BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 08:39 PM

Is that right, Greg???

BTW, folks... Seems as if the media is trying it's hardest to paint Obama into a corner over the oil spill... There haven't been any positive articles, even in the commie Washington Post, that have anything positive to say about how his administartion has handled the oil spill???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM

What do you expect his administration to do that it hasn't done?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:43 PM

Strap on the tanks and go down and personally plug the hole and and suck up all the oil with his ObamaOilSucker-TM which takes oily water and turns it into wonderful water where all the fish are happy...

Anything less means that the Repubs have all the answers??? Yeah, go figure that one... But that seems to be the the deal... People are still pissed off from the economy that the repubs left... Now they are pissed that the government can't stop the oil leak...

Obama oughtta call George and say "Screw this job... You messed it up and I'm sending the Acme Movers to come get your stuff because I'm going back to Chicago and let you clean your messes up..."

I mean, lets get real here... This ain't about political parties as much as it is about this very subtle campaign to discredit perhaps the best president since Jimmy Carter... I understood what happened to Carter... 12% interets rates (not his fault), OPEC and IRAN (not to mention the botched rescue)... But there's nothin' that makes a whole lotta sense with Obama... He hasn't ****caused**** any of the problems he is facing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 11:52 PM

He's black. He's not Republican. Times are hard and people need a scapegoat. People are falling on hard times who have believed all their lives that it's just the lazy and feckless people who lose their homes, go unemployed for months, etc. -- so now it happens to them, they are incapable of overturning their previous belief that the poor are that way because they deserve to be -- so they look for some other reason for their new-found misfortune (since obviously it can't be because THEY are unworthy of continued success).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:02 PM

"Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
June 20, 2010
   
Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.

Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.

Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.

But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.

Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.

This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.

And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the Gulf cleanup? The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration hasn't and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren't really any foreign vessels that could help.

The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle. It's the Chicago way: Dance with the girl that brung ya.

Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the Gulf's surface. Can't do that until we see if they've got enough life preservers and fire equipment. That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a blog post he dated June 1, 1940: "The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport."

Finally, the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward. It's pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a "shakedown."

For there already are laws in place that insure that BP will be held responsible for damages and the company has said it will comply. So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.

Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command "no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg." The Framers stopped at "due process of law."

Obama doesn't. "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of the Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin." Except that Putin is an effective thug."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-thuggery-is-useless-in-fighting-spill-96684389.html#ixzz0rVIwGUpD

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:20 PM

Thuggery, BeeBee?

"an American version of Vladimir Putin"/

Fer chrissake gimmie & everyine else a fuckin' break & go back to whatever planet you & Mr Barone are from.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

"The Washington Examiner is a free daily newspaper published in Springfield, Virginia, and distributed around Washington, D.C. and its suburbs. It is owned by Denver businessman Philip Anschutz, one of the world's richest men."

Obviously an unbiased source and worth every penny it costs to obtain.

Oh, and BeeBee - take Anschutz with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

GregF,

Your silence when critical editorials were presented here about Bush, from the NYT, andequally biased source, show me that you have no basis for your comments.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 01:55 PM

The opposite of "thuggery" is what we saw Exxon do afetr the Valdez oil spill which was to sandbag and try to duck responsibility... I'd like to see all these so-called conservatives go down to Louisiana and Mississippi and tell the folks down there whoes lives been ruined that they think that it would be best just to leave it to BP to determine how it wants to handle these folk's losses...

I really don't understand the thinking here of this new and very much unimproved brand of conservatism where corporations are permited to foul everyone elses land, water and air without any means of stopping them or making them pay for the damages they are leaving in their wake to higher profits... Imean, it's kinda like the folk who decide that the landfill is too far a drive so they just throw their old worn out TVs and mattresses on the side of the road... Same mentality and it seems that if the "dreaded government" tells folks they can't do that that this crop of conservatives will be the first to apologize to the guy who gets busted for thowing his worn out shit out on the side of the road???

beam me up, Scotty... The new Conservatives want Boss Hog to trash our planet...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 02:35 PM

Your silence when critical editorials were presented here about Bush, from the NYT...\

1. Your evidence for this assertion, BB? None? Thought so.

2. The NY Times is not a wholly-owned propaganda organ of a single demented individual & his hired hacks, unlike the Washington Examiner.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:03 PM

Show me ONE comment you posted about how unfair the propaganda against Bush was, or remain a bigotted asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:47 PM

Focus the attention on how evil Obama is (which we already knew, because he's black and we don't like his birth certificate), instead of on how BP is or is not reacting to the mess it made. Typical right-wing ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

So, mousecrook, because he is black we should not subject him to the same criticism that was given to A WHITE PRESIDENT???

You don't think him capable of dealing with what Bush had to put up with??? Affirmative action is such a nice way to say he's not good enough to be held to the same standards a "white" would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:02 PM

Bruce,

That's horsep[ucky. No-one said he should not be subject to objective criticism on actual issues.

You know, if you keep waving your arms like that you'll be able to FLY to the Getaway...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:07 PM

"No-one said he should not be subject to objective criticism on actual issues"


So, you admit that YOUR postings about Bush were NOT actual issues? Since you keep telling me that just because YOU criticised Bush about something I do NOT have the right to criticise Obama for the same level of incompetance.


How many days did it take for Bush to visit NO? And how many days before Obama deigned to go to the Gulf? Yet Bush was roundly criticised, and you give Obama a pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:25 PM

If I recall, when Obama did visit, it was rejected by the Right as a "photo op". There really is no pleasing some people.

Other than standing in Louisiana and looking good, what do you think Obama should be doing? I have a hard time getting an answer to this question when put to the nattering nabobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:30 PM

Guys! This thread would not even exist had not Amos started a very long running thread about Bush called:

BS: Popular Views: the Bush Administration

Bearded Bruce didn't like that thread. He felt it was an unfair partisan attack on the president of the time. (in his opinion)

His reaction was to do the very same thing to Obama after Obama got elected. ;-) His reasoning: "if they can do it to me I can do it back to them"

I predict, therefore, that this thread will last about as long as the Bush thread did, unless Obama only gets 4 years in office, and then it'll last half as long as the Bush thread did.

I can hardly wait.... (rolling my eyes)

Just think, Amos, you could have avoided this ever happening, just by the simple remedy of not hitting "submit" when you started that thread about Bush. ;-D

But it's too late now! The polecat is out of the bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

The polecat? You mean Mr. Clinton? Oh wait, that's tomcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:36 PM

Show me ONE comment you posted about how unfair the propaganda against Bush was....

I don't recall any threads regarding anti-Bush propaganda, but I would of course have been against any lies or untruths regarding Bush and the BuShites, as I would be about anyone.

There were, however, a considerable number of threads and postings taking issue with Bush's lies, malfeasance in office, criminally stupid actions and statements (e.g. "Mission Accomplished", general ineptitude, violations of the Constitution and of the Geneva Convention, and the like. However, these were not "propaganda" but issues concerning matters of fact.

Your "hero" and his handlers screwed up, big time. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:55 PM

Grrr! Snarl! Hiss! (the debate goes merrily on...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:05 PM

And Grrr! Snarl! Hiss! right back atcha. Take that, Boyo!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:26 PM

Why shouldn't the debate go on, LH???

Hey, these are some very difficult times for the country and the planet in general and debate will get us closer to solutions than just nuttin' up... I mean, ya' got get in there and mix it up... That's how stuff does change for the better... And, of course, if the wrong side outframes the correct side, the worse...

I just find it incrdulaous that the ***new 'n improved (not)*** conservatives think that the answer to the problems we face as a result of 30 years of deregulation and wink-wink on enforcement of the few regs that have survived is to deregulate even more??? I mean, it's kinda like lookin' at the poor guy dieing and ordering up more leeches??? It's just increduluous that this is what the Tea Party and the conservative movement are all about???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

Naw, Bobert ya gots to deregulate even more and CUT TAXES EVEN MORE- even tho the American taxpayer is paying the lowest rate since just after WWII and the country is going broke.

Idiocy incarnate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:19 PM

Oh, yeah? How about....

THIS!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:49 PM

Judge halts Obama's oil-drilling ban

By Stephen Dinan
2:23 p.m., Tuesday, June 22, 2010

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.

He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he's in control of the 2-month-old spill.

Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.

Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 07:13 PM


Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.

Assholes. Ain't hurting the region half as much as the oil spill. I suppose they want more environmental catastrophes & then they can piss & moan that the government isn't doing enough to help them.

Beam me up, Scotty..........

And Buy A Hummer For Jesus. WWJD? (What Would Jesus Drive?)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:14 PM

It may take 200 years for the Gulf to get back to where it was 2 months ago... 6 friggin' months to put some sensible regs in place seems like chump change...

Hey, I don't give a rat's ass what Governon Jinglebells wants... Last I checked he ain't the president of the entire country...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:52 PM

Who cares if another gusher opens up in the bottom of the sea because we don't know how as well as we thought we did to do it as safely as we need to? Drill, baby, drill. The ocean will repair itself eventually. Just as the entire planet will repair itself when our idiotic species finally does itself off. I hope they work out that "artificial intelligence" thing soon. Because "natural" intelligence isn't doing us much good right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 09:19 PM

Yeah, mouse.... Seems as if intellegence is in short supply these days... But, hey... Corporate profits are up!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,mandatory8
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:50 AM

Hope is a pretty abstract campaign promise. I held my nose when I voted for the guy, knowing that any difference between he and john Mccain wasn't their voting record. I think he's proved to be a lying sack of ____, But if he ever gets this country out of iraq, afghanistan, packistan, Iran, georgia etc. I'll climb on the band wagon.
By the way, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman is heavily invested in the oil industry,(would you expect different in Louisiana?) so the feds will probably shut down drilling in the gulf.
How high will gas go then?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:50 AM

Normal... The judge shoulda recused himself but, no... He had to go and grandstand... Another Tea Partier in a black robe... No shortage of 'um these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:50 AM

Imagine My Surprise.....

---------

Judge who nixed drilling ban has oil investments

By CURT ANDERSON and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press
Last updated: 8:16 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- The Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports. He's also a new member of a secret national security court.

Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report -- the most recent available -- also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

Feldman did not respond to requests for comment and to clarify whether he still holds some or all of these investments.

Feldman is a native of St. Louis and former Army captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps who was appointed in May to a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to court records.

The court meets secretly to consider government requests for wiretaps in national security cases, such as those involving foreign terrorist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,mandatory8
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:31 AM

I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Austin, the tea parties have been fairly spontaneous and not affiliated to any party, (no Sara Palins or other jackasses looking for a crowd). But there's a false assumption people make that if they hear something on Fox news or read it in the New York Times that its true. About all the corporate media does these days is pit one group off against another. But look, just because you got screwed by the republicans doesn't mean you're not getting screwed by the Democrats.
If I got anything for my federal taxes I wouldn't mind them being wrenched from me by threat of force, but all I've gotten is a police state and wars. I see corporations and the rich paying less and the government's only paying on the interest, its not paying down nothing.
So, if you enjoy paying higher taxes and support your government killing brown people around the world, make fun of the protesters and pay away, in fact if you enjoy it so much, pay mine too. Actually you might have to, I'm unemployed because of policies enacted by both parties, who think they work for foreign governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:05 PM

One more thought about Ooobama: When you hear or read "Obama said...." what does that mean? it means he said something, and thats all.
He said we should "revisit NAFTA", he said he'd get troops out of Iraq, he and Holder said they want to "revisit Miranda warning", and I find this to be the quintessential one, he told the DEA to back off medical marijuana raids in the states that have legalized it. Why not? the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in that anyway, unless its coming in over international borders. Well, they've ignored him, and the Bush appointed head of the DEA, who is still in that position, has even extended warnings to the VA about medical marijuana. (The DEA has been so corrupt, by the way, congress has shifted a lot of their duties to the FBI). So whats he do about it? Fire her a__? No, he just nominated her for another term in that job. Something's wrong with that boy's head.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:35 PM

If I got anything for my federal taxes...

Oh, please- don't play the mindless prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:01 PM

he said he'd get troops out of Iraq

He made a timeline for this and the repuglickin's screamed bloody murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM

LIttle Hawk:

In your obsessive "everything is equal to everything" thinking you have missed some important differencesa between my thread and Bruce's undiscriminating imitative efforts. For one thing, I was not imitating anyone, and I even posted some positive comments about W on the rare occasion when he deserved them. For another the country was in a much deeper hypnotic state under Bush than it has been under Obama,, largely because of the heavy-handedness of the Bush regime's chief oligarchs such as Cheney and Rove.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:22 PM

You must be joking, right, Amos? I was not for a moment implying that your effort in your original thread about Bush IS equal to Bruce's effort in this kneejerk reaction TO your original thread....

I was saying that Bruce himself (and only Bruce himself) thinks it is an equal situation! Therefore he is filled with righteous commitment to a (verbal) war that would be better not fought at all...

And accordingly, what I was implying was merely this: that the rest of you should stop rising like eager fish to the bait that BB is tossing on the waters, stop wasting your energy arguing with him (which is futile and won't change anything), and perhaps find something more interesting and productive to do with your time. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:48 AM

Stimulus: The big bang is over - CNNMoney.com July 2, 2010

The job market and economy need a serious jumpstart, but the stimulus program likely won't be able to do it.

This summer will be the peak of the $787 billion stimulus program in terms of creating jobs and pumping money into the economy. In fact, the Obama administration is calling it the Summer of Recovery because more than 30,000 miles of highways are being improved, more than 2,800 water projects have been started and 120,000 homes will be weatherized.

After that, it will be a downhill slide for stimulus even as the economy is expected to continue sputtering.

"It's very hard to discern any impact," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist for IHS Global Insight.

Shifting to stimulus projects:

When it was passed in February 2009, the nation's largest stimulus program focused on sending aid to struggling state governments, providing tax relief and augmenting the safety net for the unemployed and low income.

Some 57% of tax benefits and 60% of entitlement money has already been paid out, according to federal data. But only 43% of the funding for contracts, loans and grants has gone out the door.

Now, however, the focus is shifting to infrastructure and other projects that will drive job growth, according to the administration. For instance, President Obama Friday will announce 66 new stimulus-funded broadband projects nationwide that officials says will create about 5,000 jobs immediately and spur long-term economic development.

The Recovery Act's greatest impact lies ahead, according to the administration.

"As the summer heats up, it is becoming clear that it could quite possibly be the most active season yet when it comes to recovering our economy," wrote Deputy Housing Secretary Ron Sims on a White House blog in June. "There are Recovery Act-funded projects breaking ground across the country that are creating quality jobs for Americans and economic growth for businesses, large and small. This summer is sure to be a Summer of Economic Recovery."

The White House credits the stimulus program with funding between 2.2 million and 2.8 million jobs so far. That figure is derived from a mathematical formula based on the money that's flowed out the door. Officials say at least 3.5 million jobs will be created or retained by year's end, which was the president's original goal.

But it's nearly impossible to know how many people actually owe their employment to stimulus. Recipients of Recovery Act contracts reported that 682,370 jobs were funded in by stimulus in the first quarter, but that figure isn't cumulative and covers only a portion of the total stimulus package.

Struggling economy:

Bethune, however, says that the government's projections are overly optimistic. Though he agrees that the Recovery Act has juiced the economy, he feels it's closer to a 1 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product in the first quarter, rather than that 2.5 to 2.9 percentage point hike estimated by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

"Just look at the number of jobs we created over the past four quarters," he said. "There haven't been a lot."

Unemployment slid to 9.5% in June even as 125,000 jobs were lost. The vast majority of those losses, however, were temporary Census workers. Private sector employers added 83,000 positions.

There are several factors hampering the Recovery Act, experts said. A primary one is that states' budgets are in such bad shape that they continue to shed jobs and slash spending despite stimulus infusions.

Also, contractors have to jump through many government hoops to get stimulus funding, said John Slye, principal analyst at Input, a market research firm for government contractors. That's one reason why a relatively small percentage of project funding has been distributed.

"It's taking agencies so long to get this money out into the economy," he said.

Though stimulus funds were meant to bridge the gap until the private companies started hiring again, employers have been reluctant to add to their payrolls.

In the construction sector, for instance, spending fell 8% in May compared to a year ago, even though stimulus-funded work picked up. Private non-residential construction sagged 25%, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Associated General Contractors of America.

The stimulus infrastructure funds will largely run out by the end of 2010, said Ken Simonson, the association's chief economist. He's very concerned that this will result in a long-term decrease in construction activity.

"There's no pretending that stimulus will drive the economy or replace the private sector," said Simonson. "I still think the economy will keep growing, but I have less confidence now than a few months ago."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:57 AM

Well, ya know, if the State and Local Governments keep killing off 3 jobs for every one the Federal Stimulus creates, probably not gonna make much progress.

Take it up with Arnie in CA, Patterson in NY & the rest of the damn fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM

Ah so the main problem with the stimulus is that it's running out. That's hardly an argument that it was a bad idea. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:22 PM

Yeah, mouser, the right complains that there is too much government when they want to get elected and once in power make the Dems look like Scrooge when it comes to spending so the right has absolutely no credibilty when it comers to having even the basics of Econ 101...

Now as fir the stimulis... Most non-flat-earth economists back when it was being debated and passed said it was too small to get the economy into recovery... So can I get a chorus of "Duhhhhs" now that what they said is showing to be true???

But back to the righhties... They have poisoned the waters for a 2nd stimulis because they are content in seeing the economy in the crapper if it means they can get back in power and mess it up even worse...

That's the entire ball of wax that the Dems need to hammer home... We just can't afford more emotional-flat-earthers runnning the show... That is exactly why we are in this mess...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 11:40 PM

Hear hear, Bobert. From your lips to God's ears. Pity the flat-earthers are more interested in being contrary and hating Obama than actually helping the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:11 PM

""Hear hear, Bobert. From your lips to God's ears. Pity the flat-earthers are more interested in being contrary and hating Obama than actually helping the country.""

Yes! And you can't even send 'em all out of the country to Iraq, or Afghanistan, in case they fall over the edge.


Oh!.....I don't know, though...............!

Do T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 01:05 AM

"let's review a little history:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus"

Not history, Horseshit.

There were never any surpluses. It is a myth.

The deficit grew every year thst Clinton was in office.

The growth decelerated in the year ended Sep 2000 but It increased with the $133 billion deficit budget that Clinton handed to GWB.

Clinton handed a growing deficit to GWB.

  Fiscal Year.Year Ending.....National Debt...........Deficit
    FY1994.....09/30/1994.....$4.692749 trillion.....$281.26 billion
    FY1995.....09/29/1995.....$4.973982 trillion.....$281.23 billion
    FY1996.....09/30/1996.....$5.224810 trillion.....$250.83 billion
    FY1997.....09/30/1997.....$5.413146 trillion.....$188.34 billion
    FY1998.....09/30/1998.....$5.526193 trillion.....$113.05 billion
    FY1999.....09/30/1999.....$5.656270 trillion.....$130.08 billion
    FY2000.....09/29/2000.....$5.674178 trillion.....$17.91 billion
    FY2001.....09/28/2001.....$5.807463 trillion.....$133.29 billion

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 08:43 AM

Bogus stats, Sawz, but then again you are the Bogus-Stats King of Mudburg...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 09:57 PM

That's funny. I've always heard that Clinton left a budget surplus--one of the firsts within recent times--which Bush proceded to start flushing down the toilet.

Someone's not keeping up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 07:58 AM

It's all in the stats, Don... Clinton did leave a surplus but it was based on "annual" budgets, meaning that the government took in more than it spent *that year*... The deficits are cumulative, however, and include interets on the overall debt... In other words, all of the previous defifits going back forever are included in the stats... That's why Sawz stats are bogus... There is no way any president could not only produce a surplus and pay off the national debt, too... That is not possible...

As for the deficits we are seein' now??? They were all projected three years ago when Bush was president... That's what I mean when I talk about the boobie traps that Bush left for the next administration...

Bush is kinda the president that keep on giving... Or, in this case, taking...

Even worse is the pure and simple fact that in the "real world* (which BTW the Sawz of the world have little or no undertanding) that not only is the the US going to have to increase taxes but so are alot of other countries... I mean, it was a nice ride for the wealthiest among US but that party is over...

(But Boberdz... Isn't that what Dems do every time they come into power???)

Well, seems like that is a pattern... But it ain't like the Repubs leave them much choice...

(But Boberdz... The voter are "mad as hell" and will punish anyone who raises their taxes...)

Well, yeah... That's probably true... The alternative is bankruptcy...

(No, Boberdz... Just cut spending and all will be fine...)

Don't work that way... What you gonna cut??? Social Security... Medicare??? Fine, if that's what ya'll want to do then get out there and say it... It would be nice to know how ya'll gonna deal with the deficit without cutting very popular programs that have been with US for most of our lives... Hey, I'd at least respect ya'll righties if you'd just say what ya'll would cut... That would show some level of sincerity.... Boneheaded??? yeah, but sincerely boneheaded...

B~

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.

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.