2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

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.

Of course this "shell game" post comes from an "unbiased" source......the writer's tagline: Rick Ungar, writing from the left on politics and policy.

How about some real perspective on the Obama Admin and lefties shell game.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

and before you simply discount the link beause it's from Heritage....read and understand the numbers. We're talking real dollars, not percentage increases....the Obama Admin is playing a semantics and shell game here, nothing more. Bottom line, Obama has done nothing to address the entitlement tsunami that is coming over the next decade and has racked up $5T + of REAL DOLLARS in National Debt in 3 years.

NEXT.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Of course this "shell game" post comes from an "unbiased" source......the writer's tagline: Rick Ungar, writing from the left on politics and policy.

How about some real perspective on the Obama Admin and lefties shell game.

Setting Obama's "Great Fiscal Restraint Record" Straight

and before you simply discount the link beause it's from Heritage....read and understand the numbers. We're talking real dollars, not percentage increases....the Obama Admin is playing a semantics and shell game here, nothing more. Bottom line, Obama has done nothing to address the entitlement tsunami that is coming over the next decade and has racked up $5T + of REAL DOLLARS in National Debt in 3 years.

NEXT.

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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

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

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Obama had Congress in 2009, he didn't need to start from scratch just make positive changes. Actually most of the delay in signing FY2009 was due to the Dems in Congress gambling Obama would win and they could get increases Bush wouldn't sign.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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

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

So Obama extends Bush tax cuts and he's governing from the far left? Congress (upheld by the Supreme Court) passed healthcare reform designed by a Republican and he's governing from the far left? Obama's done more for returning troops by way of mental healthcare, increasing veterans benefits, and addressing homelessness among our veterans and he's an ideologue? We've seen a dramatic decrease in the federal workers, while adding nearly 5 million private sector jobs and he's governing from the left?

C'mon, man. Sometimes...

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

So Obama extends Bush tax cuts and he's governing from the far left? Congress (upheld by the Supreme Court) passed healthcare reform designed by a Republican and he's governing from the far left? Obama's done more for returning troops by way of mental healthcare, increasing veterans benefits, and addressing homelessness among our veterans and he's an ideologue? We've seen a dramatic decrease in the federal workers, while adding nearly 5 million private sector jobs and he's governing from the left?

C'mon, man. Sometimes...

You've got to stop parroting the talking points and look deeper.

- Obama had no choice in extending the Bush tax cuts, if he didn't the economy would be definitively worse than it already is and he wouldn't even have a shot at winning in Nov. His position is higher taxes and "spreading the wealth around" , no way to deny that.

- What a Dem controlled Congress passed was not what the GOP originally designed.

- Dramatic decrease in fed workers.....you need to check out your own liberal sites? Read this from Politifact:
http://www.thewarpath.net/newreply.p...reply&p=929070

From the link: "First, let’s look at federal government employment, which accounts for just 13 percent of all government employment. The number of federal workers has increased by 38,000 over the same period -- an increase of 1.4 percent.

And if you separate out the U.S. Postal Service, the growth was even bigger. Non-postal federal employment -- about 10 percent of all government employment -- increased over the same period by 139,000 workers, or 6.7 percent."

- Added 5M jobs???? Are you kidding me? This is from the Communist News Network in Jan. 2012, I know the private sector didn't add 6M jobs since then:
Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012
"The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.

Actual facts from Fox News in June 2012
By going back 27 months, Obama starts counting at the low point of employment for the private sector in February 2010 and tracks how far it has come. But counting farther back, since the end of the recession in June 2009, private-sector job gains have been much more modest, 3.1 million. That's a more meaningful measurement to economists.
Overall, the economy has lost 1.37 million jobs — 784,000 in the private sector — since Obama was inaugurated.
Read more: FACT CHECK: Where Obama, Romney missed mark | Fox News


Just thought I'd throw these out. Obama was rated by National Journal as the most liberal senator for 2007 and 10th most liberal in 2006.

Don't try to cover for Obama's far-left positions, he is who he is. He needs to just come out and make the case for European Socialism to the American people and let the chips fall where they may.
Obama’s Third-Party History - Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online


P.S. You never came up with an answer for me on the green energy (junk bond) loans?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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?