Printable View
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...y-20-2009.html
194 Accomplishments from this site. Some nonsense.
What is his greatest accomplishment?
From your political POV?
That has the biggest impact on the highest percentage of Americans in the next five years? For your great-grandchildren?
Took the most fortitude to do for the benefit of America as a whole?
Improved aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, and issued new guidelines to make FOIA more open and transparent when processing FOIA requests. http://1.usa.gov/gjrnp2
I think this is what will help americans for generations after generations. Also extending bush tax cuts is the hardest for him to do.
41. Fashioned rules so that banks can no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers' interests. http://bit.ly/fnTayj
108. Oversaw a $4.6 billion expansion of the Veterans Administration budget to pay for more mental health professionals. http://bit.ly/gjzTxX
can't think of one
IMO, it's probably between saving GM and it's associated jobs and offing a good amount of AQ leadership, including OBL, during his watch. But yeah, even some of the means to accomplish those are debatable. But looking at results, probably those two.
Agree there's not a lot to pick from...
Fooling Americans that he was great news for America. Being compared to Kennedy when he is nothing like. Bombing and murdering innocent children and women in other countries and getting away with it.
His greatest accomplishment will come this election. The demographic that supported him most (96%), was the most screwed by his presidency -- they have the highest percent unemployed and their income dropped 11% under his watch. If Obama gets that level of support from them this time around -- then THAT is an accomplishment.
being black in front of racist blacks is an accomplishment?
As much as I dislike Obama's policies, I have to give him mad props for being the first black president in a country long divided by racial tension, tbh.....
http://africasacountry.files.wordpre...D500%26h%3D369......Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
ACA is obviously his great accomplishment, in spite Repugs and the health industry extorting all kinds of screwups and compromises (eg, a public option totally impossible).
All the security and the war crap was not initiated by him. The MIC/NSA is gonna do that shit no matter who is President (and no president would try to stop it, it's out of control of civilians)
Convenient how, to Team Blue party-liners such as yourself, the security/war crap was mostly Dubya and Cheney's fault, but is out of Obama's control.... never mind the fact that Obama personally signed his name to a renewal of the Patriot Act.... never mind that as Commander in Chief, the President should have his military under control....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
"Dubya and Cheney's fault"
Like wars, once started, very hard to stop. Once laws and regs and matching bureaucracy and corrupt special interests are created, DHS, TSA, etc, almost impossible to stop. That's why I've always said the shit that dubya, dickhead, the Repugs did would last for decades.
never mind that you're a naive asshole.
I can just see any (Dem) President try to nullify the "Patriot" Act and get shit-stormed by the Repugs as unAmerican, unPatriotic, soft on terrorists, etc, etc. Of course, a Repug president would never try to nullify the Patriot Act, It's a Repug baby.
Last I checked, Ron Paul is a Republican, and he'd run the Patriot Act through a shredder in a second, tbh.....
Ron Paul will never ever ever ever be president. Just sayin
Don't be so sure quite yet, as the RNC's cheating is being overturned.....Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Basically, Obama's soft on CriticismQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
If Obama was a true liberal and a Nobel Peace winner, he would veto the Patriot Act and the NDAA. And yes, he has that power as president yet he doesn't use it because wants America to be a police state and wants to do nation building overseas until America's economy fucks itself into the ground.
Obamacare is obviously his biggest accomplishment. Like it or not the ACA is one of the most significant pieces of legislation of the past few decades. Having Osama Bin Laden killed on his watch was pretty significant too.
you have fun with you RP fantasies because RP will never be anything but huge LOSER, never had a chance to even sniff any office where he could tried, and been blocked, to carry out his fantasies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Well, if we're going to list negative accomplishments, his reaching $15 Trillion dollars in debt and running Trillion dollar deficits, every year of his presidency, has to rank up there, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mercos
Highest persistent unemployment
Setting a record for breaking campaign promises has to be in the mix.
Most rounds of golf.
I could go on...
Osama bin Laden would have been killed on whomever's watch was going on when Special Operations and Intelligence infrastructure Obama railed against, during his campaign, caught up with him. Not as much an accomplishment for Obama as it was one for the dedicated team of intelligence operatives and military professionals that tracked his ass down and killed him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mercos
Neil Armstrong died on his watch, too. You'd think the first man to set foot on the Moon would warrant more than a tweet. Why aren't the flags at half-staff?
What could Obama done, being almighty Pope, King, dictator, to totally wipeoutQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
1. Banksters Great Depression
2. bring unemployment down to 4.5%
3. make up the $Ts in lost revenue from Repug/VRWC tax cuts.
4. make up the $Ts lost in Repugs wars-for-oil
AND
What will gecko and Ryan do differently if Rove buys them the WH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
Ezra Klein: Bush Policies Responsible For Vast Majority Of Debt Increase Under Obama Administration. In a January 31 Washington Post column, Klein estimated that Obama's policies are responsible for $983 billion of the nearly $5 trillion increase in public debt over the course of his administration, while the remainder of the debt increase is attributable to Bush-era policies. From The Washington Post:
[I]f you're a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn't answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama's opponents: $4.7 trillion.
But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
Quote:
[The Washington Post, 1/31/12, 1/31/12]
Politifact: In Contrast To Bush, "Obama Has The Second-Lowest Increase" In Federal Spending "Of Any President In 60 Years." After examining the numbers, Politifact determined that "using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years." Politifact also reported that "using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account."
MediaMatters.org, Really? :lmao
And, that last quote has already been debunked.
After everyone quit laughing, someone noticed the guy that said Obama had the smallest spending increase of any President since damn near forever, was calculating fiscal year to fiscal year and gave Bush the spending from January 21, 2009 - September 30, 2009. If you recall, that would have been when the Stimulus was passed. It also is worth mentioning that Obama called the President 7 days before taking office and asked that he release the second half of TARP (which Bush had no intention of spending) so that Obama would have a slush fund when he took office.
Also, as far as deficits go, for almost two years -- at the beginning of his term -- President Obama had a completely compliant Congress. He could have fixed whatever Bush policies he believed were contributing to the trillion dollar deficits, (which, ironically, never occurred during the Bush administration -- what was his highest deficit? $500 Billion?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
lolQuote:
Yonivore- No; just that not all research agrees with your position. 8/9/12
Ezra Klein: Bush Policies Responsible For Vast Majority Of Debt Increase Under Obama Administration. In a January 31 Washington Post column,
Politifact
Media Matters didn't write any of it you moron
Curiously, you left off the MediaMatters.org graphic that accompanied the article you failed to link.
First of all, they don't make it very clear in the title of the graphic if these are deficits carried over from Bush or if they're new debt incurred as a result of Bush policies. The phrase "cumulative total from 2001 to 2009," is a bit misleading. If that had accumulated from 2001 to 2009, then 1) the debt would have only increased by $983 billion (using their numbers) in the last four years. So, I'm assuming they're saying that $5.1 trillion in debt accumulated from 2009 to 2012, due to Bush policies enacted from 2001 to 2009. I'm going to go with that assumption.
$1.812 Trillion attributed to the tax rates set by Congress during the first term of President Bush.
There is considerable disagreement over whether or not these tax cuts increased or decreased revenue -- but, revenue increased after they were implemented. Your side claims revenue would have increased at a faster rate had they not been implemented. Set aside the argument, for a second, and at least own the fact that President Obama had the option of allowing those temporary tax rates to expire -- without any way for Republicans to stop him -- in the first two years of his presidency and chose not to. If he had cut spending by $1.812 trillion over the last 4 years, this would be a non-issue, as well.
$1.812 trillion to Obama.
$1.812 trillion + $983 billion = $2.795 trillion.
$853 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again, after January 21, 2009, President Obama was free to command foreign affairs -- including the military -- in whatever way he saw fit. Continuing the policies of the previous administration doesn't make the previous administration liable for the debts incurred for pursuing that policy.
$853 billion to Obama.
$2.795 trillion + $853 billion = $3.648 trillion.
$480 billion on "other tax"
Whatever it is, if it's a Bush policy, he could have rescinded it on January 21, 2009.
$480 billion to Obama.
$2.795 trillion + $480 billion = $4.128 trillion.
And, on down the list...
The bottom line is this; when Barack Obama took office our national debt hovered around $10 trillion dollars. And, for the next two years, he had complete control of both houses of Congress -- during which time he chose to continue Bush policies while frittering away his political capital on Obamacare (which also adds to the deficit and debt). If President Obama had any problems with the programs, listed in the graphic, attributed to Bush, he had ample opportunity to address them. He chose not to and, in fact, justified (for economic and national security reasons), continuing many of them.
Obama owns $5 trillion of the debt accumulated since January 21, 2009. Now, if you'll list all the cost-cutting measures he's proposed or that have been introduced by Democrats, in Congress, since Republicans took control of the House in 2010, that did not pass -- we can lay those at the feet of Republicans in Congress.
Very creative math.
I don't care who wrote it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Did or did not that analysis lump spending into fiscal years and charge all of FY 2009 spending to President Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
It's a simple question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
seems you have a problem with their math....Quote:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
when was the fiscal year 2009 spending passed? what year was that?
I'll asnwer that for you..
Quote:
The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."
Quote:
Again, after January 21, 2009, President Obama was free to command foreign affairs -- including the military -- in whatever way he saw fit. Continuing the policies of the previous administration doesn't make the previous administration liable for the debts incurred for pursuing that policy.
so you are one those the article states that as of 1/21/09 it was Obama's fault...
guilty as charged..lol
you keep mentioning the first 2 yrs of his presidency ..what happened when the GOP controlled the House for the last 2 yrs..did spending go down? did the deficit go down?Quote:
There is considerable disagreement over whether or not these tax cuts increased or decreased revenue -- but, revenue increased after they were implemented. Your side claims revenue would have increased at a faster rate had they not been implemented. Set aside the argument, for a second, and at least own the fact that President Obama had the option of allowing those temporary tax rates to expire -- without any way for Republicans to stop him -- in the first two years of his presidency and chose not to. If he had cut spending by $1.812 trillion over the last 4 years, this would be a non-issue, as well.
$800 billion was passed after January 21st. And, if you include the $400 billion (or so) Obama requested Bush to make available, prior to the inauguration, that shifts $1.2 trillion from Bush to Obama...more than enough to seriously fuck up the proposition Obama was the president with the smallest increase in spending. In fact, I think it makes him the president with the largest increase in spending -- ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."
What was his fault? Spending? Absolutely. Look, even if I agree with the policies he continued -- his continuing them make the costs incurred his. It's simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
A) That doesn't make it Bush's fault and B) we'd need to look at exactly where spending increased, wouldn't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Quote:
..Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion
Published: February 4, 2008
WASHINGTON — President Bush submitted a federal budget of $3.1 trillion on Monday, declaring that the spending plan would keep the United States safe and prosperous and, despite its record size, would adhere to his principle of letting Americans keep as much of their own money as possible.
Thanks to the hard work of the American people and spending discipline in Washington, we are now on a path to balance the budget by 2012,” the president said in an introductory message. “Our formula for achieving a balanced budget is simple: Create the conditions for economic growth, keep taxes low and spend taxpayer dollars wisely or not at all.”
The spending package for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no big surprises, especially since its key elements had already been reported in detail in recent days. The Pentagon’s proposed budget, for instance, is $515.4 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent over this year, meaning that military spending would be the highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. And the White House’s plans for trimming Medicare and Medicaid have also been previewed.
Whether the president’s vision will become reality is by no means clear, given the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and Mr. Bush’s lame-duck status as the country looks toward the election of the next president in November. Democrats are likely to push for increased spending on social programs, and fewer tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals.
Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”
Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.
But the total federal debt held by the public — that is, the accumulated total of all federal borrowing — has grown substantially in recent years. It was $3.3 trillion in 2001, when President Bush took office, and is expected to climb to $5.4 trillion this year and $5.9 trillion in 2009, according to budget documents issued by the White House on Monday. As a share of the economy, federal debt held by the public is expected to reach 39 percent of the gross domestic product in 2009, up from 33 percent in 2001.
Democrats reacted so vehemently to the president’s proposals and predictions that it seemed as if they and the president were talking about two different documents. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, issued a statement saying that the budget was “fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing our skyrocketing debt.”
“President Bush’s fiscal policies are the worst in our nation’s history — he has turned record surpluses into record deficits — and this budget is more of the same,” Mr. Reid said.
And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the budget calls for “more deficit-financed war spending, more deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to the benefit the wealthiest,” The Associated Press reported.
“Today’s budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush legacy,” Representative John Spratt, the South Carolina Democrat who heads the House Budget Committee, told The A.P.
Some Republicans were also critical. “They’ve obviously played an inordinate number of games to try to make it look better,” Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said in an interview with The A.P.
And Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine said the president wants to place the burden of balancing the budget “too greatly on the backs of the least fortunate among us.”
The proposed budget assumes that the “temporary” tax cuts that Mr. Bush pushed through Congress earlier in the decade, when Republicans were in control, will not be allowed to expire in the next few years, as they are supposed to on paper. In fact, people of both parties have acknowledged that it would be difficult politically to call for ending the tax cuts.
But Ms. Snowe, who criticized several aspects of the proposed budget, said making tax cuts for the “wealthiest Americans” is not the appropriate way to put the country’s finances in order, “a goal that is not mutually exclusive with an obligation to the most vulnerable among us.”
At first glance, the outlines of the budget debate appeared to mirror the situation in 2000, when President Clinton was a lame duck, the country was focused on the presidential election and the proposed budget for the next fiscal year was labeled a non-starter before the telephone book-sized budget documents even arrived at the Capitol.
But things were really much different in 2000. There was talk then about what the country would do with all its surplus money, given the booming economy and the demise of the Soviet Union, which was supposed to reduce military spending in the long run.
Then the dot-com bubble burst, heralding a recession. The Sept. 11 attacks touched off new spending for a new kind of war, and the campaigns in Afghanistan and especially Iraq began consuming enormous amounts of money.
The recession that began in 2001 was relatively short-lived. The current economic slowdown is linked in large part to the housing slump, which many analysts say could have deeper and longer-lasting effects than the dot-com collapse, and could leave the government short of money for a longer time.
Mr. Bush’s 2009 budget estimates that federal receipts will decline this year by $47 billion, to $2.5 trillion, mainly because of the soft economy and a decline in corporate income tax receipts. At the same time, federal spending is expected to rise this year by $201 billion, to a total of $2.9 trillion. (By contrast, receipts grew at a brisk pace averaging 11 percent a year from 2004 to 2007.)
Mr. Bush said his budget would slow “the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending” with proposed savings of $208 billion over five years. This includes savings of $178 billion in Medicare, $17 billion in Medicaid and $6 billion in student aid programs. The president proposes to raise $2 billion from new enrollment fees and higher pharmacy co-payments for certain veterans receiving health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Bush also assumes that the government will collect $9 billion over the next five years in higher premiums for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. He would give the agency’s board authority to raise premiums to produce “the revenue necessary to meet expected future claims” and to retire its deficit. These changes would improve the agency’s financial condition and “safeguard the future benefits of American workers,” the White House said.
Another big difference between 2000 and 2008 is that the legions of “baby boomers” are starting to march into retirement. As a group, they can be expected to live longer than their parents, and collect more Social Security and Medicare benefits.
So now you want to pin this on Obama...Quote:
Under the budget sent to Congress yesterday, Bush would freeze most domestic spending and limit payments to hospitals and other providers as part of an effort to slow the growth of Medicare. Because of plans to send tax rebates to most Americans under an economic stimulus program, the deficit would grow in the short term but would fall to zero by 2012 if Congress adopts the spending restraints Bush is calling for, according to projections in the new budget.
Lawmakers said they are unlikely to go along with much of the president's final-year agenda, and Bush's plan omits several costly features, including tens of billions of dollars of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that could drive the deficit even higher than the president's estimates. That would effectively delay until 2009 decisions on how to cope with short- and long-term financial problems, lawmakers and others said.
The new deficit projections "clearly make a problem not only for the next Congress but also the next couple of Congresses, and the next president, too," said G. William Hoagland, a longtime GOP Senate aide and budget expert who is now a health-care lobbyist.
"A whole bunch of things they were putting off and hiding under the rug all these years are starting to pop back up," said Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago and chief economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "It's clear they're trying to shove as much of this as possible on to the next guy."
White House officials reject such criticism, saying they have tried to put forward ideas for confronting the long-term costs of Medicare and Social Security but repeatedly have been stymied by Democrats in Congress. White House budget director Jim Nussle told reporters yesterday that he remains hopeful there can be bipartisan progress on budget issues this year, noting that Democrats and Republicans have cooperated recently on the economic stimulus plan.
"You might be surprised," he said. "I think that there are many in Congress that believe rather than waiting until the last minute in 2008, maybe we ought to have some of those conversations a little bit earlier."
The budget deficit has not figured recently as a major issue in Washington or on the campaign trail, as it did in the 1980s and '90s. Bush inherited a surplus in 2001, but his tax cuts, the slowing economy early in his administration and a massive defense buildup turned the surplus into red ink, with the deficit hitting a record $413 billion in 2004. In recent years, the deficit has fallen as tax revenues jumped with the improving economy.
Nussle acknowledged that the deficit will grow to $410 billion in the current fiscal year. But he cast that largely as a result of the stimulus plan, which is expected to cost about $146 billion, and he noted that the deficit is low in historical terms, as a proportion of the economy.
"We believe that this uptick is temporary and is also a manageable budget deficit if we keep taxes low, if we can keep the economy growing and if we can keep spending in check," he said.
But while the deficit measured against the size of the economy will be far from a record, it will come after six straight years of red ink. The federal debt will have climbed to $9.7 trillion by the time Bush leaves office, a rise of $4 trillion during his administration, according to the budget.
Interest on the debt next year will total $260 billion, about what will be spent by the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Justice combined.
Bush's budget, for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, is austere except for a handful of agencies including the Defense Department, which would grow by about 7 percent over the discretionary spending approved for the current year. The president would slice $14.2 billion from the growth of federal health-care programs in 2009, eliminate scores of programs and virtually freeze domestic programs.
The plan would continue Bush's first-term tax cuts beyond their 2011 expiration date -- at a cost to the Treasury of $635 billion through 2013 -- extend abstinence education programs, create elementary and secondary education vouchers, and guard other White House initiatives.
The president also takes aim at programs that Congress has zealously preserved -- and is likely to continue protecting. Among the programs Bush would eliminate are food programs for poor children, research assistance to manufacturers, career and technical education grants, weatherization assistance, community development grants, graduate medical education at children's hospitals and a public housing revitalization program that the House just overwhelmingly reauthorized.
The president's budget stands in sharp contrast to the priorities of the Democratic-controlled Congress, which lawmakers said is likely to wait out Bush's presidency rather than accede to many of his demands.
As in past years, the budget has several features that may make the deficits even larger than Bush anticipates.
For instance, it makes room for $61 billion in 2009 to stop the growth of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system that was enacted in 1969 to make sure the rich pay income tax, but that is increasingly squeezing the middle class. The cost of a fix will continue to grow each year, but the budget makes no more allowances for that.
The document also assumes $70 billion in costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars next year, a fraction of the true costs, which could reach $200 billion in 2008. Beyond 2009, the budget includes no war costs at all.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said last week that the $70 billion request was only enough to close out the Bush administration, making explicit the Defense Department's desire to let the next president finish the job of funding the war. "Three-quarters of that budget in '09 will be executed by a subsequent administration," he said.
To reach his deficit forecast, the president assumes economic growth this year of 2.7 percent, a full percentage point higher than the Congressional Budget Office estimate and much higher than the forecasts of some private economists, who believe the nation may already be in a recession. Adopting the CBO's forecast would eliminate about $340 billion in expected tax revenues, said Tom Kahn, staff director of the House Budget Committee.
Bush also foresees raising $2.1 billion in health-care fees on non-disabled veterans through 2013. A promised crackdown on tax cheats is supposed to raise $10.5 billion over that time. And under the budget, domestic programs not related to defense or homeland security would be frozen at $393 billion between 2010 and 2013.
"It's not going to happen," said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who called Bush's budget more of "an academic exercise" than "a real budget."
"Maybe a $400 billion deficit forecast will get people to notice," Gregg added. "But in an election year, we haven't seen very much seriousness, and this budget certainly falls into this category."
Former Bush economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, while applauding the short-term stimulus package as wise fiscal policy, said neither the White House nor Democrats are being particularly realistic about the longer-term fiscal challenges facing the country. He said the president is proposing a freeze on spending and Democrats are anticipating using revenue from expiring tax cuts.
"Neither of those probably will work out the way they expect," he said. "Let's face it -- the last thing Washington does is freeze spending for any sustainable period of time. And the fiscal and macroeconomic effects of letting the tax cuts expire are huge."
With little prospect for action, the fiscal problems will fall to the next president, and they could be considerable. "They are going to inherit a fiscal meltdown. It's just as clear as it can be," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
dreaded double post
And imperfect omnibus bill passed by Democrat-controlled Congress...Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Yoni's been dictated THE VRWC LIE that Barry's spending is out of control and must be stopped, so Yoni falls in lockstep and pushes the LIE hard.
If I'm not mistaken, the budget proposed by President Bush never passed the Congress -- the March 11, 2009 Omnibus bill spent around $400 billion. Incidentally, NO budget has passed Congress since Obama took office..Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
So, yes; all spending incurred after January 21, 2009 is squarely on the shoulders of President Obama.
Fucking Leading from behind! That's all that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA210
it's going to be a hoot around here when Obama wins another 4 years..lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
If so, we can see if his agenda is correctly predicted by 2016...Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
or the movie will go down as another failed conservative hit piece... but hey you go right and believe it WCQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What's going to be the difference, brother?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Off topic, Will you change your sig? Thanks. God bless
what is his predicted agenda from that mormon movie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think we continue on the same path we've been going down for 4 years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
So, in an Obama second term, when does the economy turn around?
^^^thinks presidents control macroeconomics. :lmao
his greatest accomplishment was continuing american policy on the same time table without public resentment.
What Mormon movie are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
this slightly resembles Andrew Sullivan's "Obama is a Tory" takeQuote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
if the president would just get the govt out of the way everything would be betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Pretty much. It's more Bush without the Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
exactly. and you have to ask yourself, "is that necessarily a bad thing?"
necessarily? no.
the continuity as between Bush and Obama is more or less repugnant to me, so I would say that in this case, it's a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
yes it sucks, and we shouldnt have been in this position to began with. radical transition in policy is what drove us here in the first place, though.
maybe the best "change" is "slow and easy wins the race."
unfortunately, it will take another decade to fully assess if that is true, due to its very own nature.
Obama promised to roll it back, then normalized it. what was radical a few years back is merely customary now. I blame no one but Obama for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning