Obama excepts his Nobel prize

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so, specifically? Torture? Putting the country to the brink of depression? Deregulating banks so they can run wild? Starting a war and invading a country on a lie? Lying to the citizens? Creating the largest financial deficit in the history of this country? Ruining the USA credibility on the world stage?

Whoops. That wasn't Obama.

Whoops yes it is! and now $1.8 trillion more?
This guy pisses more money than a drunk Kenyan whore awaiting deportation while staying in public housing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Whoops yes it is! and now $1.8 trillion more?
This guy pisses more money than a drunk Kenyan whore awaiting deportation while staying in public housing.

Whoops no it isn't.

Sources of increased spending in 2009

41% Financial rescues begun by President Bush
7% Defense
8% Other domestic spending
8% Unemployment benefits
18% Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
18% President Obama's initiatives

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush (see a graph from CAP's report below).

"It's true that spending in 2009 was much higher than it was the previous fiscal year, by about $602 billion, excluding payments on the national debt (which actually declined in 2009 because of low interest rates)," wrote Michael Linden, an associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center. "But it turns out that a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office. In fact, fully 41 percent, or $245 billion, came in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actions taken in the fall of 2008 under President George W. Bush.

PS, you can certainly diss Sam Stein, but what you really have to diss, to make your point and support your contention, is the numbers he is quoting (that he is quoting them doesn't matter) So bring them on - what do you have to prove Obama is spending more than Bush?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_387121.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Whoops no it isn't.






PS, you can certainly diss Sam Stein, but what you really have to diss, to make your point and support your contention, is the numbers he is quoting (that he is quoting them doesn't matter) So bring them on - what do you have to prove Obama is spending more than Bush?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_387121.html

ignorance especially your ignorance is bliss! and here's the proof in pictures! See that long red line (4 times longer than the previous year?)


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

[miraja2]

I see that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich actually had a lot of good things to say about Obama's acceptance speech (or "exceptance" speech if you're dellinger).
Nice job Obama. You somehow managed to use a peace-award speech as a platform to justify your newly discovered jingoism. Sure you basically made a mockery of the award you were receiving by defending your hawkish Afghanistan policy....but hey....at least you pleased Sarah Palin.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

(or "exceptance" speech if you're dellinger).

My Bad! I certainly deserve the ball busting!

Carry on

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

My Bad! I certainly deserve the ball busting!

Carry on

miraja2 never got to be "hall monitor"

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

miraja2 never got to be "hall monitor"

We didn't have hall monitors at my school. I went to Catholic school K-12 and the nuns did all the monitoring themselves. They never would have trusted us with such responsibilities.

However, the fact that I was busting dell over his spelling error DOES constitute the height of hypocrisy on my part. I'm lost without spell check.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I see that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich actually had a lot of good things to say about Obama's acceptance speech (or "exceptance" speech if you're dellinger).
Nice job Obama. You somehow managed to use a peace-award speech as a platform to justify your newly discovered jingoism. Sure you basically made a mockery of the award you were receiving by defending your hawkish Afghanistan policy....but hey....at least you pleased Sarah Palin.

What's Obama supposed to say? He didn't ask for the Peace Prize. He campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, and always said he's in favor of going into Afghanistan with increased troops.

Is he not supposed to defend our going into Afghanistan now? Is it that you don't agree with going into Afghanistan?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

your way off if you dont think his staff and others in his realm didnt push for
him to get this award..the good news is most of these people did some prison time before getting it. so he will do his time in jail after..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

your way off if you dont think his staff and others in his realm didnt push for
him to get this award..the good news is most of these people did some prison time before getting it. so he will do his time in jail after..

I realize blaming the Nobel Committee for a poor choice doesn't cross the minds of the Obama Haters.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

ignorance especially your ignorance is bliss! and here's the proof in pictures! See that long red line (4 times longer than the previous year?)


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

?? Nobody is debating the size of the national debt by year. I agree the debt is as big as that long red line right now.

The subject is where did the debt in that long red line come from, Dell? Not what the debt will be in the future. Read your own article - it's nearly all from Bush!

The fact remains Obama hasn't put us into this horrid debt - Bush did. Obama, however has to get us out.

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

In that last sentence, Bush increased by 2.5 trillion, and the 2.6 trillion in 2009 is just a continuation of that.

Edit: and where the guy above says, "continues" - Obama doesn't have much choice regarding continuing programs that are law. We'll have to see what he does do in the future before we hold him responsible for the imaginary that hasn't yet occurred.

The anticipated budget for this year has already fallen 2%, many less TARP funds have been used than anticipated and budgeted for, a few billion in TARP funds are already being paid back. Obama has already given us a tax cut immediately after he took office.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama has already given us a tax cut immediately after he took office.

Who is us?

And are you seriously going to argue that Obama has shown to be fiscally responsible or is going to cut taxes going forward? Hell his people are already criticizing the GOP when complains about spending by saying that their economists told them it was "good for the economy". They are trying to now come across as free spending.

[Cannon Shell]

And what ever happened to "transparancy" or the end of pork?

[PSH]

The only way we can really get out of this economic and financial crisis is to cut taxes. Studies have shown that for every $1.00 that the government spends it equates to only about $1.02 going into GDP or essentially zero effect. For every $1.00 cut in taxes GDP expands by about $3.00....

Cut taxes for corporations and individuals.....
And i am a Democrat....

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And what ever happened to "transparancy" or the end of pork?

You might check out the new law that was passed earlier this week, on just that subject.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Who is us?

And are you seriously going to argue that Obama has shown to be fiscally responsible or is going to cut taxes going forward? Hell his people are already criticizing the GOP when complains about spending by saying that their economists told them it was "good for the economy". They are trying to now come across as free spending.

Yes, I seriously say Obama has been fiscally responsible. Up to you to show different.

TARP - carrying forward what was started by Bush. Not Obama's spending initiative - and btw, he has NOT spent alot of TARP funds that are sitting there. He's saved TARP funds to the tune of 2 billion. They were approved, but weren't needed, haven't been spent. Banks have already paid back about 2 billion, too.

He has indeed already given a tax cut. Look it up if you don't do your own payroll.

Would you have preferred a Great Depression to the Great Recession? That the government should have spent no money at all? And should not spend money on any jobs initiative?

Health bill - we'll have to see what the final form is, the final cost, and if it's true it won't be signed into law unless self-funding.

Is going to cut taxes going forward? We'll have to see. You have blamed him for things he hasn't done yet, I don't care to.

Your turn. Show the fiscal irresponsibility. Convince me. Feel free to use facts.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, I seriously say Obama has been fiscally responsible. Up to you to show different.

TARP - carrying forward what was started by Bush. Not Obama's spending initiative - and btw, he has NOT spent alot of TARP funds that are sitting there. He's saved TARP funds to the tune of 2 billion. They were approved, but weren't needed, haven't been spent. Banks have already paid back about 2 billion, too.

He has indeed already given a tax cut. Look it up if you don't do your own payroll.

Would you have preferred a Great Depression to the Great Recession? That the government should have spent no money at all? And should not spend money on any jobs initiative?

Health bill - we'll have to see what the final form is, the final cost, and if it's true it won't be signed into law unless self-funding.

Is going to cut taxes going forward? We'll have to see. You have blamed him for things he hasn't done yet, I don't care to.

Your turn. Show the fiscal irresponsibility. Convince me. Feel free to use facts.

You are so far offbase that it is scary.

Lets start with taxes. Please name the tax cuts that we are seeing. What was passed?

Number 2. Obama is 1-9 to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That act would be in effect raising taxes. There is a better shot of kickin n Screamin being named horse of the year than him extending those.

His first "stimlus" package was $800 billion, mostly wasted. That was his not Bushs'. Here read about his budget...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

In the real world, two of every three tax filers who fall into this income category are small business owners or investors, who are certainly capable of finding ways to invest that allow them to declare less taxable income. The real impact of this looming tax increase will be to cast further uncertainty over economic decisions and either slow or postpone the recovery. Ditto for the estimated $646 billion from a new cap-and-trade tax, which no one wants to call a tax but would give the political class vast new leverage over the private economy

The biggest illusion in this budget may be its optimistic economic forecast. The White House assumes that the economy will decline by only 1.2% this year, before growing by 3.2% next year. This assumes the recovery will begin later this year and gather steam quickly to return to normal levels of growth. By 2010 to 2013, the budget adds, the economy will be cooking by an average of 4% a year -- which is also how it conjures up magical deficit reduction

This growth is a lovely thought, but how? The only impetus for growth in this budget comes from the government spending more money that it is taking out of the job-producing private economy. With $1 trillion of new entitlements, $1.4 trillion in new taxes, and $5 trillion in new debt, America's entrepreneurs aren't getting any help soon from Washington.


TARP was a questionable program however if anything is going to be credited with saving us from the imaginary depression, that would be it. Oh yeah Obama wants to spend the rest of that money too despite the law stating that it is to be used for deficit reduction. Remember that thing he was going to reduce? Bank of America just finished off paying back $68 billion to TARP. Citibank is getting ready to pay back theirs.

I like the part where you say he hasnt spent alot of TARP funds. BECAUSE HE ISNT ALLOWED TO!!!! HELLO!!!

What jobs initiatives have been so successful? Unemployment is still at 10%.

Anyone that believes that this health debacle they are tossing together isnt going to cost trillions is drinking thier own bathwater. For the naive, the healthcare bill is supposed to be about "history" for Obama. Regardless of the moral arguments or details dealing with it, it is hardly a stretch to say that it will be extremely costly and the chances that it will do what it says it will for what it says it will cost are extremely slim (and thats being conservative).

The fact that Stimlus number 2 is being conjured up already, that is the new one where we throw small business a bone since they are getting ready to be savaged, shows the ineffectiveness or in some cases waste of the first $800 billion.

Despite the complicated nature of the economic scene, it really boils down to a few simple things. One is that govt spending is unsustainable without a source of the revenue for that spending since so very little of it causes real growth. Our corporations are already among the highest taxed in the world and are getting ready to get hit by a huge new round of taxes to pay for that govt spending. Corporations will not be able to expand nor reinvest already diminishing profits therefore not be able to create jobs or grow the economy. Some will streamline or downsize or relocate off shore.

Then the federal budget which is based upon 3% growth next year (complete pipedream) will fall way short because those darn tax reciepts are short because of those evil corporations not doing thier part. That will force Mr Obama to reignight his spending spree again because you know we need to kick in that economic growth and govt spending is the only way we know how!

I suppose that Cuba and Russia and those other anti-capitalist, free spending govts felt this way too. Thier economies have been great models to follow...

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

?? Nobody is debating the size of the national debt by year. I agree the debt is as big as that long red line right now.

The subject is where did the debt in that long red line come from, Dell? Not what the debt will be in the future. Read your own article - it's nearly all from Bush!

The fact remains Obama hasn't put us into this horrid debt - Bush did. Obama, however has to get us out.




In that last sentence, Bush increased by 2.5 trillion, and the 2.6 trillion in 2009 is just a continuation of that.

Edit: and where the guy above says, "continues" - Obama doesn't have much choice regarding continuing programs that are law. We'll have to see what he does do in the future before we hold him responsible for the imaginary that hasn't yet occurred.

The anticipated budget for this year has already fallen 2%, many less TARP funds have been used than anticipated and budgeted for, a few billion in TARP funds are already being paid back. Obama has already given us a tax cut immediately after he took office.

We read the same article and come to opposite conclusions.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund. (that's one year not a decade)

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

I just believe and always will that going further into debt as either an individual or nation is NOT and never will be the answer. Unless you have a terminal illness.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I just believe and always will that going further into debt as either an individual or nation is NOT and never will be the answer. Unless you have a terminal illness.

Ah....but since you guys seem to think that the current administration constitutes a terminal illness for the United States....perhaps it is justified!

[Riot]

We read the same article and come to opposite conclusions.

We do, but read the article again. Bush "did" do stuff and there it sits.

Obama "may" do stuff (in the opinion of this op-ed piece and Cannon Shell)

You can't crucify Obama for doing stuff, until he actually does it

Then you can say, "I told you so!"