A Preview to the State of the Union

[the KHAN!]

The economy isn't everything? It really is. It really is everything.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The economy isn't everything? It really is. It really is everything.

No, it's really not.

[the KHAN!]

Idiot.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

Obama from last night:

And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.

We have elected a monarch.

[the KHAN!]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

I'm sure we'd have had a similar economic situation if McCain had been elected in 2008. No, wait, it might still be shitty but I'm sure he'd not have been gung ho for throwing money into a pit and hoping all went well.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

I'm sure we'd have had a similar economic situation if McCain had been elected in 2008. No, wait, it might still be shitty but I'm sure he'd not have been gung ho for throwing money into a pit and hoping all went well.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110r.asp

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

[the KHAN!]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.

You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.

You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.

Taxes are always the sticking point these days.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.

You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.

Taxes are always the sticking point these days.

Yes, one party wants to spend more and tax more to offset the spending. The other wants to spend more and just hope revenues increase due to an improved economy.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The president has very little control over the economy. It makes much more sense to vote based upon foreign policy and social issues. The economy will do what it does, pretty much regardless of who gets elected in 2012.

If the president has little control over the economy, then what was the purpose of that $800 billion "stimulus" package? Presidents can take actions that have a dramatic impact on the economy. For example, broad based tax reform. They can also take actions that have a dramatic effect on our fiscal solvency, which ties directly into the economy.

It makes almost no sense to vote based on social issues, since Presidents have extremely little impact in that area. The one big exception is judicial appointments. However, the vast majority of social issues (abortion and gay marriage come to mind) are, or should be, left to the states.

I agree with you on foreign policy, which continues to be an important issue, right up there with the economy.

Judicial appointments give the president a much larger role in social issues than he has over the economy. Even the $800 billion stimulus still had to be passed by Congress.

Which was pretty easy to do, considering it was his party in the majority. Now, if you want something to get done, you almost have to have a majority in congress and have the presidency. Due to everyone refusing to cooperate. Pres Obama will most likely not get anymore crazy ass economic stimulus packages in, as the American people gave the Republicans a mandate to stop that kind of nonsense when they gave them the majority in the House again.

You don't just need a majority, but a filibuster-proof majority. It's completely ridiculous, considering how similar the two parties really are.

Taxes are always the sticking point these days.

Yes, one party wants to spend more and tax more to offset the spending. The other wants to spend more and just hope revenues increase due to an improved economy.

We are way beyond the point that simply increasing taxes will have much affect on the deficit. It has to be huge budget cuts first, then you might get some support from the people. Right now, government is just a black hole sucking up everything in sight. No sane person wants to throw THEIR money down that hole.