President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[slucero]

Absolutely... the President can force the issue of any law he disagrees with, by ignoring it... the same way any criminal does when they ignore the law...

but the president is not a king... and does not have the simple right to commit armed forces at his whim... which is the root of the Founders reason for the language in the Constitution regarding who could commit armed forces to action. The War Powers Act clarified that somewhat, but it is still "law"... so ignoring it and breaking it are still illegal...

If you want to test if a law is Constitutional, you absolutely can ignore it, be arrested - and take it to court and argue against the Constitutionality of it...and then Judiciary can either agree and back the Constitution, or disagree and the law stands you accept your punishment, or whine some more about it.

But, yours is a bullshit comparison anyway.

The President is not a King who can declare war. And, the congress is not in command of our armed forces...and he DOES have the ability to order our forces to go anywhere he chooses. To argue against that is to argue against 200yrs of American history of unquestionable FACT.

What you quoted from the War Powers act is Uncostitutional...and that is most likely why congress has never seriously challenged any of the actions of a President since it was put into law...they would be foolish to do it. It's nothing more then a political tool for whiners against the sitting President.

right.. and remember your post was about "hypocrisy"....

That's why then Senator Obama spoke out in 2007, saying Congress needed to challenge Bush over violating the War Powers Act, and the need for for Congress to find "a backbone" and keep then-President George W. Bush in check regarding the legality of the Iraq War.

"We thought we learned this lesson," Obama said during remarks at DePaul University in October 2007.

"After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it."

hmmm... hypocrisy...


and why Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) sued Obama in federal court in June 2011. Here's the lawsuit: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles ... Master.pdf

And to your original point:

My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

If what you postulate is true.. then why did Democrats John Conyers (D-Mich.), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), instead of supporting their President... SUE HIM?

[Seven Wishes2]

Why do republicans support no payroll taxes on Hedge Fund managers and other highly paid executives whose compensation is already taxed at capital gains rates from stock gains at rates less than 1/3 the rate paid by taxpayers with much less income?

...the silence is deafening...

[RossValoryRocks]

Why do republicans support no payroll taxes on Hedge Fund managers and other highly paid executives whose compensation is already taxed at capital gains rates from stock gains at rates less than 1/3 the rate paid by taxpayers with much less income?

...the silence is deafening...

Because you economic nitwit investments all come with RISK...the big money put into companies...small...medium and large has a measure of risk...the less tax on it is to spur investment and free up capital that would probably be sitting in some IRA earning nothing and not being put to use to spur the economy along...instead the money is put at risk and the since there is risk the Government has decided to offset some of that by making capital gains taxed at a lower and flat rate, thus giving people a HUGE reason to invest and start new companies etc...didn't you learn ANYTHING in your Econ classes man???

Now...if you want to talk why the SS payroll tax doesn't apply to people making over $110,000 I would probably support you on that...IF...and only if the companies doing the employing don't have to match it. Otherwise the cost to companies (ALL of them, small to large) would be too much.

[RedWingFan]

Why do republicans support no payroll taxes on Hedge Fund managers and other highly paid executives whose compensation is already taxed at capital gains rates from stock gains at rates less than 1/3 the rate paid by taxpayers with much less income?

...the silence is deafening...

YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!!!

[Seven Wishes2]

Stu, I at least respect your attempt to answer that post, although I don't really agree with your assessment.

NorthStarsFan, on the other hand...your response makes no sense at all, since it's the GOP that's supporting the oudated and disproven notion that keeping dividend earnings (which is paid out deliberately instead of a flat income for this very reason) at its current absurdly low rate somehow stimulates economic growth and spurs job creation.

If that had been the case, the stock market would not have been at 6,240 when Obama took office (and it's double that now, FYI), and the unemployment rate would not have more than doubled during the Bush Administration. Wrong answer, son.

[RedWingFan]

This is great. Thanks to all you Obama voters (take a bow 7 Wishes)
Video attached of the recipient of 7 Wishes vote blaming America for problems in Mexico, before shipping guns down that eventually were used to kill border agents.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12 ... gulations/

Obama Blamed US Guns for Mexican Violence – Then He Set Out to Prove Himself Right

In April 2009 Barack Obama traveled to Mexico and blamed US gun sellers for violence south of the border. Obama told his Mexican audience, “This war being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States.” Just to be sure, a few months later the Obama Administration started running their own guns to Mexico, at least 2,000 guns.


“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States… more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border. So we have responsibilities as well.”

Now there is proof that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives discussed using “Fast and Furious” to push for new regulations on gun sales.
CBS News reported:


Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

And as a result of their actions, Border Agent Brian Terry and over 200 Mexicans are dead today – so that the Obama Administration could make a case for new gun regulations.

[Seven Wishes2]

Sure. We'll get to that as soon as we get finished with the Bush trial for war atrocities that killed 100,000 innocent Iraqui civilians.

Ha ha! A Republican complaining about a lack of regulation and gun control. Now I've seen everything.

Good Lord. We get to choose between Obama and Newt in 2012. This is God's idea of a practical joke.

[RossValoryRocks]

Stu, I at least respect your attempt to answer that post, although I don't really agree with your assessment.

NorthStarsFan, on the other hand...your response makes no sense at all, since it's the GOP that's supporting the oudated and disproven notion that keeping dividend earnings (which is paid out deliberately instead of a flat income for this very reason) at its current absurdly low rate somehow stimulates economic growth and spurs job creation.

If that had been the case, the stock market would not have been at 6,240 when Obama took office (and it's double that now, FYI), and the unemployment rate would not have more than doubled during the Bush Administration. Wrong answer, son.

You don't have to agree with my assessment...but you are wrong...as EVERY econ prof in the world agrees with me...you agreement or disagreement doesn't matter.

So what has been disproven by whom???? That capital gains being taxed at a lower level than regular income doesn't spur investment?? Again...it's economic 101 dude...love ya like a brother...but you REALLY need to lay off the liberal crack pipe, stop getting a tingle in your leg, and taking facial shots from the Democrat establishment...

The stock market rebounded in spite of Obama...as a natural reaction to the huge over correction...nothing Obama has done has spurred the economy at all.

[Seven Wishes2]

LMFAO. One of your best retorts. Not as it pertains to fact, but it was a classic.

Before I digress, I need to add that I had this thought today, and only those of us old enough to have been influenced by the great opus "Caddyshack" can relate to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6l1QljpMo

The analogy is easy. Judge Smails is the GOP, and Spalding Smails is the lecherous welfare state.

Now, back to the subject. As this graph shows:

This graph shows the impact on real private investment growth over a number of years if you raise the capital gains rate. The result is…nothing. The investment line barely budges and is statistically insignificant

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/inv_kgains.png

Income tax in the United States is progressive, meaning that tax rates increase along with the amount of money a person earns. Currently, the highest income tax bracket is indeed 35 percent, but it applies only to any income earned above $379,150. Income below that threshold is taxed at a lower rate; for example, the first $17,000 of income is taxed at 10 percent. So anyone claiming that a wealthy person paid "35 percent" of his income in taxes is not quite right: that tax only applies to income made over $379,150.

But Warren Buffett certainly earns well over that amount of money, which brings us to the next problem with Fox's attack. While the Fox figures claim that Buffett has "already paid 35 percent" tax on the income he's earned, Buffett's entire point, in his New York Times op-ed, is that he does not make most of his income from drawing a salary. Rather, he now makes most of his income from capital gains and dividends through his investments -- which, as Fox acknowledges, are taxed at a lower rate of 15 percent.

Last year my federal tax bill -- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf -- was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”

You don't have to agree with my assessment...but you are wrong...as EVERY econ prof in the world agrees with me...you agreement or disagreement doesn't matter.

So what has been disproven by whom???? That capital gains being taxed at a lower level than regular income doesn't spur investment?? Again...it's economic 101 dude...love ya like a brother...but you REALLY need to lay off the liberal crack pipe, stop getting a tingle in your leg, and taking facial shots from the Democrat establishment...

[RedWingFan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45645743
Conservatives, ahead of the curve again.

TORONTO — Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.

Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but renouncing the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997. No nation has formally renounced the protocol until now.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. Canada's previous Liberal government signed the accord but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government never embraced it.

Kent's announcement comes a day after marathon climate talks wrapped up in the South African port city of Durban.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed on a deal that sets the world on a path to sign a new climate treaty by 2015 to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of next year.

"The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, United States and China, and therefore cannot work," Kent said. "It's now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it's an impediment."

Kent said the Durban agreement does represent a path forward.

Canada faced international criticism at the recent climate talks in South Africa amid reports it would pull out of Kyoto.

Harper's Conservative government is reluctant to hurt Canada's booming oil sands sector, which is the country's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases and a reason it has reneged on its Kyoto commitments.

Canada has the world's third largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves. But critics say the enormous amount of energy and water needed in the extraction process increases greenhouse gas emissions.

[Seven Wishes2]

You do understand he pulled out because the U.S., China, and India WON'T commit to changing their emissions standards, right? That he's upset that the three biggest polluters in the world won't go far enough in helping to save the planet.

As long as you're clear on that, move along.

Nimrod.

[RedWingFan]

You do understand he pulled out because the U.S., China, and India WON'T commit to changing their emissions standards, right? That he's upset that the three biggest polluters in the world won't go far enough in helping to save the planet.

As long as you're clear on that, move along.

Nimrod.

That's what they say. I think it's because they're not too keen on destroying their manufacturing industry and crippling their economy. That's the only thing Kyoto would have accomplished....Obama voter.

[Seven Wishes2]

Except the GOP will never elect the only guys who could actually BEAT Obama - Romney and Huntsman - and will instead nominate someone who has no shot in the general election (Newt).

[slucero]

a place that aggregates all the latest polling data: http://www.pollingreport.com


Pretty cool list regarding job approval for the POTUS: http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

[Seven Wishes2]

Except the GOP will never elect the only guys who could actually BEAT Obama - Romney and Huntsman - and will instead nominate someone who has no shot in the general election (Newt).

You libs and the misleadia keep trying to force RINOS down our throats because you know the real people of the GOP want a Conservative nominee. Weve seen your act before ie. Dole and McCain, never again Seven.

I understand true conservatives are making a stand here. The problem is, there are more Independents and Democrats than Republicans, and Good Old Newt doesn't have a chance in hell of swaying enough moderates to his cause...whatever his flavor of the month is now. He waffles on every issue out there.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Except the GOP will never elect the only guys who could actually BEAT Obama - Romney and Huntsman - and will instead nominate someone who has no shot in the general election (Newt).

You libs and the misleadia keep trying to force RINOS down our throats because you know the real people of the GOP want a Conservative nominee. Weve seen your act before ie. Dole and McCain, never again Seven.

I understand true conservatives are making a stand here. The problem is, there are more Independents and Democrats than Republicans, and Good Old Newt doesn't have a chance in hell of swaying enough moderates to his cause...whatever his flavor of the month is now. He waffles on every issue out there.

The actual fact is that Newt is to the left of Romney and Romney is to the left of Huntsman.

Newt was for individual mandates on health care , for cap and trade, said that the US constitution was out moded, that the US military should be reacting to every single little situation in the world with force, that the Ryan entitlement reform was social engineering . Newts more of a RINO than McCain ever was.

I guess it depends how you define a conservative, but Conservatives taking a stand for Newt is like a turkey asking to be first in line to the Christmas slaughter house.

[conversationpc]

The actual fact is that Newt is to the left of Romney and Romney is to the left of Huntsman.

Newt was for individual mandates on health care , for cap and trade, said that the US constitution was out moded, that the US military should be reacting to every single little situation in the world with force, that the Ryan entitlement reform was social engineering . Newts more of a RINO than McCain ever was.

I guess it depends how you define a conservative, but Conservatives taking a stand for Newt is like a turkey asking to be first in line to the Christmas slaughter house.

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it this way.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The actual fact is that Newt is to the left of Romney and Romney is to the left of Huntsman.

Newt was for individual mandates on health care , for cap and trade, said that the US constitution was out moded, that the US military should be reacting to every single little situation in the world with force, that the Ryan entitlement reform was social engineering . Newts more of a RINO than McCain ever was.

I guess it depends how you define a conservative, but Conservatives taking a stand for Newt is like a turkey asking to be first in line to the Christmas slaughter house.

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it this way.

Its all a set up. It goes like this.

Newt is a big government.

The media build him up as a tea party conservative
If he should miracuously win, he will just turn his back on small government prinicples , small government loses credibility for ever and ever.

If he loses the election, the RINOS and liberals say "look we nominated a tea partier and he lost. For now on we must nominate liberal republicans!.
The tea party/ small governnment conservatives is finished as a political force. for ever and ever.

Newts the wost thing that can happen to those who support small government consertives. The absolute stinking worst.

Will folks catch on to this scam? You wonder .

[conversationpc]

Its all a set up. It goes like this.

Newt is a big government.

The media build him up as a tea party conservative
If he should miracuously win, he will just turn his back on small government prinicples , small government loses credibility for ever and ever.

If he loses the election, the RINOS and liberals say "look we nominated a tea partier and he lost. For now on we must nominate liberal republicans!.
The tea party/ small governnment conservatives is finished as a political force. for ever and ever.

Newts the wost thing that can happen to those who support small government consertives. The absolute stinking worst.

Will folks catch on to this scam? You wonder .

Yup...And unfortunately, it seems like many tea party folks are actually supporting the guy. I agree that he is farther to the left of McCain.

[strangegrey]

Except the GOP will never elect the only guys who could actually BEAT Obama - Romney and Huntsman - and will instead nominate someone who has no shot in the general election (Newt).

With respect, I think this is a fallacy. This has been addressed by plenty of folks on the right. Think about some of the more moderate, 'centrist' republican candidates over the past few elections and take note of how dreadful a shellacking they've gotten. Dole got completely ass-munched in 96...and hell, McCain might have been better off withdrawing from the race on halloween in 2008.

Now, think of the most conservative presidential republican you can think of in the past 30 years? Reagan. He cleaned up big time, in one of the most historic landslides....

For the most part, the people want a strong conservative (especially when you have a Jimmy Carter-esque president fucking up the economy). The current polls show it.....as Romney just can't get a foothold to break away from the pack. Instead all of the other candidates get embraced (at least for a while)....mostly in a desperate attempt to avoid, at almost any cost, to having MittCain Romney as the presidential candidate.

Respectfully, I think you're repeating (and I'm not suggesting you're doing it consciously) what the media is telling the public. They *want* to run against Romney. They *need* to run against Romney. Because not only is he McCain, Part II....but he also developed a universal healthcare system that was a blueprint for Obamacare and will make defending Obamacare to the public, an absolute cakewalk. So they keep repeating the mantra that Romney is the only guy that can beat Obama....so that enough idiot republican voters (and trust me, there's fucking stadium-loads of them wherever you look) simply buy the narrative and vote for Romney.

Yup...And unfortunately, it seems like many tea party folks are actually supporting the guy. (Newt)

That's an unfortunate knee jerk reaction, to avoid being left (pun intended) with MittCain Romney.

I agree that he is farther to the left of McCain.

Bullshit. This I can not agree with. McCain is farther left than more than a handful of democrats. A real piece of unadulterated shite.

Newt may be big government, but he's not McCain. Had we elected him, McCain might have actually done more damage than the current scumbag occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[conversationpc]

I agree that he is farther to the left of McCain.

Bullshit. This I can not agree with. McCain is farther left than more than a handful of democrats. A real piece of unadulterated shite.

Well, hauling judges before the Congress, which is unconstitutional doesn't make him a lefty, but it seems like he is AT LEAST as far left as McCain. He's supposed Cap-and-Trade in the past, individual mandates for healthcare, few restrictions on illegal immigration, and has had glowing things to say about Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson. The more I learn about him, the more I dislike him.

Newt may be big government, but he's not McCain. Had we elected him, McCain might have actually done more damage than the current scumbag occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I can't say that I disagree much, if at all, with that statement.

[strangegrey]

Well, hauling judges before the Congress, which is unconstitutional doesn't make him a lefty, but it seems like he is AT LEAST as far left as McCain. He's supposed Cap-and-Trade in the past, individual mandates for healthcare, few restrictions on illegal immigration, and has had glowing things to say about Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson. The more I learn about him, the more I dislike him.

Im not saying that Gingrich isn't without issues....his statements in support of FDR made me want to vomit. But a John McCain he is not....

[Seven Wishes2]

Now, think of the most conservative presidential republican you can think of in the past 30 years? Reagan.
Newt may be big government, but he's not McCain. Had we elected him, McCain might have actually done more damage than the current scumbag occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Reagan was far from conservative, in retrospect. He expanded the size of the federal government, and raised taxes his last 7 years in office. He's been portrayed as the quintessential Republican posthumously.

[strangegrey]

Reagan was far from conservative, in retrospect. He expanded the size of the federal government, and raised taxes his last 7 years in office. He's been portrayed as the quintessential Republican posthumously.

You've been spewing this bull donkey for years around here. You forget to include that the total amount of tax cuts Reagan implemented in 1981 greatly eclipse any marginal 'increases' conducted in the subsequent last 7 years. That single tax cut was responsible for a doubling of tax receipts in years following it. By the way, your so-called expansion of the federal gov he oversaw was largely an increase in defense spending....which resulted in the crumbing of the soviet union and almost all warsaw pact countries. Which as a direct result allowed Clinton to slash defense spending in the 90s and enjoy considerable surpluses. Tangible results from an increase in gov spending. That's something that NO president, 4 times removed before OR after Reagan, can put on his resume.

[strangegrey]

I'll also add that you would have likely seen a far smaller 'increase' in the federal government had Reagan not had to deal with a democrat majority in congress.

At the same time, Clinton lovers like to point to Bubba as the reason behind a balanced budget. But credit for that goes to a republican controlled congress, not a man who spent his time shoving cigars up an interns gash.

[Seven Wishes2]

You're so misinformed it's not even funny.

As I've proven before, non-military government spending under Republican Presidents has outpaced their Democratic counterparts by a better than 2-to-1 margin since Nixon.

On December 31st, 1976 ,(Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

This, from a group of conservative economists:

http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/ronald-reagan-hypocrisy-the-deficit-spending-anti-free-market-conservative/

WTF Finance very much agrees with the importance of fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, small Government, personal liberty and responsibility. What we disagree with is the notion that Reagan represented any of the above.

[Seven Wishes2]

Mmm hmmm.

Only problem is, the GOP's Congressional approval ratings are hovering between 10-20% BELOW those of the Democrats, which is saying something. Besides, Kerrey is going to run for his seat again, so it's a moot point.

I wouldn't want to be an incumbent on either side of the aisle in 2012. Heads are going to roll.

[slucero]

...wait till Europe implodes... then we'll really have a show...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

...wait till Europe implodes... then we'll really have a show...

they wont implode, they are in the studio recording a new album. Then hopefully lots of cities will have a show


oh you mean that Europe

[Monker]

Except the GOP will never elect the only guys who could actually BEAT Obama - Romney and Huntsman - and will instead nominate someone who has no shot in the general election (Newt).

You libs and the misleadia keep trying to force RINOS down our throats because you know the real people of the GOP want a Conservative nominee. Weve seen your act before ie. Dole and McCain, never again Seven.

The problem with both Dole and McCain is the Republican nominated them too late...especially McCain. By the time the Republicans nominated them, they had moved too far to the far right, neo-con, way. Therefore, the Republicans did not REALLY want them, and the independents and Democrats felt they were too radical...or, in Dole's case, that Clinton was just a FAR better choice.

The Republicans have fucked themselves up. No matter what they do, you will not nominate a candidate that can win. You will either nominate a radical neo-con, or somebody that Republicans do not REALLY want. In either case - you lose.

So, keep wetting yourself over these nominees. They ALL suck...and everybody knows it.