Obama Report Card - Two Years Later

[Facetious]

"radical" - There's that ubiquitous label again

What exactly are his radical ideas for wealth distribution - a return to Clinton era tax rates? .......which were substantially lower than the tax rates during 6 of Reagan's 8 years.

During Reagan's eight years as president the total tax burden (includes all income earners not just the highest bracket) ranged from 29.2 percent to 31.1 percent. At present it stands at 26.9

In just 2 short years as potus, B.Obama the O-men has the sunk Americans into $3,000,000,000,000 in debt..more than 3x what bush did his entire 8 years! and I thought that bush was a horrible president!
Really, just how do you remedy a given debt by compounding it by a factor of 3x and doing so in 2 short years? !

:helpme:

Come on now, Bodie, when has Barry ever had to make a budget or balance a checkbook? the guy has been attended to like a small child for all of his recorded history, his expenditures are grossly disproportionate to the IRS receivables, no?

 

[Hot Mega]

In just 2 short years as potus, B.Obama the O-men has the sunk Americans into $3,000,000,000,000 in debt..more than 3x what bush did his entire 8 years! and I thought that bush was a horrible president!
Really, just how do you remedy a given debt by compounding it by a factor of 3x and doing so in 2 short years? !

effwhyeye on your figures there Face.:2 cents:

We checked Hensarling's claim in a separate item. Here, we'll look at Obama's claim that he came into office with a $1.3 trillion deficit and $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion.

There are two reasons why he differs from the CBO. On the difference between the $1.2 trillion and the $1.3 trillion, the Obama administration credited a small portion of spending on its watch to policies of the previous administration. The reason for this is that the federal government runs on a fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, so Bush and Obama technically split responsibility for 2009 spending.

The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010 and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward. The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline that those tax cuts would be renewed.

Economists we spoke with -- Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- both said they believe the White House approach is more realistic because it assumes current policy will continue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

Come on now, Bodie, when has Barry ever had to make a budget or balance a checkbook? the guy has been attended to like a small child for all of his recorded history, his expenditures are grossly disproportionate to the IRS receivables, no?

That's true...the O man is a product of pomp and privileged.:1orglaugh

 

[titsrock]

It all comes down to these questions: Do you trust these politicians? Do you believe that massive, expensive programs run from DC help the nation? Do you believe it's ok to FORCE people who don't agree with this philosophy to pay for those who do? Do you believe the majority has the right to force their agenda on individuals who disagree?

The answer to these questions will form your politics and form the basis for for every modern political issue we discuss. And Obama clearly thinks YES, YES, YES, and YES. I say not just no, but hell no. :dunno:

The answer is YES. That was how the nation was founded, the Constitution ratified, slavery was ended...yada yada yada.

Men and women will be governed. There are 3 levels of gov't in the U.S. right now--Federal, State, Municipal. There is corruption everywhere. There is corruption in corporate America.

You're going to have someone else's agenda forced down your throat. That is life in America. Who's agenda do you want? I say Yay to the Feds, NO to the Corporations.

 

[meesterperfect]

I read this somewhere:



OBAMA'S YES WE CAN--- turned into no we Couldn't OBAMA'S all time records.
1--Record Deficit --More then the other 43 presidents deficits all added together.
2--Record trade Deficit
3-Record debt
4-Record length of a steady 10% of unemployment.
5-Record poverty in America
6-Record length of unemployment extensions.
7-Record world poverty--a new low for poverty in a developed Country. . We dropped from our previous standings.
8-Record problems between all of the parties. House and senates
9- Record length that 15 plus Million workers have been out of work.
10-Record low numbers for Graduating College students unable to find jobs. 8.7%
11-Record Number of Americans receiving some type of government assistance. 44 Million a the last count.
12-Record Number of Home foreclosures
13 -Record Homosexual agenda for and American President.
14-Record insurance expenses for Companies --Obamacare.
15-Record insurance premiums for Americans.
16-Record one month death toll in afghanistan.

 

[titsrock]

^
C'mon meester. Admit it. You just made all that up. It is so half-ass in nature that all I can do is :rofl: at it....

You know what? We had a record of smelly farts in October? Gee, that's #17....

 

[Hot Mega]

I read this somewhere:



OBAMA'S YES WE CAN--- turned into no we Couldn't OBAMA'S all time records.
1--Record Deficit --More then the other 43 presidents deficits all added together.
2--Record trade Deficit
3-Record debt
4-Record length of a steady 10% of unemployment.
5-Record poverty in America
6-Record length of unemployment extensions.
7-Record world poverty--a new low for poverty in a developed Country. . We dropped from our previous standings.
8-Record problems between all of the parties. House and senates
9- Record length that 15 plus Million workers have been out of work.
10-Record low numbers for Graduating College students unable to find jobs. 8.7%
11-Record Number of Americans receiving some type of government assistance. 44 Million a the last count.
12-Record Number of Home foreclosures
13 -Record Homosexual agenda for and American President.
14-Record insurance expenses for Companies --Obamacare.
15-Record insurance premiums for Americans.
16-Record one month death toll in afghanistan.

How much of it did you try to determine was true and how much of it did you try to put in some perspective?

For example, record length of steady 10 pct. unemployment?? That's flat out false and I can't even think of a spin that would be used to make it look true. I mean didn't the clowns who concocted this list ever hear of the depression?? In fact it was over 10 pct longer during Reagan's 1st term.

Secondly, wouldn't it stand to some reason that deaths would have gone higher (obviously a record since we never been to Afghanistan before) if you increase the number of troops there by some multiple and send them out of Kabul to fight in places abandoned by the prev. admin.??

Those are just two off the top of my head without even muddling through the rest of it.

But...what do facts matter when you can arm a bunch of idiots with malarkey to run around spreading over and over again before someone tries to douse them out with truth?

 

[titsrock]

^
Not to mention that now it appears that conservatives, like meester, seem to have an issue with middle east wars and occupations?

The wars were going better when Dubya was calling in the air strikes...

 

[meesterperfect]

i dont know whats true or not anymore.

i read it, and posted it.

so let me add a disclaimer:
The views expressed in the previous post are not neccessarily the opinions of the poster........uh or something.

 

[georges]

That's a pathetic statement.

If you're talking about him personally you fail to comprehend that he represents a monumental leap away from attitudes and prejudices that were prevalent less than half a century ago.

If you're talking about his politics you paint yourself into a precarious box where you are by proxy talking trash about things You Might not normally just to be a dick.

Adding Georgie Porgie into your disdain only makes you look like an even more pathetic libertarian dick. Hey, at least the "conservatives" are willing to kiss their prom date Bush.

Yeh yeh, he represents a leap in the backwards sense. Is that this kind of hope and change you so badly wanted?:why: 10% unemployment, free healthcare and social security for the ghetto crowd at the expense of the hard working citizens and a complete weakening of the us armed forces, not even mentioning that your crime rate is always high. You don't even know what is socialism because you have never lived under socialist governments so spare me your failed theories and stop claiming that you are an expert in politics when you aren't one.:nono: A lot of people prefer a rather individualistic society where it is everyone for his own head. They don't like to pay for others or assist others and that is easily understandable because none likes leech offs or unwilling to work parasites.

 

[sporty_carr]

I was going to give him a 2, but decided to go ahead and give him a 3 because of that one time he killed a fly during an interview and pissed PETA off.

 

[xfire]

I've never claimed to be an expert on politics but I'll tell you what boudreaux, I've voted since '92 and recognize the bullshit of both sides and what you just posted are right-wing talking points that mean nothing. Where were you when Bush was raping the treasury?

 

[Spreeuw]

From what I can tell he's pretty much continued on with the Bush doctrine implemented in his final two years of office - especially when it comes to foreign policy, of course you can't say that that's an entirely bad thing, but for someone to run on an election promise of change, especially in these areas it's a little odd in that sense. He gets points for what he did during the economic crisis as HM points out, but the entire health care debate was a big loss in my opinion. That fight could have been won, but because of the administrations and the democrats complete incompetence and failure to match opposition rhetoric you were left with nothing more than insurance reform which does nothing more than strengthen insurance companies and monopolising health care even more.

So I give him 6.

Well the way I see it the Bush Administration made it very difficult for their heirs to really change the policy. First there is ofcourse the war, which greatly constrains any action by having huge costs in attention and means. Secondly they destroyed the budgettairy surplus created by the Clinton administration.
I can see why people get mad about there not being a lot of change, but bringing big change on such a high level is very difficult, as there is a lot of path dependency. The other problem is the huge amount of checks and balances which make policy very rigid. (Altough as a European I think checks and balances are a good thing, and are a little bit scarce in our Old Country Polities. ;D)

 

[Hot Mega]

Well the way I see it the Bush Administration made it very difficult for their heirs to really change the policy. First there is ofcourse the war, which greatly constrains any action by having huge costs in attention and means. Secondly they destroyed the budgettairy surplus created by the Clinton administration.
I can see why people get mad about there not being a lot of change, but bringing big change on such a high level is very difficult, as there is a lot of path dependency. The other problem is the huge amount of checks and balances which make policy very rigid. (Altough as a European I think checks and balances are a good thing, and are a little bit scarce in our Old Country Polities. ;D)

So young yet so wise. Good post.:clap:

 

[emceeemcee]

I hear lots of left-leaning people talk about how "dumb" Bush was and how "bad" things were under him... but honestly, look at your own life. Were things better, worse or the same? Mine were the same :dunno:

It was worse for the Iraqis.



America's government often affects people other than Americans

 

[Spreeuw]

It was worse for the Iraqis.



America's government often affects people other than Americans

That's because they are currently the only regional Hegemon. They affect others more then others affect them.
(However smaller powers always rise more quickly then the largest power, because the largest power has the most interest in the status-quo. Example: the growth of the EU and the support it got from the US, especially 1945 - 1989)

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

That's a pathetic statement.

If you're talking about him personally you fail to comprehend that he represents a monumental leap away from attitudes and prejudices that were prevalent less than half a century ago.

If you're talking about his politics you paint yourself into a precarious box where you are by proxy talking trash about things You Might not normally just to be a dick.

Adding Georgie Porgie into your disdain only makes you look like an even more pathetic libertarian dick. Hey, at least the "conservatives" are willing to kiss their prom date Bush.

The problem with your theory is that we are not talking about what Barrack Hussein Obama represents. We are talking about what he has done in his time as President.

Based on what you are saying, we could have elected Mike Tyson or a guy like Fred Sanford and they would have been able to represent the very same monumental leap away from old attitudes and privileges by the very fact that they too are black. In fact, they would have represented it better, because they didn't have the a lot of the privileges BHO has had, such as a Harvard education.

I will admit, however, that Iron Mike or Fred Sanford may have both had some problems getting elected in the first place. It sure would have made for some funny debates though! :1orglaugh

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

It was worse for the Iraqis.

America's government often affects people other than Americans

OFTEN times in a very positive manner as well. Let's give credit where credit is due.

 

[xfire]

I will admit, however, that Iron Mike or Fred Sanford may have both had some problems getting elected in the first place. It sure would have made for some funny debates though!

You beat me to my own clever reply. Hey, I voted for Sharpton in the '04 primaries. He was fucking hilarious in the debates.

 

[Hot Mega]

Based on what you are saying, we could have elected Mike Tyson or a guy like Fred Sanford and they would have been able to represent the very same monumental leap away from old attitudes and privileges by the very fact that they too are black. In fact, they would have represented it better, because they didn't have the a lot of the privileges BHO has had, such as a Harvard education.

Here we are with the privileges of Obama again.

Probably the majority of people on this board have had a more privileged background than Obama.

The guy is a mutt who's father left he and his mom when he was a kid, his mom left him and his sister orphaned and he was raised by his grands...

You aren't privileged to go to Columbia or Harvard Law unless you have some legacy privilege..which he didn't. You earn your way there.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

All I know is during the depression unemployment hovered between 20 and 25 pct. It is essentially November, 2010 now 1 yr. and 9 mos. after Obama took office and unemployment is at about 9 and a half percent. 1 year and 9 mos. after Reagan took office it was 10.8 pct. and didn't fall below 10 pct. until 2.5 years after he was inaugurated.

What do you make of those analogous cases? What I make of it is history has shown us it could have been worse under the circumstances.

As I've said before Mega, I agree that it's fair to give BHO more time before making any determination whether his policies are working, you are going down a very tough road if you want to compare Barrack Hussein Obama to Ronald Reagan.

Sure, you can pick at how long it took for his policies to take effect, but his record is a matter of history, and there is no denying that "Ronaldus Magnus" ushered in one of the greatest periods of economic prosperity in the history of the country.

Years from now, when we look back at the Barrack Hussein Obama era, will we be able to say the same thing? As an American, I sure hope so. As a realist, and a former owner of two businesses, I have my doubts.