The recession really hasn't hit our area bad at all yet. I'm starting to see a lot less apartments being constructed, which sucks for me and my dad since we do layout for apartments.Is it really that bad there? I can think of 10 places hiring around me for minimum wage
I hate idiots like you who think he won only because he is black. I didn't vote for him, yet I even know this is the biggest ****ing farce about the election. The amount of people who voted for him because he was black was canceled out by those that didn't vote for him because he was black.obama shouldnt have got in. hes black. big deal. look im a black person,,, vote for me.
I disagree with this statement.I hate idiots like you who think he won only because he is black. I didn't vote for him, yet I even know this is the biggest ****ing farce about the election. The amount of people who voted for him because he was black was canceled out by those that didn't vote for him because he was black.
Until you can provide the numbers on both sides, we can only assume that.
Get a grip of either your racism or your ignorance or possibly both.
Now to get to the main topic of this thread, you are right. Throwing more money isn't the answer and I am just as sick of it.
The President isn't the only person responsible for the financial status of a nation. There is the congress, local legislators, the American people, an emerging global economy, a boom and a bust, national disasters, war, etc....I'm not gunna say for sure, since I was too young to be into politics, and there's no point in digging up old politics for sake of a chance that it might be referenced... but the facts remain, when Clinton came out of office, there was a low percentage of unemployment, and we were in a surplus (Something, which I believe, hasn't happened in a LONG time prior to Clinton.)
Obama and congress Dems just spent more in the first few weeks in Office than Bush spent on the Iraq war in 5 yearsI don't like the bill but I'd like to remain cautiously optimistic about it. But seriously it's just fine to piss away a trillion dollars in the desert on the other side of the world but not ok to use it to help the economy? Okay, got it.
That maybe so, but that still doesn't mean that there wasn't a sufficient amount of racist whites that voted McCain purely based on Obamas race to cancel out the black votes Obama got purely on his race.I disagree with this statement.
I believe plenty of whites thought Obama was more "Presidential looking" than McCain. Even I think so. Obama carries himself far better than McCain did in the campaign.
but who says those whites didnt vote for him because he is black?That maybe so, but that still doesn't mean that there wasn't a sufficient amount of racist whites that voted McCain purely based on Obamas race to cancel out the black votes Obama got purely on his race.
Obama did get a lot of white votes. That only strengthens my case that his "he was only elected because he is black" defense is hogwash.
You yourself just named a contributing factor to his election success that had nothing to do with Race.
There are just as many against as there are for it. See Cato Institute petition signed by 200 academic economists that are completely against the bill.you know there are a considerable amount of economists from all sides of the political spectrum in support of this (or something like it).
btw, i personally am against it
We could go on for days with assumptions and that is my whole point. His defense holds NO WATER. All we have is variables with no value. Until someone can get values for all these variable and plug them into the election results, using it as defense is asinine at best.but who says those whites didnt vote for him because he is black?
just sayin.
Cato is considered the "gold standard" except now because they disagree with the Dems LOLThere are just as many against as there are for it. See Cato Institute petition signed by 200 academic economists that are completely against the bill.