Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Glad to Dave , if you look at past recession statistics the recovery has been on par due to the severity . economist predicted based on previous recession data unemployment would not return to pre recession levels for 8 to 10 years so Obama has done well

If you looked at the Reagan recovery you might find it far more successful than what you think is the "Obama" recovery.

I fully do not blame bush because it was a global recession but his wars and tax cuts resulted in the deficit we now have.

"Bush's" wars were done on a bi-partisan basis - and one of them has greatly been increased by Obama. If his tax cuts were so bad, why did Obama extend them two years and then make 98% of them permanent?

OMB has estimated that 40% of the deficit is due to bush policies. -

That leaves 60% due to somebody else - guess who?

Please note obama was against the war and bush taxes so he hardly is to blame.

Obama was not in a position to have a position on the Iraq war, but he certainly was not against the Afghanistan war and actually increased it. As to the Bush tax cuts, again, they expired at the end of 2010 - the two year extension and then the 98% being made permanent are the Obama tax cuts. Why do you think Obama tax cuts, almost exactly the same as Bush's, were good but Bush's bad?



Also without his stimulus unemployment would be far worst. You spend your way out of recession .

An opinion based on no evidence or historical validation.


Borrowing money now is a great idea now. Why? Because it cost next to nothing to borrow money now. (.5%). Of course once the recovery is self sustaining then its time to pay of the deficit

Do you have any idea why interest rate is so low? Do you think it will always stay that low? Do you understand that the federal debt is long term? Are you aware of what happens to the defict if interest rates rise, even by .5%?


It jut a shame that bush didnt show more restraint which makes the problem more severe

Are you aware that the Bush deficits were falling until the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in '06, and that the last two years of Bush's term were on budgets controlled by that Congress, and they significantly increased the deficits, and Obama voted for them?

Tom, you strike me as a serious person trying to understand - that is why I'm taking the time to respond more comprehensively. You are right in suggesting Bush was not conservative enough, but off the rails by believing Obama's solution of going even further left is the correct one. I'd suggest you consider widening your sources of information - get opinions and facts from sources on both sides.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Regarding the war on oil, I'd like to see the owners of all the refineries shut them down for a week or two as well, again let the public see the results of the leftists ultimate goals.

I agree that Obama is serious about gun control, or more appropiately gun confiscation and making gun ownership illegal, but Congress is not. Congresscritters know that is a losing proposition and will not pass such a law. What they will do are two or three things, some of which have already been proposed. First, they will impose excessive taxes on guns and ammo. Second, they may require gun owners to purchase insurance policies (to the benefit of insurance companies). Third, and this is the most important, they will remove the restrictions that prevent people from suing gun and ammo manufacturers for damages caused by guns and ammo. This will initially benefit the trial lawyers like John Edwards and eventually benefit the government when, just like with the tobacco companies, a Master Settlement Agreement is reached. The MSA will involve huge payments to the government in exhange for re-establishing the lawsuit restrictions.

I also agree Obama is serious about immigration, and he wants to allow anybody who wants to come here to collect welfare to do so legally, because that means more votes for Dems. It looks like Congress is willing to go along with that one, which just means we as a country will go broke slightly quicker.

The overall agenda, which is a bi-partisan one, is to destroy the economy and disarm the citizens so that the UN can implement Agenda 21.

WhoIsJohnGalt

I am certain that any such measures will wind up in court with complaints that they are infringements on the Second Amendment. Whether or not a future Supreme Court will agree that they are is an open question. There is language in the current Senate bill that makes the attempt to start a national register of firearms and firearm owners. This, ostensibly, is being put in place to enforce the laws requiring background checks, even for private sales or even a situation in which you give your firearm to a descendant. I am hoping that the House will see through this ploy and reject the legislation.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

No way, with the possible but unlikely exception of requiring insurance to own a gun.

The other two, taxes and allowing lawsuits against manufacturers are not infringements of the 2nd amendment at all. Sales taxes do not infringe on your right to buy anything. Allowing some moron who accidently shoots him or herself with a Colt handgun loaded with Winchester bullets to sue Colt and Winchester does not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights anymore than allowing some moron who gets injured while misusing a ladder to sue the manufacturer infringes on your right to buy or own a ladder.

What it will do is cause the prices of guns and ammo to rise to the point where only two types can get them, the elites who can afford the prices and the criminals who steal them, which is what Obama and friends want.

sum

When starting a business is illegal and all the jobs are done by illegal immigrants and robots, would anyone be surprised if welfare was cut off to everyone who criticized the government?