One Term or Two? Romney, Obama Campaigns Launch Fundraising Duel

If we want an America, Obama HAS to be a one term president.

Obama should be removed from all the ballots! Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen per the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision in 1864. Remove hime from the ballots.

Democrats should dump Obama for another candidate. Obama is no good for the country, I just see it getting worse with four more years of Obama.

After reading some of the posts here we can’t afford for anyone but President Obama. By the way read the Constitution before you quote it. Especially Article 4 section 1.

If you want to see what America will look like with a Republican President, just look at Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and now Arizona. Vote Republican and we’ll all be busted back to making $8 an hour. Except, of course, for the “Job Creators”.

@Janet really what has been Obama after 3 years.> Blame Bush!!! Obama has been terrible and his policies is crippling this country.. Keep you head in the sand and not see Obama for who he is… A PROP!!

Posted by: Bill | February 2, 2012, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm

Another 150,000 private sector jobs added in January. That’s at least 100,000 jobs added every month for seven straight months and job growth for 24 straight months.

You’d prefer the Republican Bush model of 700,000 ordinary Americans LOSING their jobs every month, month after month? The Republicans talk a good game, that’s about it.

If you want to see what America will look like with a Republican President, just look at Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and now Arizona. Vote Republican and we’ll all be busted back to making $8 an hour. Except, of course, for the “Job Creators”.

Posted by: mike | February 2, 2012, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm

Yes, let’s talk about Wisconsin, shall we? Funny you don’t hear the left-wing media talking much about Scott Walker these days. Do you want to know why?

Because Governor Scott Walker has achieved great success in a very short time.

All of the hysterics about layoffs predicted by the labor unions never occurred, EXCEPT in districts that were locked into contracts and couldn’t adopt the reforms yet. Overall, Walker’s reforms resulted in MORE TEACHERS being hired, as he promised.

School districts utilizing the governor’s reforms were able to hire 38 percent more teachers than districts that did not use the governor’s reforms. Districts that used the reforms were able to hire 6.78 new teachers per thousand students, while districts that did not use the reforms were able to hire only 4.88 new teachers per thousand students.

According to Governor Walker’s office, if all of the districts surveyed adopted the governor’s reforms, more than 950 additional teachers would have been hired this year. Districts that did not use Governor Walker’s reforms accounted for more than 85 percent of all layoffs. School districts utilizing the governor’s reforms were also able to avoid layoffs at a far greater rate than districts that did not use the governor’s reforms.

Over the last five years the state of Wisconsin school tax levy has increased, on average, by $181 million dollars each year. In recent days, data was released that showed the total school tax levy decreasing by over $47 million dollars. It was the first tax levy decrease in six years. School districts with union contracts that did not adopt Gov. Walker’s reforms showed an increase in their tax levy.

Walker also balanced the state budget and did it while not cutting any services, as he promised. Wisconsin is operating in the black for the first time in a decade.

Given these amazing accomplishments in such a short amount of time, it’s clear those that want to recall Walker are idiots. Walker made them look like fools and he’s not done yet.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

When G.W. Bush first started as President in January 2001, 137,778,000 Americans were employed. Just after the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007, employment was 146,028,000, a net gain of 8.25 million jobs in 6 years. With Bush as President and a Republican Congress, the US was adding 1.375 million jobs per year.

Employment started dropping just as soon as the Dems took over Congress, but when Bush left office 142,187,000 Americans still had a job. Despite the bumbling of the Democratic Congress, Bush still added a total of 4.4 million jobs in his 8 years, that’s a net GAIN of 550,000 jobs per year.

Here’s what has happened to employment since Obama took over.

January 2009, 142,187,000 (when Obama took over)
January 2010, 138,500,000
January 2011, 139,330,000 (Republicans take back the House)
December 2012, 140,790,000

Despite a small recovery since the Republicans took back the House, FEWER Americans have a job now than when Obama took over.

Obama is averaging a LOSS of 450,000 jobs per year.

Posted by: Dan | February 2, 2012, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm

If Obama trickled on their heads his kool aid drinkers would call it a warm summer rain.

I don’t dislike Obama. I think he’s comes across as a nice guy. I’d even take up golf to get inside his mind. And I haven’t played golf since 1987.

Posted by: meab | February 2, 2012, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm

Sorry meab, these nonsense numbers have been posted before and they’re completely bogus.

Using the moment he was sworn in as a start date to blame lost jobs on Obama is just plain stupid.

Bush handed Obama a country in free-fall economic collapse. Close to a million jobs being lost every month through the time just before and just after Obama was inaugurated. The momentum from the Bush collapse was just peaking as Obama took office.

It’s totally bogus to blame those job losses on Obama.

@Truthful One: As of December, 13 million people remain unemployed. Try convincing them that unemployment is Bush’s fault and Obama has solved the country’s economic woes. Straight from Obama’s Mouth: “A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” Obama says. “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” Let’s hold him to his promise. He also said this: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Posted by: meab | February 2, 2012, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm

It’s even worse than you’re stating. The population grew by over 7 million people since 2009. Food stamp usage has increased at 2.7 TIMES the rate compared to Bush since 2009.

It’s been three years. If Obama’s economic policies worked, poverty should be reversing, not accelerating!

Even Liberals admit Obama will be lucky to break even on jobs lost/gained. Obamanites like yourself like to sing his false praises but ignore his true weaknesses. The national debt currently sits at $15.23 trillion and is set to go up with Obama’s latest debt ceiling increase. Therefore, the 100 percent GDP-to-debt threshold has been reached. If $30,000 for every man, woman and child is unpatriotic under Bush, what is $52,000 for every man woman a child? According to you, its success we should all be proud of. Keep the blinders on…

Posted by: truthful one | February 2, 2012, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm

Your numbers are bogus. BTW, the senior drug plan was Ted Kennedy’s baby (conservatives opposed it due to the high costs and were labeled grandma haters by liberals). In case you were asleep, Kennedy wasn’t a Republican. Obama also extended those evil Bush tax cuts and took advantage of them himself, so according to your logic, he’s as bad as Bush.

See when 8.5 million ordinary Americans lose their jobs (during the Bush economic collapse), it’s something we should overlook. When 3.1 million jobs are added (during the Obama administration), we’re supposed to overlook that too.

We understand.

Posted by: Libs Are Hypocrites | February 2, 2012, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm

Bush’s unpaid for seniors drug plan was passed in 2003 with a majority Republican Congress and a Republican president – and you attempt to pretend its not their responsibility? Once again – bogus.

Obama’s debt is at $15.23 trillion and he’s not done yet. He’s increased the national debt faster than any president in history ($4.8 trillion in 3 years). Because of his policies, our national debt equals our GDP. If he gets his way, it will exceed our GDP for the first time in history. What then? I don’t need to explain it to you–I don’t want to explain it to you. You can just explain it to your kids and your grandkids when they ask you why you supported a buffoon that robbed them of their futures.

Posted by: truthful one | February 2, 2012, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm

After Obama became president, trillions in new debt occurred with a majority Democratic Congress and a Democratic president – and you attempt to pretend its not their responsibility? Once again – bogus.

How nice it is that a bunch of criminals can always conveniently push all the fault to the other side. But in fact two sides gang against the people, and their dogs are awarded by Nobel prize and Medal of Freedom, for creating poverty and wars

From the Dept. of Labor: “Hiring will pick up in 2012 but fall short of a robust recovery. The unemployment rate will end the year only a little lower than its 8.5% level in December 2011. That number is likely to tick upward a bit in the next few months as the speed-up in job creation lures more people into searching for work, and then fall very slowly for the rest of the year.

“The U.S. economy starts 2012 with momentum from 200,000 net new jobs added in December, above the monthly average for 2011 of 137,000. That pace is unlikely to be sustained in 2012, however. We expect job creation will average about 170,000 a month in the coming year, only a little faster than the workforce will grow.

“The good showing in December likely isn’t the start of a surge. The labor market faces some high hurdles. Overseas growth is slowing in Asia, and Europe is sliding into a recession. In the U.S., housing demand remains weak, revenue-strapped local governments continue to lay off workers and businesses are slowing down their purchases of new equipment. As a result, gross domestic product will grow only about 2.3% in 2012, well short of the 4% or more that is typical in a recovery.”

Reading skills are important.

what most people on in both parties don’t understand is the Great Depression lasted 12 years because the government stopped putting money into the economy and let any business that was failing fail. The only reason the Great Depression ended because we went to war, borrowed millions of dollars (a lot at te time) along with everyone going to work as a soilder or in a plant making items for the war. Everyone got a job ending the almost 70% unemployment at the time and since everyone had a job, everyone spent money on products that also help the economy. The reason the Dems and the GOP under President Bush did the bailouts was to keep America from going into another Great Depression. Even the banks that survived borrowed money to stay open and buy out the banks that failed. If we allowed all the banks to just fail, millions more Americans would have lost their jobs, those building would be empty, the busineses around those buildings would soon go out of business due to lack of customers (look what happened in Detroit when the car companies moved out, it’s still a mess around where those factories use to be) and more people would lose their jobs, that’s what happened during the Great Depression. If we let the car companies go out of business all the people making the cars, selling the cars, making parts for the cars, fixing the cars all arcoss America would have lost jobs with no place to get work at. This chain effect would have lead to at least 50% unemployment. So we complain about he bailout (all the money was paid back with interest over a year ago) like it did not help anyone and it did. Yes it helped the super rich but it keeped America out of a 2nd Great Depression. The GOP knew because of the bailout and the history of the first Great Depression that President Obama would have to spend trillion of dollars to keep America from going into another Great Depression, both Dems and the GOP signed off on this plan before the bailout and after President Obama won the white house the GOP decided to use this fact against President Obama by out of no where talking about controlling spending and cutting the debt, the debt they knew would rise to keep the economy going and out of another Great Depression. The GOP spend trillions of dollars while the economy was solid for no good reason and it ended up killing the country and now they want to blame President Obama for spending trillions to save America something both parties know had to be done. Oh and by the way the last time the government stopped spending money during a down turn in the economy and let all failing businesses fail was the Great Depression

Posted by: truthful one | February 2, 2012, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm

Endlessly repeating the same propaganda doesn’t make it true. It might work on the ignorant, the weak-minded, and small children but not on anyone who has a shred of logic and common sense. So you might have more luck with the OWS crowd.

None of the Republican plans so far have any real hope of lowering unemployment either. Our high unemployment is being prolonged because of lack of consumer demand, and drastic cuts in government spending will only lower demand and make matters worse. Bust on Obama all you want…the Republicans still have no viable alternative to offer,

I’m remembering Bush and McCain with their wealth of Republican business knowledge and expertise behind them saying “it’s just a rough patch” and “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”.

8.5 million ordinary Americans lost their jobs and would beg to differ with the Republicans and their ‘wealth of business knowledge and expertise”.

I’ll take the current President and his steady progress any day.

Posted by: truth | February 3, 2012, 12:03 am 12:03 am

I wish left wingers were capable of something other than juvenile insults and name calling as a form of political discussion. They apparently aren’t capable of anything more adult. It’s an embarrassment – juvenile.

Our high unemployment is being prolonged because of lack of consumer demand, and drastic cuts in government spending will only lower demand and make matters worse.

Posted by: jumbo shrimp | February 3, 2012, 12:09 am 12:09 am

We already did it your way, big time. Did you miss the fact that we deficit spent $5 trillion in three years and that our national debt now exceeds our entire GDP? It didn’t result in sustained GDP growth as expected and now we have 50% more debt to pay back. Told ya!

There isn’t one economic environment where liberals will cut spending. Boom, stagnation, recession, depression, you name it. The deficit spending never stops.

I’m remembering Bush and McCain with their wealth of Republican business knowledge and expertise behind them saying “it’s just a rough patch” and “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”.

8.5 million ordinary Americans lost their jobs and would beg to differ with the Republicans and their ‘wealth of business knowledge and expertise”.

Posted by: truthful one | February 3, 2012, 12:22 am 12:22 am

Like we need more of that ‘Republican business knowledge and expertise’ now. No thanks.

How juvenile is this?: The Republicans complain about high debt, high unemployment, and high poverty levels, but all of their proposals will only make all of these things worse. Nearly all of their economic predictions since the crash have been totally wrong, and everything they’re offering has already failed whenever it’s been tried before. Even Ronald Reagan increased spending and the debt tremendously. It’s one of the biggest scams in history.

We already did it your way, big time
——————————–

No, we didn’t. The 800 billion dollar stimulus was way too small to compensate for a multi-trillion dollar crash, and spending has shrunk greatly at state and local levels putting a huge drag on the economy. Growth was not sustained because the stimulus ran out.

Government debt is increasing, but the private sector is deleveraging. This is just fine when growth is this slow. When consumers have buying power again it will be time to make a big effort to reduce deficits.

Posted by: jumbo shrimp | February 3, 2012, 12:45 am 12:45 am

The stimulus failed because it wasn’t stimulative. We spent 6% of a $14 trillion GDP to achieve a stimulus of 1.1% to 3.1% growth. There was no multiplier effect. Would you increase your personal debt by 100% to get no more than a 50% return. No you wouldn’t because that would be fiscally stupid.

Posted by: jumbo shrimp | February 3, 2012, 12:53 am 12:53 am

Cite any historic economic cycle when liberals made a big effort to reduce deficits.

Posted by: truth | February 3, 2012, 1:07 am 1:07 am

That wasn’t the question.

Do YOU support the Medicare Part D program or not?

cite any cycle where Republicans made a big effort to reduce deficits

Posted by: jumbo shrimp | February 3, 2012, 1:17 am 1:17 am

My source is a CBO report.

The CBO puts the majority of the stimulus’ impact in 2010, when the unemployment rate began the year at 9.7 percent, peaked at 9.9 percent in April, and ended the year at 9.4 percent. In other words, even when the stimulus was at peak efficacy, it had minimal impact on the national unemployment rate. The report stated that the maximum impact on the unemployment rate was 1.8 percent and as low as .6 percent, and that it boosted “(inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent.”

Posted by: truth | February 3, 2012, 1:19 am 1:19 am

We know you support Medicare Part D (you like all government programs). Therefore, you support the Republicans who passed it. Which makes you a colossal hypocrite.

Yeah, the CBO said the stimulus created or saved a few million jobs and held down unemployment by 1 or 2 points…..that’s not nothing, especially considering all the other things at state and local levels stimulus funds were used for. You can call it ‘minimal’, they and other economists do not. It’s just semantics.

We know you support Medicare Part D (you like all government programs).
Posted by: Libs Are Hypocrites | February 3, 2012, 1:27 am 1:27 am

Except for you don’t know, and you’ve already proved yourself a liar, so nobody would care regardless.

Why would anyone vote for Obama again? He has done NOTHING for the country! He has no record of success to run on! The economy is still down 2 million jobs on Obama’s watch! The debt has grown by $5 trillion on Obama’s watch! The only thing Obama does well is blame everyone else for his failures, like Bush and others without taking any blame himself. Oh I forgot to add, he does real well at vacationing to!

Posted by: BIG JIMMY | February 3, 2012, 1:54 am 1:54 am

big jimmy you should pay attention and do some research you might learn something. everything you posted has already been shown to be torn to pieces and proved idiotic on this blog tonight.

Obama rules!! Nation’s better off with someone that’s not a mulch-millionaire that loves to fire people and don’t care about the poor.

_____”Yes, let’s talk about Wisconsin, shall we? Funny you don’t hear the left-wing media talking much about Scott Walker these days. Do you want to know why?
Because Governor Scott Walker has achieved great success in a very short time.”

POSTED BY: STACEY | FEBRUARY 2, 2012, 10:34 PM 10:34 PM___________________LOL! That’s right, Stacy, now we know why Scot Walker is being recalled.

“According to Governor Walker’s office…”

Think there might be a little bias there, “Stacey’?

Walker has been very successful in energizing his opposition, that is for sure. One million signatures in support of a Walker recall effort. Beyond that, he is dependent on the Kochtopus.

Know what Wisconsin and Arizona have in common? They both allow for the recall of the governor.

R-E-C-A-L-L Walker and Witchy poo Brewer.

For the sake of clarity and to educate the “LIBS ARE HYPOCRITES” dude who doesn’t like like the truth, please note the following FACT:

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (Medicare Part D) was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert.

FYI Hastert is a Republican. One more FACT for you to chew on.
_____________________________

And I can honestly say I do not support any plan that prevents the government from negotiating better or lower prices for health care and/or prescription drugs for senior citizens.