good summary of where Obama stands

[Guest]

and the results of his approach of mediocrity by him and his team:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1-reason-obama-can-lose-in-2012-2011-07-19?pagenumber=1

In short....a politician...totally devoid of leadership!!

btk

[Guest]

and the results of his approach of mediocrity by him and his team:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1-reason-obama-can-lose-in-2012-2011-07-19?pagenumber=1

In short....a politician...totally devoid of leadership!!

btk

It seems amazing that folks reading Weidner's article can miss the same fundamental reality he has in his sophomoric attempt to get attention by trying to point out how an otherwise effective President may not be reelected.

Weidner would have you believe that the President has the power to force the banking industry to lend their money, all of it mind you, like they did until the house of cards crumbled, and that he can also require businesses large and small to hire millions so that the unemployment rate will instantly drop to an "acceptable" level.

Not only are those actions completely impossible for a President, but those of you who now criticize Obama for not having accomplished this would have been the first to holler "impeach him!" if he even tried to amass and use such power.

And it's ironic that to support another one of your frequent categorical generalizations about the President's inability to lead, you cite an author who lists a number of ways Obama has been effective.

So, it seems your passionate dislike for the President, stated in post after post, can obscure anything, even total contradictions.

Weidner is correct in crediting Obama with effective actions. They are actions within the Constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. He has continued to stretch his influence through arm twisting and media appeals, which every strong President has done. With the seriousness of the nation's problems and the gridlock in Congress, It's an understatement to say that's the kind of effort we need now.

Oh, by the way, are you all upset about the idea of of a $4 trillion budget trim to accompany dealing with the debt ceiling? In today's poll, 58% of Republicans liked what has loosely been dubbed the 'Obama plan'.

[Guest]

It's simple. Obama and his party are bad for America and it's people.

Vote Republican! Any Republican! America will love you.

[Guest]

ijusluvit...my post(s) have nothing to do with whether I like or dislike Obama. Right or wrong, I make my judgement based on performance...what he says he will do VS what he actually does...whether he takes a leadership role or as he does now on the budget crisis lay back and let the lawmakers thrash about while he makes speeches...whether he does what is right VS ALWAYS doing what the personal/party politics dictate...

Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he will not take ANY risk involved position and recommend or do what is right for America.

And since you quote the benefit of my previous posts, you forgot to remember that I am a performance based advocate....period...no R or D or race or religion
needed to make judgement on results measured against promises.

You are entitled to your opinion about what I state, but please do not try to restate the purpose or intent of my post(s) with your interpretation thereof.

btk

[Guest]

I agree with some of what the article says, disagree with others. Same with the previous posters on this thread.

What's more important to me now is how we get out of this debt limit pickle. From all that I'm reading and hearing, virtually all constituencies seem to be in favor of the Senate proposal that has been crafted by the Gang of Six rather than the Tea Party House-sponsored bill passed yesterday in the House. That House bill has no chance of enactment into law and everyone knows it. It seems to be a bill passed purely for political reasons.

The more attractive proposal seems to be that which is emerging from the Gang of Six in the Senate. That proposal is very consistent with the proposals made by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and seems to be embraced by almost everyone--except the Tea Party. That seems to include the business community, the financial press, almost all economists that I've read, the foreign press, even the financial markets and the majority of the American public.

The Tea Party proposal--no their demands, really--sets forth a set of conditions that are pretty good ones over the long run, but it'll run the country and our economy off the cliff in the next couple of weeks unless they get realistic. That's what maddens me about the Tea Party, they have some fundamentally good ideas--really good ideas as far as I'm concerned--but they are trying to get them implemented in a way that is sophomoric in the context of how the Congress works and potentially destructive to the country and even the world economy. It's as if they're new to playing the game and don't know the rules. They seem to want the big bite and want it right now, even though they'll find the bite difficult or impossible to swallow. They are adamant instead of accepting a pretty substantial "nibble" (if you call $4 trillion in deficit reductions a nibble) over a longer period and ultimately getting to all of what they stand for.

The potential disaster that would be caused by the enactment of "cut, cap and balance" is so obvious that the Senate has created their own proposed legislation, even though it is exactly opposite of what the Constitution dictates. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 7, says...“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Our system of government has been in effect and evolving for more than two centuries. The Tea Party is not going to be able to change it in a 180-degree movement overnight. I hope they come to realize that and accept the almost $4 trillion cuts in the deficit that are on the table, leaving the rest of cut, cap and balance for another day--maybe after the 2012 elections. I sure hope they come to that realization soon.

[Guest]

...Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he will not take ANY risk involved position and recommend or do what is right for America....Billy, with all due respect, the President's proposal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion, including putting Medicare and Social Security on the table, is a pretty ballsy move in my opinion.

No one wants to read the details of the Gang of Six proposal, the one the President endorses, but it's clear it makes him very unpopular with the Democratic base. The proposals made relative to revenue increases actually reduces individual tax rates and simplifies the tax code. The revenue increases come from the elimination of loopholes and unnecessary tax benefits and credits given to very narrow business groups as the result of lobbying efforts over the years. Heck, even all of the major business groups have come out in favor of the Senate proposal.

In my opinion to say that he simply won't take any risk is simply wrong.

[Guest]

and the results of his approach of mediocrity by him and his team:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1-reason-obama-can-lose-in-2012-2011-07-19?pagenumber=1

In short....a politician...totally devoid of leadership!!

btk

I totally agree. He is not a good leader.

[Guest]

I do not give Obama or any other politician one iota of credit for proposing tampering with Medicare or SS when there are more than enough known, wasteful, non-essential, politically motivated and protected programs that can be put at the head of the list.

It is like local politicians cutting school, police and fire fighter $$$, while retaining their pet programs.

These tactics are nothing but baiting.

If he was serious and if he was a leader he would back up his general pontificating with specifics he wants done to each program and when with what end result and when. He has earned, even from his beloved media shield the reputation for lack of specifics and follow up.

These are my personal opinions based on real leadership expectations...what are the deliverables on a given proposal? When can they be expected? Who is going to do what to make the promised deliverable happen? When? As measured by what/whom? All foreign to ANY politician. They are incaple, unwilling and in way to many cases incompetent!

btk

[Guest]

to btk,

The role of President is to attempt to lead in very much the way Obama has. The Constitution clearly reserves legislating to Congress, so it is not the Executive's place to give all the specific detail you claim he should. Repeatedly, Obama has given strong leadership shoves to Congress to act in specific direction. With "a deal" on budget reduction the major focus of Congress, Obama's original summary of the studies by the debt reduction commission; namely the idea of a nearly $4 trillion budget reduction, including some modifications to entitlements and a substantial revision of the tax code, has been largely adopted by the gang of six and is most likely to be the framework of final Congressional action. How is that not leadership to provide the 535 blundering self-interested folks with a plan?! THAT is his job, and as even your friend Weidner states, it's not the first time he has done it rather well.
I've not seen a single post of yours which has given the President any credit for any action. Instead your comments are categorically negative and critical. I have suggested that that total negative view is not accurate. I did suggest it might be because of some intense dislike of the President. OK, so maybe you don't dislike him. But your negative judgement of all of his actions is still far from an accurate or objective assessment.

[Guest]

Obama has doubled our debt. He said if they pass Stimulus bill unemployment would never be above 8%. It has never been below 8% and mostly over 9%. Business is afraid of him. That is not healthy for country's welfare. Wether real or perceived, we need new leadership to steer us back on course. Small business is our bread and butter and Obama treats them like xxxx.
I honestly do not think this man has a clue.

[Guest]

Obama has doubled our debt. He said if they pass Stimulus bill unemployment would never be above 8%. It has never been below 8% and mostly over 9%. Business is afraid of him. That is not healthy for country's welfare. Wether real or perceived, we need new leadership to steer us back on course. Small business is our bread and butter and Obama treats them like xxxx.
I honestly do not think this man has a clue.

Obama sounds to me like a good description of yourself.

[Guest]

Obama sounds to me like a good description of yourself.

Is this how debate goes on this forum? Instead of valid answers or opinions, you attack a poster. Do they allow this here?

[Guest]

I don't agree with the author on what he considers Obama's great accomplishments at the outset of his article. He credits Obama for the killing of OBL and that's fine as far as it goes, but It was done in a way that leaves me empty of any psychological closure. I don't know how many others feel this way.

Ended what unpopular war? Hello, can anybody tell me? We fighting everywhere we were before and now we've expanded into Libya. Hello?

Gave us Health Care? Don't know about you, but I have health care and I like what I have and don't relish it changing. That goes for the majority of Americans as far as I've read. ObamaCare is widely and wildly unpopular. How does this help him?

To top it all off, do Americans by and large feel that America is in a better place than it was before "The One" assumed power (I mean office)????

I'm just saying.

[Guest]

To top it all off, do Americans by and large feel that America is in a better place than it was before "The One" assumed power (I mean office)????



Surprised you didn't say "The Colored One?" :(

[Guest]

Obama has doubled our debt. He said if they pass Stimulus bill unemployment would never be above 8%. It has never been below 8% and mostly over 9%. Business is afraid of him. That is not healthy for country's welfare. Wether real or perceived, we need new leadership to steer us back on course. Small business is our bread and butter and Obama treats them like xxxx.
I honestly do not think this man has a clue.If one begins a debate with a preconceived conclusion, there's little need for any discourse. It seems that you have made up your mind, but I'll try to point out a few fallacies in your thinking anyway.

President Obama has not doubled our debt. He's only been in office for 30 months and a brief review of the record does not show that the national debt has doubled since January 20, 2010. Not even close.

Secondly, the POTUS does not control the country's spending--the House of Representatives does.

Thirdly, as far as the proposal made by the Senate addressing the debt limit crisis, virtually every business group as well as other groups such as AARP have endorsed the ideas incorporated in the plan. Is that fear?

Lastly, was the POTUS sincere when he stated that he expected the economic stimulus expenditures would result in a lowering of the unemployment rate? I'm pretty sure he was. He was wrong. Is he the first politician that made a statement that turned out to be wrong? No, of course not. The media does a wonderful job of gathering examples of what politicians have said in the past and what they say now. All one needs do is watch TV programs like Meet The Press to get all kinds of examples. One might be "...mission accomplished", remember that one? Or how about "...I did not have sex with that woman..."?

There are thousands of examples of politicians making statements that turned out not to be true. The bigger question it seems to me is whether such statements were made to intentionally mislead the public or whether they were simply a mistake or turned out to be a mistake. Should we begin reviewing some of the statements made by candidates for the presidency and then how they try to weasel out of them only days later? I've made my share of mistakes, have you?

[Guest]

Surprised you didn't say "The Colored One?" :(

Totally uncalled for.:(

[Guest]

Obama sounds to me like a good description of yourself.

Another post totally uncalled for...do you even know him?:(

[Guest]

I don't agree with the author on what he considers Obama's great accomplishments at the outset of his article. He credits Obama for the killing of OBL and that's fine as far as it goes, but It was done in a way that leaves me empty of any psychological closure. I don't know how many others feel this way.

Ended what unpopular war? Hello, can anybody tell me? We fighting everywhere we were before and now we've expanded into Libya. Hello?

Gave us Health Care? Don't know about you, but I have health care and I like what I have and don't relish it changing. That goes for the majority of Americans as far as I've read. ObamaCare is widely and wildly unpopular. How does this help him?

To top it all off, do Americans by and large feel that America is in a better place than it was before "The One" assumed power (I mean office)????

I'm just saying.

or so citizens, most of whom work for a living who are uninsured, or the folks who can't get coverage due to a pre-existing condition? I wonder how satisfied they are with the current system? Ever wonder why our healthcare outcomes are poor in comparison to many other industrialized nations, in spite of the fact that percentage-wise we spend a lot more for healthcare?

[Guest]

or so citizens, most of whom work for a living who are uninsured, or the folks who can't get coverage due to a pre-existing condition? I wonder how satisfied they are with the current system? Ever wonder why our healthcare outcomes are poor in comparison to many other industrialized nations, in spite of the fact that percentage-wise we spend a lot more for healthcare?

Even though you insult people and call them names, I will give you an answer to your tired old talking points. Where in the constitution does it say that the USA Government is responsible for it's citizens health. It says we have the right to pursue our happiness. That means we have to opportunity to steer our future by educating ourselves and seeking our own methods of health care.
Nanny states have proven to be failures. If you do not learn from the past...your future will be doomed.

[Guest]

Even though you insult people and call them names, I will give you an answer to your tired old talking points. Where in the constitution does it say that the USA Government is responsible for it's citizens health. It says we have the right to pursue our happiness. That means we have to opportunity to steer our future by educating ourselves and seeking our own methods of health care.
Nanny states have proven to be failures. If you do not learn from the past...your future will be doomed.

grasp the fact that it costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the care that is provided to the uninsured, not to mention the tremendous losses to productivity that occur when the healthcare system fails to provide adequate coverage to almost 50 million citizens. Never mind responding. I'm not in the mood to discuss the issue with someone who thinks a country that provides for its' citizenry is a "nanny" state.

[Guest]

grasp the fact that it costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the care that is provided to the uninsured, not to mention the tremendous losses to productivity that occur when the healthcare system fails to provide adequate coverage to almost 50 million citizens. Never mind responding. I'm not in the mood to discuss the issue with someone who thinks a country that provides for its' citizenry is a "nanny" state.

Well, let us know when you are in the mood to talk reason. Are you a male? Actress?

[Guest]

Surprised you didn't say "The Colored One?" :(

That was Oprah's obnoxious phrase for him "The One". I have one for you. But as I'm not as vicious as you, I'll keep it to myself.

[Guest]

or so citizens, most of whom work for a living who are uninsured, or the folks who can't get coverage due to a pre-existing condition? I wonder how satisfied they are with the current system? Ever wonder why our healthcare outcomes are poor in comparison to many other industrialized nations, in spite of the fact that percentage-wise we spend a lot more for healthcare?

Except that you premise is completely flawed and a lie told over and over by all you liberals. 40 Million, my butt. This is a number that includes all the illegals in this country. You want me to pay for their health care plan?

[Guest]

Another post totally uncalled for...do you even know him?:(
No, he doesn't know me. Apparently the rules here are not very well structured. Personal attacks are welcome, I guess?

[Guest]

Except that you premise is completely flawed and a lie told over and over by all you liberals. 40 Million, my butt. This is a number that includes all the illegals in this country. You want me to pay for their health care plan?

Socialism is socialism. Call it like it is.

[Guest]

Except that you premise is completely flawed and a lie told over and over by all you liberals. 40 Million, my butt. This is a number that includes all the illegals in this country. You want me to pay for their health care plan?

to.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2009/08/20/what-is-the-actual-number-of-americans-without-health-insurance

[Guest]

Well, let us know when you are in the mood to talk reason. Are you a male? Actress?

discussing issues with someone who thinks like you? My seven year old grandson has more understanding of what is going on in the world than you obviously do.

[Guest]

to.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2009/08/20/what-is-the-actual-number-of-americans-without-health-insurance

Numbers don't lie, but the liberals do on this issue, and it's taken at face value by sycophant sheeple.

[Guest]

Amazing how myths get repeated so often and are considered to be true.

Obama doubled the debt? Let's look at the facts - courtesy of a spreadsheet downloaded form the Office of Management and Budget.

If you include Off-Budget receipts and outlays, you get a far different picture.

The deficits for the Bush years (starting 2002 because he didn't take office until 2001 and the 2002 FY starts in October of that year) were:

2002 - $157B
2003 - $377B
2004 - $412B
2005 - $318B
2006 - $248B
2007 - $160B
2008 - $458B
2009 - $1412B (Yes, boys and girls, that has the stimulus package)

So now Obama comes into office in January 2009 and starts with the 2010 FY:

2010 - $1293B
2011 - $1645B (est)
2012 - $1101B (estimated - but it's all conjecture that can change based on what Congress does.

Last year of Bush: $1.4T. Obama? $1.2T and $1.6T estimate.

No, Obama did NOT "double the debt", no matter whether you meant debt or deficit.

[Guest]

Amazing how myths get repeated so often and are considered to be true.

Obama doubled the debt? Let's look at the facts - courtesy of a spreadsheet downloaded form the Office of Management and Budget.

If you include Off-Budget receipts and outlays, you get a far different picture.

The deficits for the Bush years (starting 2002 because he didn't take office until 2001 and the 2002 FY starts in October of that year) were:

2002 - $157B
2003 - $377B
2004 - $412B
2005 - $318B
2006 - $248B
2007 - $160B
2008 - $458B
2009 - $1412B (Yes, boys and girls, that has the stimulus package)

So now Obama comes into office in January 2009 and starts with the 2010 FY:

2010 - $1293B
2011 - $1645B (est)
2012 - $1101B (estimated - but it's all conjecture that can change based on what Congress does.

Last year of Bush: $1.4T. Obama? $1.2T and $1.6T estimate.

No, Obama did NOT "double the debt", no matter whether you meant debt or deficit.The facts are often sooo confusing...particularly when a person's mind is made up to reach a different conclusion than those supported by the facts.

[Guest]

Numbers don't lie, but the liberals do on this issue, and it's taken at face value by sycophant sheeple.

to the propaganda dispensed by Fox Noise,etc? You call yourself objective? Please forgive me for finding that laughable.

[Guest]

Guys say what you will or will what you say but when it comes to debates by politicians concerning spending my thoughts go to drug addicts you promise just one more fix and I'm done. It is why I agree with the Tea Party because if we don't do an intervention these guys will never stop. so argue about who did what to whom.....bottom line... while you do politicians will continually need their fix of your money and will go about stealing it from you any way they can.

I also think about Greece because that is the way our nanny state is headed

When I write my representative all I say is STOP THE MADNESS, STOP THE SPENDING

[Guest]

to the propaganda dispensed by Fox Noise,etc? You call yourself objective? Please forgive me for finding that laughable.

Your reply is no reply but more obfuscation.

[Guest]

to the propaganda dispensed by Fox Noise,etc? You call yourself objective? Please forgive me for finding that laughable.
You never contribute anything..do you know that?

[Guest]

You never contribute anything..do you know that?

that's a complement.

[Guest]

that's a complement.

I rest my case. Does your grandson know how to spell compliment?

[Guest]

I rest my case. Does your grandson know how to spell compliment?

That's one for you.

[Guest]

That's one for you.

Do I sense a trace of humility? Good for you!!!

[Guest]

I agree with some of what the article says, disagree with others. Same with the previous posters on this thread.

What's more important to me now is how we get out of this debt limit pickle. From all that I'm reading and hearing, virtually all constituencies seem to be in favor of the Senate proposal that has been crafted by the Gang of Six rather than the Tea Party House-sponsored bill passed yesterday in the House. That House bill has no chance of enactment into law and everyone knows it. It seems to be a bill passed purely for political reasons.

The more attractive proposal seems to be that which is emerging from the Gang of Six in the Senate. That proposal is very consistent with the proposals made by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and seems to be embraced by almost everyone--except the Tea Party. That seems to include the business community, the financial press, almost all economists that I've read, the foreign press, even the financial markets and the majority of the American public.

The Tea Party proposal--no their demands, really--sets forth a set of conditions that are pretty good ones over the long run, but it'll run the country and our economy off the cliff in the next couple of weeks unless they get realistic. That's what maddens me about the Tea Party, they have some fundamentally good ideas--really good ideas as far as I'm concerned--but they are trying to get them implemented in a way that is sophomoric in the context of how the Congress works and potentially destructive to the country and even the world economy. It's as if they're new to playing the game and don't know the rules. They seem to want the big bite and want it right now, even though they'll find the bite difficult or impossible to swallow. They are adamant instead of accepting a pretty substantial "nibble" (if you call $4 trillion in deficit reductions a nibble) over a longer period and ultimately getting to all of what they stand for.

The potential disaster that would be caused by the enactment of "cut, cap and balance" is so obvious that the Senate has created their own proposed legislation, even though it is exactly opposite of what the Constitution dictates. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 7, says...“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Our system of government has been in effect and evolving for more than two centuries. The Tea Party is not going to be able to change it in a 180-degree movement overnight. I hope they come to realize that and accept the almost $4 trillion cuts in the deficit that are on the table, leaving the rest of cut, cap and balance for another day--maybe after the 2012 elections. I sure hope they come to that realization soon.

We can all have our opinions whether they lean left or right. Take a look at the thoughtful analysis above. My compliments to a guy who really dissects the issues.

[Guest]

Do not know if I am doing this correctly but here goes:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

Thought this was interesting.

[Guest]

We can all have our opinions whether they lean left or right. Take a look at the thoughtful analysis above. My compliments to a guy who really dissects the issues.

The only thing about the proposed $4 Trillion in cuts is that it's all smoke and mirrors. Promised cuts down the road historically have been forgotten about and reneged on when that promised trigger becomes due.

Without definitive cuts tied to any increase in debt limits, the cuts will not ever happen. Ideologues may like to embrace the rhetoric, but it don't pay the bills.

[Guest]

Its just amazing that no matter what happened or why the lliberal media and their readers had no problem laying it all at the feet fo George W...and in fact still do. But despite the under handed and end runs Obama made via his party dominated congress and dozen upon dozens of czars that bypass congress his two bailouts, his healthcare incentive , his throwing business after business under the bus etc etc etc...but none of this is Obama's fault. Poor guy is just misunderstood.

why the layoffs? Ask a businessman and they are all on hold to see for a better growth opportunity tax policies ,etc.

Obama is a poor leader

[Guest]

The only thing about the proposed $4 Trillion in cuts is that it's all smoke and mirrors. Promised cuts down the road historically have been forgotten about and reneged on when that promised trigger becomes due.

Without definitive cuts tied to any increase in debt limits, the cuts will not ever happen. Ideologues may like to embrace the rhetoric, but it don't pay the bills.

I meant the Villages Kahuna, not you.

[Guest]

I meant the Villages Kahuna, not you.

I know that. You were praising a post and I was responding to the glaring flaw in the post you praised. Get it now?

[Guest]

Its just amazing that no matter what happened or why the lliberal media and their readers had no problem laying it all at the feet fo George W...and in fact still do. But despite the under handed and end runs Obama made via his party dominated congress and dozen upon dozens of czars that bypass congress his two bailouts, his healthcare incentive , his throwing business after business under the bus etc etc etc...but none of this is Obama's fault. Poor guy is just misunderstood.

why the layoffs? Ask a businessman and they are all on hold to see for a better growth opportunity tax policies ,etc.

Obama is a poor leader

Obamas "service" to this nation as President has been bad for the country. Four more years would be as bad if not worse.

Need I say more?

[Guest]

Obamas "service" to this nation as President has been bad for the country. Four more years would be as bad if not worse.

Need I say more?

Vote Obama in '12.

[Guest]

Vote Obama in '12.

Are you serious???

[Guest]

Are you serious???

It's love over substance for some.

[Guest]

Are you serious???

Absolutely!!!!

[Guest]

You know, I was surprised at how many czars there were. WHat surprised me even more was that the HUGE increase in 'czars' didn't start with Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

This is another piece of evidence that we need a viable 3rd party in this country. You can say I'm "blaming Bush" but my intent is to show that the Republicans are just as bad.

Now, about the bailouts, well, once again, Chrysler has paid back their bailout YEARS early. On top of that, the government is divesting itself of GM stock. Though some complain that too much stock was given 'to the unions that destroyed GM'. Funny how an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) is praised in other places because it gives the employees a sense of ownership. I'm thinking that the UAW's ownership stake will keep them a little more sane than in the past. Hopefully the complete WAR of union vs. management can be calmed down. I'm not saying it's going to be like Southwest Airline's relationships with IT'S unions, but we all know there was room for improvement.

[Guest]

It's love over substance for some.

Boy Howdy!!! ( as GG would say)

[Guest]

...we need a viable 3rd party in this country....Boy, do we ever!

On one hand I'd like to see people like Michael Bloomberg, Chris Christie or even Joe Scarborough throw their hats in the ring as third party candidates. But they know that being President with a Congress that's as dysfunctional and broken as ours has been for several years, would produce nothing more than four years of frustration and ineffectiveness. Without a third party base of people running for Congress as well as POTUS, it's a waste of time.

[Guest]

I know that. You were praising a post and I was responding to the glaring flaw in the post you praised. Get it now?

You were quoting me not VK. How do we know what you were responding to in the original post if you don't quote that post. I will show you more respect when you start responding in more thoughtful statements that don't sound like FOX News sound bytes. Get that?

[Guest]

Obamas "service" to this nation as President has been bad for the country. Four more years would be as bad if not worse.

Need I say more?

He will have doubled the deficit. He must go.

[Guest]

He will have doubled the deficit. He must go.You have every right to decide who to vote for in 2012. But at least get your reasons correct. The deficit has not doubled during the 30 months of the Obama administration. That's been covered very adequately elsewhere in the forum. Maybe you should read it.

[Guest]

You have every right to decide who to vote for in 2012. But at least get your reasons correct. The deficit has not doubled during the 30 months of the Obama administration. That's been covered very adequately elsewhere in the forum. Maybe you should read it.

If he stays in office and on his spending course, he will have doubled it.

[Guest]

You were quoting me not VK. How do we know what you were responding to in the original post if you don't quote that post. I will show you more respect when you start responding in more thoughtful statements that don't sound like FOX News sound bytes. Get that?

I rarely even watch Fox News, so quit being an dolt. I rarely watch any TV whatsoever. If what you say is true, then Fox News sounds like me. I read and read, and then read some more.

I was responding to the same thing as you were responding to with your praise and pointing out to you the flaw in the post you were praising. Go back and re-read and then go "oooh"

[Guest]

You have every right to decide who to vote for in 2012. But at least get your reasons correct. The deficit has not doubled during the 30 months of the Obama administration. That's been covered very adequately elsewhere in the forum. Maybe you should read it.

Well maybe doubling is a bit of an exaggeration, but at it's essence, the statement has real time validity. The deficit has grown more under Obama than any other president and at a more accelerated pace. That's gotta be good enough for anyone to make the assessment villagegolfer has.

[Guest]

Well maybe doubling is a bit of an exaggeration, but at it's essence, the statement has real time validity. The deficit has grown more under Obama than any other president and at a more accelerated pace. That's gotta be good enough for anyone to make the assessment villagegolfer has.I won't defend President Obama's attention to the fiscal health of the country. His actions in that regard are pretty indefensible. But I think it's only fair to note that I can't think of another president who took office saddled with the cost of two wars, an economy on life support on his inauguration day, and the tax policy of his predecessor which didn't accomplish it's objectives yet for political reasons couldn't be changed. Unfortunately there's very little time left to fix that stuff before our lenders start treating us like Greece or Ireland. If you thought there were complaints and accusations before, just wait...

Remember, we re-finance about $100 billion in maturing loans every week. Unless there's someone there to buy new bonds or bills to replace those that are coming due, we'll get spending cuts all right. Big time and real fast!

[Guest]

He will have doubled the deficit. He must go.

Sorry, the facts don't back that up.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T.
Obama's first deficit was $1.3T (the next is projected at $1.6T)

You are either repeating misinformation or lying. I would like to think you've been led to believe that bush's last defict was NOT $1.4T but you can go the to the Office of Management and Budget and look it up.

[Guest]

Sorry, the facts don't back that up.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T.
Obama's first deficit was $1.3T (the next is projected at $1.6T)

You are either repeating misinformation or lying. I would like to think you've been led to believe that bush's last defict was NOT $1.4T but you can go the to the Office of Management and Budget and look it up.
Are you saying this chart is a lie?
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

[Guest]

Are you saying this chart is a lie?
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

Good one. Where are you getting your figures DJ? The sources for villagegolfer's chart seem pretty unimpeachable.

[Guest]

I got my figures from the OMB.

For some reason, the chart isn't loading. I'm going to take a GUESS at the point you're trying to make and I'll ask the following..

Is that simply going on Calendar Years as opposed to Fiscal Years? The reason I ask is that Bush's last budget was FY 2009, which started on 10/1/2008 (before the election Obama won). The FY 2009 deficit was $1.4T, according to the OMB.

Obama's first FY was FY2010, starting Oct 1, 2009. According to the OMB the FY 2010 deficit was $1,293,489,000,000 (they list it in millions).

I got my figures here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals using the spreadsheet downloaded form the first link on that page. This includes on AND off-budget numbers.

Now, to be fair, Bush's deficits were (in order starting in FY 2002), $157B, $377B, $412B, $318B, $248B, $160B and $458B in FY 2008 before the big $1.4T in FY 2009.

But to be even more fair, Clinton's surpluses started in FY1998 and were, in order, $69B, $125B, $236B and $128B in FY 2001. Clinton's deficits ran from $203B in FY 1994 to $22B in FY 1997.

[Guest]

Clinton had the luxury of a fiscal conservative congress. Bush was saddled with a spend happy congress. Remember the Contract with America?

[Guest]

The Contract With America was released during the 1994 congressional campaign. I most certainly DO remember it.

Bush's spend-happy Congress was also GOP-controlled. It shocked me that so-called 'fiscal conservatives' would produce the Farm Bill, the Prescription Drug Plan and two wars with no way to pay for them.

To me, something happened to the GOP when they got the whole ball of wax (WH, House, Senate). They suddenly made the Democrats look like pikers when it came to spending.

[Guest]

The Contract With America was released during the 1994 congressional campaign. I most certainly DO remember it.

Bush's spend-happy Congress was also GOP-controlled. It shocked me that so-called 'fiscal conservatives' would produce the Farm Bill, the Prescription Drug Plan and two wars with no way to pay for them.

To me, something happened to the GOP when they got the whole ball of wax (WH, House, Senate). They suddenly made the Democrats look like pikers when it came to spending.

That was the problem, they were not fiscal conservatives. A real conservative is fiscally responsible.

[Guest]

...Bush's deficits were (in order starting in FY 2002), $157B, $377B, $412B, $318B, $248B, $160B and $458B in FY 2008 before the big $1.4T in FY 2009....Did those deficit numbers include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

For the entire eight years of the Bush administration, the wars were funded with requests for special appropriations. Begnning with Obama, they added the costs of the wars as line budget items.

I'm sure not going to argue that our deficits haven't increased under President Obama, but are we comparing apples and oranges?

[Guest]

Did those deficit numbers include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

For the entire eight years of the Bush administration, the wars were funded with requests for special appropriations. Begnning with Obama, they added the costs of the wars as line budget items.

I'm sure not going to argue that our deficits haven't increased under President Obama, but are we comparing apples and oranges?

Those figures are included.

[Guest]

Did those deficit numbers include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

For the entire eight years of the Bush administration, the wars were funded with requests for special appropriations. Begnning with Obama, they added the costs of the wars as line budget items.


To the best of my knowledge, those costs are included. I made sure to use the column that was the total of the ON *and* OFF budget receipts and expenditures.

I believe the huge rise in Bush's last term was the stimulus package combined with plummeting tax receipts.

[Guest]

Good one. Where are you getting your figures DJ? The sources for villagegolfer's chart seem pretty unimpeachable.

Ok, I finally got that to load.

There's a SLIGHT problem with that chart - it's almsot a year and a half old.

The $1.5T for Obama's first year didn't turn out to be that bad now that FY 2010 is over. By the same token, the next projection was more optimistic than the latest $1.6T coming.

Remember that chart was before the December 2010 battle that resulted in extending ALL the Bush tax cuts. The CBO can only go with what they had at the time and, the way this Congress is going, you can never tell WHAT laws will be in place next week (that can affect the projections).