Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • sleeper
    gut;1123575 wrote:The budget issue should be hammered again and again and again....and again this election. Most people in America know we have a crisis on our hands with the deficit. The simple fact of the matter is Obama and the Dems have ZERO ZERO ZERO chance of making any progress on reducing the deficit because Harry Reid's Senate hasn't even proposed a budget in YEARS.

    I don't know how they could defend themselves against that, really. Fact is they aren't proposing much, if anything, because they don't want it to be used against them in the elections. They can't propose any real cuts or they risk the welfare vote staying home. They can't NOT propose cuts or they risk losing moderates. So they do nothing.
    This. If I'm Romney, all I talk about it is the the failure of leadership.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1123787 wrote:This. If I'm Romney, all I talk about it is the the failure of leadership.
    Exactly --- continually refer to obama as the King of Debt, the greatest creator of debt in world history .........and his projected future deficits run into the multi-trillions as far as the eye can see. He is bankrupting your kids and grandkids futures and has exhibited absolutely ZERO leadership on this most important matter.
  • QuakerOats
    EPA gets a much-deserved smackdown:

    [h=3]US Supreme Court: Property Owners Can Challenge EPA.[/h]The Washington Post (3/22, Barnes, Eilperin) reports, "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled for an Idaho couple who have been in a four-year battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over the government's claim that the land on which they plan to build a home contains sensitive wetlands." The decision allows the couple "to go to court to challenge the agency's order. More broadly, it gives landowners and businesses a tool to fight the approximately 1,500 administrative compliance orders that the EPA issues each year to try to force an immediate halt to what the agency considers environmental damage."
    On its website, CNN International (3/22, Mears) reports, "At issue before the high court was whether the Sacketts have a right to have a 'timely and meaningful' hearing before a court to challenge a Clean Water Act wetlands-restoration order of a federal agency."
    The Washington Times (3/22, Richardson) reports, "The case was considered the most significant property rights case on the high court's docket this year, with the potential to change the balance of power between landowners and the EPA in disputes over land use, development and the enforcement of environmental regulations. Critics called the EPA action a clear example of overreach, as the property in question was a small vacant lot in the middle of an established residential subdivision in the Idaho Panhandle." The US "government argued that allowing EPA compliance orders to be challenged in court could severely delay actions needed to prevent imminent ecological disasters."
    Reuters (3/22, Vicini) notes that the Sacketts appeal drew support from the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups.
    On its website, NPR (3/22, Chen, Totenberg) reports, "The court said that such orders would still be useful to quickly stop environmental damage even if they could be challenged in court. 'Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,'" said Justice Antonin Scalia.
    Politico (3/22, Guillen) reports, "In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that, while she agrees that the Sacketts can challenge EPA's jurisdiction in court, Wednesday's ruling did not wade into the specifics of the case. That leaves the door open 'for another day and case' on whether property owners can challenge the 'terms and conditions of the compliance order,' Ginsburg wrote. The justices sent the Sacketts's case back to a lower court for consideration under the Supreme Court's new guidance."
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1123813 wrote:Exactly --- continually refer to obama as the King of Debt, the greatest creator of debt in world history .........and his projected future deficits run into the multi-trillions as far as the eye can see. He is bankrupting your kids and grandkids futures and has exhibited absolutely ZERO leadership on this most important matter.
    Sadly, most of Obama's base doesn't care about the future of their kids or grandkids. They want their entitlements and handouts, and they want someone else to pay for it.
  • QuakerOats
    http://freebeacon.com/obama-on-solyndra-loan-this-was-not-our-program/


    and the beat goes on ...........
  • stlouiedipalma
    sleeper;1123787 wrote:This. If I'm Romney, all I talk about it is the the failure of leadership.

    No, right now he's trying to weasel his way out of the "Etch-A-Sketch" controversy his advisor revealed to us. If this is as good as you've got, you are in serious trouble come November.
  • believer
    stlouiedipalma;1124941 wrote:No, right now he's trying to weasel his way out of the "Etch-A-Sketch" controversy his advisor revealed to us. If this is as good as you've got, you are in serious trouble come November.
    For better or worse Romney will be the Repub nominee.

    I predict that all the in-fighting we've witnessed among the Repubs will dissipate and most conservatives and enough libertarians will rally around Romney. Not because they believe Romney's the answer but because they know for a fact that Obama isn't.

    The MSM is doing its best to paint a bleak picture of the Repub field because they know their Chosen One is quite vulnerable. What the MSM fails to tell you is that bloody nomination processes are nothing new. The Dems are particularly famous for it and the party still survives. The Repubs are proving they are no different.

    Frankly the fact that this nomination process is so volatile disproves the notion that the Republican Party is controlled by the far right. If it were, Santorum or Newt would have run away with the nomination.

    Will this race be tight? Probably, but don't believe for a second that the Repubs are "in serious trouble".

    This country is polarized politically right now and it will be no different come this November. It's a bit premature to to assume the Teleprompter Prez will beat the Etch-A-Sketch Guv.
  • sleeper
    stlouiedipalma;1124941 wrote:No, right now he's trying to weasel his way out of the "Etch-A-Sketch" controversy his advisor revealed to us. If this is as good as you've got, you are in serious trouble come November.
    If logic and reason won elections, Ron Paul would be the nominee. If logic and reason won elections, Obama wouldn't get a single vote.

    Fortunately for you, this country is a bunch of dolts who want more handouts, more entitlements, more wars, and they want someone else to pay for them. If that's your vision of America, by all means vote for Obama.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.obamavolt2012.com/Site/Obama_Volt_2012.html


    classic
  • believer
    Love it. :laugh:
  • QuakerOats
    House kills Obama budget 414-0...

    Not a single Dem backs...


    Incredible; the country is at the cliff and obama again shows no leadership.

    Then again, when has there ever been an activist/agitator who was a real leader?
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1130864 wrote:House kills Obama budget 414-0...

    Not a single Dem backs...


    Incredible; the country is at the cliff and obama again shows no leadership.

    Then again, when has there ever been an activist/agitator who was a real leader?
    That's incredible. Of everything I've read from your links, this takes the cake. 414-0 LOL
  • stlouiedipalma
    QuakerOats;1130864 wrote:House kills Obama budget 414-0...

    Not a single Dem backs...


    Incredible; the country is at the cliff and obama again shows no leadership.

    Then again, when has there ever been an activist/agitator who was a real leader?

    Another in a long line of symbolic votes by the House. This one should have been called the CYA vote, as it allows political coverage for those seeking re-election.
  • jmog
    stlouiedipalma;1130917 wrote:Another in a long line of symbolic votes by the House. This one should have been called the CYA vote, as it allows political coverage for those seeking re-election.
    Or it means that even the Ds in Congress are starting to jump ship on Pres O?
  • believer
    jmog;1131466 wrote:Or it means that even the Ds in Congress are starting to jump ship on Pres O?
    NAW...it's an election year.
  • pmoney25
    http://m.examiner.com/libertarian-in-west-palm-beach/rand-paul-s-balance-2012-budget-amendment

    rand paul balanced budget act.
  • jmog
    Sad thing is that this is the first real solution since the Rs passed the cut, cap, and balance...and he will get laughed off the floor by the Ds, and probably the Rs too.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Demand for U.S. Debt Is Not Limitless

    In 2011, the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of Treasury issuance. That can't last.
    The conventional wisdom that nearly infinite demand exists for U.S. Treasury debt is flawed and especially dangerous at a time of record U.S. sovereign debt issuance.
    The recently released Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report for all of 2011 reveals that Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury debt mask reduced demand for U.S. sovereign obligations. Last year the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis. This not only creates the false appearance of limitless demand for U.S. debt but also blunts any sense of urgency to reduce supersized budget deficits.
    Still, the outdated notion of never-ending buyers for U.S. debt is perpetuated by many. For instance, in recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said, "If you look at the markets, they're practically falling over themselves to lend money to the federal government." Sadly, that's no longer accurate.

    It is true that the U.S. government has never been more dependent on financial markets to pay its bills. The net issuance of Treasury securities is now a whopping 8.6% of gross domestic product (GDP) on average per annum—more than double its pre-crisis historical peak. The net issuance of Treasury securities to cover budget deficits has typically been a mere 0.6% to 3.9% of GDP on average for each decade dating back to the 1950s.
    But in recent years foreigners and the U.S. private sector have grown less willing to fund the U.S. government. As the nearby chart shows, foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury debt plunged to 1.9% of GDP in 2011 from nearly 6% of GDP in 2009. Similarly, the U.S. private sector—namely banks, mutual funds, corporations and individuals—have reduced their purchases of U.S. government debt to a scant 0.9% of GDP in 2011 from a peak of more than 6% in 2009.
    The Fed is in effect subsidizing U.S. government spending and borrowing via expansion of its balance sheet and massive purchases of Treasury bonds. This keeps Treasury interest rates abnormally low, camouflaging the true size of the budget deficit. Similarly, the Fed is providing preferential credit to the U.S. government and covering a rapidly widening gap between Treasury's need to borrow and a more limited willingness among market participants to supply Treasury with credit.
    The failure by officials to normalize conditions in the U.S. Treasury market and curtail ballooning deficits puts the U.S. economy and markets at risk for a sharp correction. Lessons from the recent European sovereign-debt crisis and past emerging-market financial crises illustrate how it is often the asynchronous adjustment between budget borrowing requirements and the market's appetite to fund deficits that triggers a shock or crisis. In other words, budget deficits often take years to build or reduce, while financial markets react rapidly and often unexpectedly to deficit spending and debt.
    Decisive steps must be implemented to restore the economy and markets to a sustainable path. First, the Fed must stabilize and purposefully reduce the size of its balance sheet, weaning Treasury from subsidized spending and borrowing. Second, the government should be prepared to lure natural buyers of Treasury debt back into the market with realistic interest rates.
    If this happens, the resulting higher deficit may at last force the government to make deficit and entitlement reduction a priority. First and foremost, however, we must abandon the conventional wisdom that market demand for U.S. Treasury debt is limitless.

    Mr. Goodman is president of the Center for Financial Stability and previously served at the U.S. Treasury.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279754275393064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
  • gut
    I saw that. It's a really interesting chart.

    The decline in foreign purchases is obvious (and offset by the fed printing money to buy treasuries). However, issuance is higher as the debt has soared...Foreign purchasing is still high relative to the past decade. Note how it spiked and peaked during the financial crisis. So one could argue it is simply returning to normative levels and indicates nothing about demand, but remember also the US is paying ridiculously low interest rates. Rates were @5% into late 2007, but began declining quickly throughout 2008 as the Fed pushed rates over the cliff.

    I think the graph does illustrate that current buying indicates there is not limitless demand. However, I don't take away any real reduction in foreign appetite, either. Part of the recent decline is also likely attributable to the Aug'11 debt ceiling crisis.

    The fact of the matter is there's a huge federal debt bomb that will be too late to address when demand inevitably dries up (which it will if we don't correct course). At that point there's no getting out from under it as rates spike on the rolled-over debt and we scramble to find hundreds of billions more just to pay the higher debt service.
  • Cleveland Buck
  • gut
    Wow. Obama gets free campaigning at halftime of the NCAA Final. I don't know what's more amazing, that CBS would indulge this or that the POTUS has time to sit down for this. Granted, it's not like he ever really stopped campaigning since he got elected. Scary to think his goal all along has been a 2nd term when he'll finally start to do his duties "without having to worry about re-election".
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1135016 wrote:Wow. Obama gets free campaigning at halftime of the NCAA Final. I don't know what's more amazing, that CBS would indulge this or that the POTUS has time to sit down for this. Granted, it's not like he ever really stopped campaigning since he got elected. Scary to think his goal all along has been a 2nd term when he'll finally start to do his duties "without having to worry about re-election".
    He has done it the past few years there bud.....
    W did the same thing every so often with the Majors.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown, how do you square this up:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/obama-medvedev-space-nuclear
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1135390 wrote:ptown, how do you square this up:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/obama-medvedev-space-nuclear
    Much ado about nothing. Maybe a little arrogant that he thinks he'll be elected again.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1134768 wrote:Sad thing is that this is the first real solution since the Rs passed the cut, cap, and balance...and he will get laughed off the floor by the Ds, and probably the Rs too.
    Marty Feldstein is writing for all the world to see that the Spending Cuts locked in by the Debt Ceiling Agreement and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, if they occur as scheduled, are going to cause a 3.5% contraction in gdp in 2013 which would be awful and you think this is a good idea which would contract gdp even more! It is a recipe for even higher unemployment, slower growth, another recession and a further deviation from the long-term growth trend line. We know this. I'd say "I wish you could see how this would actually play out" but it is actually playing out across the pond and it is had zero effect on your worldview.

    I disagree with the Ryan Plan and its claims of what it means for a budget to be "pro-growth" but it at least understands that rapid fiscal consolidation is bad and attempts to reign in deficits over time.

    Look at what happened in the Eurozone.



    This is only a solution if you want things to get worse.