BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:13 PM

The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency. You shouldn't confuse a budget year with the running total of deficit or national debt.

Growth in the national debt slowed to a crawl when Bill Clinton was president, especially considering the three Republican administrations before and after him.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

But then take a look at the Bush years, and see how utterly ridiculous it would be for a Republican to criticize President Clinton's budget record.

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:10 PM

>>I am still waiting for someone to explain why the deficit grew every year, per the US Treasury Departments numbers while some people claim there was a surplus. <<

Because George W Bush, upon seeing the projected surplus, bought off millions of voters by offering them a $300 rebate if he got elected.
Once he paid out that one time bribe the surplus was unobtainable.

Then he instituted billions in Tax cuts and spent billions more without showing it in the budget.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

I am still waiting for someone to explain why the deficit grew every year, per the US Treasury Departments numbers while some people claim there was a surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:33 PM

Yeah, Amos... I just finished readin' this about a half an hour ago (printed version)... Some really good stuff in there about how little the rich have been payin' of late in taxes as compared to not-so-far-distant-years...

Also, E.J. is right on the money on the broken Senate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:18 PM

E.J. Dionne writing for the Washington Post says:

"...at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts, he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.

That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.

This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.

The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.

Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007," the period for which figures are available.

The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.

The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people: Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to get into the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.

The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?

And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.

Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising to over 9 percent.

But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.

Then there's the very structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?

When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?

I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power. ..."

---

I think he's onto something.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 09:56 PM

Maybe you'd like to explain why George W used the thr surpluses as one of his reasons for wanted the tax cuts??? Hmmmmmm???

Like I have pointed out, you would recognize a fact if it bit you on yer butt...

I mean, you are hopelessly eaten up with mythology... I mean, even the mainstream Repubs ain't no where are far out of the relm of reality as you are...

But, hey, the right is into lieing these days so have it... They are amusin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:16 PM

Bobert:

"you claim that you can't understand the numbers that CBO has on annual deficits and supluses???"

First of all I had to correct the link you posted. Budget is not spelled bedget and there are no commas in URLs. I never made any such claim. That is your projection like when you falsely say somebody wants to kill somebody else.

So after making up for that part of your lack of knowledge I see several pages of numbers.

After courteously asking you to identify the specific numbers that you claim proves your point, like I did, you sarcastically claim I already know in an effort to cover the fact that you do not know.

As usual you cannot provide the specific information to support your claims. Rather, you bully and blame your inabilities and lack of knowledge on someone else. Then in a further attempt to cover up for your lack of knowledge, you assign your moral responsibility to someone else. I am supposed to consult with an economist.

By the way I gave a specific website too. It was the US Treasury department. Does the CBO have more credibility that the Treasury? Does the Treasury post "Republican bogus stats" Why would Tim Geithner's department do that?

If you make a claim and can't point out the specific facts to support it, you are a blowhard. Making an inaccurate link to many pages and not being able to point to some specific numbers does not consitute pointing out specific facts.

If you put your moral and ethical responsibility to provide something specific to back up your claims on others, you are a blowhard.

It you claim you are a victim in order to avoid backing up your claims, you are a blow hard.

Most importantly, anyone that never admits when they are wrong is a blowhard.

For example, I am still waiting for the evidence to support your claim that: "That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since" or your admission that you were wrong.

I hate to use the word blowhard, it is against my policy of not making harsh accusations like calling people a liar, but it is the only way I can get any meaningful response.

As for stalking, I responded to Amos's "history lesson" about the "Clinton surpluses" without making any personal attacks and you jumped in telling everybody my stats are bogus, making an ad hominem personal attack and claiming I am the "Bogus-Stats King of Mudburg"

Typically, you rhetorically characterize facts issued by the US Treasury department as "stats", Republican bogus stats from a "loonie rightwingnut site" Really? Tim Geithner's loonie rightwingnutsite?

You specifically target my posts and try to discredit me as a person. Is that stalking or bullying or both?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:31 PM

Blowhard Sawz:

I gave you the specific website, which BTW is the Congressional Budget Office, that disproved yer mythology that Clinton did not lave office with a budget surplus... You seem to use numbers over and over and over in yer posts but you claim that you can't understand the numbers that CBO has on annual deficits and supluses??? Imean, let's get real here, pal... You just don't wnat to accept the truth about Clinton leaving a surplus becuase you and yer righties would rather play games with the numbers using national debt... Find an economist and had him or her expalain the difference 'cause while the rest of us understand the concept of annual surplus (or deficit) it seems pout of reach for you... Maybe a square peg, round hole thing...

And me pointing out that you are wrong ain't bullyin'... It's just pointing out that you are wrong...

BTW, cyber-stalkin' is bullying and we know who has done that, don't we???

Like they say, "He who lives in galss houses shouldn't throw stones"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:08 PM

Blowhard Bobert:

I gave you the specific numbers and a link to the site where they could be found. The site in the US Treasury Department, headed by Geithner appointed by Obama.

Are you capable of doing the same or do you rely on bullying to prove things?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:09 PM

You know perfectly well, saws...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 05:46 PM

Bobert:

After correcting your link to http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf I arrive at a page with lots of numbers.

Exactly what numbers or column of numbers are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 05:19 PM

Dear Amos:

Here's your fair and balanced right here Amos.

   .....Poll...............Date.......Sample.Approve..Disapprove 
  RCP Average..........7/7  - 7/21..............46.6...47.4 
  CNN/Opinion Research.7/16 - 7/21.....1018 A....47.....50 
  Gallup...............7/19 - 7/21.....1547 A....46.....46 
  Rasmussen Reports....7/19 - 7/21.....1500 LV...44.....55 
  Quinnipiac...........7/13 - 7/19.....2181 RV...44.....48 
  FOX News.............7/13 - 7/14......900 RV...43.....48 
  Time.................7/12 - 7/13.....1003 A....49.....45 
  CBS News.............7/9  - 7/12......986 A....44.....44 
  Bloomberg............7/9  - 7/12.....1004 A....52.....44 
  ABC News/Wash Post...7/7  - 7/11.....1288 A....50.....47 

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:32 AM

I think, like lots of stuff, it will come down to enforcement... We have seen what happens when the reguators and the regulatees get too chummy with what has occured in the Gulf of Mexico...

As fir a bare breasted Sarah Palan??? Bring her on... Might of fact, if she wants to shed the skirt too, so be it... Not too sure that will bring about any revolution but...

...nevermind the revolution... At least no one will get shot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 06:44 PM

Oh great!.....if we keep makin' progress like this, they'll soon be able to pull the old money trick again!

No obstructions allowed in the game of "rob the poor"

"The legislation establishes an array of new rules that will allow the government to play a stronger watchdog role over financial markets and the practices of individual banks, and gives it greater power to intervene when a bank is on the verge of collapse."

Dont you realise that capitalist govt and the financial institutions are joined at the hip?
The last thing any of them want is meaningful regulation.
The financiers want profit, and the govt wants growth
Regulation gives neither.....this is a capitalist economy, at the end of the day, all that matters is short term thinking and £$£$£$£$.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 01:25 PM

WASHINGTON – "President Obama signed landmark legislation today that tightens Wall Street rules and establishes a new consumer financial protection bureau to help protect borrowers from abusive lending practices.

Coming nearly two years after the bank bailouts of 2008, it is the Democrats' centerpiece response, intended to prevent another credit and mortgage crisis like the one that caused the stock market meltdown and current economic recession.
"These reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history," Obama said, just before he signed the bill. "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts. Period."

The legislation establishes an array of new rules that will allow the government to play a stronger watchdog role over financial markets and the practices of individual banks, and gives it greater power to intervene when a bank is on the verge of collapse.

The legislation has a mouthful of a name: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, named for Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Obama, Dodd, and Frank were joined today at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington by nearly 400 people who the White House says were instrumental in passing the legislation, including consumer advocates, business leaders, and state and local officials. " (Boston Globe)

---

Wow...progressives making progress, while the stinkers make stinks and the obstructionistas make obstructions. What a planet...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM

""I have a vision of a bare breasted Sarah leading the people to the barricades...   :0) ""

I swear he's certifiable.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 09:18 AM

"like Bush spent half of his presidency going off to Crawfor, or maine, or whatever... Or does Obama play locally in the DC area??? Big difference... How many days vacation did Bush take a year??? 3 or 4 hunnert??? He was always gone... Hey, not that I minded him being gone... Less stuff for him to mess up when he was gone...

(But, Boerdz... He had plenty of fols around DC to mess up for him...)

Yeah, he did... IO was wondering how he screwed up as much stuff as he did with spendin' so little time in DC...
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM

Bob......I have a vision of a bare breasted Sarah leading the people to the barricades...   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 08:02 AM

Revolution won't work here in the syayes, Ake... The government is too well armed... We learned that in the 60s... So, we are screwed...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:26 PM

Amos....."Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"


Our Health and Education services are being hived off to market forces....people are being thrown out of work everywhere...govt spending is being slashed....pensions are being raided....we are up to our necks in debt to pay for the crimes of Capitalism....and this cunt wants to reset it!!

We do really deserve all we get...how can we be so stupid?
Is it because we all have a little something to lose? Like Robert burns's mouse "Oor we bit heap o'leaves an stibble, has cost us mony a weary nibble, an' we're turned oot tae for aw oor trouble fae hoose an' haw.
Tae thole the winters sleety dribble an' cranreuch cauld!

So few real radicals among us....Its the mirage of evolution..... not revolution, for the "Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:22 PM

OK then, BeeBee, why dontcha cite some examples?? Thgere's several search options for ya- lets see 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:14 PM

Yeah, Amos... The Repubs just can't bring themselves to admit that alot of the stuff that Obama has done has worked out fine for the economy and for alot of businesses...

The Repubs also are back to talkin' about more tax cuts for business in the hopes that that will bring about more jobs??? This is an insane idea... First of all, American business are flush with cash now... Estimates of $1.7 to $1.8T cash just sitting in their accounts... Secondly, the Repubs want to reduce the deficit??? How ya' gonna do that with even less revenue??? This is insane Reagan/Bush voodoo economics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 11:41 AM

Bobert:
"Yeah, I don't recall any of us so-called Bush-bashers ever complaining about him going on vacation or complaining about where he went... "


Short memory.

Many of us do rememmber YOU in particular, and other Bush-bashers in general, complaining about his vacations, and his gof games, and his trips, and anything else he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:18 AM

"Given the latest data indicating weak growth and strikingly high unemployment, the administration is rightly concerned that business negativism is suppressing the confidence necessary for increased investment and job growth.

This poisonous dynamic between Washington and business must be fixed. Both sides should make adjustments, but the business community — of which I am a proud member — especially needs to make efforts to mend this relationship. Yes, the administration has made some mistakes. But, on balance, its actions have supported business.

So before leveling such fierce criticism, corporate America should remember the president's actual record. First, Mr. Obama inherited an economy teetering on the brink of depression. Immediately upon taking office, he forged a $787 billion economic stimulus program, and is wisely trying to expand it now. Was this program perfect? Of course not. But it has been effective. Every serious economic model indicates that it contributed to recovery.

Second, at that same time, the credit markets were in tatters and simply not functioning. The administration submitted the biggest banks to confidence-building stress tests. It skillfully invested in financial institutions, kept the mortgage markets afloat and undertook other creative initiatives to solidify the financial industry. These have worked more quickly and more successfully than anyone predicted. The system is healthy again.

All this has led directly to a turnaround in corporate profits, share prices and liquidity. Profits have increased 41 percent since President Obama was elected. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen 28 percent over the same period. These are strong results.

Third, the president made the courageous decision to put General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy. As a result, both survived and, today, G.M. in particular is coming back fast — along with its hundreds of suppliers. Moreover, taxpayers are likely to recover the full value of their investment in the company.

Fourth, Mr. Obama has made big progress toward restoring America's standing around the world. Two years ago, it stood at a historically low point, and multinationals were encountering resistance in penetrating foreign markets. The president's reframing of our global priorities and values has returned the United States to pre-eminence — and is starting to ease our way to opening new markets abroad.

A top issue for these business groups, and properly so, is education policy. That's because a better educated work force is a more productive one. So far, this administration has an unorthodox and outstanding record on education, a notable illustration of this is its Race to the Top initiative, which rewards the most reform-minded states with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of federal grants. Perhaps leading businesses could work with the White House to match these awards at least in part. ..."

Roger ALtman, investment banker, in the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:41 AM

The only thing that will make US change, Ake, is $5 a gallon petro...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:07 AM

According to the UK press, the Democrats are starting to back away from Obama.....the left think he's a sell-out and the right think he's a Communist......I wont say I told you so, but if you want "change", first YOU have to change, start to think about how you are trapped in the one party system.

You want change? first you have to be united.....the banner is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 05:22 PM

Yeah, I don't recall any of us so-called Bush-bashers ever complaining about him going on vacation or complaining about where he went... These Obama bashers are olympic quality bashers that make us so-called Bush-bashers look like Boy Scouts...

If they had a clue just hoe pathetic they look and sound maybe they's stop with this absolute childish behavior... Nah, there's a reason why they act like children... Their brains never developed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 04:05 PM

If Obama pushes back from his desk in the Oval Office and takes a ten minute coffee break or steps out for a minute to take a leak, there are dozens of mean-spirited twits with nothing more consrtuctive to do than caterwaul and squawk about it.

Bloody brainless. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 01:07 PM

"Rig, I assume that you are an American, did you study the Constitution in school?"

             And the federal government is responsible to defend the borders. Of course, if it refuses to do that somebody has to. That's probably why Eric Holder wears a Hitler mustache.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 12:55 PM

Lotta states trying out these power plays... Arizon with immigartion... Lousiana with trying to build levees... Virginia sueing over health care reform...

The one thing, however, that all these states have in common is that they didn't turn down an stilulis money... Here in Virginia the new Republican governor, Bob McDonald i boasting about the state showing a surplus... But when you take the money that Virginia got from the feds then their ain't no surplus???

Yeah, funny thing about the federal government... Lotta folks into bashin' it (mostly 'cause they don't like Obama) but they got their hands out for more federal cash???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beeliner
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:45 AM

Holder is trying to destroy the country by filing suit against the state of Arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws.

Rig, I assume that you are an American, did you study the Constitution in school?

Immigration is a FEDERAL responsibility. What will AZ want to do next, print its own money?

The federal government certainly has a problem with illegal immigration, stepping up enforcement would cost a lot of money, which might endanger your next tax cut.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:35 AM

Yeah, Rigs, he is... How exactly is that going to destroy the country??? I mean, "destroy the country" sounds alot like Tea Party thinkin'... You a member of the radical fringe loonies, Rigs???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:20 AM

What exactly IS a "hench", anyhow?? and how do Pres. Obama's men get hold of one?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 08:22 AM

Holder is trying to destroy the country by filing suit against the state of Arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM

What, Rigs??? You get a parkin' ticket today???

In these times of Repubs trying to blame anything that happens to them on, horrors, Obama, or his "henchmen" (???) reality passes them by...

Please elaborate on just how Eric Holder ahs been elevated to "henchmen", por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 10:11 PM

But then, of course, Obama has henchmen too, like Eric Holder, who really fuck things up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 10:57 PM

The issue with Bush was not the playing of golf, but the excess of vacations he took while continuing to fuck up everything he touched. I guess we should have been grateful to see him on vacation except his henchmen back at the White House were even worse.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM

yeah, and then there was Ike....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:06 PM

Yer wrong again, Saws... But then again we'd hate to see you break yer perfect string of being wrong...

Just go to "http://www.cbo,gov/bedget/data/historical.pdf"... BTE, the "cbo" in that sire stands for Congressional Budget Office... Not some loonie rightwingnut site...

So Obama plays golf??? Where??? Does he got on Air Force One, like Bush spent half of his presidency going off to Crawfor, or maine, or whatever... Or does Obama play locally in the DC area??? Big difference... How many days vacation did Bush take a year??? 3 or 4 hunnert??? He was always gone... Hey, not that I minded him being gone... Less stuff for him to mess up when he was gone...

(But, Boerdz... He had plenty of fols around DC to mess up for him...)

Yeah, he did... IO was wondering how he screwed up as much stuff as he did with spendin' so little time in DC...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 07:29 PM

I seem to recall a certain critism of Bush for playing golf...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 07:27 PM

Only much better.

Jaysus, BB, you're kinda wheezing with the scraping of the barrel here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 05:41 PM

Obama Has Shot 41 Rounds of Golf as President

by Keith Koffler on July 16, 2010, 3:30 pm

President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks.

With the excursions lasting on average at least five hours, the president has devoted a total of more than 200 hours to golf, not counting time spent on the White House putting green. That's the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent smacking golf balls.

The former community organizer's 41 trips around the links – a standard of recreational activity well beyond the budgets of most Americans – compares to only 24 total outings for former President George W. Bush, according to statistics compiled by White House chronicler Mark Knoller of CBS News. Bush, whose golf outings were used to help deride him as a callow, lazy, rich boy, played his 24th and last round on Oct. 13, 2003, saying he was ending the practice out of respect for the families of Americans killed in Iraq.

Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 rig workers and started the Gulf oil spill, Obama has teed up seven times, according to White House Dossier's count. This includes back to back sessions April 23 and 24 while on vacation at the Grove Park Resort & Spa in Asheville, NC, just days after the crisis began.

Obama's focus on golf borders on obsession. Startled reporters follow him out to the course in the motorcade in the broiling Washington heat and then wait in the air conditioning while he puts in 18 holes. Rarely does he play any less.


http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2010/07/16/obama-played-41-rounds-golf-president/

...................................................................


I guess he has to do EVERYTHING that Bush did, only more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:40 PM

Passing Financial Reform for contemplation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:33 PM

Lessee:

Reform health care? Yeah, we got a good start on that.
Economic Reform to prevent Wall Street stastrophes? YEah, definitely got a handle oin it, mafde it happen in spite of enormous lobbying pressures.
Push BP hard until they shut down their goddamed leak? Done.
Push revitalization of US economy with stimulus, alternative energy programs, etc.? Well underway.

Seems to me our boy's doing pretty well in SPITE of the muckraking, stop-him-at-all-costs righty campaigns which have made every stage three times as hard as it oughta be.

Looks like he's also moving closer to unwinding Bush's Folly in Iraq, as a bonus; nothing like saving American lives to piss off the hard-core righties. So I guess he's making it happen despite the worst the RNCers have been able to heave at him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 09:59 AM

Statistics is the formal science of making effective use of numerical data relating to groups of individuals or experiments.

Data is factual information.

Bobert cannot recognise facts. He calls a fact a Stat and cannot produce any facts of his own.

Facts according to the US Treasury, not stats:

 Clinton budget FY2000 09/29/1999 through 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion deficit
  Clinton budget FY2001 09/29/2000 through 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion deficit

These facts can only indicate one thing, Clinton handed a growing budget deficit to Bush, not "surpluses".

If I am wrong and Bobert is correct, he could produce some facts.

Instead of facts he makes personal attacks and claims to be a victim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 04:21 PM

I don't need no stinkin' "other facts", sawz...

First of all, as for me being a "stalker"...

Sawz wrong again... Reality is that you hqave stalked me from one web sitre to another using various handles... You, my friend, are the stalker... Alwaays have been and prolly always will be...

Secondly, here's the reason that your stats are bogus: They are comparing apples and oranges... The stat that you keep away from is the one that makes yer guys look tyerrivbly fiscally irresponsible and that stat is the actual anual budgets... Not paying off the national debt... All administartions have had to "service" that debt... That's a constant... The fact is, as I pointed out but you don't seem to want to get, is this: the national debt is not the same as an anual budget... And anual budget take two factors into account: 1. Spending and 2. Revenue... If during a year there is more revenue than spending then you have a surplus... That is what Clinton turned over to Bush...

But you don't give a rat's ass about that because it deosn't fit yer "narrow view" of the real world... You'd rather take the Republican bogus stat and run with it...

(Oh, but Boberdz... That sounds like cyber bullying...)

It does??? What??? Pointing out a bogus argument??? That really bullyin'??? Geeeze...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM

Bobert the cyber bully and stalker does not have any numbers of his own to present so he uses ad hominem attacks to prove his fraudulent claims.

You can plainly see that the national debt grew every year. It is data, not stats. It is hard numbers, not conjured up "information".

If Bobert could produce any proof that the deficit shrank, he could prove his point.

But he does not have any hard evidence so he prefers to attack the person rather than the facts.

You can view the facts here and here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

Well, Don, that is exactly what the Repubs are hopin'... They want to run out the clock between now and the election so that the voters will think they are votin' in Repubs who will:

*protect everyones entitlements

*not raise taxes but cut them

*fight the deficts and...

*create jobs

Of course the logical discussions won't occur... You know, like would ya'll mind tellin' the voters how ya'll plan on doing these things???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

Try not to confuse Douggie with facts, Don. He simply can't handle 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 01:32 PM

One wonders how some of our older conservatives, who are so adamant about cutting "entitlements," will respond when and if the gummint stops sending them their monthly Social Security checks.

(Thinking particularly about one of our older conservative Mudcatters who is passionately opposed to single payer national health care, saying that his health care coverage is more than adequate:    Medicare and the Veteran's Administration.)

Don Firth

P. S. Some folks seem to have great difficulty making simple and obvious connections.