on the tax payers dime....this week he is using AF1 instead of the cheapo non campaign bus....
then he puts out a program for student loans, another give away program, to however many million students, that will cost billions and then turns around and will expect their support and vote for him in 2012.

Tax payers money to travel/campaign....
tax payers money to buy off the student loans....

we are paying him to be out on the campaign trail....we are paying the student loan give away....we are footing the bill for his buying votes....

Some how there is something wrong with this picture.

By the way if you have not done the math on the wording of what a student will not have to pay....you will very quickly see why the program is a disincentive to try to pay the loans back.

And if anyone discovers where the money is coming from please feel free to enlighten us. And while the discoveries are in order, just exactly what is this latest "stimulus" supposed to accomplish that will help the economy?

It is becoming more and more obvious in order to get stimulus $$$ one needs to not be paying your mortgage or your school loan or what ever else is on the entitlement list.

The new norm....no responsibility....let the government do it...pay it...etc.

btk

I also will be watching for the increase in jobs with this latest charade.

There IS one very big thing missing from Obama's efforts concerning college students.

At *best* he proposes treating the symptom - AGAIN - and not the disease.

The disease is educational expenses rising 2-4 times faster than the rate of inflation. You tell me another job where, once you've created your material, you go to work a few times a week for a few hours, grade some papers and hold a few meetings and that's it. You get a couple of months off. Tweak your curriculum a little (unless you're one of the few in a field that has new developments - like some sciences) and do it all over again. After a set number of years, you get "tenure" and can't be fired.

People complain (while being misinformed) about how 'little' school teachers work? Try "college professor".

We also footed the bill for wasting billions and billions in Iraq searching for non-existent WMD's.

I recall Dick telling us the Iraqi oil would pay for it.

That worked out well, eh?

A little research will reveal how many days every POTUS spent campaigning while they were in office - including their use of AF 1.

Campaigning is the only thing this community organizer in chief knows how to do. The teleprompter King and his writers feel more comfortable talking because he has no executive experience. He surrounds himself with people who have only worked in public "jobs". It is said that only 8% of his cabinet and Czars have private job experience. This man has no plans and no clues. He runs on empty gestures and hollow promises.
Campaigning also fuels his fragile ego as he has no real accomplishments and has only hurt the USA since he took office. America will start healing January 20, 2013, when we swear in a republican that can lead us out of the darkness and put America back to work again.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

... America will start healing January 20, 2013, when we swear in a republican that can lead us out of the darkness and put America back to work again.

I fear you may need to add four years to that date, when looking at the current GOP offerings . . .

Just saying

Originally Posted by memason

I fear you may need to add four years to that date, when looking at the current GOP offerings . . .

Just saying

A mannequin would be better then Obama.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

A mannequin would be better then Obama.

I doubt a mannequin can get elected...

If the GOP is gonna win, they need somebody with the "juice" or star power or whatever you want to call it, to get elected...right now, I don't see it.

It's gonna be an interesting year....

The Supreme Court appointed one of those back in 2000 - with disastrous results.

Good one, Coralway!

Totally agree with you on that. Keep it up. We need you and more like you on this forum.

Originally Posted by coralway

The Supreme Court appointed one of those back in 2000 - with disastrous results.

Yea, and we voted for one in 1979 and were still trying to recuperate. Peanuts anyone?

What kind of results are we still having trouble with from Carter's administration?

Good to see you on the forum this morning. Hope you have a great day.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Yea, and we voted for one in 1979 and were still trying to recuperate. Peanuts anyone?

I think we all know who you're against. How about going out on a limb and telling us who you're for! ...and be specific ...and why.

why is all the opposition commentary about the caliber of republican candidate at the forefront?
It is fine to call out attributes needed to be a "worthy" candidate.

Does that rhetoric pre-suppose that an unacceptable incumbent cannot be out voted?

I personally think the disadvantage Obama has this time around is that he has become a known entity. As an emerging candidate in 2007 he won support with his eloquent speeches and myriad of promises.

However, as a known entity.....more talk than walk....he has turned being an incumbent into a liability.

Using the current measuring stick used on republican candidates, he would most certainly have been and is still unqualified as well.

btk

Village Golfer,
I made a mistake. In 1980 was the year that Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter/Mondale for President.

Personally, I think Reagan was a good president and have no problems with his term nor with Bush I.

Your boy, Jimmy Carter was the successful candidate in 1976. That definitely was like The Beverly Hillbillies Move Into The White House.

Originally Posted by memason

I think we all know who you're against. How about going out on a limb and telling us who you're for! ...and be specific ...and why.

No, too early to put my money on any one horse yet. I will tell you that I was really heartbroken when they nominated McCain the last election. That was when I thought Obama had a real good chance of winning. So did alot of business guys I was dealing with. Believe it or not, that was when they started reevaluating their future and pulling back on capital spending.

Perceptions mean plenty. The perception that democrats are not business friendly is prevalent. It is not accident that businesses are not hiring. It started when Obama and MaCain were nominated.

EDIT: If I was to support some one today it would be someone with business and executive experience and that would be Romney or Cain.