Obama's 2010: Year of living politically

"Obama's 2010: Year of Living Politically"

How then would 2010 be different for Obama than 2009? 2008? 2004? 2002? 1998? 1991?
He's been in politics his entire adult life. For Obama, EVERY year is lived "politically."

I like reading that the voters are most likely to throw out the incumbent. This midterm is going to be fun.

The tone for 2010 is also being set by DU, one of the left's favorite sources, which says "There are no good Republicans." See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3340794

In fact, a google search shows 258,000 hits for the phrase "no good Republicans", 5 times as many hits as for the phrase "no good Democrats".

It's easy to see which side is the more partisan.

Not sure Obama is all that broken up about the idea of Dick Durbin as majority leader in lieu of the potentially defeated Harry Reid...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

OOOOPS! DID I SAY GLOBAL WARMING? I MEANT GLOBAL COOLING!!!
*
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
*
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

It is being reported that Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is not going to seek reelection this Fall. Although this is good news for the Republicans it is bad news for the rest of the country. Both the Republicans and Democrats continue to lose their Moderates Representatives. And the Far Left with the Democrats and the Far Right with the Republicans become even more entrenched and nothing gets accomplished.

After the tongue lashing former V.P. Cheney gave panty waist about the Christmas Day bomber Sunday morning, panty waist should head west to Hawaii for some spine searching after he leaves Vegas.

Paulo

He's been in politics his entire adult life. For Obama, EVERY year is lived "politically."

Posted by: Equal time | February 15, 2010 9:03 AM

What is your point? Tell me ONE politician who's life isn't political. Hell...you're not even a politician and your life is political. Or is your point that we need to go to the homeless shelter to find our next president?

Bobbie Mobbie,

Would you please just set up your own website where you can post articles that you found on the internet. Maybe there you can place them along with an actual corresponding argument instead of commenting on completely unrelated subjects.

Halfwitty, O'Really and Clutter, the Fox Noise crew will continue to spew their lies, distortions and unamerican platitudes. It is up to us good Democrats that must fight their stupidity, their mercenary patriotism with honest, passioned appeals to the America voter. That appeal must be based on an insistence, that America must not forget, not be fooled by the Dummy Candidates that Corporate America, is buying by the dozens, in order to steal our democracy !! This isn't rhetoric, this is fact. Look how foolish and ignorant, they made the voters of Massachusetts look, voting in a nude, male model, as their Senator. What, the Kennedy family didn't give enough, didn't they fight and struggle hard enough, for the First Principle of American democracy: " .. with liberty and justice for all. " Instead, they elected a empty can, that mouth the platitudes of the Republican-Libertarian-T-Baggers, that had given us the Cheney&Bush disastrous 8 years!! A pair of Incompetent, draft-dodgers who nearly destroyed America's way of life and brutalized an underdeveloped nation, formerly known as Iraq. While we may be able to stabilize the government of Iraq, can we bring back the destroyed lives, the maimed and scarred souls of these innocent peoples?? These are some of the issues, and their already played-out results, during the previous two administrations with catastrophic effects, that we can look forward to see re-enacted, if the voters listen to these rabid, unamerican noise makers. I think one, 8-year-stint of this stink, that the Republican-Libertarian-T-Bagger, bring to their campaigns, America will send them packing back to their caves or to their witch-hunts !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Obimbo and Harry "Obama speaks well and is rather light-skinned for a black man" Reid are going to meet with business leaders in Vegas on how to improve business in that hurting city. I know a great way to improve business for Vegas. Obimbo either keeps his trap shut for three years or resigns. If he resigns, the world is better off immediately. He keeps his trap shut, well at least we'll have some deserved peace for awhile rather than President Narcissist ruining everything from the SuperBowl to prime time TV.

GOP: The common thread is always "Hypocrisy"

The thread that runs through all of the problems President Obama has encountered with the Republican Party is HYPOCRISY. The Democrats need to be relentless in exposing Republican fear mongering, obstruction, delay, and yes hypocrisy. There is an endless supply of examples......

>> They used to be for PAYGO, now they are against it.

>> They had no issues with FBI mirandizing terrorist during the Bush administration, now they are having a cow about it.

>> They criticized the stimulus and then go to ribbon cuttings for projects funded by the stimulus om their districts.

>> They accused Judge Sonia Sotomayor of being an activist judge. But have no problem with the recent ruling by activist conservative justices that will endanger our elections.

>> They used to be for a bipartisan commission to look for ways to reduce the deficit. Now they are against it.

>> Some Republicans used to be for cap and trade. Now they are against it.

>> The Bush administration came into office with a surplus and left with a staggering deficit because of two tax cuts that were not paid for, Medicare Part D not paid for, two wars paid for using supplementals or budget tricks, a devastating recession and financial meltdown. Now they criticize Pres Obama for increasing the deficit to save the economy.

>> They used to want "up or down" votes. Now they have taken abuse of the filibuster to new heights. They have made the senate dysfunctional requiring 60 votes for everything.

>> When they had the majority they did nothing about healthcare reform. Now that this is a major initiative of the Obama administration, they are trying to block it.

>> They say they are aginst earmarks and pork. But they don’t like the idea of having to publicly identify earmark requests for the American people.

>> During the Bush administration, it was unpatriotic to criticize the president when he was out of the country. Now it’s fine to criticize Presidnet Obama when he travels abroad.

>> When they were in the majority, they looked the other way and did not enforce financial regulations. Now they are against any meaning financial regulatory reform. They prefer the status quo.

The "Party of No" and "Whatever It Is I’m Against It" must be exposed. The American people need to know who is really working for them.

Maybe there you can place them along with an actual corresponding argument instead of commenting on completely unrelated subjects.

Posted by: martin | February 15, 2010 1:21 PM

Amen brother!!!!

WOW LISTEN TO YOU RIGHTIE LOONS: BEAT THAT DRUM!!!!

Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | February 2, 2010 11:01 PM

More hopeium and dopeium. Some "Change" and "Transparency". More teleprompter talking points dictated by Reid and Pelosi.

Posted by: martin | February 15, 2010 1:21 PM

Maybe there you can place them along with an actual corresponding argument instead of commenting on completely unrelated subjects.

Posted by: martin | February 15, 2010 1:21 PM
Amen brother!!!!

Posted by: bill r. | February 15, 2010 1:39 PM
---
bill R and Martin-you guys seem to be getting alittle defensive since the real world is starting to come in on the "ones" ideological jihads.
The article has no specific content other than the observation that 2010 will be a pivotal year for Obama and Dems - Global warming is a huge ( and changing day by day) issue.
--
Can you please let us know what the point of this article is that excludes GW as an issue? Obama and the Dems have had a Cap and Trade agenda on deck waiting for passage of the health care nonsense...
The fact that the "science is in" crowds "science" is crumbling around them is way underreported in the MSM today...
In 2010 , in response to the Senate’s not passing cap and trade legislation, we have an EPA (non- elected regulatory body) that is willing to assume a "command and control" position in enacting economy -killing restrictions on energy use by employers - using the rationale that CO2 is a harmful pollutant.
Now what exactly do you overly sensitive guys believe comment should be limited to? Should we be asking what Michelle and Barack did for Valentines Day? Or possibly how the first year of housebreaking the famous Obama dog is going?

" ... Or is your point that we need to go to the homeless shelter to find our next president?"
.
Posted by: bill r. | February 15, 2010 12:46 PM
.
Why not? We couldn’t do any worse than we have.

Triple H-

There was no surplus handed to Bush--
FY 2000 the National Debt Was $5.674178T
FY2001 (which is from Clintons budget) the National Debt was $5.807463T
An increase of $133.3B
Your "surplus" is referring only to the reduction in publicly held debt- ( T-Bills, bonds, US securities etc..) this does not accurately describe what debt our Government is obligated to pay back- National debt.
National debt includes the publicly held debt + intergovernmental holdings which are generated when the government borrows from itself usually from the Social Security "trust" fund.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

I'm not surprised at the way the Repugs are childishly abusing the filibuster. They learned everything they needed to know in Kindergarten, then they dropped out of school.
.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/save-money-utah-plans-slash-senior-year-high-school/
.

REPUBLICANS HAVE COME TO PLACE TOO MUCH VALUE ON TOEING THE PARTY LINE AND TOO LITTLE ON OFFERING NEW IDEAS

"An observation that strikes a strong chord with a great many people these days is that although Democrats in Washington have certainly performed poorly enough over the past year to deserve being thrown out of power, congressional Republicans have done virtually nothing to deserve being thrown back into power. The GOP's eight years in the White House and six years in control of Congress were certainly inauspicious."

*
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cookreport.php
*

Joe the Dumber finally figures out that he's nothing more than a right wing tool.

"Joe the Plumber is no longer a fan of either Sarah Palin or John McCain, it seems. Joe, also known as Sam Wurzelbacher, told an audience in Pennsylvania this week that McCain "is no public servant."

/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81035-joe-the-plumber-tears-into-john-mccain
/

********************************
The fact that the "science is in" crowds "science" is crumbling around them is way underreported in the MSM today...
Posted by: heartburn | February 15, 2010 3:24 PM
------------------------------

Yeah, because a huge snowstorm, in the middle of winter, on the East coast proves that global warming is a myth, right Biff?
.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard
.

heartburn.......Banana Split is a Canadian produced award-winning documentary lasting 46 minutes, which provides an overview of the historical, social, economic, scientific and environmental aspects of banana production. In recent years most attention has been focused on the long running banana trade war between the United States (U.S.) and Latin American governments on the one hand and the European Union (E.U.) on the other. The result of which has been the abandonment of preferences for African, Caribbean and Pacific imports into the E.U., and the end of a large-scale banana export industry in the Caribbean. While the dispute has been very important in determining international trade policy as well as the economic profile of the Caribbean, there are other contentious issues related to the banana, and this film is useful in focusing attention on these.

I await your reply!

heartburn.........check this out:The word guano originated from the Quichua language of the Inca civilization and means "the droppings of sea birds". It is a misnomer to refer to bat dung as guano. As the word is used today, guano describes both bat and sea bird manure. The most famous guano was that used by the Inca. The guano would collect on the rainless islands and coast of Peru. Atmospheric conditions insured a minimal loss of nutrients. There is very little leaching of valuable material, nor is there a considerable loss of nitrogenous matter. For this the Inca would guard and regulate the treasured soil enricher. Access to the guano deposits were restricted to chosen caretakers. Disrupting the rookeries could result in punishment by death.

One website Mattie,

I wouldn't count those Senator "Our Soliders are Nazis" Durbin as your majority leader since the dem majority is getting more fragile everyday.

HHH,
The Righty neanderthals like heartburn love to claim that Clinton did not leave a surplus but they also love to claim how credible Fox News is:

"The government recorded surpluses in the fiscal years 1998 through 2001, ending Sept. 30 each of those calendar years."

"But that all changed once President Bush was in office a year. Saddled with costs from the Sept. 11 attacks plus the tax cuts he pushed through Congress, Bush took the $127 billion surplus he inherited from former President Bill Clinton and turned it into a $159 billion deficit the following year. Then wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more tax cuts swelled it to $413 billion in 2004, a record until $454.8 billion for the fiscal 2008 year that ended Sept. 30."~ Fox News
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/federal-deficit-hit-t/
.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana suffered a political setback after even his fellow conservatives harshly critiqued his televised response to Mr. Obama’s prime-time address to Congress in February. The speech, which was supposed to provide a moment to shine in front of a national audience, instead became fodder for late-night comedy.

* * * * *
Posted by: antacid | February 15, 2010 7:12 PM
.
Please, go right ahead and disbelieve all those right-wing, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing Repugs. Go ahead and disbelieve FOX news too.
.
But you have to listen to the truth.
.
The facts show that Bill Clinton did NOT leave a “surplus” as that term is normally understood. This is why:
.
1. A “surplus” occurs when the government’s expenditures do not exceed its revenues in one fiscal year. When the opposite occurs - i.e. when the expenditures exceed revenues - the budget is said to generate a “deficit.”
.
2. It naturally follows that a budget that really generates a surplus will not add to the debt. Why? Because, to generate a surplus, government expenditures during the fiscal year must have been met out of its revenues, thereby obviating the need for further debt service.
.
3. Thus, if Bill Clinton truly left a “surplus,” his budgets would not have had any negative impact on the debt. There would have been no need for further debt service to pay for the budget.
.
4. However, if you goes to the Treasury Department web site, you will find that government expenditures increased the debt for every one of Bill Clinton’s budgets. In fact, the Clinton added about 1.4 $ trillion to the debt (which, admittedly, is a pittance compared to the approx. 5 trillion Bush added). These are the numbers from September 30, 1993 through September 30, 2001 (which represent the starting point for his first fiscal year up through the effect of his last fiscal year):
.
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
.
Looking at these figures, one can see that the debt increased at a much slower rate during the last few years of Clinton’s second term. The Clinton administration even came close to breaking even in 2000 (with a deficit of only $17.91 billion). But the debt NEVER decreased or even stayed the same as a result of Clinton’s budgets.
.
So how does one account for the discrepancy between the debt FACTS and Clinton’s ‘surplus’ claims? That’s simple. It was the federal government’s fuzzy accounting to the rescue. The government borrowed from itself to make itself look good on paper. See http://jrs2cents.com/bill-clinton-surplus-myth.html for the details.
.
As an important side note, one must also understand that the slow down indicated by the foregoing figures wasn’t the result of Clinton’s conservative control of spending. Federal spending actually increased by almost 30% during his tenure. It is only because tax revenues dramatically increased during the same interval that revenues almost kept up with federal government spending w the federal government spending.
.
And just think: You bought the big lie. Obama just finished repeating that lie too. How does it feel to know the leaders you trust have been lying to you? Doesn’t that just make you feel tingly all over (just like what happens to Chris Matthews when he hears Obama speak)? How's that hopey changey stuff working for you now?

********************************
I wouldn't count those Senator "Our Soliders are Nazis" Durbin as your majority leader since the dem majority is getting more fragile everyday.
Posted by: Terry | February 15, 2010 7:03 PM
---------------------------

Poseur Terri,
You were also sure that McCain was going to destroy Obama in the pres election. Not that you're a McCain fan, it's just that you're so far to the Teabagger right that you're just about to fall off the edge of the earth - that you think is flat.

Pepto,

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Bush's deficits are child's play as opposed to those that BO plans to incur in the next eight-years. By the end of year three, BO will have higher deficits than 8 years of the Bush administration.

*******************
Posted by: John W. | February 15, 2010 9:41 PM
.....

Bircher Boy,

That "hopey changy stuff" is working out great, thanks for asking Sarah..

"As sentient Americans will recall, the U.S. national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan only to double again George W. Bush. In between, President Clinton erased the GOP budget deficits, producing a $236 billion surplus by his last year in office and leaving Bush a 10 year forecasted surplus of $5.6 trillion. As President Obama made clear in setting Republican Jeb Hensarling straight, he inherited a $1.2 trillion annual deficit when he was sworn in January 2009."
.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-claim-credit-for-clinton-surpluses
.

This isn't one of your Teabag meetings JohnnyBoy, you can't just hold up misspelled signs/slogans and try to rewrite history just because the facts don't fit your preconcieved narrative.

There goes John W presenting FACTS to the Deranged Loons on the Left again! The Deranged Loons on the Left cannot handle facts.

====================================
Bush's deficits are child's play as opposed to those that BO plans to incur in the next eight-years
Posted by: Terry | February 15, 2010 10:05 PM
=========================

Of course....that fantasy from the Neonut Heritage Foundation hasn't happened and won't happen, but don't let that stop you from your daily delusion's, Troglodyte Terri.

"In our time, the Republican Party has compiled an impressive history of talking about fiscal responsibility while running up unrivaled deficits and debt. Of the roughly $11 trillion in federal debt accumulated to date, more than 90 percent can be attributed to the tenure of three presidents: Ronald Reagan, who used to complain constantly about runaway spending; George Herbert Walker Bush, reputed to be one of those old-fashioned green-eyeshade Republicans; and his spendthrift son George "Dubya" Bush, whose trillion-dollar war and irresponsible tax cuts accounted for nearly half the entire burden. Only Bill Clinton temporarily reversed the trend with surpluses and started to pay down the debt (by raising rates on the wealthiest taxpayers)."

*
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/27/deficits/
*

YOU SHOW ME A REPUBLICAN WHO SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO FIX THE ECONOMY AND I'LL SHOW YOU A LIAR.

The Historic Failure Of Republican Economic Policy

"Republicans are enamored by "supply-side" economics. Frankly, I have to admit it's a very easy sell. Think about it. "Cutting tax rates stimulates the economy to such a high level that tax revenues increase." However, there are several problems with this theory. The first is Republicans have not implemented the other side of "supply-side economics" -- a corresponding cut in government spending. This has ballooned the federal debt to dangerous levels under their economic stewardship. In addition, the projected increase in government revenues really haven't materialized as projected. In other words, supply-side economics is a great marketing concept, but in reality is a poor national policy."

*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/the-failure-of-republican_b_63520.html
*

If the Dems really wanna end the Republican party and their electoral future they should roll back the Reagan Tax cuts. Why should labor pay a tax rate double that of capital? Capital doesn't create demand, wages do! And with 70% of GDP dependent on Consumer Spending, how can ANYONE argue otherwise with a straight face??? The mentality that the key to economic growth is giving the rich even more has proved to be an EPIC FAIL. Republicans took 200 years of American economic history, turned it on its head, and flushed America down the toilet. Please DRIVE A STAKE through the heart of the Supply Side Republican Vampires...

Perhaps Obama's efforts at bipartisanship -- futile though they proved to be -- and his willingness to let Congress legislate instead of dictating legislation to Congress should be added to his list of successes. Think back, for example, to energy bill, written by lobbyists and adopted by Congress during the Bush years, as an example of how Congress handed over its responsibilities to the Unitary Executive.

Obama had to have known it wouldn't be pretty, yet he let Congress do its job for both the stimulus and health care reform. In fact, he was oft criticized in the media for following the constitution, and letting Congress write legislation instead of force-feeding them legislation to pass.

I view this as a success. Particularly when it comes to the Senate and the filibuster; Americans aren't going to put pressure on legislators to make the process function without seeing its dysfunction of full force.

THE SOURCE OF THE U.S. DEFICIT MESS....PAST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS

Republican lawmakers and far-right activists have suddenly discovered, after eight years of dramatic fiscal irresponsibility, that they care deeply about deficit reduction again. Worse, they're absolutely convinced that President Obama and those free-spending Democrats are responsible, putting a terrible burden on future generations.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report, analyzing the existing deficit in detail, and what factors created it. Here's hoping Republicans and Teabaggers (John W, Terry and heartburn) are paying attention for once.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021482.php
.

We wouldn't have nearly the debt problem that we have now if it were not for the out of control defict spending from Republican administrations of the past 35 years. Starting with Nixon/Ford and Saint Ronny...

http://bethemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deficits.jpg
.

Hold the freakin phone! Obama went to Las Vegas? Did they stone him? Lectures about not going to LV...WTF? IS THIS GUY FOR REAL? Obama is probably personally responsible for 5-10 of the unemployed in LV. Gotta love those dumbocrate voters. Vote for who the union tells you to. And then the guy you vote for lectures the WORLD to NOT spend their money where you WORK. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

BYE BYE liberals. Your hopey dopey changey time is done.

As usual, " John W ", cherry-picking his " facts " to underpin his bogus argument. Following in the great tradition of such cherry-pickers as Bush&Cheney !! He sure keeps some classy company, " John W " does, but how about presenting the complete picture, instead of the one that supports his propaganda, or is that asking too much?
If he is interested in other " facts ", check this link out. He may learn something !!
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

HHH,

So you are thinking (can I use that term with you) that the dem Senate majority is a lock? The only thing the dems have going for them right now is their warchest, and that is even dwindling.

It would be instant, total retaliation: Stripped of all committee chairmanships, stripped of seniority, immediate screaming on all Wing-nut media whipping the idiots into a frenzy, followed by a well-funded Primary challenge assuming that the recalcitrant Senator hadn't already gotten down on his knees in the snow to beg forgiveness from Rush Limbaugh (remember what happened to Arlen Specter when he DARED criticize Bush's judicial S.Ct. appointees?) Remember what Republicans were preparing for Sen. Jeffords (R-VT) when he switched parties?Voters gave Democrats 60 votes in the Senate and what did they do with this historic opportunity?

HHH,
The Righty neanderthals like heartburn love to claim that Clinton did not leave a surplus but they also love to claim how credible Fox News is:

"The government recorded surpluses in the fiscal years 1998 through 2001, ending Sept. 30 each of those calendar years."

"But that all changed once President Bush was in office a year. Saddled with costs from the Sept. 11 attacks plus the tax cuts he pushed through Congress, Bush took the $127 billion surplus he inherited from former President Bill Clinton and turned it into a $159 billion deficit the following year. Then wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more tax cuts swelled it to $413 billion in 2004, a record until $454.8 billion for the fiscal 2008 year that ended Sept. 30."~ Fox News
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/federal-deficit-hit-t/
.

Posted by: antacid | February 15, 2010 7:12 PM

So are you really citing a fox news source?

Thats funny- maybe there is hope for you!
I posted a link to the US treasury website ( those are the guys that get all of our tax money in case you were wondering)...

I refuted HHH's claim that Clinton left a budget surplus to Bush - not to defend Bush's spending - but to use real data to address the mythology of Clintons "success" and to show how all admins artificially show deficit reductions.

I would recommend you do a little digging yourself instead of relying solely on what you are told...

Yeah, because a huge snowstorm, in the middle of winter, on the East coast proves that global warming is a myth, right Biff?
.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard
.
Posted by: antacid | February 15, 2010 6:33 PM

No-that would be the way you postion yourself on an issue...

Here is an article that summarizes nicely all of the recent non-anecdotal nails in the coffin of the GW hoax.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

One of the scientists that had a lead role in the UN IPCC report that got all of the EcoAlarmists hot an bothered is now quoted below;

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a former lead author for the IPCC, told The Sunday Times of London.

Phill Jones- head of the CRU- is quoted as saying that (paraphrase) there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995...

Posted by: bill r. | February 15, 2010 6:50 PM
and
Posted by: bill r. | February 15, 2010 6:48 PM

Bill R- good info- I see the relationship between Guano( bird droppings) and this admin- but where are you going with the banana trade war thing?

Posted by: antacid | February 15, 2010 11:04 PM

BTW- the tax cuts added revenue- by almost 30% from 2003 to 2009... Bush's problem ( since tripled by Proffessor Obama) was that in the same time he increase spending by almost twice the rate of increased revenue...

Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the debt

Swamp could advance its integrity by banning name calling which adds nothing to the dialogue. Calling conservatives derogatory terms like "tea-baggers," "Repugs," "Neonuts," "Neanderthals," "Faux News," "Dimwitty," only reflects on the ignorance of the English language possessed by the writer. Nor is it acceptable for the other side to call leftists "Demorats" or the president "Obimbo," or "Odumbo" any more than the left calling a former president "Chimpy," a name they would never use for the current president. Frankly, if Swamp cannot restore itself to a requirement for civility, its value is worthless.

To: huh? (aka JohnEEE-boy) and Don Fitzgerald:
.
I invited everyone to go to the Treasury Department web site for the figures. That’s where I got my numbers from. I didn’t simply pull these numbers out of thin air. The url for the Treasury Department information about the debt is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway . There you can find all the numbers I cited. You will also discover that my facts aren’t cherry-picked. Once I established the numbers showing that Clinton’s budgets added to the debt every year, the falsity of Clinton’s budget surplus claims naturally and logically followed. These are facts and conclusions you cannot dispute.
.
JohnEEE-boy dismisses my numbers and analysis out of hand without any examination. This is typical for JohnEEE-boy. He doesn’t have the brains or honesty to either face the facts or argue them; so he invariably attempts to shoot the messenger when he doesn’t like the message. That is why JohnEEE-boy remains a waste of gravity.
.
Don, on the other hand, makes the affirmative claim that I was selective in my factual presentation, and then cites an article that has no data to back up the bare claim regarding Clinton’s surpluses. He obviously never tried to look up the data I presented, much less work through my reasoning. He simply insists that I must be wrong and, thus, arbitrarily assigns some reason for my error. This is typical of the delusions Don suffers. He believes his heroes, the Democrats, are always in the right and always on his side and, therefore, that everyone else must be wrong. He even thinks Obama is taking on corporate America this very minute. (Howls of derisive laughter.)
.
Congratulations to the both of you for your invincible ignorance. John D. claimed that you can’t handle facts. You have proven John D. correct today.

* * * * *
Posted by: Steven VK | February 16, 2010 2:11 AM
.
Steve,
.
I’m not here to defend George W. Bush. I don’t particularly care for what he did as President, or what he did to the federal government’s finances in particular.
.
I will readily admit that, much to my chagrin, the federal government nearly doubled the national debt during Bush’s terms in office. However, the claim that Obama “inherited the current deficit,” or that George Bush’s policies basically made the deficit what it is today is a lot of hogwash.
.
Let’s make our terms clear here so we know what we are talking about. First, a “deficit” occurs when the government’s budget expenditures exceed its revenues in a single fiscal year. In simpler terms: It happens when the government spends more than it has. The “debt,” on the other hand, is the accumulated deficits, and the interest thereon.
.
For a President to “inherit” a deficit, the previous expenditures that caused a prior year’s deficit must be carried over into the new President’s budget for the ensuing fiscal year (or years). If the old expenditure is not carried over, then its cost is borne entirely by paying an increased debt service. Otherwise, the President and Congress have the power to repeal any spending program they feel is imprudent or impolitic. The right to repeal laws, including spending programs, is inherent in Congress power to Legislate as granted in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
.
The debt service under Obama’s new budget is up to about 9 – 10 % of the budget. That is only an increase of 1 or 2 percentage point over the debt service expenditures in Bush’s budgets. This allocation is where Obama and company handle increases to the debt. On the other hand, we haven’t seen Obama and Congress take their fiscal scalpel to stuff like Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug Program, the DoE expenditures for “No Child Left Behind” or the Bush tax cuts, or anything else. They could have repealed all of them. If they didn’t like the wars or our overseas military presence, they could have closed the bases and brought our people home. The fact that anything is still in the budget from the Bush years means that Congress and the Obama administration either APPROVE THEM or lack the political will to make any significant changes. That is hardly a reason to attribute a 1.4 to 1.6 trillion dollar deficit to the dead hand of a previous administration.
.
Moreover, you have to blink at the current budget expenditures to lay so much blame on Bush. I am at a loss to understand how anyone can blame the Bush administration for the substantial increases in the budgets for the Treasury Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (the latter now eclipsing the budget of the Department of Defense). I am also at a loss to understand how the $ 780 billion + “stimulus package” or the Auto industry bailout can be blamed on Bush.
.
It is time for Obama and company to stop blaming everyone else for the budget that has come from their hand. The times demand austerity to put the government’s financial house back in order. This is how a number of European countries have taken control of their own economic destinies. Obama, foolishly, has chosen to steer us in exactly the opposite direction. Please stop making excuses for him.

"How does it feel to know the leaders you trust have been lying to you? Doesn’t that just make you feel tingly all over"
*
Posted by: John W. | February 15, 2010 9:41 PM
*
Yes, John W. - tell us about how you felt being lied to by the Bush/Cheney administration, over and over again, from 2001 through Jan. 2009? Did it give you that "tingly feeling"?

Maybe Washington DC would not have been such a shock to our child president if he had more experience than the 164 days in the Senate. Obama is a good example of why there has been few senators elected president.

* * * * *
Posted by: BC | February 16, 2010 7:28 PM
.
Excuse me, BC. You have confused me with someone who trusted or believed in Bush and company.