What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far

  • strongly approve

    Votes: 43 17.8%

  • mildly approve

    Votes: 43 17.8%

  • mildly disapprove

    Votes: 31 12.8%

  • strongly disapprove

    Votes: 121 50.0%

  • neutral/no opinion

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • Total voters
    242
'Statorama said:
What CBS has to say

Just to balance things out

Even if every provision of President Obama’s deficit reduction plan is enacted – and he concedes it won’t be – there still won’t be a balanced budget on the horizon. And the National Debt will continue to expand by trillions of dollars.

The Obama plan is designed to reduce deficit spending over the next 12 years by $4 trillion dollars. If every penny of that $4 trillion in deficits is eliminated, the government’s own budget projections show that trillions of dollars more in deficits would remain in place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The same is true of Ryan's plan. His plan doesn't balance the budget until at least 2030, and that's using his optimistic assumptions regarding the economy. Furthermore, the CBO states that Ryan's budget will also increase the deficit over the next ten years.
 
'timschochet said:
It seems to me that the methodology of the two plans are remarkably similar, even though the actual ideas are not. Consider: Obama wants to increase taxes, but he's selling it as only the wealthy will get taxed more, so if you're not one of the rich, it won't affect you at all- rather than pass off the debt to our children, we'll pass it off to the very few that can (supposedly) afford to pay it- but YOU won't be hurt in any way.
Click to expand...
The wealthy own businesses and sit on the board of corporations. Increase taxes on the wealthy, and they will pass that expense onto the poor and the middle class by pushing for higher prices of the things you buy. Ultimately, the wealthy won't be affected at all.
 
'timschochet said:
It seems to me that the methodology of the two plans are remarkably similar, even though the actual ideas are not. Consider: Obama wants to increase taxes, but he's selling it as only the wealthy will get taxed more, so if you're not one of the rich, it won't affect you at all- rather than pass off the debt to our children, we'll pass it off to the very few that can (supposedly) afford to pay it- but YOU won't be hurt in any way.

Ryan wants to fundamentally change Medicare- but only for those younger than 55. Since people older than 55 are not affected, and since people younger than 55 are not really worried about medicare right now since they don't get it and won't for at least a few years, again this serves to pass the buck- YOU won't be affected in any way.

Both sides talk an awful lot about "shared sacrifice", but neither side is truly interested in having the bulk of the public feel that sacrifice, because they know that's a surefire way to lose elections. So they both propose what seems like miracle answers: don't worry public, we can do this and you won't be affected at all.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the Ryan budget plan's tax reform also includes tax increases, however in his plan those in the uppermost income levels would be mostly shielded. He calls this broadening the base. Ryan's tax reform will be revenue neutral. His plan includes a reduction in the top marginal rate and the elimination of capital gains taxes. Obviously these cuts will primarily benefit high income earners. The reductions in revenue from these cuts will be compensated for by the elimination of tax expenditures - deductions that are normally enjoyed by everyone.In contrast to both proposals, I've seen a plan cited by a couple different sources that say that by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire - for everyone - the federal deficit will decline, and sooner than in either the Ryan proposal or the Obama plan. So basically by doing nothing, Congress can achieve the 'shared sacrifice' that they always talk about and also be on a faster road to a balanced budget than by adopting either the Ryan or Obama plan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'D_House said:
From what I understand, the Ryan budget plan's tax reform also includes tax increases, however in his plan those in the uppermost income levels would be mostly shielded. He calls this broadening the base. Ryan's tax reform will be revenue neutral. His plan includes a reduction in the top marginal rate and the elimination of capital gains taxes. Obviously these cuts will primarily benefit high income earners. The reductions in revenue from these cuts will be compensated for by the elimination of tax expenditures - deductions that are normally enjoyed by everyone.
Click to expand...
You've got it mostly right. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center took a look at Ryan's plan and actually states that income taxes on the bottom 20% of wage earners would actually go down (a little) and on the middle 60% of earners they would go up (by a little), but they would slash the effective tax rates of the top 1% to a fraction of what they currently pay.And, here's what I'm surprised most people aren't talking about, he'd also institute a national sales tax (well, actually a form of a Value Added Tax or VAT, which Ryan calls a business consumption tax) of 8.5%. That's a huge new tax. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the entire world that doesn't use a VAT, and we'd be jumping in with one of the highest VAT rates in the world.

And yet, while Ryan claims that his tax changes are revenue neutral, he gets there by predicting ridiculously overly optimistic economic forecasts (unemployment down to 2.5%, as but one example). The Tax Policy Center used more realistic economic projections, and believes because of the slashing of taxes on the top earners and corporations, as well as eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes, Ryan's plan would generate $550 million less in revenue each year.

Here's a good series of articles written about Ryan's plan:

How Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Would Transform the US Tax System, Part I

GOP Plan Would be a Gift to Private Equity, Hedge Funds

ETA second link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Orange Crush said:
'D_House said:
From what I understand, the Ryan budget plan's tax reform also includes tax increases, however in his plan those in the uppermost income levels would be mostly shielded. He calls this broadening the base. Ryan's tax reform will be revenue neutral. His plan includes a reduction in the top marginal rate and the elimination of capital gains taxes. Obviously these cuts will primarily benefit high income earners. The reductions in revenue from these cuts will be compensated for by the elimination of tax expenditures - deductions that are normally enjoyed by everyone.
Click to expand...
You've got it mostly right. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center took a look at Ryan's plan and actually states that income taxes on the bottom 20% of wage earners would actually go down (a little) and on the middle 60% of earners they would go up (by a little), but they would slash the effective tax rates of the top 1% to a fraction of what they currently pay.And, here's what I'm surprised most people aren't talking about, he'd also institute a national sales tax (well, actually a form of a Value Added Tax or VAT, which Ryan calls a business consumption tax) of 8.5%. That's a huge new tax. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the entire world that doesn't use a VAT, and we'd be jumping in with one of the highest VAT rates in the world.

And yet, while Ryan claims that his tax changes are revenue neutral, he gets there by predicting ridiculously overly optimistic economic forecasts (unemployment down to 2.5%, as but one example). The Tax Policy Center used more realistic economic projections, and believes because of the slashing of taxes on the top earners and corporations, as well as eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes, Ryan's plan would generate $550 million less in revenue each year.

Here's a good series of articles written about Ryan's plan:

How Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Would Transform the US Tax System, Part I

GOP Plan Would be a Gift to Private Equity, Hedge Funds

ETA second link.
Click to expand...
Check out Macroadvisers tearing apart these assumptions.
Political winds and economic realities portend a fiscal contraction. Understanding the macroeconomic implications of both the amount and composition of any fiscal adjustment is critical to designing a good strategy for addressing the nation’s secular budget imbalance. We agree with most other economists that there is a long-run gain to deficit reduction, and that it matters how the deficit is reduced. Furthermore, we understand that there are defensible models that show less short-run pain from a fiscal contraction than does ours. The debate over the modeling of these fiscal effects is one we will eagerly join.



In our opinion, however, the macroeconomic analysis released in conjunction with the House Budget Resolution is not relevant to the coming discussion. We believe that the main result — that aggressive deficit reduction immediately raises GDP at unchanged interest rates — was generated by manipulating a model that would not otherwise produce this result, and that the basis for this manipulation is not supported either theoretically or empirically. Other features of the results — while perhaps unintended — seem highly problematic to us and seriously undermine the credibility of the overall conclusions.

This is indeed unfortunate, since it might encourage some legislators to believe that slicing federal debt dramatically can produce long-run gain without short-run pain. After all, if the short-run fiscal multiplier really is negative, why not reduce the deficit (or even debt) to zero overnight? Unfortunately, we expect budget hawks to advance this argument during the coming debate over whether to raise the debt ceiling. That would be an especially bad time to make the mistake of assuming the answer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
Sorry, Stat, but you're behaving no better.
Click to expand...
Edit: I'm endorsing Ryan's plan as the best one out there. Does it have flaws? Yes. But at least it addresses the out of control entitlements that are dooming this country to bankruptcy or a Greece like uprising by the moochers.I wish the President was as willing to discuss the merits/faults of the plan in an adult manner and try to hammer out a compromise as much as the guys on this board are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'D_House said:
...

In contrast to both proposals, I've seen a plan cited by a couple different sources that say that by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire - for everyone - the federal deficit will decline, and sooner than in either the Ryan proposal or the Obama plan. So basically by doing nothing, Congress can achieve the 'shared sacrifice' that they always talk about and also be on a faster road to a balanced budget than by adopting either the Ryan or Obama plan.
Click to expand...
This is the absolute starting point for any serious budget proposal. Any proposal that attempts to shield one group or another from income tax increases is just not a serious attempt at budget reform and is nothing but playing politics.
 
'Saints-Man said:
'D_House said:
...

In contrast to both proposals, I've seen a plan cited by a couple different sources that say that by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire - for everyone - the federal deficit will decline, and sooner than in either the Ryan proposal or the Obama plan. So basically by doing nothing, Congress can achieve the 'shared sacrifice' that they always talk about and also be on a faster road to a balanced budget than by adopting either the Ryan or Obama plan.
Click to expand...
This is the absolute starting point for any serious budget proposal. Any proposal that attempts to shield one group or another from income tax increases is just not a serious attempt at budget reform and is nothing but playing politics.
Click to expand...
We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
 
'Statorama said:
'Saints-Man said:
'D_House said:
...

In contrast to both proposals, I've seen a plan cited by a couple different sources that say that by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire - for everyone - the federal deficit will decline, and sooner than in either the Ryan proposal or the Obama plan. So basically by doing nothing, Congress can achieve the 'shared sacrifice' that they always talk about and also be on a faster road to a balanced budget than by adopting either the Ryan or Obama plan.
Click to expand...
This is the absolute starting point for any serious budget proposal. Any proposal that attempts to shield one group or another from income tax increases is just not a serious attempt at budget reform and is nothing but playing politics.
Click to expand...
We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
Click to expand...
We have both. We entered into 2 wars plus another military action(Libya) and the American people have not paid one dime for any of these ventures. Unless you can magically rewind the clock and remove these military ventures, the money has already been spent.
 
'Saints-Man said:
'Statorama said:
'Saints-Man said:
'D_House said:
...

In contrast to both proposals, I've seen a plan cited by a couple different sources that say that by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire - for everyone - the federal deficit will decline, and sooner than in either the Ryan proposal or the Obama plan. So basically by doing nothing, Congress can achieve the 'shared sacrifice' that they always talk about and also be on a faster road to a balanced budget than by adopting either the Ryan or Obama plan.
Click to expand...
This is the absolute starting point for any serious budget proposal. Any proposal that attempts to shield one group or another from income tax increases is just not a serious attempt at budget reform and is nothing but playing politics.
Click to expand...
We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
Click to expand...
We have both. We entered into 2 wars plus another military action(Libya) and the American people have not paid one dime for any of these ventures. Unless you can magically rewind the clock and remove these military ventures, the money has already been spent.
Click to expand...
It just seemed like you had put the number one priority to solving the deficit is giving the government more of our money to spend.I agree we should be doing everything we can to get our boys home. The ineptitude of the Obama Administration in handling those conflicts produces nothing but human casualties. Get them home until a true commander in chief is in charge. That will save a TON of money.

Government Spending and Entitlement reform is the #1 lead pipe stone cold lock toward reeling in this deficit.

 
Did Obama present false pretense for the war in Libya?

Well, well, well.

EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.

But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.

On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’

It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.

The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.

Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.

In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Statorama said:
...It just seemed like you had put the number one priority to solving the deficit is giving the government more of our money to spend.I agree we should be doing everything we can to get our boys home. The ineptitude of the Obama Administration in handling those conflicts produces nothing but human casualties. Get them home until a true commander in chief is in charge. That will save a TON of money.Government Spending and Entitlement reform is the #1 lead pipe stone cold lock toward reeling in this deficit.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but that is not what I meant. Government, at the federal and local level, needs to evolve and become leaner and more efficient. It has resisted change for far too long.However, increasing efficiencies will only take us so far. We need to pay for what we have already spent. And we already have commitments that we must keep. We must provide care to the elderly and care to the sick and poor. How is a great debate, but there is no debate on whether or not the government should do these things. The American people have already decided on these(and other) issues.
 
'Saints-Man said:
'Statorama said:
...It just seemed like you had put the number one priority to solving the deficit is giving the government more of our money to spend.I agree we should be doing everything we can to get our boys home. The ineptitude of the Obama Administration in handling those conflicts produces nothing but human casualties. Get them home until a true commander in chief is in charge. That will save a TON of money.Government Spending and Entitlement reform is the #1 lead pipe stone cold lock toward reeling in this deficit.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but that is not what I meant. Government, at the federal and local level, needs to evolve and become leaner and more efficient. It has resisted change for far too long.However, increasing efficiencies will only take us so far. We need to pay for what we have already spent. And we already have commitments that we must keep. We must provide care to the elderly and care to the sick and poor. How is a great debate, but there is no debate on whether or not the government should do these things. The American people have already decided on these(and other) issues.
Click to expand...
Looking good until the end, and we may not even differ as much as I think there. I agree with Ryan that the Social Security age needs to be raised to 70 for those that are 55 or less (I am within those parameters). The whole ponzi scheme of social security worked in the past only because there were so many baby boomers paying for it. Now that they're reaching the age where they cash-in, we need to adjust things accordingly.The debate isn't only how we're going to pay for entitlements, but exactly "who" and "how much" those entitlements should cover.
 
'Statorama said:
I agree we should be doing everything we can to get our boys home. The ineptitude of the Obama Administration in handling those conflicts produces nothing but human casualties.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that we've had more casualties in Afghanistan in 2 years of Obama than 6 years of Bush...
 
Obama Administration unveils first step in government control of the internet

Step one.

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will be joined by Chair of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling and White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard A. Schmidt to release the administration’s National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) – a White House initiative to improve online security, increase privacy and foster economic growth and innovation online. Hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the event will include a panel discussion with industry leaders and privacy advocates, as well as demonstrations of innovative smart technologies being developed to improve online authentication.

NSTIC is a key building block in the national effort to secure cyberspace. According to industry surveys, as many as 8 million Americans are victims of online fraud and identity theft each year and lose an average of $631 out-of-pocket per incident. Through a private sector-led effort facilitated by the government, NSTIC aims to make online transactions more trustworthy and enhance consumers’ privacy, thereby giving businesses and consumers more confidence to conduct business online.
Click to expand...
 
'Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
'Statorama said:
Just listened to the replay of Obama's campaign speech today....man, is that guy ever going to give a speech where he dosen't blame Bush for something?
Click to expand...
And when is the right going to realize just how utterly terrible bush was? Obama had HUGE problems because of that and just because it is not raining rose petals in your lilly white ### does mean that it is Obama's fault.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how bad Bush was. He ain't president any more!
 
Obama Keeps 'Czars' Despite Budget Deal That Eliminated ThemRep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who introduced legislation earlier this year eliminating nine czar positions, said Obama cannot choose which laws to follow and ignore."The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy," he said in a statement, arguing that appointing these czars without Senate confirmation violated the Constitution.
Click to expand...
What a POS and liar obama is...
 
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
 
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
 
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
 
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
Click to expand...
You missed what I did. I paraphrased your comments regarding a certain group of our elected representatives.
 
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
Click to expand...
You missed what I did. I paraphrased your comments regarding a certain group of our elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Ah, I did miss that. Nice job. I believe that of the Tea Party, just as I suspect you believe that of the President.Even so, we're different from BoneYardDog, aren't we? Neither of us are going to use such terms as "POS" to describe elected politicians in this country, and certainly not those in high office. That was my point.

ETA- I take that back, per the highlighted. I don't believe the Tea Party are fakes or liars. As I have written, I don't think they are about what they claim to be about, but I don't have the sense that they realize this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
Click to expand...
You missed what I did. I paraphrased your comments regarding a certain group of our elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Ah, I did miss that. Nice job. I believe that of the Tea Party, just as I suspect you believe that of the President.Even so, we're different from BoneYardDog, aren't we? Neither of us are going to use such terms as "POS" to describe elected politicians in this country, and certainly not those in high office. That was my point.

ETA- I take that back, per the highlighted. I don't believe the Tea Party are fakes or liars. As I have written, I don't think they are about what they claim to be about, but I don't have the sense that they realize this.
Click to expand...
We both hold ourselves to a higher standard perhaps. I really don't understand what you mean by the last comment though. I think you are saying that they don't realize what it is they are about, which would translate into a position of mammoth stupidity. I don't see that.
 
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
Click to expand...
You missed what I did. I paraphrased your comments regarding a certain group of our elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Ah, I did miss that. Nice job. I believe that of the Tea Party, just as I suspect you believe that of the President.Even so, we're different from BoneYardDog, aren't we? Neither of us are going to use such terms as "POS" to describe elected politicians in this country, and certainly not those in high office. That was my point.

ETA- I take that back, per the highlighted. I don't believe the Tea Party are fakes or liars. As I have written, I don't think they are about what they claim to be about, but I don't have the sense that they realize this.
Click to expand...
We both hold ourselves to a higher standard perhaps. I really don't understand what you mean by the last comment though. I think you are saying that they don't realize what it is they are about, which would translate into a position of mammoth stupidity. I don't see that.
Click to expand...
No I'm not saying they're stupid either. I'm simply saying that I disagree with their definitions- they claim to be about cutting spending, but I don't share their method of doing it, and in the end there are severe contradictions which I don't think they realize. But fakes and liars? That means they're being deliberately dishonest in their methods and goals. I don't believe this of them, or the president. Perhaps I'm naive, but I tend to believe most political types are generally honest, though woefully misguided.
 
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'bueno said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Obama is a fake and a liar. He deserves no respect. It is an embarrassment to the country that he was ever elected, frankly. I respect the office. I hold the man in complete contempt.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your comments, I note that you did not use the language that BYD did, and I don't think you would. Nothing you wrote was particularly disrespectful, IMO. Calling Obama a POS is.
Click to expand...
You missed what I did. I paraphrased your comments regarding a certain group of our elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Ah, I did miss that. Nice job. I believe that of the Tea Party, just as I suspect you believe that of the President.Even so, we're different from BoneYardDog, aren't we? Neither of us are going to use such terms as "POS" to describe elected politicians in this country, and certainly not those in high office. That was my point.

ETA- I take that back, per the highlighted. I don't believe the Tea Party are fakes or liars. As I have written, I don't think they are about what they claim to be about, but I don't have the sense that they realize this.
Click to expand...
We both hold ourselves to a higher standard perhaps. I really don't understand what you mean by the last comment though. I think you are saying that they don't realize what it is they are about, which would translate into a position of mammoth stupidity. I don't see that.
Click to expand...
No I'm not saying they're stupid either. I'm simply saying that I disagree with their definitions- they claim to be about cutting spending, but I don't share their method of doing it, and in the end there are severe contradictions which I don't think they realize. But fakes and liars? That means they're being deliberately dishonest in their methods and goals. I don't believe this of them, or the president. Perhaps I'm naive, but I tend to believe most political types are generally honest, though woefully misguided.
Click to expand...
How do you reconcile Obama's actions as POTUS with his philosophy as a candidate? A learning experience?
 
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
'Saints-Man said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: I can be as critical of Obama as anyone but I just can't disrespect the office he holds. I think it was an election won on hype, he's in over his head and we need someone else in office in 2012, but he is the President. History will look back at him as the first black President. That's all.

 
'jamny said:
'Saints-Man said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
:goodposting: I can be as critical of Obama as anyone but I just can't disrespect the office he holds. I think it was an election won on hype, he's in over his head and we need someone else in office in 2012, but he is the President. History will look back at him as the first black President. That's all.
Click to expand...
Best case scenario that is. :D
 
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Do Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mubarek, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Khaled Meshaal all deserve respect for the positions they hold???Both contempt and respect are earned by ones actions not ones position, he deserves contempt not respect...As much as I may embarrass myself by calling him what a lot of people think he is, you do the same by deflecting away from the issue, which as usual you ignore...
 
'BoneYardDog said:
'timschochet said:
'BoneYardDog said:
What a POS obama is...
Click to expand...
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is your president and mine. Like all presidents, he deserves more respect than this. Disagree with him, campaign against him, call him a liar if you must. But IMO when you use terms like this to describe the POTUS you are only embarrassing yourself and whatever argument you might be trying to make.
Click to expand...
Do Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mubarek, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Khaled Meshaal all deserve respect for the positions they hold???Both contempt and respect are earned by ones actions not ones position, he deserves contempt not respect...As much as I may embarrass myself by calling him what a lot of people think he is, you do the same by deflecting away from the issue, which as usual you ignore...
Click to expand...
Several of the people you mentioned are savage murderers. And so the answer is no, they do not deserve anything but my contempt. I'm quite astonished that you would choose to place Barack Obama, whatever your differences are with him, in the same company with them. I don't think most conservatives agree with you (at least I certainly hope not.) Your statements here only reflect, I'm afraid, your own extremism and don't say anything about Obama.
 
Obama's Recovery Rhetoric

I've highlighted what's often forgotten in Obama's rhetoric.

President Obama hit the campaign trail this past week, calling on supporters in his hometown of Chicago to help him "finish the job" on the nation's economic recovery.

That's what we are afraid of.

"I'm the person who is best prepared for us to finish the job so that we're on track to succeed in the 21st century," Mr. Obama told The Associated Press in an interview. The AP account went on to say that in order to win a second term the president "must convince the recession-weary nation that he deserves more time to help the economy recover from a recession that began under George W. Bush."

To be precise, the recession began in December 2007, just 11 months after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress.

"I think the economy is going to continue to improve, and I think I'm going to be able to make an effective case that given the extraordinary circumstances that I inherited when I came in -- the worst recession since the Great Depression -- that not only have I been able to yank this economy out of that hole and get it back on a track to growth but that we've been able to make changes in our economy," President Obama said.

We're not sure how many of the permanently unemployed or those whose home values and life savings have been halved believe they've been yanked out of a hole or are on track to anything but the poor house, particularly as gasoline prices climb, threatening to fuel inflation to further erode the value of what's left.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a former professor of economics, observed that the nation's recovery from this recession is far worse than the average of all 10 recessions since World War II. If the recovery had merely met the average of those past performances there would be 11.9 million more jobs today, he calculated.

While President Obama was telling his backers our society would be fundamentally different if the Republican budget plan advanced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., passes, Mr. Gramm was writing, "The problem is not just the weak recovery but increasing evidence that the economy is now on a growth path far different from the previous quarter century. Despite the largest monetary and fiscal stimuli in American history, in 2009 the capital stock of the nation actually shrank for the first time in the postwar period."

On Friday, the House passed Rep. Ryan's budget blueprint by a vote of 235-193, with every single Democrat voting "no." The nonbinding plan would over the next decade cut $6.2 trillion from the budget Obama submitted in February, though it would still grow the debt by $6 trillion and would not zero out the debt until 2050.

Mr. Gramm notes that if the "Obama recovery" had matched the 1982 recovery fueled by the Reagan tax cuts, the average annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession and there would be 15.7 million more jobs. "Under President Obama's policies, federal spending has exploded like never before. If his 2011 budget were implemented, this president would increase the outstanding federal debt more than the previous 43 presidents combined ..." Mr. Gramm noted. "Big government costs more than higher taxes. It is paid for with diminished freedom and less opportunity. You can't have unlimited opportunity and unlimited government."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
  • Poll Poll
The Great American Chip-Off
2
Replies
95
Views
2K
Ron Swanson
Ron Swanson
Terminalxylem
  • Locked
Doing your own research
17 18 19
Replies
925
Views
22K
djmich
djmich
NCCommish
So how's it going?
2
Replies
71
Views
1K
NCCommish
NCCommish

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top