Barack Obama

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton,
Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43,
Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill.
Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes.
Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?

Well, if Bush left a "whopping deficit for Obama", just what is Obama leaving the next president?
Or all of us, as citizens, for that matter?
As Tracy CORRECTLY pointed out in another thread...

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with Republican congress: $339B deficit

Bush with Democratic congress: $704B deficit

Obama with Democratic congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit

I'm blaming Bush and the Republican congress for the $339B deficit.
The $704B deficit with the Democratic congress, not so much.
And I'm definitely blaming BO and the Democratic congress for the $2.7 trillion deficit.

Tell me where I am wrong?

[jimnaseum]

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster. It was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks, the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

Obama has proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget. Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office.

And even as Obama has pursued landmark health insurance reforms that will hold the insurance industry accountable and expand coverage to working Americans, he has insisted from the beginning that any reform legislation must not add to the federal deficit and must help reduce it over time. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation making its way through Congress upholds this principle. As the president has said, the federal budget is like an ocean liner, not a motor boat, and it will take time to redirect its course. But the course correction that was so badly needed after the previous administration has begun in earnest.

There's an old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

See, that's where you've already gone off the rails. But at least you used the right word to try and sneak one through.

When Bill Clinton left office, he did the exact same thing that ALL presidents are required do: namely, he submitted a 5 year PROJECTED budget report based on the economic indicators that HE (as current president) was basically GUESSING the way the economy would go, if Congress pursued his suggestions in the future.

The only problem for Clinton is that he basically guessed WRONG on pretty much everything across the board. In his 5 year projection, he stated (for example) that the boom "dot coms" that were currently blossoming at the time and making people overnight multi-millionaires would continue and grow the economy...when in fact the "dot com" bubble actually burst and NEVER lived up to Clinton's projections. Likewise Clinton predicted that energy costs would drop and thus trim the budget...except than the direct OPPOSITE happened and energy coasts literally SOARED, coupled by energy companies like Enron even going bankrupt due to financially fake book-keeping.

And before anyone on the Left tries to pull the old bullshit line about Bush being in the pocket of companies like Enron, keep it mind that it was UNDER CLINTON that Enron grew in size and doctored its books and went unchecked. Why? Because Clinton wanted to cite and incorporated their profit numbers as proof that his economic plan was working.

The crock of this being that during the 1980 presidential debates, Bush literally POINTED to the fact that far too many companies were doctoring their books...that far too many of Clinton's numbers were actually waaaaay off and misleading...which prompted an infamous historical exchange in the debates where Gore accused Bush of trying TO CREATE a recession by talking down the economy. Those on the Left love to conveniently forget that in 1980 Bush WARNED that a recession was looming, while Gore (and the running candidate) and Clinton said it was all nonsense and the economy was perfectly sound...

...At which point it turned out Bush was right, and we did enter a recession. And Bush was right again as companies like Enron went under. And for all the talk on the left how Bush was in the pocket of Enron, let the record show that it was BUSH and HIS justice department that went after Ken Lay and Enron, to throw them into jail and to expose the bookkeeping corruption that was going on.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

Which the Democrats ALSO continually voted for as well.
So your point? Or are you admitting the Dems have no clean hands as well?

As for Bush handing Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit after 8 years, given your indignation, how do you feel about Obama QUINTUPLING that amount in only ONE year?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

Nice try, but as a historical TRUTH that is actually a well-documented and proven FACT about Obama. The bottom line: in only ONE YEAR in office, Obama has now SPENT MORE THAN EVERY PRECEDING PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY COMBINED.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster.

Actually, it's NOT "widely accepted" anymore. In fact, just as many economists -- and even polls of the American people themselves -- now show that a majority of people feel Obama basically "scared" people into allowing him (and the Democrats in Congress) to break the national piggy bank and to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, by constantly labeling the crisis "the worst disaster since the Great Depression."

As many economists have noted -- including even people like Paul Krugman, noted LIBERAL economist, who of late has likewise turned on Obama -- how can you call it "the worst crisis since the great depression" when all it took was a one time cash infusion to right the system, and in only ONE YEAR the veru same banks Obama was claiming were on the verge of total collapse have not only paid their loan money back, but are now likewise posting RECORD PROFITS?

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

It was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks....

You're right. So congratulations on proving my point. Even if you DO want to call it "the worst crisis since the Great Depresssion", then the CREDIT for saving the banks and re-stabilizing the system should NOT go to Obama, but should actually belong to -- yes -- George Bush!

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

...the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

I call bullshit on that one. It's not that Obama CUT the cost by 2/3 through any stewardship. And the idea that ANYTHING Obama does can be called transparent is laughable. The reason there was a savings is because they never NEEDED to spend all the allocated money -- which dovetails right back into my point above, that the banks righted themselves to a large degree and are now even back to posting profits.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

He (Obama) has insisted from the beginning that any (health care) reform legislation must not add to the federal deficit and must help reduce it over time. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation making its way through Congress upholds this principle.

Not true at all. What the CBO report states is that it would INITIALLY save money, but that only a mere 5 years out costs start to rise -- and 10 years out the program is running a huge deficit, nearly a whopping $2 trillion.

In fact, even the CBO's assertion that there will be some initial savings were highly dubious and could only be derived through Enron-like doctoring of the books, which EVEN THE CBO ACKNOWLEDGED IN THEIR REPORT.

Basically, to pay for a $1 trillion health care plan, Obama simply CLAIMED he would come up with $500 billion of that through Medicare cuts (in other words, that's how he'd literally find HALF of the money for his progam) -- and yet to this day O-dumba (and the Democrats) still can't actually name where these so-called cuts are going to come from. Instead, they just SAID they'd magically find HALF A TRILLION in savings, and then decided to add that money -- still sight unseen -- into the pile.

Tell you what.
I can play the Democratic game of creative accounting too.
Here's how it works...

I have bills to pay... I need to save money this year... but hey, no problem!
Since I work in Hollywood, I'm SURE that I'm gonna sell a $1 MILLION screenplay this year.
I'm SURE things will break my way the best way imaginable!

What's that? You want to know if I have a $1 million offer on the table now?
Uh...no...I don't. But, hey, I'm thinking positive, and that's all that counts -- right?
So since I'm SURE it's gonna happen, I'm just gonna go ahead
and add that million bucks into my bank account, BEFORE I've even made it.

WOW! LOOK AT THAT!
Once I toss a mythical million dollars into my bank account, I have no more debt!
Wow, that sure was easy to balance my check book.
Guess I won't have to worry about any bills this year after all!

And, yes, that's EXACTLY how Obama and the Democrats did their health care reform math...

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, if Bush left a "whopping deficit for Obama", just what is Obama leaving the next president?
Or all of us, as citizens, for that matter?
As Tracy CORRECTLY pointed out in another thread...

C-MIN:

Tracy is correct and she just happens to agree with you? I'm not going to engage with you, because I don't want to read a short story.

Conse 'Pubs have the POV that any pol who isn't
a Conse 'Pub will FAIL, and a Conse 'Pub who fails isn't Conse enough. Can it be any more narrow that? Make it short or don't reply.


TAL

[jimnaseum]

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

That's so easy: TAX CUTS.

The best way to buy a vote legally.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber. You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

What else is his greatest achievement from my perspective? Initiating the Moon/Mars exploration program at Nasa. It's been 38 years since we've been beyond low Earth orbit and there's still several years to go, but we're finally on track.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber......

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by ila

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

It is more of Clintons fault than anything. When he was in office, he mandated that on any military installation, any weapon not in use for training be locked up, effectively disarming everyone on base. Before that, people could carry sidearms on base. Had another troop been armed, alot less people would have been hurt and the Major would have had a couple more orifices to breathe out of. That and Clintons EO policies which if you aren't "tolerant" towards other people's feelings or background, could get you canned or possibly sent to Leavenworth. Had anyone protested or questioned the Major's recent evangelical and radical positions, odds are, he could have complained about them being "racist" or "xenophobic" and ruined that persons career.


Feel free to blame "Bubba" for Ft. Hood.

[Talvenada]

ILA:

We south of the border have an interesting dynamic of debate: honest and political. In an honest debate you deal in only facts or bluffs. In a political debate a Conse 'Pub (conse-rvative re-pub-lican) can claim that Obama is NOT an American, and that is an EQUAL opinion.

Using that yardstick, any attack that occurred on American soil is due to Clinton or Obama. Conse 'Pubs feel insulted when they are mocked, and they feel outrage over Obama on a daily basis for what he last did or will do or is doing. We used to have this only during election time, we now have it every day, and it used to be called silly season.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

Thank you I blame Obama indirectly. He is the one who sets the tone of political correctness that we can't allow to get in the way of security. See here.

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11!

What? I didn't blame Gore for 9/11. I said Gore antics delayed Bush's transition.

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy--"It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics."

The implication of this statement is that if Bush had had more time, he could have prevented 9/11. This is total BS!

How? Considering that Bush had a certain amount of time to work on the Al Qaeda problem, and that it progressed to the point that he signed an order for military action on September 10th. Obviously if he started working on the problem sooner, he would have initiated military action sooner. When you look at the fact that Bush was delayed in receiving funds to start his administration, and putting together his cabinet because of the contested election, you have to realize that that delayed any action against Al Qaeda. Or am I a Time Lord and therefore the only one able to see such complexities in SpaceTime?

Originally Posted by NyTimes

Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act.

Yes, they did warn Bush. But later than they would have if Bush had been given the win earlier. Also, Bush was unable to assemble a team to act on the information. Also remember who the source is. Bill Clinton does not want to look like they dropped the ball. But if they had such urgent warnings, why didn't they act on it? Why didn't they at least hand Bush their draft of a plan of attack?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by ila

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

The Ft. Hood shooter had a questionable record. First he lied on his papers to get into the Army (under nationality he listed palestinian, when he was born and raised in Virginia), he repeatedly stated that he admired the suicide bombers, when he interned at Walter Reed he was trying to convert his patients and other staff to islam, and he was already under investigation for posting on terrorist websites. Every time someone raised a concern about him, it was ignored.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber. You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

What else is his greatest achievement from my perspective? Initiating the Moon/Mars exploration program at Nasa. It's been 38 years since we've been beyond low Earth orbit and there's still several years to go, but we're finally on track.

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11!

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11!

Read it again Mr. randolph. She said nothing of the like.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Read it again Mr. randolph. She said nothing of the like.

Tracy--"It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics."

The implication of this statement is that if Bush had had more time, he could have prevented 9/11. This is total BS!

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11!

RANDY:

Didn't you know that according to Dana Perino, there were no domestic attacks on Bush's term.

St. Rudy of 9-11 said there were no attacks under Bush and 1 under Obama, but then his staff changed it to after 9-11. He forgot, no doubt. Or he meant to say, or he meant.

Mary Matilin said Bush inherited 9-11.

We were attacked under Clinton & Obama, while Bush-Cheney kept us safe.

Rush Limbaugh blamed Obama for the economy in 9/08, and like Palin said about us: Quit making things up.


You and I have opinions, and so do they. One of them on this board feels Obama is not an American. He's an illegal alien who plotted his way into office. and fooled all but a few Conse 'Pubs. He needs to be arrested and imprisoned. Now, if I was a rich Conse 'Pub, I'd buy a majority in the house and senate to impeach and convict Obama after the 11/4/10 election. Just buy what you need to convict and imprison Obama for deliberately trying to ruin the country, like Coulter knows for a fact. Conse 'Pubs on The SC have evened the playing field that was unfair to Conse 'Pubs, no doubt.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

1) The attack would have happened regardless of who was in office. They were already here so the finding of the terrorists would have been a job for our alphabet agencies. That shows failure of our security measures and our policies which were emplaced by Clinton who knew about the threat and brushed it aside.

2) He recognized a threat and did not casually blow it off. Could he have found the terrorists had his order been signed earlier? Probably not. Our measures are more defensive and reactive in nature. Bush actually had an offensive mindset and took the fight to them rather than bending over and taking it in the ass.

3) I guarantee you that if Gore won, he would blow off the threat of Al-Qaeda just like his predecessor and once we were attacked, he would try to engage in "peaceful dialogue" and "empathy" or "understanding" with Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile his little tip-toeing would present the country as spineless and invite even more attacks against us.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

1) The attack would have happened regardless of who was in office. They were already here so the finding of the terrorists would have been a job for our alphabet agencies. That shows failure of our security measures and our policies which were emplaced by Clinton who knew about the threat and brushed it aside.

2) He recognized a threat and did not casually blow it off. Could he have found the terrorists had his order been signed earlier? Probably not. Our measures are more defensive and reactive in nature. Bush actually had an offensive mindset and took the fight to them rather than bending over and taking it in the ass.

3) I guarantee you that if Gore won, he would blow off the threat of Al-Qaeda just like his predecessor and once we were attacked, he would try to engage in "peaceful dialogue" and "empathy" or "understanding" with Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile his little tip-toeing would present the country as spineless and invite even more attacks against us.

This was from the NY Times, 2004

Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act. They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.
One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.
At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed.
''It was very explicit,'' Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. ''Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in.'' Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser.

You guys seem to have rather short memories.

[jimnaseum]

President Clinton took the fight to Bin Laden when he dropped a cruise missile in his camp in August '98. Missed him by two hours. Republicans called this a publicity stunt to divert attention from Monica Lewinski. It was actually this attack that probably prompted 9-11.