BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM

Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations...

Virgina, where you can buy an assualt weapon with no background check, where you can drive away from having been convicted of ____ (fill in any number) of DUIs on a motor scooter without a license, without a helmit and without any insurance put people thru the hoops to get a Virginia drivers license... They make you send $35 to an outfit that "certifies" your birth certificate??? Like you can have a real birth certificate but until this private company says its real then it's no license... How do they know if it's real???

I mean, there is so much bogus stuff going down right now about IDs that it is beyond comprehenion... It's just $$$ to campaign donors who run the bogus certifying company... Not even any competition... This company gets $35 outta everyone that comes into the state to get a license, even if they have allready had a license here in the past... Grrrrrr!!!

Well, I refused to give $35 to a private company... I wrote then Governor Mark Warner and said it was a scam and he musta have agreed with me 'cause he had one of his people call the DMV and arrange for me to get my license with a bonified original birth certicate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM

Hey Bobert. How did a mental midget work his way up to the position of being nominated?


And as for false statements, where is the documentation on the "Bad Gas" you were going to supply for $2.95?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM

Bobert: "Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations..."

Yes, the law was to keep illegal aliens from voting in OUR elections.

OK, you can go back now, and finish your dinner, over the sink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM

The really sick thing about liberal posts on this thread is that they really don't see why the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly win the election Tuesday. It's because the policies of the Obama Administration are popular with ONLY 20% of the population (liberals).

It's sick because they REALLY don't understand what their problem is. Their problem is they support a liberal agenda and that simply is not going to prevail in the United States. No way.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM

Yo, Dougie...

The reason that the Repubs will do well is because after you throw in 24/7 anti-Dem programing and the massive amounts of undisclosed "Citizens United" cash from overseas and Boss Hog's corporation that this election has allready been decided... 90% of candidates who spend the most win... It is a wonder that any Dems will survice this unprecidented Clarence "Love them tit's" Thomas's America where elections are bought...

Yo, GfinS,

Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,,

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

Bobs: "Yo, GfinS,
Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,,

..and how do you know if they are ILLEGAL??????? ask them nicely not to vote???...or are they citizens???...Arizona can't even do that now!..and its bullshit!...I mean a guy crawls over the fence, or hires a coyote, to break our laws, illegally takes a job(away from an American citizen), feels entitled to be here,(with an attitude), illegally pays no taxes, and you expect him to tell you the truth??!!??!!??!

Dinner is awaiting.....but over the sink, again!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM

Well, how do they register to vote, GfinS... Don't go telling me that Arizona doesn't have basic standards for being able to register to vote 'cause that dog won't hunt... Every state has 'um...

What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote... Here in Va. you are on the voter rolls and you gotta show either a "voters card" or a driver's license in order to vote... That seems logical, inspite of the fact that this is Virginia...

But now if Virginia, for instance, wnated proof of birth to at the precinct to vote then I'd dare say that that requirement wouyld be extreme and intended, at some level, to be an overt attempt to stop certain folks from voting...

I mean, if you had to have these documents in order to get on the eligible voters rolls then that oughtta be it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM

Bobs: "What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote..."

In all fairness, you probably are not aware of how BAD the problem is there, in Arizona. Its bad...real fucking bad!
If you are NOT aware of how bad, then I could see your point, but it is mega-bad! Something needs to be done!!..and I can't see the Feds doing shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM

The problem right now with the feds, Gfins, is that states liike Arizona are hell bent on trying to put Obma in a box and are picking and choosing which federal laws they want to enforce... This is creating some ver bad local policies all over the country tyhat neerss to get straightened out but probably won't for years to come as the Repub/Tea Partiers will delight in using Pick-'n-chose which federal laws they like to poke Obama and Dems until they get a Repub in the White House anf then they will follow suit... Purdy stupid game that the right is playing with "federalism: here... Obey like lap dog any Repub in the White House and then become assholes when the Dem is in...

But that is the strategy and Obama is the appeaser and they know they can get away with it...

If I were Obma, I'd order the National Guard in to enforce the Civil Rights Act and make states run fair elections... But I ain't Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM

...but, at least in this case, this is more about the prison/industrial complexz in Arizona using SB1070 as a way to extract as many federal tax dollars (yours and mine, GfinS...) to get folks locked up in their facilities...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

Seems that the Arizona priosn/industrail folks have been funneling money to Jan Brewer going back quite a ways... And when folks put that kinda money into a candidate then they want a return on their investment...

Fact: The border crossing are down by less than half of the crossings some 10 years ago and down considerably since last year and the year before...

So, kinda makes sense that if ya' built bigass new detention facilities (possibly thinking that other states would send their prisoners to you - for a profit on yer side - but with state budget shortfalls states are instead cutting priosn times *thta* you might consider trying to buy the governor...

Me thinks that Jan Brewer is bought and paid for by Arizona's "prison/industrial complex"...

All this shit about how "America" is being assaulted by Hispanics comin' over the border in hords is, ahhhhh, propaganda... Ain't happenin'...

So, it's down to "papers"... I mean, this was the exact same thing that happened in Germany in 1933 to the Jews and we now stand back and say, "That was some messedf up stuff" but we allow ourselves to be brought to deny facts about the immigration situation/issue in order to promote the inaceration industry???

Beam me up, Scotty... The ordinary folks have been re-programmed by the crooks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:59 PM

Does Bobert want to "lynch" Justice Thomas?

I mean he knows he Thomas is guilty of every accusation. No trial, No report to file.

Ignore Bubba, Jesse Jackson and Edwards, They are only hapless Democrats with normal animal instincts.

Just focus on the Republicans that disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:19 PM

I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website).

He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil.   It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:08 AM

Amos: You appear to be the only person who thinks Obama did well on the Stewart show. I thought it was pathetic. That's supposed to be a comedy show. He used it to try to defend his agenda and, instead, looked like a weak "Dude." (Stewart's descriptive word, not mine.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:23 AM

Amos Lightfoot: "I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website).
He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil.   It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time."

Are you referring to Barack or Jon???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM

I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart. It was a disaster for Obama. Nothing but excuses and alusions to things they have done that we don't know about. What happened to the transparency he promised?

A piss poor leader with nothing but excuses who blames others for his unfulfilled promises.

He says the American people just don't understand.

He just does not understand the American people.

Yer doin' a heckuva job Larry. unemployment only went to 9.6%

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM

Wow. You guys must have been watching the O'Reilly show. Or, projecting your predispositions with an awful lot of bitter, hate-filled energy. The guy is ten times as smart and well-spoken as your dingbat Texan friend was, and he's done a lot more good.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

People gonna see what they want to see, Amos...

I mean, people made fun of Columbus... And Einstein...

Just jealous...

Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box...

Like my dad used to say, "Consider the source"...

I mean, arguing with retards is, at times, purdy retarded in itself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM

I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. Why? Because the emotional bands around hatred are distortive and tend to make for false perception.

Looking at something or someone with benevolence will give you much deeper perception into what you are looking at. To hate and demean someone as basically decent as Obama, you have to arm yourself with a lot of hateful and bilious notions first.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:04 PM

"Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box"

So how does that make him a good leader?

I wouldn't mind having him as a lawyer or a salesman or a PR man but that does not qualify someone as a leader.

If whining that people just don't understand which implies they are not smart enough and they talk about me like I'm a dog which implies he is perfect and any criticism is unjust makes one a leader, then why aren't people following?

Clinton was a better leader than Obama. He knew how to work with people instead of declaring he is smarter than them so he has the final say.

Most people say he is a nice well intentioned guy but they are loosing faith in him as a leader.

Has he even made a dent in the Jewish Palestinian peace process?

Has he contained Iran? North Korea? Venezuela?

Personally I think he is a nice guy but when he starts his last eight years crap, not so much.

Now he needs to talk about the last two years.

We would be better off with a Repub congress and a Dem Pres like it was under Bubba. A lot got done then and things were not to bad until the last year when the Cole got bombed, the internet bubble burst and gas started climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:15 AM

You're putting a lot of words in his mouth--things he didn't say. What he said was, considering the pile of shit he was handed, he's gotten a lot done. That's true. He's made major steps on his agenda despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw. So, good on him. It isn't enough by far, but compared t the slack-jawed glazed frat-boy who sent the economy into the shitter, he's done a lot of good. Give him some time and he'll do more.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:01 AM

Amos, your rhetoric is just that.

I would rather have results than excuses.

Jon Stewart was a big supporter of Obama.

Now he takes cheap shots at him like he was Erkel.

How quickly things change. Shepard Fairey, creator of the iconic Barack Obama 'Hope' poster, is no longer feeling quite so smitten with the prez, the New York Post reports. Washington is too intertwined with corporate America, Fairey said at a recent show opening. I had a lot of hope for Obama, but it's not panning out. He's not pushing hard enough.


Lady Gaga Beats President Obama to 10 Million Facebook Fans

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM

The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... That was no easy task given the broken legislative system that favors the minority and the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at negative ads for the entire year it took to get it thru...

Obama will get a lot of credit for that when historians look back on his administration...

Finacial reform??? Okay, not as big but still very significant...

Restoration of the original purpose of the Department of EPA will also be viewed as bold and couragous... Yeah, the Repubs will try to undo a lot of the regs that have been put in place to protect our natural resources but for the first time in a long time my friend who work there are pround of what they are now doing...

So to poo-poo Obama's accomplishments is just sour-grapes... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM

Before Sawz jumps on my wording, let me correct something... The health care reform bill itself was not a "monster bill"... The passing of it was a monster achievement... As in large... As in difficult... As in historical...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

Sawz:

Rhetoric, shmetoric. His administration has made headway in spite of intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers. Fact.

Health care, economic reform, etc.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:14 PM

"Intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers"

More rhetoric.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion for example.

Let's take the word haters in Amos's statement.

Does it imply that anybody that opposed anything in the bill and wanted changes is hateful?

Yes it does and it attempts to turn people against anyone who opposed the bill by describing them as hateful, via rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at lobbysts who wrote the bill the way they wanted it.

A monster achievement for the medical and insurance companies.

It's right there on PBS if you care to look.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Our plan does not include a public option.

BILL MOYERS: Take a close look at that woman sitting behind Montana Senator Max Baucus. He's the Democrat who's the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Liz Fowler is her name. And now get this. She used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was Vice President of Public Policy. And now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want: higher profits, and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.

I'm not making this up. Here's another little eye-opener. The woman who was Baucus' top health advisor before he hired Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. Why did she leave the Committee? To go to work -- where else? -- at a firm representing the same company Liz Fowler worked for WellPoint. As a lobbyist.

It's the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. And it's why they always win.

They've been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House, it's more fertile than ever. The health insurance industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress, and more than 500 of them are former congressional staff members.

Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, they've been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that the bill that comes out of the Finance Committee next week puts for-profit health insurance companies first, by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.

In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent 380 million dollars on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And a million and a half of it went to -- don't hold your breath -- Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who said he saw "a lot to like" in two proposed public options but voted "no."

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: My job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. Now I can count and no one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option in the bill.

BILL MOYERS: Of course not. They can't get 60 votes. Not when the people who want a public alternative can't possibly scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career.

Over the last two decades, the current members of the Senate Finance Committee - you're looking at them -- have collected nearly 50 million dollars from the health sector. A long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine.

Not that we should be surprised. A century ago, muckraking journalists reported that large corporations and other wealthy interests virtually owned the Senate, using bribery, fraud, and sometimes blackmail to get their way. Jokes were made about the Senator from Union Pacific or the Senator from Standard Oil.

This fellow in particular was out to break their grip. His name was David Graham Phillips, and one day in 1906, readers of COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE opened its March issue to discover the first of nine articles by Phillips titled "The Treason of the Senate."

He wrote: "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be..."

The public outrage provoked by Phillips and other muckrakers contributed to the passage of the Constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, who until then were elected by easily bought-off state legislators.

Of course, like water seeking its own level, big money finds its way around every obstacle, and was soon up to its old tricks, filling the pockets of friendly politicians. Today none dare call it treason. So how about calling it what it is: a friendly takeover of government. A leveraged buyout of democracy.

Outrageous? You bet. But don't just get mad. Get busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:30 AM

Bobsie: "The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... "

That's why, in the most recent poll, 68% of all Americans want it repealed or amended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM

The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...

A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???

Well, fact is that $300B of the stimulis bill went for tax cut for 95% of tax payers??? Ya' see, GfinS what happens when the liars get ahold of the microphone and won't share it with the truth tellers???

This is exactly what alot of us have been saying over and over and over... The corporate media flat out doesn't want the truth getting out... It would have been nice for ABC to, at the very least, mentioned the tax cuts that 95% of the working pulic recieved under the stimulis bill somewhere along the way... Little late now to give the voters that infomartion that an "informed electorate" needs to make "informed choices" on election day... No, the public has been sufficeintly propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators...

I mean, just about every issue out there is the same... One one hand there is the truth and on the other cpomplete fabrications that Boss Hog has stuffed in everyone's heads with his constant barrage of lies and propaganda..

This is what happened during the health care reform debates... Reality is that if we had modeled our reform closer to our competitors we would be able to reduce costs but, no... Those "costs" are a large part of the profits that the health care/industrial complex wants and now will get until the US has the balls to fix it... Is this bill better than nothing??? Yeah, it is but it won't bring down cost significantly... Might get US in the 15-16% of GNP range when a single payer system would have gotten US into the 9% range...

But the lies came fast and furious and stuck so even Dems were scared to push for single payer... Thus, the country was not served... The health care insudtry was served but not the country...

And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

For you, Bobert:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:25 AM

Hey, I got a great idea..Why don't we give our entire paychecks to the government, and they can give it all away, and maybe even give you an allowance!....

Oh, you mean the far left already thought of that??

Shucks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

"even Dems were scared to push for single payer" Seen that Bill Moyers segment yet Bobert?

"A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"

So every body that says their taxes have gone up are too stupid to know?

"tax cut for 95% of tax payers" So how many of that 95% paid any taxes to begin with? Just because they were tax payers doesn't mean they ended up owing or paying any taxes.

What percentage of the population are tax payers?

"the public has been sufficiently propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators"

That is you Bobert. One only has to look at your Bobert "facts" to figure that out.

You are a firm believer in the "Clinton Surplus" Myth. You cannot explain why the National debt went up every year of the claimed surpluses except to call the Treasury Dept, headed by Tim Geithner a right wing mythology site.

To his credit, Obama has recently changed the shady accounting rules that allowed people to claim a surplus where there was a deficit.

Unlike you Bobert, I am going to back up my words with something other than personal attacks:

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden.

Understanding on-budget and off-budget deficits

Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget." Administrative costs of the Social Security Administration (SSA), however, are classified as "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001. In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total federal budget deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit.

The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is invested in special Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the "intergovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intergovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public."

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often report the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.

These on-budget and off-budget items essentially amount to accounting gimmicks and schemes. In reality, what really matters is how much money comes in and how much money goes out. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased every single year.

According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). The drivers of the expense increases (expressed as % of GDP) are Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), Defense (1.6%), Income Security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). The drivers of tax reductions are individual income taxes (-3.3%), payroll taxes (-0.5%), corporate income taxes (-0.5%) and other (-0.4%). The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%)

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

    * Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
    * Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
    * Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
    * New policies from President Obama (10%).

CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration, but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..." Presidents have no Constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money, as this responsibility resides with the Congress, although a President's priorities influence Congressional action.

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were:

1) account for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of "emergency" supplemental spending bills;

2) assume the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;

3) account for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and

4) anticipate the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...
A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"



http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...

Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean!

Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM

Sorry last post took the link wrong......

Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable...
A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???"


http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/10/31/msm-liberal-bias-cbs-affiliate-ktva-caught-on-voice-mail-conspiring-against-alaska-republica

Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean!

Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized!

GfS

P.S...as you read the article, Fox was NOT implicated, neither was CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

Bobert:How can you possibly believe that passing the "monstrous" health care bill ...oops ...the health care bill wasn't, in your opinion, "monstrous", the passing of it was. Well, in view of the fact that an extra large majority of the population wants to see the bill repealed, you again, appear to be in the minority.

Passing the bill wasn't a big deal. Heck if you've got the majority vote in the house the senate, own the White House, and if you don't mind pissing off a sizable majority of the population, it's a cakewalk!

I suspect, come this Tuesday, there will be a lot of Democrats who will be muttering to themselves, "hmm, was it really worth it?" If major polls can be believed, an awful lot of Democrat congresspersons and senate persons are going find out what being unemployed really means.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed.

Say, Doug, what specifically do you think should be repealed?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

53% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, 46% Say Repeal Likely
Monday, October 25, 2010

A majority of voters continue to favor repeal of the new national health care law, and the number who sees this outcome as likely has reached a new high.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 53% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal of the bill, with 32% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March, support for repeal has ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%.

But now 46% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely the law will be repealed, up six points from earlier this month and the highest level measured since tracking of the question began in April. Still, that includes just 13% who say it's Very Likely the law will be repealed.

Forty-five percent (45%) say it is not very likely the law will repealed, showing no change from earlier this month.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say repeal of the bill would be good for the economy, showing little change over the past two months. Thirty-four percent (34%) say repeal of the law would be bad for the economy, while another 16% say it would have no impact.

Just 26% think repeal of the law will lead to the creation of more jobs, down four points from early October and the lowest level measured since April. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say repeal of the bill will not lead to increased job creation. However, 36% are not sure.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans expect the health care law to be repealed, as do 47% of voters not affiliated with either major political party. Only 30% of Democrats believe the law is likely to be repealed.

Overall, 37% say the health care plan passed by Congress in March will be good for the country, the lowest level of confidence found this month. Fifty-three percent (53%) say the law will be bad for the country.

Recent polling shows that only 43% of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:46 PM

Sawz:

Read what I wrote. The madding crowd, electrified by falsified information and Repub venom, may say anything. If they were consulted on the issues, about which most of them do not know the first thing, they would think differently. What were the survey questions being used? Did they go into the particulars of the policy? Or did they ask, "Do you agree the Health Care Bill is a baaaad thing?" What sort of intelligent response would you expect>???



A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:31 PM

Rhetoric Amos Rhetoric.

You still operate under the assumption that anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, uninformed and out of touch.

Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos.

"I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed."

Why do you believe that? How did you make that judgement?

Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos. Or is it something you just have in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:47 PM

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion

Emotional triggers:

madding crowd

electrified

falsified information

Repub venom

a baaaad thing

You're on a roll Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:40 AM

I guess we'll know shortly. If the American public love the bill, and thank all those who voted for it, I suppose they'll be re-elected with open arms and warm wishes....if not, well that might be a clue.

Being as the American public was virtually ignored during the debates, and finagling to get it pass, I'm sure we'll find out the feeling on the matter from them(us)...and it's only two days away! I personally wouldn't vote FOR anyone who passed a bill, any bill, who at least didn't READ it first! ......but that's just me. I like to be represented, not Lorded over!...and TOLD what I have to accept, when the clowns telling me that, didn't even read it..and frankly, don't know what the hell their talking about!..Throw that jerk-off out!
Gosh, I hope that doesn't sound THAT unreasonable!

All that being said, I guess we're now waiting for the Republicunts to sell us out, as well!...Gee, maybe they really didn't learn a damn thing!....Anyway, the die is cat, the agenda has been lined out, now we get distracted, into thinking either party can 'fix' it.

Inflation will be going up, dollar values down(as I said it would about a years or so ago.....and America will decay into default of its debts and morality!..with the buzzard politicians picking through the rest of the carcass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:41 AM

Sorry, Sawz, I don't buy your bait.

Show me the actual poll, and it will be quite clear that it was an emotional reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. As for your crude assertions about my assumptions, they are in error.

What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 10:09 AM

Seein' as my pudder is down ( and prolly will be fir some time) and that only an occaional trip to town to the library will get me here then I am appointing Amos as my "proxy"...

As fir turning my entire paycheck over, GfinS??? That's exactly why I put the "in" in GfS... Hey, look... Let's getn real... Our taxes are lower now than any time in the last 30 years and lower than any of our competitors in the industrialized world... That is the real story here but if yer so Tea Party barinwashed that those facts just aren't convient then, yeah, why not just kill all taxes and privatize everything down to the air we breath and th sidewalks that we walk on...

That is the only alternative...

If you and yer Tea Party folks want that then please just say so and quit playing games...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:20 AM

I looked over that Rasmussen BS page and it is a well-crafted piece of meretricious folderol. It cites percentages favoring and opposing a gross generalization called the HEalth Care Bill, and in no wise discusses the particular provisions of the bill or how it works and what people think about those policies.

THis means that the opinions being surveyed are responding to a general impression, colored by media, sniping and the various mudslinging from assorted asswipes. There's no way of telling whether even with that it is at all representative, or of what. Smoke and mirrors, and a lot of used bathwater.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:47 AM

Are you addicted to rhetoric Amos? Can you speak in a normal tone or is it uncontrollable? It ads nothing to your credibility. Rather it detracts because rhetoric is a logical fallacy. Are you a down to earth person or a wordy windbag?

"What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?"

It does nothing to contain the cost because it was crafted by the drug and health care industries via lobbyists.

It is too large and complicated hidden containing crap like new 1099 requirements.

It could be done with smaller bills addressing each area instead of a "Monster" bill that no one person can figure out. Therefore each piece would have a wider approval and less arguments or it would fail based on our democratic system.

Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass this bill to find out what is in it.

Obama said Lobbyists would not run things. He said all of the negotiations would be out in the open on CSPAN.

Except for the one meeting where he made no compromises and claimed the Repubs would not compromise, He has not kept his word.

Yet he brags about his great historic accomplishment that people just don't understand which implies they are to stupid to understand.

That is a red flag to anybody that does critical thinking on their own and naturally they come to the conclusion that it is being rammed down their throat.

You can't understand it either Amos but you don't want to appear to be one of the stupid people so you echo whatever Obama says.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:56 AM

Editorial
Health Care and the Campaign
Published: October 23, 2010

Republican candidates and deep-pocketed special interests are spreading so many distortions and outright lies about health care reform that it is little wonder if voters are anxious and confused.

Here are a few basic facts that Americans need to keep in mind before they go to the polls, and afterward. First, most aspects of the reform do not go into effect until 2014. Second, things are indeed bad out there: The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are (still) rising, and some employers are (still) dropping coverage. But for that, you should blame the long-standing health care crisis and the current bad economy. Health reform is supposed to help with these problems.

Here is a look at the claims being made on the campaign trail — and the distortions they contain:

PURE NONSENSE: John Raese, the Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, is claiming that the law will require patients to go through a bureaucrat or panel to reach a doctor. That is flat out untrue. You will still choose your own doctor or insurance plan without interference. Nor, despite other claims, will the law provide subsidized insurance to illegal immigrants. They are precluded from using even their own money to buy policies on new exchanges.

The Obama administration will not be compiling a federal health record on all citizens, including each individual's body mass index, as Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican running for a House seat in upstate New York, has claimed on her Web site. The administration is offering incentives to doctors to record various vital statistics in electronic medical records and report the data in the aggregate, to help understand national health trends.

WE CALL THAT CAPITALISM: Republican politicians never tire of denouncing health care reform as a "government takeover" — or socialism. What is true is that the law relies heavily on private insurers and employers to provide coverage. It also strengthens regulation of those insurers and provides government subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy private insurance on the exchanges.

Those exchanges will promote greater competition among insurers and a better deal for consumers, which last time we checked was a fundamental of capitalism.

WHAT ABOUT MCDONALD'S? Conservative commentators pounced after the fast food chain and several other large employers that provide skimpy, low-cost policies to their workers warned that they might drop their health plans entirely if forced to comply with the new law. They particularly objected to a requirement that they begin raising the low annual limits on what their plans are willing to pay for health care.

In response, the administration has granted some 30 waivers for one year (Rush Limbaugh promptly accused the administration of allowing these employers to "break the law") and has signaled willingness to smooth out other bumps on the road toward full reform. In 2014, all plans will have to meet minimal standards and large employers will have to provide coverage or pay a stiff fine.

WHAT ABOUT MY PREMIUMS? Some Republicans are also claiming that health reform is driving up premiums. There have been sharp increases in some states, primarily in response to soaring medical costs. Some insurers may also be trying to increase their profits before the reform law holds them in check. A few very welcome provisions that take effect early, like requiring insurers to cover preventive care without cost-sharing, will play a minor role in premium increases for next year.

Reform has also energized federal officials and many state regulators to challenge and force down big increases sought by insurers. The Justice Department just filed suit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan for allegedly using its market power to drive up costs for its competitors and its own subscribers.

MEDICARE SCARE TACTICS: Republican candidates routinely and cynically charge that the reform law will "cut" $500 billion from Medicare — leaving the clear implication that benefits will be reduced. In reality, the law will slow the rate of increase in payments to health care providers over the next decade, and benefits for most beneficiaries will be as good or better than they are now.

The only beneficiaries apt to see a change are those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans that will lose their unjustified subsides. Many of these beneficiaries, roughly a quarter of the Medicare population, may have to pay more for their plans or may lose the extra benefits, like gym memberships or dental care, that the subsidies pay for. Some inefficient plans will die out, but the efficient private plans will compete successfully with traditional Medicare — on an even playing field.

MEDICAID SCARE TACTICS: Republican governors are complaining bitterly that reform will force them to expand their Medicaid programs. What they are not saying is that the federal government will pick up the vast bulk of the added expense to cover millions of vulnerable Americans. States that do not want this largess will be shortchanging the health of their poorest citizens, who will continue to use costly — to the state and the taxpayers — emergency rooms for routine health care.

WHAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING: Health care reform has already brought substantial benefits, mostly starting in late September. Insurers are now barred from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick. Dependents can stay on their parents' policies until age 26. Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing. Lifetime limits on how much insurance plans will pay for treatment are gone.

The major benefits start in 2014, when tens of millions of the uninsured will gain coverage through Medicaid or by buying private coverage — with government help for low- and middle-income Americans — on the new competitive exchanges. If you lose your job, you will no longer lose access to insurance. And with government help the coverage should be affordable.

Far too few Democrats are explaining this on the campaign trail. The barrage of attack ads are hard to push back against. But the voters need to know that health care reform will give all Americans real security.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 24, 2010, on page WK9 of the New York edition.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:58 AM

HUFFPO
After a year of angst and agony, Congress passed and the president signed two major bills governing health care. The 2,800-page law will almost certainly provide more Americans with health insurance. But nothing is free. Our nation's biggest flaw may be the unrealistic view that you can get something for nothing. In this case, more Americans may be insured, but this worthy goal will impose huge costs - costs that some of the new law's most ardent supporters have intentionally obfuscated:
1. The new law will increase the federal budget deficit.
Shortly before the penultimate vote, Democrats trumpeted the bill as reducing the deficit. They relied on last minute scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. As a result, proponents declared the bill as good for the deficit and the economy. History will prove whether this claim is true. But anyone who has even peeled back one layer of this onion knows the CBO was boxed in to giving a distorted picture. This law will be proven quickly to expand our bloated deficit -- and sadly, the media was asleep at the switch and did not report on it. The big distortion occurred by the CBO assumption that the 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements would stay in place. The 21 percent drop in doctors' pay began April 1 (no April Fools) and was included by CBO scorekeepers as permanent. This allowed them to claim $450 billion in Medicare savings. Yet, the same politicians who voted for the bill have also promised doctors a "fix" and that they will restore the drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement. Even before the 21 percent cuts, increasing numbers of doctors refused to take Medicare patients, as the Medicare reimbursements are tiny compared to private insurance reimbursements, not even factoring in the cost and time of the additional paperwork, audits and hassle of collecting from the government bureaucracy. With a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement, tens of thousands more doctors will refuse Medicare patients and the goal of getting more Americans health coverage will be countered by fewer available doctors. Medicare patients, our oldest Americans, will suffer, and a marketplace form of rationing will be imposed. This real problem begins this month, and the promise to "fix" Medicare reimbursements puts both Democrats and Republicans in a pickle. If they don't reverse the Medicare cuts, thousands of doctors will close their doors to Medicare patients, depriving millions of needed health care and belying the promise of the health care bill. But if they vote to restore the doctors' cuts, then the myth of deficit neutrality will be exposed for Democrats, and the promise of fiscal prudence will not be met for Republicans. In any case, either Americans will suffer or the myth of the new medical law's deficit neutrality will be exposed. Members of Congress from both sides expect a vote within weeks. That vote will transform the entire financial assumption underpinning the health care law. And if you are not convinced yet that the new health care law is not a deficit expander, here are two other tricks the CBO used to hide the true costs. First, the CBO used 10 years of revenue-raising and only six years of expenditures. Had the 10 years been based on both revenue and expenditures, it would cost $114 billion annually. More, the CBO was told to assume many plans would pay the 40 percent excise tax on plans and offset the costs of this new government benefit. This 40 percent tax will impact very few plans - if any. If realistic assumptions were used for those two items, then the law clearly does not reduce the deficit. If that's not enough, other revenue assumptions have been labeled by fantasy. For example, The Hill notes that the $2.7 billion assumed to be raised by a tax on tanning salons would require tanning customers to make 3.9 billion visits to tanning salons over the next 10 years. The government takeover of student loan processing is assumed to save $70 billion and presents the questionable assumption that government can do something cheaper than private industry. Government scorekeepers rarely consider the true cost of government employee pensions, overhead, real estate, support by other government employees or supplies when calculating theoretical savings of "insourcing." The calculations by Congress of every new entitlement program have been multiples off the mark. The 1965 Medicare program was supposed to cost only $9 billion by 1990. Instead it cost $67 billion in 1990 and it now costs $521 billion. This expansion of the deficit is an enormous cost that we are imposing on our children.
2. The new law will reduce jobs in private industry.
Every employer with over 50 employees soon must provide health insurance for every employee or face stiff penalties. This mandate will impose new costs on those employers that now do not provide insurance. Simple economics means these companies will reduce jobs to pay the costs of the new law. Less visible are the millions of starter and entry-level jobs it will eliminate. For example, my company now hires about a dozen paid interns every summer and we use seasonal employees for our big annual event, the International CES. Both types of jobs - and the entry level full-time positions to which they are designed to lead - could now be discouraged because of the new mandate that every employee have employer-provided health insurance. The legislation also includes new taxes on medical equipment, passive income for millions of Americans, and new Medicare taxes - all costs to those making investments in job-creating businesses. It is a zero-sum game and every dollar of new costs means a dollar not invested in a business or paid to an employee. More, the law also removed thousands of jobs from the banking industry that provided student loans. This last minute add-on to the bill had nothing to do with health care - but it does kill a private industry and turn it into a government-run industry. The millions of private jobs lost will be only partially offset by new jobs created for additional health care professionals. And of course the heath care law creates new work for lawyers who litigate over the hastily drafted and often ambiguous language.
3. The new law will increase government jobs.
Estimates are that 17,000 new IRS agents will be hired to make sure the new complex laws for hiring and buying insurance are followed. More, the federal takeover of student loans will create a new bureaucracy with thousands of new government jobs. These will be jobs with good pay and lifetime benefits and they will further expand the deficit.
4. The new law will hurt health care for those with critical needs.
The American health care system is the envy of the world as almost every innovation now comes from the United States, and the wealthiest people from around the world come here when they are very sick. The bill's supporters claimed that the legislation is necessary as we have poor health care in the United States, and the present system needed to be changed. They pointed to our low ranking in the developing world on various measures of health care, such as infant birth rate and average mortality rate. These rankings are cause for alarm as they reflect unhealthy lifestyle choices. Americans eat more, consume unhealthy food, and exercise less. More, many American girls have babies at a young age. But on measures where our doctors have influence, like cancer survival rates, we top the world. If there is any doubt that the legislation will hurt quality of care, I suggest following the membership of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA supported the legislation - even though the AMA doesn't represent most American doctors and most doctors had serious concerns with the proposals. If you learn soon that many doctors quit the AMA you can conclude that the doctors voted on the bill with their feet. Indeed, every major specialist group opposed the bill as bad for patients with critical and thus highly specialized needs.
5. The new law will reduce American innovation.
The new law will reduce innovation in several ways. First, specific taxes on innovative medical devices and new costs for drug companies mean a special tax on innovation. New taxes will be added to the overall cost of treatment and innovation thus will be discouraged. Second, innovative medical treatments will be discouraged in America. Articles by American doctors dominate almost every medical journal in the world. Today's system encourages breakthroughs and creativity. Yet the new health law encourages cookie-cutter treatments and punishes deviation from treatment norms thereby discouraging innovation. Third, the bill imposes several new taxes on investment. This means less money will go to new businesses and taking risks. The result will be less money for research, development and innovation. Sadly, the costs of insuring the uninsured using the methods in the new law are real and not speculative. In my ideal world, we would have reached national consensus on the problem (uninsured Americans), agreed on facts (we are innovators and innovation should be preserved) and then brainstormed solutions (cut malpractice, encourage healthy lifestyles, encourage competition in health care). Indeed, at several points in the last year good faith, bipartisan efforts were heading in this direction. But politics got hold and any solution was viewed as preferable to a well-considered bi-partisan solution. At the end, recalcitrant Democrats were then purchased with special favors (Michigan airport repairs, water projects, special state Medicare payments, to name just a few). Some legislators were even convinced that this was a necessary vote to preserve the historic presidency or their majority in Congress. These legislators went for ego and a person who is president rather than what was best for America. Some may challenge this recognition of reality as sour grapes. Perhaps. But there would be fewer sour grapes if we could agree on the facts and that this new sweeping mandate imposes costs. Even with the factual mirage described above, this is the first time in our history Congress imposed a major change opposed by a majority of Americans. The factual cloud Congress sought to obscure will blight the result and challenge the credibility of those who imposed it. As our economy sags under the weight of this newest mandate, we must learn and approach every future proposal with a long-term, honest view of its impact on our nation's deficit, jobs and innovation and investment.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:01 PM

Last week Obama said he was not on the ballot on NOV 2 but that his agenda was.

All sources say the House will got to the Republicans which will require about a seat change of (I'm pretty sure it's) 39. Most people expect more than that.

The Democrats cencede 5 lost seats in the Senate, but pollsters say 8 and some Republicans say as many as 11. The last is wishful thinking.

For the record, I predict the Senate this way:

               Republicans   49
               Democrats      49
               Independants   2 (Sanders and Lieberman vote with Dems)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Don't bet on Vicar of Bray Lieberman voting with the Dems. You'll lose your money.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

Amos,

"I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. "


Except you have shown this statement to be false, in every thread you have posted an anti-Bush comment. If you did believe it, you would have looked at something positive, instead of what you did post.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

Amos,

"despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw"

1. proof of the previous post

2. NONE of whom have been active political opponents- YOU are stuck back before the last election.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Partisan survivors will always cling to any tiny bit of flotsam they can find, rather than yield to an ocean of reality....