E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CHARLOTTE, NC -- Republicans gathered here to counter the Democratic National Convention seized Tuesday on President Barack Obama's self-grade of "incomplete" after his first term.
Picking up on the grade the president gave himself with a Colorado television affiliate, a series of Republicans pounced during a press conference at at the Nascar Hall of Fame, where Republicans have set up camp during the DNC.
"I have a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old. I know if on their report card they came home with an incomplete that means they failed," said South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
The Romney campaign, backed by the RNC, is holding its own counter-convention in Charlotte this week, primarily challenging the president's record on the economy. Andrea Saul discusses.
When asked to grade his time in the Oval Office, the president told a local Colorado television station on Monday: "You know I would say incomplete ... but what I would say is the steps that we have taken in saving the auto industry, in making sure that college is more affordable and investing in clean energy and science and technology and research, those are all the things that we are going to need to grow over the long term."
Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Rep. Tim Scott and former Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Small Business Administration Jovita Carranza also spoke at the press conference and all used it as an opportunity to slam the president's self assessment.
"When the president was asked what grade he would give himself, he obviously had a quick look at his report card and saw a big 'I' on it. He thought the 'I' was for incomplete. The 'I' was for incompetent," said Sununu.
And tea party favorite Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) was able to draw on some personal experience when giving his interpretation of the president's answer.
"I understand an incomplete is a way to avoid a failing grade. As a freshman in high school, I flunked out," he said. "When you're in that situation you really want something that looks like an incomplete grade, but unfortunately what you get from the people who are actually grading you is a failed grade. Our president was asked the question: Are we better off? It's a failed grade."
NBC's Savannah Guthrie and Meet The Press moderator David Gregory join Brian Williams to discuss this week's events at the Democratic National Convention.
Haley also addressed women's issues just hours before Democrats are set to kick off their convention. One of Tuesday night's most-watched speakers will be Michele Obama, who is expected to stress her husband's humble upbringing. The well-liked first lady has been one of the Obama campaign's strongest assets in appealing to women voters.
As Planned Parenthood held a rally just a block away, Haley attempted to downplay the notion that abortion rights issues have alienated women from the Republican party.
"Let me tell you about women. Women are extremely smart. Woman are extremely right. We don't only think about contraception. We think about a lot more then contraception. I know pro-life women that are in the Democratic Party. I know pro-choice women that are in the Republican Party. but I also know that all women care about their budgets, they care about their jobs, they care about the economy," she said.
David Goldman / AP
Democrats gather in Charlotte, N.C., to officially nominate President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden as the party's candidates for the 2012 presidential election.
Leave a Comment:
"Incomplete" is an accurate summary of Obama's first 4 and unfortunatly that's why we are not better than we were 4 years ago, we're barely treading water.
With no plans to change directions why would we expect anything different?
Incomplete? YES! When at work, you are given things to do, but if your always, blocked from doing your job, it becomes incomplete. Republicans have thrown up block, after blocks, after blocks, to hinder our president work. It was not for the lack of trying, that this president has an incomplete, But from all the illigal blocks from republican, that do not like OBAMA, for being the first person of color, to not only hold this office, BUT for wooping a white mans axx. McClain too is bitter about this, and is trying to remove the black eye he recieved, bake in the 09 election. The republicans are ,and will always be, POOR LOSERS. Like thay lost in 09, thay will lose in 12 election. Money will not buy this electionfor them!!!!!!!!!! And although flipper romney tries to lie, and hide his taxes, from the people, WHEN it comes out, HE WILL GO DOWN, HARD!
Republican did not go to congress, to help this nation, but to ruin it!!!! Show ONE bill thay came up with that would help. Thay are people who go's on witch hunts, declares wars on america's people. This has GOT TO STOP NOW! Wars on women, eldetly,poor, and people of color, is not the way to help run a country, IT'S A WAY TO RUIN A COUNTRY! When I look back to all the good republicans who built this country, It makes me sick to see the bad repo's attempt to ruin it. COMMUNISTS are not what we are. We love our freedom to much to let them take it away from us!!!
Do you realize, starting with the 110th Congress that the Democrats have held the majority in Washington since 2007, either by controlling all 3 branches or both houses of Congress or one house of congress and the Presidential office? Are you saying that even though the Democrats have been in control for almost 6 years that they were still unable to do anything about the downward spiral the nation is in? Are you saying even though they held the majority they could not stop Bush? Are you saying the Democratic Party is that inept? During that 6 years the national debt has went up 6 Trillion dollars.
Blaming Bush for Obama's debt is like giving Reagan credit for Clinton's surplus.
Democratic position:
Save the trees.. Give murderers life in prison. Allow unborn life to be terminated
Hug a tree... forgive a murderer.. extinguish innocent life based on how it was conceived.
I am personally pro choice for murder.. Don't think abortion is an appropriate term for how they extract a living organism from a woman's body.
A fetus by its definition is a parasite that feeds off its host but we all believe that a parasite is a living organism.. So how does life not begin at conception?
Definition of parasite: 1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or
in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Definition of murder:
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: (I think vacumming out a life would count as this)
Has to be a difficult position to be put in in any circumstances. Just feel that the more we talk about polarizing topics and this will no doubt get people's blood boiling..
I bet to the point that you forget that the last four years have been wasted and no real change has happened in this great country to make us believe that the next four years under this president will be any different. Good strategies DEMs... dont worry your REP counterparts arent much better... :)
Instead of chest pumping passion and mud slinging at their
opponents, will either candidate actually talk about how they are going to make
things different. Gas prices are still high, food prices still rising, homes
not selling for their worth, economy still struggling, education system
failing, 23 million unemployed, millions without access to healthcare. Is 4
years enough time for anyone to get real progress made? Out line your plans to
make this country safer, more productive, stable for our children, education
and healthcare. STOP speaking to polsters and main stream topics that polarize
people and help make lasting improvements in this nation that actually trickle
down to the people that have been struggling for the past 8 years.. Both side
are to blame but both sides have to take responsibility for repairing things
not just alienating a whole party of people
recommended the following PBS video to you:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2218309368
Grade: incomplete.
I understand one of the mantras is binLaden is dead and GM is alive. Hear! Hear!
Well, wait a minute. What about the Delphi 20,000 whose pensions weren't exactly saved? The 20,000 non-union salaried. Oh. Hmmm, must be someone else's fault. As long as the union employees' pensions are whole. But we can't read anything into that. Or that GM's still on the hook (that's a laugh) for something like $25 B, since the shares are priced so low. But we got a good deal.
Over 20,000,000 unemployed, and we're now officially hoping that some day we can get our National Debt DOWN TO $16 T. Four more years! Look forward. Indeed.
For those of you familiar with performance reviews, a detailed review of past performance is, shall we say, a key part? Hardly something to ignore.
I wonder how many of the 320,000,000 are better off than they were on January 21, 2009.
F&B666
recommended the following PBS video to you:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2218309368
Watch the video and tell me which position would you perfer to be in at this point. And this is where Mitt Romney will take you back to, and this time there will be no President Obama to help Americans.
sgirl54,
For what it's worth, I couldn't get your link to work, and the 'NaN' (not a number) text that popped up when I hovered over the video pause button was the real tell. I suggest that for those interested, they cut and paste this link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/
In any case, I vaguely recall seeing that, and browsed thru parts of it during lunch before responding. I think my question to you is how does this relate to the 'are you better off' question, which is admittedly much, much broader, more general form of the unemployed issue I raised. You may think that is going off-topic, and I won't argue that point too strenously. If I interpret your post correctly, you may be taking the position that 'things could have been worse'. Further, you may be suggesting that Romney is somehow (explicitly?) advocating giving the financial institutions, especially the investment banks, cart-blanche, a return to (Russian) roulette-like risk-taking. If so, I'm inclined to think Romney smarter, much smarter, than that. But perhaps you have some concrete evidence or sources.
Still, I think a major issue with the decision on voting for a candidate should be past performance, and 'are you better off' a valid question. Something of the flavor of 'He/they had a difficult challenge' or 'It could be worse', with due respect, doesn't cut it for me. And I iterate that I can't say for sure if that is the point you wanted to make.
And how do you view the contention buried in my post that perhaps there was an element of favoritism in the GM rescue package?
F&B666
"And how do you view the contention buried in my post that perhaps there was an element of favoritism in the GM rescue package?"
Meh, no, no there wasn't. The bailouts were actually remarkably in proportion to the crisis faced or not faced (Ford, at least at first, was in much better shape than the other two) by each company.
As for are we better off, of course we are. See my independent post. Anyone who can't see that the country is in a WAY better position than Bush drove it to, isn't conscious.
mdmtnwmn,
'Meh'?
There wasn't? I don't follow your 'remarkably in proportion' as it realtes to the allegation that 20,000 non-union pensions didn't get the same treatment. I wasn't referring to other companies. I hope you don't split hairs by looking at Delphi as a separate company. I don't argue that distinction; it was spun off by GM in 1999 as an independent company, by I consider that a distinction that isn't.
I also suggest the 'are we better off' question is more accuratelt answered on an individual basis, as your 'we' doesn't include my wife or I. I would venture it does not include quite a few other people. As many of us are quite conscious.
F&B666
Ah, just saw this. As for proportion, I don't have those numbers at my fingerprints. I did research them at the time for a GM supplier's annual report I was writing at the time and was struck by how the ratio of the size of the bailouts nearly equaled the ratio of the size difference between the companies, with Chrysler's amount on the lower side - not surprising since it was in less trouble than GM. You should know that Congress did not simply hand out arbitrary amounts; both companies asked for help and specified what they needed and why. Those numbers were gone over and the rules made (no new golden parachutes, etc.) as scrupulously as possible given the urgency.
Whether one group of employees got their pensions saved or not is a bit moot considering the alternative Romney preferred, don't you think? Without the bailout, there would be no employees to lose a pension. Not sure about pensions being lost, either, are you sure? Actual pensions or employee vesting in 401K company contributions? While I'm not familiar with Delphi per se, pensions are normally held separately from a company's P&L, in trust, and aren't affected even if the company does go bankrupt. My dad, for example, has been collecting pension for 20 years past the time the company he worked for ceased to exist.
"We" - well, I count you and your wife as part of the country and the country as a whole is better off. If the country as a whole is better off, so are you - because you'd be in worse shape if it weren't.
The business my husband owns has not recovered to the same levels as pre-Recession, but most of corporate America is doing as well as or better - which means that at least our stock portfolio (retirement) has recovered and then some. As more people can afford our services and housing starts increase, our business will also continue to improve.
We're not on the dole. We're not living in a shelter. We're not eating at a soup kitchen. All of that would have been more than possible, perhaps probable, were it not for the interventions that kept the economy afloat and triggered recovery.
mdmtnwmn,
Sorry for the jump around posts.
I was referring to the issue of 20,000 employees of a non-union company, Delphi, not getting pension treatment like GM employees did, and whether or not that was politically motivated. It isn't moot based on what Romney preferred. It's mildly relatively, possibly moot, if it were due to politics. The agreement between GM and its employees in the '99 spinoff alone suggests rather shabby plans for Delphi employees. I understand that pensions are (should be) separate from other company assets. But then, GM's pension obligations (I thought) became part of the issue in the bailout. But, enough of this thread.
We can agree to disagree, I guess, as to whether the country as a whole or most individuals is/are better off than the beginning of this administration. We aren't. At best, we're about the same. What would have happened under other circumstances, however educated a guess, is still that.
recommended the following PBS video to you:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2218309368
If anyone is unsure about weather they are better off today than they were (4) years, be my guess and watch the tape and response to Paul Ryan Favor vote repeal the Banking Regulations.
Its strange that Paul Ryan would ask that question. Maybe Ryan doesn't remember or just lying.
The GOP, especially Lyan, have zero credibility now. Try again in 4 years.
Ricardo98,
For example:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obamas-broken-deficit-promise/
Obama did not qualify his pledge with anything like "unless the republicans prevent me from doing so". And, in any event, he did have majorities in both chambers of congress for his first two years. Here we are, four years later, with a deficit that is still well over a trillion, and a national debt that of 'only' $16 Trillion is now something we have to wish and strive for.
Just one example. Zero credibility? Four more years? You and many others seem to desire that?
What response, other than 'it could have been worse' (but that is not 'forward-looking is it?) does the democratic party have?
F&B666
Michelle Obama reminds us that:
Because, some seem to forget how far we are "back from that cliff," that 8 years of the GOP almost pushed us off. We are actually better off today, than we were in January 2009. It does & will take time to repair the damage that Mr. Obama faced on day one. People need to really be honest. We had a strong working class, when President Clinton left office. There was a...
government surplus.
We were not at war. All things changed, when Bush/Cheney decided to ignore the Clinton administration warning about threats against the USA. And, even then, after our troops were sent to Afghanistan, instead of staying there to win that war, they started another in Iraq. We were lied to, the Congress was lied to, and so we lost our edge in Afghanistan. It wasn't that our military didn't do "their" job, but that our leaders in Washington, never really wanted to win. They wanted to make money for their friends, goverment military contractors.
It took Mr. Obama's administration to get the info needed to have our Seals kill
bin Laden, because Bush/Cheney lost interest. And, because this president had the guts to put control on the banking industry, we & what we do have, are safe from thieves speculating with our incomes. We have a much improved health care plan, that benefits the patient, not the insurance companies or providers. Every single manufacturing industry---in the USA, not out sourced, is doing steadily better, because this president had the guts to say---We must help the American automotive industry & so, many connected with these industries are working.
Above all, as we all know, this man has done great things for Americans---inspite of the GOP gang in Congress, who have done all in their power to undermine this country.
Yes, many are still unemployed, including my son, but I know & understand that it takes time to rebuild after such intentional destruction of America. Only, this president can or will keep the progress going forward. Romney/Ryan are the past, not the future of America.
See More
LikeUnlike ·
8 years... really? When did Nancy P. take over the house? Yeah, libbies want to forget that... as do the rest of us. What was it Nancy said?..., oh yeah, there will be no increase in the debt; what a whopper!
"Are we better off today?" Actually we are far better off than we were with Bush-Cheney who stubbornly catered to the 1% and arrogantly took the 99% for granted ... and that is what they actually want to return to. Bush-Cheney and the Republican / Tea Party took us to the crisis point in several areas as they belligerently focused on serving only the few and just giving the majority subterfuge to rationalize and deceive, literally taking the people for granted as if "pawns" to be manipulated at their will. Today the Republicans are teamed with "big money's" power, influence and financial support and being emboldened by past successes they are cocky confident in their ability to deceive, to control and sway voters, to first, fault Obama for all problems, second, to have acceptance for their goals which deceptively always benefit only the few and last, to support a return to "more of the same". Can we really endure "more of the same", Bush-Cheney style?
This list is just some of the deceptions included in "more of the same", without elaboration, and simply assuming that the arrogant and insulting, grossly self-serving and belligerently dishonest nature of the issues will be remembered. Remember: the multiple tax cuts heavily weighted for the wealthy; Global Warming stated as not a problem; private accounts recommended for Social Security; the actual minimized/ignored warnings before 9/11 while concentrating on Iraq; trumped up justification for attacking Iraq; abandoned effort in Afghanistan; Afghanistan presented as secure; the false coalition with America paying 95%+; Iraqi oil money never paying for the war as was proposed; pressure put on the intelligence community for finding justification; including the authorized departure from Geneva Convention rules; frequent misrepresentations to manipulate public opinion; no bid contracts ($100B's) to favored vendors; responsibility for port security offered to Dubai Ports; always excusing the growing deficit and unfavorable trade deficit in serving only the interests of "the money"; the apathetic reaction to the hurricane Katrina aftermath; blocking bringing less costly American drugs back into the US; vengefully exposing the CIA agent's identity; squelching the "wiretapping without court order" story; falsely raising the security threat level before 2004 election;
.... the excessive deregulation and lack of any responsible oversight favoring the few and resulting in unchecked greed, gross dishonesty and criminal self-indulgence eventually bringing down the financial industry; encouraging the deportation of American jobs and taxes; the policies greatly favoring the oil companies; the sociopathic GWBush falsely presented as a "born again Christian"; ... and then after Bush-Cheney: the Republican's concentration on their political ambitions above all else; stubbornly obstructing and faulting all efforts to address problems; irresponsibly withholding any bipartisan cooperation; aggressively intimidating and coercing their own representatives to force unity; supporters organizing, directing and funding the Tea Party movement, like the "Swift-boat" propaganda and the manipulation of the conservative Christian all aimed to deceptively excite and sway public opinion; the constant catering to the interests of "the money", no matter what it costs the people; the absence of a conscience or real support for women's rights; the presenting and backing of Ryan's budget heavily favoring "the money" and costing the majority; ... continuing on and on, without any conscience and always aimed to benefit only the few, their supporters and controllers, while insultingly taking the people for granted as just "pawns" to be used and abused.
It isn't a difference in philosophies. The real deception is in their concentration on serving only the few while taking the majority for granted. These elections are not about Republican versus Democrat, they are not about "conservative" versus "liberal", they literally are about "the money" versus the people, about whether the voters will be conned, used and continually be abused when giving "the money" the control they seek in electing their "puppet" politicians ... or will the people be strong enough and with the clear vision to cry out "no more" and reject the propaganda aimed to control them, reject the "puppet" politicians who will only serve their own ambitions and "the money's" interests and thus firmly reject the control "the money" has over government. Today the Republican / Tea Party, in alliance with "the money" as their masters, is steadily pushing for this country to be a two-class society with the 1% competing in having it all while the 99% continues to struggle. It is really up to the voters. Can they see through the mega-bucks being spent to con and control them or will they be manipulated into supporting "the money's" interests against their own interests? We will have to wait and see but just as "you can't get blood from a turnip", because there just isn't any there, all that is there in today's Republican /Tea Party is what is listed above.
RGiles,
What makes you think the last admiminstration took taxpayers with AGIs of $343.926 for granted?
What role did a democrat majority congress play during the previous administration, none?
'excessive deregulation'? The final tally on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act included some 380 house votes and 90 senate votes. That was in 1999, and could hardly be classified as a republican repeal, other than the initial bill. Seems like a lot bought on to it when they had a chance to get their dibs. So much for PotC-like pontification by and for the Democratic Party, at least on that deregulatory move.
I don't think either party has the market cornered on sanctimony or umbrage, if that helps.
Time to clean house, I think.
F&B666
Country in further decline (Ryan) v 4.5M jobs created (Obama), which is it, who is embellishing their side for affect? What isn't embellished (as both sides take liberties and do much the same) is the fact that Bush-Cheney concentrated totally on catering to the 1% and ignoring responsibilities to the 99% while bringing this country to crisis point in many areas - then Obama fought to minimize the downslide and keep from experiencing much worse, all against the Republican's self-serving resistance and their totally withholding bipartisan cooperation while only faulting and blocking all efforts and concentrating on their political ambitions without concern or conscience for the costs to the people - and now, with the strong support of money, power and influence from the 1%, the Republicans want to con the people into allowing a return to "more of the same", Bush-Cheney style, again with the total focus on the interests of "the money". None of this is embellished and all of it is accurate.
Love the line that the DEM's want everything in America to be free ..except the people..
Free health insurance for all..give out food stamps.. give handouts to all that wont lift a finger for anything else. But you can only eat if you are sitting at the government table... Wish all the families that immigrated to America were given that option... oh yeah they were.. by Old England and thats why they left ..to be free from having a monarchy telling them how they had to live their lives and be the only source of how things got offered to the people. Can we put on our funny white wigs and sit at the table King Obama?
The general description of those 'desirables' is 'golden chains.'
Republicans are just looking for the next jingle. None have stuck so far so they keep grasping at straws.
Of course it's an "incomplete," thanks to the Party of No & Layoff Every Gov't Worker Seen, we're at least 3 million jobs behind where we should be, maybe more. Why Republicans think reversing the progress made and going back to the policies and practices that caused the financial crisis will improve things is beyond comprehension. I am convinced that the money and power behind the Party doesn't believe it, but also doesn't care. In best Ayn Rand fashion, they plan to get theirs and get out before it hits the fan again.
The rest of the President's record, however can't be beat:
Bush increased the rate of national debt gain by 318%; economists predict Romney-Ryan policies will also increase rate of debt increase
Obama decreased the rate of national debt gain by 30%
Under Bush and Republican policies still advocated by Romney-Ryan, US stock market lost 44% value
Under Obama, US stock market gained 118% value, recovering to near-record highs
Under Bush and Republican policies still advocated by Romney-Ryan, US financial institutions collapsed; w/o intervention, economists predicted another Great Depression with unemployment soaring to 30+%
Under Obama, US financial institutions now fully solvent, profitable and lending again; thanks to interventions, unemployment stopped at 10.1% Bush-driven peak, brought down to 8.2% with steady declines for over 29 months; Jobs Act and other measures blocked by Republican Congress would create another 2 million jobs, bringing unemployment down further to around 7.7%.
Other factors affecting employment include unpredented gains in productivity, meaning that many jobs simply no longer exist, no matter how well the economy does. New industries such as green energy must be nurtured to create new job markets.
Under Bush, foreclosure properties up 39%
Under Obama, foreclosure properties down 34%
Under Bush, Osama Bin Laden alive, whereabouts unknown for 7 years
Under Obama, Osama Bin Laden found and killed in 3 years
Under Bush, 2 wars for profit started: 6,280 US soldiers dead and 41,936 US soldiers wounded as a result
Under Obama, both wars brought to an end, one within 3 years, one within 5 (still too long)
Under both Bush/Romney-Ryan and Obama, Medicaid is government run
Under Bush and Obama, Medicare is government run to protect seniors and guaranteed to cover seniors’ health care needs
Under Romney-Ryan, Medicare is not government run to protect seniors and is not guaranteed to cover seniors’ health care needs
Under Bush/Romney-Ryan, 59.1 million Americans—20%--are and would stay uninsured (Q1 2010)
Under Obama PPACA, healthcare coverage will be universally affordable and accessible
Also under Obama:
- Insurance companies not allowed to deny coverage due to previous conditions
- Insurance companies not allowed to suspend or discontinue coverage when consumer becomes
sick
- Insurance companies not allowed to charge premiums and deliver no paid coverage (catastrophic plans)
- Insurance companies must cover and pay for well checks and routine screenings
- Insurance companies not allowed to charge women more than men
- Insurance companies not allowed to charge full price for partial benefits
- Insurance companies must at a minimum cover a defined set of health care benefits (e.g.,
if it doesn’t cover xyz, it can’t be sold as “health insurance”)
- Insurance companies must compete to provide coverage within health care insurance markets
(exchanges regulated to protect individual consumers) for individuals not covered by employer-paid plans
- Medicare prescription care fully funded
- Medicaid expanded on sliding scale to cover those who cannot afford full cost of private premiums
"Obama decreased the rate of national debt gain by 30%"
Cite your source for that one.
Go to presidentialdebt dot org
National debt........
Pre-crisis Bush best = $5,943,438,563,436; Bush worst = $10,699,804,864,612; Change = +89%
Today = $15,125,898,976,397; Change = +41%
Under Bush rate of national debt increase rose from 5% in 2001 to 15.9% in 2008, worsening 318%
Under Obama rate of national debt increase declined from 15.9% in 2009 to 4.8% in 2011, improving 30.2%
mdmtnwmn,
Ummm, today it's over $16+12 zeros. During the Bush administration, which included democratic pursestring holding majorities in both chambers, the increase in eight years was approximately $5 trillion. The Obama administration, so far, has increased it by about $5.4 trillion. That's about 3.75 years.
Decreasing the rate of increase in the national debt? Really? Wow, talk about really reaching.
Funny how things can be viewed to suit.
By the way, I still haven't figured out what 'Meh' means, unless it was a typo (that happens to all of us).
The number was drawn from 12/31/11 to compare against 12/31/08, apples to apples.
Slowing down the rate of debt increase isn't a good thing? Would accelerating "suit" you better? Oh, yes, it would, since that is what Bush did and Romney/Ryan are proposing if you look at the logical outcome of cutting top tax rates and increasing military spending.
And why does Romney/Ryan want to increase military spending when we're ending two wars?
"Meh" via Wikipedia: "Meh" is an interjection, often used as an expression of indifference or boredom. It can also be used as a verb, (rendering something uninteresting or boring) and an adjective, meaning mediocre, boring, or apathetic
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obama-s-policies-increase-national-debt-47-percent-217-trillion-2022
So Obama is on track to double the debt like Bush did despite not having to fund two wars. That's real progress.
BTW looking at the link you sent I see that this year will be the first time debt is going to exceed GDP. I also notice that since Obamacare doesn't really kick in untill 2014 to that end that rate of growth will increase dramatically....guranteed. That's even better progress. Also don't assume that Obamacare, as it is currently written, will do much to help with controlling cost either...
http://business.time.com/2012/07/19/why-obamacare-should-be-redesigned-not-repealed/
mdmtnwmn,
Thanks for the explanation of 'meh'.
You might have to re-read my posts (sorry if you find them boring), but I said nothing about decreasing the rate not being desirable. I merely wanted to point out, for the most part, that the percent changes in the debt are one way to look at it, depending on how one defines the denominator. Another way is to look at the absolute differences (the absolute increase over 8 years vs the increase over about 3.75 years, for example). No, increasing the debt, or by inference the rate of increase, would not be acceptable to me, but that should be obvious, I think. Unless your question was rhetorical or sarcastic.
I don't know that you have a solid basis about the effect of Romney's plans, as you only mention two items out of many.
I will have to spend a bit of time reviewing exactly what is available re Romney's view on military spending changes. I'm sure you'll agree that words like 'increase' and 'decrease' with regard to federal spending, all need to be careful looked at in their context.
md, type less and think more; your numbers don't add up. Do you work in the White House?
Imagine Romney-Ryan Team nominating next one or two Supreme Court Justices! Isn't that a scary thought?
Very scary - next they would support just giving government to the 1% instead of simply allowing them to buy elections.
People are better off today because the downslide is ending and the recovery has begun. People are better off today because Obama took over after Bush-Cheney blew through the surplus given them by Clinton, after Bush-Cheney strarted the dynamically growing deficit by totally focusing on the interests of the 1% and irresponsibly ignoring the interests of the 99%, after Bush-Cheney brought this country to several crisis points in several areas with the costly exploitation by the few, allowed by permissive politicians and rationalized as "conservative", with Obama having effectively minimized the downslide by responsibly responding to the problems over the Republicans' arrogant faulting and stubborn blocking, as they put their political ambitions and the serving of their masters, "the money", above any concern for the costs to the people. The people are better off today because we didn't have the likes of Romney-Ryan in charge who would focus on serving the 1% and just say "let the rest fail".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8R5GvwUFU8
libbies can not handle the truth..., even when it is the President that is doing the talking.
FYI http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
A Comprehensive List Of Obama's Worst Executive Orders JUNE 15, 2012 BY LAURIE ROTH,
Anyone know what the word FALSE means, roflmao