President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Seven Wishes2]

Riiiight.

The past three posts, I kicked your ass. Your response is not a "victory" - you're full of shit, and 8 in 10 Americans know it. I mean, you just completely fail to address ANYTHING because you KNOW you have no answer for it.

Oh, and BTW...Obama, with a Democratic-controlled House and Congress, deported more people in 2009 (over 400,000) than Bush did in ANY year he was in office. So, so much for the "weak on immigration" argument or the idea he was strong-armed into it by the GOP.

OWNED.

Now, address the post I made about all the programs and policies YOUR party CAME UP WITH in 2008 and 2009 and are now opposed to SOLELY because Obama also supports them.

[RossValoryRocks]

Question:
What do patent reform, payroll taxes, the bipartisan commission on the deficit, cap and trade, the individual mandate, immigration reform, and the Dream Act all have in common?

(Answer:
They were all proposed by Republicans in 2008, approved by the Obama Administration, and are now officially opposed by the GOP).

I didn't think this would elicit a response.

Proof??? Usually you are so good at finding SOMETHING to back up your statements.

#1) Name the Republicans who proposed these things...
#2) Please supply a good source for them (Non biased if you please)

[Seven Wishes2]

1. Cap and trade was a Republican idea, stemming from the 80's and 90's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-l-revesz-and-michael-a-livermore/cap-and-trade-was-republi_b_489863.html

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/1033/remember-capandtrade-was-originally-a-freemarket-conservative-idea

John McCain, Scott Brown, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, and Richard Lugar have all supported it in its current form the past two years.


2. It's a well-known fact the GOP supports patent reform because it makes it much easier for mega-corporations to gain patents, and makes that process far more difficult for individual entrepreneurs.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/gop-backed-patent-reform-ignores-the-constitution-costs-1-billion-and-taxes-innovation/


3. The GOP voted against its own idea - the bipartisan commission.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/79599-gregg-calls-for-re-vote-on-fiscal-commission


4. From the AP...the individual mandate was a GOP idea, and Obama was opposed to it until he was strong-armed by Republicans to ensure its passage.

Conservatives and Republicans once favored a requirement that all or most people buy basic health insurance. Like cap and trade, it was conceived by free-market conservatives as a way to avoid harming the private sector. It also fit with conservative views of personal responsibility and the immorality of freeloading. In 1993, Republicans pushed it as an alternative to an employer mandate. Stuart Butler, a domestic policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, described the individual mandate in 2003 as a necessary part of a "social contract." Republican Mitt Romney signed a health law with a mandate in 2006, when he was governor of Massachusetts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612


5. This call for discipline is a stark contrast to GOP actions during the Bush administration, when two wars, $1.3 billion in tax cuts and a major expansion of Medicare were financed with deficit spending, with the full support of all Republicans.


6. McCain, McConnell, Graham, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Bennett of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sam Brownback of Kansas and George Voinovich of Ohio all supported immigration reform. Again, Obama, with no pressure from the GOP, deported more people than any President in history.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157


7. Let alone the fact that McConnell, Boner, and others in the GOP leadership all supported campaign financial disclosure as recently as 2009. However, once Obama endorsed it, it was suddenly anathema:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/ns/meet_the_press/


8. It's also a well-known fact that Republicans were fully supportive of the Dream Act until Obama rallied behind it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/15/remarks-president-congressional-hispanic-caucus-institutes-33rd-annual-a

[conversationpc]

1. Cap and trade was a Republican idea, stemming from the 80's and 90's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-l-revesz-and-michael-a-livermore/cap-and-trade-was-republi_b_489863.html

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/1033/remember-capandtrade-was-originally-a-freemarket-conservative-idea

John McCain, Scott Brown, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, and Richard Lugar have all supported it in its current form the past two years.


2. It's a well-known fact the GOP supports patent reform because it makes it much easier for mega-corporations to gain patents, and makes that process far more difficult for individual entrepreneurs.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/gop-backed-patent-reform-ignores-the-constitution-costs-1-billion-and-taxes-innovation/


3. The GOP voted against its own idea - the bipartisan commission.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/79599-gregg-calls-for-re-vote-on-fiscal-commission


4. From the AP...the individual mandate was a GOP idea, and Obama was opposed to it until he was strong-armed by Republicans to ensure its passage.

Conservatives and Republicans once favored a requirement that all or most people buy basic health insurance. Like cap and trade, it was conceived by free-market conservatives as a way to avoid harming the private sector. It also fit with conservative views of personal responsibility and the immorality of freeloading. In 1993, Republicans pushed it as an alternative to an employer mandate. Stuart Butler, a domestic policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, described the individual mandate in 2003 as a necessary part of a "social contract." Republican Mitt Romney signed a health law with a mandate in 2006, when he was governor of Massachusetts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612


5. This call for discipline is a stark contrast to GOP actions during the Bush administration, when two wars, $1.3 billion in tax cuts and a major expansion of Medicare were financed with deficit spending, with the full support of all Republicans.


6. McCain, McConnell, Graham, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Bennett of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sam Brownback of Kansas and George Voinovich of Ohio all supported immigration reform. Again, Obama, with no pressure from the GOP, deported more people than any President in history.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157


7. Let alone the fact that McConnell, Boner, and others in the GOP leadership all supported campaign financial disclosure as recently as 2009. However, once Obama endorsed it, it was suddenly anathema:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/ns/meet_the_press/


8. It's also a well-known fact that Republicans were fully supportive of the Dream Act until Obama rallied behind it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/15/remarks-president-congressional-hispanic-caucus-institutes-33rd-annual-a

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...I'm not reading this but all it goes to show, IF true, is what I've said several times here...Which is, the Republican party is just as dirty and underhanded as the Democrats are.

[RedWingFan]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...I'm not reading this but all it goes to show, IF true, is what I've said several times here...Which is, the Republican party is just as dirty and underhanded as the Democrats are.

Yup. And not one true conservative or tea partier supports any of that trash. Thanks for making my point on the liberals favoring horrible law while you try to run interference. Nice job!!! Bamster is all yours!

[Seven Wishes2]

Bullshit. They do! It's all their ideas! And they had them at the forefront of their campaigns as recently as two years ago! Dumbass.

[RedWingFan]

Bullshit. They do! It's all their ideas! And they had them at the forefront of their campaigns as recently as two years ago! Dumbass.

Really? What conservatives or tea partiers campaigned on them? Dumbass. I saw all the liberal republicans you listed, so don't bother with that. Dumbass.

[Seven Wishes2]

Right. Well, as most economists, as well as the heads of S&P and Moody's, have both stated, it's ignorant Tea Bagger economic "policy" that's about to ruin America. So, wrong answer, son.

[RedWingFan]

Right. Well, as most economists, as well as the heads of S&P and Moody's, have both stated, it's ignorant Tea Bagger economic "policy" that's about to ruin America. So, wrong answer, son.

So now you're saying no conservatives or tea partiers campaigned on all that BS you listed earlier? So were you wrong again, or did you lie again when you claimed supported them just 2 years ago?

[Seven Wishes2]

What? Dude, you are so OTL.

There are some VERY conservative Republicans who supported the very positions they now claim to oppose, a mere two or less years later, now that Obama supports them.

Again, the proof is irrefutable. Just points out the hypocrisy, and the fact the GOP's only governing strategy is to make Obama a one termer...which will NEVER happen unless a moderate Republican like Romney or Huntsman wins the nomination.

[conversationpc]

What? Dude, you are so OTL.

There are some VERY conservative Republicans who supported the very positions they now claim to oppose, a mere two or less years later, now that Obama supports them.

Again, who cares? Speaking for myself, I'm not a Republican party apologist and haven't been for several years now.

[Seven Wishes2]

Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandy said on Sunday that the only way to avoid a double-dip recession right now was for Congress to follow through on the debt ceiling deal in a "reasonable, graceful way" and to extend the payroll tax cuts in 2012.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandy said on Sunday that the only way to avoid a double-dip recession right now was for Congress to follow through on the debt ceiling deal in a "reasonable, graceful way" and to extend the payroll tax cuts in 2012.

LOL Mark Zandy a Keynesian apologist who penned the justification for Obamas economic stimmulus spending. Zandy is the just another economist who has bought into the failed orthodoxy interventionist Keynesian economics.

The only way the economy will avoid a double dip recession is if we don't quit messing with the business cycle through
the double wammy of monetary intervention (QE1 , 2 and soon to come Q3) and governement spending which sucks the capacity out of the private sector. If we had done little to nothing in October 2008 we'd have been hurting awfully in 2009 but would be flying high by now- far beyond where we were when things started going south. Unfortunately the only people saying this are a few folks in the Ron Paul wing, don't expect common sense to take ahold anytime soon.

[Seven Wishes2]

What you're doing now is paraphrasing. Again, in no way, shape or form was I or anyone else suggesting there should be no spending cuts. But more than 80% of all economists polled, as I posted before, believe the Bush tax cuts for the rich need to be eliminated. And dig a little deeper - you need to be damned sure any cuts made are NOT going to be for program that create jobs.

[Seven Wishes2]

FF, what I love about you is how you constantly throw piles of steaming crap against the wall in the hopes some of it will stick, so you can someday complete your mural of bullshit.

THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH DID NOT WORK. Lowering taxes on the rich does NOT create jobs, as I have proven with many, many links in the past few months. Even the guys who ran Bush Sr. and Reagan's economic teams say the marginal rate needs to be raised. And again, NO ONE is saying this should be done without spending cuts.

And also, you keep prattling on and on about the dollar amount these rich people are paying, but omit the fact that they control more of the wealth than they ever have...so they have MORE money in their pockets than ever before.

Give it a rest, dude. You're wrong again here.

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, FartFinder, considering that it's common knowledge the Tea Bagger's refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is what caused the credit downgrade and the subsequent financial meltdown, you have no legs on which to stand.

Also, try to remember Obama didn't get sworn in until the beginning of 2009. The wheels were in motion thanks to Bush and his abhorrent fiscal policy - the very mechanim that caused the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.

And it's not "Seven" who believes in this. It's the vast majority of economists and credit agencies. YOU are in a VAST minority, as I have proven time and time again.

Care to address anything else I've proven in the past few days?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

[RedWingFan]

It's Bush's fault, it's the Tea Party's fault, it's the Republican's fault, it's Congress' fault, it's Donald Trump's fault, it's Sarah Palin's fault. It's everybody's fault but Obama's.

[Saint John]

THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH DID NOT WORK.

They sure as hell did. THAT is indisputable fact. The lowering of those oppressive levels was supposed to put more money in the pockets of the people that they were lowered for ... and they did. Mission accomplished. End of story.

Lowering taxes on the rich does NOT create jobs, as I have proven with many, many links in the past few months.

Nobody gives a fuck if it creates jobs. They have no responsibility to create jobs or pay more in taxes. Additionally, I don't care if it kills jobs. Tax blindly and fairly, cover up corporate loopholes and use the budget that those monies bring in, but not a penny more. The super rich would pay for virtually tens of millions of people with their tax rates the same as everyone else's, and if that's not good enough too fucking bad! Again, raise the taxes on the middle class and poor before the rich. The additional "revenue" would be virtually the same. After all, it's "only 3%." So why don't WE take the hit?!?! I'll tell you why ... there's less fucking votes in it for politicians!

[RossValoryRocks]

Well, FartFinder, considering that it's common knowledge the Tea Bagger's refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is what caused the credit downgrade and the subsequent financial meltdown, you have no legs on which to stand.

Also, try to remember Obama didn't get sworn in until the beginning of 2009. The wheels were in motion thanks to Bush and his abhorrent fiscal policy - the very mechanim that caused the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.

And it's not "Seven" who believes in this. It's the vast majority of economists and credit agencies. YOU are in a VAST minority, as I have proven time and time again.

Care to address anything else I've proven in the past few days?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

The problem is YOU seem to be the only person who believes YOU have proven anything. You can cite whatever left-wing sources (Huff Post, NPR, MSNBC etc) you want it proves NOTHING but that you can take the latest Democrat Party marching orders.

And it wasn't Bush's fiscal policy...it was the DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

Obama, and most of the sitting members of congress (both sides) is going to get an asskicking of epic proportions in the next election and rightly so.

The people are sick of being overtaxed so politicians can spend that money on getting votes, PERIOD. You want to tax the rich and the "evil" big corporations, fine, close the loops holes and lower the rates.

I honestly don't know how you succeed fiscally 7. You have a business, that does well from all the signs, and yet you want to punish people JUST LIKE YOU for being successful. SMH.

[RedWingFan]

Yup. And not one true conservative or tea partier supports any of that trash. Thanks for making my point on the liberals favoring horrible law while you try to run interference. Nice job!!! Bamster is all yours!

Bullshit. They do! It's all their ideas! And they had them at the forefront of their campaigns as recently as two years ago! Dumbass.

Really? What conservatives or tea partiers campaigned on them? Dumbass. I saw all the liberal republicans you listed, so don't bother with that. Dumbass.

Still waiting for the list of Tea Party or conservative candidates that supported those policies 7.

You're either stupid/wrong again or a liar/ lying again

Which is it you Obama voter?

[verslibre]

Wow, look at all these people bitching and moaning and arguing...

So who's right?

[RossValoryRocks]

Wow, look at all these people bitching and moaning and arguing...

So who's right?

I am right...almost everyone is to the left of me! LOL

[Seven Wishes2]

And it wasn't Bush's fiscal policy...it was the DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

Stu, your response was well thought out, but it was Bush's budget they were voting on. They actually approved LESS in spending than he proposed.

[Seven Wishes2]

Yup. And not one true conservative or tea partier supports any of that trash. Thanks for making my point on the liberals favoring horrible law while you try to run interference. Nice job!!! Bamster is all yours!

Bullshit. They do! It's all their ideas! And they had them at the forefront of their campaigns as recently as two years ago! Dumbass.

Really? What conservatives or tea partiers campaigned on them? Dumbass. I saw all the liberal republicans you listed, so don't bother with that. Dumbass.

Still waiting for the list of Tea Party or conservative candidates that supported those policies 7.

You're either stupid/wrong again or a liar/ lying again

Which is it you Obama voter?

Dude, fuck that. You don't get to change the rules. You also don't get to announce that lifelong conservatives are suddenly "liberal". I cited a valid source for every single item. You're just bullshitting. Seriously. I've proven my point with facts. You either get to confront reality or just pretend it didn't happen.

[slucero]

Well, FartFinder, considering that it's common knowledge the Tea Bagger's refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is what caused the credit downgrade and the subsequent financial meltdown, you have no legs on which to stand.

Yo Bro... the there's no way the Bush Tax Cuts could have caused any kind of melt down..

Bush Tax Cuts:
(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html)

President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years. Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

Thats $170B per year.. thats not gonna TANK the economy...


Even when you factor in the Cost of the Wars...

Cost of Wars:
The Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies did a study on the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report, written by more than 20 economists, political scientists, lawyers, anthropologists and humanitarian personnel for Brown's Watson Institute for International Studies, gives staggering estimates for the cost of military action in those three countries. Nearly ten years since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, the report estimates the U.S. government has already spent between $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion and will spend at least a trillion more over the next fifty years. That report data is represented here: http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary


That's $270B per year is the estimated cost.


That gives us a combined cost of $440 Billion per year.. again... that isn't gonna tank the economy..

Also, try to remember Obama didn't get sworn in until the beginning of 2009. The wheels were in motion thanks to Bush and his abhorrent fiscal policy - the very mechanim that caused the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.

You are correct that it is fiscal policy that caused this... but its the policy of repealing good regulation, which unleashed bankers greed (without restraint).

The root cause for this crisis is and always has been "credit"... which came to a screeching HALT when banks over-levered themselves... and would no longer lend to one another... if you know what LIBOR us you will understand what I'm referring to.

Banks caused this crisis because the good regulation (Glass-Steagal) that had restrained their greed was repealed... everything else is as a consequence of this...

[Seven Wishes2]

They sure as hell did. THAT is indisputable fact. The lowering of those oppressive levels was supposed to put more money in the pockets of the people that they were lowered for ... and they did. Mission accomplished. End of story.

He can't stand this line of thinking..

OK, the problem with THIS line of reasoning is that once you completely and systematically eliminate the middle class, there won't be very many rich people, because the middle class drives the economy...and creates demand.

[RossValoryRocks]

And it wasn't Bush's fiscal policy...it was the DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

Stu, your response was well thought out, but it was Bush's budget they were voting on. They actually approved LESS in spending than he proposed.

Presidents have historically asked for more, all of them...every single one of them...does it...its the shoot for the eagle, bag the pheasant and never eat crow thing. It was mostly defense as well, which always gets trimmed by Congress. The spending in 2006 through 2010 was the sole result of the Democrat controlled Congress spending in a reckless fashion.

It's time to stop playing the blame game brother 7...Bush has been out of office almost 4 years now...no matter what he did or didn't do we won't solve the problems of today by rehashing the past. It's time to vote ALL the POLITICIANS out and get some real statesmen and stateswomen in there who are fiscally disciplined and do not give a rats ass about being re-elected on our dime.

The US government brings in 2.2 TRILLION a year...they need to learn how to live within those means, instead of taxing us (ALL of us...rich, poor and inbetween) so make sure they get re-elected by spending our tax money to buy votes.

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, FartFinder, considering that it's common knowledge the Tea Bagger's refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire is what caused the credit downgrade and the subsequent financial meltdown, you have no legs on which to stand.

Yo Bro... the there's no way the Bush Tax Cuts could have caused any kind of melt down..

Bush Tax Cuts:
(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html)

President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years. Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

Thats $170B per year.. thats not gonna TANK the economy...


Even when you factor in the Cost of the Wars...

Cost of Wars:
The Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies did a study on the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report, written by more than 20 economists, political scientists, lawyers, anthropologists and humanitarian personnel for Brown's Watson Institute for International Studies, gives staggering estimates for the cost of military action in those three countries. Nearly ten years since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, the report estimates the U.S. government has already spent between $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion and will spend at least a trillion more over the next fifty years. That report data is represented here: http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary


That's $270B per year is the estimated cost.


That gives us a combined cost of $440 Billion per year.. again... that isn't gonna tank the economy..

Also, try to remember Obama didn't get sworn in until the beginning of 2009. The wheels were in motion thanks to Bush and his abhorrent fiscal policy - the very mechanim that caused the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.

You are correct that it is fiscal policy that caused this... but its the policy of repealing good regulation, which unleashed bankers greed (without restraint).

The root cause for this crisis is and always has been "credit"... which came to a screeching HALT when banks over-levered themselves... and would no longer lend to one another... if you know what LIBOR us you will understand what I'm referring to.

Banks caused this crisis because the good regulation (Glass-Steagal) that had restrained their greed was repealed... everything else is as a consequence of this...

Fantastic post, slucero. Very well thought out. However, I never stated it was the only causality. It is however, the tatamount reason S&P downgraded us...this comes directly from S&P's chief economist.

[Seven Wishes2]

It's time to stop playing the blame game brother 7...Bush has been out of office almost 4 years now...no matter what he did or didn't do we won't solve the problems of today by rehashing the past. It's time to vote ALL the POLITICIANS out and get some real statesmen and stateswomen in there who are fiscally disciplined and do not give a rats ass about being re-elected on our dime.

I couldn't agree more. But you know as well as I do that will never happen.

[Seven Wishes2]

This just in: the cessation of the payroll tax (which is taken out of paychecks at a flat rate, meaning EVERY American pays the same amount in payroll taxes up to $106,000, but not a single penny extra beyond that income threshold) will cost the average American $977.

Well done, GOP. Unbelievable how they try to justify this while supporting continuing tax cuts for the rich.