to being incompetent at Economics, the man is, at best, a bald faced liar, and at worst, a threat to our national security. I don't know about Mitt Romney, but I can't imagine him being any worse than THAT!

EDIT: Well, alright, after looking over my evidence again, Obama did in fact, call it an "act of terror" on the day after the attack...he just didn't say that it was premeditated. But still, the whole thing just reeks of fishy activity, so...take it for what it's worth I guess. It still seems kind of sketchy to me though.

Edited November 5, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Emeraldfox]

This might sound silly, but why are people, when some have jobs, worried about the jobless rate? I never understood that. Also, are people really worried about the debt their kids will have to pay? I highly doubt the kids themselves are worried, or even care.

I must be missing something.

[Anouleth]

Obama had full control of whatever budget he signed into law, unless of course Congress decided to veto him. But that takes a pretty huge majority.

What does that have to do with my point? No matter what Obama signs in February, that isn't going to prevent jobs from being lost in January. Things take time to happen. It seems completely unreasonable to expect anything more.

But he still had MORE control over it than Reagan did, quite a lot more.

So are you saying that if Reagan had more power then he'd have been able to reduce unemployment? Because that's awfully reaching.

What I meant was that he didn't have as much control over Congress as the Democrats did. And since the President and Congress were likely more opposed to each other, naturally, that would mean less things were being done.

And we don't know if that was good or bad. Maybe if Ronald Reagan had more freedom to implement his policies, things would have been worse. Maybe they would have been better. Short of being psychic, we can only really guess. Hence my point about how it's impossible to "prove" whether an economic policy succeeds or fails. Because a real experiment is practically impossible in economics, it's impossible to prove anything.

I'm getting the sense that you're looking at that as though it's just a number. The difference between 1% out of EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES getting employment, and 1% of everyone living here is a very significant one when you realize just what those percentages are representing. I'm not passing judgement on you, as I'm all too capable of falling into that myself, but, I'm just saying.

The unemployment rate we see is not a percentage of all 300 million Americans. Many people are not counted in the unemployment rate such as students, the retired, children, people who care for their family, or people in prison. It's a ratio of the number of people who have jobs to the number of people who are looking for jobs. So not only is that 0.1% potentially just a fluctuation in random noise, as happens almost every month in every year under every president, it indicates tens of thousands of people rather than millions of people like you imply.

I do not know that. But I do know that Obama's economic policies have been either failing, or not reaching close to their full result. And I also know for a fact that he is dishonest, if for nothing else than the way he has been handling Benghazi recently.

You know how he's been saying for 14 weeks after the Benghazi incident first started that it was a riot caused by a tape criticizing Muhammad? As said here?

Well, that seems reasonable. I consider it extremely unlikely that the Benghazi attack happening right after the release of that youtube video is "just a coincidence".

EDIT: Well, alright, after looking over my evidence again, Obama did in fact, call it an "act of terror" on the day after the attack...he just didn't say that it was premeditated.

Well, acts of terror typically are premeditated. I struggle to think of an act of terror that wasn't premeditated, in fact. Because of their nature, surely such a thing would be impossible? I have to say, I'm really confused by all the Benghazi stuff. I mean, we don't even know for sure who did it, right? And in a case like this, the President is reliant on his intelligence service.

But still, the whole thing just reeks of fishy activity, so...take it for what it's worth I guess. It still seems kind of sketchy to me though.

So basically you don't think Obama is trustworthy, because he makes your spidey sense tingle or something? Even though he hasn't actually told a lie in this case? Just because he didn't go out of his way to spell out that yes, acts of terror are premeditated, in case any remedial English students were watching?

[dondon151]

i feel like fionordequester is just calling obama a liar because it's the hipster thing to do

you can't really paint a rosy image of any politician but come on, i can already tell that your prejudices have saturated your opinion. you said "I don't know about Mitt Romney, but I can't imagine him being any worse than THAT!" without even batting an eyelash at the number of times that he's contradicted himself only in this current campaign.

you also claim that obama is "incompetent at economics." please explain. i sincerely doubt that you have the education to validate that claim, and it would be at best a regurgitation of wikipedia articles.

[FionordeQuester]

What does that have to do with my point? No matter what Obama signs in February, that isn't going to prevent jobs from being lost in January. Things take time to happen. It seems completely unreasonable to expect anything more.

Your point was that Obama didn't have complete control over Congress, so I pointed out that, although that may be true, he still had MORE of it than Reagan did.

So are you saying that if Reagan had more power then he'd have been able to reduce unemployment? Because that's awfully reaching.

...Yeah, I guess that's correct.

And we don't know if that was good or bad. Maybe if Ronald Reagan had more freedom to implement his policies, things would have been worse. Maybe they would have been better. Short of being psychic, we can only really guess.

You know, you're right about that.

Hence my point about how it's impossible to "prove" whether an economic policy succeeds or fails. Because a real experiment is practically impossible in economics, it's impossible to prove anything.

I do know that not a single person in the Senate, Democrat or not, wanted to pass Obama's budget though. The video clip and the bill proclaiming itself to be the president's budget request, is right there for you to look at.

The unemployment rate we see is not a percentage of all 300 million Americans. Many people are not counted in the unemployment rate such as students, the retired, children, people who care for their family, or people in prison. It's a ratio of the number of people who have jobs to the number of people who are looking for jobs. So not only is that 0.1% potentially just a fluctuation in random noise, as happens almost every month in every year under every president, it indicates tens of thousands of people rather than millions of people like you imply.

...Huh, well, I will admit to forgetting about that. But "tens of thousands" is still one heck of a lot of people.

Well, that seems reasonable. I consider it extremely unlikely that the Benghazi attack happening right after the release of that youtube video is "just a coincidence".

Yeah.

Well, acts of terror typically are premeditated. I struggle to think of an act of terror that wasn't premeditated, in fact. Because of their nature, surely such a thing would be impossible? I have to say, I'm really confused by all the Benghazi stuff. I mean, we don't even know for sure who did it, right? And in a case like this, the President is reliant on his intelligence service.

I suppose.

So basically you don't think Obama is trustworthy, because he makes your spidey sense tingle or something? Even though he hasn't actually told a lie in this case? Just because he didn't go out of his way to spell out that yes, acts of terror are premeditated, in case any remedial English students were watching?

I don't think the President is trustworthy because of all the other times he has lied, like I pointed out when I linked to that video clip where he was talking at Arnold in 2009, in which he said he inherited a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit, which was obviously not the case if you look at how he himself has stated that the 2009 budget wasn't signed in until March 11. So, what I mean is, I don't know for sure whether he lied HERE like he did when he was talking at Arnold, but I'm still suspicious. Because I know that this wouldn't be the first lie he has told.

I feel like Fionordequester is just calling Obama a liar because it's the hipster thing to do

I will admit to growing up in a family, and having several friends who are pro-Romney (with the exception of my older brother, who is EXTREMELY pro-Obama), but I'm not just blindly regurgitating what people tell me. That's why it usually takes me at least a day, or as in the last case, two days, before responding to this thread. I'm actually doing my research, to make sure I'm correct.

In fact, had I not double-check myself, I would've just went ahead and said that Obama flat out WAS lying about Benghazi, and not just that I'm suspicious of him.

You can't really paint a rosy image of any politician but come on, i can already tell that your prejudices have saturated your opinion. you said "I don't know about Mitt Romney, but I can't imagine him being any worse than THAT!" without even batting an eyelash at the number of times that he's contradicted himself only in this current campaign.

And where are all of his so-called contradictions? The only one I can think of that I haven't addressed yet is the misconception that he's ever been for banning contraceptives, when in fact, he's always been against banning them even after his turn to his pro-life stance in 2005. Oh sure, some say he did vote against a contraception bill in 2005, but as he said then...

YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/

you also claim that obama is "incompetent at economics." please explain.

Not a single person in the Senate wanted to pass his budget this year, or last year. As I said, I've already provided everything you need to look this up yourself. Just look at the videos that are marked as "6:XX:XX", and you'll see it.

And then of course, there's his complete and utter failure to reign in government spending.

Edited November 5, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Defeatist Elitist]

So, FionordeQuester, I've got to know, have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? If not, have you ever considered seeking such a diagnosis?

Edited November 6, 2012 by Defeatist Elitist

[FionordeQuester]

No.

[Defeatist Elitist]

No.

Too perfect.

[shaymin]

So, FionordeQuester, I've got to know, have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? If not, have you ever considered seeking such a diagnosis?

Are such posts usually tolerated here?

FionordeQuester, allow me some time to respond to your post.

[FionordeQuester]

Sure, I don't mind. Trust me, I know what it's like trying to respond to a whole wall of text!

[Defeatist Elitist]

Are such posts usually tolerated here?

Not serious discussion, fuck the police, etc etc.

[Excellen Browning]

Not a single person in the Senate wanted to pass his budget this year, or last year. As I said, I've already provided everything you need to look this up yourself. Just look at the videos that are marked as "6:XX:XX", and you'll see it.

And then of course, there's his complete and utter failure to reign in government spending.

And in the meanwhile the rest of the western world knows the democrats and republicans were too busy hating each other. Also proof for not a single person in the Senate please, now you brought yourself on the subject.

Also lolz on everything else you say.

Oh I just want to add that "person 1 has experience in X while person 2 has not, therefore person 1 is better at it" is one of the biggest fallacies ever and that's not just based on something easy like statistical spread. An easy example of the fallacy is the 08-09 banking crisis. Banks are infested from top to bottom with mathematicians, economists and econometricians. Back in university they were the cream of the crop and were handpicked by the banks. Yet with all that brainpower and ability of foresight, the crisis happened.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm sure Obama will do a good job and I have no doubts he wants what's best for the country, but I'd like to know now why he misled everyone about Benghazi. No more reason to hide it now.

[FionordeQuester]

Who knows. Personally, I'm just hoping that my fears about him don't turn out to be true. I mean, the U.S. will probably stand regardless, but, I'm always paranoid about some lunatic dropping a nuke on us one of these days. Oh well. Benghazi may have just been a one time thing on his part, even if he did lie at Arnold. You never know...

Edited November 7, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[Constable Reggie]

I dunno, I just find this whole Benghazi thing really fishy (it makes me think the administration was wary of saying what happened, to avoid something like the Iran hostage attempt fallout). While Obama's speech the day after can be interpreted as calling it an act of terror, so far (aside from the 2nd debate), he's completely avoided calling it a terrorist attack. Besides that, there's news reports of contradictions of the official releases, allegations of multiple denials of increased security, the exclusion of the main Benghazi-covering news media to the CIA briefing, allegations of denial of assistance for the CIA, and other stuff that casts doubt for me. Why not just release all the info you've been given, and say it was a terrorist attack (as they allegedly knew a day after the attack) instead of hiding behind a "thorough investigation"?

Also, I thought the whole idea of the youtube video was trashed. How can people still hold on to that idea? Saying that the two are more than a coincidence is less believable than saying it being the anniversary of 9/11 and the attack are more than a coincidence.

I hope this isn't brought up with just crap like "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness?" or "you're a 'fuck you, got mine' crybaby", because I'd like to know what others think about it too.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Davinatorman