Lets give Obama the credit he is due...

Generally I stand against Obama and his socialist agenda but like a stopped clock he gets some things right.
On domestic issues what better way to forget about high unemployment than to watch with rapt attention to the NCAA tournament. Obama leads the way with this. His laser like focus on his picks avoiding the distractions of Japan, Libya, and the world show encourage all of us. Not since the Romans put on shows in the Colosseum have we had such bread and circuses.
Speaking of the economy; some people are concerned about not having budget for last year but Obama shows us that it is of no concern. Who needs a budget anyway. We could just give Obama the power to spend anything at anytime he wants. Hey, if Obama is spending the money then we don't need a Congress anymore...whoa! It's a whole new way of doing business.
I don't know how he did but that trouble in Japan was a great Obama thing to bring down the price of gas. The Japanese won't be needing it so we can use it instead. Shutting down Honda and Toyota will sure make GM's bottom line look better. Way to go Barry. The muted response of the White House is limiting charitable donations but your little blurb before your NCAA picks means you, and Lady GaGa, can take credit for any donations given.
On foreign policy; you said you would rehabilitate our image and by golly you've done that. We have gotten away from those asses like England, France, and Germany. Now we are trying to hang out with the tough kids like Iran, Libya, and China. Before long the US will get out the leather jacket and we can all wear our hair in a duck tail.
For the rest of you; what else can we commend Obama for?

Getting a Republican majority elected in the House and most state governments so we can begin to stop the insane spending that has been going on for years and years at the federal and state levels.

"insane spending"

Yeah, those Teabaggers really slashed the DoD budget didn't they?

Oh wait...Republicans are the ones that ballooned the debt over most of the last decade in the first place. I guess they are like Ronald Reagan.

1981-1988 increase in debt: $1.8 trillion
1989-1992 increase in debt: $1.4 trillion
1993-2000 increase in debt: $1.6 trillion
2001-2008 increase in debt: $4.4 trillion
2009-2010 increase in debt: $3.5 trillion

Draw your own conclusions

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

Was Cheney a big fat liar when he said this?

Recall what each president had to face when he signed off on those budgets.
Reagan 1980-1988 had to rebuild the military and face down the Soviet threat in Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan, Somalia, Columbia, and Peru. He cut taxes which increased revenues but the Congress lied about promised spending cuts and spent more than ever. By the way Reagan had a democratically controlled Congress who are responsible for the spending.
Bush, George HW 1988-1992 had to go to war with Iraq and face down the stumbling Soviet Union. He also had a democratic Congress to spend the money and they too lied about spending cuts.
Clinton 1992-2000 cut the military because the Soviet Union had fallen. Communist regimes throughout the world faltered without our interference.
Bush, George W 2000-2008 had 9/11, a stock market collapse, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and manning up new parts of the government like Homeland Security.
Obama 2008-2011 has not increased the size of the military, he has not faced an attack, he has spent money, lots of money and has received very little (like jobs) in return. In two years he has outspent Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41, and is fast approaching in three years what Bush spent in eight years.

1981-1988 increase in debt: $1.8 trillion
1989-1992 increase in debt: $1.4 trillion
1993-2000 increase in debt: $1.6 trillion
2001-2008 increase in debt: $4.4 trillion
2009-2010 increase in debt: $3.5 trillion

Draw your own conclusions Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

That "W" increased our debt 3 times as much in his admin as did that hated Democratic blowjob lover Clinton. Then left the current adminstration with worst financial crisis in 80 years. At least that is my conclusion based on the numbers you presented, but since this site is based on fantasy encounters, I would always question the veracity of your "facts".

Right everthing was just peachy before obama came to power & he's the first prez to watch sports or take vacations right

Recall what each president had to face when he signed off on those budgets.
Reagan 1980-1988 had to (had to?) rebuild the military (which was already "built") and face down (LOL, you make is sound like a staring contest at high noon.) the Soviet threat in Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan, Somalia, Columbia, and Peru. He cut taxes (...for the rich, and raised them elsewhere) which increased revenues (No, DECREASED revenues. If it had INCREASED revenues, then he wouldn't have ballooned the debt.) but the Congress lied about promised spending cuts and spent more than ever (Poor old Ronnie and ALL of the conservatives were tricked by a few hundred Liberals and Ronnie was powerless. Nice fairy tale.). By the way Reagan had a democratically controlled Congress who are responsible for the spending (By the way that Democratic Congress would also share in the glory of winning the Cold War. I mean, you're whole argument is that Reagan had to spend money in an arms race with the Soviets. In the next sentence you blame the Democrats for spending all of that money. Why didn't you thank them for winning the arms race???).
Bush, George HW 1988-1992 had to go to war with Iraq and face down the stumbling Soviet Union (He had to put his face down in the lap of the Prime Minister of Japan, IIRC.). He also had a democratic Congress to spend the money and they too lied about spending cuts (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.).
Clinton 1992-2000 cut the military because the Soviet Union had fallen. Communist regimes throughout the world faltered without our interference.(Hey Galt, why did you stop blaming the Congress? C'mon! Why did the Republican Congress spend $1.6 Trillion dollars during peace time when the economy was booming?)
Bush, George W 2000-2008 had 9/11, a stock market collapse, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and manning up new parts of the government like Homeland Security. (Shouldn't that stock market collapse be at the end? And Iraq was more of an optional war. Most of that $4.4 Trillion is squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans that you elected to squander money for 6-8 years.)
Obama 2008-2011 (...was left a shit sandwich) has not increased the size of the military (He's just had to sustain the already huge military and two wars.) , he has not faced an attack (The other John Galt likes to name all of the attacks on the U.S. since Obama took office. This John Galt says there weren't any. I'd like to hear this John Galt thank Obama for doing a great job of keeping him safe.), he has spent money, lots of money and has received very little (like jobs) in return (...except for fixing everything else in the economy and saving the whole auto industry, etc. I'll say it again, if you don't think that spending to save the economy did anything then just take it back and see what happens. No, you'd rather tout your economic principles while Keynesian economics saves your bacon). In two years he has outspent Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41, and is fast approaching in three years what Bush spent in eight years. (Republicans used credit cards to buy Hummers, big screen TVs, and go on vacations. Obama is using credit cards to pay the mortgage on the house that Republicans tried to burn down. Same thing...in Bizarro World. Originally Posted by john_galt

Reagan, Star Wars...$100+ billon dollars of waste right there.

I am also please to see its his fault that he has to pay for not one but two vietname wars. I mean not one repub thought we should bail out the banks not one voted for it. God forbide he dosen't wake up and have the army put guns to employers head and make them hire people.
Its surely his fault people are loseing their homes. Hell we don't need gm hell shouldn't let fell maybe iran or china could have bougth them.
And what you mean after he exstended the taxes they are still no jobs common the repubs said it would and they never lie or take breaks

And last but not least look at our arm forces with all those homos wearing pink on the field. One even painted rainbows on his jet and his missiles

Longer, your "facts" are simply wrong. But they are entertaining. I don't give a rat's rear end what the prior presidents did. All of them added to the National Debt, and it is a disgrace. But President Obama, along with Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, have taken deficit spending to never before heights. Now a Republican House tries to cut a small percentage of the increases in spending, and are eviscerated for being "mean spirited." There is a financial collapse coming which will devastate the United States, and all you can do is throw out the same, tired cliches which have gotten us into this trouble. We don't have the f*ing money to be spending on all these programs, including defense, but at least defense is the primary function of government. Funding "Car Talk" is not.

Longer you, and your post, are so full of shit. Want me to correct you on a just a couple of items? There was a stock market collapse following 9/11. Look it up.
When Reagan took office the military was hurting bad. I was there so I know. The Navy numbered under 200 ships and Reagan spent money to bring up to almost 600. Some ships did not have the man power, training, or parts to leave port (USS Tullibee, USS Guam, and the USS Page from personal experience). So I think I sunk your battleship so go home and cry.

Longer you, and your post, are so full of shit. Want me to correct you on a just a couple of items? There was a stock market collapse following 9/11. Look it up. (Oh, so you left out the 2007 financial crisis entirely? Nice.)
When Reagan took office the military was hurting bad. I was there so I know. The Navy numbered under 200 ships and Reagan spent money to bring up to almost 600. (Almost 600, not 600. And some of them were retrofitted WW2 ships. For what? Most of them never saw battle. Think about how many Navy ships we have now. We have 285. Are we hurting badly? Do we need 315 more ships? Hell no!) Some ships did not have the man power, training, or parts to leave port (USS Tullibee, USS Guam, and the USS Page from personal experience (...working in the galley)). So I think I sunk your battleship so go home and cry. (I'm in a carrier. I don't know whose battleship you sunk. I doubt you could sink a battleship with your tiny frigate anyhow.) Originally Posted by john_galt

1MC:
Bosun's Mate Galt report to the forecastle!

1MC??? Oh, that's new information. For those of you who don't know the 1MC is the circuit that broadcast information throughout the ship. Also called the general announcing circuit. I spent most of my time speaking and giving orders on the 5JV. That way we stayed far away from the forecastle, Longer, and his rump wrangling buddies.
As to your statement (and false implications), the only WW II ships brought back were the battleships and they saw action. Of course it wasn't ship to ship like they were designed for but who wants to nitpick (or nose pick for you Monger). I remember Lebanon. Hezbollah would take a shot at my tin can with an artillery piece and that could have really hurt if they hit anything. Then the battleship would swing in closer to shore and take them out with very extreme prejudice. Longer won't know about this stuff. He was in the Bosun's Locker biting on a piece of mooring line with his face on the deck.

I give President Obama credit for showing how the so-called liberal Democrats only play lip-service to individual rights. More and more people are waking up to the reality of our two party system, and once a person awakens, he never goes back to sleep. Take the red pill.