Test for Obama as Deficit Stays Over $1 Trillion

[August]

Pretty scary stuff. No comment from the forum Obamanoids?

But the larger point concerns executive leadership.Every President "inherits" a government that was built over generations, which he chooses to change, or not to change, to suit his priorities. Mr. Obama chose to see the government he inherited and grow it faster than any President since LBJ.

The pre-eminent political question now is whether to reform the government we have to make it affordable going forward, or to keep growing the government and raise taxes to finance it, if that is even possible.


Mr. Obama favors the second option, though he pretends he can merely tax the rich to do it. Nobody who has looked honestly at the numbers believes that—not his own Simpson-Bowles commission and not the Congressional "super committee" he sanctioned but then worked to undermine.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by August

Pretty scary stuff. No comment from the forum Obamanoids?

A lot of blame for this mess falls at the feet of the Republicans too August, your selective memory is still working just fine!

" In 2005, the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a GSE reform bill (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act) which "would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership". [51] However, the Bush administration opposed the bill and it died in the Senate. Of the bill and its reception by the Bush White House, Ohio Republican Mike Oxley (the bill's author) said: "The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis. All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this. What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute." [52] The Bush economic policy regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac changed during the economic downturn of 2008, culminating in the federal takeover of the two largest lenders in the mortgage market. Further economic challenges have resulted in the Bush administration attempting an economic intervention, through a requested $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street investment houses"

"The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.3% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[59] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed"

'The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007'

And during the Bush Administration, the size of the Federal Governent grew by 42%

I guess Republican don't walk on water either do they!

[soopaman2]

But the Kenyan....He uhh... He did uh.....

You know he is a mooslim?

A kenyan Mooslim, lemme see dat birf certificate.

Ohh, nice birth certifiicate, it's still fake, I believe in chemtrails and planet Niburu, that is gonna crash into us.

Did I mention he is the same religion as da guys who messed up the World Trade Center.
Huh? We have to hate him, cuz he is moozlim! And Kenyan, africans are uhh, worthless to us amirite...High 5 ya'll

Yeah, people take you all seriously.

Obama may not be the best we can give, but it is the best we have at the time. (imho of course)



Yes it is sad...

Chris Christie/Rick Perry 2016

(now those 2 are what real moderate Republicans look like)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Rick Perry 2016

(now those 2 are what real moderate Republicans look like)

You have got to be freaking kidding me.

[Oberon]

Perry? Moderate? Errr...

http://politicsontoast.com/2012/01/1...an-candidates/

This has a reasonable list, and I think Chris Christie should be the name on the GOPs lips come 2016. He seems to be more moderate than the current batch, and yet still fiscally conservative, he would appeal to those who have been turned off by the Hawks and the heavy right-wingers.
I can't see Romney winning this year, he just doesn't have the clout behind him that Obama still has, even after four years of doing...well...very little, and the Republican party itself needs a shake-up and a re-evaluation of its image. It has become far too easy to pass most Republican members off as disjointed with the current American populace and stuck in a mentality of the past. War weariness probably hasn't helped this, and neither has the economic crisis. Obama has a good PR machine behind him, and he can spin a crowd up, that's part of being a good president, is being able to have enough charisma that people will buy what you're selling. The other part is actually having something to sell, and in this case Barry hasn't really got that, but he's good at making out that he has. The problem with the GOP at the moment is that they have no real idea what they're selling and how to sell it, and so no-one is buying it. So to speak.
That's this traditionally center-left UKers view anyway...who voted for the Liberal Democrats...so what the hell do I know about politics?

[STEED]

I see you guys are now in debt to $16 Trillion and rising, as for the Fed's QE3 that is not the way forward, the effect on the Dollar is weakening it. Too be honest the whole world is heading for melt down.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by STEED

I see you guys are now in debt to $16 Trillion and rising, as for the Fed's QE3 that is not the way forward, the effect on the Dollar is weakening it. Too be honest the whole world is heading for melt down.

Yeah I agree, And I think we have already passed the point of no return to fix the damn problem. Debt has the not just America, but the entire world by the balls.

I figure that either

a) Politicians are increadibly stupid because they think they can borrow and print cheap money forever as part of a sustainable model (when 8th grade maths says they cant)

b) they are incompetent because they cant see away to dig them selves out of this hole and they are afraid they will be punished by voters for trying.

c) They are increadibly smart and evil , have no intention of paying it back and are just exploiting a free lunch (or ten) while they can - And when its hits the fan, they will use what military might they have to say "yeah? watcha gonna do about it?".

In truth its probably a combination of all three. But there is no way anyone can justify such outragous debt mountains.

[August]

Originally Posted by eddie

I guess Republican don't walk on water either do they!

They most certainly do not, but then again I never said that they did. However like the article says a President inherits a creation of all his predecessors. He chooses the direction he want's to point it during his term on watch. So far Obama has chosen to continue to grow the government. You can't deny it. How many new federal agencies are going to be created as a part of Obamacare? 150 or so?

I want him to shrink the Federal government not grow it. I don't want him to cut vital services like my states legislature does when they are trying to justify a tax increase. You know, like how they'll announce they had to fire a dozen cops or teachers, instead of the two fatcat directors who don't do anything but go to "planning meetings" in Aruba and Las Vegas. Oh no we need them to manage things. The three multimillion dollar feasibility studies we had W E Fleeceum and Associates do for us last year proved it.

The problem is as I see it we pay our income taxes backwards. We should be paying the highest percentage of income taxes to our state, then maybe 5% of that to the Feds for common things like national security and interstate highways and national parks.

Instead the lions share of tax revenue from the whole country goes way off to Washington only to have a small portion of it, maybe, doled back to us with a ton of strings attached and the rest squandered away in various pork projects and other costly boondoggles. It's a very inefficient and gaffe prone method of managing our affairs.

Now of the two candidates only Romney has shown that he can fix financial messes which I think we can all agree is the number one job that we need the next administration, whoever it is, to do. I just don't see a reelected but now lame duck Obama administration getting that job done.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

They most certainly do not, but then again I never said that they did. However like the article says a President inherits a creation of all his predecessors. He chooses the direction he want's to point it during his term on watch. So far Obama has chosen to continue to grow the government. You can't deny it. How many new federal agencies are going to be created as a part of Obamacare? 150 or so?

I want him to shrink the Federal government not grow it. I don't want him to cut vital services like my states legislature does when they are trying to justify a tax increase. You know, like how they'll announce they had to fire a dozen cops or teachers, instead of the two fatcat directors who don't do anything but go to "planning meetings" in Aruba and Las Vegas. Oh no we need them to manage things. The three multimillion dollar feasibility studies we had W E Fleeceum and Associates do for us last year proved it.

The problem is as I see it we pay our income taxes backwards. We should be paying the highest percentage of income taxes to our state, then maybe 5% of that to the Feds for common things like national security and interstate highways and national parks.

Instead the lions share of tax revenue from the whole country goes way off to Washington only to have a small portion of it, maybe, doled back to us with a ton of strings attached and the rest squandered away in various pork projects and other costly boondoggles. It's a very inefficient and gaffe prone method of managing our affairs.

Now of the two candidates only Romney has shown that he can fix financial messes which I think we can all agree is the number one job that we need the next administration, whoever it is, to do. I just don't see a reelected but now lame duck Obama administration getting that job done.

I really like paying most my taxes to our state.

As much as we try to hide it, our country was based on states rights.

We are more of a constitutional confederacy, than a constitutional republic.

What is great for NJ, is not good for Mass, and vice versa.

Regardless of the outcome, I will respect the decisions made.

But what is our guarantee that we are not just trading names, for the same ol stuff?

But I will respect Romney, as I do Obama if he wins. I wish whoever wins the best, because we as citizens deserve the best.

I only hope the other side ( not so much you, August) can do the same if Obama wins, which I truly doubt.

You have to admit, there was alot of pre-emptive hostility towards Obama. (even before he did anything/and/or nothing)

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I really like paying most my taxes to our state.

As much as we try to hide it, our country was based on states rights.

We are more of a constitutional confederacy, than a constitutional republic.

What is great for NJ, is not good for Mass, and vice versa.

Regardless of the outcome, I will respect the decisions made.

But what is our guarantee that we are not just trading names, for the same ol stuff?

But I will respect Romney, as I do Obama if he wins. I wish whoever wins the best, because we as citizens deserve the best.

I only hope the other side ( not so much you, August) can do the same if Obama wins, which I truly doubt.

You have to admit, there was alot of pre-emptive hostility towards Obama. (even before he did anything/and/or nothing)

More than the hostility generated towards George Bush? Seems pretty similar in volume and intensity to me. Like you I have my doubts about the other side too and maybe we are just trading names but it takes them some time to get entrenched so swapping them out every 4 years seems to me like a good practice in general.

I think this one has poisoned the well so much with the opposition during the past 4 years that reelecting him will only perpetuate the stalemate at least until he pain hits for what the health care law is all going to cost then he's going to be more lame duck than Bush was in his second term regardless of who controls congress.