Obama = An Unmitigated Disaster

[GolemII]

A few records need to be set straight here:

1. There was never a Clinton surplus. There was a Clinton fantasy 'Projected' surplus based on the revenue of companies like Pets.com.

2. The intel/military community got Bin Laden by doing the exact same things they had been doing since 9-11. BO boarded the train at a really good time for that kill, but he wasn't the conductor.

3. BO didn't topple Qaddafi. He admittedly 'led from behind'. We were the least of these in a coalition of bomb droppers. The Libyans toppled Qaddafi.

4. The stimulus package did NOT avert a depression. We are no better off now than we would have been without it and there are several companies who shouldn't be around, whose assets should be in the hands of better run, more productive companies, who still are. Which means we will see them make the same mistakes later, when they should be dead.

5. The WMD intel on Iraq was the best any country had. The people saying don't go weren't saying that because they doubted the information. They were saying that because they didn't care if Iraq had WMD or not. They thought it was contained. Arguing about the WMD motivation and ignoring all the others is a sign of a limited intellect.

6. Just because you are incapable of implementing full out socialism doesn't mean you are not a socialist. I'm in favor of full laissez faire capitalism and if I were president, I would never be able to implement it. That doesn't stop me from being an unabashed capitalist, it just means there are road blocks in place.

7. Suggesting that Cheney doesn't like the Constitution in defense of a president who clearly violated it, is a little silly.

8. Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. Never have been torture. Never will be torture. They are also partly responsible for finding and killing UBL....something which BO was not.

9.The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and three months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. He bashes real proposals to get it under control and his own budget office admits that their own proposals will only continue to add to the national debt with no end in sight.

10. Far from being post racial, he is the most overtly racial president we've had since LBJ. Not only that, he is the source of more class warfare rhetoric than we've seen in 30 years. He does nothing to unite the country, instead he divides it along productivity lines.

He is an unmitigated disaster, there is no question about that. If you disagree with that comment because Cheney said it, go lay back down on your towel and take a nap. Cookies and juice will be served at 11:30. If you disagree with the points, make a case for it and I'd like to hear it.

[houstonbear]

But Cheney isn't nice...

[cowboycwr]

A persuasive argument can be made about the repeal of Obamacare bankrupting the nation:

A bipartisan duo in the U.S. Senate - independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Susan Collins - is pushing an amendment aimed solely at tightening cost control in the Senate's massive health care overhaul.

May it succeed, and may a half-dozen yet-to-be-written bills designed to contain expenses be incorporated into the legislation.

At their current inflationary rate, health care costs will bankrupt America. This is not hysterics or conjecture; it is simple math

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/c...#ixzz1sEpQG5Pb

I remember hearing this a few years ago about something else..... oh yea Social Security. That is simple math as well. That system is already bankrupting the country.

This article also misses out on a few things. Health care costs are going to go up because of the baby boomers getting older. The same reason SS is going to go up.

I'm all for controlling the costs of health care but not for the government paying for it.

[cowboycwr]

You discredit yourself when you call him a socialist. Most folks view that as crazy talk even though many on this board and others on the far right dont get that.

I dont know if you recall but in the 2000s when sane fiscal policy was being dismanteld and the surplus being traded in for runaway deficits and the economy being tanked. Folks were warning that the problem will be once the economy is tanked even more deficits will need to be run up to help us out of the mess. Bush actually started alot of additional federal spending in late 2008 because he knew he was on the verge of presiding over something un seen since Hoover. McCain came out of the meetings involving this and tried to claim he was the architect of the new bigger govt. that would save the day like he was FDR. Remember?

So Keynsian policy was already being practiced by the Bush administration--which Cheney was part of--as well as Republicans on the Hill.

The economy is now actually improving. The economy is stronger now than it was on the morning Obama was inaugurated. Was it all him? no But it is silly to say it isnt improving under his watch. Even Romney who built his whole campaign on the economy is now conceding things are getting better now than they were 4 years ago. He is trying to change the narrative now to "I could have accomplished this faster". Which of course he in all likelihood could not have.

Most of that improving economy is because so many have given up looking for a job so they don't get counted as unemployed any more and the government can now claim lower unemployment.

[cowboycwr]

Anyone have a picture of that chart Obama used to promote the bailout? it was a graph shwoing what unemployment would be with the bailout and what it would be if we did nothing. Both were wrong as unemployment with the bailout went higher than what he said it would do.

[BearinSoDak]

Golem, you always are telling me to cite sources to back up my claims/opinions on matters. I'll just provide some links for you to read.

A few records need to be set straight here:

1. There was never a Clinton surplus. There was a Clinton fantasy 'Projected' surplus based on the revenue of companies like Pets.com. This is completely false. Check out this article: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...under-clinton/

You'll also notice in that handy dandy chart in the link that by the time the first round of Bush tax cuts took effect and we were fighting two wars that we had a budget deficit of over 400 billion.

2. The intel/military community got Bin Laden by doing the exact same things they had been doing since 9-11. BO boarded the train at a really good time for that kill, but he wasn't the conductor.
We had Bin Laden at Tora Bora a long time ago but the mission to kill him was vetoed by somebody on up the ranks, whether that was Bush or someone else, who knows. What we do know is that Bush had an opportunity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Commander.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLTz-p0ZYKc

The second is a clip from Bush himself in 2002 stating that "he just really doesn't spend that much time on Bin Laden.

And then there is this article talking about people's reactions and just who exactly should get the credit for the killing of Bin Laden: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama...5#.T42JY9XleSo

Interestingly enough, there's a beautiful quote in there from Cheney saying that we need to "view this as a continuum." Really? Yet somehow we can't view economic matters as a continuum or deficits as a continuum...


3. BO didn't topple Qaddafi. He admittedly 'led from behind'. We were the least of these in a coalition of bomb droppers. The Libyans toppled Qaddafi.
And how exactly does this make Obama a disaster? It's not like we went in there and topple the government ourselves like we did in Iraq. I thought Iraq taught us the important lesson that nation building is best left to the people in a given country.

4. The stimulus package did NOT avert a depression. We are no better off now than we would have been without it and there are several companies who shouldn't be around, whose assets should be in the hands of better run, more productive companies, who still are. Which means we will see them make the same mistakes later, when they should be dead.

So should we have bailed out the auto industry? Which industries should we have let die? Estimates indicate that the auto industry bailout prevented over 1.14 million people from losing their jobs. It prevented losses of over 97 billion in personal income. It also saved two companies that account for over a quarter of the entire auto manufacturing industry in the US...one of the only industries we have left.

http://autos.aol.com/article/auto-in...out-worth-eve/

Did we want another Lehman Brothers on our hands?


5. The WMD intel on Iraq was the best any country had. The people saying don't go weren't saying that because they doubted the information. They were saying that because they didn't care if Iraq had WMD or not. They thought it was contained. Arguing about the WMD motivation and ignoring all the others is a sign of a limited intellect.
Think of it this way: I am a guide in the wilderness. I tell you that there is water and food 10 miles from here. I've heard reports about it and I am positive it is there. I get you all to trust me in the evidence that this stable supply of food and water is there. We leave. We hike the 10 miles to get there and surprise surprise there is no food and no water. Who do you blame? Do you blame the intel? Do you blame the person who led you into an area, assuring you something was there? Hindsight is always 20/20 so they say. Once we got into Iraq and started searching our troops didn't find a single WMD. What they found instead was a pretty poor infrastructure.

6. Just because you are incapable of implementing full out socialism doesn't mean you are not a socialist. I'm in favor of full laissez faire capitalism and if I were president, I would never be able to implement it. That doesn't stop me from being an unabashed capitalist, it just means there are road blocks in place.
Cool, the US hasn't had a fully laissez faire capitalist system since....ever. I'd love to see what this practically means for people.


7. Suggesting that Cheney doesn't like the Constitution in defense of a president who clearly violated it, is a little silly.
Are you basing this off of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act? They very well could rule that it is constitutional. Don't take my word for it though. Take these folks:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/ins...l-1864328.html

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...constitutional



8. Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. Never have been torture. Never will be torture. They are also partly responsible for finding and killing UBL....something which BO was not. So what in your mind constitutes torture? Are there things that the government should not do when interrogating someone? Also, it's pretty debatable that these techniques had anything to do with Bin Laden

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...in-any-way.php

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05...ad_to_bin.html

9.The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and three months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. He bashes real proposals to get it under control and his own budget office admits that their own proposals will only continue to add to the national debt with no end in sight.
Please see the continuum comment from Cheney above. The economy doesn't reset once a president talks office. As has been explained more eloquently by others, the US government needed to dig themselves out of a hole. The big question remains, can the US balance the budget without raising taxes? If the answer to that question is no then taxes need to be raised. However, it appears that Reps don't want any part in a strategic way to lower the deficit.

10. Far from being post racial, he is the most overtly racial president we've had since LBJ. Not only that, he is the source of more class warfare rhetoric than we've seen in 30 years. He does nothing to unite the country, instead he divides it along productivity lines.
I'll just ask you for proof on this part. At the very least this is simply your opinion.

He is an unmitigated disaster, there is no question about that. If you disagree with that comment because Cheney said it, go lay back down on your towel and take a nap. Cookies and juice will be served at 11:30. If you disagree with the points, make a case for it and I'd like to hear it.

[Mothra]

You discredit yourself when you call him a socialist. Most folks view that as crazy talk even though many on this board and others on the far right dont get that.

That's how Time magazine characterized him. Is Time discredited?

I think Cheney was the worst VP of my lifetime (though dumbest may belong to Quayle/Biden). However, his assessment of the Obama administration being an unmitigated disaster is absolutely correct. Those who believe Obama "inherited" the deficit need to look at the numbers. The deficit has increased substantially every year under the Obama administration, despite his promise to cut the deficit in half after his first term.

But the worst indictment of Obama's fiscal policies is the ballooning national debt. The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years in office than it did during 8 years of the Bush presidency. The Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at approx. $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office. If Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms. That is astounding. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

As it appears Obamacare is about to be overturned (which, may not be such a bad thing for Obama given its unpopularity), I am really not sure what he is going to run on. His fiscal policies have been atrocious. Despite the ridiculously expensive stimulus, they have done little to stimulate the economy. The Obama administration has seen the worst economic growth of any president since Roosevelt. And according to the talking heads, it is about to slow again. And there simply is no evidence to suggest that Obama's policies averted a second depression, as some of his apologists on this board would like to believe. To the contrary, the numbers show the recession bottomed out prior to Obama taking office.

I suppose he can run on the slogan, "I got Osama", but I truly wonder how far that is going to take him (especially given what we have learned about Osama's influence - or lack thereof - and Al Qaeda's dismantling before he was ever killed). Overall, his foreign policy has been a disaster. He has alienated allies in Europe, apologized for America all across the Middle East, and yet, the Middle East is as dangerous today as it has ever been. Egypt will see Islamic fundamentalists come to power, Iran has been emboldened, Afghanistan is in disarray, and we may see a war between Israel and Iran. And North Korea continues to defy worldwide pressure.

At the end of the day, however, Americans still care the most about their pocketbook, and that is what I believe will ultimately doom Obama. He is going to have a difficult time selling the American people on his circular and unprovable argument that they would be worse off if he hadn't been elected. That is going to be a very tough sell.

[cinque]

Looking at this from a different angle:

From 2001 to 2009, Bush's policies, including two wars, higher Pentagon spending in addition to those wars, tax cuts, higher discretionary spending and the prescription drug program contributed $5.1 trillion to the nation's debt. From 2009 to 2017 (using projections for 2011-2017), Obama's policies have added or will add $983 billion. Not even in the same ballpark. Klein:

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in. [...]
So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

Here are the calculations:

For Bush: $1.812 trillion from the "Bush tax cuts"; $853 billion from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; $616 in higher Pentagon spending outside those wars; $608 billion in non-defense discretionary spending; $480 billion in "other tax"-related matters; $293 billion in entitlement changes; $224 billion in spending for Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act; and $180 billion for the prescription drug bill.

For Obama: $874 billion for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (the stimulus package); $620 billion for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts; $324 in "other mandatory spending"; and $113 billion in "other revenue." Subtotal: $1.931 trillion. Subtracted from that are policies that reduce the net deficit: $502 billion in automatic spending cuts; $271 reduction in defense spending; $123 billion in reduced health care spending; $51 billion in reduced non-defense discretionary spending. Total: $983 billion.

There are all kinds of complications in this kind of calculation. It can be argued, for one thing, that we have a good handle, three years after Bush left office, on how big a debt pile his deficit spending ended up being. But, with Obama, we've only got three years of actual results and five years of "projection," which, in layperson's terms, amounts to "educated speculation."

Klein offers some other caveats, too. It is taken as a given by far too many in our national economic conversation, that "all deficit spending is equal and all of it is bad." That is completely wrong, and the austerity measures that the British government has imposed and the budget balancing of the Roosevelt administration in 1937 provide a perfect examples of why it's wrong: It can make economic downturns worse and cripple recoveries already under way.

In Keynesian terms, the better solution is to increase demand by stimulating the economy in recession, even if you have to borrow big do it. In good times, you pay off what you have borrowed and store up a surplus against the bad times. Modern Monetary Theorists challenge—from the left—the efficacy of the Keynesian approach in today's economy. But that's a long discussion for another time. What President Bush did pleased neither.

Eleven Februarys ago, in his first major speech to Congress, Bush vowed that the entire national debt would be paid off by ... well, by right now. Not quite what happened. Indeed, what did happen on Bush's watch is somewhat reminiscent of what took place under another fellow who made big talk about reducing the national debt: Ronald Reagan.

He came into office talking about how the not-quite-yet $1 trillion in national debt at the time would make a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high. Like so much else, he got that wrong; at four inches per million, it would only be 63 miles high. At any rate, by the time he left office eight years later, the debt had nearly tripled, to $2.7 trillion, and his metaphorical stack of $1,000s had soared 164 miles high. During Bush's eight years, based on Klein's and the CBPP's calculations, another 321 miles were added to the stack.

So next time Mitt Romney mouths off about the national debt and one of your TGIF or Facebook friends declares that the guy has a point, you might remind her exactly who was in office when most of that debt was accumulated.

[FishThtSvdWaco]

So next time Mitt Romney mouths off about the national debt and one of your TGIF or Facebook friends declares that the guy has a point, you might remind her exactly who was in office when most of that debt was accumulated.

You mean FDR?

No one is making the argument that all debt is bad, but the debt service payments are eating too much of our fiscal budget. Add that to a bad healthcare bill and you've got no chance of steering out of a downturn.

BTW, many economists believe that if we had cut taxes and been more prudent with the stimulus, we'd be well on our way to a more robust recovery by now.

As I pointed out, and no one has refuted by proving a single shred of government data to show our economy is in good shape.

I've listened to two economists in the last 12 months at public venues speak in depth about the denial exhibited by the US political class, which again, none of you want to admit that Obama is the current leader of.
1-Nouriel Roubini. http://www.roubini.com/

2-Niels Veldhuis. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/autho...5353&txID=3255

Both of these respected gentleman pointed out the problems with the current unemployment and more importantly the rate of fiscal spending.

Veldhuis is famous in Canada, and he wrote a book about the Canadian turnaround, comparing it with the US. For you friggin daft Leftists that know zero about international economics, Canada is growing robustly because they tamed their debt and invested in the right sectors of their economy and got people OFF social welfare programs.

What a novel friggin concept, eh Democrats?

As I expected, none of the Lefties here on the board have wanted to speak about Obama's fiscal policy.

Like I said, he's Jimmy Carter all over again.

[KODIAK]

The national debt was doubled between 01-09. While we are talking about 4 years at this point, the national debt is not close to having been doubled since 09.

[houstonbear]

Year by year debt accumulation
12/31/1999 CLINTON $5,776,091,314,225
12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697
12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436
12/31/2002 BUSH $6,405,707,456,847
12/31/2003 BUSH $7,001,312,247,818
12/31/2004 BUSH $7,596,165,867,424
12/30/2005 BUSH $8,170,424,541,313
12/29/2006 BUSH $8,680,224,380,086
12/28/2007 BUSH $9,229,172,659,218
12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,612
12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512
12/31/2010 OBAMA $14,025,215,218,709
12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397

[GolemII]

The national debt was doubled between 01-09. While we are talking about 4 years at this point, the national debt is not close to having been doubled since 09.

So the national debt went up 5 trillion under Bush in 8 years and you are proud of Obama for doing that in 3 years? What's more, it's not a big deal until Obama gets to a 10 trillion increase (doubles)?

Interesting math.

[quash]

So the national debt went up 5 trillion under Bush in 8 years and you are proud of Obama for doing that in 3 years? What's more, it's not a big deal until Obama gets to a 10 trillion increase (doubles)?

Interesting math.

The math is boring. What is interesting is that both parties tolerate massive increases in our debt.

[quash]

For you friggin daft Leftists that know zero about international economics, Canada is growing robustly because they tamed their debt and invested in the right sectors of their economy and got people OFF social welfare programs.

What a novel friggin concept, eh Democrats?

As I expected, none of the Lefties here on the board have wanted to speak about Obama's fiscal policy.

Like I said, he's George Bush all over again.

fify

See also: war, Gitmo, secrecy, etc.

[KODIAK]

No just that y'all had absolutely no problem with the debt being doubled as long as it was GOP White House and Congress doing it.

[GolemII]

What is interesting is that both parties tolerate massive increases in our debt.

Yes. But limited government means limited power to control/punish your enemies and pay off your friends.

[GolemII]

No just that y'all had absolutely no problem with the debt being doubled as long as it was GOP White House and Congress doing it.

Who is the 'y'all' you are addressing? I criticized bush for stupid social entitlement spending too.

[houstonbear]

The math is boring. What is interesting is that both parties tolerate massive increases in our debt.

This.

[houstonbear]

No just that y'all had absolutely no problem with the debt being doubled as long as it was GOP White House and Congress doing it.

Like Obama, you haven't been paying attention

[Sam Lowry]

The WMD intel on Iraq was the best any country had.

Which is why Cheney ignored it.