BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:17 AM

Let's talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn't the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn't balance the budget, and it probably wouldn't even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there's no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.

But there's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they'll have risen to 3.5 percent of G.D.P. How scary is that? It's about the same as interest costs under the first President Bush.

Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.

The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama's image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

The trouble, however, is that it's apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.

For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there's hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price. "

---

Paul Krugman's comments above underscore the one thing that has been a common thread over the last ten years: their use of fear as a manipulative tool, mostly by Republicans. Unlike Fox and other amplifiers of the Great Fear Wave, Obama tends to manage things in a less panicked mode. But even his thoughtful approach and his commitment to civil dialogue can only go so far when hysteria is being promulgated. The reason for supporting Obama is that he is MORE rational, not that he is divinely rational.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:14 AM

"more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis"

Translation: The deficit has gone from $10,627,961,295,930.60 to $12,354,041,054,846.90 since Obama took office.

Up $1,726,079,758,916.30 and now he wants it to run it up another $1.6 trillion. see

To be honest, it went up by $1,417,373,851,868.13 in 2008 but a lot of that was TARP which was loans that were to be returned to the treasury when paid back.

Now where are the paybacks going? They are not going back to the treasury.

The TARP repayments are being spent on other pet projects by the Obama administration so that all of that can be blamed on the wicked bad BBBBBBUUUUUSSSSSHHHHH administration.

Obama took office but he did not take the responsibility of the office. He just whines like a little boy and blames someone else when his programs don't work.

Community organizing is not working for him.

He should go to these people he condemns for making too much money and ask them how to get the unemployment rate down instead of trying to work against them. Is he down on Soros or other fat cat elitists for making too much money?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

Sawz:

Your arms are probably tired from waving them around so much. Why not give it a rest. Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political. Your intent is not to communicate clearly, but to transmit or vent your anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them.

These are hardly suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:54 PM

Why are liberals so condescending?

By Gerard Alexander
Sunday, February 7, 2010

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a long liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, social issues and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind."

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors.

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies.

This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers. "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?"

In Krugman's condescending world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and ponder their hidden motivations.

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst. This is the second variety of liberal condescension, exemplified in Thomas Frank's best-selling 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Frank argued that working-class voters were so distracted by issues such as abortion that they were induced into voting against their own economic interests. Then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, later chairman of the Democratic National Committee, echoed that theme in his 2004 presidential run, when he said Republicans had succeeded in getting Southern whites to focus on "guns, God and gays" instead of economic redistribution.

the whole article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:58 PM

Amos,


YOU state:"Your arms are probably tired from waving them around so much. Why not give it a rest. Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political. Your intent is not to communicate clearly, but to transmit or vent your anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them.

These are hardly suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music."




Have you EVER bothered to read what YOU have posted in ther anti-bush threads? I fail to see any part of your condemnation that does not apply to your own postings. That is why I keep stating you have a double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 03:41 PM

No, Bruce; it is the same standard, being applied to too extremely different cases, one failing 90% of the standard and the other passing 90% of the standard.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:20 PM

Don't ya' just love it, Amos???

Sawz becomes a defict hawk!!! I mean, what a joke... Their guy was handed over a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history... Not only that, his guy left deficit time-bombs all over the joint ready to explode on the next presdient...

Now, as for "liberals (whatever that means) being "condescending"... What a joke, part B!!!

The conservative (which they aren't) have for years put forth this idea that "liberals" are this elitist bunch of academics... Daddy Bush was the master at this and taught Junior op well... But this is their game... The entire purpose is to divide people and to win votes from folks who are not educated... And it has worked for a long, long time...

The problem with this "us v. liberals" PR game is that it is like the horses in "Animal Farm" that were worked until they dropped in the fields.... The "us v. liberals" is like in the nursing home these days because the "liberals" have figured out that, thanks to Obama, that it's "Your pocketbooks, dummy" and are just now starting to speak in a language that the "consertvatives" ionce thought was their territory... And the problem for the "conservatives" is that the "liberals" using "new 'n improved" talking points that are simple are the new horses...

Yeah, it took the "liberals" long enough but I believe they have turned the corner and are now fully appreciative of just how friggin' dumbed-down alot of folks are... Yeah, it will take for more to get on board but Obama gave them a primer on it just yesterday... So, ya'll... Look for the "liberals" to be using more "ya'lls" in the near future...

Just my observation... Yeah, I know it's farfeteched for intellegent folks to talk plain language but, hey, dumb is in...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:21 PM

"one failing 90% of the standard and the other passing 90% of the standard.
"

Actually, BOTH failed 90% of the time, by any objective standard ( ie, if Bush failed, then when Obama did the same thing HE failed as well.)




But it is Obama failing NOW, at least 90%.

THAT is what you are blindly ignoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:48 PM

I don't think it is something I am blindly ignoring, but something you are blindly projecting and rooting for; or if not you, personally, then a lot of the hard-right clan you have elected to align yourself with. Fortunately Obama has enough game to persist through the fart-storms thrown about by the right-end boo-leaders.

Also, if you look back, you will find that at the beginning of Bush's first term I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he allowed himself to be pawned by the war-mongers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM

Amos:

"Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political." when Bush bashing.

But when someone dares question the effectiveness of your hero, you suddenly swing into the let's just all get along "based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit" mode.

What you can do besides attack others personally is you can state the concrete things that Obama has actually done to improve things instead of making excuses for him.

Is he any less a war monger that the previous "root of all evil".

Just what the hell has he done different than what was being done at the end of GWB's term besides sending in more troops and escalating the war in Afghanistan? That was Obama's "war of necessity" remember?

Bobert is still campaigning against "Their guy" because he can't find anything to root about for "his guy".

At least this is more logical that the Amos modus operandi of trying to prop up a lame duck that has bombed out already.

Bobert was big deficit hawk until Obama started doing the same at a much accerated pace.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:43 AM

"Fortunately Obama has enough game to persist through the fart-storms thrown about by the right-end boo-leaders."

Now will somebody explain to me how this is "suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music."

Exactly how does this statement exemplify anything positive and concrete that Obama has done?

I think it is bigoted, purely polemical and political.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 01:58 PM

Examples of Amos's non bigoted, non polemical, non political efforts to communicate clearly and not transmit or vent his anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them, totally suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

If your Bushwhacker wasn't such a moron, it would be alot harder than you imagine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM

The Administration continues to double back on itself like a snake biting its own tongue. In "The Bait-and-Switch White House" the Times shines some light on the endless, shuffle-footed tap dancing mealymouthed Janus-faced snake-bellied double-tonguing hypocrisy that seems to be endemic in the W universe. Well, that may be unfair. Maybe its just Cheney's part. With Rove and Rumsfield gone, there's hardly any other explanation left!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

I spoke to a financial expert yesterday who remarked that the DAILY burden of servicing the United States' debt was FIVE BILLION dollars a day; and that this figure was up from two billion/day at the start of the first Bush administration.

I thought Amos said something about Bush inheriting a surplus.

Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 02:10 PM

Liebenscheiss examines the rationality of the Republican brain.


Sawz, you are a piece o' work. No context, all Manichee.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

You are no work at all Amos. It is so easy to expose your double standard. And you told me to forget the context. Now you use it as grounds for dismissal.

As usual Amos can't find anything concrete that Obama has done. He can only bloviate and make ad hominem attacks like this: Liebenscheiss examines the rationality of the Republican brain.

If you don't have any facts just use ad hominem attacks.

Here is the wisdom of Amos at work:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:01 AM

    "President [George W.] Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history." --Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,

That man really knows his shit. Right Amos?.

Sen. Kent Conrad , the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said he is a skeptic of President Barack Obama's long-term budget plan.

Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.) told White House officials Tuesday that the nation can't accept the budget's projected deficits at the end of this decade, which approach $1 trillion.

"We are on an unsustainable course by any measure," Conrad said during his committee's first hearing on the administration's 2011 budget request.

The budget plan released Monday forecasts a record $1.6 trillion deficit in fiscal 2010 but then sees the red ink falling to $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011.

But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the White House's budget doesn't tackle the deficit in later years.

"I don't see the focus on bringing down that long-term debt," said Conrad, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:41 PM

Amos:

I thought you might need another illustration of your patented double standard that you use to support your "logic":

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

---

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:46 PM

An interesting comparison between the invasion of Sicily by the Athenians (415 BC) and the invasion of Iraq by the US.

Now all I want you to do Amos is to explain to me why it so obviously illogical and causes causes you pain when I compare two American wars 60 years apart but it is perfectly logical for you to compare two wars 3595 years apart and from two different civilizations 5,873 miles apart?

I hope you don't pull out that worn, dogeared context card that you try to play when you are cornered.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:06 PM

Ah, Sawz, you try so hard to do so little.

There are some similarities between the Iraq unilateral invasion, and the Athenian unilateral invasion, and the piece to which I was drawing attention discussed them.

Both were very different from the Second World War at least from the US point of view. It is not comparing wars that is illogical. It is drawing parallels on spurious ground, as you had earlier tried to do.

Make sense, boy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

Amos: you need to mount a better defense Dad. Remember you said "forget the context"

First of all, where was any Iraq unilateral invasion?

"The 2003 invasion of Iraq, from March 20 to May 1, 2003 was led by the United States, alongside the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1. These were the United States (248,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. The invasion marked the beginning of the current Iraq War."

You are trying to rewrite history in a grasping, desperate defense of your blatant double standard.

Still waiting for those concrete positive things that Obama has done instead of your ad hominem attacks and talking about shit that happened 5000 years ago and dismissing events that happened 60 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

SAWZ,

WAKE UP, BOY.

The invasion of Iraq was initiated on the command of eorge Bush, directing the US forces to start the invasion.

It was unilateral not because Bush didn't have England on his side, but because Iraq had not committed acts of war or declared war. Clear your definitions up. Oh, and did you get sorted out on the basic logic of comparing things in ways in which they are similar and different? That was pretty flimsy thinking, son.

Your persistence in antagonism despite your own unreason is teee-jous. You have a cut and dried perspective, which was anchored long ago in an adulation of W and all he stood for. I have a different package of perceptions and values. Since it is clear there is no intend to have a discussion, why not just drop your slathering?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:05 PM

The government's report on the job market in January offered fresh hope that the economy is at last pulling out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression.

For the estimated 8.4 million people who lost their jobs to the recession, however, the data offered little cause for celebration.

Friday's report left many economists, investors, employers and job seekers scratching their heads. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found in its survey of large employers that some 20,000 jobs were lost overall in January. But the separate survey of households showed a gain of more than a half-million jobs, which pushed the jobless rate down sharply to 9.7 percent from 10 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:59 PM

I'm awake Pop. The lower unemployment number is a good sign but how about the million folks who gave up on getting a job?

I am sorry for the difficulty you are havening maintaining your air of superiority old man.

You are the one claiming the 5000 year old war by a different culture similarity, not me. Now I am supposed to defend your position? Here is a clue: Things change in 5000 years.

Now you are claiming UK was not on the same side with the US??

led by the United States, alongside the United Kingdom and smaller contingents

You are the author of that history and this history:

"Iraq had not committed acts of war"

Iraq, however, said it had almost certainly shot down a US or British plane over the no-fly zone. "Our brave air defenses have fired ground- to-air missiles against the formation of hostile planes, forcing them to flee after one of the planes was almost certainly shot down," a military spokesman said.

The Secretary of State for Defense, George Robertson, said the allies would not be "intimidated" from policing the no-fly zones by the Iraqi leader, President Saddam Hussein. "They [the no-fly zones] are humanitarian in purpose and we intend to maintain them," he told BBC Radio 4. "What we are seeing now is a show of defiance, arrogance and essentially of weakness on behalf of Saddam."

The incident was the second this week involving missiles, and follows the attack on US aircraft on Monday in the northern no-fly zone, near Mosul.

When was that Pops? Hint: before 2000.

Who was predident then? Hint: not GWB

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:08 AM

Amos:

I have been incorrectly claiming that the Athenian invasion of Sicily was 5000 years ago. It was 2435 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 11:12 PM

NYT:

"...The deficit numbers — a projected $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011 alone — are breathtaking. What is even more breathtaking is the Republicans' cynical refusal to acknowledge that the country would never have gotten into so deep a hole if President George W. Bush and the Republican-led Congress had not spent years slashing taxes — mainly on the wealthy — and spending with far too little restraint. Unfortunately, the problem does not stop there.

The Republican amnesia and posturing are playing well on the hustings, where Americans are deeply anxious about the economy and fearful of losing their jobs and homes. Far too many Democratic lawmakers are losing their nerve.

Americans should be anxious, for reasons including the huge deficit. But the cold economic truth is this: At a time of high unemployment and fragile growth, the last thing the government should do is to slash spending. That will only drive the economy into deeper trouble.

None of this means that the politicians — from either party — are off the hook. They will soon need to make hard decisions about how to reduce the deficit. But more posturing and sniping is not going to make the economy better or solve the deficit problem. President Obama has called on the Republicans to join a bipartisan commission to help make those tough decisions, but they have been resistant to the proposal.

•

We fear the demagoguing is not going to stop, especially with Congressional elections this November. As the budget debate plays out, here are some basic facts about the deficit that Americans need to consider:

HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

By the time Mr. Bush left office in early 2009, the government had run big deficits for seven straight years, and the economy was on the brink of another Great Depression. On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Mr. Obama was inaugurated — the Congressional Budget Office issued new budget estimates showing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of well over $1 trillion.

About half of today's huge deficits can be chalked up to Bush-era profligacy: mainly cutting taxes deeply while borrowing to wage two wars and to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit — all of which Republicans supported, virtually in lockstep.

The other half of recent deficits is due to the recession and the financial crisis.

To avoid a meltdown, the government — under President Bush and President Obama — rightly decided it had no choice but to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and car companies and to stimulate the economy. That prevented a very bad situation from becoming much worse, but as the recession dragged on, hundreds of billions in tax revenues have also dried up.

As for why the financial system and the economy imploded, President Bush and Congress deserve much of the blame for their devotion to debt-driven growth and blind deregulatory zeal — although on deregulation, President Clinton and his team (some of whom are back in the White House) were also complicit.

Were it not for those multiple calamities, budget deficits today would be negligible. That does not mean we would be off the hook. An aging population and relentlessly rising health care costs will hit the country with even deeper deficits as the baby boomers retire. Politicians need to pass health care reform now and start thinking seriously about Social Security and tax reform.

So what are the immediate fiscal lessons here? The first lesson is that spending without taxing is a recipe for huge deficits, and that running big deficits when the economy is expanding only sets the country up for bigger deficits when the economy contracts. The second lesson is that once a deep recession takes hold, slashing government spending is not going to solve the problem. It will only make it worse...."


Sawz:

Scraping up data points divorced from context does not make you persuasive.

Thanks for correcting the Athenian date. Glad you caught it.

What do you think about the idea that Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 01:27 PM

Obama's retreat from the global stage

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, February 8, 2010

Is a wounded Barack Obama withdrawing from the world?

Europeans could be excused for speculating as much. The White House announced last week that the president would not attend a U.S.-European Union summit planned for Madrid in May, forcing its cancellation. The spurned host, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, also failed to get a meeting with either Obama or Vice President Biden during a two-day visit to Washington.

Zapatero claimed he had "no problem" with the rebuff. But that was not the reaction back home. "Obama Turns His Back on Europe," said Spain's El Pais. "Obama's No-Show Disappoints Europe" said Germany's Der Spiegel.

Israelis and Palestinians also have reason to wonder. Obama's 70-minute State of the Union made no mention of Israel or a Middle East peace process. Shortly before the speech, Obama told an interviewer he had overestimated his administration's ability to renew negotiations between recalcitrant Israelis and Palestinians.

Then there are the leaders of Iraq. Two of them -- Kurdish regional president Massoud Barzani and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a leader of the Sunni minority -- have visited Washington in the past two weeks. Both told me they were deeply worried about whether the Obama administration would remain committed to a stable and democratic Iraq. That's partly because Obama's public rhetoric has centered on U.S. troop withdrawals, rather than any vision for the future of the country. "I understand you are totally focused now on withdrawing the troops by 2011," said Hashimi. "But what will come after that?"

So are all these people right to be upset? Is Obama reacting to political trouble at home by turning his back on foreign affairs?

The White House could fairly argue that he is not. Though he skimped on foreign policy in the State of the Union and has been visibly focused on domestic affairs since Scott Brown's election to the Senate, Obama's diplomacy still looks reasonably vigorous. His envoys are busy trying to round up votes for a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stiff sanctions on Iran. Obama has a visit to Australia and Indonesia scheduled for next month, and a summit meeting on disarmament is being prepared for Washington in April. A new strategic arms treaty with Russia is nearing completion.

In the Middle East, envoy George Mitchell labors on to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other, despite the president's stated discouragement. As for Iraq, Biden was there just two weeks ago, when -- for the second time in the past three months -- he worked to avert a crisis that could wreck the upcoming elections.

Still, it's not wrong to detect a presidential step back. Partly it is sensible -- as he did domestically, Obama piled too much on his foreign policy agenda his first year. The prospects are not good for an early Israeli-Palestinian peace, so the president is right to let an envoy manage it. Obama visited Europe six times in 2009, often for meetings that produced few results. His advisers are rightly trying to use his travel time more wisely this year.

Yet there's also a disquieting aspect to Obama's retreat. It's not just Zapatero who has trouble gaining traction in this White House: Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama has not forged close ties with any European leader. Britain's Brown, France's Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel have each, in turn, felt snubbed by him. Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are tense at best. George W. Bush used to hold regular videoconferences with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Obama has spoken to them on only a handful of occasions.

Obama's personal popularity in many parts of the world remains strong. Zapatero told The Post's editorial board that "in Spain, [Obama's] election was experienced as if it was an election in our own country." But in his first year the new president did not make the same connection with the leaders of America's principal allies. Now he is sending the message that he is cutting back his time for them. Maybe, as Zapatero diplomatically put it, this will be "no problem." But I doubt that's what the Spaniard was really thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:23 PM

Amos says:"the Iraq unilateral invasion, and the Athenian unilateral invasion, and the piece to which I was drawing attention discussed them"

In the article it says:

"Of course, the campaign in Iraq was not undertaken solely by the United States. There is an allied force. Athens, too, called in allies far and near. The historian Thucydides lists them all, and notes with awe that never had so many states engaged in a single campaign."

---

"Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?"

Your question contains an assertion. I haven't seen any evidence that the assertion is true but if it is true and not just an assertion. It is wrong.

Who has held the majority in Congress since 2006? When did this Horrible "Republican" recession begin?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM

"Iraq had not committed acts of war or declared war"

Pakistan has not committed acts of war or declared war but Mr World Peace, Change and Hope is sending troops into Pakistan unilaterally which results in the bombing and killing of innocent citizens.

Whom has he made any progress toward peace with?

Iran?
N Korea?
Chavez?
Cuba?
PLF?
AL Qaeda?
Taliban?
Palestinians?
Hamas?
Somalia?
PLO?
Hezbollah?

Chavez to Obama: Give back Nobel Prize
Fri, 18 Dec 2009

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says Barack Obama should give his Nobel Peace Prize back as he is sending more soldiers to war-weary Afghanistan.

"He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan," he said during a speech at a climate change conference in Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

Sawzaw: Amos is having difficulty coming up with a few positive things Obama has accomplished. I thought I'd lend a hand and name a few:

1. He produced (with help)two darling daughters.
2. Reportedly, he is an excellent father to those two kids.
3. Uh ...
4. Uhh ...
5. Uhhh ...

Well, uh, can I get back to you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM

Bruce, Sawz:

Your overheated rhetorical suasions are colorful, but they don't add anything to the conversation as far as comparing points of view goes. One reason is that you continuously take things out of context and then blow them up as an unsubtle form of mockery. Why should anyone continue such a conversation? I learned better than that back on the playground.

It is pretty clear that the current deficit is at least 50% the result of Bush intiatives to reduce Fedseral income and increase Federal spending; what is worse the increases in Federal spending were arguably much to the detriment of the nation. Another 45% of it is probably direct6ly attributable to the screaming emergencies left behind by the outgoing Bush genius team. That's a SWAG.

I am not sure what you wild-eyed right-siders believe Obama is trying to do but you sound to me as though you are sitting under a cloud of paranoid delusion fomented forpolitical gain by people who do not actually have your own interests at heart, or the nations. That's MY opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 03:58 PM

"but you sound to me as though you are sitting under a cloud of paranoid delusion fomented forpolitical gain by people who do not actually have your own interests at heart, or the nations. "


Funny. THAT was what I thought about the comments YOU posted about Bush, from your limited array of sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 04:55 PM

Funny, that. But different. ALas, you never seem to recognize the differences.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:15 PM

What is rhetorical about asking a simple question? Your non-answer ducking of the question is rhetorical.

This is a rhetorical as well as a compound question that I answered anyway:

"Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?"

Where is any proof of the assertion you made in that question?

I can name one thing Obama did that was positive. He gave the order to shoot some pirates.

Yeah, we need some more positive, decisive decisions like that. It shows leadership.

---

A Democratic controlled Congress was elected in 2006. Congress is supposed to balance the power of the President. They have to pass the bills. Were they in a coma or something? Now they act like they had nothing to do with the spending. Maybe they were against it before they were for it.


The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections. Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House. The House also received the first Muslims and Buddhists in Congress.

Enacted

    * February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
    * May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
    * June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
    * July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
    * August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
    * August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
    * September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
    * November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
    * December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
    * February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
    * May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
    * May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
    * June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
    * July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
    * July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
    * July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654
    * October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
          o Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
          o Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
          o Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
    * October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
    * December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.

---

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted Continuing Resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:55 PM

Amos refers to: "The historian Thucydides lists them all, and notes with awe that never had so many states engaged in a single campaign."

It is interesting to note that:

"Neocons see Thucydides as a cornerstone for their thoughts on foreign policy.

    Neoconservatives, or "neocons," believe in the use of U.S. military might to foster the spread of democracy around the globe. The notion of employing superior military power to forge sympathetic regimes is hardly new; according to Irving Kristol's account of neoconservatism in the Weekly Standard, the favorite neocon text is Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, in which the Greek historian explains "the strong will do what they will, the weak will do what they must." The notion of spreading democracy is also rooted in history; after World War I, Woodrow Wilson saw the spread of democracy as a means to promote global stability.

Now give me another lecture about context and rhetoric Pop, and when you are all done, tell me some positive concrete things Obama has done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:31 AM

Seems to me that taken a referrred-to article and claiming the referrer was the author is rhetorical device. If you don't know the difference between a pointer and an assertion, get some edification.

Good things? He started reversing the economic collapse handed to him by Bush and Paulson. He started reversing the anti-science policies and the know-nothing policies of the Bush years. He regained the respect of the international community on the climate issue, and began drawing down the Iraq war troop count. That's just a few off the top of my head.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:45 AM

"... The surprisingly smooth relationship between the administration's top two officers is part of the broader White House culture. This is a fraught political climate. Liberals are furious. Moderates are running for their lives. Republicans believe, with much evidence, that an unprecedented wave of public rage is breaking across the land, directed at Washington. The uninformed float rumors that Rahm Emanuel is on the outs.

Yet the atmosphere in the White House appears surprisingly tranquil. Emanuel is serving as a lighting rod for the president but remains crisply confident in his role as chief of staff. It's true that several top administration officials did not want to attempt comprehensive health care reform this year. But they are not opening recrimination campaigns. It's no secret that many think the president needs to be more assertive with Congress, yet administration officials still talk about Obama in awestruck tones, even in private.

Some would say the administration is underreacting to the incredible shift in the public mood. Some would say they need more voices from the great unwashed. But no one could accuse them of panicking, or of scrambling about incoherently. In their first winter of discontent, they are offering continuity and comity. Whatever their relations with the country might be, inside they seem unruffled. The bonds of association, from the top down, seem healthy — especially for a bunch of Democrats. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:19 AM

From the Washington Post:


Why is Obama killing off D.C.'s voucher program?

The Obama administration said it was going to respect science and respond to evidence -- a contrast, many Democrats said, to the previous regime. So why is President Obama killing off the program that offers the best chance to find out if school vouchers work?

Congress has been paying for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which helps more than a thousand District children attend private schools. It gives a chance of a future to children who otherwise would be condemned to attend failing schools. How can that be bad?

Generally, opponents offer two arguments. One is that it won't solve the whole problem. Well, no. That's why everyone should support what Chancellor Michelle Rhee is trying to do to improve all D.C. schools. But even she supports the scholarship program. She testified before the Senate last September that until her reforms have had a few more years to take root, she can't guarantee a quality education to every District child. No wonder that every year there have been many more applicants for the vouchers than vouchers to give out.

The second objection is that if children or families with get-up-and-go actually get up and go, things will be even worse for those left behind. There are a lot of problems with this argument, but the main one is that the people who make it usually aren't willing to condemn their own children to attend terrible high schools in order to improve things for the other kids there. Why should we demand that of families who have high aspirations but can't afford to move?

But even if you're inclined against vouchers, why not embrace a program that has a chance to shed real light on the long-running, fraught and inconclusive argument about their effectiveness? The D.C. program was established to provide such evidence. It enrolled a control group of children who applied for vouchers but didn't get them, and it is following them along with the kids with vouchers. In a couple more years, if funded robustly, it would give us a real sense of what worked and what didn't. That could be helpful to lots of children.

Yet the Obama administration seems to be doing everything it can to wind down the program. Why? Early research results have been positive -- certainly in terms of parental satisfaction, but also for achievement. Maybe the Democratic Party, and the teachers union leaders who support it, would rather not see any more evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 05:19 PM

"Good things? He started Reversing the economic collapse handed to him by Bush and Paulson."

A. He asked for it and said he could fix it.
B. There was no economic collapse.
C. Whatever problems there were form the bailout were handed to him by Paulson, Geithner and Summers.
D. Started is not accomplished. Has he finished?

"He started reversing the anti-science policies and the know-nothing policies of the Bush years."

A. What anti-science policies? What Know-nothing politics? this is your rhetorical opinion like the unilateral invasion of Iraq. No basis in fact.
B. Respect from whom and where on the climate? Name a country, name a person.

"began drawing down the Iraq war troop count."

A. As per the plan put in place by the Bush administration.

"That's just a few off the top of my head."

They are on the top of your head and nowhere else.

If you remember the question was concrete positive things that he has accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM

Sawz:

Talking to you is like talking to a post.

Your rebuttal is just codwallop, I think.

You should review the Bush threads for examples of their attitude toward science.

The gains on the health reform front alone are historic already despite grim resistance from your lads. The economy is recovering from a collapse started by Bush's policies. Financial regulation is coming back for the general sanity of the market place to a degree not seen since Reagan. The improvements are clear despite the upheavals. As a work in progress, the nation is on the mend even though the sparks fly with every step forward.

If Bush had been half the President Obama has been, Obama's first year would have been even more productive,

But I do not expect you to recognize any of this. You have a different body of data provided from biased or simply fraudulent sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:09 AM

Mr Amos: Changes in attitude toward something is not a concrete accomplishment unless brings about something concrete.

If this, It would have been. All excuses for did not get the job done. Almost only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades.

You can use all the pseudo intellectual words you want and make all the ad hominem logical fallacies you want but you cant come up with anything tangible.

There was no financial collapse handed to Obama or anybody. You rhetorically use the word collapse.

There was a financial crisis and a near collapse taken care of before Obama took office. Loans were given to banks to be repaid with interest but the repayments are being squandered by the Obama administration rather than being put back in the treasury thereby jacking up the deficit attributed to the previous administration.

It's getting close.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:13 AM

Taken care of before Obama took office? Have you stuck your head out the window recently? Looked at the jobless rate? The problems business are still having getting credit? The number of businesses that are still closing? It's still not "taken care of."

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM

Feds push for tracking cell phones

by Declan McCullagh

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

the entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:45 PM

President Obama tied in generic 2012 matchup


By ANDY BARR | 2/11/10 12:55 PM EST

President Barack Obama only leads a generic Republican candidate by 2 percentage points in a potential 2012 match up, according to a new Gallup Poll out Thursday that also shows a continued drift of independents from Democrats.

Obama leads 44 percent to 42 percent, a statistical dead heat, against a nameless Republican, according to the survey of 1,025 adults nationwide.

Not surprisingly, the poll shows that Democrats strongly believe the president should be reelected, while Republicans would like to see one of their own in the White House.

But among independent voters, 45 percent would back a Republican and only 31 percent would favor the president. Twenty-four percent of independents are not sure if they would vote for Obama or a Republican candidate.

The gap among independents is similar to what Democrats have experienced in the recent statewide races in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts where Republicans were able to win by piecing together a coalition that included people who voted for the president. Obama won independent voters by 8 percentage points in 2008, by a spread of 52 percent to 44 percent, according to network exit polls.

"American voters are at this point about equally divided as to whether they would reelect Obama or the Republican candidate as president," Gallup pollster Jeffrey Jones wrote in his analysis of the survey. Jones cautioned however that, "the current data updates Obama's reelection prospects, but generally would not hold much predictive value for the actual election outcome more than two years from now."

While independents seem to be tempted with the idea of supporting a Republican over Obama, there is little agreement on which of the many potential candidates should be the GOP nominee.

Just among the self-identified Republicans and GOP leaning candidates, only two candidates polled in the double digits when respondents were asked to name who they would like to see as the party's nominee against Obama.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the field with 14 percent, followed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 11 percent.

The GOP's 2008 nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, came in third with 7 percent, followed by newly minted Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown with 4 percent.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were all picked by 3 percentage points or less of those surveyed.


The poll was conducted Feb. 1-3 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32837.html#ixzz0fGJyegcs

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:05 PM

Looks like your red-headed friends Black PR campaign is bearing fruit, there, Brucie. It really saddens me to see so much high-level energy being invested in making big lie campaigns.

Anyway, steady on; the man is holding his position and pushing for worthy goals in spite of all the barking of the dogs at the edge of the aisle. LEt's hope he can make some good progress.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM

November 30th, 2009 An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
     It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).
      So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin. There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.
     With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.
     Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.
     I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it. Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"
     Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning. We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?
     Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge. The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.
     President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either." What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.
      All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.
     When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has. Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop. Tonight we still have hope. Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son. We're counting on you.

Yours, Michael Moore

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:16 PM

Interesting missive, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:10 PM

Hey, it looks like Obama found a spine. He threatened the senate that if they didn't start working on his appointments, he'd do as many as he could as recess appointments over the President's Day break. The GOP called in their goons, and 27 appointees were confirmed today. The prez needs to do more of this - shove the Repuglicans' dirty tactics right back down their own throats.

And the dems need to grow some balls and GO NUCLEAR. Every single time. Take back the senate from the troglodytes.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:58 PM

Here is the Iranian popular view of the peace prize winner

Mouse:

I cant stick my head out of my window. It is covered by snow drifts from the largest recorded seasonal snowfall in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:49 AM

So the fuck what about your snow? Or what the Iranians think?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:46 AM

Yeah, mouser... I saw Howard Dean on MSNBC last night and that is exactly what he pointed out... We forget how many times Bush used reconciliation.... We forget that the tax xuts for the rich were done this way... Lots of stuff was done this way... Dean pointed out the reality is that the Repubs are just trying to shut down the government by using the fillibister on everything that is now inthe Senate... The Dems are gonna have to do the heavy lifting 'cause the Repubs aren't involved and just snadbagging.... Even on stuff they has not only supported in the past but bills they sponsored...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:04 PM

So I should worry about what you think?

You are free to think or say whatever you want. I hope you will allow me the same privilege.

Unless you are the type that is intolerant of people who disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:55 PM

Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush

Timesonline January 2010

   
President Obama is planning to increase spending on America's nuclear weapons stockpile just days after pledging to try to rid the world of them. In his budget to be announced on Monday, Mr Obama has allocated £4.3billion to maintain the U.S. arsenal - £370million more than George Bush spent on nuclear weapons in his final year. The Obama administration also plans to spend a further £3.1billion over the next five years on nuclear security.

Investment: President Barack Obama is to raise the budget to spend on maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons by £370million - more than George Bush The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the 'greatest danger' to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday. And it flies in the face of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms. Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.

And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing -- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. The budget is higher than that allocated by George Bush – who was seen by many as a warmongering president in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003 – during his premiership. During his 70-minute State of the UNion speech on Wednesday, which marked his first year in office, Obama said: 'I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.'

However, Vice President Joe Biden today supported the increase on nuclear weapons maintenance, saying: 'Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security. 'We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.' Biden said the Obama administration had inherited a 'steady decline' in support for U.S. nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure. 'For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,' he said.

'The consequences of this neglect - like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the ageing of critical facilities - have largely escaped public notice. 'The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda.'

He added: 'This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities.'It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.' The Obama administration will publish its budget for fiscal year 2011 on Monday. The proposal will include a budget increase for nuclear issues while paring back other areas in an effort to control record deficits.

Biden said those steps along with others to advance non-proliferation were essential to 'holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so'.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:03 PM

A stunning Satire by the Chile Roho of the NYT: Icicles, Inside and Out MAUREEN DOWD February 13, 2010

Barack Obama knew that the snow clogging the capital would melt a lot sooner than Dick Cheney's heart. But when he saw that Cheney was going on ABC's Sunday morning show with Jonathan Karl, he braved the ultimate lion's den. He took Jonathan Alter's advice in Newsweek and called the former vice president to set up a private meeting in the Oval Office, hoping to use any combination of diplomacy and tongue-lashing that would make Cheney quit calling him weak. Obama invited Bob Gates to the Saturday summit. Gates, after all, had originally been brought in as defense secretary by W. to be a common-sense counterbalance to the batty Cheney. The president prides himself on winning over hostile audiences, but this challenge would give a peacock pause.
    The three men sat before the fire in the Oval.

OBAMA: Look, Dick, you've called me out on various particulars. And I have no problem with that. That's politics. You thought Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should not be tried in New York City, and that's fine.

And we both know that any blowhard can call me weak. But you're not just any blowhard, Dick. You were the architect of America's defense against terrorism. And when those folks sitting in a cave in Waziristan hear you chest-thumping, saying our guard is down, they think, "Hey, this might be a good time to attack."
    You believe in the unitary executive. You believe that if the president says something is in the national security interest of the U.S., then it is. So I am the president now, and I'm telling you that you need to put a sock in it.

CHENEY: What are you going to do about it, Hussein? Mirandize me?

GATES: Dick, the president's right. When a former vice president calls a new president weak, it emboldens terrorists.

CHENEY (contemptuously looking at Gates with his one-sided smile): If you take the king's coin, you sing the king's song.

OBAMA: You keep saying there were no terror attacks after 9/11, Dick. That's like saying that blimps were safe after the Hindenburg. I wouldn't have been caught flat-footed reading "The Pet Goat" to second graders.

CHENEY: No, you'd have been teaching a graduate seminar on "The Pet Goat." Don't you Muslims eat pet goats?

OBAMA (shaking head in disgust): You have the audacity to say I'm "pretending" we're not at war. You let the Taliban regroup. I sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I've quadrupled the number of drone attacks in Pakistan. The prisoners who returned to terrorism after being released from Gitmo did so under your watch. You released one of the terrorists behind the foiled Christmas Day plot into an art therapy program in Saudi Arabia. Nice work, Dr. Phil.

CHENEY: You're such a Nervous Nellie you can't even use the words "war," "win," "terrorism," "enemy combatant," "Bomb Iran," "Fire Eric Holder" or "Fire John Brennan."

OBAMA: You and W. liked Brennan well enough to put him in charge of the National Counterterrorism Center. And I didn't want an attorney general who was a rubber stamp on torture.

CHENEY: The tea partiers agree with me about torture, and that's why you're already over, Mr. Charisma. First you lost Teddy Kennedy's seat. Now you've lost his kid. Scott Brown will wipe the floor with you in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

GATES: Speaking of Scott, the new 41, why can't you be classy in retirement like the original 41, Dick?

CHENEY: Scott's an All-American winner â€" Sarah Palin with better legs and less sarcasm. And the hair extensions make her seem even more phony.

OBAMA: Consensus, at last.

CHENEY: You, on the other hand, have about as much hair on your chest as a hairless Chihuahua. Michelle has the biceps in this family.

OBAMA: Michelle is campaigning against obesity. You might listen up on that, Dick. At least the women in my family aren't Mini-Me's trash-talking about the commander in chief.

CHENEY (growling): Liz and I are right! You're on the terrorist team!

GATES: Calm down, Dick. You don't want to end up in the hospital like poor Bill Clinton.

CHENEY: Joe Biden's going to end up in the hospital if he brags again that Iraq will "be one of the greatest achievements" of your administration.

OBAMA: If I don't get re-elected, it will be because you ruined the country beyond even my ability to rescue it. Remember when you said deficits don't matter, Dick?

CHENEY: Stop whining, Mr. Radical Chic. You won't get a second term because you're letting America fall into second place. Put that in your teleprompter.

OBAMA: Why don't you go help W. with Haiti instead of spewing paranoia?

CHENEY (stomping out): Is that your Indonesian birth certificate in the Oval vault?

GATES: So, that went well.