Accomplishments of President Obama
Professor Robert P. Watson of Lynn University put together a list of President Obama’s 90 accomplishments that the media fails to report. In his own words…
His first six months have been even more active than FDRs or LBJs the two standards for such assessments. Yet, there is little media attention given to much of what he has done. Of late, the media is focusing almost exclusively on Obama’s critics, without holding them responsible for the uncivil, nonconstructive tone of their disagreements or without holding the previous administration responsible for getting us in such a deep hole.
1.Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2.Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3.Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4.Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5.Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6.Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7.Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
8.The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9.Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10.Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
11.Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12.Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13.Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14.Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15.Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16.New federal funding for science and research labs
17.States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18.Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19.Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20.New funds for school construction
21.The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22.US Auto industry rescue plan
23.Housing rescue plan
24.$789 billion economic stimulus plan
25.The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26.US financial and banking rescue plan
27.The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28.Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
29.Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30.The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31.Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32.Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33.Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34.Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35.Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36.US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37.Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38.Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39.Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40.Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41.Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42.Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43.Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44.Expanding vaccination programs
45.Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46.Closed offshore tax safe havens
47.Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48.Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
50.Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51.Lower drug costs for seniors
52.Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53.Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54.Improved housing for military personnel
55.Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56.Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57.Increasing student loans
58.Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59.Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60.Established a new cyber security office
61.Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62.Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63.Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64.Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65.Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66.Improving benefits for veterans
67.Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68.Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69.The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70.Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71.Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72.Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73.Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74.Making more loans available to small businesses
75.Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76.Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77.Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78.Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79.Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80.Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81.Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82.New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83.Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84.Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85.Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86.Held first Seder in White House
87.Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88.Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89.Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90.Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office!
YES HE HAS!
He also takes a LOT of vacations. And has used the White House crapper. He has also eaten three meals a day, plus snacks. Don't forget sneaked the occasional cigarette in the bathroom.
Yep, he did a lot.
Keep that list handy when re-election time rolls around again.
How many vacations has he taken exactly?
What do you call a "vacation"?
How would that compare to previous presidents' amount of vacations?
Why do you have such a big problem with these vacations? He's still working when on them.
He'll never approach the amount of vacation time of George W. Bush who always seemed to need to "clear brush" from around his house all the damned time. He hasn't had a cigarette since before his campaign started, but it really wouldn't matter if he had. We've had plenty of presidents who smoked.
These are his POSITIVE accomplishments in less than a year. There will be plenty more by the time he is re-elected, though it won't take much for him to win. The Republicans don't have anyone who could even remotely pose a challenge to him.
My hope is that the Republicans will pick some idiot like they did last time so President Obama can continue repairing the horrific damage done to our country by the last administration. He's already seeing progress from the drastic actions he had to take to prevent the BUSH RECESSION from becoming the BUSH DEPRESSION. He saved the American auto industry and banking industries and the millions of small businesses that rely on those.
If the Republicans choose anyone from the following list, President Obama won't have to spend a single dollar or a single minute campaigning to win re-election. He can just keep doing the great work he's been doing so far to improve America, fix the broken economy he inherited, repair our reputation abroad, restore our position as having the moral high ground by letting the world know we will not support torture or rendition, giving those accused of a crime a fair trial, etc.
Here's a short list of people President Obama could beat in re-election without spending a single dollar or a single minute of time campaigning.
Sarah Palin
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Ron Paul
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Newt Gingrich
John McCain
Jeb Bush
Charlie Crist
Lindsey Graham
David Petraeus
Rudy Giuliani
If any of these people get the Republican ticket in 2012, they will be crushed effortlessly in a landslide victory for President Obama.
How many vacations has he taken exactly?
What do you call a "vacation"?
How would that compare to previous presidents' amount of vacations?
Bush's presidency was one long vacation. If anything came up his handlers took care of it. :p
Bush's presidency was one long vacation. If anything came up his handlers took care of it. :p
I didn't like Bush, but I think he had as much of a hand in fucking up this country as his "handlers" did.
You've got something on your chin Radar.
It's called a beard. Either that or another chin.
There are significant legislative achievements on that list (pay equity for women, expanded health care for children, credit card "bill of rights", tobacco control act...) as well as significant Executive Orders/Memoranda that restore some level of openness and transparency (not enough, IMO).....but some of those accomplishments are a stretch.
Left off the list? THe most sweeping land conservation initiative since Teddy Roosevelt...adding millions of acres of wilderness to protected public land status and significantly increasing protection of the national scenic river system.
The greatest disappointment is continuing many of the Bush national security initiatives or not cutting others back enough....but that comes as no surprise.
There are also whispers that are beginning to circulate that Obama will replace Biden on the ticket with Hillary Clinton in 2012.
What was the largest complaint to the FCC supposedly every year for the past nine years? Sound volume. Stations would jack up the volume during commercials. Now that government is working for the people - not for the elite - a new regulation will take affect sometime this year. Commercial volume must be same as the show's sound volume.
That's great news. I HATE it when my daughter is sleeping and I'm watching a show, and it goes to commercial and the volume doubles.
My only real complaint with President Obama so far is that he not only refused to end the unconstitutional spying on Americans (Treason) started by his predecessor, he's actually expanded it. For that, every American should be entitled to kick him squarely in the balls at least once until he stops. My guess is that program would end very quickly if that were the case.
Politicians should genuinely fear for their lives if they step outside their limited authority or they work against the interests of the American people and put the wants of special interests or corporations above the needs of the people.
How many vacations has he taken exactly?
What do you call a "vacation"?
How would that compare to previous presidents' amount of vacations?
Why do you have such a big problem with these vacations? He's still working when on them.
I didn't say I had a problem with vacations. These are not negative lists, merely a list of things that he has done that EVERY President has done.
I want to have that list handy when the long-term effects come home to roost.
Silly Brian, come home to roost? Not going to happen. Any and all negative effects will be pushed off on to Bush or handed to Obama's successor. This man walks on water, don'tcha know?
Silly Brian, come home to roost? Not going to happen. Any and all negative effects will be pushed off on to Bush or handed to Obama's successor. This man walks on water, don'tcha know?
Don't confuse treading water with treading on water. He inherited the 2nd largest economic downward spiral in American history and he's done a great job taking the drastic action needed to fix such a drastic problem. He saved the American auto industry, the banking industry, and the millions of small businesses that rely on those industries to run.
He isn't a god, but when compared to complete failures like Bush or Reagan, he seems like it.
He isn't a god, but when compared to complete failures like [COLOR="Red"]me[/COLOR], he seems like it.
fixed that for ya! :rolleyes:
He isn't a god, but when compared to complete failures like [COLOR=Red]George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan[/COLOR], he seems like it.
fixed it back to the truth for ya! :rolleyes:
I didn't say I had a problem with vacations. These are not negative lists, merely a list of things that he has done that EVERY President has done.
I want to have that list handy when the long-term effects come home to roost.
You didn't answer all the questions
How many vacations has he taken exactly?
What do you call a "vacation"?
How would that compare to previous presidents' amount of vacations?
You obviously have a problem with the number of vacations President Obama has taken or else you wouldn't have quantified the number of vacations with "a LOT," which is an opinion, not a fact. Also putting "LOT" in caps, you've emphasized that you think he's taken more than a normal number of vacations. Yet you have yet to back this opinion up with any factual data. So why will you only answer one question, why can't you answer the other 3? Perhaps because the evidence doesn't support your opinion?
I hope you do have that list around when the long term effect come to roost, so you can see just how wrong your doomsday predictions were.
I don't think a president is really ever on vacation in a true sense. He still has daily breifings. I am sure more than once per day. He still is making decisions. The business of a nation never pauses.
Even George Will, on This Week (sans George Stephanopoulus this time) said that it was unnecessary for the pres to run back to DC whenever anything happened, such as the recent terrorist incident. He still conducts business, he wasn't out of touch...to run back would have been "what the terrorists want" with the doomsday OMG look what they did knee-jerk response. Those kinds of reactions are counter-productive. If he had run back, then went back to join his family, I'm sure we would have heard all about the wasted plane gas and such.
The same things concerning vacations were said about G-dub. It's old news and people who have any clue how things work don't typically bring it up as a way to cast aspersions on the president.
The same things concerning vacations were said about G-dub. It's old news and people who have any clue how things work don't typically bring it up as a way to cast aspersions on the president.
:thumb:
Even George Will, on This Week (sans George Stephanopoulus this time) said that it was unnecessary for the pres to run back to DC whenever anything happened, such as the recent terrorist incident. He still conducts business, he wasn't out of touch...to run back would have been "what the terrorists want" with the doomsday OMG look what they did knee-jerk response. Those kinds of reactions are counter-productive. If he had run back, then went back to join his family, I'm sure we would have heard all about the wasted plane gas and such.
The same things concerning vacations were said about G-dub. It's old news and people who have any clue how things work don't typically bring it up as a way to cast aspersions on the president.
And Obama never left home w/o his Blackberry.
Bush?
"Add them to my fruit salad but why do they call them blackberries when they arent black."
Sadly, the Secret Service thought that Obama using a Blackberry posed security risks and has taken it away.
But not before we caught a glimpse of a few e-mails and text messages:
HAHAHAHA Those are great - Where is the one from Pelosi???
Funny Redux! I want to see some more!
Cost you $10 for more, $5 used
Obama's Blackberrylol!
Oh it's true!
oh it's so ..wrong yet right.
A great gag gift for someone's birthday.
*skeeming* humm someone's birthday is coming up
I think it would make him laugh.
Thanks red
The ones from Bush and Clinton are great!
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said.
The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said.
Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.
The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones.
WOW
pssst. who do you think will actually pay that?
It will come in the form of an admin fee passed down to the users, and in keeping with the Dems process of making it seem like they can't pass it on, it will be implemented over a number of years. :)
That's ok. Only rich people use banks anyway.
If one bank has a fee and another bank doesn't, how long before consumers figure this out and go to the bank without the fee? No, the banks will hide it somewhere, like in slightly lower interest payments, and hope nobody notices.
Do banks all charge the same fees now? People bank where they do for a variety of reasons, not just fees.
It doesn't matter where the banks put the fees, the point is that this new tax on the bad guy is really just another tax on you and your neighbors. way to play it straight Obama.
But if it's just as easy as sneaking/demanding more money from consumers, how were the banks ever broke in the first place? At some point customers will either refuse to pay more, or have no more to give.
The Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
On December 18, 2008 the Federal Reserve voted to end many unfair credit card practices. However, the new rules didn't make it through the Senate before the 110th session of Congress ended.
Fortunately, the rules were amended and renamed to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or the Credit CARD Act of 2009. The law was revoted and passed in both the House and the Senate. President Obama signed the legislation on May 22, 2009, making it part of the Truth in Lending Act.
No more double cycle billing finance charges.
No interest rate increases during the first 12 months of opening a credit card, unless the rate increase was disclosed when you first opened the credit card.
Credit card issuers must give a 45-day advanced notice before increasing your interest rate or making any major change to your credit card agreement. This is a big increase over the current 15-day advanced notice requirement.
Payments above the minimum must be applied to highest-interest rate balances.
No fees to make your credit card payment online, by mail, or over the phone, unless you make a last-minute payment over the phone and your bill is due the same day or next day.
pssst. who do you think will actually pay that?
Shouldnt the big banks and lending institutions that received TARP funds pay those funds back in full?
Agreed there is probably a better way, but what is to prevent passing those costs on under any proposal?
The Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
A great (not just good) law, long over-due. But of course, unfortunately, some of the worst offenders will spend big bucks to find loopholes.
And, nothing will ever replace more personal responsibility when it comes to credit cards and personal finances.
Oh, I agree, but it does take away some of the trickery that the powerful credit card companies employ.
I think it was Voltaire who said (what'd he say again?) :)
...I think it was Voltaire who said (what'd he say again?) :)
Banquiers! Bah, porcs bourgeois ... hors de leur tête.
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]Don't forget these accomplishments
--1st president in 110 years to miss the annual Army-Navy Football Game.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]---1st president to not attend any Christmas religious observance.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]---1st president to stay on vacation after a terrorist attack
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]Add to that, he's the first President not to stay in Washington for Christmas for the last 20 years. Past Presidents did not leave Washington for Christmas vacation until after Christmas. This was done so that their staff (Secret Service, Air Force One Crew, Limousine transport, Presidential advancing logistics etc..) could be with their families for Christmas.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
When his Chief of Staff whispered in his ear, "A second plane has just struck the World Trade Center", then Obama sat for 15 minutes in a childs chair. Did not move. Did not ask any questions. Simply waited to be told what to do.
When informed that the worst possible scenario - a category 5 hurricane - would strike a major American city, Obama flew to Orange County CA for a campaign fund raiser. And then to McCain's birthday party in AZ.
When a tsunami killed a half million people, Obama refused for a week to let the Eisenhower task force in Hong Kong go to their rescue. After all, Obama said six C-130s were assistance.
When his Sec of the Treasury arrived to discuss a four page memo on the economy, Obama's Treasury Secretary discovered Obama had never read it. So he spent two hours reading and explaining that memo to Obama point by point.
After being informed of the political agenda, Obama decided to send men to Mars.
After meeting with the German Chancellor, then Norway's Foreign Minister said Obama would destroy the Oslo Accords.
Oh. Sorry. George Jr already did that. Which proves wacko extremists must be smarter. Limbaugh has again told me how to think.
When terrorists attacked on 9/11, our president sat in a childs chair for 15 minutes without even asking one question. He must be so smart as to never need to ask anything.
Spud, dude....can you make that post any bigger and bolder?
Don't forget these accomplishments:
1st president in 110 years to miss the annual Army-Navy Football Game.
Unpatriotic bastard!
1st president to not attend any Christmas religious observance.
God-less heathen!
1st president to stay on vacation after a terrorist attack
Lazy irresponsible bum!
The Obama Trifecta and
A Trifecta of Nonsense
It never ceases to amaze me that some are so consumed with hate that they buy into these inane viral e-mails without a second thought.
Add to that, he's the first President not to stay in Washington for Christmas for the last 20 years. Past Presidents did not leave Washington for Christmas vacation until after Christmas. This was done so that their staff (Secret Service, Air Force One Crew, Limousine transport, Presidential advancing logistics etc..) could be with their families for Christmas.
No presidential staff on hand for the last 20 years of Xmas? Oh sure.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. I didn't know that Radar's list of accomplishments was supposed to be serious. I was just adding to the joke.
You rightwingnuts are a joke.
It never ceases to amaze me that some are so consumed with hate that they buy into these inane viral e-mails without a second thought.
That
was his second thought.
It never ceases to amaze me that some are so consumed with hate that they buy into these inane viral e-mails without a second thought.
Well if someone on FOX says it, it must be true, right?
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said.
The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said.
Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.
The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones.
WOW
I have quite a few beefs with Obama, the biggest of which is, he didn't tackle regulation of banks etc., when he had a chance to get some REAL REFORM passed. Now there is a big fat chance in hell of getting anything real and meaningful through. Banks are still getting fat off the backs of taxpayers. We will never recoup all the money from them. They should have to pay back
not only what WE gave them, but also
what was LOST, as a result of their insane high stakes gambling.
He also stayed in the background during the whole healthcare debate and let it get out of control. Because of the way he did it (or rather didn't, since he was mostly absent), the crap that is getting through is, again, not real insurance reform. It is a big fat payoff, by taxpayers, to big insurance companies. (I admit I haven't been paying attention the past 2 weeks because I had surgery. But before that, the bill was crap.)
Upping the war in Afghanistan. We will never win that war. We cannot beat terrorism. Terrorism is a
tactic, and al qaeda and other fundamentalist anti-US groups operate now all over the globe. Spending all that money if Afghanistan is a mistake, especially since we need that money HERE, in our own country. The measures we are taking are simply to make citizens
feel better. (Like amping up airport security in certain countries. Terrorists aren't stupid. They will just get on planes in Britain or Sweden or some other country where the security is less.)
I really expected more when I voted for Obama. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I am really pretty disappointed. I thought by now we would have serious banking reform in place, a really good health care bill passed that covered everyone and lowered costs, and getting us OUT of the middle east.
Upping the war in Afghanistan. We will never win that war. We cannot beat terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, and al qaeda and other fundamentalist anti-US groups operate now all over the globe. Spending all that money if Afghanistan is a mistake, especially since we need that money HERE, in our own country.
Where were you when the resulting costs were defined so many years ago. The question was simple and obvious. "When are we going after bin Laden." Wackos all but protected their 'boggy man'. Completely surrendered in Afghanistan. That was when you should have been asking this question. Now we have no choice but to spend massively - harm the economy - because wackos literally subverted every effort to get bin Laden.
The CIA chief who was killed in Afghanistan was one of this nation's best experts in bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Why do you know that? She was a member of Alec Station. The group established by Clinton to only do one thing - get bin Laden. What happened to Alec Station? It was disbanded by George Jr because a political agenda was more important than America's interests. Those who saw this problem being created said, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Those who hated America due to a political agenda or plain ignorance would not ask that question. How often did you ask, "When are we going after bin Laden?"
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden on 4 July 2006. That smoking gun obvious reality was to everyone - no doubts remained - of an American created disaster in Afghanistan. Was I not blunt honest enough back then? How many years ago - when George Jr was still in office - did you know the Taliban had almost completely reconquered Afghanistan?
We have no choice directly traceable to leaders who failed us by promoting a political agenda ahead of America's interests. Like Pearl Harbor, we have no alternatives. Only the minority here were telling you this when it mattered - before "Shock and Awe" and "Mission Accomplished". When the public remains brainwashed dumb, then costs due to protecting Public Enemy #1 only increase. Welcome to what the American public wanted when wackos lied about Saddam's WMDs - even tried to blame 11 September on Saddam. The resulting costs to America directly traceable to outright and intentional lies in 2001 and 2002. Lies so accurately identified back then by the few who also asked "When do we go after bin Laden?"
I have quite a few beefs with Obama, the biggest of which is, he didn't tackle regulation of banks etc., when he had a chance to get some REAL REFORM passed.
We still do not know, yet, how perverted the system is. We still need standards even for the accounting industry that has been so complicit in this corruption – that is not yet being identified. Where and how widespread is the subversion? Banking reform is scheduled for next year. It will be long and complicated, in part, because the finance industry corruption - obvious back in the 1990s with LTCM - is embedded in most every new law since then. The corruption is that widespread. And many are so stupid as to think bankers, stockbrokerages, hedge funds, etc need the 'best and the brightest'.
If those people are so good, then we want them in industries that actually make something. IOW expensive tellers should not reap multilple six and seven figure numbers for doing nothing productive – for only moving money. Unfortunately, we will see many so corrupt as to think, for example, a stock broker deserves a six figure salary. We have yet to address a reality. If you think health care has been a problem, wait to you see how ‘Limbaugh spin’ makes financial reform into a fiasco.
The lesser students I graduated with were also making $millions in finance companies. One bragged one day how me make and lost multiple $milllions about three years out of college. No problem. He reaped it back again. Salesmanship - not innovation and the advancement of mankind - is more important.
We have discussed that reality here often – with appropriate venom. And so many so believed the lies as to also believe the myths about mutual funds.
You want reform? Next year we will see how brainwashed so many can become. Did you notice many who even thought a new GM car was a good thing? How many decades were facts posted in the Cellar – and so many just denied it. Wait to you see the propaganda and public support for the finance industry - especially from the political extremist (in both parties) that are bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al. That issue is too complex for this year. Ongoing behind the scenes are studies necessary before we can even begin to address a routinely corrupt finance industry. Only then will Congress be ready to consider necessary changes such as derivatives in open and regulated markets.
I really expected more when I voted for Obama. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I am really pretty disappointed. I thought by now we would have serious banking reform in place, a really good health care bill passed that covered everyone and lowered costs, and getting us OUT of the middle east.
I didn't vote for him but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in my 'wait and see' attitude.
I am however not seeing much because I have had my head stuck under a pillow and shaking in my boots since 2001.
I have quite a few beefs with Obama, the biggest of which is, he didn't tackle regulation of banks etc., when he had a chance to get some REAL REFORM passed. Now there is a big fat chance in hell of getting anything real and meaningful through. Banks are still getting fat off the backs of taxpayers. We will never recoup all the money from them. They should have to pay back not only what WE gave them, but also what was LOST, as a result of their insane high stakes gambling.
He also stayed in the background during the whole healthcare debate and let it get out of control. Because of the way he did it (or rather didn't, since he was mostly absent), the crap that is getting through is, again, not real insurance reform. It is a big fat payoff, by taxpayers, to big insurance companies. (I admit I haven't been paying attention the past 2 weeks because I had surgery. But before that, the bill was crap.)
Upping the war in Afghanistan. We will never win that war. We cannot beat terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, and al qaeda and other fundamentalist anti-US groups operate now all over the globe. Spending all that money if Afghanistan is a mistake, especially since we need that money HERE, in our own country. The measures we are taking are simply to make citizens feel better. (Like amping up airport security in certain countries. Terrorists aren't stupid. They will just get on planes in Britain or Sweden or some other country where the security is less.)
I really expected more when I voted for Obama. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I am really pretty disappointed. I thought by now we would have serious banking reform in place, a really good health care bill passed that covered everyone and lowered costs, and getting us OUT of the middle east.
I didn't. I figured Obama had 'signed on' to the agenda in order to get elected, and I see that he has.
I think you overestimate the power of the Office of President, and underestimate the power of Congress.
I also think he has underestimated the power of his office, and acquiesced to the power of Congress.
Great observation; well put.
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]Don't forget these accomplishments
--1st president in 110 years to miss the annual Army-Navy Football Game.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]---1st president to not attend any Christmas religious observance.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]---1st president to stay on vacation after a terrorist attack
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][COLOR=#000080]Add to that, he's the first President not to stay in Washington for Christmas for the last 20 years. Past Presidents did not leave Washington for Christmas vacation until after Christmas. This was done so that their staff (Secret Service, Air Force One Crew, Limousine transport, Presidential advancing logistics etc..) could be with their families for Christmas.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Those are all positive things in my book. He chose to be with his family and work on fixing the BUSH RECESSION rather than wasting time on stupid things.
[COLOR="Red"]Sorry posted this in the wrong thread - Could a Mod please delete post in Earthquake thread[/COLOR]
1.Ordered a study to cut spending 2.Ordered a review to cut wasteful spending
(2fer - also see #64)
4.Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
10.Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
11.Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
(we'll see about these two - I certainly don't think its "accomplished" at this point in time.)
13.Phasing out expensive and outdated weapons systems
14.Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research/15.Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
(another 2fer)
21.The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
(what was his campaign promise?)
33.Reengaged in talks about global warming and greenhouse gas
(yet refused to sign binding agreement)
34.Visited more countries than any president in his first six months in office
(Whoopie!)
39.Announced plans to purchase American-made cars for the federal government
55.Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
57.Increasing student loans
(???)
58.Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
61.Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military
63.Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64.Established a Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money
(Same as #1-2)
66.Improving benefits for veterans
67.More press conferences and town halls
75.Established commission to make recommendations on Medicare costs
(same as healthcare reform)
84/85.Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and Paid out of his own pocket
(another 2-fer)
87.Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system
88.Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89.Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90.Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office!
I think there are a number of good things that Obama has begun to do. I agree with some of the directions he is taking. I also disagree with some things.
I ran through this list and just thought I'd highlight some of the things which aren't accomplished YET or don't fit the "what he has done" label.
__________________
[COLOR="Red"]Sorry posted this in the wrong thread - Could a Mod please delete post in Earthquake thread[/COLOR]
I think there are a number of good things that Obama has begun to do. I agree with some of the directions he is taking. I also disagree with some things.
I ran through this list and just thought I'd highlight some of the things which aren't accomplished YET or don't fit the "what he has done" label.
Re: Number 10:limits on lobbyist's access to the White House.
One of the most sweeping changes is not just limiting lobbyists' access to the White House...but limiting the
influence of lobbyists throughout the Executive Branch by barring them from serving on advisory committees that provide guidance on drafting and/or reviewing regulations.
It received little notice at the time of its publication last summer, but K street has been in a frenzy in the last few months as it is put into place.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.
The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.
The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.
Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362.html
It is influencing regulations, as much as or more than influencing legislation, through which industry lobbyists can be most self-serving.
Re: Number 10:limits on lobbyist's access to the White House.
But yet the lobbyists are merely not registering and still doing the same thing without the constraints that Obama and his henchmen put on them. So what has changed?
One of the most sweeping changes is not just limiting lobbyists' access to the White House...but limiting the influence of lobbyists throughout the Executive Branch by barring them from serving on advisory committees that provide guidance on drafting and/or reviewing regulations.
So how does that make a difference when they merely deregister as a lobbyist?
But yet the lobbyists are merely not registering and still doing the same thing without the constraints that Obama and his henchmen put on them. So what has changed?
So how does that make a difference when they merely deregister as a lobbyist?
Sure..they can de-register as a lobbyist..and give up their livelihood and income...for a non-paying position on an advisory committee.
This is a "good government" program by any measure.
Will it prevent influence peddling? Certainly not.
Does it provide more transparency and less influence peddling. Absolutely...by a wide margin over previous administrations, D or R.
They have only given up their name and registration. Nothing else seems to have changed.
more transparency
:lol2:
Isn't that like saying all a doctor has to do to get around FDA regulations is give up his medical license, and then he can practice all he wants? If you give up your registration, you may not work as a lobbyist to begin with.
Or from my personal experience as a lobbyist at one time, maybe its one of the those programs that is not perfect, but good.
(remember Voltaire :))
But I suspect nothing will satisfy some.
DeRegistered Lobbyists Start New Firm
[COLOR="White"]Warning Redux! Partisan Source![/COLOR]
[quote]Citing what its founders call a "volatile climate for lobbyists," K Street Research opened shop today in hopes of helping clients with policy and research needs while lowering their lobbying disclosure numbers.
According Brien Bonneville,(pictured at right) the new firm's vice president, lobbying disclosure totals are often inflated because it's hard for lobbying firms to distinguish how much of their fees go to lobbying and how much go to other consulting services, such as policy advice and research. Bonneville and Larry Mitchell, (pictured below) the firm's president and chief operating officer, decided to depart their lobbying posts at KSCW to create a non-lobby shop just for those functions.
"We don't have to wear the 'Scarlet L' anymore," Bonneville said. "A number of corporations have needs outside of lobbying and we wanted to exploit that."
Bonneville said his main gripe with last year's new lobbying rules is that lobbyists cannot serve in the administration. After arriving in Washington two and a half years ago hoping to make a career out of lobbying, "now I can't say it's a career path I want to go down," he said. "It just sparked my mind into thinking of new avenues for my skill set and how to serve companies that don't want to be deemed evil."
continues:
http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/deregistered-lobbyists-start-n.php*shrug*
As I said, nothing will satisfy you.
Thats ok!
Have a great day. :)
Obama lobbying rules having unintended effects
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new special interest rules are having unexpected consequences with some lobbyists giving up their formal registrations and finding other ways to influence policy as they try to maintain access to key agencies or hope for future government jobs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58C1MK20090913*shrug*
As I said, nothing will satisfy you.
Facts are facts, no matter how much you want to prevent the transparent observation of them.
I am actually quite satisfied that the Demoncrats no longer hold a majority in the Senate. I would have been more satisfied if the winner was an Independent or Libertarian and not a Republickin.
Or from my personal experience as a lobbyist at one time, maybe its one of the those programs that is not perfect, but good.
(remember Voltaire :))
But I suspect nothing will satisfy some.
:lol:
Might as well tell him to Remember the Alamo or Remember the Titans...dude doesn't listen anyway!
Listen to Redux?!? :lol2:
I could just read the latest White House or Demoncratic talking points and get the same information. ;)
Damn GIF fail. Why is manage attachments converting it to jpg?
ok, fine...fucking
HERE.Obama lobbying rules having unintended effects
People always have, and always will, try to influence policy and legislation. Sometimes because it's for what they believe is the better good, most often for their own (or clients) gain.
At least Obama is trying to do something about the most blatant of these scumbags. If he kills 90% of the rats, try to come up with something more constructive than carping about the 10% that got away.
I could support killing off 100% of them.
5. The "Closing" of Gitmo - Throughout his campaign for office, Barack Obama vowed to close the American military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, arguing that it harms America's reputation and violates our fundamental principles.
Upon taking office, he almost immediately signed an order to close the prison within one calendar year. Conservatives howled in protest and accused the new president of being "soft on terror." But the order was a central part of Obama's generally successful effort to rehabilitate America's global reputation after the unpopular Bush presidency.
With the deadline looming, however, the administration has conceded that, in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, ''the logistics of it have proven more complicated than we anticipated.'' The Pentagon is reportedly ready to release at least 100 of the 200 total prisoners, but it has found few countries willing to take them. And with reports now connecting former Gitmo detainees with the Christmas Day "underwear bomber" and Al Qaeda in Yemen, the challenges are greater than ever.
This decision embodied what happens when Barack Obama's high hopes meet the complicated, harsh realities of the so-called "War on Terror."
4. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor - Some presidential historians would argue that a president's most significant lasting impact is made through their appointments to the Supreme Court. The sudden and surprising retirement of Justice David Souter offered Obama his first chance to make his mark on the land's highest court.
His choice of Sonia Sotomayor was simultaneously highly controversial and not. While Hispanic groups were thrilled at the prospect of having one of their own on the Supreme Court, conservative Republicans were outraged by the Bronx native's off-the-bench expressions of cultural pride. They railed against her infamous claim that a "wise Latina" would come to better legal decisions by virtue of her experience and argued that what Obama called her admirable "empathy" was truly a liberal double-standard.
But her relatively moderate judicial record and cool demeanor during the hearings allowed her to sail through confirmation. She was confirmed by the full Senate on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68 to 31. In his brief remarks following her confirmation, President Obama hailed the moment for "breaking yet another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union."
3. Taking on health care reform - Although the outcome of the current effort to reform America's health care system is still unknown, Barack Obama has gotten closer to passing a final bill than any previous president.
President Obama's core decision in pursuing reform was to leave the drafting of the bill to leaders of Congress. Many attribute President Clinton's failure to succeed in 1993 to his administration's choice to lay out its own plan and demand that Congress pass it. The president's only specific requests were that costs be contained and that any bill provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
The road through Congress, though, has been bumpy. Throughout the summer and fall public battles were fought over the public option, abortion, "death panels," and total cost. With the exception of a major address in September, President Obama remained mostly behind the scenes, pushing House and Senate leaders to gather enough votes for passage. The House narrowly passed a bill on November 7, the Senate on Christmas Eve.
While the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate will make it difficult, President Obama hopes to be able to sign a reconciled version of the two in the coming weeks.
2. Two surges in Afghanistan - When he moved into the White House, Barack Obama inherited something no other incoming president ever had: two major wars overseas. Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama stressed the importance of shifting the focus of America's military effort from the now-stabilizing Iraq to Afghanistan.
"If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned," he said in a speech last summer. "And yet, today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."
So, not surprisingly, within the first month of his presidency, Obama ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan to support the 38,000 already there. That proved insufficient, however, and in August General Stanley McChrystal, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, made a rather startling announcement: The Taliban had gained the upper hand, and the eight-year war in the region was rapidly failing. To salvage the operation, McChrystal wanted at least 40,000 additional troops.
On December 1, 2009, President Obama, after a period of prolonged deliberation that led right-wing critics like former Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse him of "dithering," ordered an additional 30,000 troops to report to the region within six months. Their mission would be to counter the expansion of the Taliban and to help train the Afghan security forces to control the country on their own. The president hopes to begin removing U.S. troops from the region by the end of 2011, but no concrete timetable beyond that has been offered.
1. The economic stimulus package - Coming into office with the economy in the throes of recession, and many believe on the verge of a much deeper crisis, President Obama's first major initiative was to pass a massive economic stimulus package in the hopes of jolting the economy back into gear. The $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included federal tax cuts, an expansion of unemployment benefits, and money for state governments and public works projects focused on health care, energy, and education.
The bill was viewed by conventional wisdom-makers like the Washington Post's Dan Balz as a "bold" beginning to the Obama presidency. The administration wasn't afraid of its price tag or the fervency of those opposed to the idea of government spending in moments of economic crisis. The president's supporters, including some conservative economists, believe the bill prevented the recession from becoming worse.
But the bill's passage did not come without a price. No Republicans in the House, and only three in the Senate voted for its passage, and the fight led to an immediate erosion of whatever goodwill existed between the opposition party and the new president. Outside of Washington, the bill polarized Americans' opinions of the new president and helped give birth to what became the Tea Party movement.
In the months since the passage of the bill, the country remains in what many define as a recession. Many argue that the president must take up a second stimulus bill in the form of a "jobs bill" to fight continuing unemployment.
LinkRe: Number 10:limits on lobbyist's access to the White House.
One of the most sweeping changes is not just limiting lobbyists' access to the White House...but limiting the influence of lobbyists throughout the Executive Branch by barring them from serving on advisory committees that provide guidance on drafting and/or reviewing regulations.
It received little notice at the time of its publication last summer, but K street has been in a frenzy in the last few months as it is put into place.
It is influencing regulations, as much as or more than influencing legislation, through which industry lobbyists can be most self-serving.
Well, lobbyists have been out full force since he was elected. They may not have a lot of acces to the WH, but they have
major access to Congress, not to mention how much access Wall Street has to Geitner. Lobbyists pretty much WROTE the Senate health care 'reform' bill. And now, with the SC decision about corporations, we can expect things to get much, much worse. (because corporate America pretty much runs everything anyway)
Facts are facts, no matter how much you want to prevent the transparent observation of them.
I am actually quite satisfied that the Demoncrats no longer hold a majority in the Senate. I would have been more satisfied if the winner was an Independent or Libertarian and not a Republickin.
What do you mean they no longer have a majority? They still have 59 or something.
My problem with dems is that they are so stupid they really messed up a good chance for major reform - of health care, of banking, of wall street... But noooo.
I hope like hell more independents and 3rd party candidates get elected. The time is ripe, and I am FED UP with republicans just saying NO to almost everything, and democrats caving in to corporate interests,
especially in the Senate. I think almost ALL incumbets should be kicked to the curb.
(because corporate America pretty much runs everything anyway)
Only when we let them. Not all corporate America is a problem. That would be like saying "Japanese cars verses American cars". An argument that completely ignores the problem. A subjective summary that will only decieve.
Many parts of corporate America are operating in America's interest. Did you see the long list of American companies that resigned or openly subverted their support for the Chamber of Commerce when that organization sided with the corrupt rather than for the long term objectives of America? The list included Nike, Coke, some computer manufacturers, etc.
A biggest problem in America is companies who believe their purpose is profits. Same reasoning justifies the mafia. Therefore GM cars have been so anti-American for 25 years. AIG so perverted the American economy that we had no choice but to bail them out. Goldman Sachs pays so many bonuses to finance people that could easily buy three Eisenhower, Carl Vincent, et al sized aircraft carriers. But then Goldman Sachs is not about what made America great - its products and innovations.
Goldman Sachs, et al is about leeching blood from the American public because finance people are more important than those who made America great. And so, for the first time in almost 100 years, America has seen no growth in ten years. Only some parts (too many) of the American economy work to subvert America for their own benefit.
If those employees are so good, then why are they wasting time and money on Wall Street? Why are they not out doing things that make America great? They forget to mention that when they claim they deserve seven, eight, nine, and ten digit incomes. This problem is not from all of corporate America.
And yes, by protecting so many corrupt companies, some bought and paid for politicians even hope that Obama fails. They just stopped saying it publically.
This health care dilemma has become a big nothing more than a big fiasco. Face the facts... no matter what happens - no one is going to be a winner no matter what happens.
I lost faith when the Democrats decided to cut a break for unions. Why? Because, historically, unions have always supported the Democrats (and I'm union). However, I cannot be bribed.
There should be Healthcare for everyone. How can we do this without affecting profit or high salaries (which is what it all really boils down to)? We can't. It's impossible. Someone or some group is going to be affected.
I'm glad they tried though.
What if only the Uber-rich have to pay, madman? Wasn't that where this whole thing started?
What if only the Uber-rich have to pay, madman? Wasn't that where this whole thing started?
I remember hearing about that. Never considered my self a gullible person - especially with a background with the collection industry.
I'm not against Universal Health Care - I would love for every man, woman and child in this country to be covered by decent health care. I would also love it if our Democratic Leaders would be a little more open about what they are doing.
I lost a lot of faith in Obama when he address the nation a few months ago and he side-stepped his own transitional opening... In his speech he stated... "How are we going to pay for this?" Referring to the Health Care Plan. He never answered his own transition. I listened ever so intently for that answer. It was never answered.
The answer, of course, is obvious. Everyone is going to pay for it. What do the do in England? I believe everyone is taxed something like 12% of their income. Not sure about Canada (I should ask a couple of my relatives who live there).
Honestly, I'm so tired of the government fucking with our taxes - it just makes me sick anymore. I'm damn near ready to move to Mexico.
Honestly, I'm so tired of the government fucking with our taxes - it just makes me sick anymore. I'm damn near ready to move to Mexico.
Just make sure you bring some guns with you if you go south :rolleyes:
Look, the goddamm demoncrats have proven that they are not one bit different from the republickans. All this bullshit that Redux and his party line propagandists have been feeding you have come to a head. The Dems lost big in Mass and November will be the real watershed. People are tired of the lies and promises that the Dems have been selling as snake oil to the American public. There are no jobs and the promises made to make jobs is more of the lies sold to you as a "stimulus package' and "millions of shovel ready jobs". It was all a lie to pass pork barrel spending for special interests and payback to those whores who supported the spending. As I have stated repeatedly, they are all about spend, spend, spend, and the taxes are yet to come. Keep your eye on Nov. Redux and others have marginalized Tea Party members as a tiny minority of the electorate and they were fucked by that attitude in Mass and they will be double fucked in Nov 10.
IMHO this country will be inept until we have a viable third party and neither of them have a D or R in front of their name.
That sounds good merc, but you've got one major flaw in your thinking. The letter in front of the name doesn't matter a damn bit so long as they are still career/professional politicians.
That sounds good merc, but you've got one major flaw in your thinking.
Just one? :rolleyes:
The stimulus package
worked. Be sure to check the multimedia link on the article.
Her point is that other things the government did helped, too? I don't see the "not so fast" connection.
Her main complaint seems to be that the "multiplier" for money spent compared to GDP growth is too high. But the NYT article brings up the factor of money promised. When the states anticipated getting stimulus money, they began spending their money again. As the stimulus money is still being allocated, that effect will continue. So the multiplier should take into account some portion of the amount allocated, not just the amount spent.
Also, yes, there were other economic efforts going on at the same time.
And how many jobs have actually been created? This Congress is about to get a wake up call....
They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs.
Great. Provide your reference. I would be glad to shoot holes in it for you.
Great list Radar. Other than the 2fers already mentioned, let's not forget these awesome accomplishments left off of the list.
1. Offended the Queen of England. Offended the prime minister of the U.K..
2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia .
3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega.
4. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek.
5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia .
6. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras .
7. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they’re building their nuclear weapons.
8. Gave away billions to AIG also without pre-conditions.
9. Expanded the bailouts.
10. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian.
11. Doubled our national debt.
12. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.
13. Released information on U.S. intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.
14. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they
couldn’t take the heat.
15. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as “dangers to the nation.”
16. Ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as “man made disasters.”
17. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America ’s world leadership.
18. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us.
19. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.
20. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States .
21. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for “torturing” three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.
22. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers.
23. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they
might be on their own with the Muslims.
24. Praised Jimmy Carter’s trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel .
25. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired
investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.
26. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners
thousands per year.
27. Announced nationalized health care “reform” that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet
another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t.
28. First Non-US citizen elected as US President.
Great. Provide your reference. I would be glad to shoot holes in it for you.
I did. It's from my link.
Great. Provide your reference. I would be glad to shoot holes in it for you.
Because that's all you do.
You're giving him too much credit. He doesn't even do that.
They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs.
"So far, the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed." — President Obama
* Context: Both government and private economists have made wide-ranging estimates for jobs created and saved by the stimulus. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has estimated that the stimulus was responsible for between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs in 2009. The White House Council of Economic Advisers pegs the range at between 1.5 million and 2 million.
Good. Because it supports the numbers I posted, which are right in the middle of the CBO estimate, and on the low side of the WHCEA, which itself is well within the CBO.
Or were you under the impression that classicman's post was a refutation of mine in some way?
Good. Because it supports the numbers I posted, which are right in the middle of the CBO estimate, and on the low side of the WHCEA, which itself is well within the CBO.
Or were you under the impression that classicman's post was a refutation of mine in some way?
Dude, you can't take a range like that and really place any sort of validity on it. None.
What is invalid about the range? It's not precise, but do you have anything (anything at all) that disputes its accuracy (the words have different meanings)?
The CBO is a good sanity check. Any numbers outside that range can be discounted, and numbers inside that range can be inspected.
Keep in mind the CBO only deals with the numbers given to them. BS in BS out. They are certainly no crystal ball on what will really happen. The numbers have been invalidated by numerous organizations who are not associated with the government. Even if you took the low end of most estimates at 600k that is pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost and the actual money expended and allocated per job created. Certainly you are not going to believe the numbers released by the White House.
Keep in mind the CBO only deals with the numbers given to them. BS in BS out. They are certainly no crystal ball on what will really happen. The numbers have been invalidated by numerous organizations who are not associated with the government. Even if you took the low end of most estimates at 600k that is pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost and the actual money expended and allocated per job created. Certainly you are not going to believe the numbers released by the White House.
You just simply cant accept any study that disputes your position....just admit it!
You are wrong about the recovery act not creating a significant number of jobs and stimuilating the economy and you are wrong about the recovery act being responsible for the growing budget deficit
It is not that, but I understand how the CBO works and how much propaganda this Administration has put out to try to cook the numbers and validate the boonedoggle of false Stimulus package.
It is not that, but I understand how the CBO works
You do? Is that from personal experience?
Like you understand how the federal budget works and what was included in the health reform legislation?
And yet you continue to misinform others, by wilfull choice or simple ignorance...and are completed blocked from any facts, opinions or findings that contradict your "understanding".
:lol2:
So that's a no then? You have nothing (nothing at all) to dispute their accuracy?
They are certainly no crystal ball on what will really happen.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has estimated that the stimulus was responsible for between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs in 2009.
It's an estimate of past perfomance, based on what did happen, not a prediction.
The numbers have been invalidated by numerous organizations who are not associated with the government.
No they haven't (prove me wrong).
Even if you took the low end of most estimates at 600k that is pissing in the wind ...
Don't you mean "especially if"? If you take the low end, of
800K, it looks worse than than if you take the middle or high end? Amazing how that works.
One thing that I found of note, was that this was sold on "jobs created" and then morphed in "jobs saved or created"
What is the difference between the two?
Does it matter?
How are they actually determining the number of jobs? That formula actually changed midstream as well. According to the way I read it. The calculation is based upon man hours. If that is the case, then 2 part timers working 20 hours a week is the same as one full time job at 40 hrs.
Again - does it matter? Whats the difference?
One thing that I found of note, was that this was sold on "jobs created" and then morphed in "jobs saved or created"
What is the difference between the two?
Does it matter?
You can probably save more jobs with the same money than you could create, given spinup and training costs. Otherwise, there's no important difference I can see.
How are they actually determining the number of jobs? That formula actually changed midstream as well. According to the way I read it. The calculation is based upon man hours. If that is the case, then 2 part timers working 20 hours a week is the same as one full time job at 40 hrs.
Again - does it matter? Whats the difference?
Well, the reporting number ends up lower in that instance. They could claim that two people got jobs, but then be open to argument that they are part-time jobs. Reporting them as hours is probably more useful as a measurement of recovery.
No they haven't (prove me wrong).
Lets go back to Nov 09 and start here. From the NYT:
Reports Show Conflicting Number of Jobs Attributed to Stimulus Money
Those two extremes illustrate the difficulties in trying to figure out just how many jobs can be attributed to the $787 billion stimulus program. Last week the Obama administration released reports from more than 130,000 recipients of stimulus money in which they claimed to have saved or created more than 640,000 jobs, but a review of those reports shows that some are simply wrong, while others contain apparently subjective estimates.
computer analysis by The New York Times of government reports showed that at least 30,000 of the jobs were being claimed in highway, street and bridge construction, and at least 14,000 were with transit agencies. The analysis found that the $5 billion push to weatherize homes, which was delayed in many states because of uncertainty over how much money the workers should be paid, had yielded only a little over 5,000 jobs so far, nearly half of which were in Ohio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html
The Obama administration has claimed that stimulus money has created or saved over 1 million new jobs. But with a U.S. national unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, it seems as though some people just weren’t buying it.
In the ABC News report, reporter Johnathan Karl dug deep into the data available on recovery.gov and the results were surprising to say the least. Among the inconsistencies are the following:
• Reports of jobs created in non-existent districts from virtually every U.S. state.
• Agencies that simply used the stimulus money to provide raises for their employees and counting those as saved jobs.
• Stimulus money that was used by agencies however no jobs were created. This is the case in Statesboro, GA where a nursing home used $243,500 of stimulus money to renovate its facilities yet reported that no jobs were created.
• Erroneous reporting of new jobs by agencies that now admit the jobs that have not even begun yet.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282301
"In late October, the administration reported that the first recipients of stimulus grants, contracts or loans created or saved more than 640,000 jobs. Recipients of tax breaks and aid such as unemployment insurance are not required to report, so the job numbers cover only about $47 billion of the $173 billion spent by Sept. 30. USA TODAY was among those that found examples of errors in that data, such as a Texas housing authority mistakenly reporting 450 jobs created by a $26,000 roofing project that actually employed six people."
This isn't the first report we've seen like this. How many will it take before the administration acknowledges that the stimulus has been an abject failure? That wasn't a serious question. This administration will NEVER acknowledge that it just wasted nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.
The story continues: "The acting head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Gene Dodaro, told the committee his investigators found 3,978 reports where recipients reported creating a total of 58,386 jobs without spending any money. Another 9,247 reports covering $965 million in spending listed no jobs created or saved, Dodaro said."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2412956/stimulus_federal_watchdog_says_jobs.html?cat=9
Now fast forward to Feb 2010:
The CNN Fact Check Desk found that:
– Last November, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs were created through the third quarter, but said "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
– Also in November, the Government Accountability Office found "significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."
– Last December, The White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance for stimulus recipients. Instead of asking recipients to report the amount of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, the Office asked recipients to report the amount of jobs "funded" by stimulus money.
Bottom Line: The White House-reported figures on jobs that were created under the stimulus plan are not specific enough to be deemed reliable.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/01/cnn-fact-check-job-created-by-stimulus/?fbid=FVXnfhW30kgYou can probably save more jobs with the same money than you could create, given spinup and training costs. Otherwise, there's no important difference I can see.
I agree completely. Thats the reason why I think the change took place from "created" to "saved or created" I'm not sure how to figure out what the real difference is between the two. It still seemed a little disingenuous to change it to include the saved jobs.
However, the optimist will say that the program was designed to do both ...
I think its REALLY difficult to put any accurate number on the saved part of the equation and gives the gov't a lot of wiggle room on their numbers. Perhaps they should report each of therm separately.
Well, the reporting number ends up lower in that instance. They could claim that two people got jobs, but then be open to argument that they are part-time jobs. Reporting them as hours is probably more useful as a measurement of recovery.
I agree, but the public is probably not savvy enough to deal with hours vs jobs.
None of the jobs data is based on federal government figures...but figures provided by the grant recipients.
And what is still comical is that you guys will fight it and fight it and never admit even the possibility that the stimulus program has created (at least) hundreds of thousands of jobs to date and helped slow the recession.
Do you even sense how rigidly ideological that is? Not to mention intellectually dishonest. Like most of your arguments.
And lately, you're great at find amusing columns or vids for a distraction so you can continue to avoid the facts.
Lets go back to Nov 09 and start here. From the NYT:
The only part of any of those articles that referred to the CBO's numbers was the CNN factcheck that explained why their range was so wide. The CNN factcheck was using the CBO numbers to do their factcheck.
None of the jobs data is based on federal government figures...but figures provided by the grant recipients.
Which the Government has hung it's hat on as being factual and to date many non-governmental groups have shown them to be false or misleading, including the GAO.
And what is still comical is that you guys will fight it and fight it and never admit even the possibility that the stimulus program has created (at least) hundreds of thousands of jobs to date and helped slow the recession.
No, what is comical is that you modify your position after pages and pages of defending the lies and propaganda of this Administration and Demoncratically controlled Congress. So, now you go to "hundreds of thousands of jobs" when this country has lost millions. The numbers don't add up and your party is pissing in the wind.
Do you even sense how rigidly ideological that is? Not to mention intellectually dishonest. Like most of your arguments.
You are intellectually dishonest defending this deficit and pork barrel spending while you bankrupt our grandchildrens future with no plan to pay it off.
And lately, you're great at find amusing columns or vids for a distraction so you can continue to avoid the facts.
As you avoid the facts that counter your propaganda...
The CNN factcheck was using the CBO numbers to do their factcheck.
Yea, that is what the defenders of this administration is using as their range, including yourself. In fact the CBO numbers are even narrower and they have said it it basically bogus.
If you take the low end, of 800K, it looks worse than than if you take the middle or high end? Amazing how that works.
No, I said 600k. Re-read my post.
Which the Government has hung it's hat on as being factual and to date many non-governmental groups have shown them to be false or misleading, including the GAO.
Please
cite those many non-governmental groups.. GAO?
Cite the section of the report, please.
I am aware of the groups that raised awareness and concern over the very small number of job reports in non-existing zip codes and attributed those clerical errors.
Please cite those many non-governmental groups.. GAO? Cite the section of the report, please.
I am aware of the groups that raised awareness and concern over the very small number of job reports in non-existing zip codes and attributed those clerical errors.
All links have been posted. Do your own homework mate.
No, I said 600k. Re-read my post.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, for using the November numbers. That's why I highlighted the 8 in my correction.
In fact the CBO numbers are even narrower and they have said it it basically bogus.
What are you trying to say here? The CBO numbers are narrower than what, and what are the CBO numbers you're talking about? Who have said what are basically bogus?
All links have been posted. Do your own homework mate.
I missed the links to the
many non-governmental groups.
Just point me to the links.
I missed the links to the many non-governmental groups.
Just point me to the links.
Let Google be your friend. Of course you could just look at the posts above.
What are you trying to say here? The CBO numbers are narrower than what, and what are the CBO numbers you're talking about? Who have said what are basically bogus?
Bogus job creation numbers of 600,000 and 1.6 million vs 800,000 and 2.4 million. Did you not even read the posts?
Let Google be your friend. Of course you could just look at the posts above.
So you cant find your own links from the MANY non-governmental groups?
You just pulled those groups out of your ass?
I am aware of the groups that raised awareness and concern over the very small number of job reports in non-existing zip codes and attributed those clerical errors.
You are ignoring the glaring facts. And they did not attribute those errors to only "clerical errors".
Bogus job creation numbers of 600,000 and 1.6 million vs 800,000 and 2.4 million. Did you not even read the posts?
Huh? Bogus job creation numbers of [November numbers] vs [recent numbers]? They're both CBO numbers, but from different times. Of course the more recent numbers will be bigger.
The number of grants to non-existing zip codes was very small..less than one percent, and yes, from what I recall, clerical error was citied as the likely problem.
But you still cant point me to the links to those MANY non-government groups you cited?
I looked through the thread and could not find such links.
As both of you hold up the CBO to support your positions how could you ignore these statements? Do you have your heads in the sand?
The CNN Fact Check Desk found that:
– Last November, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs were created through the third quarter, but said "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
– Also in November, the Government Accountability Office found "significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."
– Last December, The White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance for stimulus recipients. Instead of asking recipients to report the amount of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, the Office asked recipients to report the amount of jobs "funded" by stimulus money.
Bottom Line: The White House-reported figures on jobs that were created under the stimulus plan are not specific enough to be deemed reliable.
These are not minor clerical errors....
But you repeatedly refered to MANY non-governmental groups.
I cant find your cites....help!
The number of grants to non-existing zip codes was very small..less than one percent, and yes, from what I recall, clerical error was citied as the likely problem.
But you still cant point me to the links to those MANY non-government groups you cited?
I looked through the thread and could not find such links.
Start with stimulus watch for the number of jobs actually created, not the bogus Gov numbers.
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/2.0/Even the person who Obama appointed says they are incorrect.
WASHINGTON — The government watchdog overseeing the federal stimulus program testified Thursday that he could not vouch for the Obama administration’s recent claims that the money had saved or created 640,000 jobs. He suggested that the administration should have treated the number with more skepticism.
The 640,000 figure, announced by the White House with some fanfare last month, came from reports filed by recipients of the stimulus money, many of which have been shown to be inaccurate or overstated since they were made public. But the watchdog, Earl E. Devaney, the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, said that it was also possible that the figure understated how many jobs were affected. Up to 10 percent of the recipients had not filed the required reports showing how many jobs they had created or saved, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20stimulus.htmlStart with stimulus watch for the number of jobs actually created, not the bogus Gov numbers.
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
Hey its great that stimulus watch now includes the jobs created for that Jennie-O Turkey grant.
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/awards/view/41106/small-turkey-deli-breasts
Top of the list...move active today -- 286 jobs created....same as the data reported to the government. Bogus?
But you repeatedly refered to MANY non-governmental groups.
I cant find your cites....help!
Here is another great one.
http://stimulus.org/
2009 Stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) by Various Agencies ; Responsible for a deficit of $862.00 billion.
Compare to the other deficit contributions.
Here is another great one.
http://stimulus.org/
2009 Stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) by Various Agencies ; Responsible for a deficit of $862.00 billion.
Compare to the other deficit contributions.
Over 3 fiscal years and the biggest single piece - $288 billion...
tax cuts (lost revenue = budget deficits)
Over 3 fiscal years and the biggest single piece - $288 billion...tax cuts (lost revenue = budget deficits)
Ummm we are not talking about tax cuts. We are talking about the impact of Obama and this Congress spending habits which has exploded the deficit.
Ummm we are not talking about tax cuts. We are talking about the impact of Obama and this Congress spending habits which has exploded the deficit.
You
pointed to stimlus watch and the ARRA contributions to the deficit.
The biggest single piece of the $862 billion (over three fiscal years) ARRA contributions to the deficit are the ARRA tax cuts.....$288 billion in less revenue.
Deficits do not just result from spending more...but also from receiving less.
You pointed to stimlus watch and the ARRA contributions to the deficit.
The biggest single piece of the $862 billion (over three fiscal years) ARRA contributions to the deficit are the ARRA tax cuts.....$288 billion in less revenue.
Deficits do not just result from spending more...but also from receiving less.
According to the very chart I linked to that made up a minor part of the deficit.
Maximum Amount: $66.13 billion
Deficit Impact: $17.76 billion
According to the very chart I linked to that made up a minor part of the deficit.
Maximum Amount: $66.13 billion
Deficit Impact: $17.76 billion
What part of the fact that tax cuts are the biggest single component of ARRA dont you understand?
http://stimulus.org/financialresponse/2009-stimulus-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act doesnt even include FY 10
CBO estimated that the total cost of the bill would total $862 billion. Not deficit neutral.
The federal budget deficit hit an all-time high for the month of December, and deficit spending for the first three months of the new budget year is also surpassing last year’s record pace.
The $91.85 billion budget deficit in December, a record for the month, marked a record 15 straight months of government red ink, the Treasury Department said Wednesday.
The monthly budget gap, up from a $51.75 billion deficit in December 2008, pushed the budget shortfall for the first quarter of fiscal 2010 to $388.51 billion. That compares to a $332.49 billion deficit for the same period a year ago.
The December deficit was in line with Wall Street and Congressional Budget Office estimates for a $92 billion gap.
Last year’s annual deficit surged to $1.42 trillion, more than three times the record of the previous year — an imbalance of $454.8 billion set in 2008.
The Obama administration is projecting that this year’s deficit will climb even higher, to $1.5 trillion, which would be 5.6 percent higher than the 2009 deficit. That figure will be revised when the president sends his new budget to Congress in early February.
President Barack Obama’s deficit-cutting plans are expected to be featured prominently in the budget he will submit to Congress in early February for the 2011 budget year that begins Oct. 1.
Through the first three months of the budget year, government revenues totaled $487.78 billion, a drop of 10.9 percent from the same period a year ago.
Outlays through December totaled $878.28 billion, a decline of 0.4 percent from the same period a year ago. That drop reflected smaller outlays for the government’s $700 billion rescue program compared with the same period a year ago, when the program was just getting started.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31479.html#ixzz0fwjV71ftDamn -
I thought I did this months ago....
HE GOT BIN LADEN!
Obama's "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs" maybe not so shovel ready after all. Yuk, yuk, yuk. Really funny Mr. President, really funny. Not.
video:
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expectedGiven how economists still vigorously debate the economic effects of the New Deal, it’s not surprising that they would differ over the 2009 stimulus as well. So remember the old joke. You might ask for a definitive answer about the stimulus. The best you’ll get back is conflicting opinions.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/24/the-unseen-effects-of-stimulusMore evidence of waste of taxpayer money in the supposed Stimulus boondoggle....
The ARRA stimulus funds for broadband constitute “the largest Federal subsidies ever provided for broadband construction in the U.S.” An explicit goal of the program was to extend broadband access to homes currently without it.
Eisenach and Caves looked at three areas that received stimulus funds, in the form of loans and direct grants, to expand broadband access in Southwestern Montana, Northwestern Kansas, and Northeastern Minnesota. The median household income in these areas is between $40,100 and $50,900. The median home prices are between $94,400 and $189,000.
So how much did it cost per unserved household to get them broadband access? A whopping $349,234, or many multiples of household income, and significantly more than the cost of a home itself.
Sadly, it’s actually worse than that. Take the Montana project. The area is not in any meaningful sense unserved or even underserved. As many as seven broadband providers, including wireless, operate in the area. Only 1.5% of all households in the region had no wireline access. And if you include 3G wireless, there were only seven households in the Montana region that could be considered without access. So the cost of extending access in the Montana case comes to about $7 million for each additional household served.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/06/the-high-price-of-a-stimulus-sLOL.
The same silly simplistic math as the charge that every job created by ARRA funding cost the taxpayers $200,000+.
I guess you get what you pay for, "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!" :lol:
I bet there are shovel jobs cleaning up the bullshit in this thread. :lol:
Start scoopin'! ;)
I guess you get what you pay for, "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!" :lol:
I understand that no Democratic program would be successful under your standards.
IMO, a program that contributing to creating 2.5 million jobs in the last two years is a good thing given how the economy was in free fall.
Not to mention the other components of the stimulus -- the $millions in tax cuts to small businesses to help keep them afloat and the $milions in extended unemployment insurance and COBRA coverage for those who lost their job in recession.
BTW, Rick Santorum claimed the stimulus was a failure because it only
created 240 million jobs!
Merc, Can you explain how those numbers add up? I thought ... that most of the stimulus went for things besides job creation and the title stimulus was really not as accurate as some would lead us to believe.
When looking at
stimuluswatch.org it certainly doesn't paint a great picture, but still those are some seemingly outrageous figures.
ETA - They updated the site to
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/We had a huge section of toll road built totally with the stimulus money, the link connects our area of NE Houston to Clearlake TX which is south of Houston half way to Galveston. Our Republican congressman, Ted Poe has been totally against any of the stimulus plan and has taken to the house floor to lambast it numerous times. He also showed up to have his picture taken at the ribbon cutting when the road was opened and spoke about how this new road would help his constituents and the communities. ;)
Merc, Can you explain how those numbers add up? I thought ... that most of the stimulus went for things besides job creation and the title stimulus was really not as accurate as some would lead us to believe.
When looking at stimuluswatch.org it certainly doesn't paint a great picture, but still those are some seemingly outrageous figures.
ETA - They updated the site to http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
I am pretty sure they sort of go through the numbers in the link, I will have to double check it.
We had a huge section of toll road built totally with the stimulus money, the link connects our area of NE Houston to Clearlake TX which is south of Houston half way to Galveston. Our Republican congressman, Ted Poe has been totally against any of the stimulus plan and has taken to the house floor to lambast it numerous times. He also showed up to have his picture taken at the ribbon cutting when the road was opened and spoke about how this new road would help his constituents and the communities. ;)
My only question is how many people were actually helped and at what cost? Or is it just another land "bridge to no where"?
Post No 1, Item No 4 on Radar's list will be crossed off soon...
CBS News
October 21, 2011 12:23 PM
Obama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end
President Obama announced Friday that the United States will withdraw
nearly all troops from Iraq by the end of the year,
effectively bringing the long and polarizing war in Iraq to an end.
"After nearly 9 years, America's war in Iraq will be over," said Mr. Obama.
He said the last American troops will depart the country by January 1
"with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing
that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."
<snip>
Good job Obamy! You should be proud!
The president is full of it when he talks about creating or saving jobs. During his State of the Union address Wednesday night, he said, “Now, because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. … Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. … That is why jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that’s why I’m calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” This is pure fiction. Job losses under President Obama’s watch have increased steadily without remission.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/28/obamas-17-unemployment-rate/There comes a time and a point in history which indelibly define a President. Oftentimes the event may not be of major import in the greater scheme of things but the management of it is of such prominence that the success or failure in the handling of the issue is permanently attached to the individual. Such a moment has happened to Barack Obama. His incompetence, inability to lead, prevarications, petulance and immaturity in the debt ceiling crisis have indelibly created an image of abject failure in the minds of a critical mass of people in the United States and around the globe. He will never be able to overcome the portrait that has been etched in too many minds.
Barack Obama's only interest in the debt ceiling debate was to raise the borrowing limit sufficiently to get by the next election, and as a cudgel to denigrate the Republicans. His concern was not for the American people and the impact of overwhelming national debt, nor an impending and inevitable credit downgrade. Rather, he was determined that raising the debt ceiling would not become an issue during the presidential campaign. Thus, spending cuts created out of whole cloth, combined with tax increases aimed at stoking the embers of class envy, were bandied about by his party in order to justify an increase in the debt ceiling of $2.4 Trillion.
The destruction wrought by the nearly $5.5 Trillion (more than a third of the total debt of a nation 222 years old) he will have added to the nation's balance sheet by the end of his term was immaterial, thus no detailed plan was forthcoming from the White House, and no lie or accusation aimed at the opposition was too absurd to tell. The only matter of importance was his re-election; the long-term health of the country be damned.
With this lasted chapter of Obama cynicism he has gone a bridge too far; and that bridge has collapsed behind him.
Continues:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obamas_failed_presidency.htmlObama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end
What a load of horse shit.... he it trying to say this was in his agenda from his campaign promises, Bullocks! The only reason we are pulling out is because they Iraqi Government and our minions could not agree on a Status of Forces Agreement that would not make US Troops subject to Iraqi Law. Otherwise we would still have a few thousand quick reaction forces there for the forceable future. At least 10 years IHMO.
The status of the Status of Forces Agreement does seem to be the reason for the decision,
but I doubt their would be much happiness in Merc'ville if the decision were to be the other way.
IIRC, it was the Iraq's decision to tell Bush to get US troops out of Iraq.
But it matters not a twit... getting almost all troups out is the event
and it's happening on Obama's watch, so he gets the credit this time.
How many of the paid mercenaries are going to stay?
Hush now, please not to ask the embarrassing question.
How many of the paid mercenaries are going to stay?
None that won't have criminal immunity, that's for sure. Right now, that pencils out to... let's see... zero.
How many paid mercenaries are going to stay?
Right now, let's see... zero.
Many, many contractors.
the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
... 10,000 U.S. State Department employees throughout Iraq — which, in case anyone has forgotten, is still a war zone.
It’s a situation with the potential for diplomatic disaster. And it’s being managed by an organization with no experience running the tight command structure that makes armies cohesive and effective.
You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, to hunt persons affiliated with al-Qaida. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has conspicuously stated that al-Qaida still has 1,000 Iraqi adherents, which would make it the largest al-Qaida affiliate in the world.
So far, there are three big security firms with lucrative contracts to protect U.S. diplomats. Triple Canopy, a longtime State guard company, has a contract worth up to $1.53 billion to keep diplos safe as they travel throughout Iraq. Global Strategies Group will guard the consulate at Basra for up to $401 million. SOC Incorporated will protect the mega-embassy in Baghdad for up to $974 million. State has yet to award contracts to guard consulates in multiethnic flashpoint cities Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as the outpost in placid Irbil.
“We can have the kind of protection our diplomats need,” Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough told reporters after Obama’s announcement. Whether the Iraqi people will have protection from the contractors that the State Department commands is a different question. And whatever you call their operations, the Obama administration hopes that you won’t be so rude as to call it “war.”
More Obamanation.....
President Barack Obama’s new student loan policy will force working class Americans to pay the ballooning college costs of middle class Americans, and will also hinder needed reform of the bloated education sector, say critics.
Obama is “shifting the burden of paying for college to all of those Americans who did not graduate from college — the waitresses, construction workers, mechanics — and that should infuriate the taxpayers who worked hard to pay off their loans, who decided to live a modest lifestyle to pay off their loans,” said Lindsey Burke, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Obama’s policy is also widening the class division between working-class Americans and those with college credentials, said Matthew Denhart, a researcher at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in Washington, D.C.
Whatever the real costs, the new subsidy could benefit Obama’s standing among the disenchanted voters in the coveted 20-something demographic. Almost 70 percent of that group voted for him overwhelmingly in 2008.
The new loan policy “will save you money, it will help more young people figure out how to attend college … you will be more comfortable and confident to buy a house … [and] that will give our economy a boost when it desperately needs it,” Obama told a cheering crowd of students at the University of Colorado’s Denver campus.
But, he added, “young guys, I need you involved, I need you active … I need you to get the word out.”
Colorado is a swing state, and his polls show him well below the 50 percent approval mark. (RELATED: Ron Paul says Obama’s student debt plan is possibly illegal)
On Tuesday, Obama’s 2012 campaign announced a new program to win back youth voters. The “Greater Together,” program is intended “to engage young Americans between the ages of 18 and 29.” It was introduced by a video that asks younger people “to get involved once again in the political process and to help him finish what they all started together.”
The next day, Oct. 26, Obama announced his new student loan regulations, which build on a 2010 law that forced banks to cede student loan work to the federal government. The law forced banks to lay off thousands of employees, and it allows students to walk away from taxpayers’ loans after 15 years or 25 years.
Obama’s policy caps monthly payments at 10 percent of graduate’s income after taxes. Additionally, graduates will be able to walk away from taxpayers’ loans after 10 years if they work in “public service.”
“Public service” jobs are limited to government jobs, plus some favored non-profits focused on “public interest” law, early education, health or libraries. Students working in for-profit companies will be able to discard their loans only after 20 years, according to the new policy.
But the colleges fees have to be paid somehow, even when repayments are stopped, said Burke. Sooner or later, this “will ultimately result in tax increases — in putting this on the backs of three-quarters of Americans who did not graduate from college.”
Working-class people will end up paying for middle-class graduates’ basket-weaving and women’s studies degrees, she said.
Moreover, billions of dollars in government subsidies and advocacy have gradually converted college degrees into markers of middle-class status, even when those degrees earn less money than vocational credentials, such as plumbing licenses, Denhart said. Employers can’t assess the economic value of non-technical degrees, he explained, so those degrees only allow “people to signal to employers and peers that ‘I’m qualified enough to have completed a college education.’”
Administration officials say the new financial benefits are free.
Roughly 1.6 million Americans with federal loans “could see their payments go down by hundreds [of dollars] per month … [and] it won’t cost taxpayers a dime,” Obama told the cheering students.
But there must be a cost, countered Denhart. “We don’t know the exact cost … it takes time to work it out.”
The monthly benefit for graduate depends on their income and whether they’re married and have children. The greatest benefit will go to those with the highest debt and the lowest income, for example, people with post-graduate degrees in social studies.
The new policy also allows roughly 6 million graduates to merge commercial ‘Federal Family Education Loans’ loans with government loans, and lower their interest rate by roughly a half-percent. Roughly 36 million graduates have outstanding loans, including $400 billion in FFEL debt.
The full cost of these benefits likely won’t be known for a decade, when graduates will begin to walk away from taxpayers’ loans, Denhart said. Costs incurred more than 10 years ahead aren’t accounted for in government budget plans.
In his Colorado speech, Obama acknowledged the rising costs of college. Those costs have tripled since 1982, and graduates owe almost $1 trillion to government and commercial lenders, Denhart continued. But Obama offered no proposal to curbs costs, or improve quality in the education industry, which is an important part of the Democratic Party’s political base.
Federal loans and additional grants allow universities to charge high fees, Denhart said, or even to further raise their fees.
Obama’s policies, said Burke, are keeping costs too high, and effectively preserving the “education bubble” in the same fashion that government subsidies and unwise regulations created the real estate bubble during the 1990s and 2000s. The real estate bubble wrecked the economy as it burst in 2008 when mortgage debts became unmanageable, and the education bubble will eventually burst when graduates can’t pay their loans, she concluded.
Republicans legislators oppose the taxpayer-paid bailout. “This plan will not create a single job, strengthen our economy, or promote fiscal responsibility,” said a statement from John Kline, chairman of the House committee on education. Instead, the plan will “encourage more borrowing across the board… more debt for students, more debt for taxpayers, and more red ink on the government’s books,” said the statement.
Obama’s unwillingness to deal with rising costs and the education bubble, said Denhart, is “unsurprising, but at the same time, incredibly disappointing … [because] what we’re seeing is an industry that refuses to reform its basic operating structure.”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/26/class-war-obama-offers-cash-for-votes-student-loan-policy/#ixzz1c0gGQOJxAnyone but Obama in 2012.....
By Neal Boortz
On Friday, Barack Obama announced that the rest of our troops in Iraq will be returning home by the end of the year. During that speech, and again during his weekly Saturday address, Obama made the following assertion: "The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus on Afghanistan and achieve major victories against all Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.”
Oh really? First of all, the only thing that Obama did to “get” Osama bin Laden was get the hell out of the way and let the brave men and women of our military do what they do best. And where did our military get the intelligence to track down Osama bin Laden? According to an article published in the NYTimes in May, the intelligence used to locate Osama bin Laden came from an al Qaeda operative who was captured by our military forces in Iraq in 2004. Yet, Obama says that it is his troop drawdown that led to the capture of Osama bin Laden.
What arrogance. But you really can’t blame the guy. How would you like to be the guy who has to catalogue the accomplishments of Barry Obama to be used in a reelection campaign?
Ouch! Barry, this one is going to hurt....
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/24/how-obama-got-osama/First of all, the only thing that Obama did...
was more than Bush did in less than 1/2 the time. AND he has gotten more frikkin other fucks with his plan/direction than the previous prick did.
How would you like to be the guy who has to catalogue the accomplishments of Barry Obama to be used in a reelection campaign?
Well there are a heck of a lot more than the R congress has ... or Newt, or Bachmann, or Perry, or Santorum, or Paul or or or...
What does it say that he is only trailing against a "generic republican" yet when you actually put one of this group up, Obama is leading? Let me help you - It says that pretty much EVERY R candidate SUCKS worse than a nobody. THAT'S pathetic.
“The death of Osama Bin Laden marks the single greatest victory in the US-led campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda,” an official said.
The operation had been in the works for years. Since 9/11, the CIA gathered leads on those in bin Laden’s inner circle, including personal couriers.
In 2009, intelligence officials identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operate – but they were still unable to pinpoint precisely where.
In August 2010 came the big break. Intelligence identified a compound that aroused their suspicion – eight times larger than other homes in the area, built in 2005, on a property valued at $1 million. But access to the compound was severely restricted, with elaborate security and 12 to 18 foot walls topped with barbed wire. Incongruently, the compound has no phone service or televisions. The main building had few windows and a seven foot wall for privacy. Residents burned their trash.
FWIW, the real intel apparently came in 2009 & 2010, well after shrub was gone.
Such bullshit, bullshit... When you fill your head with shit like this, it's no wonder what comes out.
[SIZE="5"]MAKING STUFF UP!!![/SIZE]
I listen to the local Fox network radio station. I've lost count of the times the host, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, whomever, just Makes. Shit. Up.
The commercial WHORING for attention is pathetic, just like your boy up there saying President Obama "got" Osama bin Laden. For fucking fuck's sake. No one with any brains listens to that, no one with any intelligence gives such nonsense any thought. I was listening to Glen Beck this morning, before I'd donned my intelligence for the day, and during one of the short breaks between commercials, he told the story of the new "secret" rules by DHS that would require the presence of a DHS officer to be present when anyone wishes to open their safe deposit box in the event that the banks were taken over. Ostensibly, to watch for the removal of any gold, since that would be the only remaining truly valuable monetary medium. He spun this conspiracy theory and then segued neatly into the "Sponsor of the Day" which was GoldBuyerz4You.biz or some such.
See?
All they're doing is titillating you to stay tuned through the next commercial. It is their entire business model, and it's successful, though hardly nutritious for the mind.
You can fill your head with such shit if you wish. It's a free country. But I'm not obligated to treat your regurgitations as anything more than any other stinky mess.
Did you even read the articles "cited"? Unlikely. Here, I'll quote it for you from the NYT, the source Boortz claims undermines President Obama's statement:
Among them was John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who wrote secret legal memorandums justifying brutal interrogations. “President Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success today,” Mr. Yoo wrote Monday in National Review, “but he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration.”
But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.
“The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. “It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”
Your guy, Boortz? He's full of shit. When you listen to him or cite him, you get splashed with it too.
Such bullshit, bullshit... When you fill your head with shit like this, it's no wonder what comes out.
[SIZE="5"]MAKING STUFF UP!!![/SIZE]
You talkin' to me? :eyebrow:
only when you make shit up.
My post was in response to mercy's dittohead repetition of Boortz's bullshit. Unless Boortz is your boy too, I'm not talkin to you.
He was referring to Boortz via TheMercenary.
orly? I'll dismember that comment.
only when you make shit up.
My post was in response to mercy's dittohead repetition of Boortz's bullshit. Unless Boortz is your boy too, I'm not talkin to you.
Neil Boortz rocks! :thumb:
http://www.boortz.com/list/entertainment/neal-boortz-show-audio-archives/eGx/I listen to the local Fox network radio station. I've lost count of the times the host, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, whomever, just Makes. Shit. Up.
Can't help you, don't care, don't listen to them.
The commercial WHORING for attention is pathetic, just like your boy up there saying President Obama "got" Osama bin Laden. For fucking fuck's sake. No one with any brains listens to that, no one with any intelligence gives such nonsense any thought.
I was listening to Glen Beck this morning,
Well that was your first mistake, generally speaking I think he is an idiot.
See?
Yea, I see you acting like a pompous prick again and jumping off the cliff like a God Damm lemming.
All they're doing is titillating you to stay tuned through the next commercial. It is their entire business model, and it's successful, though hardly nutritious for the mind.
How does that work if I don't listen to them genius?
It's a free country.
Wow, the first factual statement you have made is this silly rant. You sound like a child throwing a tantrum.
Your guy, Boortz?
Boortz Rocks! :thumb:
Anyone but Obama in 2012.
Have a great day.
On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie
It's not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration's lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.
There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants-license-lieHey... these days when you vote D, you vote Stumblefuck. How 'bout that John Corzine? Ain't that boy about to have a tidal wave of hurt break all over him?
^You didn't see that kind of thing at the prospect of a Bush43 second term.
From Merc's link:
So Bill Looman is keeping the signs up, and the photos up -- stirring up a lot of debate.
. . . "Lord knows they're calling me at 2 in the morning, all night long, and voicing their opinion. And I respect their right to do that. I'm getting a reaction, a lot of it's negative, now. But a lot of people are waking up."
[bolding mine]