Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • BGFalcons82
    QuakerOats;705708 wrote:Those are the spending numbers. A decrease in revenue does not translate into a spending spike, sorry. The obama/pelosi/reid triumvirate spent more than ever imaginable.

    The porkulus bill was a litte over $800,000,000,000 and the omnibus spending bill, loaded with political payoffs and over 3000 earmarks to both D's AND R'S, was another 350,000,000,000. So, between those two, you've got almost $1,200,000,000,000 of the increase.

    These fools keep spending spending spending spending spending spending and spending like there's no tomorrow. I wonder if they know the status of tomorrow????
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;705725 wrote:These fools keep spending spending spending spending spending spending and spending like there's no tomorrow. I wonder if they know the status of tomorrow????
    Sure they do. They just don't give a damn as long as they stand to benefit politically and financially in the short-term.
  • QuakerOats
    Correct BG. Our revenues are about at '05 levels - $2.15 trillion. But spending in '10 is 50% higher than '05 levels.

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0467.xls



    It would be unfu***ing believable; except that it is ...... change we CAN BELIEVE IN ......
  • QuakerOats
    Excellent read:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hope-and-change-gas-prices-have-gone-67-percent-obama-became-president_553930.html

    "This is the President that appointed a Secretary of the Interior that famously said he didn't mind if gas hit $10 a gallon."

    Change we can believe in ....
  • ptown_trojans_1
    I agree spending is insane, but I would say most of that was on the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and then over the last few years, TARP (Bailouts), Recovery Act and stupid CR's which don't tackle the problems. Everyone is spending like drunken sailors and not taking on the major issues.

    As to the gas problems, blaming Obama is just like the crazy people who blame Bush for the high gas prices. the President is one man and cannot hold sway over the international oil market. It is like blaming the President for the weather. The President can say whatever, but he cannot manipulate an international market, hold influence over members of OPEC, or tell China and India how to consume oil.
  • QuakerOats
    Opec is not really that big a part of the equation, unbeknownst to many. What is at issue is the policy of this regime with respect to domestic output ----- incredibly scary.


    And, if anyone is bored today, this makes for some good laughs:
    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=1
  • QuakerOats
    Please, go be the 'president of China' .....

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/president-china_554012.html?nopager=1

    Obviously someone with communistic dictatorial tendencies would want to be president of China ...... no one to answer to.
  • Ty Webb
    Jesus Quaker,will you stop with that shit already

    Anyways,I thought he was a Marxist,not a communist. He can't be both
  • believer
    Ty Webb;709322 wrote:J....I thought he was a Marxist,not a communist. He can't be both
    C'mon, Mike. Educate us on the difference.
  • Ty Webb
    Marxism is an offshoot of Communism,but follows a different set of principals

    Therefor,a Marxist can be a Communist,but a Communist isn't always a Marxist
  • believer
    Ty Webb;711158 wrote:Marxism is an offshoot of Communism,but follows a different set of principals

    Therefor,a Marxist can be a Communist,but a Communist isn't always a Marxist
    While there are certainly various theories and flavors of modern communist thought, they all have their roots in Marxism. You have it bassackwards as usual.
  • Ty Webb
    No sir.....you are the one who has it wrong
  • sleeper
    Ty Webb;711158 wrote:Marxism is an offshoot of Communism,but follows a different set of principals

    Therefor,a Marxist can be a Communist,but a Communist isn't always a Marxist
    Who cares what he is or what the difference is? The guy's an idiot, how he got elected is beyond me.
  • Ty Webb
    sleeper;711402 wrote:Who cares what he is or what the difference is? The guy's an idiot, how he got elected is beyond me.

    The exact same thing could be said for George W Bush as well
  • O-Trap
    Neither is actually an idiot. Apart from Carter, I don't think we've had an "idiot" as president.

    In over their heads? Misguided? Maybe. However, a genius could experience both of those (certainly not saying either one is a genius).
  • Belly35
    O-Trap;711462 wrote:Neither is actually an idiot. Apart from Carter, I don't think we've had an "idiot" as president.

    In over their heads? Misguided? Maybe. However, a genius could experience both of those (certainly not saying either one is a genius).
    Could we see Obama Transcripts ????? ....


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2173340/posts

    http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2463790/posts
  • sleeper
    Ty Webb;711403 wrote:The exact same thing could be said for George W Bush as well

    Fair enough.
  • Ty Webb
    O-Trap;711462 wrote:Neither is actually an idiot. Apart from Carter, I don't think we've had an "idiot" as president.

    In over their heads? Misguided? Maybe. However, a genius could experience both of those (certainly not saying either one is a genius).

    I agree O-Trap

    I honestly don't think Jimmy Carter was an idiot. I just think he had no idea what he was getting in to
  • fish82
    Ty Webb;712032 wrote:I agree O-Trap

    I honestly don't think Jimmy Carter was an idiot. I just think he had no idea what he was getting in to
    Carter was probably one of the smartest Presidents of the modern era. Smart people can suck monkey balls at POTUS just as well as anyone else.
  • ptown_trojans_1

    Who freaking cares?
    Yes, I reeeeeaaaallllllly care about the President and his grades at Columbia as that will really prove one way or another his ideology.
    Geesh.
    Today is what matters, not 15-20 years ago.
    Find me 1 politician that is exactly the same today as they were 15-20 years ago. People change, they evolve, adapt, drop add ideas, etc.
    What matters most about the President is what he is doing now, not what he did. His reelection should be based off his 4 years, and what he plans to do the next 4, that's it. Everything else is BS and irrelevant.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    fish82;712054 wrote:Carter was probably one of the smartest Presidents of the modern era. Smart people can suck monkey balls at POTUS just as well as anyone else.

    Ehh, by all accounts Clinton was. But, I get your point. Carter was just simply overwhelmed and lacked decisive leadership.

    Interesting enough, the same could be argued in some cases with Obama.
    The whole PJ Crowley firing is another example.
  • Footwedge
    QuakerOats;705439 wrote:Sorry; you lose.

    The average of federal outlays from '01 - '08 was $2.395 trillion. The average of federal outlays over the last 2 years is $3.618 trillion; an ASTOUNDNG 51% INCREASE IN SPENDING.

    (And don't say it was SS either since there have been no COLA's granted lately).


    Change we can believe ............
    Oats my friend....I bet you a month's wage that the spending will be higher this year than last....and that is with the "Triumvarate" no longer controlling the purse strings.
  • BGFalcons82
    fish82;712979 wrote:So what? He has three years left in his term. Your propensity to grab the "poll of the day" and hump the shit out of it is beyond goofy.

    I note that you once again stopped posting Bam's approval numbers a week or two ago. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

    OK, I'll take up the slack for Ty -
    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 20% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That is the president’s lowest rating since September (see trends).
    Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove.
    Full link - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
  • QuakerOats
    Greenspan also weighing in on this administration's assault on the private sector:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110315/bs_yblog_thelookout/greenspan-too-much-regulation-slowing-growth?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;712066 wrote:Ehh, by all accounts Clinton was. But, I get your point. Carter was just simply overwhelmed and lacked decisive leadership.
    First, Clinton may have been one of our smarter modern era presidents, but his lack of common sense (and decency) prevented him from running "the most ethical administration in American history." Second, I'll give Carter credit for rising to POTUS but he was easily the most inept president in my lifetime.