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
Glad to see Obama is taking a much needed holiday rest this weekend. He has been working hard lately. "Do as I say, not as I do"... Good example of leadership.

http://www.google.co...e381835cd9536db

Obama takes a break at Camp David (AP) – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will be taking a break for the Independence Day holiday weekend.

He'll travel to Camp David in western Maryland Friday afternoon, following some morning meetings.

Daughter Malia has a holiday birthday. She'll turn 13 on Monday.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Well he is waiting on congress to get its act together.. what else do you want him to do. Although I think it was very poor of him to turn down dinner/lunch with the Republicans. That has me more pised than him taking a weekend to a remote place calledCamp David, which is so far away from DC to where he cannot work?
Obama has spent as much as twenty times more golfing and vacationing with his family as he has spent in direct negotiations on the debt crisis. This "you handle it and let me know where to sign" leadership is getting old.
Perhaps you should complain to the Founding Fathers, who assigned the task of making law to the legislature rather than the chief executive. You thinking maybe we should have just stuck with the monarchy thing instead?
I think you are missing the point? Regardless of who does it, I think it would go faster if the POTUS was there, in the room, telling the people that need to get it done to get their head out of their ### and do some work. You know, like a leader does. You are acting like even thought eh POTUS doesn't write the law, that he has NO effect on the process.
Why do you think that? I think the GOP's primary mission between now and November 2012 seems to be making Obama look bad. Why do you think they'd suddenly be willing to stop acting like petulant children on things like revenue increases and cooperate just because the president shows up? They know that if they did that, he'd get the credit for the deal. If anything I think his presence could be counterproductive. They want the credit for a deficit reduction measure to go to John Boehner, not Obama.
this is what you call selective memory. In fact the democrats controlled both houses and the presidency this last fall and winter and could not pass a tax increase. Nothing has changed on the Republican side, they've opposed a tax increase all along. what has changed is that dems are now trying to blame republicans for not cooperating, as if that excuses their lack of action last year.the other fact is that Obama has said he likes to lead from behind. He has not taken a lead role on any of these negotiations, some people think that is a failure of leadership. I'm not sure about that, however if taken in sum total of the many other examples of Obama's poor decision making process, you can certainly argue he's not a very good leader and makes himself look bad without any Republican help in the matter.

 
Glad to see Obama is taking a much needed holiday rest this weekend. He has been working hard lately. "Do as I say, not as I do"... Good example of leadership.

http://www.google.co...e381835cd9536db

Obama takes a break at Camp David (AP) – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will be taking a break for the Independence Day holiday weekend.

He'll travel to Camp David in western Maryland Friday afternoon, following some morning meetings.

Daughter Malia has a holiday birthday. She'll turn 13 on Monday.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Well he is waiting on congress to get its act together.. what else do you want him to do. Although I think it was very poor of him to turn down dinner/lunch with the Republicans. That has me more pised than him taking a weekend to a remote place calledCamp David, which is so far away from DC to where he cannot work?
Obama has spent as much as twenty times more golfing and vacationing with his family as he has spent in direct negotiations on the debt crisis. This "you handle it and let me know where to sign" leadership is getting old.
Perhaps you should complain to the Founding Fathers, who assigned the task of making law to the legislature rather than the chief executive. You thinking maybe we should have just stuck with the monarchy thing instead?
I think you are missing the point? Regardless of who does it, I think it would go faster if the POTUS was there, in the room, telling the people that need to get it done to get their head out of their ### and do some work. You know, like a leader does. You are acting like even thought eh POTUS doesn't write the law, that he has NO effect on the process.
Why do you think that? I think the GOP's primary mission between now and November 2012 seems to be making Obama look bad. Why do you think they'd suddenly be willing to stop acting like petulant children on things like revenue increases and cooperate just because the president shows up? They know that if they did that, he'd get the credit for the deal. If anything I think his presence could be counterproductive. They want the credit for a deficit reduction measure to go to John Boehner, not Obama.
I think it could help in this manner. IF Obama was actually there, he could say "hey guys, I was here, where were you?". It would look bad for ANYONE who was not there. It would look good for Obama because he was there, so he even has some incentive to do it. The court of public opinion will see the people that 'no showed' as lazy, not caring. I guess that's the main thing. A leader needs to set the precident.I do believe if Obama held a presser on the 4th and was standing in congress with a few other politicians, and basically said 'Hey... where is everyone', it would get people moving. No question it would get the news media going. Going on your belief that the GOP's primary missing is to make Obama look bad... if Obama is working on the holday weekend, they will need to work on the holiday weekend too, unless they want Obama to make THEM look bad. Do you see what I'm getting at yet? Showing up, and pointing it out to the public that YOU showed up, and poining out to the public who did NOT show up... it stirrs the pot and get's things going. Obama has NOT set any precidents... therefore congress falls in line. From Remember the Titans "Attitude reflects leadership".

 
Glad to see Obama is taking a much needed holiday rest this weekend. He has been working hard lately. "Do as I say, not as I do"... Good example of leadership.

http://www.google.co...e381835cd9536db

Obama takes a break at Camp David (AP) – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will be taking a break for the Independence Day holiday weekend.

He'll travel to Camp David in western Maryland Friday afternoon, following some morning meetings.

Daughter Malia has a holiday birthday. She'll turn 13 on Monday.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Well he is waiting on congress to get its act together.. what else do you want him to do. Although I think it was very poor of him to turn down dinner/lunch with the Republicans. That has me more pised than him taking a weekend to a remote place calledCamp David, which is so far away from DC to where he cannot work?
Obama has spent as much as twenty times more golfing and vacationing with his family as he has spent in direct negotiations on the debt crisis. This "you handle it and let me know where to sign" leadership is getting old.
Perhaps you should complain to the Founding Fathers, who assigned the task of making law to the legislature rather than the chief executive. You thinking maybe we should have just stuck with the monarchy thing instead?
I think you are missing the point? Regardless of who does it, I think it would go faster if the POTUS was there, in the room, telling the people that need to get it done to get their head out of their ### and do some work. You know, like a leader does. You are acting like even thought eh POTUS doesn't write the law, that he has NO effect on the process.
Why do you think that? I think the GOP's primary mission between now and November 2012 seems to be making Obama look bad. Why do you think they'd suddenly be willing to stop acting like petulant children on things like revenue increases and cooperate just because the president shows up? They know that if they did that, he'd get the credit for the deal. If anything I think his presence could be counterproductive. They want the credit for a deficit reduction measure to go to John Boehner, not Obama.
this is what you call selective memory. In fact the democrats controlled both houses and the presidency this last fall and winter and could not pass a tax increase. Nothing has changed on the Republican side, they've opposed a tax increase all along. what has changed is that dems are now trying to blame republicans for not cooperating, as if that excuses their lack of action last year.the other fact is that Obama has said he likes to lead from behind. He has not taken a lead role on any of these negotiations, some people think that is a failure of leadership. I'm not sure about that, however if taken in sum total of the many other examples of Obama's poor decision making process, you can certainly argue he's not a very good leader and makes himself look bad without any Republican help in the matter.
The poster faulted what he perceived as Obama's absence in the debt discussions. I pointed out that it wasn't his duty to be involved under the Constitution, and that his presence might be counterproductive given the GOP's current apparent motivations. I don't know what 2009 and 2010 have to do with that, so I'm not sure why my post shows a selective memory.But speaking to your point- what has changed for the GOP is a sudden interest in the deficit after greenlighting trillions in spending increases when Bush was president. It's fine that they're changing directions according to the political winds- I support the change and I think it's a great demonstration of democracy at its finest. But a sudden interest in the bottom line should mean a reexamining of both sides of the ledger. To me that's just common sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But speaking to your point- what has changed for the GOP is a sudden interest in the deficit after greenlighting trillions in spending increases when Bush was president. It's fine that they're changing directions according to the political winds- I support the change and I think it's a great demonstration of democracy at its finest. But a sudden interest in the bottom line should mean a reexamining of both sides of the ledger. To me that's just common sense.
You act like they just all of the sudden decided to 'change directions according to the political winds'? As if there are no other circumstances that would cause them to change their mind?
 
But speaking to your point- what has changed for the GOP is a sudden interest in the deficit after greenlighting trillions in spending increases when Bush was president. It's fine that they're changing directions according to the political winds- I support the change and I think it's a great demonstration of democracy at its finest. But a sudden interest in the bottom line should mean a reexamining of both sides of the ledger. To me that's just common sense.
You act like they just all of the sudden decided to 'change directions according to the political winds'? As if there are no other circumstances that would cause them to change their mind?
Not sure I follow you. Sorry. Regardless of the circumstances, it's pretty clear that the GOP did change direction pretty suddenly, and it's pretty clear that it was politically motivated, just like pretty much everything that both parties do by definition. Like I said, I think it's a very good thing, not trashing them for it at all.

 
Obama rejects short term debt ceiling deal because it would hurt his 2012 chances

President Obama insisted yesterday that Congress reach a long-term budget deal, not a short-term “quick-fix” that could put the debt ceiling debt smack in the middle of the 2012 campaign next year. This is a major shift. Since January, the Obama administration has been calling for a “clean” debt limit hike to avoid economic “catastrophe.” As recently as two weeks ago the White House signaled they were open to a short-term deal. Now Obama’s position is that the deal must include reforms for Medicare, Medicaid and taxes, all to be completed by July 22. Why the monumental shift in position?

Obama wants to minimize how often Republicans in Congress can ask for spending cuts and maximize his own opportunities to seek tax hikes aka “revenue.” Obama has been asking for a $2.4 trillion debt hike that would allow enough deficit spending to last into 2013. That would be after the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012. If Obama gets a deal that locks Republicans into to a couple trillion in long-term spending cuts now, then he is free to push for trillions in tax hikes when the debate shifts to extending the Bush tax rates later in 2012. That gives Obama two bites at the tax hiking apple: He’ll accept some tiny tax hikes now, paired with a couple trillion in spending cuts, but then in 2012 he’ll push for $5 trillion in tax hikes by ending the Bush rates. Why any conservative would sign on to this deal escapes us.
 
Republicans doubt the questions they've asked Obama on Twitter will get answered today

As President Obama prepares for his Twitter Town Hall this afternoon, some of his Republican critics are having some fun with the social media website.

Consider this question from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to #askObama, the hashtag for today's presidential event: "With 9.1% unemployment & 'shovel ready' jobs a bust, will you admit the 'stimulus' was a mistake?"

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, weighed in with this inquiry to Twitter: "Senate hasn't passed a budget in 798 days. House passed plan 2 lift debt&spur job creation -- what is your jobs plan?"

And the Republican National Committee came up with seven questions of less than 140 characters, the Twitter limit. Among them: "You Promised To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of Your 1st Term But Actually Increased It. Is This A Failure Of Leadership?"

We don't expect Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and moderator of today's events, to ask these specific questions or any of the other rough inquiries being posed by conservatives on Twitter.

Twitter officials will cull the thousands of tweets they have received and provide summary questions, most of which deal with the economy and jobs.

Obama will not be limited to 140 characters, so Twitter will also summarize his answers and tweet them back out.

Rest assured, Obama is receiving some friendly questions from followers of Twitter.

One person writes, "If the bought Congress stopped representing american people years ago, why not call its bluff?"

And another: "What can be done to bring civility back to political discourse? Did it ever exist in the first place?"

The event begins at 2 p.m.
 
/just wanted to make sure a copy of this was in the Obama historical file

Starting to look like STIMULUS funds were used to broker this operation

text from H.R.1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
 
Obama made the recession worse

The Obama administration recently created a new White House post charged with rapidly responding to unfavorable stories. They could have spared the taxpayers $72,500, since the mainstream press is already doing that job free of charge.

A case in point is the media's rapid and fierce response to Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama's economic policies have made the country worse off. Rather than investigate the claim, they've made it their mission to debunk it.

Reporters are challenging Romney at every stop, demanding that he square his talking point with the fact that, gosh, GDP is growing and the number of workers with jobs seems to be growing, too. And, look, the stock market is higher than when Obama took office. And so, too, are corporate profits. What right does he have to make such outlandish claims?

But — can you believe it? — Romney won't stop! CBS News' latest dispatch even complained in the headline that "Romney repeats disputed charge, says again that Obama made recession worse." Sure, they noted, the economic numbers "aren't stellar" but they "clearly paint a picture that shows improvement from a very weak starting point." So there.

To be sure, Romney muddied his message a bit, seeming to backtrack at one point in response to a reporter challenging his claim. And, to be completely accurate, Obama hasn't made the recession worse, since it was almost over by the time he got into office and before any of his policies had a chance to make a real impact.

But it's clear he's made the recovery worse. And there are, in fact, many economic indicators that are demonstrably worse since Obama took office. Here are a few we've noted in this space before:

There are 2 million fewer private-sector jobs now than when Obama was sworn in, and the unemployment rate is 1.5 percentage points higher.

• There are now more long-term unemployed than at any time since the government started keeping records.

• The U.S. dollar is more than 12% weaker.

• The number of Americans on food stamps has climbed 37%.

• The Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) is up 62%.

• And the national debt is about 40% higher than it was in January 2009.

In fact, reporters who bother to look will discover that Obama has managed to produce the worst recovery on record.

By this point in the Reagan recovery after the 1981-82 recession, for example, unemployment had been knocked down to 7.4% from a peak of 10.8%, and quarterly GDP growth averaged a screaming 7%.
 
This is what Obama's Recovery looks like

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.

"The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. "Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.

The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.

The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year. It could prompt calls for the Federal Reserve to consider further action to help the economy, but Fed officials have set a high bar.

The U.S. central bank wrapped up a $600 billion bond-buying program last week designed to spur lending and stimulate growth.

"This confirms our view that the Fed will continue to keep rates on hold into 2012 and if weak employment continues it will be pushed out even further," said Tom Porcelli, chief economist, RBC Capital Markets in New York.

Hopes were high that the economy was starting to find firmer ground as motor vehicle manufacturers ramped up production and gasoline prices descended from their lofty levels.

Economic activity in the first six months of the year was dampened by rising commodity prices and supply chain disruptions following Japan's devastating earthquake in March.

White House Headaches

Signs the labor market is struggling is a major blow for the Obama administration, which has struggled to get the economy to create enough jobs to absorb the 14.1 million unemployed Americans.

The economy is the top concern among voters and will feature prominently in President Barack Obama's bid for re-election next year. So far, the economy has regained only a fraction of the more than 8 million jobs lost during the recession.

"Today's report is more evidence that the misguided 'stimulus' spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month just to absorb new labor force entrants.

The private sector added 57,000 last month, accounting for all the jobs created, with government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local and state governments.

Details of the report showed widespread weakness, though factory payrolls rebounded 6,000 after contracting in May for the first time in seven months, with the recovery reflecting a step-up in motor vehicle production.

Construction employment fell 9,000 last month after declining 4,000 in May. Government employment declined for an eighth straight month as municipalities and state governments continued to wield the ax to balance their budgets.

The report also showed the average workweek fell to 34.3 hours from 34.4 hours. Employers have been reluctant to extend hours because of the uncertainty surrounding the recovery.

Average hourly earnings slipped a penny, more evidence that wage-driven inflation is not a risk.
 
Big fan of Obama rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently Obama wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk his re-election. Good for him.

While I don't love Barack Obama, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Statorama has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with Obama. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Obama knew about this ATF stuff.)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-elmendorf-rule/2011/07/07/gIQAPagk2H_story.html?hpid=z3

The Elmendorf Rule

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 8 | Updated: Thursday, July 7, 5:00 PM

Here we go again. An approaching crisis. A looming deadline. Nervous markets. And then, from the miasma of gridlock, rises our president, calling upon those unruly congressional children to quit squabbling, stop kicking the can down the road and get serious about debt.

This from the man who:

• Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

• Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

• Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the word “debt” until 35 minutes in.

• Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.

• Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

President Obama assailed the lesser mortals who inhabit Congress for not having seriously dealt with a problem he had not dealt with at all, then scolded Congress for being even less responsible than his own children. They apparently get their homework done on time.

My compliments. But the Republican House did do its homework. It’s called a budget. It passed the House on April 15. The Democratic Senate has produced no budget. Not just this year, but for two years running. As for the schoolmaster in chief, he produced two 2012 budget facsimiles: The first (February) was a farce and the second (April) was empty, dismissed by the CBO as nothing but words untethered to real numbers.

Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1.5 trillion while insisting for months on a “clean” debt-ceiling increase, i.e., with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.

The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012.

A clever strategy it is: Do nothing (see above); invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do — voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform — demagogue them to death.

And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So: First you get the GOP to seize the left’s third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right’s third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full-spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

And what have been Obama’s own debt-reduction ideas? In last week’s news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama’s other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama’s deficit spending for February 2011.

After his Thursday meeting with bipartisan congressional leadership, Obama adopted yet another persona: Cynic in chief became compromiser in chief. Highly placed leaks are portraying him as heroically prepared to offer Social Security and Medicare cuts.

We shall see. It’s no mystery what is needed. First, entitlement reform that changes the inflation measure, introduces means testing, then syncs the (lower) Medicare eligibility age with Social Security’s and indexes them both to longevity. And second, real tax reform, both corporate and individual, that eliminates myriad loopholes in return for lower tax rates for everyone.

That’s real debt reduction. Yet even now, we don’t know where the president stands on any of this. Until we do, I’ll follow the Elmendorf Rule: We don’t estimate leaks. Let’s see if Obama can suspend his 2012 electioneering long enough to keep the economy from going over the debt cliff.
 
Big fan of Obama rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently Obama wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk his re-election. Good for him.While I don't love Barack Obama, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Statorama has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with Obama. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Obama knew about this ATF stuff.)
Kicking the can down the road??? The road is here, now dude... 16.2%, I know, I know, just another number to Tim... We are headed down the same road Greece is now on... Wake up and smell the misery...
Workers' hourly pay fell in June. They worked fewer hours. And 16.2 percent of those who wanted to work were either unemployed, forced to settle for part-time jobs or had given up looking for work. That figure was up from 15.8 percent in May.Among the frustrated is Cris Cohen, who was laid off in April from a job as a contractor for Cisco Systems in Raleigh, N.C. He's been searching for work since then, futilely combing job listings, reaching out to friends and setting up a website with a resume and a blog."In the past when I've left jobs or been laid off, I've just contacted connections I have had, and that's led to opportunities," says Cohen, who has a wife and a 9-year-old son. "Now it's just seems much more dry.... There's just always that anxious feeling, that nausea."
 
Big fan of Obama rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently Obama wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk his re-election. Good for him.While I don't love Barack Obama, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Statorama has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with Obama. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Obama knew about this ATF stuff.)
I hate your avatar.
 
Big fan of Obama rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently Obama wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk his re-election. Good for him.
You believe this? Obama has no intention of dealing with the entitlement problems. The only reason he doesn't want a temporary fix is because he doesn't want to fight this battle again prior to the 2012 election.
While I don't love Barack Obama, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Statorama has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with Obama. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Obama knew about this ATF stuff.)
Someone knew, and Obama could certainly direct the ATF and DOJ to release the records so we find out exactly how high up it went. That they have not is somewhat disturbing.
 
Big fan of the Tea Party rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently the Tea Party wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk their re-election. Good to them.

While I don't love the Tea Party, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Tim has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with the Tea Party. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Tea Party is causing havoc on our economy.)

 
Big fan of the Tea Party rejecting any "temporary" raising of the debt ceiling. That's just kicking the can down the road. Apparently the Tea Party wants to get a deal done that will start to resolve our looming entitlement problems, and in so doing, is willing to risk their re-election. Good to them.While I don't love the Tea Party, I am apalled by the continuing potshots that Tim has been posting in here. Most of the stuff posted is either heavily slanted in a misleading fashion, or has very little to do with the Tea Party. (For instance, I STRONGLY doubt that Tea Party is causing havoc on our economy.)
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
Shout of bounds?

Politico, 07/13/11

A long-running tiff between the White House press corps and the West Wing over presidential access flared anew today when press secretary Jay Carney faced off with reporters over the right to shout questions at the president during debt talks.

Obama chafes at the time-honored practice of answering questions shouted at him during pooled, non-press conference events — and his staff has often opted for “stills sprays,” excluding print reporters or TV cameras who might capture Obama in the less than flattering non-act of snubbing a query.

When asked today why TV crews and print reporters were barred from the pool covering the White House meeting with congressional leaders on the deficit, Carney responded by pointing out that the administration has held two press conferences in the past two weeks and allowed TV cameras into the spray earlier this week.

"People shouted questions at him," Carney added.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has protested exclusion of print and TV from pools — and several reporters in the briefing room took Carney’s comment as an annoyed expression of presidential displeasure with shouted questions.

“It's an absurd reason to say that because we asked questions you're not going to allow cameras in there. He's capable of ignoring our questions. He does it all the time,” said Chip Reid of CBS.

Carney, a former Time magazine White House reporter, shot back with, “I appreciate your opinion.”

It didn’t end there. “Can I ask you to clarify — there's no reporters allowed in today's meeting because reporters misbehaved?” asked another scribe. “Earlier it sounded like you were punishing us.”

Carney said he meant no such thing. “Look, as you know, we have had — different meetings have different levels of access, and we do it on a case-by-case basis. We have had — the president has taken questions quite a lot lately, as you know, and so he's not taking questions today. He may tomorrow. Or he may later, you know, but today, we're just doing a still spread, which is not unprecedented. We have done them in a lot of meetings.”’

"I used to be where you are, and I used to ask questions," the former journalist reminded his press corps.
 
I find it rather odd that in another thread everyone and his brother is saying that they would die for their kids and yet a good number of them have no problem with what obama is doing to their children???

Strange days indeed...

 
I find it rather odd that in another thread everyone and his brother is saying that they would die for their kids and yet a good number of them have no problem with what obama is doing to their children???Strange days indeed...
more are upset over what the repubs/tea party/far right/nut-job religious right is doing....hth,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it rather odd that in another thread everyone and his brother is saying that they would die for their kids and yet a good number of them have no problem with what obama is doing to their children???Strange days indeed...
more are upset over what the repubs/tea party/far right/nut-job religious right is doing....hth,
Obviously you either have no kids, don't have a clue as how he is screwing them or don't care...
 
- Avoided another depression

- Brought back the gains in my retirement savings and then some

- Brought much needed health care reform

- Scaled back in Iraq

- Started bringing real peace to the middle east and got a real coalition together

- Killed bin Laden

And now he's solving the deficit problem in a bipartisan effort even though every time he reaches across the aisle they try to bite his hand.

"We have a unique opportunity to do something bigger - we have a chance to stabilize the nation's financing for a decade, for fifteen years, if we are willing to sieze the moment" - Barack Hussein Obama, 2011.

Proud to have you as our President, sir.

 
- Avoided another depression

- Brought back the gains in my retirement savings and then some

- Brought much needed health care reform

- Scaled back in Iraq

- Started bringing real peace to the middle east and got a real coalition together

- Killed bin Laden

And now he's solving the deficit problem in a bipartisan effort even though every time he reaches across the aisle they try to bite his hand.

"We have a unique opportunity to do something bigger - we have a chance to stabilize the nation's financing for a decade, for fifteen years, if we are willing to seize the moment" - Barack Hussein Obama, 2011.

Proud to have you as our President, sir.
I tend to defend Obama against some of the conservative extremists here and elsewhere, but I have to ask- why didn't Obama seize the moment in 2009? 2010? Or in January of this year? Why did he wait until right before the debt ceiling expires to seize the moment? And why do raising taxes have to be part of seizing the moment?
 
I am not going through this thread to argue, but just wanted to put my two cents in as saying this guy is a pathetic excuse for a leader.

Race Baiter.

Class Baiter.

Liar.

Four more years of Obama and this country might never recover.

 
I am not going through this thread to argue, but just wanted to put my two cents in as saying this guy is a pathetic excuse for a leader.Race Baiter.Class Baiter.Liar.Four more years of Obama and this country might never recover.
I'm not the most politically affluent person on the board, but I did have hope and promise when he was elected. I wanted to believe in our country. I wanted to believe in him. In the end, he's just a puppet, like the rest of them.
 
- Avoided another depression

- Brought back the gains in my retirement savings and then some

- Brought much needed health care reform

- Scaled back in Iraq

- Started bringing real peace to the middle east and got a real coalition together

- Killed bin Laden

And now he's solving the deficit problem in a bipartisan effort even though every time he reaches across the aisle they try to bite his hand.

"We have a unique opportunity to do something bigger - we have a chance to stabilize the nation's financing for a decade, for fifteen years, if we are willing to seize the moment" - Barack Hussein Obama, 2011.

Proud to have you as our President, sir.
I tend to defend Obama against some of the conservative extremists here and elsewhere, but I have to ask- why didn't Obama seize the moment in 2009? 2010? Or in January of this year? Why did he wait until right before the debt ceiling expires to seize the moment? And why do raising taxes have to be part of seizing the moment?
It has been close to a year and half since Obama formed the deficit reduction commission, and his 4 trillion dollar - ten year framework is in line with their final recommendations (though perhaps nit the specifics). It's not like he's just now bringing this up. He actually ran on rolling back the upper-end Bush tax cuts to close the budget deficit if you recall, but backed away late in the campaign once the scope of the economic collapse was coming into focus.
 
- Started bringing real peace to the middle east and got a real coalition together
Where? And Middle Easterners don't seem to hold your high regard for Obama.

Arab world's ratings of Obama, US plummet: poll

July 13, 2011; AFB

WASHINGTON — Two years after US President Barack Obama called in a groundbreaking speech from Cairo for a "new beginning" in relations with the Muslim world, his popularity among Arabs has nosedived, a poll released Wednesday shows.

An overwhelming majority of more than 4,000 people surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, told the Arab American Institute that they felt that Obama had not met the expectations he laid out in the June 2009 Cairo speech, the poll found.

Obama called in his Cairo speech for an end to the cycle of "suspicion and discord" between the United States and Muslim world, and outlined a new US blueprint for the Middle East, which included a Palestinian state and efforts to defuse a nuclear showdown with Iran.

But the poll found that Arabs see the Obama administration's handling of key Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving relations between them and the United States.

In fact, the two issues on which the US administration has invested "considerable energy -- the Palestinian issue and engagement with the Muslim world -- receive the lowest approval ratings," the survey found.

Less than nine percent of the people polled said the Obama administration has handled the two key issues well.

The Arab world's image of the US as a whole has also soured to become even less favorable than during the last year of the administration of president George W. Bush, under whom the United States led an international coalition that invaded Iraq, the survey found.

The killing by US Navy SEALs of Osama bin Laden did little to improve Arabs' views of the United States. Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favorably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head in Pakistan.

The highest favorability rating the United States got in the survey was from Saudi Arabia, where 30 percent of those polled said they saw the United States in a good light.

The lowest rating came from Egypt -- a mere five percent.

In order to improve relations with the Arab world, the United States should "resolve the Palestinian issue," majorities said in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

The Lebanese were split between resolving the Palestinian issue and ending the war in Iraq, while a majority of Saudis thought relations would improve if the United States were successful in stopping Iran's nuclear program.

The survey was commissioned after Obama gave a speech on May 19, backing pro-democracy movements in the Arab world.

A majority of poll respondents in all six countries except the Emirates said the situation in their country had worsened or not changed at all as a result of the Arab uprisings.

In Egypt, where protesters succeeded after weeks of massive demonstrations in ending decades of rule by Hosni Mubarak, 16 percent said things were worse and 35 percent said they noticed no impact at all after the uprising.
 
Here's a look at seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing on the American people: 1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the U.S. government will default on its debt. This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can't borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency. Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007. Indeed, this really shouldn't even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending. 2) Until the debt ceiling is raised, uncertainty over the payment of U.S. debts will create chaos in financial markets. Given that the Constitution mandates U.S. debts be paid before any other spending and that sufficient money will be available to cover our interest payments, the only uncertainty arises from Obama's actions. Will he try not to pay the interest? Even a delay of a day in paying this interest will create a default. Court action could eventually force Obama to follow the Constitution but a default would have already occurred. But there is a simple way to end this uncertainty: have the president declare now that he will indeed follow the Constitution and make those payments. Failure to increase the debt ceiling clearly doesn't mean default. During one three week period at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1996, some of the government shutdown when a similar battle over the debt ceiling occurred, but there was no default. President Clinton used the revenues that were coming in to pay the interest on the debt. 3) Obama doesn't know if there is money to send off Social Security checks on August 3. The president knows very well how much revenue will be available to send out checks on August 3. Indeed, enough money will be available to not only pay the interest, but to also cover all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance, defense, federal law enforcement and immigration, all veterans benefits, Response to natural disasters. Terrifying elderly people who are dependent on their Social Security checks may make good politics, but it is unconscionable. Yet, these scare tactics aren't really very surprising. The Democrats behaved no differently when they ran television ads bizarrely depicting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff. 4) Mortgage interest rates will rise dramatically if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Not true. Indeed, the opposite is more likely, for not raising the debt ceiling stops the government borrowing more money. Less borrowing by the government could lower mortgage rates as there would be more lending available for potential homeowners. The interest rate paid by the government might go down for a second reason. Just as banks charge individuals a lower interest rate for those who have less debt compared to their incomes, the same is true for governments. 5) Time is Running Out on Debt Deal, and it must be done immediately. Despite Obama’s insistence that a deal be completed by July 15 and Geithner’s claim that a deal had to be reached by July 22, as already noted, there have been many times over the last few decades where negotiations have extended past when the debt limit has been reached. The longest delay lasted three weeks. Besides claiming that there will be a default, no explanation has been offered for why the debate is any different this time. Possibly all these claims of urgency are part of some grand strategy to scare people, but that strategy depends on voters not knowing what is necessary for a default to occur. 6) If government spending is cut, there will be a depression. Obama promised that a "temporary" increase in government spending would "stimulate" the economy, but he is now telling us that we can't cut that "temporary" increase -- that we are stuck with it. If Obama's program -- including a 28 percent spending hike since 2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits -- worked so well, why has our unemployment rate risen more than elsewhere? The European Union, Canada, South America, Japan, and Australia have all had smaller increases in unemployment compared to the U.S. after Obama's "stimulus." We have also had these shutdowns before and the numbers don’t show any negative impact on unemployment or GDP. Figures for the longest shutdowns during the fourth quarter of 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 are available here. 7) The value of the dollar will plummet. Again, the supposed collapse occurs when we default. But there won't be any default. In addition, less government borrowing means lower future taxes, thus making the U.S. a more attractive place to invest. More foreign investment will actually cause the dollar to rise. It is time for President Obama and his administration to stop scaring people. Cutting government spending back to its 2007 level won't be the end of the world. After all, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama himself repeatedly promised “a net spending cut."
 
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.

 
'Arsenal of Doom said:
Here's some better background on the federal debt ceiling, history of increasing it, and what constitutes a default. Dispels most of the stuff in that last post.

Link
Quit lying, nothing in that report dispels anything in my post. I probably read more of it than you did. Please feel free to highlight the appropriate sections???TIA

 
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
I am. And I'm not even close to being rich. This government is terribly inefficient. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and Obama is worse. When we demand accountability we are labeled extremists. The way our leaders have behaved, they don't DESERVE any more of the American people's hard earned money. Figure things out by selling off some assets, scaling down (and this means military too), and cutting spending.

I guess class warfare is okay if it's only against the rich? And don't you think you're greedy by demanding other people pay more than you?

 
'Arsenal of Doom said:
Here's some better background on the federal debt ceiling, history of increasing it, and what constitutes a default. Dispels most of the stuff in that last post.

Link
Quit lying, nothing in that report dispels anything in my post. I probably read more of it than you did. Please feel free to highlight the appropriate sections???TIA
The article you pasted, not sourced btw, starts with a false premise and more or less moves backwards from there. It states that "Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes." While that may be the author's definition, no one else is using the word in that context. Default simply means that the Treasury doesn't have enough money to meet our legal obligations. From the CRS report I posted:
Although not all the possible consequences of a government default are known, it would

mean that the government could no longer meet all of its legal obligations. Not only the

default, but the efforts to resolve it would arguably have negative repercussions on both

domestic and international financial markets and economies.
Your article also states that, "the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending," which the author uses to support his idea that a default can't occur because we always have to meet our interest payments. Except the 14th amendment doesn't say that. It has been interpreted that congress can't cancel a debt, but it doesn't say anything about how the treasury has to prioritize payments in the event that it is lacking funds to meet all obligations. It's certainly possible the Supreme Court could interpret it that way but since it has never happened there's no legal precedent for it. Most everything else in your post kind of rifs off that first incorrect point or is strictly conjecture (#2,4,5,6,7). The link I posted also goes into great detail about some of the short term workarounds the treasury can use to avoid a default, but they are things that work for weeks or months. In every case where short term measures have been used the debt ceiling had to be raised to avoid a default.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
Tax rates are low, but the percentage of overall taxes paid by the rich have never been higher.Be careful what you wish for- do you really think it would benefit the poor and middle class if the rich get hurt?

 
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
Tax rates are low, but the percentage of overall taxes paid by the rich have never been higher.Be careful what you wish for- do you really think it would benefit the poor and middle class if the rich get hurt?
And the percentage of income made by the rich has never been higher, a trend that has been going on since the first round of supply side cuts in the 1980s.Your second point is exactly what was said back in the early 90s to argue againt raising marginal rates on the wealthy. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, the argument went, you will kill jobs and stifle growth. After both H.W. Bush and Clinton did exactly that, we went on to have exceptional growth in both GDP and jobs and had erased the budget deficits by the end of the decade.

 
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
Tax rates are low, but the percentage of overall taxes paid by the rich have never been higher.Be careful what you wish for- do you really think it would benefit the poor and middle class if the rich get hurt?
And the percentage of income made by the rich has never been higher, a trend that has been going on since the first round of supply side cuts in the 1980s.Your second point is exactly what was said back in the early 90s to argue againt raising marginal rates on the wealthy. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, the argument went, you will kill jobs and stifle growth. After both H.W. Bush and Clinton did exactly that, we went on to have exceptional growth in both GDP and jobs and had erased the budget deficits by the end of the decade.
Yes, they make a higher percentage of income, but they pay an even higher percentage of taxes than they earn in income, and that trend has increased as marginal tax rates have decreased. You have to look at both sides of the equation even if it doesn't support your (the generic "your") jaded views.My second point has nothing to do with marginal tax rates- it has to do with the poster wishing that we default so it will hurt the rich. There are plenty of people who share this insane viewpoint, but I guess they assume that the rich getting hurt won't hurt them. Clueless.

 
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
Tax rates are low, but the percentage of overall taxes paid by the rich have never been higher.Be careful what you wish for- do you really think it would benefit the poor and middle class if the rich get hurt?
And the percentage of income made by the rich has never been higher, a trend that has been going on since the first round of supply side cuts in the 1980s.Your second point is exactly what was said back in the early 90s to argue againt raising marginal rates on the wealthy. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, the argument went, you will kill jobs and stifle growth. After both H.W. Bush and Clinton did exactly that, we went on to have exceptional growth in both GDP and jobs and had erased the budget deficits by the end of the decade.
Yes, they make a higher percentage of income, but they pay an even higher percentage of taxes than they earn in income, and that trend has increased as marginal tax rates have decreased. You have to look at both sides of the equation even if it doesn't support your (the generic "your") jaded views.My second point has nothing to do with marginal tax rates- it has to do with the poster wishing that we default so it will hurt the rich. There are plenty of people who share this insane viewpoint, but I guess they assume that the rich getting hurt won't hurt them. Clueless.
I certainly don't support any punitive justification for higher taxes. As for the growth in income vs. federal tax contribution, it's a pretty similar in arc for the top earners. If you rewind to 1980, the top 1% of earners accounted for 9.1% of total income and 14.2% of the federal tax share. In 2007, the last year data is available for, they had 18.8% of total income and 28.4% of the tax share. So both their income contribution and tax share have roughly doubled over the last 30 years. Their effective tax rate in that time has gone from 34.6% to 29.5%.

Personally I think taxes need to overhauled. The pressure on income from globalization is going to make income taxes a far less efficient tax method going forward. Consider that revenue from individual income taxes had not even returned to 2000 levels before the collapse in 2007. Part of that is obviously the effects of the Bush tax cuts, but 7 years of growth should have offset that with normal wage and employment growth.

 
'Daywalker said:
Let's be serious. Taxes for the rich have never been lower. If we have to raise them a 2-4% who is against that?

Getting to the point where I almost hope we default because it will hurt the greedy ####s who are standing in the way.
Tax rates are low, but the percentage of overall taxes paid by the rich have never been higher.Be careful what you wish for- do you really think it would benefit the poor and middle class if the rich get hurt?
And the percentage of income made by the rich has never been higher, a trend that has been going on since the first round of supply side cuts in the 1980s.Your second point is exactly what was said back in the early 90s to argue againt raising marginal rates on the wealthy. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, the argument went, you will kill jobs and stifle growth. After both H.W. Bush and Clinton did exactly that, we went on to have exceptional growth in both GDP and jobs and had erased the budget deficits by the end of the decade.
Yes, they make a higher percentage of income, but they pay an even higher percentage of taxes than they earn in income, and that trend has increased as marginal tax rates have decreased. You have to look at both sides of the equation even if it doesn't support your (the generic "your") jaded views.My second point has nothing to do with marginal tax rates- it has to do with the poster wishing that we default so it will hurt the rich. There are plenty of people who share this insane viewpoint, but I guess they assume that the rich getting hurt won't hurt them. Clueless.
I certainly don't support any punitive justification for higher taxes. As for the growth in income vs. federal tax contribution, it's a pretty similar in arc for the top earners. If you rewind to 1980, the top 1% of earners accounted for 9.1% of total income and 14.2% of the federal tax share. In 2007, the last year data is available for, they had 18.8% of total income and 28.4% of the tax share. So both their income contribution and tax share have roughly doubled over the last 30 years. Their effective tax rate in that time has gone from 34.6% to 29.5%.

Personally I think taxes need to overhauled. The pressure on income from globalization is going to make income taxes a far less efficient tax method going forward. Consider that revenue from individual income taxes had not even returned to 2000 levels before the collapse in 2007. Part of that is obviously the effects of the Bush tax cuts, but 7 years of growth should have offset that with normal wage and employment growth.
I'm seeing somewhat different numbers than you, but they show similar results- the percent of income earned by the top earners has risen, along with their share of the federal tax burden. I don't understand the "they don't pay their fair share" argument when their share of the tax burden is significantly higher than their share of the income. I really don't understand people rooting for them to fail since guess who will have to make up the difference if they do?
 
Obamacare waivers approaching 1500

The law that's so good we have to protect thousands of Americans from it...well, if you're a friend to the Obama administration you're protected....

The Health and Human Services Department granted 39 new waivers last month from part of the healthcare law, bringing the total to just shy of 1,500.

In September, HHS will stop the process of granting a new batch of one-year waivers at the end of each month. Companies have until Sept. 22 to file their initial application for a one-year reprieve and seek an extension to carry them through the next three years.

Department officials said they decided on the September cutoff because, by then, every company that thinks it needs a waiver would have had time to apply. The comparatively low number of approvals in June may back up that explanation. The 39 new waivers granted last month bring the total to 1,471.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he will introduce a bill next week to let every American apply for a waiver from the healthcare law.

"Each waiver demonstrates that the president’s health care law is a complete failure," Barrasso said in a statement.
 
More on Barasso's Obamacare waiver freedom act

“If the law worked well, companies and unions would not demand a way out of its expensive mandates. Each waiver demonstrates that the President’s health care law is a complete failure. The law continues to crush jobs, increase premiums and encourage government controlled health care,” Barrasso said in a written statement. “It’s not fair that a particular group of Americans, including union employees, don’t have to abide by the law. Millions of other Americans across the country deserve the same freedom,” he said.
 
You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".

 
You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".
I sincerely doubt most people think of "Obamacare" that way. If it is a pejorative term, it's because the legislation itself is unpopular.
 
You know Stat, every time you (or anyone else) uses the word "Obamacare" I stop reading right there. It's a pejorative term, no different, IMO, than calling the Tea Party "teabaggers".
That is not the reason, it is because this plan and its 1500987 exemptions are not defensible...
 
I need to change my vote to approve. I figured he'd do a lot of stuff I'm not a fan of, but never would have guessed he'd make himself look so stupid while doing so that there might be a chance he'd be gone after 4 years.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top