RunRyder RC
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ] 4527 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Okay, how bad is he?
02-02-2010 03:47 PM  8 years agoPost 1
synodontis

rrKey Veteran

United Kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Obama that is.

I don't usually go into politics, but judging from all the comments here there seems a chorus of disapproval.

The way I see it was that his term began in the worse possible way, inheriting an economy on the brink, he had to make extremely hard decisions, and it looks like he's making worse ones.

I'm going to be openly honest and say that I hate our own Labour government, Gordon Brown is a total baffoon, and usually I don't care about politics, but when the country that you're living in is going to get bankrupt it should damn well be your business - and it's going to effect you in ways that you don't want.

If I recall correctly when the Conservatives lost power to Labour it was over sleaze alligations etc . . Now Labour is going to lose to the Conservatives due to almost bankrupting the country. I think I can live with sleaze (what an MP does in his private life is not really anyone's business), but bankrupting the country is just going to effect everyone, and I'm going to vote Labour out.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 04:17 PM  8 years agoPost 2
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The way I see it was that his term began in the worse possible way, inheriting an economy on the brink, he had to make extremely hard decisions, and it looks like he's making worse ones.
Its the republicans that continue to stall government and make bad decisions. For instance a vote came up last week to implement "pay as you go" or PayGo. The principle is that congress can institute no further spending unless they take money for somewhere else or institute new tax to pay for it. Simple math that we citizens face everyday.

Needless to say not ONE republican voted for it. 6 or so sitting republicans had voted for the measure in the past, but somehow now its a communist plot or something. They've let their rhetoric back them into a corner to the point that they have to say no to everything, even if it's good for the country and they previously supported it.

Another instance was the creation of a bipartisan panel to review congressional spending. Again shot down by republicans.

There are no conservatives on either side in American politics and if either side tries to tell you different, they are lying to you.

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 04:56 PM  8 years agoPost 3
flustercluck

rrVeteran

Newnan Ga (Just S. of ATL)

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There are no conservatives on either side in American politics
Hmmmm... this would seem to beg the question... what's a conservative?

It's always helpful to define our terms, as an aid to discussion. How about the one making the assertion going first?

It could go something like this:

A conservative is one who __________________ .

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 05:30 PM  8 years agoPost 4
Texas1

rrNovice

Tyler, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Its the republicans that continue to stall government and make bad decisions
Your statement holds no water. The Democrats are in control of two branches of government. Up untill just the other day, they had a super majority in the senate. They could and have done anything they want. You cannot blame any of the current decision on the republicans. It is completely intellectual dishonest to make such a statement. Anything you have wanted done by Democrats that is not done by now falls at the feet of ineffective Democratic leadership.
I can only thank God for these failing for my children sake and their children sake.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 05:44 PM  8 years agoPost 5
Havoc

rrElite Veteran

Ky.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If DU didn't exist I wonder if OCB would have anything to post. At least he is trying to talk up this administration. He probably is feeling very lonely at this point.

Republicans didn't support this PayGo because the language called for any additional spending be accompanied by cuts or taxes equal in value. You are not going to get republicans to take blame for increasing taxes or touch anything that could cause taxes to increase in this economic environment.

They also didn't support the debt panel because it was simply a dog and pony show with no real teeth. Judd Gregg's version had teeth yet will likely not pass for that reason.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 06:01 PM  8 years agoPost 6
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I assume your labour party are the liberals?

An interesting point about liberals and more to the point, progressives.

The mayor of San Francisco was on Bill Oreilly's show last night trying to defend the way his progressive governemtn has governed San Francisco. When asked about the city's budget being at 6.6 billion with a 500 some odd deficit, the mayor fiercely defended his government saying that they were doing a good job and that the deficit was normal.

Some here would be quick to step in and cay but but but, conservatives can spend with the best of em. I'd have to say that many 'conservatives' aren't truly fiscally conservative.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 06:47 PM  8 years agoPost 7
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They could and have done anything they want. You cannot blame any of the current decision on the republicans.
Unless said republicans filibuster or force cloture on every vote. Republican use of the filibuster and cloture during this session of congress is truly unprecedented.

They have effectively dragged all government to a screeching halt even going so far as to voting against bills they themselves cosponsored.

American Chronicle

Yes sir, the Senator had a chance to demonstrate that the Republicans, when given a chance to actually prove their claim that they were not the "party of no", with a proposal that the Senate Minority Leader had endorsed for months, Senator McConnell just couldn´t resist the opportunity to "thumb-his-nose" at the president´s belated support. Once again, the Republican leaders have proven that what they say out-loud, even to the press, may or "may not mean squat".
Republicans didn't support this PayGo because the language called for any additional spending be accompanied by cuts or taxes equal in value. You are not going to get republicans to take blame for increasing taxes or touch anything that could cause taxes to increase in this economic environment.
Yet they scream for a balanced budget and lowering the deficit? I'd sure like to hear one of their great "ideas" they claim to have to accomplish this. I guess we hear them all the time, but the fact that they do not really appear to work prevents us from paying any attention.
Incidentally, the last time Paygo was enacted we ended up with a surplus. That quickly disappeared along with Paygo when the republicans called the shots.

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 07:01 PM  8 years agoPost 8
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Deficits returned during the final years of the last PayGo period because Congress found creative means for discretionary spending that circumvented the limits imposed by PayGo.

Nice try OCB.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 07:02 PM  8 years agoPost 9
nivlek

rrProfessor

Norfolk England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm going to be openly honest and say that I hate our own Labour government, Gordon Brown is a total baffoon, and usually I don't care about politics, but when the country that you're living in is going to get bankrupt it should damn well be your business - and it's going to effect you in ways that you don't want.
Gordon Brown was known as the 'Magic Chancellor' , the only thing that he did that could be described as magic was making all the wealth dissapear !! Before the banking collapse , there was ten years of economic growth , so had Brown salted away something for a rainy day (other than for himself) ? No , amongst other things ,he had sold off our gold reserve for stuff all and borrowed massive amounts of money .
Treacherous Jock git . William Wallace would be proud of him .
While I'm ranting , as Scotland has its own parliament , why do we have so many Jocks in the English parliament ?

At the end of the day , it gets dark .

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 07:45 PM  8 years agoPost 10
Texas1

rrNovice

Tyler, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

In the Senate, a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate on a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use the Senate, where rules permit a senator or a series of senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60% of senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. Filibustering, for many years, was the primary tactic by which southern senators were able to block civil rights and anti-lynching legislation from coming to the floor. More recently, the filibuster received attention when the Republican-controlled 109th Congress threatened to end it in an attempt to stop Democrats from blocking President Bush’s judicial nominations

So the democratics could bring any filibuster to an end by calling a vote. The process to move forward has always been in there hands from the point of the new president taking office till now when Brown took office.

As far as policy by the Rebublicans there have been no efforts to entertain ideas from them. It was O and the Dems way or nothing. So all policy is their and their only to own.

What has slow down the empty suit from getting what he wants is his own Dems wanting favors for there votes!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 08:04 PM  8 years agoPost 11
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Deficits returned during the final years of the last PayGo period because Congress found creative means for discretionary spending that circumvented the limits imposed by PayGo.
But it resulted in a surplus by 1998 none the less. And then that completely disappeared and became a deficit by 2002.

Hmmm, wonder who controlled congress around this time.....

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 08:07 PM  8 years agoPost 12
str8den

rrVeteran

NE U.K

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm going to be openly honest and say that I hate our own Labour government, Gordon Brown is a total baffoon, and usually I don't care about politics, but when the country that you're living in is going to get bankrupt it should damn well be your business - and it's going to effect you in ways that you don't want
wan tai fu king; couldn't agree more, and i sense that the americans are getting what we have had for the past decade.

i just can not stand obama; what with that cheesy, photoshopped grin permanantly etched on his mug reminds me of a photo-negative of that tw@t Bliar.
Treacherous Jock git . William Wallace would be proud of him .
While I'm ranting , as Scotland has its own parliament , why do we have so many Jocks in the English parliament ?
nivlek, you're not my long-lost twin by any chance?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 09:05 PM  8 years agoPost 13
nivlek

rrProfessor

Norfolk England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Could be .

At the end of the day , it gets dark .

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 09:15 PM  8 years agoPost 14
jsenicka

rrProfessor

Eagle River, WI

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sure there was a surplus. It is one of the biggest talking points on the left. It was achieved with 3 primary means. Pulling Social Security funds into the general fund, slashing defense spending to the bone, and tax revenues from the dot com bubble.
So when GWB took office we lost a couple trillion out of the economy when the .com bubble burst, and then there was that darn 9/11 thing, forcing us to not only spend money on a war effort, but also rebuild military infrastructure.

Jim Senicka
Team Manager, GrandRC Flight Team

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2010 09:52 PM  8 years agoPost 15
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Pulling Social Security funds into the general fund, slashing defense spending to the bone, and tax revenues from the dot com bubble.
More republican myths dashed!!

I would like to see the sources for your claims.


Fact Check


Rudy's Historic Rewrite

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that happened mostly under a Republican administration:

Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.

Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we’ve pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

Fact Check

Q:

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A:

Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-03-2010 12:01 AM  8 years agoPost 16
DGS

rrNovice

Hamburg, NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wrong Ozark, the Republicans cannot stall government. If the Dems were united they could have passed anything they wanted. The Repubs could not stop them. It's unbelievable that libs blame Republicans when the Dums have (had 'til recently) a super-majority. The Dems should have been able to ram any of their policies through after the election - except they did not all agree on almost all of the garbage served up by this administration!

Cheers,
Dave

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-03-2010 12:59 AM  8 years agoPost 17
Dragon2115

rrKey Veteran

New England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"It's the Republicans fault" is all the Democrats, and tools like OCB, have. They can't face the fact that the meltdown was caused by Democratic policies started 15 years ago that finally came home to roost. Obama is busy spluttering about inheriting a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit coming into office when the reality was that he inherited a $618 billion dollar deficit plus a $700 billion dollar loan program THAT HE ASKED BUSH FOR. TARP wasn't supposed to be counted against the deficit because it was supposed to be a loan that was to be repaid, with interest. Now bumbles is talking about spending it on his new "jobs" program which will turn it into actual deficit spending.

Another thing that frustrates the hell of people liek OCB is that they like to claim spending was out of control under Bush. Deficit spending sure as hell did go up. But it ignores that it was on it's way back down again until the Dems took control again in January of 2007. Once it was up to them to set the budget it went right back up through the roof. If we look at the graph

[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png]

we see that we went back into deficit spending in 2002 with the start of the Afghan war and peaked in 2004. After that it was on a downward trend until the Dems took over and wrote the 2008 budget.

But what do facts matter when you've got "it's Bush's fault" to run with. And they wonder why they're losing elections again.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-03-2010 03:09 AM  8 years agoPost 18
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The only reason that the Democraps couldn't get their scams passed was that they were so busy fighting among themselves over the bones of the American economy, that they killed, that they didn't have time to pass anything before the voters wised up to the corruption and ended their super majority in the Senate.
Now that the voters are awake to the Dems. lies and corruption, the government will turn back to a more sensible leadership.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-03-2010 10:50 AM  8 years agoPost 19
synodontis

rrKey Veteran

United Kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gordon Brown was known as the 'Magic Chancellor' , the only thing that he did that could be described as magic was making all the wealth dissapear !! Before the banking collapse , there was ten years of economic growth , so had Brown salted away something for a rainy day (other than for himself) ? No , amongst other things ,he had sold off our gold reserve for stuff all and borrowed massive amounts of money .
I mean, you got to love Gordon Brown. What's there not to like? He sold all the Gold reserves at the low!! That's just magic, isn't it? Gold prices are now at the record high. So much so, that I'm getting sick and tired of all these "send in your old gold for cash" ads on TV.

And then there's the Northern Rock fiasco. By decentralizing control of the financial system and taking away the Bank of England's power and sharing it amongst the financial services ombudsman and the FSA, the 3 of them were arguing amongst themselves as what to do with Northern Rock (this was before they went under, the Bank of England knew it was going to happen, but could not take proper action because of contention with the other 2 governing bodies).

The tories are sleazy, but at least they showed restraint, didn't mess things up like Labour did, and have a realistic understanding of the economy. I really don't care if some of our MPs use escorts, want to dress in S+M gear in private etc. . . none of my business - just make sure that the country is happy and economically sound!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-05-2010 06:07 AM  8 years agoPost 20
Texas1

rrNovice

Tyler, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Looks like the nut in the senate agrees with my afore statement of who is at fault.

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

The private session was set up in a panel format, with Axelrod joined at the front of the room by Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

A Democratic source said that Franken directed his criticism solely at Axelrod.

“It was all about leadership and health care and what the plan was going to be,” the source said.

Franken — a comedian turned liberal talk show host — vowed to keep a relatively low profile when he arrived in the Senate over the summer after a protracted legal battle with former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman. But he has developed a reputation among his colleagues as one of the more aggressive personalities on the Hill.

Last November, after Tennessee Republican Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander authored an op-ed in a local paper defending their opposition to a Franken amendment, Franken confronted both men on the floor — and grew particularly irritated with Corker.

He lashed out at Corker and a staff member in a follow-up meeting about the matter, several people said. Franken also clashed with South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in GOP leadership, last month in a scathing speech during the health care debate, and staffers have reported other run-ins.

The White House, the Democratic National Committee and Franken’s office all declined to speak on the record about Wednesday’s session. Begala did not respond to a request for comment

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/storie...l#ixzz0edfcRLtu

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ] 4527 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Okay, how bad is he?
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 10  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, November 14 - 9:32 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online