No, the liabilities were a problem under Clinton. They've been a problem for decades, people just ignored it.

I agree, cut defence spending. End the war in Afghanistan, close at least half of the military based oversees (opening up a new one in the USA for every 5 closed, or something), reduce the Cold-War size 1.5m troops down to a number which is much more responsible in the era of modern combat, vastly reduce the nuclear stock pile, perform regular audits of the DoD, and slah international aid/funding for international organizations.

That would be great, but it still would not fix the problem. The liability issue will mean that the Government will have to spend 100% of what the economy produces by 2080... and that's just not physically possible.

I don't know why you keep showing me graphs of Bush/Romney/Clinton/etc.. I dislike all of them. Romney is Obama, Obama is Bush. Hell, if Clinton was in office between 2001-2009, I'm pretty sure he would have done much the same as what Bush did, no doubt about it. Both the parties are exactly the same, don't let them pull the wool over your eyes any longer.

Dude, read the fact checks i posted... and note even democrats didn't stand behind the video.

You bought a con hook line and sinker... and the fact that you've ignored it after proof has been presented makes me feel a little bad for you.

Also, history lesson.  Bush won an election, in I believe south carolina, because of a campaign robocall that suggested McCain had an interracial lovechild.

This was not true. 

People buy into dumbass propaganda all the time, yourself included apparently.

That's true... but not really.

While Household gini coefficent is up....

Individual Gini coefficent isn't.

That is, to put it more simply.  The Rich aren't getting richer.   The rich are more likely to marry other rich people.  Your average rich guy actually has less money then 1994.   It's just his partner is likely to make more money.  The rise in income inequality has actually statistically been caused by the rise of dual income families and women making more in the workplace. (and marrying people in their salary range more often.)

I don't understand the whole job creation thing. Is any improvment thanks to Obama or the private sector? Anyhow, I'm one of those people that thinks government regulations is the cause for much of the unemployment.

That filibusters chart doesn't seem bias at all. But I'll its word for it.

School teachers should just be happy they have jobs. K-12 teachers inparticular are over paid baby sitters. Kids can be and should be educated via the internet. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and we would get less obnoxious kids out of it.

You couldn't find a graph on veterans being the biggest drain on handouts? Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't buy it.

how does voting help the situation. that's just trading one liar,for another liar. I think I read that the U.S. goverment has a 9% approval rate. I don't know how many people vote during a presidental election in America,but I'm guessing it's in the %25 range. My point is that there's alot of people that think like me and have never voted in there lifes. I don't recall any of my family voting,ever. 

Romney is a terrible Candidate, but Obama is a TERRIBLE President.  In the next four years he will bankrupt this nation but, oh well, maybe he'll legalize pot. 

I'm voting for Zombie Reagan.

That's the approval rating for Congress, which everyone has always hated.

Presidential approval ratings have been as high as the mid-70s in the last four years (when Obama was inaugurated) and still hover around 45-50%.

My point is that your defeatist attitude is unproductive and doesn't help solve the problem. And turnout in 2008 was a lot more than 25%; it was 63%.

1) Yes, 2008 would be when the economic crash happened. That has nothing to do with George Bush. The recovery always starts eventually, and there's nothing to suggest that Obama caused it.

2) Though I agree that House Republicans are dreadful, the 2007-2009 congress was Democrat and still got nothing done. In general, the house is useless.

3) That would be because most of his income comes from capital gains, and I don't really see how it's a bad thing. You could increase capital gains taxes overall, but then the investing teacher is punished too.

Consider, instead, that Romney paid a little over $3 million in tax, and the teacher paid $10,000.

Being a teacher, i cant tell you that i dont pay anything near 25% in taxes.  My effective tax rate is probably more around the 3-7% tax rate.  So that pic is crap.  

What the hell man, there have been several links in this thread with links to why this film has been discredited and i can see you couldnt be bothered to look at them.  Let me break it down for you, all the companies and events talked about in the film happened AFTER mitt left.  It may show a crude businessman, but it wasnt romney.