2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

First this:
The Obama event registry — Blog — Barack Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry/)


Then this:
President Obama Donates - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2pjZGRr_c&feature=youtu.be)


Now this:
Obama birthday card | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-asks-americans-to-sign-his-birthday-card-guess-what-you-get-to-do-in-return/)


At what point does it become just good old fashion pandering?

I'd much rather him pander than have three billionaires (Shelly Adelson, Foster Friess, Koch brothers) bankroll his campaign and dictate policy.

If a guy cuts a $10 million check to your campaign, the next logical question is what does he want in return.

So we should read Rick Ungar article as biased but the Heritage article as unbiased? LOL
All that stupid Heritage article shows is government spending increasing. When has it not year over year? You think as a percentage snapshots from 1960s to 2000 would think it would compare favorably to 2010 to 2050?


There is a simple way to prove you and the Heritage Foundation are full of it with a simple question: Can you account account for the 5 trillion dollars and show us the math?


The really sad thing is you don't even need to exaggerate deficit spending, his numbers scary enough on their own.

It's like how many different ways can we have this argument with the right, this administration has not signed into law or even proposed $5 trillion in spending. I guess because Heritage said it that makes it true though.

I'd much rather him pander than have three billionaires (Shelly Adelson, Foster Friess, Koch brothers) bankroll his campaign and dictate policy.

If a guy cuts a $10 million check to your campaign, the next logical question is what does he want in return.

And unions don't do the same thing?

[/B]

And unions don't do the same thing?

What union is bankrolling Obama's campaign to the tune of a billion dollars or even hundreds of thousands?

For what it's worth, every union isn't all warm and fuzzy with Obama. Don't know where you got that from.

What union is bankrolling Obama's campaign to the tune of a billion dollars or even hundreds of thousands?

For what it's worth, every union isn't all warm and fuzzy with Obama. Don't know where you got that from.In 2004 UAW contributed $ 4.1M to Obama. In 2000-2008, UAW contributed over $ 23M to Dems, $ 193K to the GOP.

So for a $ 23M investment they got back $ 23BILLION.....1000 times ROI, pretty damn good.....just one example.

The bundlers at Solyndra and other green energy companies that made off with taxpayer backed loans only donated in the hundreds of thousands, yet got millions....another great play.

What union is bankrolling Obama's campaign to the tune of a billion dollars or even hundreds of thousands?

For what it's worth, every union isn't all warm and fuzzy with Obama. Don't know where you got that from.


I think your mean a million dollars. Sadly i wonder how long it is until we see a campaign that costs a billion? This year or 2016?

I thought this was kind of funny. We all remember Obama hooking his biggest bundlers up with jobs:

Report: Nearly 80% of Obama’s Top Bundlers Given “Key Administration Posts� - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/report-nearly-80-of-obamas-top-bundlers-given-key-administration-posts/)


Well by doing so it has complicated, and probably limited, the amount of money he can raise this go around. They cant campaign for him the way they did now that theyre part of the administration.

What Obama's Richest Donors Tell Us About His Campaign - Politics - The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/what-obamas-richest-donors-tell-us-about-his-campaign/40057/)

It's like how many different ways can we have this argument with the right, this administration has not signed into law or even proposed $5 trillion in spending. I guess because Heritage said it that makes it true though.Bush and Congress left FY2009 (except DoD & DHS) under CR until after the election. Obama signed the FY2009 spending bills in March 2009. The Obama Administration and Dems in Congress had complete control until after the mid-terms, they've neglected to do anything about the fundamental problems in the budget.

This falls squarely on Obama, if he was serious about what's best for the country and not being an idealogue, he had the bully-pulpit, could've driven true "change" in DC, and gone down as one of the greatest POTUS. Instead he chose to govern from the far left and that hasn't worked out so well.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but the guy was a master politican and knew there were times to track to the center for the good of the country (or his party's re-election chances, either way it worked out).

Here's some details from WaPo: Is Obama responsible for a $5 trillion increase in the debt? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html)

Key takeaways from the link and a sublink:
- “While it’s true that revenue has decreased by a small amount, spending has soared — and it’s the role of a president to set a budget that ensures that spending stays in line with available revenue,” Fehrnstrom said. “President Obama has both increased non-defense discretionary spending and failed to propose any serious reforms to entitlement spending.” He noted that non-defense discretionary spending — annually appropriated by Congress — has increased significantly under Obama.

- The nation has a revenue problem and a spending problem — or else there would not be a deficit.

Just a couple other quick hits:
Why did Obama ignore his own Debt Commission?
WARREN BUFFETT: “Well it – you go back to what, you know, Kemp-Roth and all that that too that they were working on that. I think what happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy. I mean here are two extremely high-grade people. They have somewhat different ideas about government but they’re smart. They’re decent. They’ve got good senses of humor, too. They’re good at working with people.
They work like a devil for ten months or something like that. They compromise. They bring in people as far apart as Durbin and Coburn to get them to sign on and then they’re totally ignored. I think that’s a travesty.” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 11/12/11)

Thoughts from Mark Warner: Senator Mark Warner talks debt reduction and Rep. Ryan plan – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/senator-warner-talks-debt-reduction-and-rep-ryan-plan/)

It's like how many different ways can we have this argument with the right, this administration has not signed into law or even proposed $5 trillion in spending. I guess because Heritage said it that makes it true though.

Has this administration ever even passed a budget?

Bush and Congress left FY2009 (except DoD & DHS) under CR until after the election. Obama signed the FY2009 spending bills in March 2009. The Obama Administration and Dems in Congress had complete control until after the mid-terms, they've neglected to do anything about the fundamental problems in the budget.

This falls squarely on Obama, if he was serious about what's best for the country and not being an idealogue, he had the bully-pulpit, could've driven true "change" in DC, and gone down as one of the greatest POTUS. Instead he chose to govern from the far left and that hasn't worked out so well.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but the guy was a master politican and knew there were times to track to the center for the good of the country (or his party's re-election chances, either way it worked out).

Here's some details from WaPo: Is Obama responsible for a $5 trillion increase in the debt? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html)

Key takeaways from the link and a sublink:
- “While it’s true that revenue has decreased by a small amount, spending has soared — and it’s the role of a president to set a budget that ensures that spending stays in line with available revenue,” Fehrnstrom said. “President Obama has both increased non-defense discretionary spending and failed to propose any serious reforms to entitlement spending.” He noted that non-defense discretionary spending — annually appropriated by Congress — has increased significantly under Obama.

- The nation has a revenue problem and a spending problem — or else there would not be a deficit.

Just a couple other quick hits:
Why did Obama ignore his own Debt Commission?
WARREN BUFFETT: “Well it – you go back to what, you know, Kemp-Roth and all that that too that they were working on that. I think what happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy. I mean here are two extremely high-grade people. They have somewhat different ideas about government but they’re smart. They’re decent. They’ve got good senses of humor, too. They’re good at working with people.
They work like a devil for ten months or something like that. They compromise. They bring in people as far apart as Durbin and Coburn to get them to sign on and then they’re totally ignored. I think that’s a travesty.” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 11/12/11)

Thoughts from Mark Warner: Senator Mark Warner talks debt reduction and Rep. Ryan plan – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/senator-warner-talks-debt-reduction-and-rep-ryan-plan/)


I would have thought the takeaway from the article was the fact that it got a Pinocchio, a rating described as:

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Next time shoot for "The Geppetto Checkmark," it's likely to prove you lot aren't full of it.

Also, Bush submitted the 2009 budget in 2008. What was obama suppose to do? Not sign it and start from scratch? LOL...signing the budget is a formality.

In 2004 UAW contributed $ 4.1M to Obama. In 2000-2008, UAW contributed over $ 23M to Dems, $ 193K to the GOP.

So for a $ 23M investment they got back $ 23BILLION.....1000 times ROI, pretty damn good.....just one example.

The bundlers at Solyndra and other green energy companies that made off with taxpayer backed loans only donated in the hundreds of thousands, yet got millions....another great play.

What about Wall Street ,you hammer Unions and forget about the uber weathly CEO's who took down Wall St in the first place ...UNDER BUSH's ...reign of terror.Lets not forget the Auto Industry is paying it back.

Government Bailout of Ford GM Chrysler and the Auto Industry (http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm)


Very good break down of the whole thing!