 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM New Polls Show Democrats in Deep HolePBS Newshour September 7, 2010The new Washington Post/ABC News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls released Tuesday provide a double whammy of bad news for Democrats and the Obama White House eight weeks before the votes are counted and control of Congress is determined. If you're looking for a silver lining for the Democrats in these numbers, it simply isn't there. The one thing Democrats will, no doubt, try to highlight is that there's no great love affair with Republicans among the voters. The part Democrats are likely to leave out is that it appears not to matter. Some highlights from the Washington Post/ABC News poll: Among likely voters, 53 percent say they would vote for a generic Republican candidate for Congress this year vs. 40 percent who say they would vote for the generic Democrat on a ballot. That 13-point GOP advantage is the largest in the poll's history dating back to 1981. President Obama scores his lowest approval rating to date: 46 percent approve of the president's job performance, while a slim majority, 52 percent, disapprove. The poll shows a six-point increase since July, from 32 percent to 38 percent, in voters who say the economy is getting worse. The Washington Post's Dan Balz and Jon Cohen take a look at those critical independent voters: "The poll findings highlight one of the most significant problems for Obama and Democrats heading into fall: a steep erosion in support among independent voters. In 2008, Obama won independents by eight percentage points. In 2006, independents broke for Democratic House candidates by an unprecedented 18-point margin." "Independents' disapproval of the president has reached an all-time high, with 57 percent giving him negative marks. About 61 percent of independents say Obama has not brought change to Washington. Nearly half now consider him "too liberal" ideologically." "Overall, by a 13-point margin, independent voters say they would support Republican over Democratic candidates in their House districts. A majority of independents - 59 percent - say they would prefer to have Republicans in charge of Congress to serve as a check on the president's agenda." The Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib writes up the significant voter enthusiasm gap apparent in the NBC/WSJ poll: "In the survey, those who expressed the very highest levels of interest in this year's election preferred a Republican Congress by a margin of 53% to 35%. Among all other, less interested voters, Democrats are preferred by a 20-point margin." "So Democrats' most urgent challenge in the next eight weeks is to turn these uninterested voters into interested voters--a difficult task, but one party leaders insist they are tackling." Stu Rothenberg, one of the most-watched congressional handicappers in Washington, updates his House overview: "Likely Republican gain of 37-42 seats, with the caveat that substantially larger GOP gains in the 45-55 seat range are quite possible." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 10 - 02:24 PM Meanwhile Chongo's public support is quietly but steadily climbing...and there's no mention of that anywhere in the mainstream media! I predict that we will see a chimp in the White House in 2013. This supposed Iraqi withdrawal makes me laugh. What a crock. "Oh, well, we still have 50,000 combat troops there, but we're withdrawing. Yeah. And, oh, we also have 75,000 "contractors" (mercenaries) there. But we're withdrawing. Isn't it great? Oh, and we have a whole bunch of huge and permanent military bases there. But we're withdrawing. Would I reneg on a promise? This really is withdrawal. Trust me." Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (slightly hysterical laughter) It sounds kind of like Hitler's "withdrawal" from occupied France in early 1941 to me (he withdraw a majority of the German combat forces from France at that time to fight new campaigns in the Mediterranean...and more importantly...Russia.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM I don't believe the 50,000 employees of the armed forces are combat troops./ And as far as I know there primary duties are going to be training and rebuilding. You and Sawz make a great Abbott and Costello act, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM Rising to the Occasion By BOB HERBERT Published: September 6, 2010 On Labor Day afternoon in Milwaukee, President Obama finally began to vigorously push the kind of high-profile, rebuild-America infrastructure campaign that is absolutely essential if there is to be any real hope of putting Americans back to work and getting the economy back into reasonable shape over the next few years. In a speech that was rousing, inspirational and, at times, quite funny, the president outlined a $50 billion proposal for a wide range of improvements to the nation's transportation infrastructure. The money would be used for the construction and rehabilitation of highways, bridges, railroads, airport runways and the air traffic control system. Mr. Obama linked the nation's desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, "Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?" After noting that nearly one in five construction workers is unemployed, Mr. Obama told the crowd, "It doesn't do anybody any good when so many hard-working Americans have been idle for months, even years, at a time when there is so much of America that needs rebuilding." The U.S. once had the finest infrastructure in the world, he said, "and we can have it again." The president's plan would include the creation of an infrastructure bank that would use public dollars to leverage private capital for major projects. If properly conceived and executed, the bank could become a crucial factor in financing the nation's long-term infrastructure needs. It should be kept in mind that Mr. Obama's proposal is only a first step. Despite the $50 billion price tag, it's not in any way commensurate with our overwhelming infrastructure needs or the gruesome scale of the nation's unemployment crisis. But it's an important step. It's a smarter approach to infrastructure investment than the wasteful, haphazard, earmark-laden practices that we've become accustomed to, and it will put some people to work in jobs that pay decent wages. ...The president was eloquent on these matters in his speech. Speaking of his grandparents' experiences during the 1930s, he said: "They would tell me about seeing their fathers or uncles losing jobs during the Depression, how it wasn't just the loss of a paycheck that stung. It was the blow to their dignity, their sense of self-worth. I'll bet a lot of us have seen people changed after a long bout of unemployment, how it can wear down even the strongest spirits." Leaning toward the microphone, with his shirt collar unbuttoned, Mr. Obama spoke in a way that belied his reputation for aloofness, for struggling to connect in a visceral way with ordinary working people. He was speaking to a pro-Obama labor gathering, so he didn't have to win over the audience. But if his goal was to demonstrate that he genuinely cared about the struggles of the people in the audience and those watching on television — and about the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren — he largely succeeded. The question that remains, however, is whether he and his party will fight with the skill and tenacity needed to guide his infrastructure proposal to fruition, and whether they will finally focus intensely, as they should have been doing all along, on the difficult but absolutely critical task of putting millions of unemployed Americans back to work. ... NYT columnist |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:54 PM Ah, but Amos...I was not brought up to bear the affliction of imagining that I have to make a choice between being a fan of either the Republicans or the Democrats. I am a fan of neither. Thus I am able to see the situation with a mind relatively unclouded by partisan emotion. This is a condition most Americans have never experienced! ;-) And sadly, never will. They both lie to you. They both betray you once in office. They both serve the military-industrial complex, the banks, and the largest corporate interests. They both pretend to be serving you and maintaining "freedom" while they practice imperialism. They both fight foreign wars under false pretences in order to promote imperial interests. The Republicans are probably the worse of the two...that is the one point you, I, and Bobert will definitely agree on. However, must we choose between Joe Stalin and Mussolini yet again and forever and a day? Might there not be a better way than that? And if your political system permits no other real possibility than an eternal choice between the Democrats and the Republicans, then I respectfully submit that it is a travesty not worth giving your verbal support to. The primary emotional reason you keep defending Mr Obama, no matter what he does, is that he is NOT a Republican! That's simply not a good enough reason to keep defending someone. The people who continually attack him because he is NOT a Republican have a similar problem...only it's on the other side of the coin. Partisan thinking is not really thinking at all. It's just cheerleading for your team, and cheerleaders have never been seen as great thinkers, have they? But boy, do they make a lot of noise! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:45 PM The problem, Amos, is that me thinks Obama started way too late... He has allowed too much Repub mythology to go unchallenged and in doin' so the lies have grown and grown to a point where too many voters really are clueless about the truth... Plus, seems that we have grown into a big crybaby nation where we want stuff fixed NOW!!! Even if the attempted fix is wrong-headed and will make things worse... Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM I hear, Bobez; I guess the drag-foot stop-at-all-costs approach--which is the same tactic they used on FDR--has had its effect. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM I think they call it passive agressive... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM BUT, let me recall to your attention the fact that FDR hove to and swept onto a downwind tack and made good his course. Of course, the advent of a war helped. And what the war did was justify a huge amount of deficit spending. Fancy that! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM Yeah, Amos, it seemed as if the US economy was in need of "another good war" to get money moving... That's what is so maddening about what we have today... The Repubs have poisoned the well with their "bailout" mythologies... And the American people are too dumbed down to realize that right now the ***only*** thing that the government can do to create jobs and get some money moving is exactly what FDR had to do with WW II??? Spend... But the Repubs, as per usual, want more tax cuts??? And t6o fight the deficit at the same time... Any casual student of Econ 201 knows that this isn't possible but seems that the Repubs think it is... They can't say one thing about what Obama is doing without injecting that mindless "job-killing" adjective... I guess the operative word is "mindless"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Sep 10 - 11:28 PM It was WWII that ended the Great Depression. All of a sudden everyone had paying jobs, due to the immediate need to send thousands of men overseas with expensive war machines and kill Germans, Italians, and Japanese. ;-) Hitler was also able to end Germany's economic woes before the war by ramping up military production bigtime. I don't see that same kind of solution now as being a very good idea at all. The world has grown smaller and the weapons more terrible since 1945. But here's a thought that struck me while reading various posts here. People on both sides of the argument seem to feel that the other side are crybabies. ;-) Isn't that kind of ironic? Or amusing? Both the Right and the Left in the USA keep saying that the other side are a bunch of whiners, in effect. Gosh...maybe they're both right about that! ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:33 AM No one is really advocating the "another good war" solution, LH... What most non-flat-earth economists have been arguing is that the stimulis is working and more is needed... The Repubs, hoever, are in denial... They say the earth is flat and that no jobs have been created... That is about as mindless as one can imagine but seems that no one is really callin' them out on their mythological proclamations... As for "whiners"??? Well, yeah, those on then right certainly have the art of whining down to an art... Mitch McConnell and John Beohner are the Michaelangelllo and Picassos of whiners... And, I'll admit that those of us on the left are seein' what it's gettin' for the right and many of us have enrolled in correspondence programs or community colleges to try to get up to McConnell n' Beohner's speed but they have such a head start that iy doesn't look good for the left right now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM It was WWII that ended the Great Depression. And how did it do that? Because the government started spending like a drunken sailor. It forced more deficit spending at humongous levels, which percolated throughout the economy. Just being in a war didn't end the depression. The government spending did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 10 - 10:39 AM We should declare war then, and make it ferocious, but we should have an enemy who can be conquered without killing humans. War on oil wells, for example, or war on pollutants. It isn't the same, I know--I mocked W for his stupid War on Terror expression and the abuses it spawned. Declaring war on a condition is illiterate and ineffective. But we should figure out how to do the equivalent, and inject it with just as much passion. War on Space has a nice ring to it. War on Inhumanity. War on Stupidity... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM Peace is Out words and music by Roy Zimmerman © 1994 Watunes (From "Sing it Loud", "Folk Heroes" [Reprise] and "The Best of the Foremen") We used to take a nonviolent stance In Nehru jackets and bell-bottom pants We even used to sing, "Give peace a chance" God, we must have been joking We used to slander the words of our prez And praise whatever the Tao Te Ching says We used to wanna sing like Joan Baez Jesus, what we were smoking? Now when someone says, "Hell no, we won't go" What they mean is "to Berkeley" Peace is out, love is out No one wants to hear about Peace and love anymore Now we're fighting In a war against homelessness, a war against drugs 'Cause it's in to be in a war We used to traipse around in tie-dye tights Dropping daisies in enemy sights Now we're fighting for property rights Must have come to our senses We used to say all we needed was love Olive branches and sign of the dove Now we're looking for something above 90K plus expenses Now when someone says, "What the world needs now" It's a private police force Peace is out, love is out No one wants to hear about Peace and love anymore Now we're fighting In a war against joblessness, a war against crime 'Cause it's in to be in a war All we wanna say Is peace... ain't PC, it's passé Now when someone says, "We shall overcome" They mean, "We'll be right over" Peace is out, love is out No one gives a rat's ass about Peace and love anymore Now we're fighting In a war against violence, a war against poverty A war against ignorance, a war against obesity A war against censorship, a war against cavities 'Cause it's in to be in... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:29 PM Having a War on Stupidity is a kind of appealing notion, Amos, but I fear what might happen to my buddy Shane if such a war were ever declared... Bobert, I was simply saying that both sides in the mainstream political debate keep accusing the other of being whiners, and I find that funny! ;-) It's like Woody Allen arguing interminably with Glen Beck or something along that line, both insisting that the other is completely irrational...kind of entertaining if you just look at the humorous side of it. I mean, here you have 2 sets of grown people who are both convinced that THEY are the mature, balanced, sensible ones who are willing to get down to brass tacks, grab the bull by the mungoberries, and face reality...while their erstwhile opponents are just a bunch of hysterical, whining little crybabies. THAT's funny, don'tcha think? I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:36 PM Well, you know, LH, if you sleep with pigs, you wake up smelling like garbage, n'est-ce pas? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:45 PM Yes...... (raising one eyebrow a la Mr Spock) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:46 PM Even America's liberal elites concede that Obama's Presidency is crumbling By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 8th, 2010 Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster. The GOP pushed deep into Democratic-held territory over the summer, to the point where the party is well within range of picking up the 39 seats it would need to take control of the House. Overall, as many as 80 House seats could be at risk, and fewer than a dozen of these are held by Republicans. Political handicappers now say it is conceivable that the Republicans could also win the 10 seats they need to take back the Senate. Not since 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit. Is this a piece from National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal or Fox News.com, all major conservative news outlets in the United States? No. It's a direct quote from yesterday's Washington Post, usually viewed by conservatives as a flagship of the liberal establishment inside the Beltway. The fact The Post is reporting that not only could Republicans sweep the House of Representatives this November, but may even take the Senate as well, is a reflection of just how far the mainstream, overwhelmingly left-of-centre US media has moved in the last month towards acknowledging the scale of the crisis facing the White House. To its credit, The Washington Post has generally been ahead of the curve compared to its main competitors such as The New York Times in reporting President Obama's travails, but its striking front page coverage of the "Democrats' plight" and talk of a possible GOP Senate win (regarded as fantasy just a fortnight ago) was a bold step for a publication that is probably read in every office of the Obama administration. The Post also ran another headline yesterday on its front page – "Republicans making gains ahead of midterm elections" – which would undoubtedly have sent a shudder through the White House. It carried a new poll commissioned jointly with ABC News, which showed public faith in Barack Obama's leadership has fallen to an all-time low, with just 46 percent approval. The Washington Post-ABC News survey revealed high levels of public unease with President Obama's handling of the economy, with 57 percent of Americans disapproving, and 58 percent critical of his handling of the deficit. For most of the year, America's political and media elites, including the Obama team itself, have touted the notion of an economic recovery (which never materialised), significantly underestimated the rise of the Tea Party movement, and questioned the notion that conservatism was sweeping America. It is only now hitting home just how close Washington is to experiencing a political revolution in November that will fundamentally change the political landscape on Capitol Hill, with huge implications for the Obama presidency. What was once a perspective confined largely to Fox News, online conservative news sites, or talk radio is now gaining ground in the liberal US print media as well – historic change is coming to America, though not quite the version promised by Barack Obama. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052779/even-americas-liberal-elites-concede-that-obamas-presidency-is-crumblin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM It is conceivable, sure, but I think it is a bit early for your progress-stoppers and foot-dragging obstructionists and nut-ball reactionaries to gloat just yet, BB. Although they have succeeded in dumping enough crap in the way to slow Mister Obama down, they have not killed him yet, and may not be able to do so. Once in a great while people DO figger out when they are being led like lambs to slaughter in the interests of supporting the already-wealthy, and they kick backwards, surprising everyone who was too full of themselves to notice. Ask Alf Landon about that. He's got the tee-shirt. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: akenaton Date: 08 Sep 10 - 03:30 PM Maybe people are starting to get "the message" People foolishly presented Obama as the messiah.....many on this forum did that, but a few still small voices warned that the messiah was a creature of the system and as such, would only be allowed to make token gestures. The backlash will be severe but well deserved, hypocrisy deserves to be exposed....even Obama Mudcatters know what the game is, but suspend belief. Like Mr Micawber, they keep on hoping "something will turn up", but as my esteemed friend says....there is no Santa, no tooth fairy, no political messiah, for we poor miserables. I hope this really is a grass roots movement against hypocritical divisive "democratic liberal" politics, but if it is, the people who live here will have to start thinking with both sides of their heads to make it workable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 08 Sep 10 - 03:52 PM I hope this really is a grass roots movement against hypocritical divisive "democratic liberal" politics, Democrats are divisive? Do you listen to yourself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: akenaton Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:09 PM Isn't it about time you learned to read? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM Isn't it about time you learned to read? Isn't it about time you learned to think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM I think it is nonsense that anyone claimed Obama was a messiah. He was just a great relief from the dundering illiterate heffalump who preceded him. Furthermore, I fail to see where all this hypocrisy you accuse hiom of is, aside from the usual political brouhahaha anyone could have predicted going in. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: akenaton Date: 08 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM Amos ..I distinctly remember you in discussion, drawing my attention to the worshiping crowds at Mr Obama's inauguration as proof of his credentials as "peoples president" and deliverer of real change. When I pointed out that he was wedded to the system and that change was no on the system's agenda, you responded that he was president and who would be in a position to stop him?(I paraphrase). Well, now we all know! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:06 PM Well, ake, when you been tied to the whippin' post and some guy shows up with a box cutter and cuts you free there is a tendency to think that person greater than he might be... We've had 30 years of being tied to the whipping post by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and then Bush II... Obama ain't part of that mindset and therefor, regardless of the corporate media's intention to bring him down, lots of us are real glad he's there rather than any of the 4 bozos who preceeded him... b~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:56 PM Hey, c'mon! Bill Clinton was kind of fun at times, wasn't he, Bobert? ;-) A great many people saw Obama as a virtual Messiah around the time he was elected...and not just in the USA either. Matter of fact, he was much more popular outside the USA than he was inside the USA, and I think that is still the case. There were many people both inside and outside the USA who saw him as a saviour who would bring in enormous changes for the better. As Bobert indicated, this had much to do with the general relief felt across the world at the thought that the Bush administration was finally over after 8 mind-numbingly awful years... On the international scene I think it was only the Israelis who were hoping McCain would get elected. They figured he was as bloodthirsty as they are, but they weren't at all sure about Obama. I've never before seen a presidential candidate who stirred such immense hopes in people's hearts as Obama did in late 2008. It was quite something to witness at the time, and I felt some of those hopes pretty strongly myself...tempered with the awareness that it probably wouldn't work out quite that well. I already knew he was committed to fighting on in Afghanistan, and that did not bode well for the future as far as I was concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Sep 10 - 09:06 PM Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov't Data Wednesday, September 08, 2010 By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is "debt held by the public," which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is "intragovernmental" debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security "trust fund" to pay for expenses other than Social Security. At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration. By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan's eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama's first 19 months. When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama's 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion. In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008. The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion. The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II. "CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last year's total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion," said the CBO's monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. "Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP." http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM Seems like every president manages to spend a good deal more than the one who preceded him...regardless of which party he belongs to. Could it be because that's the way the system works? The entire society appears to be based on debt as far as I can see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:51 AM Garbage in, garbage out... Terrance Jeffrey could use a refresher course in American Government... Maybe bb will explain how an incoming president inherits the former administration's budget... So that takes care of 12 of the 17 months that Obama is being blamed for... Secondly, the Bush folks left so many spending bills on the horizon that were going to kick in after Bush left that whomever was going to vbe the next president was going to have to deal with an economic minefield... These defefits were predicted 4 years ago... Oral Roberts hisself couldn't have cahnged that... So in the words of the late Paul Harvey, "There, now you have the rest of the story"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM Bobert, Please READ the posts before commenting... "In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008." 19 - 4 = 15, so this was on OBAMA's budget, NOT Bush's. The REST of the story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:26 PM It is interesting that Bush's major deficit was run up in an effort to kill people, while Obama's was run up trying to pull the nation out of Bush's Depression and improve health care. These are specious numbers, disconnected from the real operation of life. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM Bruce, the entire western world's economy is a giant pyramid scheme that's been built by the major banks through the creation of vast amounts of digital money (created instantly out of thin air every time they make a loan to someone). This means that the money supply keeps going up, the value of the currency keeps going down proportionately (inflation), and all the societies involved keep going deeper into debt. It is not just a USA problem, it's happening elsewhere too. If Obama is doing what you say he is, it's because the major banks want him to. The Democrats and the Republicans are nothing more than governmental servants to the banking industry, and I think you should look into that. The nature of a pyramid scheme is that the balloon has to keep getting bigger to prevent everyone losing out bigtime. Eventually it gets so big that it bursts. Then everyone loses out bigtime regardless, because the whole exercise was a fraud in the first place. The real criminals here are the major lending institutions...and the politicians in every major political party who have simply bent over meekly and done what those major lending institutions wanted them to do by deregulating and allowing it to happen. Obama's temporary, Bruce. Just like Bush was temporary. The real problem is much bigger than both of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM MEbbe Obama ought to re-open that Gold Window Nixon closed, and cancel Bretton WOods... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM No disagreement, LH. But I fear the collapse way be sooner rather than later I have a 10 trillion mark ( in my collection) note that tells me it might get unpleasant. I am putting away silver and buying property ( in the country) that I can live on. I think that much of what Obama SAYS is good- unfortunately, the LAWS that are being passed are NOT what he says they are, nor are they worth the money that they will cost us. Amos seems to think that good intentions are all that are needed- I think that the ACTIONS should be judged by their effect, not by intention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:13 PM I have the same worries about it that you do, Bruce. I also think the collapse may be sooner rather than later. I already have that property in the country to live on, and will put more money in gold ASAP. It's not a good situation out there. I often like what Obama has to say too, he speaks well...but I don't like what I see happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:15 PM I suppose you're right; perhaps if the RNC gang cut back on their ferocious effort to stop anything and everything he proposed, a bit more good work could be accomplished. The health bill y'all were complaining about was the best he could force out of the dog's-breakfast of counter-efforts from industry-friendly Republicans. The same pattern has held in every major administrative effort. So your friends in the Repub zoo might want to consider what they have wrought in their effort to nullify the President. They have been far more visious than anything the libberal base levied against W, who was far more deserving of derision. In any case, let us keep pushing forward and try to make thigns better still. I am glad to see him holding the line on the W tax cuts. If your buddies were as concerned as they say about the deficit, perhaps they would be less anxious to see the Big Favors laws extended. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM Amos, "They have been far more visious than anything the libberal base levied against W," False, IMO, from all that I have read and heard- unless you cut out Mudcat posts- THEN it MIGHT be debated. "who was far more deserving of derision." Also false, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM "visious"? or "viscous"? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM Oh, bb??? I don't recall Dems takin' guns to rallies where Bush was going to speak... Nor do I recall them talkin' about takin' 2nd ammendment remedies if they didn't get their way... You are mistaken on this point... You tried to push those of us who opposed Bush's policies, mostly on Iraq, into this Bush-haters camp back then and we didn't bite then... What we said back then was that we hated Bush's policies and not the man... You didn't buy that but that is exactly what we said and it was what we meant... The Repubs and Tea Party folks ain't into just stopping at disagreeing with Obama's policies... Heck, most of them were at one time proposed by whom??? Yeah, Repubs... So the Repubs can't stop at hating policies that they proposed so they just skip those little details and go for a more generic hate... In other words... They hate so much that they can't even explain it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: mousethief Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM They can't explain it because they know if they explained it (hint: it's about race) they'd be seen for what they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:03 PM Bingo... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Sep 10 - 09:20 AM Bobert, "at disagreeing with Obama's policies... Heck, most of them were at one time proposed by whom??? Yeah, Repubs... So the Repubs can't stop at hating policies that they proposed " So now YOU admit that the policies that Republicans proposed AND YOU PROTESTED AGAINST are ok when Obama does them. Sounds like a slight bias on YOUR part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:21 AM President Obama's speech in Ohio on Wednesday was brilliant both in its timing and in its content. As to timing, there has been much complaining among the Democrats about why he has not become more involved in the coming elections. If he had become involved earlier, it would have been watered down. By waiting until just two months before the election, he can now make his arguments when it really matters. As to content, he has put a human face on the Republican Party. His references to John A. Boehner, the House Republican leader, and Mr. Boehner's negativity have served to emphasize that the Republican Party really is the Party of No. Mr. Boehner has yet to come up with any meaningful solution to the problems facing our nation. The Democrats running in the coming elections can now join with Mr. Obama and emphasize the positive steps to be taken to bring this nation back to life. Richard S. Wolfeld Jericho, N.Y., Sept. 9, 2010 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM Yeah, if you recall back in '02 and Bush had decided that come Hell of high water that he was gonna have a new shiney war to pump out his chest over he and the rest of the chest pumpers tried to sell the war in August but things weren't going to well with the sales job so... ...they decided to just wait until after Labor Day when people might be payin' more attention... I think the timing is right... Now it will be up to Obama to get the same folks vote who voted in '08 for him... If he can do that then that will make alot of the races alot closer and maybe carry some Dems over the line inspite of a highly motivated right wing who were headed for defeat... I do find it interesting that 2 weeks ago when the Repubs had a 9% lead in the Gallop that the Washington Post wrote not one but two Page 1 stories about how the Repubs were going to cream the Dems in November but when this last week the same poll had the Dems pulling even that the the "liberal biased" Post said nuthin' at all... At least in their news section... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM Brought to you by:"The highly intelligent Maureen Dowd" "That Dowd gal is hotter than a Saturday night special." "Maureen Dowd, the bright light lady warrior of the New York Times" "I really am POd at the New York Times for putting Maureen Dowd behind the Subscription Curtain, especially when she comes up with sharp analyses" "More from my favorite chile roja, Maureen Dowd" "I am pleased to report that Maureen Dowd, the spicy red-headed NY Times columnist" "I _am_ goiung through withdrawal symptoms and I miss her keen wit, her sharp ability to cut through Republican bullshit with the grace of a samurai sword, and her sharp tongue." "Maureen Dowd rides again with a shap-edged piece" "Maureen is her usual sharp and articulate self " MAUREEN DOWD New York Times September 11, 2010 How did the first president of color become so colorless? And how can Obamicans can Obama? The president is everywhere, trying to get more aggressive and recapture some of his "Yes we can" mojo in an effort to fend off the rebuke that's barreling toward him from voters this fall. H's in his best buzzer-beating mode, knowing that if he loses even one house of Congress, he will be inundated by inane G.O.P. investigations that will consume the last two years of his term. House Republicans are already talking gleefully about a government shutdown. The country is more polarized than ever on race and religion, with a Florida faker holding a complicit media hostage in the Koran-burning pastor disaster. Mosque-baiting Republicans have shown again that they're willing to tear at the fabric of the country on the issues of 9/11 and national security in order to trample the Democrats. Oama has been bleeding independents, who flocked to him in 2008 and were the deciding factor in several swing states. The White House is more focused on stimulating the base right now, figuring that the independents won't be voting that heavily in the midterms. Among independent voters in 2012, Obama strategists think they have a better chance with women than men because of the president's abortion-rights support and health care legislation - hence the appearance by the commander in chief on "The View." And they reckon that he can devote more time to courting the indie ladies after November. The official Obama site for independent voters highlights his quote from the campaign about bringing "real change" to Washington. The sentiment was challenged by NBC's Chuck Todd at the presidential press conference Friday. "How have you changed Washington?" Todd asked. The president answered that he is trying to help "ordinary families" and not special interests, before conceding that he, too, is frustrated by his inability to create "a greater spirit of cooperation in Washington." "You know, are there, you know, things that I might have done during the course of 18 months that would, you know, at the margins have improved some of the tone in Washington?" Obama asked. "Probably." Uncharacteristically valley girl, the usually eloquent president must have, you know, had a hard time acknowledging that. "Is some of this just a core difference in approach, in terms of how we move this country forward, between Democrats and Republicans?" he said. "I'd say the answer is a lot more the latter." One of the independent voters Obama will be trying to charm over the next two years is my sister, Peggy, a formerly ardent Obamican (a Republican who changed spots to vote for Obama).Disillusioned with her beloved W. over Iraq and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the disdain for bipartisanship, she gave her affections - and small cash infusions - to Barack Obama in 2008. Despite being a Washington native, Peggy believed that the dazzling young newcomer could change Washington. But she has lost a lot of faith now, saying she might vote for Mitt Romney over Obama if Romney is the Republican nominee in 2012. (Sarah Palin shouldn't count on her vote though. In Peggy's words, "Are you nuts?") Peggy thinks the president has done fine managing W.'s messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she lights up at the mention of his vice president, Joe Biden. But she thinks Obama has to get "a backbone" if he wants to lure her back to the fold. "He promised us everything, saying he would turn the country around, and he did nothing the first year," Peggy says. "He piddled around when he had 60 votes. He could have pushed through the health care bill but spent months haggling on it because he wanted to bring some Republicans on board. He was trying too hard to compromise when he didn't need the Republicans and they were never going to like him. Any idiot could see that. "He could have gotten it through while Teddy Kennedy was still alive - he owed the Kennedys something - and then the bill was watered down. "He hasn't saved the economy, and now he's admitting he's made very little progress. You can't for four years blame the person who used to be president. Obama tries to compromise too much, and he doesn't look like a strong leader. I don't watch him anymore. I'm turned off by him. I think he's an elitist. He went down to the gulf, telling everyone to take a vacation down there, and then he goes to Martha's Vineyard. He does what he wants but then he tells us to do other things. "I want him in that White House acting like a president, not out on the campaign trail. Not when the country is going down the toilet." While Obama's out in the country trying to save Congressional Democrats, he should also think about how he's going to save himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:09 AM JEeze, Sawzall, they oughta appoint you Mudcat librarian; if only you could be inspired with a higher purpose than complaining about Obama and making me look dumb. I can handle the second part fine on my own, thanks. I am flattered you think it worth your while to spend so much time looking up my past remarks about the lovely Maureen; but, man, surely you have some solid,w orthwhile purposes of your own to pursue? Obama can handle himself, I reckon. He is the type to think a lot before he acts, which doesn't suit the media well. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:24 AM "surely you have some solid,w orthwhile purposes of your own to pursue?" How 'bout you Amos? You could mount some argument as to why the statements in her article are incorrect but in not doing so, you seem to be admitting that she is right. But you always slide in to the Ad hominem attack mode because facts elude you. How's fair and balanced coming Amos? Lessee, Generic Congressional Vote Republicans 48.1 Democrats 40.3 Ouch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 15 Sep 10 - 08:48 AM Hey, ya'll... ...2400!!! B~ |
