American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[quote]Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.[/quote]I wouldn't exactly call Obama a God-sent gift, actually his policies are a disaster for us all.

Especially the 'War On The Poor'

[quote=IBD]Energy: Those on the left who say they care most for the least fortunate see the soaring price of gasoline as positive — despite the fact that those with the lowest incomes are hurt the worst.

Since January 2009, when President Obama was sworn in, the average price of a gallon of regular-grade gas has rocketed from less than $2 to $3. 53.

During this period, Obama's administration has placed an illegal ban on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, refused to permit deeper exploration into our rich fossil fuel reserves and pushed $2. 3 billion in a useless green energy initiative.

But then, this is the president who is comfortable with rising prices that discourage energy use and higher taxes on the oil and gas industry that will kill jobs and eventually be paid by consumers.

It was Obama who, as a candidate, warned that anyone who opened a coal-fired power plant on his watch would face bankruptcy. It was he who lectured us about driving SUVs and advised us not to keep our homes at 72 degrees at all times.

And it was Obama who appointed secretaries of Energy and Interior who a few years ago said they were OK with pump prices in the $8 to $10 range.

According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the price spike on this president's watch will cost the average USA household an additional $700 a year, not including the costs of goods and services being driven higher by spiraling energy prices.

This form of taxation goes especially deep in a struggling economy. Some families won't feel the pinch. But for many, $700 is the equivalent of a monthly car or house payment.

For those at the bottom of the income ladder, an additional $700 a year can be devastating. These Americans are being hit by a stiff tax that could have and should have been avoided. Does the White House not care about them?

The presidency of George W. Bush was plagued by high gas prices for a short time. But by the time he left office they had fallen sharply.

Obama should look back at what Bush did — such as urging the development of our own ample energy resources — and do the same. That's not too much to ask. [/quote]

Only 1 American in 7 has faith a lasting economic recovery has taken hold and a plurality say they are personally worse off than they were two years ago.

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/americans-in-poll-show-little-confidence-with-plurality-perceiving-decline.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 416101]I wouldn't exactly call Obama a God-sent gift, actually his policies are a disaster for us all.

Especially the 'War On The Poor'[/QUOTE]Don't forget the impact that the Cash for Clunkers program had on the poor.

As a gift to the environmentalists (the same group advocating for the higher gas prices), 3 million mostly serviceable used cars were destroyed so that middle class yuppies with credit could buy new, more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately, this also eliminated the country's inventory of cheap used cars, as experienced by anyone trying to buy a decent "previously owned" vehicle today. With the same demand chasing a decimated inventory, the servicable $1,000-$2,000 used cars simply don't exist.

Or let me say it another way: What used to be a $1,000-$2,000 used car is now a $3,000-$5,000 used car.

If you still don't understand the ramifications, then ask yourself this question: What income group most needs to purchase cheap used cars at the "Buy Here, Pay Here" places? The rich, the middle class, or the poor?

Another burden on the poor, and another 3 billlion dollars flushed down the toilet!

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;416099]As I've said before, it's not all Bush's fault. That's the Republican mantra.[/quote]Not sure if I am a republican, since I have always said that Bush is not a conservative and that he lacked any sort of backbone when it came to spending.

[quote=]When I called it "Bush's debt", I explained that the debt is a legacy of conservative ideology under Bush.[/quote]Spending more and increasing the size and scope of government are in no way a parts of conservative ideology. Neither the concept of large federal deficits nor more than a fraction of our current federal deficit can be attributed to Bush. That said, he deserves the blame for enabling congress to spend recklessly throughout his tenure as president.

[quote=]The most important of these ideologies being on taxation and de-regulation.[/quote]The only actual deregulation that took place was the lowering of standards within the banking industry to enable and force lenders to make bad loans and the lowering of reserve balance requirements. All of which contributed to the financial collapse. While none of these were Bush's doing, we know from whence these changes came, he is responsible for those that occurred during his watch.

[quote=]Two importants points to remember:

1. Deficits have two components: revenue and spending.

2. These two components are subject to existing laws, and are not entirely adjustable by any given Congress.

If we are to assign 'blame', the most meaningful way to look at things is to see where deficit components have come from. Toymann, do some research on what our recent deficits would have looked like without the following conservative-inspired or caused items:

- Two unfunded wars.

- Unfunded Medicare Part D. [/quote]Very expensive endeavors, we'll never agree on the first, the latter would not have been signed into law by a conservative president. Bush is not a conservative.

[quote=]- Bush tax cuts.[/quote]False. US federal tax receipts grew from $1, 991. 1B in 2001 to $2, 524. 0B in 2008, a real growth rate of 27%

If you wouldn't mind, please educate me on how the tax cuts reduced tax receipts.

[quote=]- Federal rescue efforts for Financial Crisis.[/quote]Agreed. Money wasted by the federal govt under both Bush and Obama that should not have been spent.

[quote=]- Loss of tax revenues from Great Recession.[/quote]Lower tax receipts in 2009 and 2010 did occur, however. 2011 tax receipts are projected to exceed 2008 receipts by approximately 2% with the Bush tax cuts still in effect.

[quote=]You will see Toymann, when you look at the facts, Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt.

Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. [/quote]Not true. The tax cuts did not result in reduced federal tax receipts. Tax revenue has increased markedly over the period of time since they went into effect.

During Bush's tenure spending increased from $1, 789B to $2, 983B, representing 67% real growth in spending, which we all know is controlled by the Congress. Again, there is no excuse for Bush accepting these increases. If you subtract $200B for the cost of the wars for FY 2008, federal spending was $2, 783B or a 55% growth in spending from the beginning of Bush's term. Since Obama has been in office, spending has increased to $3, 834B for 2001. However, only about $150 million of that is for the wars. Therefore, since Obama took office, he has overseen a 32% increase in federal spending. It is also worth noting that one party controlled the congress during the bulk of the spending increases (2006-2010) , during which time federal spending has increased a whopping 55% (excluding the cost of the wars) growing from $2, 272B in 2005 to $3, 520B in 2010.

[quote=]Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.[/QUOTE]That is your opinion, to which you have every right. I've never been a big fan of Bush, except regarding his national security efforts, however, my opinion is that Bush's presidency, with all of its warts, was a hell of a lot better for America than Obama's. There seem to be a few people who agree with me that showed up at the polls last fall and I suspect that they will show up again in 2012. We shall see.

Too bad you did not read further than the first paragraph. I guess for liberals the facts constitute "distortions" or is it never let the facts get in the way of a good story?

The contrasts I made between Obama the Candidate and Obama the President or well documented, ie facts. They form the basis of my opinion Obama is unqualified to be president, bring only one skill set to the office and that is self promotion. He has no 'core' beliefs beyond what needs to be said to get what he wants at that moment, just another Big Government, Tax & Spend Liberal Democrat and a true 'politician' no morals or beliefs beyond himself.

Your statement of Obama's superior intellectual abilities is a joke at best. Do you really believe this BS? While I agree HE thinks he is the most intelligent person in the room, any room, the fact is he is usually the least. Even those in his own party have complained about 'he has his own world view' regardless of the facts and they find it more and more difficult to deal with him and these are fellow democrats! Are you sure he is not Daffy Quadify's cousin?

FYI Einstein, deficits have only ONE component – spending more money than you take in!

Definition. Budget Deficit:

The amount by which a government, company or individual's spending excees its income over a particular period of time.

[QUOTE=Esten;416096]The fact is Obama is more intelligent and pragmatic than your average politician. He has correctly identified America's main problem -- accelerating plutocracy -- and is ready to take concrete steps to address it.[/quote]Everyone wants to think that there is something special about their guy. I concede that he is probably smart enough to get out of both Columbia (although who couldn't pass poli-sci?) and Harvard Law. We will probably never know if he was 'smart' enough to get into either on his merits, alone.

[quote=]After the epic disaster of conservative ideology from Bush's presidency, the Great Recession was ended within Obama's first year,[/quote]You can keep saying that until you are blue in the face, however, a significant plurality of the American public disagrees.

[quote=]followed by passage of historic healthcare and financial reform.[/quote]Neither of which does anything to address the root causes of the problems that they are supposed to fix. Both are beautiful, stinking albatross corpses. Expect the former to be slung around Obama's neck come 2012, while the latter will probably be ignored by both parties.

[quote=]The 111th Congress was one of the most productive and progressive in decades.[/quote]To the grave detriment of the American public and our national, financial well being. The 111th was productive only in terms of needless government expansion and spending.

From my previous post:

'It is also worth noting that one party controlled the congress during the bulk of the spending increases (2006-2010) , during which time federal spending has increased a whopping 55% (excluding the cost of the wars) growing from $2, 272B in 2005 to $3, 520B in 2010. '

[quote=]The great lengths to which Obama's opponents go to attempt to paint him as a failure, are a sign that the truth may be just the opposite.[/quote]Do mean like naming Iceland, 'Iceland' or are we talking naming Ugly Betty, 'Ugly Betty'? Me thinks the latter.

[quote=]One look at Doppel's piece below and you know this took some time and effort to put together. The obvious distortions in it are also a sign that crafting a credible smear against Obama is not straightforward.[/quote]Whatever.

[quote=]The recent move to the center was predictable.[/quote]Please provide actual evidence of such aforementioned move to the center. While he may have provided some minor lip service, he has done nothing of the sort nor do I expect him to. He is an ideologue not a pragmatist.

[quote=]He realizes his legislative achievements are enough for one term,[/quote]That is likely all that he will get, in terms of both presidential terms and legislative 'accomplishments'

[quote=]and the focus must be on preserving them with a 2012 win.[/quote]His defeat in 2012 will be due in large part to the public's desire for someone new to 'undo' the damage BHO has inflicted on the country. They certainly did in 2010.

[quote=]He is also setting the stage for an inevitable choice in 2012: balancing the budget through spending cuts alone, or a more reasoned approach of spending cuts and tax increases. [/quote]Right, that is why he submitted a budget with no cuts at all. Wow, what budget 'balancer' he turned out to be.

[quote=]Some liberals are not pleased about Obama's more centrist tone, but this is all about pragmatism and strategy.[/quote]Bull, it isn't even enough lip service to be called tone.

[quote=]I expect Obama to prevail in 2012, [/quote]Based upon your track record for being wrong almost all the time, I expect you to continue to be wrong on this subject.

[quote=]and my hope is he spends more time in his second term talking about how free market capitalism is only making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.[/QUOTE]That doesn't seem to be helping his first term or his prospects for a second term. I hope he keeps on doing what he is doing, failing. Clearly BHO hasn't been taking his tiger blood because he isn't winning.

For your viewing pleasure:

A good, somewhat humorous video explaining public sector unions: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/your_public_sector_unions_at_work.html[/url]

A funny video on Wisconsin unions: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWtx-dWEqE&feature=related[/url]

And, finally, a video demonstrating what it's like to argue with Esten and Moreon: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNukv5rWCY&feature=related[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;416099]Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt. Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.[/QUOTE]AMEN, Esten!

It's funny that none of the deviant and fear-filled neo-conservatives that regularly post in this forum mention that the US had a $150billion dollar surplus in Social Security in the year 2000. Naturally, this was right before George W. Bush took office.

Some of the recent posts have me cringing. They remind me of the days of the cold war when Pravda used to spill out the dangers of capitalism and democracy. Pure propaganda.

Here we go again, oil prices sucking your dollars out of your pockets before you can shelter an x amount for your mongering needs. It is the question that many Americans refuse to face. The good old days are over. It's like somebody teling me that I am ugly, it is just too much to take, so I just shrug it off.

Can we Americans sustain our lifestyles in the way that we have become accustomed to for the last 50+ years, or, do we need to refocus and adjust to the new realities. Everyday, consumerism and big business just attacks the naive and the innocent. An example, airlines are now recording hugh revenues from luggage surcharges. Banks and credit cards have become loan sharks. I laugh at the check-out lines at the grocering chains, Americans are racking up astronomical bills there with no consciience to what they buy and how much they eat. Young adults have to stay with the parents longer (not a bad thing) , and are more dependent on their parents' inheritance for a good future.

To me, these issues are much more critical than who is in Washington. America will rebound, but politics and ideologies are killing America right now. For the individual, being overweight, indulgent and sassy will mean disaster.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416119]AMEN, Esten!

It's funny that none of the deviant and fear-filled neo-conservatives that regularly post in this forum mention that the US had a $150billion dollar surplus in Social Security in the year 2000. Right before George W. Bush took office. [/QUOTE]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416125]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.[/QUOTE]Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:

[i]"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."[/i]

He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?

Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST!

[QUOTE=Esten; 416127]Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:

[i]"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."[/i]

He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?

Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST! [/QUOTE]That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO or should I call it spin?

[url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565640/201103101838/Will-Voters-Buy-Hoax-That-Is-Social-Security-.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;416125]Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.[/QUOTE]HA. HA! Hehehehe-

According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!

Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"

We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 416129]HA. HA! Hehehehe-

According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!

Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"

We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere. [/QUOTE]Apparently you didn't read Mr. Krauthammer's article. Why is it I'm not surprised?

Do you really think name calling and insults make the verbal vomit you spew more palatable?

IMHO those kind of remarks will only lead to conflict, and judging from your writings and demonstrated menial computer skills.... Well lets just say that's treacherous water for a none swimmer.

Debate, discuss, and disagree all you want but we don't need the name calling and insults, again that's just MHO.