Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
-
Manhattan Buckeye"because he never worked at a White Shoe firm"
FIFY, he never worked at all. He couldn't even be bothered to have clerked for anyone. He is without a doubt the laziest POTUS we've ever had. -
gut
Yeah, the distributions vs. recovery on TARP and all that business is a $300-$400B swing in the deficit without cutting anything....and we are still running $700B deficits.believer;1617326 wrote:Liberals are experts at fuzzy math.
There's been no real defiicit reduction beyond some window dressing on the margins - the sequester (when those evil Teabaggers were going to destroy our economy!). You combine the above with revenues recovering a few years after the trough and liberals are praising Obama for all this deficit reduction he's had NOTHING to do with. -
believer
There's a familiar ring to that. I recall the press praising Clinton for running his alleged "surpluses"...via a Republican-controlled Congress.gut;1617428 wrote:Yeah, the distributions vs. recovery on TARP and all that business is a $300-$400B swing in the deficit without cutting anything....and we are still running $700B deficits.
There's been no real defiicit reduction beyond some window dressing on the margins - the sequester (when those evil Teabaggers were going to destroy our economy!). You combine the above with revenues recovering a few years after the trough and liberals are praising Obama for all this deficit reduction he's had NOTHING to do with. -
BoatShoes
Lol no it doesn't. I am not playing semantics or "grammar plays on words." The only protest in the world that was a reaction to the video were the protests in Cairo. Everything else was a reaction to what happened in Cairo. The CIA mistakenly thought that was also the case in Benghazi, Libya and Susan Rice said as much adding in that it was extremist elements. But oh yeah, because the Obummer administration said extremism instead of terrorism that makes the conservative movement red with rage!:RpS_w00t:jmog;1617334 wrote:You do realize that the quote you posted from Rice actually does suggest Benghazi was spontaneous as a result of the video right? It actually is contrary to your belief unless you want to play semantics and grammar plays on words. Anyone who isn't on the left wing tit would take away from her statements that she was saying that Benghazi was a result of the video and not terrorism. Even though at that point the US government already KNEW it was terrorism.
However, the conservative spin machine turned it into Susan Rice blaming the Benghazi terrorist attack on a movie and the Conservative peons who are the marks in this con game fell for it hook line and sinker. This is how the GOP gets embattled middle class whites out to vote when they have nothing to offer them. You're playing your role with flying colors. -
BoatShoes
As if any of that matters! What does it matter that he never was a law clerk for a judge? Oh neat, he decided on a career path that lead him to become President of the United States, a multi-millionaire and an icon to billions of people all over the world instead of a disgruntled former law clerk bitching about the POTUS on the internet!Manhattan Buckeye;1617426 wrote:"because he never worked at a White Shoe firm"
FIFY, he never worked at all. He couldn't even be bothered to have clerked for anyone. He is without a doubt the laziest POTUS we've ever had. -
BoatShoes
The Deficit has gone from what Gut/Dr. Evil would complain about being over $1 trillion dollars! to a projected $514 billion in 2014 or 3% of our economy. That is well in line with what deficit scolds to the left of you in the Washington Consensus would consider acceptable. How you can say there is no real deficit reduction beyond some window dressing on the margins is absolutely ludicrous.gut;1617428 wrote:Yeah, the distributions vs. recovery on TARP and all that business is a $300-$400B swing in the deficit without cutting anything....and we are still running $700B deficits.
There's been no real defiicit reduction beyond some window dressing on the margins - the sequester (when those evil Teabaggers were going to destroy our economy!). You combine the above with revenues recovering a few years after the trough and liberals are praising Obama for all this deficit reduction he's had NOTHING to do with.
And Obama deserves no praise from this. He deserves vitriol and scorn. We had 0.1% growth in the first quarter and is directly attributable to this deficit reduction that is straining the savings and balance sheets of the private economy. Monetary Policy can prevent a full on recession for so long but as you readily point out, it can only do so through with bubbling asset prices. Better than perpetual depression but we should reverse course now and turn toward expansionary fiscal policy that would support healthier private sector balance sheets. -
BoatShoes
Democrats are perpetually insecure. They like to point out that they are the party of "real fiscal responsibility" because Republicans have their number. When Republicans have the Presidency they smartly cut taxes causing huge relative deficits that expand the economy with stronger balance sheets and then become complete hypocrites when they don't have the presidency railing on and on and on about the deficit and democrats fall for it every time.believer;1617436 wrote:There's a familiar ring to that. I recall the press praising Clinton for running his alleged "surpluses"...via a Republican-controlled Congress.
The correct understanding is that the collapse in private sector saving directly attributable to the so-called Clinton Surpluses proximately caused the conditions that lead to the early 2000's recession that we still have not recovered from.
Like every other surplus in United States history the "Clinton Surplus" lead directly to a recession. It is pathetic that the Democratic Party doesn't know this and tries to claim it as a success. -
Manhattan BuckeyeWhat the Left of Washington wants is simply opportunism. They have the power, and they get the glory and benefits - do you think it is just coincidence that the Clintons and Obamas increased their wealth by hundreds of percentages after taking office? They are playing you like a drum. Keynesian economics failed, and American politics are now based on what the government can give to me - forget future generations. It won't end well as long as we have "progressives" that fool stupid Americans. Unfortunately, we have everyone vote, including the stupid people.
-
BoatShoes
You sound like Rand Paul and the hippies claiming that we went into Iraq so that Dick Cheney could get rich. Pure conspiratorial drivel.Manhattan Buckeye;1617529 wrote:What the Left of Washington wants is simply opportunism. They have the power, and they get the glory and benefits - do you think it is just coincidence that the Clintons and Obamas increased their wealth by hundreds of percentages after taking office? They are playing you like a drum. Keynesian economics failed, and American politics are now based on what the government can give to me - forget future generations. It won't end well as long as we have "progressives" that fool stupid Americans. Unfortunately, we have everyone vote, including the stupid people. -
jmog
Since we are all just "playing roles" you should look up the role of the liberal elitist, you play that role so well you could win an Oscar. You and sleeper are polar opposites with respect to political beliefs but you both use the same "I'm the smartest person in the room" tactics. He does it with just stating "you're a moron", you do it with 5,000 word essays with half a dozen graphs that just SCREAMS "look at how smart I am" when in reality it is probably copy/paste from some Keynesian website.BoatShoes;1617525 wrote:Lol no it doesn't. I am not playing semantics or "grammar plays on words." The only protest in the world that was a reaction to the video were the protests in Cairo. Everything else was a reaction to what happened in Cairo. The CIA mistakenly thought that was also the case in Benghazi, Libya and Susan Rice said as much adding in that it was extremist elements. But oh yeah, because the Obummer administration said extremism instead of terrorism that makes the conservative movement red with rage!:RpS_w00t:
However, the conservative spin machine turned it into Susan Rice blaming the Benghazi terrorist attack on a movie and the Conservative peons who are the marks in this con game fell for it hook line and sinker. This is how the GOP gets embattled middle class whites out to vote when they have nothing to offer them. You're playing your role with flying colors. -
jmog
The reason that they say they haven't really done any deficit reduction is due to the fact that MOST of the reduction is just NOT continuing to spend the short term bail outs like TARP.BoatShoes;1617527 wrote:The Deficit has gone from what Gut/Dr. Evil would complain about being over $1 trillion dollars! to a projected $514 billion in 2014 or 3% of our economy. That is well in line with what deficit scolds to the left of you in the Washington Consensus would consider acceptable. How you can say there is no real deficit reduction beyond some window dressing on the margins is absolutely ludicrous.
And Obama deserves no praise from this. He deserves vitriol and scorn. We had 0.1% growth in the first quarter and is directly attributable to this deficit reduction that is straining the savings and balance sheets of the private economy. Monetary Policy can prevent a full on recession for so long but as you readily point out, it can only do so through with bubbling asset prices. Better than perpetual depression but we should reverse course now and turn toward expansionary fiscal policy that would support healthier private sector balance sheets.
If you set up a 2 or 3 year deal that spends $400 billion a year in the TARP, when that 4th year comes and that $400 billion isn't spent again, that doesn't count as deficit reduction because it WASN'T IN THE PLAN TO BEGIN WITH!
If they had continued the $400 billion/yr then it would have been ADDITIONAL spending/deficit.
You don't get credit for doing nothing (basically letting something expire that was supposed to expire).
You don't get credit for the sequester (even though it was your plan originally) when you blame it on the 'other side'.
Seriously, name a single budget plan that cut actual spending, that Obama put forth and is now in the accounting.
I mean seriously, look at the deficits under Bush vs Obama...Look at the deficits under Obama from when he had 100% control of the government (HoR and Senate) vs now when the Rs have the HoR.
I know you hate people that reduce the deficit, you'd like to see trillions in deficits every year until the end of time, but in the same sentence you can't call Obama a deficit hawk when the facts don't back up your statements.
Look at the deficits the 2 years he had Ds in both houses-$1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion.
Look at the deficits since the Rs took the HoR-$1.3 trillion, $1.1 trillion, $680 billion, and $649 billion.
What were the deficits the few years before Obama? From 2005-2008 it ranged from $161 billion to $458 billion.
Yeah, he is a real deficit hawk... -
jmog
The difference, and you know it but don't want to say it because it doesn't fit your narrative, is that Rs, when they cause deficits, it is due to tax cuts (in general). The Ds, when they cause deficits it is due to spending.BoatShoes;1617528 wrote:Democrats are perpetually insecure. They like to point out that they are the party of "real fiscal responsibility" because Republicans have their number. When Republicans have the Presidency they smartly cut taxes causing huge relative deficits that expand the economy with stronger balance sheets and then become complete hypocrites when they don't have the presidency railing on and on and on about the deficit and democrats fall for it every time.
The correct understanding is that the collapse in private sector saving directly attributable to the so-called Clinton Surpluses proximately caused the conditions that lead to the early 2000's recession that we still have not recovered from.
Like every other surplus in United States history the "Clinton Surplus" lead directly to a recession. It is pathetic that the Democratic Party doesn't know this and tries to claim it as a success.
That is because the Rs believe that the money belongs to the people since the people actually earned it. The Ds believe in either Keyneisian spending until the end of time or a type of socialistic/Marxist system of redistribution.
In your mind a deficit is a deficit, no matter what caused it (spending or tax cuts), but to the every day people AND the economy they are not the same. The people are MUCH more efficient at causing demand in the economy with their own money than the government taking it from them and causing aggregate demand from government spending. -
BGFalcons82
Hey, I have an idea that will end this wordplay...let's talk to the 30+ survivors of the terrorist attack. If the truth is exactly as you portray, they should be able to back it up. It will be interesting to see if your government allows them to testify to the People and Mr. Gowdy.BoatShoes;1617525 wrote:Lol no it doesn't. I am not playing semantics or "grammar plays on words." The only protest in the world that was a reaction to the video were the protests in Cairo. Everything else was a reaction to what happened in Cairo. The CIA mistakenly thought that was also the case in Benghazi, Libya and Susan Rice said as much adding in that it was extremist elements. But oh yeah, because the Obummer administration said extremism instead of terrorism that makes the conservative movement red with rage!:RpS_w00t:
However, the conservative spin machine turned it into Susan Rice blaming the Benghazi terrorist attack on a movie and the Conservative peons who are the marks in this con game fell for it hook line and sinker. This is how the GOP gets embattled middle class whites out to vote when they have nothing to offer them. You're playing your role with flying colors. -
believer
Not as long as this administration is in power.BGFalcons82;1617642 wrote:Hey, I have an idea that will end this wordplay...let's talk to the 30+ survivors of the terrorist attack. If the truth is exactly as you portray, they should be able to back it up. It will be interesting to see if your government allows them to testify to the People and Mr. Gowdy. -
Manhattan Buckeye
It is a clown show.believer;1617665 wrote:Not as long as this MOST TRANSPARENT EVER administration is in power. -
believer
Look at the bright side..The Dingling Bros. & Barry Bunch Circus has less than 1000 days to continue tearing the country apart.Manhattan Buckeye;1617853 wrote:It is a clown show. -
QuakerOatsbeliever;1617856 wrote:Look at the bright side..The Dingling Bros. & Barry Bunch Circus has less than 1000 days to continue tearing the country apart.
There may be nothing left of it in another 1,000 days. -
wkfan
It is a shit show.Manhattan Buckeye;1617853 wrote:It is a clown show. -
QuakerOats
-
QuakerOatsNot sure if the newest criminal scandal --- VA --- is intentional to distract attention from Benghazi, IRS, NSA, AP, Fast-n-Furious, obamaKare, and school lunches.
-
gutI don't know....VA is just your typical gubmit incompetence. The problem here is everyone loves our vets, so Obama will get no political cover from the liberal media since there's no video to blame.
-
gutI don't know....VA is just your typical gubmit incompetence. The problem here is everyone loves our vets, so Obama will get no political cover from the liberal media since there's no video to blame.
Looks like the agitator-in-chief might have to scale down his campaigning and actually sit down to fix a problem. -
QuakerOatsgut;1618265 wrote: Looks like the agitator-in-chief might have to scale down his campaigning and actually sit down to fix a problem.
Impossible; activists by nature are little more than whiners and complainers. Having zero managerial experience and zero leadership skills on top of that renders him useless.
The beat goes on ...... -
believer
Couldn't have said it better....QuakerOats;1618286 wrote:Impossible; activists by nature are little more than whiners and complainers. Having zero managerial experience and zero leadership skills on top of that renders him useless.
The beat goes on ...... -
QuakerOatsWhat to do about the radicals who are warring against our own energy and our own people ........
[h=3]New EPA Rules Could Cause Electric Bills To Rise.[/h]The AP (5/22, Callahan, Fahey) reports that new regulations introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency could cause electric bills to increase. The Department of Energy predicts prices will rise 13 percent by 2020, not including the impact of new greenhouse gas emissions regulations the EPA is looking to implement. The new environmental rules will affect “the workhouse of the US power system,” coal-fired power plants. Coal is cheap and not subject to shortages and price spikes seen with other forms of fuel for power plants like natural gas. The new rules from the EPA will force 68 coal plants in 20 states to shut down between 2014 and 2017. By 2020, coal plants that can power an estimated 33 million homes will shut down.
Senate Democrats Write Letter Encouraging Scaling-Back Regulations. The Hill (5/21, Barron-Lopez) reports seven Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday urging him to scale back the new carbon limits on coal-fired power plants. The letter says that the emissions rules are based on technology that has not “been adequately demonstrated on a commercial scale.” The letter continues saying, “We urge you to consider an approach that establishes a standard in the near-term that can be achieved by high efficiency coal-fired technologies.”