Obama excepts his Nobel prize

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Again..his biggest problem is not being Liberal enough

in his attempt at pleasing everyone, he will fulfill that adage-he will please no one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

??? The President doesn't make up the vast majority of what we spend every year - it is largely predetermined, Medicare, federal employees, defense, etc. For example Fed employees are getting a 2% raise this year.

Are you talking about what is in the House and Senate now, the omnibus bill for 2010 spending, right?

So tell me, out of all the 2010 spending ("Obama's budget" is not what it is), what is specifically Obama's programs, added, that you don't like?

And yes, that bill (those bills, House and Senate are different) are huge and filled with pork, and much will be cut out, and the vast majority of crap in it is put there by our Congressmen and Senators for their districts and states.

Blaming everything in there for 2010 all on Obama is ridiculous. And yes, you have to wait and see what is passed and what is not.
News (not op-ed) article discussing it: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=alggRZ3von6w

you're now splitting hairs. you're suggesting obama isn't attempting to increase spending, and that it isn't just 'his budget'. but i know what i read in the below:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/oba...ws-conference/



A $5 Trillion Whopper?

The president claimed he has cut federal spending by more than $2 trillion.

Obama: I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we’ve taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn’t agree that Obama’s budget has “reduced federal spending” at all. Quite the opposite. His budget calls for vastly increased spending, according to CBO.
Last month CBO estimated that total federal spending, without the changes Obama proposed in his budget, would be just under $39 trillion over the next 10 years. It also estimated that if Congress adopted the president’s budget, spending would increase to more than $41.7 trillion over the same period. As a percentage of the economy, CBO figured that federal spending would rise from 22.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) under current law, to 23.7 percent under Obama’s budget proposals

and no, it hasn't passed as yet-but his simply asking for it belies your posts.

[Danzig]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion


ObamaCare's core promise—better quality care for everyone at lower costs—is being exposed as an illusion as it degenerates into the raw exercise of political power. Naturally, the White House and its media booster club are working furiously to prop up this fiasco, especially on cost control.

Cost containment will actually take "years to decades," Mr. Orszag(Obama budget director) conceded.

Atul Gawande, who likewise owned up to the fact that there is "no master plan for dealing with the problem of soaring medical costs," only "a battery of small scale experiments." Keep in mind, this is an argument in favor of ObamaCare.

But then Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf testified in July that "the curve is being raised," given that ObamaCare lacks "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to tamp down costs


One liberal sage noted in a 2007 paper that "four decades of empirical research" have shown that insulating people through third-party insurance coverage "from the full cost of health care has been responsible for anywhere from 10% to 50% of the large increase in health expenditures."
Those are the words of Jason Furman, now the White House deputy economic director who seems to have been put into witness protection. Every serious health economist in the country recommends reforming the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance, perhaps by converting it to a deduction or credit. Cost control will never stick unless it is extricated from politics and transferred to individuals to make their own trade-offs.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

in his attempt at pleasing everyone, he will fulfill that adage-he will please no one.

In my opinion the administration hasn't been making much of an effort to please any of us on the far left. It is just one concession after another to the "blue-dog" dems.
Again, most of this isn't a surprise to any of us on the far left, but the fact that the administration's maddeningly moderate course on a host of issues was predictable, doesn't make it any less frustrating for us.

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Again, most of this isn't a surprise to any of us on the far left, but the fact that the administration's maddeningly moderate course on a host of issues was predictable, doesn't make it any less frustrating for us.

So you're saying he isn't spending us into oblivion fast enough?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

So you're saying he isn't spending us into oblivion fast enough?

its a great thing he isnt making the "far left" happy. He should stay far away from the far left.

Eventhough IMO he is the far left.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

its a great thing he isnt making the "far left" happy. He should stay far away from the far left.

Eventhough IMO he is the far left.

I think most of us on the far left favor things like ending wars instead of escalating them, furthering gay rights instead of ignoring them, pushing for ACTUAL universal health care instead of some half-ass measure that won't accomplish much. etc. etc. etc.
This administration is far to the left of the previous administration....that's for sure. But that isn't much of a standard. Believe me when I tell you that many of us who actually are far lefties would not consider this administration to be acting in a very "liberal" way on a whole lot of issues.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I think most of us on the far left favor things like ending wars instead of escalating them, furthering gay rights instead of ignoring them, pushing for ACTUAL universal health care instead of some half-ass measure that won't accomplish much. etc. etc. etc.
This administration is far to the left of the previous administration....that's for sure. But that isn't much of a standard. Believe me when I tell you that many of us who actually are far lefties would not consider this administration to be acting in a very "liberal" way on a whole lot of issues.

He's been a douche to all the gays who voted for him thats for sure.

I think he's doing a good job with Iraq and Afghanistan, and thats about all that he's doing a good job with (except stem cell). The Iraq withdrawal stuff that Bush set up seems to be going okay. We cant just leave Afghanistan.. do you remember September 11th? There is a ton riding on winning in Afghanistan, it would be a mistake to think otherwise.


Universal Health Care would work if you are willing to give about 50% of your income to fed taxes and wait months and months to get a specialist appt, like it is in other countries with Universal Health Care.

Though if this health care plan wont accomplish much they better scrap it because its way too expensive. I am doubting that it will pass. Good ol' Lieberman will side with the GOP. Its weird that the dems are basically ignoring tort reform, something that would actually make a lot of difference, but they get too much $$ from the malpractice lawyers and dont have the balls tell them to fucl< off.

Not that a Repub would do any better really. They all suck.

He's definately left enough.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it won't. i'd imagine obama will make it look nice, will get it passed, and then leave the real bill for after he's long gone out of office. he'll be able to crow about how he got it done (interesting isn't it, when there's a success it's the president who did it, but if there's a problem-it's congresses fault!) but later we'll have bigger and bigger issues to deal with to keep it going.

and look what i just found that explains in detail what i predicted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...508080098.html

Under the House bill, CBO projects that the entitlement would bring in $123 billion in premiums from 2010-2019 and pay out only $20 billion in benefits. CBO also projects that the Senate's version would generate $88 billion in premiums and $14 billion in benefits.

But in a letter late last month to Sen. Tom Harkin, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf explained that while the Class Act would likely reduce federal budget deficits during 2020-2029, it would do so "by smaller amounts than in the initial decade."

By the third decade, CBO says the program would pay more in benefits than it received in premiums and what it saved Medicaid (which currently pays for long-term care for millions of elderly). Mr. Elmendorf concludes that "the programs would add to budget deficits in the third decade—and in succeeding decades—by amounts on the order of tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period." These long-term demands on the Treasury would coincide with shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security projected to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Sen. Kennedy notwithstanding, it is hard not to conclude that a major motivation for the Class Act is to make ObamaCare look fiscally better over CBO's official 10-year budget horizon. Without the new long-term care program, CBO's projected deficit reductions for the House and Senate bills would be $36 billion and $58 billion, respectively, rather than $138 billion and $130 billion. This makes the overall Democratic reform look fiscally more responsible than it really is. The real danger comes after 10 years, when the long-term care program will increase deficits and create even greater pressure for government rationing of medical care

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

He's been a douche to all the gays who voted for him thats for sure.

I think he's doing a good job with Iraq and Afghanistan, and thats about all that he's doing a good job with (except stem cell). The Iraq withdrawal stuff that Bush set up seems to be going okay. We cant just leave Afghanistan.. do you remember September 11th? There is a ton riding on winning in Afghanistan, it would be a mistake to think otherwise.


Universal Health Care would work if you are willing to give about 50% of your income to fed taxes and wait months and months to get a specialist appt, like it is in other countries with Universal Health Care.

Though if this health care plan wont accomplish much they better scrap it because its way too expensive. I am doubting that it will pass. Good ol' Lieberman will side with the GOP. Its weird that the dems are basically ignoring tort reform, something that would actually make a lot of difference, but they get too much $$ from the malpractice lawyers and dont have the balls tell them to fucl< off.

Not that a Repub would do any better really. They all suck.

He's definately left enough.

That's not how it really is....but whatever, that discussion has been had a thousand times.

On the issue of how far "left" this administration is, I just don't know that it makes sense to label them "far left" given how many politicians and people there are in the country who are way to the left of the administration's actions thus far.
If the current administration is far left, then what do you call Russ Feingold? Or better yet, what will you call the GBbob/brianwspencer 2016 ticket?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That's not how it really is....but whatever, that discussion has been had a thousand times.

On the issue of how far "left" this administration is, I just don't know that it makes sense to label them "far left" given how many politicians and people there are in the country who are way to the left of the administration's actions thus far.
If the current administration is far left, then what do you call Russ Feingold? Or better yet, what will you call the GBbob/brianwspencer 2016 ticket?

Like Ive said many times also, I've lived in 2 countries with Universal Health care and it was EXACTLY like that. Very crappy health care too. But hey we can pretend its so grand.

Bob and BWS are both admited socialist... so thats what you can call left of far left!

I dont think Obama is a Socialist, but he is far left Democrat IMO. He's no blue dog.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Like Ive said many times also, I've lived in 2 countries with Universal Health care and it was EXACTLY like that. Very crappy health care too. But hey we can pretend its so grand.

Bob and BWS are both admited socialist... so thats what you can call left of far left!

I dont think Obama is a Socialist, but he is far left Democrat IMO. He's no blue dog.

if you asked obama, even he probably couldn't tell you whether he's left, far left, or more to the middle. i do know for every left leaning thing he says, he follows it up with a middle move to appeal to voters towards that end of the spectrum.
for example, he says DADT will be gone, that he wants it gone, but then he shows a right leaning bent by actually listening to a general and following his advice. that's certainly not a far left move. imo, he's just trying to stay above water with every segment of voters (after all, even if he's not far enough left, will any leftist NOT vote for him next time 'round?!) so that he can be re-elected.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you asked obama, even he probably couldn't tell you whether he's left, far left, or more to the middle. i do know for every left leaning thing he says, he follows it up with a middle move to appeal to voters towards that end of the spectrum.
for example, he says DADT will be gone, that he wants it gone, but then he shows a right leaning bent by actually listening to a general and following his advice. that's certainly not a far left move. imo, he's just trying to stay above water with every segment of voters (after all, even if he's not far enough left, will any leftist NOT vote for him next time 'round?!) so that he can be re-elected.

He probably read Clinton's book.

I thought the majority of Generals feel that DADT should be gone? Waste of good men and women service members who get trained and serve just to be kicked out.

Oh thats right.. gays can only be queers and fa.gots, not good soldiers!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

He probably read Clinton's book.

I thought the majority of Generals feel that DADT should be gone? Waste of good men and women service members who get trained and serve just to be kicked out.

Oh thats right.. gays can only be queers and fa.gots, not good soldiers!!

you'll probably find folks from one end of the spectrum to the other. but yeah, absolutely it's a waste of time and money to have someone go thru the training, gain experience, and then boot them out because of their private life. interesting thing i found about it all is that the majority of those discharged are women.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you'll probably find folks from one end of the spectrum to the other. but yeah, absolutely it's a waste of time and money to have someone go thru the training, gain experience, and then boot them out because of their private life. interesting thing i found about it all is that the majority of those discharged are women.

dykes like shooting guns! lol

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Obama's signature is needed to put in effect. It IS his budget just as it is every Presidents.

Remember when Obama was campaigning against all that pork? And no he has lifted a finger to stop previous pork laden bills nor will he stop or make any attempt to curb it here either. .

What "previous pork laden bills" are you talking about?

And yeah, we'll have to wait and see if he makes any attempt to curb it here, or not.

I realize that your ability to predict the future is perfect, but I'll wait and see

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it won't. i'd imagine obama will make it look nice, will get it passed, and then leave the real bill for after he's long gone out of office. he'll be able to crow about how he got it done (interesting isn't it, when there's a success it's the president who did it, but if there's a problem-it's congresses fault!) but later we'll have bigger and bigger issues to deal with to keep it going.

Yes, Obama is the evil-doer in all imaginary fears about the future

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont keep current on the news on Mars where yours seem to come from.

Naw. I read more than just the WSJ and Faux News. Read several, easier to find the truth in it.

I suppose that is Mars to Glenn Beck

Funny thing about your news article that you seemingly post in defense of obama.

?? I'm not "defending" Obama in the least, I'm trying to be realistic and objective about the budget process.

You are the one (one of the ones) who is crucifying and blaming the guy before it even happens.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and no, it hasn't passed as yet-but his simply asking for it belies your posts.

The budget process (pretty ugly) in this country doesn't change with the President. What numbers you get varies depending upon what you include (assume things will be renewed, go out 10 years, assume tax cuts will be maintained, etc). And the numbers can vary in a huge way, as they are all speculation about the short and long-term future based upon multiple variables.

Four years ago, who predicted 2008?

All Presidents ask for things, all have their pet programs, the vast majority of stuff in these omnibus bills however is hooked-on pork from our Congress for their individual districts, and yes, the President can redline it out, Congress can fight it out and take it out, etc.

Obama campaigned on zero-based budgeting. Bush was the antithesis of that, he spent and spent without any plan at all to pay (which put us in this huge hole to start with), without finding the money to pay for what he wanted anywhere.

We'll see if Obama holds to his campaign promise, or not.

No President can be denied implementing his programs (we never have historically) just because there is a current budget deficit when he took office. That's why we elect them - to do certain things. They DO have the responsibility to pay for their personal programs, and to keep the general operating budget reasonable.

BTW, when looking historically at the last 40 years, the Democrats do this beautifully, and the Republicans have not. The Democrats have nearly always left the country owing less at the end of their terms, and the Republicans have not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

in his attempt at pleasing everyone, he will fulfill that adage-he will please no one.

I don't want him to move any further left (nearly all of our presidents end up centrists in practice, anyway, as this one is, center-left), but at this point I would like to see him ignore the GOP more, and just get things done. The GOP has been having the tantrum of a two-year-old since Obama was elected. But he can't let Congress run riot on him. This Congress alone would worry me.