Obama General Discussion II - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-11-2010, 11:53 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and yet, Rush has millions of listeners and is the leader of the Republican Party. seems like his listeners, and the GOP, give him a pass on his well-documented racism.
Of course you compare two preeminent senate Democrats to a radio talk show host because the more apropos comparison of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Senate Majority Leader Lott and Joe Biden to George Allen would prove my point.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 09:57 AM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Of course you compare two preeminent senate Democrats to a radio talk show host because the more apropos comparison of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Senate Majority Leader Lott and Joe Biden to George Allen would prove my point.

first, Rush is as important as any other Republican, and he's vastly more popular than any of the above elected officials, so sympathy for racism is broadly widespread among conservatives. they've been offering a safe haven for racists since at least the Civil Rights Movement, and will likely continue to do so as it becomes increasingly impossible for minorities to consider voting for the GOP due to their policies.

there is, however, a gulf of difference between "Macaca" -- a clear racial slur -- made by a man with a very checkered "southern pride" past and a dog named Sambo and who thinks the word "Jewish" is an insult, and two older white men making verbal faux pas.

i will say, however, that the GOP -- and even GWB -- did a very good job denouncing (eventually) Trent Lott's advocation for a racially segregated society.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-13-2010, 10:53 AM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Tue Jul 13, 12:58 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 60 percent of American voters say they lack faith in President Barack Obama, according to a public opinion poll published on Tuesday.

The results of the Washington Post/ABC News poll are a reversal of what voters said at the start of Obama's presidency 18 months ago when about 60 percent expressed confidence in his decision making.

Confidence in Obama is at a new low but the poll found that his numbers are still higher than lawmakers of either major party four months ahead of the November congressional elections.

Asked how much confidence they have in Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future, 58 percent of respondents said "just some" or "none."

Sixty-eight percent expressed the same sentiments about Democrats in Congress and 72 percent said the same of Republicans.

The Post said problems in the housing industry, sluggish job growth and other economic issues may have taken a toll on Obama's approval rating.

Just 43 percent of all Americans, including a third of Democrats, now say they approve of the job Obama is doing on the economy, while 54 percent disapprove.

The survey also found wide anti-incumbent sentiment with 62 percent of voters saying they were not inclined to support their current representative.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs in the November 2 election as well as 36 of the 100 Senate seats.

Democrats now control both houses of Congress, but a slight majority of those polled said they would prefer to have Republicans in control to serve as a check on Obama's policies.

The poll of 1,288 people was conducted July 7-11 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 07-13-2010, 01:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,572
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Serve as a check on Obama's policies? He can barely get anything passed with his own party!!!!

Republicans have been doing a great job of destroying or modifying every bill that comes through with scare tatics and just plain old bullshit.

And yes i realize that the Dems would be doing the same exact thing if a R was president....although you could argue they wouldn't because they're not as organzied as the republican party.

I have zero faith in any party or any politician. What a fucking mess we are in, and all we can do is argue.
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 07-13-2010, 03:04 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
it's tough out there, and bad news (oil spills, Afghanistan, slow job growth) has been plaguing us all summer. Obama has done some very difficult legislative things -- especially health care, but also the much-needed stimulus, and he's now almost there on banking reform -- and one could argue whether or not he should have only focused on jobs/jobs/jobs, but he may have calculated that he wouldn't have a democratic-controlled congress/senate after 2010 and chose to go that route while he could.

long story short, the crisis of confidence and his lukewarm polling numbers aren't at all surprising.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-14-2010, 03:48 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's a sole nut job that has been ordered to stay away from polling sites in the future. What is interesting is this would NOT be a non-story if...

...a clear case of a lone white racist intimidating black voters had been dropped by the Bush Attorney General.

...or an employee of the Bush Administration's DOJ quit his job and testified he was told "The Department will not pursue voting rights cases against 'black' victims."

One can only imagine.

so, picking this back up again for a moment, there's a guest-post on Sullivan's blog (a generally conservative poster, though more of the Frum-type than the Malkin-type) that so perfectly captures what's wrong with this that i can't not post it. you are absolutely correct that it's a non-story because there's one racist idiot on the streets of Philly in 2008 who swung a nightclub at some people outside a polling booth.

however, you also touch on *why* the right-wing mainstream media need this to be a story. regard:


Quote:
Megyn Kelly's minstrel show
14 JUL 2010 03:00 PM

by Dave Weigel

I don't really get a chance to watch TV in Unalaska, and the one thing I miss is Megyn Kelly of Fox News. The last week or so of her work -- her one woman crusade against the New Black Panther Party -- has been truly riveting television. Kelly widens her eyes in a way that bespeaks both horror and anger at the subject she's reporting on. "Shocking new video," she'll say, introducing a clip of the Panthers acting like idiots and yelling about "crackers" at a Philadelphia street festival. "We have a DOJ whistleblower alleging there is a discriminatory policy at the DOJ voting rights section," she'll say, "and no one seems to give a darn." It's the "darn" that ties this together -- she's not just a journalist, she's a concerned citizen who has to bring you this story before it's. Too. Late.

The people who grab these videos for the web use the same cliches to title them. "Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Kirsten Powers on New Black Panther Case" says one of them; "Megyn Kelly schools lib pundit over New Black Panthers Party." But why is she doing so many stories on the Panthers? It's because Fox News uses the Panthers the way that Phil Donohue used to use the KKK or G.G. Allin. They're good on TV. The difference between the Panthers and other freakish groups that look good on the air, of course, is that that they threaten white people.

How often does Fox bring on the Panthers, or talk about them? A Lexis-Nexis search finds 68 mentions of "Malik Zulu Shabazz," a leader of the NBPP. The majority are appearances on Fox News, where Shabazz is repeatedly brought on to act as a foolish, anti-Semitic punching bag. Among the segment titles: "Professor's Comments on Whites Stir Controversy" and "Black Panthers Take a Stand on Duke Rape Case." Here's one example of a Shabazz appearance during the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Fox was the only network to book him; Sean Hannity conducted the interview.

Quote:
HANNITY: Malik Zulu Shabazz joins us right now. Malik, welcome back to the program. Now, we didn't show the one time I think you called me a devil on the air. So I'm going and try to start off and see if we can have a civil dialogue here tonight. You said I have nothing but respect for and his pastor. Is there nothing that the pastor said that you disagree with?

SHABAZZ: I understand that he comes from the black church tradition. And in the church they study Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt. And they believe that those nations in the church. Both the black church and white evangelicals believe powerful nations in the past that have done evil to their slaves will be condemned by God. So this is not just Jeremiah Wright. It's a regular church teaching. Same teaching that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do the same teaching.

HANNITY: Do you believe G.D. [God damn] America? Is that your view?

SHABAZZ: I think that's too simplistic of a question.

HANNITY: That's not simplistic, it's the right question because these are the words of Jeremiah Wright.
This isn't journalism. No one cares what the NBPP thinks about anything. This is minstrelsy, with a fringe moron set up like a bowling pin for Hannity to knock down. And that's the role the NBPP plays on Fox, frequently.

Kelly's obsession with the current NBPP controversy is something else, though. No one disputes that two members of the Panthers lurked outside of a heavily black, Democratic polling place in Philadelphia on election day 2008, and no one thinks this was a smart or legal thing for them to do. Police were called to the scene to disperse them, and King Samir Shabazz, who was filmed holding (though not using) a nightstick, lost the right to be a poll-watcher for the next election cycle. It was the only recorded incident like this in the nation; nearly two years later, no voter has come forward and said he or she was prevented from voting by the Panthers. And in his publicity tour to attack the DOJ over the Panther case -- a second-rate case against a fifth-rate hate group -- J. Christian Adams has been unable to name any case in which the DOJ was presented with a crime committed by black people and chose not to prosecute it.

So why obsess over the Panthers? Is it turnabout for the way that liberals elevate the craziest tea party activists, or the way they call them racist? Because it's obviously not a search for justice or a muckraking effort to discover reverse racism in the DOJ. If this is an effort to make sure that King Samir Shabazz is prosecuted for intimidating voters, why not try to find some voters he intimidated? Why, instead, as Kelly and Glenn Beck have opted to do, show video of the Shabazz yelling about "crackers" at a street fair before the election? No one disputes that he hates white people -- just watch one of the tapes from the times Fox News invited his colleagues on to discuss how they hate white people.

One of the more jarring passages in Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland" is his recounting of a popular myth that went around Iowa in 1966, the year of the conservative backlash against the Great Society. The myth was that black gang members on motorcycles were going to head from Chicago to ransack Des Moines. Reading this in 2008, it sounded preposterous, the kind of thing that no one could believe in the country that was about to elect Barack Obama. But Kelly, under the guise of journalism, is working to create a rumor like this in 2010. Watch her broadcasts and you become convinced that the New Black Panthers are a powerful group that hate white people and operate under the protection of Eric Holder's DOJ. That "Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Kirsten Powers" video that I mentioned begins with her introducing a clip of a town hall meeting with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Ca.) in which he gets an angry question about whether the DOJ has a policy of not prosecuting African-Americans.

"I am extremely sure that we do not have a policy at the Department of Justice of never prosecuting a black defendent."

The crowd rises up. "Yes you do!" shouts one voter. When Sherman says he doesn't know much about the Panther case, the crowd erupts in boos. They've been driven to fear and distrust of their DOJ by round-the-clock videos of one racist idiot brandishing a nightstick for a couple hours in 2008.

Congratulations, Megyn.


YouTube - Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Kirsten Powers on New Black Panther Case



i post this in it's entirety because, 1) i don't have the time to write it up myself, and 2) it's so dead-on.

this is how democracy dies.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-16-2010, 03:16 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Here's the web site

Mr. President, Play Golf or Save the Gulf?



(CNN) -- President Obama and his family leave Friday for a weekend getaway to Maine, but along with a little rest and relaxation comes criticism that the president is taking it easy with the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis in a critical phase.

The Obamas plan to spend the weekend on Mount Desert Island, home of Acadia National Park. The trip marks the president's third vacation since the oil disaster began in April.

The Republican National Committee launched a website blasting what it considers Obama's "leisure activities or missteps" during the oil disaster, like playing golf, attending concerts and vacationing in Asheville, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; and now Maine.

Obama has also faced criticism for scheduling a trip up north, instead of vacationing in the Gulf, as he advised other Americans to do.

"Presidents are certainly entitled to vacation, just like everybody else, but there is a fine line as to when presidents should do it, what they should and where they should do it," said Brad Blakeman, a former member of President George W. Bush's senior staff and the deputy assistant for appointments and scheduling.

"Presidents have to be cognizant of the fact that everything they do is going to be scrutinized," said Blakeman, who also is a professor for Georgetown University's Semester in Washington program.

Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said the Republican criticism is "galling," considering Bush's frequent trips to Camp David and his home in Crawford, Texas.

"Barack Obama is working as hard as any president that we've had in recent history and certainly harder than the most immediate previous president," he said.

CBS's Mark Knoller, who keeps track of presidents' comings and goings, calculated that Bush spent all or part of 977 days at Camp David or in Texas during his two terms.

Blakeman noted that visits to those locations were working trips and not getaways. Bush's staff would travel with him, and work would continue as usual. The Crawford ranch was known as the "Western White House" because of the infrastructure there.

As for calls that Obama should vacation in the Gulf, Simmons said, "Where he chooses to take his days off should really be up to him. We don't want to get into a situation where the president is making familial vacation decisions based upon polling or political maneuvers."

Scott Stanzel, Bush's deputy press secretary who often traveled with the president when he was away from the White House, said that changing locations provided a good opportunity to escape the hustle and bustle of Washington.

"President Bush, on the weekends, would often go to Camp David because the size of the bubble you are in expands, so you can go out for a walk or bike ride without having to arrange security detail," he said.

Stanzel was in Crawford with Bush for a number of crises that could not have been planned for, like the conviction of Saddam Hussein, the death of President Ford and the assassination of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto.

Bush was notified of Bhutto's death immediately and delivered a statement to the press pool. "It would have almost been like we were at the White House in terms of the teams that would convene and talk about the issues surrounding that assassination," Stanzel said.

The problem for Obama, Stanzel said, is the visuals that could come out of his trip. A picture of Obama playing golf alongside images from the Gulf could send a negative message.

Paul Begala, a CNN contributor and former adviser to President Clinton, said that vacationing or not, "The president is the president wherever he is.

"I thought it was silly when people attacked Bush for going on vacation, so I'll be consistent and say it's silly when people attack President Obama for going on vacation," he said.

"Of all of the concerns that Americans may have, they do not need to worry whether President Obama is a hard-working man. They may agree or disagree with his policies, but there is just no doubt that the guy is busting his rear end."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 07-16-2010, 03:50 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 12:52 PM
^I'll echo Begala. I always thought it was ridiculous when people complained about Bush exercising too much or going to bed too early. I'm almost sure there was a video of Bush on the golf course that was meant to suggest he wasn't "on the job."

What a lot of crap. The sad truth is that this kind of nonsense really does come from both sides, depending on who is in the White House.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-16-2010, 06:07 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Actually, vacation and golf all you want Mr President. Stay in recess all year Congress.

The National Debt Clock needs a breather.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-16-2010, 10:49 PM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Obama passes another major piece of legislation, fulfills more campaign promises, has already accomplished more in 18 months than many 2-term presidents.

Quote:
Obama Pushes Agenda, Despite Political Risks

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — If passage of the financial regulatory overhaul on Thursday proves anything about President Obama, it is this: He knows how to push big bills through a balky Congress.

But Mr. Obama’s legislative success poses a paradox: while he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters at a time of economic distress, and soon may be forced to scale back his ambitions.

The financial regulatory bill is the final piece of a legislative hat trick that also included the stimulus bill and the landmark new health care law. Over the last 18 months, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have made considerable inroads in passing what could be the most ambitious agenda in decades.

Mr. Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: he has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers.

But as he has done so, the political context has changed around him. Today, with unemployment remaining persistently near double digits despite the scale of the stimulus program and the BP oil spill having raised questions about his administration’s competence, Mr. Obama’s signature legislation is providing ammunition to conservatives who argue that government is the problem, not the solution.

What Mr. Obama and his allies portray as progressive, activist government has been framed by his opponents as overreaching and profligate when it comes to the economy.

Even before the November elections, the White House is being forced to recalibrate. This week, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats decided to press ahead with a scaled-back energy bill, having concluded after months of gridlock that the sweeping measure they once envisioned simply would not pass. It is a tactic that the president will likely have to employ more and more after the November elections, when Democrats will almost certainly lose seats — and may even lose control of the House or Senate.

“They clearly made a decision that political capital was something that should be used, not saved,” said Steven Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who worked for years as a senior leadership aide on Capitol Hill. “The reality is, he talked before the election about what he wanted to do, and he’s done it. He didn’t trim his sails, he didn’t change his philosophy. He didn’t compromise. The test will come in the fall: can he and Democrats in Congress make the case to the American people that what he did was the right thing to do?”

That is a difficult case to make, though Mr. Obama is trying. The latest CBS News poll found that while a majority of Americans supported increasing regulations on banks and financial institutions, nearly three-quarters said Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill had not improved the economy, and only a little more than a third approved of the health care law.

“You know, sometimes these pundits, they can’t figure me out,” the president said last week, campaigning in Kansas City, Mo., for the Democratic Senate candidate there. “They say, ‘Well, why is he doing that?’ That doesn’t poll well. Well, I’ve got my own pollsters, I know it doesn’t poll well. But it’s the right thing to do for America.”

It is an argument that sounds eerily similar to the one Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made to justify an unpopular war in Iraq as he watched his own poll numbers sink lower. Mr. Bush and his aides often felt they could not catch a break; when the economy was humming along — or at least seemed to be humming along — the Bush White House never got credit for it, because the public was so upset about the war.

In Mr. Obama’s case, people are up in arms over the economy. Just 40 percent of Americans now approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, the CBS News poll found. More than half said he was spending too little time on the economy. In one of the most striking findings, nearly two-thirds said the president’s economic policies had no effect on them personally — just 13 percent said they had helped them.

“Voters don’t have a checklist that they tick off, of what an elected official promised and then delivered,” said Charlie Cook, the editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter that tracks Congressional races. “They were enormously frustrated last year by the fixation on health care when they wanted a focus on the economy, with Democrats losing the messaging fight on whether what they did was right and effective or not.”

Part of the problem for Mr. Obama is that he came to Washington vowing to change the partisan tone in the capital, something he has thus far been unable to do. Just three Senate Republicans voted for the financial regulatory bill on Thursday, continuing a pattern that began early in Mr. Obama’s presidency when just three Republicans joined him on the stimulus bill.

At this point, relations between the president and the opposing party are no better than they were when Mr. Bush left office. Within hours of the bill’s passage on Thursday, Democrats including Mr. Obama were reminding voters that the House Republican leader, Representative John Boehner of Ohio, had called for its repeal. As Mr. Obama traveled to Michigan on Thursday to promote his economic policies, Mr. Boehner accused him of “a bunch of fuzzy math.”

If Republicans reclaim control of the House, the Senate or both, Mr. Obama will find himself in a situation similar to that of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who lost control of the House in 1994 in a historic realignment. Mr. Clinton responded by steering toward the center, searching for issues on which he could find Republicans to cooperate.

If Mr. Obama’s new tack on the energy bill is any guide, he may be willing to refashion himself as a pragmatist who will compromise in exchange for smaller victories. The coming elections may answer the question of how far the president, having had a taste of big things, is willing to bend.

“It could be a prescription for real gridlock, or it could be a prescription for great compromise,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist, “and I don’t think we know the answer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/bu...gewanted=print

you can like the legislation or not, but make no mistake, Obama is no Jimmy Carter.

even those who disagree with Obama agree on this:

Quote:
Obama's next act
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 16, 2010; A19

In the political marketplace, there's now a run on Obama shares. The left is disappointed with the president. Independents are abandoning him in droves. And the right is already dancing on his political grave, salivating about November when, his own press secretary admitted Sunday, Democrats might lose the House.

I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.

Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.


Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday. Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), "storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus."

Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that's not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.

But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.

These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.

The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture. Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.

Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.


That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.

Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.

The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...504593_pf.html
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-16-2010, 10:50 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually, vacation and golf all you want Mr President. Stay in recess all year Congress.

The National Debt Clock needs a breather.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


INDY: please.

the national debt exploded under BUSH and the GOP CONGRESS from 2001-2006, and also during the 1980s under REAGAN.

the republicans DO NOT care about deficits. the ONLY care about tax cuts.

please point to any evidence that Republicans care about deficits and have successfully pursued policies that have reduced the deficit.

they ONLY care about lowering taxes.

they do not care about debt.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-17-2010, 11:39 AM   #87
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
INDY: please.

the national debt exploded under BUSH and the GOP CONGRESS from 2001-2006, and also during the 1980s under REAGAN.

the republicans DO NOT care about deficits. the ONLY care about tax cuts.

please point to any evidence that Republicans care about deficits and have successfully pursued policies that have reduced the deficit.

they ONLY care about lowering taxes.

they do not care about debt.
Oh boy! Time for a fact check!

National debt as a percentage of GDP from 2001 through 2006

2001 56.46%
2002 58.52%
2003 60.88%
2004 62.18%
2005 62.77%
2006 63.49%

Thats a 12% increase in the national debt over a 6 year period. An Explosion? I think not. In fact, it looks well mananged considering the country went through the 2001 recession, the 2001 terrorist attack destroying the World Trade Center and murdering 3,000 people, and the start of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The national debt as a percentage of GDP under Obama has been:

2009 83.29%
2010 94.27% projected

If the 2010 projected numbers prove correct, it will be an 11% increase in debt as a percentage of GDP in just one year.



Quote:
please point to any evidence that Republicans care about deficits and have successfully pursued policies that have reduced the deficit.
Reduction of the debt as a percentage of GDP under IKE:

1953 70.15%
1954 71.31%
1955 66.16%
1956 62.36%
1957 58.67%
1958 59.15%
1959 56.20%
1960 54.39%



Average national debt as a percentage of GDP under Clinton, Bush, and Obama

Clinton 63.93%
Bush 62.18%
Obama 88.78%
-
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2010, 02:10 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,878
Local Time: 12:52 PM
I'm going out on a limb and guessing STING posted some bullshit with averages that is statistically ingenuous and makes Bush look better than he is.

I love ignoring him.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 07-17-2010, 02:34 PM   #89
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I'm going out on a limb and guessing STING posted some bullshit with averages that is statistically ingenuous and makes Bush look better than he is.

I love ignoring him.
I guess you love ignoring facts too because that is all that was essentially posted unlike the post before it.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2010, 03:22 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I'm going out on a limb and guessing STING posted some bullshit with averages that is statistically ingenuous and makes Bush look better than he is.

I love ignoring him.


it didn't even have much to do with what i posted, and in fact he supported my thesis, which is that deficits go up when Republicans are in charge and even when they are presiding over periods of economic grown and expansion. the only Republican he could find where that didn't happen was EISENHOWER, who's now a big old liberal by today's standards.

don't worry, we all debunked the credibility of "debt as a percentage of GDP" long ago.

the point remains: Republicans cut taxes, not deficits.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com