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

[JuniorNB]

Hey Statorama, just curious....do you have a wife and kids? Ever talk to them? Or smile at them? Or is your entire life just reading conservative blogs and watching Fox News and trying to convince the world that Obama is going to lead to the demise of the country?

Thanks for the concern JNB, it's kind of touching.I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I've been married over two decades, and outside of the occassional eye roll she's just fine with things.Would it be easier to do like you do and turn off my brain as to what's going on around me? Sure. That's just not me though. I'm far too intellectually curious to just kick back and assume everything's going to be ok, or to denegrate someone that's trying to wake me up to what's going on in the world.Informing people of the dangers we face helps me sleep at night. I like knowing I'm doing my share.(side note: I've said before, once Obama's out of office I'm retiring this whole thing. So get him out of office and you won't have to worry about seeing me in a political thread ever again. Neither one of us wants this to go on another 5 years.)

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

 

[Statorama]

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

Bush made me wake up to a lot of things that were going on, but it's kind of hard to push my thing when times are going good. Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency, so railing against it didn't have that "oomph" factor that it does with Obama. I also learned a ton watching Stephen Colbert.It also helps that Obama's intent to turn the country into the European socialist model is so comically overt.If someone other than Obama wins in 2012 I'll fade off into the realm of "rate this hottie" and "what beer are you drinking tonight" threads.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

statorama averages 5.5 posts a day. JuniorNB averages 4.97 posts a day.

 

[JuniorNB]

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency,

Thanks. You answered my question.

 

[jon_mx]

statorama averages 5.5 posts a day. JuniorNB averages 4.97 posts a day.

Yes, and those 0.53 posts per day make all the difference.

 

[greenroom]

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency,

Thanks. You answered my question.

Bingo.. That is the problem with all of the Right Wingers on the board that have HUGE problems with this country at this time.Also I love how Statorama says when things are going good I have no problems with the spending, but when things hit the fan.. then lets blame the new guy who took over.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Just because Stat is wrong about Bush doesn't mean he's wrong about Obama.

 

[jon_mx]

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency,

Thanks. You answered my question.

Bingo.. That is the problem with all of the Right Wingers on the board that have HUGE problems with this country at this time.Also I love how Statorama says when things are going good I have no problems with the spending, but when things hit the fan.. then lets blame the new guy who took over.

Most conservatives had a problem with Bush's expansion of government and spending. I for one voted for Perot despite knowing he was a loon because his message on the budget was too important.

 

[Jewell]

Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency,

 

[Statorama]

Just curious, did you do this same shtick when Bush was in office? Are you seriously concerned with the country, regardless of who's in charge, or are you just a conservative who started this whole 'concerned citizen' thing when Obama took office?

Things were fine for most of Bush's presidency,

Thanks. You answered my question.

Bingo.. That is the problem with all of the Right Wingers on the board that have HUGE problems with this country at this time.Also I love how Statorama says when things are going good I have no problems with the spending, but when things hit the fan.. then lets blame the new guy who took over.

Whoa boys, you're taking that way out of context. The economy was humming along, and people don't like to hear that bad days are coming when they're living the good life. I didn't agree with Bush on most things, but I made a ton of money during his presidency. Clinton too. Doesn't mean I agree with them philosophically.

 

[Statorama]

Far left extremist angry at Obama budget deal

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

 

[Statorama]

Looking back at the Obama love fest from 2008

Cleaning out some of my Obama links. This is a howler from back in 2008. Enjoy!

“Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.”

 

[Statorama]

US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011

And it's only getting worse

WASHINGTON — The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

The Treasury argued that the pace of increase in the deficit was deceptive because of large one-off reductions in expenditures made during the first half of fiscal 2010, compared with previous and subsequent periods.

Those included a $115 billion reduction in funds spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- the financial institution bailout program -- in March 2010.

But 2011 so far has also seen significant increases in spending on defense, Social Security, health and debt service, while receipts have not grown as fast.

"The jump in outlays mostly owed to a smaller estimated reduction in TARP outlays this year versus 2010," said Theresa Chen at Barclays Capital Research.

However, she said, the trend shows that taxable income is rising at a 6.9 percent annual pace, and individual incomes taxes are up 20.6 percent, "consistent with general economic improvement."

The figures came amid a sharp, politically partisan battle in Washington over cutting spending and raising taxes, with President Barack Obama preparing Wednesday to release his plan for reducing the long-term deficit.

He also faces a looming battle over increasing the country's official debt ceiling, so that the government can continue to borrow to finance the deficit.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Obama gets huge props from me. Next 5-6 years are going to be even better. And, if we ignore the two term limit (as we're ignoring the born in America thing) we could get 9-10+ more years!

 

[Statorama]

Obama gets huge props from me. Next 5-6 years are going to be even better. And, if we ignore the two term limit (as we're ignoring the born in America thing) we could get 9-10+ more years!

This thread is for both the good and the bad. Thanks for bringing some sunshine!

 

[Statorama]

Looks like Chunky might be on to something. Obama's "plan" calls for $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years. How long does this fracker think he's going to be President?

That got me thinking. His budget for this year calls for $7.2 trillion in deficits over 10 years between 2012 and 2021. His deficit plan calls for $4 trillion cut over 12 years. So we're actually not going to eat into any debt currently on the table ($14 Trillion +), but rather eat into Obama's own deficit projection set to ramp up over the next ten years?

 

[RCon]

Looks like Chunky might be on to something. Obama's "plan" calls for $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years. How long does this fracker think he's going to be President?That got me thinking. His budget for this year calls for $7.2 trillion in deficits over 10 years between 2012 and 2021. His deficit plan calls for $4 trillion cut over 12 years. So we're actually not going to eat into any debt currently on the table ($14 Trillion +), but rather eat into Obama's own deficit projection set to ramp up over the next ten years?

Duh. Way easier to make cuts to the next guy's budget than to cut your own. It's what Presidents and Congresses have been doing for decades.

 

[Statorama]

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?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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?

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.

 

[jamny]

Biden sleeping during today's speech.

 

[Sarnoff]

Biden sleeping during today's speech.

He's not the only one. Person behind him was facedown for most of that, and the woman in the top left corner had that 'blinking-trying-to-stay-awake" thing happening.

 

[Parrothead]

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?

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.

yet he continues many of Bush's policies

 

[Mello]

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?

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.

yet he continues many of Bush's policies

 

[tommyboy]

for all the hate the left has toward bush its kind of a mental disconnect when Obama continues many of Bush's "failed" policies. That must really be a hard one to rationalize

 

[Statorama]

Obama is bad at politics

Presidential résumés have run the gamut -- from commanding general of the United States Army (Ulysses S. Grant) all the way down to collector of the Port of New York (Chester A. Arthur). Unfortunately, since George McGovern ruined the presidential nominating system in 1971, there has been a new potential item for the presidential CV: navigating the byzantine process of primaries and caucuses better than any competitor.

Not all eventual nominees have managed to do this (e.g. Gerald Ford was nearly outflanked in 1976, so was Ronald Reagan in 1980), and with only two presidents has this been a prime "qualification" for winning the nomination. The first was Jimmy Carter, whose insurgent campaign in 1976 exhibited an advanced understanding of the new, open process that now governs the selection of party candidates. The second was Barack Obama, whose campaign team grasped the seemingly inscrutable complexities of the new system better than anybody ever has. Breaking down the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic battle, it was a basically a tie; Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination because he out-organized her, especially in caucus states like Colorado, Idaho, and Minnesota.

Carter and Obama share another bullet point: neither really had much of anything to do with politics before the presidency. In fact, both candidates touted their inexperience as a qualification. In Obama’s case, he – unlike the rest of the serious Democratic challengers in 2008 – had nothing to do with the foreign policy of the Bush administration, and in the general election he ran as a “fresh face” against John McCain.

Unfortunately, gaming the nomination process plus having no significant experience in government turns out to be a grossly insufficient combination for presidential leadership. Day by day, week by week, we are becoming more aware that, when it comes to the political dance in Washington, Obama is foxtrotting with two left feet.

Consider the following:

1. The stimulus battle. It was a substantial political blunder not to pull in more than token Republican support, as it meant that the White House and congressional Democrats would be on the hook for the entire bill and its consequences. Beyond that, the White House made the classic mistake of over-promising and under-delivering:

(s: graph available at link)

Only a novice would ok a graph as politically dangerous as this one. A novice like…this president!

2. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This was a total political disaster. The grotesque spectacle of passing this bill completely undermined Obama’s pledge to change the way Washington works. The policy substance was just as bad; most Americans want it repealed even a year on. And, to top it all off, it might just be unconstitutional!

3. The war on terror. As the president would say, "let me be clear:" we’re closing Guantanamo Bay and we’re trying KSM in New York City. Oh…wait!

4. The deficit. Today, President Obama is scheduled to give a major speech that will outline a new vision for cutting the deficit. Never mind that his budget, unveiled in February, was supposed to do precisely that. The fact that he’s trying again to get a handle on the deficit issue means that the White House is tacitly admitting that his original budget was a complete and total political disaster.

And then of course, we have the regular verbal gaffes. The Cambridge police acted “stupidly.” Hispanic voters need to “punish [their] enemies.” Doctors are taking out children’s tonsils for profit. People who own gas guzzlers (like for instance, the Cadillac Escalade from government-backed GM!) should trade them in if they don’t like the price of fuel today.

If Gerald Ford had uttered any of these ridiculous comments, Chevy Chase and the Not Ready for Primetime Players would have had a field day. Yet somehow Obama manages to get a pass. The latest example of his free ride can be seen in this AP article on Obama’s deficit speech. Nowhere does it mention that this is the president’s second stab at a deficit reduction program this year. This CNN article grudgingly concedes as much, but puts the complaint in the mouths of Republicans (emphasis added):

To Republicans, the Obama stance is an about-face from his own 2012 budget proposal released in February that called for no significant reforms to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that contribute the most to growing deficits.

None of this should come as a surprise. Obama has been demonstrating his political tone deafness since he emerged as the frontrunner in early 2008: his comment about how “bitter” rural Pennsylvanians “cling” to guns and God, how Hillary Clinton is “likeable enough,” the “vero possumus” seal, the arrogant trip to Europe that summer, the grand Barackopolis, and the weirdo artwork. All of these were politically short-sighted comments or images that the media intentionally overlooked. When you get right down to it, Obama hit his high point at Iowa’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner in November, 2007. It’s been downhill ever since – with one verbal gaffe or policy misstep after another.

Of course, the media overlooking all this stuff does not make the problem go away. And the proof is in the pudding: the right can’t stand him, the middle has abandoned him, and now even the left is criticizing him out in the open.

Let’s face it: this president is just plain bad at politics.

 

[Statorama]

Paul Ryan slaying Obama (audio)

"He's basically a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen"

 

[Statorama]

 

[timschochet]

I was glad of Obama's speech today, though I disagreed with much of it, because it demonstrated substantive differences between his plan and Ryan's plan. This is serious stuff that is going to affect all of our futures. Are we going to increase taxes to solve the deficit, or are we going to significantly cut spending, or a combination of the two? We need to decide, and quickly.

One aspect of Obama's speech was intellectually dishonest, IMO. He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55. So this is a false argument and it was wrong for Obama to make ti.

 

[Sinrman]

I am one that looks at the whole "deficit reduction" talk with a jaded, or skeptical eye. Having viewpoints from both sides of the political spectrum, I see merit in things that both Democrats and Republicans have done/would like to do. However, this latest talk of deficit reduction is all fine and dandy, and I think it's about 20 years too late, but I didn't see Republicans doing too much of that talk 6-8 years ago when they were in full power like the Democrats were from Jan. '07 - Jan. '11. Sure, times were different then, and we were fighting wars on two fronts, so it might be harder to keep the spending down due to massive military spending, but things could have been done years ago that makes me scratch my head why all of a sudden the world is going to collapse because our deficit is $12+ trillion.

To me, those in the federal government (both sides) need to realize that government is NOT the answer. During the Bush presidency and the first 2 years of Obama has seen an absolutely MASSIVE uptick in the size of government. Individual citizens need to start caring for themselves and taking personal responsibility and not have the government doing everything for them...

 

[tommyboy]

I was glad of Obama's speech today, though I disagreed with much of it, because it demonstrated substantive differences between his plan and Ryan's plan. This is serious stuff that is going to affect all of our futures. Are we going to increase taxes to solve the deficit, or are we going to significantly cut spending, or a combination of the two? We need to decide, and quickly.One aspect of Obama's speech was intellectually dishonest, IMO. He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55. So this is a false argument and it was wrong for Obama to make ti.

i think the one obvious thing that stands out is we might not have to "slash" spending so "extremely" if we hadn't increased spending so monumentally the last 2 years. Lets not leave that little detail unfeathered.

 

[timschochet]

I was glad of Obama's speech today, though I disagreed with much of it, because it demonstrated substantive differences between his plan and Ryan's plan. This is serious stuff that is going to affect all of our futures. Are we going to increase taxes to solve the deficit, or are we going to significantly cut spending, or a combination of the two? We need to decide, and quickly.One aspect of Obama's speech was intellectually dishonest, IMO. He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55. So this is a false argument and it was wrong for Obama to make ti.

i think the one obvious thing that stands out is we might not have to "slash" spending so "extremely" if we hadn't increased spending so monumentally the last 2 years. Lets not leave that little detail unfeathered.

This argument is as disingenuous as Obama's statement, perhaps more so. The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 1/2 years were TARP and the stimulus package, the first under Bush's watch. I regard both of these as absolutely necessary to stem the tide- without them, I think we'd be in the midst of a Great Depression right now, instead of emerging from a bad but not disastrous recession. Before those two items, the most expensive item in spending has been the utterly wasteful and stupid war in Iraq, again not on Obama's watch. Obama's biggest ultimate expenditure will be the health care plan, which I strongly disapprove of. But the costs for that won't take effect for years to come. So no, I don't think the current debt has much of anything at all to do with Obama. It has to do, mostly, with the big 3 - defense, social security, medicare. We have the same 3 choices we have always had: we either cut from these programs, raise taxes, or have a combination of the two. There is no other viable option. Ryan wants to cut Medicare long term and avoid raising taxes. His proposed cuts to the military are minor, he doesn't touch social security, and he actually proposes a further corporate tax cut- which to my mind sort of ruins his math. Obama doesn't want to cut anything specific, only to make everything more efficient. Between this and raising taxes he thinks he can make up the shortfall. But then he blows it too by proposing new spending, which ruins HIS math.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I was glad of Obama's speech today, though I disagreed with much of it, because it demonstrated substantive differences between his plan and Ryan's plan. This is serious stuff that is going to affect all of our futures. Are we going to increase taxes to solve the deficit, or are we going to significantly cut spending, or a combination of the two? We need to decide, and quickly.One aspect of Obama's speech was intellectually dishonest, IMO. He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55. So this is a false argument and it was wrong for Obama to make ti.

i think the one obvious thing that stands out is we might not have to "slash" spending so "extremely" if we hadn't increased spending so monumentally the last 2 years. Lets not leave that little detail unfeathered.

Give me a break. Try not to come across as a partisan hack.

 

[Fensalk]

I was glad of Obama's speech today, though I disagreed with much of it, because it demonstrated substantive differences between his plan and Ryan's plan. This is serious stuff that is going to affect all of our futures. Are we going to increase taxes to solve the deficit, or are we going to significantly cut spending, or a combination of the two? We need to decide, and quickly.One aspect of Obama's speech was intellectually dishonest, IMO. He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55. So this is a false argument and it was wrong for Obama to make ti.

i think the one obvious thing that stands out is we might not have to "slash" spending so "extremely" if we hadn't increased spending so monumentally the last 2 years. Lets not leave that little detail unfeathered.

This argument is as disingenuous as Obama's statement, perhaps more so. The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 1/2 years were TARP and the stimulus package, the first under Bush's watch. I regard both of these as absolutely necessary to stem the tide- without them, I think we'd be in the midst of a Great Depression right now.

The question is, did it stem the tide, or just delay it? High energy costs may be strong enough to push the economy into another recession. How much longer can we keep borrowing and running up debt to fight these recessions off if they keep coming?

 

[jamny]

He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55.

I'm still not sold on Ryan's Medicare plan yet but this is something that needs to be made clear.

 

[GroveDiesel]

.

According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

That's from a WSJ editorial slamming Obama's speech and "plan.". I'll post the link to the rest in a second. It points out all sorts of problems with Obama's "plan.". (Most of which revolves around his bashing Ryan's plan for trying to eliminate waste that he says impossible, all while promising huge cuts in government spending by...eliminating waste.)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think one thing President Obama needs to really be pressured on by the media on this whole thing, is why he has ignored and continues to ignore, the recommendations made by the bi-partisan deficit commission that HE put together.

They made some really good recommendations that ended up being a very fair mix of tax increases, cuts in spending and changes to entitlement programs.

Why did he even create a commission of experts to look at the issue if he was just going to ignore their recommendations?

 

[timschochet]

I think one thing President Obama needs to really be pressured on by the media on this whole thing, is why he has ignored and continues to ignore, the recommendations made by the bi-partisan deficit commission that HE put together.They made some really good recommendations that ended up being a very fair mix of tax increases, cuts in spending and changes to entitlement programs. Why did he even create a commission of experts to look at the issue if he was just going to ignore their recommendations?

He's not the only one to reject it. The Republicans don't like it either. Our main problem is that we have two very different ideologies clashing with each other about how to solve this debt problem. Both sides are more interested in winning the public debate (which means winning elections) than they are actually solving the problem. Republicans believe that they can win by not raising taxes, so they have to come up with a way to solve the problem that doesn't do that; thus Ryan's plan. The Democrats believe they can win by not touching people's entitlements, so they have to come up with a solution that doesn't do that; thus Obama's plan. And in a sense they're both right: the public still doesn't want tax increases, and they don't want entitlements touched. But something's gotta give.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think one thing President Obama needs to really be pressured on by the media on this whole thing, is why he has ignored and continues to ignore, the recommendations made by the bi-partisan deficit commission that HE put together.They made some really good recommendations that ended up being a very fair mix of tax increases, cuts in spending and changes to entitlement programs. Why did he even create a commission of experts to look at the issue if he was just going to ignore their recommendations?

He's not the only one to reject it. The Republicans don't like it either. Our main problem is that we have two very different ideologies clashing with each other about how to solve this debt problem. Both sides are more interested in winning the public debate (which means winning elections) than they are actually solving the problem. Republicans believe that they can win by not raising taxes, so they have to come up with a way to solve the problem that doesn't do that; thus Ryan's plan. The Democrats believe they can win by not touching people's entitlements, so they have to come up with a solution that doesn't do that; thus Obama's plan. And in a sense they're both right: the public still doesn't want tax increases, and they don't want entitlements touched. But something's gotta give.

Actually, the commission's recommendations got a lukewarm response from Republicans. If Obama pushed it with the Dems, I'm sure the vast majority of it would end up getting passed.And even if the Republicans hated it, it was OBAMA'S commission! How can he not even support his own commission?!I also remember Obama campaigning as the Great Moderate and as a consensus builder. I think just about everyone agreed that the commission's report was pretty moderate and had stuff that both sides liked and both sides hated. That's exactly the type of thing that Candidate Obama said he's be behind. Instead, he's just another partisan extremist it appears.No surprise to a lot of us, but you'd have to think it'd be at least somewhat disappointing to a lot of people.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama, Spending Three Times as Fast as Bush, Blames Bush

 

[Sarnoff]

He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare.

President Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010:

“We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

President Obama April 13 2011:

“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”

 

[Statorama]

I love the whole "we ignored the deficit under Bush so we should ignore it under Obama" angle.

 

[Statorama]

Obama's Toxic Speech and even Worse Plan for Deficits and Debt

Even I was surprised by how utterly partisan and intellectually bankrupt yesterday’s speech was.

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

***

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan's plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It's hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.

 

[Statorama]

More on Obama's budget speech

Had to share this one

Our “responsibilities to each other” are our concern. The President need only be concerned with his duty, which consists of wisely allocating the resources we choose to give him. We now require him to accomplish those duties without incurring further debt, or claiming more of our property. We expect humble compliance, not a lecture about how much money he thinks we should be allowed to keep.

 

[Statorama]

Take it easy on Obama, he's got it rough

To hear President Obama tell it, he's a sad fellow these days.

The problem, it seems, is that he's president of the United States. "I miss being anonymous," the melancholy man moaned to a few White House visitors the other day.

Some Americans agree; they miss this Chicago pol being anonymous too.

The poor man, who turns 50 this summer, does live with his mother-in-law. But he said he especially misses Saturday mornings -- "rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed.”

Instead, Obama must endure 24-hour free room service, servants, drivers, a giant....

...helicopter, world travel, fawning celebrities, never gasping at a whirling gas pump and getting a salary that many of America's unemployed millions would take a tiny fraction of if they could.

“I can't take a walk," whined the most powerful person in the world, who spent $745 million of other people's money to get into that White House detention center.

As a sign of his sincere sadness, Obama will ride his presidential 747 with the bedroom and shower to Chicago today.

And there in a desperate bid for privacy Obama will attend and speak at not one, not two, but three political fundraisers for his Democratic National Committee. Including one in the stylish Grand Ballroom out on Navy Pier.

This is the big bucks kickoff for what Obama aides gleefully predict will be a $1 billion political extravaganza of "Vote for me."

A billion bucks. Think, a president once suggested, what that kind of money could do for the most vulnerable members of our society.

But it's more important right now that sum goes to people like television station owners for the broadcast and cable time to convince Americans over the remaining 572 days that they should disregard Obama's profound desire to return to private life in that faux Hyde Park.

And instead those Americans should voluntarily opt to keep the poor guy locked up for four more years in the Churchill bust-less Oval Office with VP X.

Some people might suspect that 81 weeks of campaigning could be somewhat more than sufficient for U.S. voters to come to know better the man and the record they've been living with now as a regular visitor in their lives for more than four years.

But suspecting that would reveal those people don't understand there are really two parallel elections underway already these days. And neither involves Republicans.

One race is for the votes to be counted on Nov. 6, 2012. And one race is for the Democrat's dollar votes to be tallied after June 30 this year.

Obama bundlers are under enormous pressure to make the first campaign quarter's numbers overwhelming in size. $200 million? How about a nice round quarter-billion?

Not as a sign of obviously overpowering American excess. But as a potential counter to the puny poll numbers their man has earned in his first 814 days of imprisonment.

 

[D_House]

A little balance to the WSJ's take on Obama's budget proposals from Ezra Klein:

...Obama’s budget is not philosophy. It is very similar to the Simpson-Bowles report, which attracted the votes of Republicans as far to the right as Tom Coburn. Few Democrats would say their vision of balancing the budget is one in which there was only one dollar of new taxes for every three dollars of spending cuts, but that’s what Obama’s proposal envisions. Obama’s budget, somewhat curiously, is what you’d expect at the end of a negotiation process, not the beginning. In fact, as it’s modeled off of Simpson-Bowles, it is the product of a negotiation process, as opposed to an opening bid. It is, in other words, policy. You could argue that this is a philosophy, and that philosophy is pragmatism, but I think that’s getting too cute. This is the sort of policy that night pass and might work.Ryan’s budget is purer, but it is also more fantastical. It posits the government it wishes were possible, and the policies it wishes would work. It is an opening bid so ideological that it leaves little room for a process of negotiation. Every dollar it purports to raise comes from cutting spending. Not one comes from taxes. It privatizes Medicare and unwinds the federal government’s role in Medicaid. For all the philosophy in his budget — and his budget does have a very different philosophy about the proper role of government than we see in federal pllicy today — there’s neither policy that could pass nor policy that could work. And, curiously for a conservative who distrusts both government and congress, it has no answer to the question of “what if this fails?”The policy that clarifies this difference is the “trigger.” Obama’s budget, aware that it might not pass and, if it does pass, it might not work, proposes to make automatic cuts to discretionary spending and tax expenditures if the promised savings don’t materialize. If Ryan’s budget falls shorts, there’s no comparable failsafe. That is to say, Obama’s budget has two plausible ways to get to its number, while Ryan’s budget has none. You don’t need a PhD in philosophy to understand why that’s a problem.

 

[Statorama]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[Mello]

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.

And 90% of the Republicans are just as not serious about making these kinds of cuts as the Democrats are. Fact is, the people will not support it. Get your party to nominate Ron Paul or someone similar and I might reconsider.

 

[Orange Crush]

He stated that Ryan's plan would be harmful to senior citizens who rely on medicare. Actually, Ryan's plan leaves medicare untouched for people over 55.

I'm still not sold on Ryan's Medicare plan yet but this is something that needs to be made clear.

Ryan's plan wouldn't be directly harmful to those currently on Medicare. But Medicare is the largest control of medical costs in the market because of its size. By instituting this plan, Medicare has its negotiating power weakened immediately, and health care costs go up across the board (which will, through market forces, decrease the affordability of health insurance and the availability of health care services).

 

[Orange Crush]

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.

And 90% of the Republicans are just as not serious about making these kinds of cuts as the Democrats are. Fact is, the people will not support it. Get your party to nominate Ron Paul or someone similar and I might reconsider.

A lot of Congressional Republicans are already signaling that they aren't going to support Ryan's plan. Mostly, all the guys who ran last year on "don't let the Dems cut your Medicare." They know what's going to cut it at the polls and Ryan's plan ain't it.