Voting romney is about as useful as banging yer head against the wall, but hey bush got elected and after that nothing will suprise me anymore about americans

7 things americans believes are lies

US national debt

That you dont have to pay for healthcare in most of the western world

Global warming

Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction

War crimes is ok, if yer american and does it not if yer saddam hussein

Its great for safety to own a gun, even better when just anyone can go in and get one fire them off at schools every couple of months WE CAN NOT REGULATE GUNS!!

Mcdonalds food is great for health


Im sure theres more fun stuff but im too lazy half of the people reading this post wont understand it anyway

What is there to understand? It was one of the most ignorant things i've ever read.

I think Ivan is the one banging his head against the wall. That was dumbest post ever. All i can say is that voting for Obama is giving up your rights. No matter what good he could do ( i say could because so far he has only done bad things) it would be far outweighed by his taking away our rights and freedoms. Obama thinks the American people are too dumb to know whats good for ourselves and that its the governments job to make sure we do the right thing. I disagree. Under Romney, he is right of center but he is also towards the middle SOME. He will not take away our freedoms. He can turn the economy around. And God help us if Obama gets reelected. I am in a UNION and i will vote for Romney. I urge everyone to vote for Romney.

Maybe if he would haved tried tort reform to restrict and limit the cost of lawsuits on medical care, but his administration flat admitted that the lawyers had them in their back pockets. He could have gone after reducing the cost of getting paid that some doctors face (where in some cases, for every $1 of care, it cost $1 to get paid). Obama could have tried real reform that went after the source of increased costs, instead of adding another bureaucratic nightmare onto Americans. Until the real sources of high healthcare costs are addressed, Obama cannot (in my book) claim to have passed Healthcare reform.

For the record, I would hope that people would say NO when you're going in the wrong direction. I would hope that people would do everything in their power to keep a moron like Obama from driving America off the cliff.



The states are getting trampled on by the federal government almost everyday with the federal government very rarely being taken to task. The federal government has trully forgotten just which government is closer to the sovereignty of this nation and which government has a very limited role to play. The federal government now believe that the states have a limited role to play and that the federal government holds the sovereignty of this country. That's completely wrong. The people hold sovereignty of this country; they give a portion of their sovereignty to the states; the states, in turn, give a smaller port of sovereignty to the federal government. If for no other reason that to remind the federal government as to just who is closest to the power of this country, 2/3rds of the state legislatures should petition congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing several amendments.

List of Amendments I would like to see:

An amendment to restore the strength of state government against the federal government; to restore a more thorough barrier for the federal government to overcome if they wish to tell a state what to do.

An amendment to move from direct election of US Senators to the state legislatures electing US Senators again; this is intended to keep at least one house of congress dependent on the state and more answerable to the people. I believe that the state, being closer to the people, will be more able to put forward the people's case to our senators.

An amendment to formally divide the US Constitution into appropriate sections and to require the US Congress to declare in every bill under what sections of the US Constitution they are passing a bill and to limit the defense of that bill before the courts to only those sections of the Constitution that the Congress passed the bill under. Under such an amendment, Obama would have either had to defend his individual mandate as a tax or it would have been found unconstitutional if congress passed the bill under the commerce clause alone. The president should not be allowed to lie to the American people as Obama did. Previously laws, would be unaffected by this amendment.

"An amendment to formally divide the US Constitution into appropriate sections and to require the US Congress to declare in every bill under what sections of the US Constitution they are passing a bill"

That doesn't solve much. Quick example: that would mean one could effectively ban guns by creating an astronomical annual tax on them under the mandate of taxing powers and no one would be able to challenge that law under the right to bare arms?

Any law should, in theory, be subject to the scrutiny to the entire constitution and the interpretation of such needs to be independent of the legislative branch as much as possible.


"An amendment to move from direct election of US Senators to the state legislatures electing US Senators again; this is intended to keep at least one house of congress dependent on the state and more answerable to the people."
So moving from directly elected to appointed by an elected body is more democratic? I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning.

"An amendment to restore the strength of state government against the federal government; to restore a more thorough barrier for the federal government to overcome if they wish to tell a state what to do."
That would mean that the state governments would have to be more responsible no? If you want an example of how the reverse situation works, study Canada... not to say that our provinces are more responsible mind you.. but their authority in most areas is very noticeable. Strong state(provincial) governments have their pros and cons. Try needing to register your drivers license with a different agency every time you change provinces..

I was going to ask the same question Martian... why do you think moving away from direct election of senators to having the state legislature elect senators makes them more accountable to the people?

Martian, the government would be able to defend the law only under the provisions that they pass it under. Anyone who wants to challenge it would be free to do so under any provision that they wanted. Let the government disprove claims under other provisions, but they shouldn't be able to prove constitutionality under a provision that they did not pass the bill under. The law would be subject to the scrutiny of the entire constitution, but the government would not be able to claim the law to be constitutional because it's constitutional under a provision they didn't pass the bill under.

By moving to electing senators through state legislatures, the senators become subject to scrutiny from the state legislatures. People who are payed and elected to see to the interests of the people in their state and therefore take the time to see to the interests of the people would decide whether a senator gets re-elected or not. This would provide a measure of control over the federal government to the states. This helps the states by forcing senators to consider the objections of their state legislatures to actions that they intend to allow the federal government to take. It allows the people to put pressure on their senators directly and their their state legislators. It is about pooling the power of the people against the distance between them and their senators. The US House of Representative belongs to the people directly...the US Senate should belong to the people through their respective states (and therefore the Senate should belong to the states).

As to why having the state legislature elect senators makes them more accountable? The closer a government is to the people they represent, the more accountable they are to those people. State legislatures are quite accountable to the people. The US Congress, however, is quite distant from the people; on the other hand, the people have this other government that is close to them and is also pretty close to the US Senate. It's quite easy for the actions of Washington to get to the people, but the reaction of the people getting back to Washington is a little harder. I think that state legislatures can serve to amplify the people's response as directed to US senators.

As to the question of states being more responsible, I think that mediating between states is indeed one of the federal governments few real duties and authorities. Provisions in the US Constitution already require that states give "Full faith and credit" to the legal documents of other states. Over the years, the courts have seen this apply when the states in question have laws that are substantially the same, such as drivers licenses. If the federal government were to step in and provide/require the use a common interchange for identifying legit licenses and the like, then that's actually part of their job. However, to tell a state that they have to test children in schools or lose out on bribe money or be otherwise penalized, is beyond the rightful power of our federal government and the barrier between the states and the federal government on that kind of issue needs to be rebuilt and strengthened. I left this one kind of vague because the devil is in the details on restoring the stength of states against the federal government. On one hand, the states should have to cooperate on interstate issues and the federal government has a place in determining how states should cooperate. On the other hand, the federal government has stepped into intrastate matters far too much for my liking.

Canadian oil is also sold on the world market...which means it would be subject to the same cost structure we have now. This is the same for all of the other suppliers you suggested.



Speculators are an issue, I believe they add about 60c per gallon (can't remember exactly), but so is Iran's threats to cut off a major supply of oil.



'Obamacare' isn't socialized medicine. Even if it were that would probably be a good thing. The US Healtcare system is rated #37 and behind just about every socialized healthcare system in the world.

I would much rather focus on his record as governor. The government is not exactly a business and either way the governorship aligns more with his desired position.

And for that....I point you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...vernorship_of_Mitt_Romney

This is a joke right? So a liar and a fool should get a second term? You do realize Mitt Romney is one of the biggest flip floppers of all time right?

does it even matter who you elect unless someone gets 60 or 61 in the senate and is the same party as the pres

or gets 2/3 as well in both houses combined is it?

america has legislated itself into deadlock

Your best option is to dismantle your government and submit to being Canada's 4th territory! ;)

We will have to give them an inuit name though along the lines of Nunavut.

Angel you do realized that have really powerful states, in the US is a bad thing right?

You need to go, get some books, written by a historian, about why senators are elected by the people, not by the states anymore :D. You think that will change? Look at The House, do you think your Rep in the House is being held responsible?

No...if he/she was, they would be voted out, but you instead want the people, who are HATED by the country (just not by their own state ;)) to put in senators. Senators are now answerable to the House, not the people, as now the only way to vote out your senator, is to vote out your congress.

BTW you DO now that in order to have a Constitutional Convention, you need a 2/3rd's of the House and Senate to vote to enact 1, and then almost all of the states to vote and ratify whatever comes out....and that enacting anything close to that costs

umm.... Millions of $$$ and aren't you AGAINST spending tax payers money on something that won't work? :)


Obama does not and can not do anything against the 2nd amendment, your NRA sex buddies make sure of that.... and once again I do not see why American's need really powerful and really dangerous guns, what are all you republicans scared of? Planning on wagging war against your own country or something? :D

nahh you are America's hat, you stay up there and keep us dry and warm from the bitter colds you guys get :D

Really powerful states are a bad thing...if you wish to pursue policies that can be dismantled by people voting with their feet. States restored to their proper power would require that many of the social programs be done state by state and that those people who disagreed and didn't want to pay for those programs could simply move to states that weren't taxing their people to pay for those programs. My representative in the US House is being held to account because he represents a significantly smaller district than my senators do.

For the record, I don't want the US House of Representatives choosing state senators, I want the state legislatures choosing who their own senators will be. You might want to re-read what I've written.

YOu might also want to re-read what the Constitution says on amending it...an amendment can be proposed by either 2/3rds of the US House and Senate or by a convention called for by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. The amendment in either case is ratified when 3/4ths of state legislatures vote to ratify the amendment.

On the cost: even if we had to pay millions of dollars to put the federal government back into its place, we'd end up saving billions of dollars because the federal government would no longer be spending on those programs that a convention would hopefully strip from their authority in the re-establishment of a federal republic.

You realize that continuing with an all powerful federal government is a bad thing, right?

Agreed. If you look at their campaign donations, they're pretty much mirrors. The lobbiests can't figure out who has the upper hand (much like the previous election) so they're just spreadloading the love, making sure whoever wins will remain in the corporate palm.

Angel-

State legislators, are bought and paid for by state level lobbyists.......

The last ting we need is national lobbyists spending their money on our state's to influence who the senator would be.

your idea,
It wouldn't change a thing:)

You are Canada's sweat pants :P You could be a territory and still do your job!

I'm glad some of you have pointed out the problem in American politics....money.

Honestly Deerhunter, I really fail to see how romney is going to turn the economy around since americans still doesnt wanna pay tax and unemployment is increasing world wide and it will keep increasing unless we start exporting things to aliens the difference between obama and romney from what ive read is that obama actually lives in the 20th century and not the 15h like romney


Another thing to whoever, Americans seems to be very pro choice when it comes to healthcare, guns,etc etc except when it comes to abortions which I find a bit strange would be fluffy if someone would care to explain that one

Angel once again, read history....your thinking is part of the problem lol.

If having your states elect your Fed. Level Senators, was a good thing, that would not have been done away with, but it was. Do you want the big power houses (Chicago, NYC, ect...) putting in senators? Guess what, like Servent said, they are now obligated to State special Interests, instead of National, nothing has chanced instead of who they are obligated to, and now, the people of a state, can no longer get rid of said senator through elections. (this is why there was an amendment to change it and the only amendment that has been over turned was prohibition and that is because everyone likes to drink). Go talk to a non-partisan Constitutional Historian or Governement Professor who specializes in the constitution and see how easy it is to hold a constitutional convention. There is a reason one has not been held in 20 years lol.

Sorry, but I do not like the fact of someone representing me without me voting them in.

As for the Constitutional Convention...do you really believe that any state is going to propose to start 1? Illinois was going to (or did) have a constitutional convention for our state constitution. It did (or would) cost the state millions of dollars (someone else that plays from IL can probably come along and state what happened with that as I do not remember) No state, with all their budget woes, is going to enact a hugely expensive constitutional convention, and our Gov't can't get their heads out of their asses to come anywhere close to calling for 1 lol.

Even if the Reps gain control of both houses, they would have to gain control of more than 2/3's of both houses. I do not see that happening lol. With the constant population shifts, the west is leaning ever slightly more liberal. Plus, constitutional convention are not the way to solve the nation's issues, if it was, there would be no Fed gov't.

BTW, the federal gov't is making sure that my mom continues to be employed, if the got't shrank, my several autistic brother would no longer get to live in the special group home (paid for by the gov't). He needs 24/7/365 day a year care. My mom almost lost her job last year, because of your republicans taking the damn budget-debt issue down to the last min. My dad is out of work, so you need to think how your actions effect everyone, not just your party, your special interests, your religion (which i don't like shoved down my throat) I believe in the Lord my way and don't need a bunch of religion spouting fanatics to tell me how to run my life

Some people have no hope.

One thing is for sure, no matter who is in office, we cant continue to run the country like we do. We spend money we don't even have. At some point it will catch up to us it's only a matter of time before we are like Greece. The EU is having some major problems right now and if the EU fails it will put a hurt on America as well. A lot of our big businesses do quite a bit of business in Europe as well which will have a trickle down effect for America. Not to mention we are heading down the same path as them.

Why does our local government have to have a balanced budget but the Federal government doesn't?

Ron Paul.

vote for superman

Shoot em all and let god sort them out

how is that ignorant. obama being anti gun is a fact. obama having nothing to lose when becoming anti gun in his second term is a fact. stay in canada please.

Is that a concession admitting that Obama has done nothing with regards to being anti-gun? It sounds like a concession and a speculation with zero evidence.

The idea that Obama's going to wage war on the NRA if he wins a 2nd term is ridiculous.

While I'm of the belief that fewer guns would make for a far safer society, the NRA has far too much power and unless Obama wants to waste 4 years using all his political capital to MAYBE push through anti-gun legislature, he's not going to pass any significant gun law.

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to be against something but not necessarily to make it their life's goal to stop everyone else from doing it, too.

Strongly Agree with Major, Another term with Obama will do so much damage.

Junky please Vote. listen to the crap , sort out what you can determine is a REAL Fact and decide for yourself who is best. Please.

You think he has nothing to lose? You do realize that a president in his 2nd term still wants the guy after him to have a shot at winning so he wont just do everything and fluff around with everything right? Stay out of Canada :)

TGD, I propose that endearing Senators to their state's own interest would be a good thing. Make them listen to what's good for their state, so that they can vote in a more restrained manner when it comes to trampling on state's rights. You think that your voice really matters to your senator? You don't have enough power for them to care...but if the state legislature elected them, than your state legislator would have some power over your senator. So, less influential direct election or more influential indirect election. For the record, Chicago and NYC could put in only 2 senators each if we went back to indirect elections.

As to a convention, I think it will be very hard for the first state to propose one, but it will have a domino effect when the first calls for a convention. It's never been done before simply because congress has surrendered to the states, but this time no less than a convention is best. I think that for all the risks involved, the cause is sufficient to warrant a convention and the cost of having one.

As to going down to the wire on debt...let's just go over the cliff and then where will your family be? Crashed at the bottom of the cliff, just like everyone else. Pardon me for not feeling too sorry that someone stood up for fiscal responsibility. I'm sorry that it hurt your family, but sometimes people get hurt when course corrections become necessary...the bigger the correction, the more people get hurt; on that note, it might be in your best interest to help correct the fiscal course our country is on before you really feel the pain of irresponsible spending (grinding to a screeching halt). I don't have to convince you of anything...because raising taxes won't work and ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Two choices: deal or be dealt with. That is the question before America now. Do we deal with our fiscal problems or do they deal with us? If we deal with them now, we can mitigate the worst side-effects; if our problems deal with us, we won't be able to avoid cutting a lot of programs (most likely including the one your brother depends on).

what are you talking about? go look up his voting history and opinion on guns. he is anti gun.

vote for me

Frankly, i dont care if Romney does any better on the economy or not, although i think he will. I do care about protecting my rights and Obama wants to take them away and tell me what i need to do. I will never vote for that. I will vote for Romney and you all should too. Save our rights!

I'd imagine you'd love that idea, because it would likely mean the Senate would be ruled by Republicans pretty often since the state legislatures play politics far more than the typical voter does, and since all those small-electoral vote states still get two senators. Heck, even in what was basically an electoral landslide, McCain still won 22 states and in 2004, where Bush won by a more narrow electoral count, they won 30 states.


Pain: Just because he's voted for greater gun control in the past when a bill comes up in the Senate doesn't mean he's going to make it a centerpiece of his presidency.

Deerhunter: I find that type of argument ridiculously simplistic. Both parties push agendas that take away certain freedoms and protect other freedoms.

The Republican party has shown it could care less about the rights of homosexuals. They're also the party of the Patriot Act, which stripped away a lot of rights.

The Democratic party at times attacks gun rights (but they haven't recently, since picking a fight the NRA isn't really worth the effort it takes at this point), and I guess it's taken away your right to be uninsured when it comes to health insurance.

I'd argue that the Republican party is the party that more often attacks the true fundamental rights of Americans. Although in that case, they have the rallying cry of "national security" to rally behind when they're stripping your rights away.

Ultimately, most of these changes don't really affect most people's day to day lives. I'd love to hear how any policy Pres. Obama has implemented during his 3 1/2 years so far has had a tangible effect on your freedom.

"Ultimately, most of these changes don't really affect most people's day to day lives. I'd love to hear how any policy Pres. Obama has implemented during his 3 1/2 years so far has had a tangible effect on your freedom. "


Have you been hiding in a closet? Obama care for one. That one is easy. He has also chosen to not enforce immigration laws that help take away jobs legal citizens WOULD do. His immigration policy rewards illegals and punishes LEGAL American. This has had a great impact on my family. See, my brother had to leave the country for YEARS because his Filipino fiance could not legally enter the US until just recently. He had to wait YEARS and it cost thousands of dollars for her to finally be brought here for him to marry. Meanwhile, Obama refuses to apply the same enforcement to illegals.

Obama has also allowed Mexican truck drivers to enter and drive in the USA. My pop is a truck driver and this will affect him. Not only is that taking away our jobs but consider this, they are not required to meet the same safety and emissions that our drivers have to meet. How can US guys compete with that when we have limits on drive time and our vehicles have all kinds of safety and emissions to pay for?

Thats 3 things that have directly affected me and my family that are all Anti- American and wrong. I could bring up how Obama has armed Mexican drug lords through fast and fourious. How he used back door crooked "Chiago style" ways to get anything passed. I could also remind everyone here about how Black Panthers with clubs were allowed to stand outside voting placed but were not prosecuted because they were not white. How he is planning to sell us out to the Russians with our missile defense systems. Yes, there are tonz of things i could say about Obama. None of them are good. I hope real soon i will be able to say one good thing about him. That will be "thanks God he is gone!". I look forward to the day he is no longer president and hope and believe Romney will do the job.

Twain, i challenge you to name something GOOD he has done. You cannot say he "got Bin Laddin". The military did that just as it did while Bush was in office and they got Saddam. You could say Obama has weakened the military by allowing openly gays to serve, thus weakening our troop cohesiveness. Yes, i would agree he has been very pro gay, but is there not other issues that need addressing here in America? Cause his economic policies, health care and military cuts Have ALL been bad for America.

I know you will respond by name calling. Call me racist or say im anti gay for me not believing in gay marriage (for religious reasons). You will probably also say i dont like obama cause he is black. What you will not do is admit that i am right and everything Obama has done has hurt America and not helped. BTW- what president has increased the national debt more than any other? He did it in just 4 years- OBAMA!

1) Farming --- American's do not/ will not/ care not to work on the brutal life off farm work, illegals do it. They go, you now have food prices through the roof, as Americans will want to get paid at least 12/hour to do all the back breaking 12-18 hour a day work. So they go, so do your low cost farm products lol

2) Landscaping --- Think Americans want to do that brutal work out in the 100 + degree heat? No, I don't see white, black, asian, guys out there, I see Latino, they go, so do all your landscapping

3) The market --- all the illegals go, so all your cheap products. Do you guys that hate the illegals here thing about the repercussions? No, you just hate them because they are hear illegally.

4) Stopping the Illegal Immigrants--- You want the illegals here to stop? Then we have to go into Mexico, war the cartels, and make Mexico a safe place to work again. They come here because of our huge drug habits. Sorry that is not Obama's fault, Americans were using drugs long before Obama lol. If Mexico was a safe place to work, offered decent wages, all these families would disappear. Sorry, but if I lived in Mexico, I should would not continue living there. Mexicans are doing the very basic human nature, and that is finding a way to survive

5-- What will Romney do? I have been having thie debate with a heavy Republican Co-Worker of mine, in his 40's, about what will happen if Romney gets elected. We both came to the same conclusion, nothing will happen. Your deep Republican states are electing more and more very hard line, no compromise Tea Partiers into Congress. They in turn do NOT like Romney. So what happens when you have a President and Congress that do not like each other? Statemate.

6-- What will happen? I predict, that if Romney is elected, that it will cost the Republicans big in 2014. They will have all the power again, House Tea Party, and other Republicans will not work with Romney on most issues, and they will fall apart in 2014 as nothing, once again gets done. It is in the polling data, many Republicans do not like Romney, but only want to vote him in to defeat Obama.....

is that REALLY the best reason to vote in the most powerful Representative Leader in the world? If the House (and Senate if it falls into Republicans hands which I doubt) vote to repeal National Health Care, will Romney sign and repeal it? Something based mostly off of his own legislation? Do you want to have that going into 2016? I repealed legislation that I fought for and signed into law as Gov?

Being President sucks... He will make promises that he will almost certainly not keep (based on knowledge he learns on becoming president, a non functioning Congress, or other factors), he will be secretive, he will do things in the grey area, the Supreme Court make up won't change, if he is elected president, 1 maybe 2 Republican leaning Justices might retire, but no librals.

The economy will be all on his hands, everyone will be looking at him to make "the magic" happen, to give the economy that elixer that is has been looking for, it will most likely not happen as everyone thinks, after a HUGE recession, that the economy will just magically come back to life, he will further get blamed, further hurting republicans.

This is my take, the President has a lot of powers, but he is not almighty, he can't just create that elixer to fix the economy, either the economy has to fix itself, with help from the federal government, but mostly, it has to fix itself.

7 Europe --- Romney will have very little control over what happens in Europe. He can meet, discuss, plan with the European Leaders and the Euro banks, but if they fail, to improve European Markets, Romeny will further get blamed (just as Obama is now when he has no control over how Europe does its things)

There are many factors that are in play right now, many of them Obams's fault, many of them not.

Why are you voting if you don't believe it matters, aren't into politics, and believe you can't discern the views of the two major candidates? And what are you doing to change the above?

Everyone seems to want to complain and I bet I can count on two hands the number of people here actively involved in the political process. We have enough armchair quarterbacks in America. If you believe in something, someone, or a hot chick, then go do something about it.

True "undecideds" are extremely rare these days. In fact, probably among the rarest they have ever been. What this means for the election is that you a) don't piss off those that are undecided and b) do everything you can to motivate your base to come out. If that means belittling an angry group of Tea Party protestors, then you do so. If it means denying Obama's birthplace, then you do so. You don't march up to your team and say, 'gee guys, they're pretty good and we're pretty good, lets just try our best to win.' You say whatever you think will motivate your team to win. It's ruthless. It's crass. It's reality.

I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. It's a waste of time, particularly given how many folks here will nitpick everything to death--like a mini Fox/MSNBC/CNN political analysis. You know what you care about and if you do vote (see above questioning) then you probably already have a firm idea.

I will opine that divided power historically produces better results and I will opine that we do have a serious debt issue (and some would argue entitlements and defense since they make up a sizeable chunk of the problem) that nobody wants to confront

Deerhunter:



Oh really? Bush stopping Bin Laden?


http://www.texaskaos.net/diary/3899/

http://www.salem-news.com/...12/bin-laden-salon-tk.php

The Tora Bora mess:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/.../doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf




You mean like extending the Bush tax cuts (a republican idea and one Romney would continue), and saving the auto-industry (which most economist agree was a GOOD thing)? You do realize the economy is RECOVERING right?

The Pentagon submitted a report that they can do well with a budget cut. Who are you or anyone in congress to say they are wrong?



For a summary of Fortune Magazine's findings, which conclude the ATF had no policy that intentionally permitted weapons to be trafficked:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/...p-the-atf-and-gun-stores/

Also see:

http://www.azcentral.com/...ers/Blog/EJMontini/165782

"As for the bad guys, a recent Fortune magazine article about Fast and Furious pointed to the gun-friendly situation in Arizona and said: “By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers.”"




True story. But did you know that this is something a Republican would do? George Bush did the same thing. I expect Romney would as well. Why? It's a benefit for business. In 2009, Congress defunded Bush's pilot program that allowed Mexican truckers to drive in the US. Mexico responded with a tariff on our good. This cost U.S. businesses more than $2 billion and had cut U.S. exports to Mexico of affected agricultural commodities by 27 percent.

How big is the market in Mexico for US exports? Mexico is the No. 2 export market for U.S. pork, behind Japan.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the deal would make the U.S.-Mexico border more efficient and increase the competitiveness of the North American economy.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/...ies-idUSTRE7655HP20110706

Many actions the government takes hurts one group but provides a larger benefit (or is supposed to) to the country. I wouldn't call this particular issue an infringement on your freedoms or Anti-American.


There is zero proof that the military has degraded at all.

=====
The jury is still out on Obamacare. The total cost to businesses is not well defined i.e. will it be more expensive to cover or take the penalty?

But I think the costs of granting 40M more Americans coverage is a good thing at the cost of raising taxes on about 1-3% of the workforce.

=====
1 good thing Obama did? I have already shown Bush was a failure at getting Bin Laden. Score one for Obama.

He saved the auto-industry. Score one for Obama.

But if you want a list:
http://whatthefluffhasobamadonesofar.com/

=====
I got a question for you Deerhunter, if Ronald Reagan were alive today and could run for president, would you vote for him?

You keep bringing up Bush. Is that all you got? I can agree Bush was very bad but that does NOT mean Obama is good or even ok. He is WORSE!

The Auto industry bail out- that is the only thing you claim to be good Obama did. Well, in theory it should be good. However, it was done by Obama so yes- he screwed it up badly. Think, they bailed out the auto industry with loans but Obama did not put any conditions on it. Even a seventh grader would have made some conditions. example- if we loan you this money it must be used to keep the auto plants in America running. If that means closing down plants in other countries thats ok but not here.

But what really happened? Obama loaned them billions, they shut down plants in America, keeping going ones in mexico and canada. Then some of the bailed out companies got sold to foreign countries. WOW- what you call a good thing i see as a great chance that was wasted. Instead of doing something easily good he ruined it with tax payer money going to foreigners.

As far as illegals go- there are more than enough Americans willing to do landscaping work. I am also willing to bet they would make more if there were not illegals doing it too. As far as farming work goes- yes there are Americans willing to do that too- however, you forget there are also a lot of LEGAL migrant workers here doing that with a green card. That makes them LEGAL. The cost of keeping illegals in America if far more than not having them here. Think of all the money we are spending for educate and give medical care to them and their children. Meanwhile they do not even pay taxes.

You may not have noticed but I referenced Bush as an example of a Republican president that pushed the same policies as Obama. This would also imply that Mitt Romney would do the same as Obama…if not worse. I did not imply that Bush fails therefore Obama wins.

in reference to Bush and Bin Laden, that was a direct response to you trying to discredit Obama's success because of Bush's policies.



I listed TWO direct examples. The Bailout, and Bin Laden. I also provided a link to other good things Obama has done.

A for the jobs etc. The U.S. Treasury Department reports that since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has created 115,000 jobs, its strongest period of job growth since the late 1990s. GM, Ford and Chrysler have all returned to profitability, and in 2010, the “Detroit three” gained market share for the first time since 1995. And treasury officials say they are on track to recover most of the $80 billion investment.

Also see:
http://www.nytimes.com/...unday/a-million-jobs.html

"Four years later, there are 1.45 million people who are working as a direct result of the $80 billion bailout, according to the nonpartisan Center for Automotive Research, both at the carmakers and associated businesses downstream in the economy. Michigan’s unemployment level is at its lowest level in three years. G.M. is again the world’s biggest automaker, and both companies are reporting substantial profits."

So your attempt to discredit the job growth, or whatever that tactic you employed was, makes no dents.



This exposed your and most of the thinking by the right. I am very tempted to end this discussion with you because it's very clear you aren't interested in honest discussion; it's always Obama's fault no matter what!

Some things I want to see a response on:

-The info I provided about Truck drivers
-An answer to the Ronald Reagan question (although I suppose you don't have to answer it but it ties nicely into my most recent paragraph)

With such a rabid defense of Obama, can you hook me up with some DOE stimulus bucks? I promise my plant won't go bellyup. Cost per unit may be around $1 million. I will hire 3 employees for you $1 billion grant. It's a great deal.

^^^ Energy subsidies are bad as long as we aren't talking about oil, right?

Why bother having a meaningful discussion of the issues when you could be finding new and creative ways of saying how much you don't like the other guy? Or better yet, doing so with capital letters?

You sight the bail out as his best thing. Well, i think most Americans would say it was a big scam and waste of tax payers money at best. The auto industry was a tiny fraction of the bail out. 10% or something? No, your argument is that Obamas best achievement is what made all the crooked bankers even more rich. America is in shambles and you are blind. As i said, Bush was really bad. Obama is far worse. No, i do not like Romney but i wold vote for almost anyone over Obama.

Nice response @ UBer Bu.
====
Deerhunter:



Why do you keep lying lol.
Did I say it was the best thing Obama did? Nope.
Did I say it was a good thing Obama did (not the best)? Yes.




Eh...
http://www.freep.com/...o-bailouts-helped-economy

What do you mean by "tiny fraction of the bail out"? Are you confusing the auto-bailout with the stimulus?



What gives you any idea Romney would do better? He was a so-so governor and his policies mirror those of Bush and Obama.

I can't see how a second Obama term is justified. Look at the jobs numbers again this month. The economy is dreadful. Yes, Obama took over a horrible economy. Reagan took over an equally horrible economy in 1980 and the economy was booming by the end of his first term. You have to think government policy has a heavy impact on how the economy recovers. Obama has simply led to too much uncertainty and hostility to business because of the various groups he has to please.

Again, Obama has failed to get the economy moving even in the right direction in 4 years. Why do we want 4 more?

The economy is improving, but it's still in the tank. What I don't see from most Republicans/Conservatives/anti-Obamaians is that the economy is in fact improving. It will take awhile to get going. Luckily for Obama many Americans still feel it's Bush's fault.

As for Reagan, he increased payrolls because he grew government. The guy increase government payrolls while Obama has shrunk them. So if you want Obama to do what Regan did, then you should welcome a big government democrat with open arms.


Second, what you said is incorrect @ Regan's economy.

http://www.thestreet.com/...eagan-in-five-charts.html

Some highlights:

Quarterly unemployment was above 10% at the end of four straight quarters during Reagan's first term -- the worst quarter-ending rate under Obama has been 9.9% -- but by May 22, 1984, the rate had dropped to 7.8%, or 0.4 percentage points lower than Obama's current rate.

The S&P closed on Reagan's Inauguration Day at 131.65 and it rose to 153.88 by May 22, 1984. That's a 16.9% gain.

On Obama's Inauguration Day, the index finished at 805.22. The index closed at 1,316.63 on Tuesday, marking a 63.4% gain.


Take note of the GDP graphs vs Obama and Reagan.

------
Btw, equating the two economies is a bit dishonest. The recession Reagan "fixed" was caused by inflation...which was fixed by the Fed NOT by Reagan. Obama had to deal with a financial collapse and the housing bubble.