Doesn’t matter - it was an arrogant, shitty thing to say. If he wants to fight a “guns and religion” culture, he did it exactly the wrong way.
Of course not. He was absolutely right.
Other than Steven Chu, which of Obama’s cabinet members would you describe as an “intellectual” (when did that become a bad thing?) or “academic”?
You are changing the conversation. What I said is that the Health Care Reform may save the government money. You know, reduce deficits, cut government spending. I said nothing about healthcare costs, the effectiveness of the government to enact entitlement programs, or anything else. I think you and I would probably agree on many things in this area, but that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is how much “ObamaCare” is going to cost the government and whether those costs will be offset by savings due to the fact that everybody is going to be forced to have insurance. You can disrespect other aspects of this bill all you want, but you are wrong about the cost to the government. Oh, and just a quick question, back in the 90s when Mrs. Clinton unveiled her Health care reform plan and the Republicans unveiled the plan they thought would work better, did you like the Republican plan? Be honest now.
Read more closely, I never disrespected Fox News (that was someone else), I said that their article was disingenuous in comparing the deficits over the last several years as a method of comparing the costs of the wars to the stimulus. I provided evidence based on a CBO report that the costs of the wars were much higher than the Health Care bill. If you don’t trust the news articles, you can just read the CBO report here. But be careful, the CBO is a bed of partisan liberal ideology just like the World Bank. :rolleyes:
To quote myself again:
The Democratically controlled House and Senate first established PAYGO rules in 1990 in a Bipartisan effort with the Republicans and it was signed by President Bush (breaking his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”). In 93’ these policies were continued by the Democrats in a party line vote; not a single Republican Voted for it. In 97’ the Republican controlled house and Senate continued the policies in a bipartisan fashion. In 2002 the Republican controlled house and Senate scrapped the rules so they could pass the Medicare Drug Benefit. So to sum up, I don’t think the Democrats are all that when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the meme that the Republicans are better is pure bullshit. Regarding the PAYGO rules, you ask what are the odds of them following the rules, well they need to either pass an exemption or declare and emergency to break them, what are the odds of that? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do applaude the fact that they instituted the rules, don’t you?
As someone already pointed out, the problems you cite were created by Obama’s predecessors. Your reasoning follows the theme of this thread, wing-nuts blaming Obama for the problems created by their own political philosophy.
Where are you from anyway? There is no relationship between Sarah Palin and NY. Did you mean Washington DC? Russia does hold a note on 3.2% of our debt, but thats hardly a consideration in the overall problem. The Chinese bric-a-brac is a problem though. It is generally of lower quality than the bric-a-brac we produced here, or even that imported from other countries.
Let me clear up a few matters for you: We are American citizens and can call the president any name we feel like, but you will address him as Mr. Obama in the future. The office of president is the singular embodiment of the will of the greatest nation on earth now and forever, and you will show due deference. You may however refer to Sarah Palin as ‘that idiot’, because she doesn’t actually count. Well not past 10 anyway. And we will continue to enjoy the party, because we throw the best parties. Sometimes for entertainment we have firework displays, also called ‘shock and awe’. If you don’t like that, your country could be the next location for our entertainment. Lest your feelings of superiority overwhelm you, remember that the world’s largest air force is the US Air Force. And the second largest is the US Navy. That’s right, our boats have more planes than your whole country. Don’t mistake our intramural disputes for true division. We are one nation, and if you piss us off, we will stomp on you.
It’s been very nice discussing this matter with you. Perhaps you could tell us about your country and you political situation there. Many people on this board are interested in the international perspective on world economic conditions. Thank you. And have a nice day.
No thanks, I already ate.
TriPolar, tone it down. Rune can also call Barack Obama any name he feels like (within SDMB rules) because he’s a person posting anonymously on the internet. So can anybody else here.
I’m sorry, I’m sort of laughing my ass off here - since when did bloggers become respected peer-reviewed sources of factual information? I know blogs are “teh kewl” and all among non-scientists, but seriously, they’re the tool of the slipshod researcher to rely upon, and I say this having myself been guilty of relying too much on one or the other blog in the past when I’ve been lazy. Real research does not happen in or about blogs. If I presented a technical paper at a conference and listed a blog in my references, I would be hooted off the stage, let alone the fact it would be rejected for publication. He’s just some guy preaching from his online pulpit. Even if he had some credence it’s a sample size of one. That’s a non-partisan statement.
Um…didn’t that little “9/11” bugaboo and two freaking wars impact that? Just an itsy-bitsy bit? A smidge? A trifle? Two memes on this message board which I wish would really die out are:
- Democrats were SOLELY responsible for the Clinton-era balanced budget.
- Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it.
I didn’t say there was no partisanship, nor that Republicans did not obstruct that, nor that they were not being stupid. Unless you want to post a link showing where I did.
Huh? 3/4 of the Clinton years had a Republican House. How much of the 1990-1995 years did?
Let me clear here, since folks aren’t paying attention yet again - I don’t assert that EITHER party is being fiscally responsible with respect to the deficit or debt. If there were no trillion-dollar wars during the Bush era, no 9/11, what might have happened with the budget then?
And the Republicans of 1997 were unfortunately a better sort, or at least behaving better, than those of the mid-2000’s. They were a big, big disappointment to me. The wars should have been paid for with tax increases. “America goes to war” my ass - “America” engaged in a McMansion-buying housing bubble like a drunken monkey with a bag full of bananas in a monkey whorehouse, while the Republican Congress mortgaged our future even further. The wars should have been PAYGO or not done at all.
I am highly dubious that anyone has ever suggested that “two wars” had nothing to do with the Bush-era deficit. I think you may be confused because you appear to be under the impression that Bush is not entirely to blame for the more expensive of those two wars.
My bad, poorly phrased. I meant that if I merely used years in the numerative context, as in, say, 1860-1867, that would be ok, but since I said “Clinton years” its not. Like you think that the writers calling them the “Clinton years” bestows an implied approval.
As for this:
I don’t directly hold Bush responsible for 9/11, and arguably the incursion into Afghanistan was a result of nationwide, unanimous hysteria, so that’s a wash. That other war, though, charged entirely to our national credit card…yeah, I definitely put that on their slate. Mostly on Bush, since he was the alpha lemming and led the charge.
It is significant that Nixon was the last Republican POTUS elected before movement conservatism took control of the GOP. Apparently, movement conservatism does not equate to fiscal conservatism.
No, they suggest it via omission. “Bush skyrocketed the deficit” is a bullshit statement on two levels.
AFAIK Bush could not unilaterally commit the funds for the wars. Did the Constitution change or something?
And where was Pelosi, again? Didn’t she campaign, right before she became Speaker, that she WOULD stop the wars? Was I mistaken and she never said or even implied such? How’d that work out?
Refresh my memory - which party controlled Congress the last time the budget was balanced?
Regards,
Shodan
OK, I am a Republican (“Hi Algher”). I don’t hate Obama, nor do most of the Republicans that I interact with. Then again, I stick to perhaps a more informed and genteel set rather than the frothing-at-the-mouth folks who are necessary in any get-out-the-vote drive.
In other words, most of us are “fine” with him in general, and our opposition is due to standard differences in how we see things.
The health care bill is crap. It is too big, too complicated, and does not fix our root problems of employer based coverage (part of the system thanks to FDR and WWII price controls) and coverage for those with certain long-term illnesses if they fall off of a plan (endemic to a profit-based risk-sharing system with individual buy-in).
The bailouts of the banks (and others) was bad, IMHO. I would have let more of them crash. Instead, we seem to have created a system where the big banks could buy out little banks thanks to Fed money and Fed arm-twisting. I would have let more companies go under - but I actually believe in cut-throat capitalism.
I am HAPPY that Obama is continuing the path of getting out of Iraq. I hope he continues that. I am HAPPY that Obama listened to his military and is letting them ramp up some pressure in Afghanistan. I hope that he can find a way out of there.
After that, most of it remains to be seen. We put up a crap candidate, and we deserved our ass-kicking in the last election. We “deserve” to get back some seats only because the Democrats haven’t solved all of the nation’s problems. The electorate is pissed, scared, nervous and cranky and will grab onto whoever promises them SOMETHING to make it all better (sounds like my kids when they were toddlers).
Hatred is reserved for those that truly go over the line. If I wanted to hate a politician, it would have to be for something that is truly “theirs” that also could be said to have done lasting harm to the nation’s interests (as defined by me, of course):
If I wanted to hate a President, I only have two at this time:
LBJ for Vietnam.
Bush Junior for the Iraq War and squandering our control of the House and Senate.
Actually, that’s what it looks like.
Sorry, I’ll make the facetious quality of such remarks more apparent in the future.
Rune, all in fun.
Nonsense - the House and Senate went along with Bush’s crap. They voted for the war (before voting against), and then voted for continued funding rather than be seen as anti-troop.
Una has an excellent point there when the issue of ‘declaration of war’ comes up. The money for the wars was allocated by congress for that purpose. That is more substantive than a bill that just stamps the words ‘Declaration of War’ at the top.
Heh, I like your post and agree with pretty much everything you say. Regarding what would have happened to the Budget without 9/11, I believe that domestic spending under President Bush increased dramatically. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to do some proper research today but I can offer you these choice quotes from the spending section of Wikipedia’s article on the Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration (I know, not the best source):
and