2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[firstdown]

Taxes are not at an all time low SPENDING Is AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Taxes are not at an all time low SPENDING Is AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses. (not me quoting)

As far as spending, federal spending has grown at it's slowest pace since President Ike. The idea that Obama has grown gov't is a myth. You're confusing structural deficit with actual spending by Obama.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Where do you get this stuff from?

Federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses. (not me quoting)

As far as spending, federal spending has grown at it's slowest pace since President Ike. The idea that Obama has grown gov't is a myth. You're confusing structural deficit with actual spending by Obama.

What the hell are you smoking today.

[firstdown]

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I can't believe I'm still discussing this retarded issue, which says a lot about me actually.

In terms of Cabinet meetings. Really? The president is in meetings everyday. But if you're really concerned, just like I told HG28, go to whitehouse.gov and POTUS' sked is posted daily. Daily. Yes, it's public information.

The mix-up was in the initial reporting by the British newspaper, not the White House. Had they clarified from the jump that there were two busts instead of one, this conversation wouldn't exist. It's really that simple to me. Why should the executive branch of our government, with all the pressing issues, keep tabs and report to the general public and media the location of Winston Churchill's bust. Do realize how absurd that sounds?

I completely realize how absurd it is for the White House to spend time with correspondence of tabloid type issues, but isnt that part of the purpose of The White House blog? Or the Attack Watch team or Obama's Truth Team or the White House Twitter account, or maybe even Obama's Twitter account?

So like you said HAD they clarified this at the begaining it would be a non-issue. And HAD Pfeiffer not simply just made something up (that wasnt true) to dispute a claim thats several YEARS old, then neither of us would be wasting out time on this. Unfotunitly no one knows whats going on there.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Who's going to see this?

2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Site

Looks like Oscar material to me :cool-smil

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I completely realize how absurd it is for the White House to spend time with correspondence of tabloid type issues, but isnt that part of the purpose of The White House blog? Or the Attack Watch team or Obama's Truth Team or the White House Twitter account, or maybe even Obama's Twitter account?

So like you said HAD they clarified this at the begaining it would be a non-issue. And HAD Pfeiffer not simply just made something up (that wasnt true) to dispute a claim thats several YEARS old, then neither of us would be wasting out time on this. Unfotunitly no one knows whats going on there.

Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

White House Art | The White House

Curator's Office - White House Museum

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

White House Art | The White House

Curator's Office - White House Museum

I thought the WH blog was to point to jobs Obama created in districts that don't exist.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Who's going to see this?

2016: Obama's America | Official Movie Site

Looks like Oscar material to me :cool-smil

Interesting...CPAC speech.

"I think that if you take...and apply it to the action of the son...these are the guys I call Obama's founding fathers...this isn't just a, kinda hit job on Obama...I'm a college professor and the film is a journey...if the american people really knew who Obama was they would see he is not an ordinary democrat."


Any idea if the movie a comedy or a tragedy?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I thought the WH blog was to point to jobs Obama created in districts that don't exist.

....that would be Bush.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

....that would be Bush.

Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist - ABC News

After scanning that article its sad how they tout about saving 17 jobs by spending 17million dollars. That's a real success story in a district that does not exist.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Pretty remarkable that we've had these many exchanges and still don't eye to eye. The purpose of the White House blog is not to debunk baseless right wing theories as to the location of artwork. The White House has an entire office dedicated to that. So that, you know, the president and his staff can focus on governing.

White House Art | The White House

Curator's Office - White House Museum

Haha, couldnt agree more.... at least thats one thing right?


What i find problematic is the way Pfeiffer handled the whole thing. I think everyone would agree Pfeiffer made a mistake and maybe even went a little rouge in what hes otherwise supposed to be “reporting” on.

But this isn’t some baseless right wing theory. It’s a well known thing, carried on by some ignored by others. Honestly before last week didn’t you think the artwork was returned a little hastily? I think Saden1 even thought that it was returned perhaps in an insisting way. And that’s the whole point. No one really cares whos correct in mentioning the exact whereabouts of the bust. The whole issue which has been and is still being ignore is how the bust got to where it is.

First to break the story of the Churchill bust being returned to the British Embassy was The Sunday Telegraph’s Tim Shipman (now at The Daily Mail), who wrote in February 2009:

Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats. A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Two weeks earlier, in January 2009, The Times had revealed the bust had been removed from the Oval Office and placed in storage, in a piece headlined: "Churchill bust casts shadow over the Special Relationship" (no longer online, but available on news databases such as Lexis/Nexis). Significantly, The Times noted that the British government, led at the time by Gordon Brown, was keen for the bust to go back to the Oval Office:

Britain wants President Obama to put a bronze bust of Sir Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office, where it stood for the past eight years as a symbol of an enduring special relationship with America. The White House is not so sure.
Shortly before Mr Obama's inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President's heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.
The bronze was lent to George Bush by Tony Blair in 2001 from the Government Art Collection for the duration of his presidency. It is now due to be returned.
However, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said yesterday: "We have made it clear that we would be pleased to extend the loan should Mr Obama so wish." He added that no response had been received; yesterday the White House declined to comment.

Churchill bust debacle: ‘amateurish’ Obama White House remains firmly in denial over snub to Britain – Telegraph Blogs

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

Interesting...CPAC speech.

"I think that if you take...and apply it to the action of the son...these are the guys I call Obama's founding fathers...this isn't just a, kinda hit job on Obama...I'm a college professor and the film is a journey...if the american people really knew who Obama was they would see he is not an ordinary democrat."


Any idea if the movie a comedy or a tragedy?

Perhaps it falls in Shakespear's third category, a history?


I heard an interview about a month or so ago about this movie and it sounded pretty interesting. The director basically stated that conservitive documentries dont exist and that this is one form of media that liberals have used and done so well. He said a lot of his scripters/filmers/editors were all people that had experience with Moore or other liberal movie makers, and that in the process some of them turned conservative on many issues.......

But honestly, I watched the trailer to this thing this morning and it looks like it sucks pretty bad.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What the hell are you smoking today.

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes


NEXT.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

FD,
This has been posted several times. Keep up please.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes


NEXT.

That article is putting Obama's 800 billion stimulas on Bush Because he passed it in 2009.

Next.