American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Just spits out what various parties, primarily congress, ask it to spit out. If you request the CBO to put out a piece stating the the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, it will do so.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415981]A November 2010 report by the CBO estimated that the ARRA (Stimulus) policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1. 4 and 4. 1 percent, [/quote]But annually adjusted inflation for Q3 '10 and Q4 '10 was approximately 4, which seems to put real GDP growth at. 1%

Wahoooo! Look what a couple trillion can buy you!

[quote=]• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0. 8 percentage points and 2. 0 percentage points, [/quote]Punter hit the nail on the head. Esten, why are there 7 million fewer people in the labor force? Real unemployment is still close to 17.

[quote=]• Increased the number of people employed by between 1. 4 million and 3. 6 million, and.[/quote]Please show me any reliable source that shows 1. 4 to 3. 6 million jobs were created by the stimulus.

[quote=]• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2. 0 million to 5. 2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [Congressional Budget Office. 11/2010][/QUOTE]Those full-time-equivalents must be like imaginary pay checks that all those people allegedly helped by the stimulus are receiving.

Spend some time in America, outside of the Bay Area, and tell me that you think we are on the right track economically.

Rock on a table. Out!

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415962]You can't help but chuckle that the Congressman Republican Leader of the House now agrees with the Obama Administration:

"I think raising the debt limit is the responsible thing to do for our country, the responsible thing to do for our economy. If we were to fail the increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." (WSJ 3/4/11)

This is exactly what most of the Democrats and President Obama have been saying for months on end.

Welcome to the real world, Congressman Boehner. [/QUOTE]Pop quiz:

Which right-wing, nutbag tea partier said this while voting [u]against[/u] Raising the debt ceiling:

[i]The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the USA Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

* * * * *

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. [/i]

That's right, it was Ron Paul. I always knew he was crazy.

Strike that: It was Barack Obama, when he voted against raising the debt limit in 2006 as a Senator.

[url]http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/[/url]

I definitely agree with him on many of these statements, particularly the first sentence:

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. '

Moreon:

You seem to be somewhat misinformed, not that I am surprised by this.

[QUOTE=Moveon;415970]According to the extremist right. Wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc)[/quote]I think that we've cleared up the 'screaming' part as that is the domain of the left. As for those advocating CUTTING the debt limit, while I would be in favor of such a move, I am not certain that there are too many pushing to actually reduce it at this moment. The debate, as it relates to current legislative matters under the purview of the new Republican congress, is whether or not to raise the debt limit.

[quote=]Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own party[/quote]Thank you for pointing out the fact that I am not a party man.

[quote=]fool[/quote]What a pithy jibe, devastating in both its brevity and effect.

[quote=]I never said that the current spending was sustainable, did I? .[/quote]I have never seen anything from you other than lock-step agreement with the left wing and certainly nothing critical of US govt spending levels.

[quote=]However, we are trying to get out of the worst recession since the 1930's[/quote]Once again, the Left is proving to us that increased govt spending is not a cure for recession.

[quote=]The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still.[/quote]"A way?" Wow, now you are the master of understatement. Even Christina would blush at publishing that unemployment number.

[quote=]All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)[/QUOTE]It has proven itself to be an unmitigated disaster. More than just waste of money, it has served to distract the nation from recovery. Worse yet, the increases in taxes, regulation and spending (which includes stimulus) have made the private sector unwilling to expand. The private sector is the only thing that can get us out of this mess. Further, Obama's hands are covered with the blood shed by the middle east uprisings in that his quantitative easing is at the root of what started as protests over food prices.

Moreon, generally when I encounter a leftie such as yourself (I. E. Poorly informed, woefully lacking in facts, and incapable of high-level reasoning or deductive thought) , they tire of being proven wrong so often and consistently and slink away seeking someone meek for a debate partner. I guess I should be impressed by your willingness to lead with your chin, time and time again as well as you sense of ego which clearly doesn't seem to diminish in light of your failures.

It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times, 3/6/11. Included was $700,000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group). Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.

Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '

Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?

Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '

So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas?

Moveon, As you say, the Heritage Foundation is a think tank. It's not Boeing or Exxon or the United Auto Workers. So, who cares? If Ruth Ginsburg's husband had been paid $700, 000 by the Brookings Institution you wouldn't say a thing. BTW, I'm not a fan of either Thomas or Ginsburg.

[QUOTE=Moveon;416016]It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times, 3/6/11. Included was $700,000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group).[/quote]"Secret sources" The facts that Ginni was at the Heritage Foundation, since 2000 (following a stint with Dick Armey) and served as the Heritage Foundation's liaison to the White House were and are widely known. How is any of this secret? Does anyone expect the spouse of an important governmental player, with the exception of the case of the first lady, to work for free?

The issues of conflicts of interest have been raised by the left since before his confirmation was complete.

If the issue is filing incorrect statements, the issue should be dealt with accordingly. What were your previous posts on Rangel?

[quote=]Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.

Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '

Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?

Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '

So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas? [/QUOTE]So he's been throwing Supreme Court cases for under $200k / year? Clearly, this is not Argentina.

Good luck with this one.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416018]"Secret sources" How is any of this secret? Does anyone expect the spouse of an important governmental player, with the exception of the case of the first lady, to work for free?

If the issue is filing incorrect statements, the issue should be dealt with accordingly.

So he's been throwing Supreme Court cases for under $200k / year?[/quote]*I never said it was a secret or that there was "secret sources" did I?

* The fact that his failure to DISCLOSE all 13 years is what so surprising and disturbing coming from a member of the Supreme Court. On top of this, Judge Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from any case held in front of the bench that had connections to his wife's income. (get it??)

*Nor did I say she should work for free. Did I? Again and again, you are missing the point.

*Judge Clarence Thomas withheld important financial information required by law and then used reasoning that was previously dismissed (by him) in an earlier case brought in front of the US Supreme Court. How satirical.

* Who cares how much he is paid? If he feels he is underpaid, maybe he should go into private practice then. That it totally inconsequential. In any case, he most likely makes well over that in just speaking fees indirectly paid for by right-wing militia wannabes just like you.

It was rumoured that Dick Cheney wet his pants at a Halliburton board meeting over the missed opportunity to invade Libya. With eyes flashing, and his jaw sticking out like the Jungfrau Alps, spit flying all over Rumsfeld, he shouted,"Man, I would have love to have spread Gaddaff's ass cheeks, spread some barbecue sauce, and give him a Libyian oil lube job".

The way Gadaffi has been looking on tv, I wonder if he had heard the same rumour.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416016]What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret? [/QUOTE][quote]Tim Geithner said he used TurboTax to prepare his returns for the years in question where he failed to pay self-employment taxes — even though he collected reimbursement from his employer, the International Monetary Fund.[/quote]Perhaps TurboTax Tim helped Thomas fill out the forms, who better to help you with such things than the Treasury Secretary?

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416021]Perhaps TurboTax Tim helped Thomas fill out the forms, who better to help you with such things than the Treasury Secretary?[/QUOTE]He was getting advice from the same folks as the aforementioned Tim, Rangel and all the other Obama appointees who had book keeping errors.

What Moreon seems to miss is that he, unlike Obama's cronies must have paid taxes on the income, thus declaring it to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreon: so just whose eyes was he pulling the wool over?

I think that is a pretty poor attempt to insinuate corruption, especially the kind that is endemic, although not the exclusive domain of, liberals like: Willie Jefferson, Dodd, Murtha, Blago, etc, etc

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416020]It was rumoured that Dick Cheney wet his pants at a Halliburton board meeting over the missed opportunity to invade Libya. With eyes flashing, and his jaw sticking out like the Jungfrau Alps, spit flying all over Rumsfeld, he shouted,"Man, I would have love to have spread Gaddaff's ass cheeks, spread some barbecue sauce, and give him a Libyian oil lube job".

The way Gadaffi has been looking on tv, I wonder if he had heard the same rumour. [/QUOTE]But if we're looking over the maps for a place to put boots on the ground, I (once again) vote for Libya. They have shit loads of oil.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416016]It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times. 3/6/11. Included was $700, 000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group). Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.

Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '

Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?

Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '

So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas? [/QUOTE]Hardly surprising that this guy would continue to distort things.

What do liberals think of whether Thomas and Scalia have had conflicts of interest? Even [i]they[/i] Agree that this is pure distortion politics from liberal smear groups. Here's what the New York Times printed, from the liberal former clerk to liberal Justice Souter:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13feldman.html[/url]

Funny thing is, after this noted liberal law clerk called out these notorious lefty groups for mounting a weak, smear campaign, what did they do? They attacked him.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/l20scotus.html[/url]

This is just par for the course for the left. When the Supreme Court properly ruled that Bush won, they claim he stole the election. Now, they're trying to pre-empt the process. They know ObamaCare is likely to be stricken down when challenged, so they're trying to get a head start on attacking the legitimacy of the decision to bring it down. It's just like the Dem legislators going on the run in Indiana and Wisconsin. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they claim that the game wasn't fair, and they refuse to play. Tsk, Tsk.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 416024]Hardly surprising that this guy would continue to distort things.

What do liberals think of whether Thomas and Scalia have had conflicts of interest? Even [i]they[/i] Agree that this is pure distortion politics from liberal smear groups. Here's what the New York Times printed, from the liberal former clerk to liberal Justice Souter:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13feldman.html[/url]

Funny thing is, after this noted liberal law clerk called out these notorious lefty groups for mounting a weak, smear campaign, what did they do? They attacked him.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/l20scotus.html[/url]

This is just par for the course for the left. When the Supreme Court properly ruled that Bush won, they claim he stole the election. [/quote]You know as well as anyone when you try to nail down these greased pigs, they'll flee the squared circle (see Wisc. And numerous other locales).

Now for the insightful heart punch:

[quote=]Now, they're trying to pre-empt the process. They know ObamaCare is likely to be stricken down when challenged, so they're trying to get a head start on attacking the legitimacy of the decision to bring it down. It's just like the Dem legislators going on the run in Indiana and Wisconsin. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they claim that the game wasn't fair, and they refuse to play. Tsk, Tsk.[/QUOTE]Anything you hear about any of the supreme jurists, who are true to the constitution, is an attempt by the left to soften up the beachhead for the case of Obamacare. There is only one reason why Obama doesn't want the case to go to the supremes, its unconstitutional. Other than that, the law is fine. Therefore, the left will try to discredit those on the bench that are partial to the rule of law and its root, the constitution.

Since they can't win on the merits of the law, they have to steal a victory by reducing the justices to a smaller number that includes a majority of liberal activists. There is an excellent, nonpartisan argument that Kagan should recuse herself from presiding over adjudication on the subject of Obamacare (Moreon and Esten, that means she shouldn't sit in judgment 'cause she's likely tainted (sorry, again biased). That said, I doubt that she will or that her left-wing benefactors (including the guy that put her in her current job, for which she is woefully unqualified) will allow her to recuse. They will take any and all shots, no matter how poorly conceived or structured to try to cast doubt upon sitting US Supreme Court justices.

Gee, that sounds like a group that is out for the best interests of the country. I can't believe I didn't get behind them sooner.

[QUOTE=Moveon;416019]*I never said it was a secret or that there was "secret sources" did I? [/quote]Once again, I erred thinking that you could read and that you had actually read the drivel that you posted. Sorry. My bad.

[quote=]* The fact that his failure to DISCLOSE all 13 years is what so surprising and disturbing coming from a member of the Supreme Court. On top of this, Judge Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from any case held in front of the bench that had connections to his wife's income. (get it??)[/quote]No, I don't get it. Considering that Justice Thomas has had the left crawling up his ass since before his confirmation hearings started, I doubt that anything other than clerical errors escaped you and your constitution-hating brethren.

[quote=]*Nor did I say she should work for free. Did I? Again and again, you are missing the point.[/quote]Please, point out any instance in which I missed the point (provide evidence, if you don't mind). There are lots of things that I do, I'm prone to distraction, I argue politics to the point that others leave the room, I expect BBBJ and I never miss the point.

[quote]*Judge Clarence Thomas withheld important financial information required by law and then used reasoning that was previously dismissed (by him) in an earlier case brought in front of the US Supreme Court. How satirical.[/quote]How satirical? I have to wonder if you know what satire is. As I previously mentioned, Justice Thomas clearly has declared all of his and his wife's income to the federal government. They have absolutely no expectation of privacy as it relates to that information. Therefore, one (not a biased cool-aid-drinker like yourself) would conclude that deception was not at the root of the mistake.

As for the latter issue, I doubt that you would now an affirmative defense from an excuse if either or both bit you on the ass.

[quote=]* Who cares how much he is paid?[/quote]Apparently, you do. Your post was intended to make the reader believe the Justice Thomas has ignored his own conflicts of interest for financial gain.

[quote=]If he feels he is underpaid, maybe he should go into private practice then.[/quote]I'd normally say nice non sequitur, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that you would know what that means.

[quote=]That it totally inconsequential.[/quote]How so? That is the entire substance of your poorly conceived post: abdication of one's responsibilities for financial gain.

[quote=]In any case, he most likely makes well over that in just speaking fees indirectly paid for by right-wing militia wannabes just like you.[/QUOTE]You prove my point. You are a total queef. You just undercut your entire argument. Why did you bother making it in the first place?

I'll tell you, there was a day when debating liberals was a challenge (although not a particularly difficult one). However, that day has come and gone and apparently all liberals with an IQ over 40 have ducked out of sight. Maybe it would be better if we just got together to eat some paste and make ink stamps out of potatoes.

[QUOTE=Toymann; 415982]Please respond to my deficit comment as it pertains to WHO has been putting the budget together since 2007? I know. You can't! LOL. Was your turn dude and you're boys blew it. LOL. It may be a while till you get the keys to the bus again dude. Better enjoy the free ride for the next 18 months or so. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Oh! I forgot! It had to be George Bush's fault! IALOTFLMAO[/QUOTE]Dems held Congress since 2007.

Wait a sec. Oh crap, you got me. You win! Your in-depth analysis has defeated me! LOL