President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Saint John]

Found the following on another board. Any thoughts?


Bush Was The Leader That Obama Is Not

Bush was handed an economy in recession, 8 years of unfettered fomenting terrorism around the world (including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center) culminating in 9/11, a collapsing tech bubble and an energy trading meltdown crisis directly attributable to the previous years of poorly managed regulation. The difference is Bush managed the crisis and he handled the job. Obama hasn't. BTW, the only war we are not able to win is the one the Democrats were in favor of. Afghanistan! Another dose of reality ... the Clinton surplus the Liberals brag about came from that improperly managed tech bubble that was allowed to careen out control. Bush, upon entering office, immediately called for investigations into Fannie and Freddie that were blocked and filibustered at very turn by Democrats and a handful of RINO's. Those investigations had the potential to expose the whole mortgage back security scam before it became critical. Thank Barney Frank, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd for leading the opposition to those requested investigations. Obama wasted two years on Obamacare as the economy was falling into despair. Had he put aside his ideological nonsense and focused on a private sector based recovery plan we would not be still in recession. This is Obama's mess and he continues to blame everything under the sun but himself. Obama is no leader! He's just a sniveling whiner!

[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...

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.

right.. let's continue down that tack...

... if the "good regulation" had not been repealed... we'd likely not have had the 2008 crash... or the mortgage crisis (banks were one of the largest loan originators, so they bear the bulk of the blame for the creation of bad loan vehicles). Yet - Even the banks agreed there are "their own worst enemies"... so much so that they asked then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson directly... "why won't you regulate us?"

Simply put - there is a very high likelihood none of this would have occurred had Congress not repealed the very legislation a previous Congress had enacted. Doing so with direct evidence of why it was enacted... IMHO is a real "canary in the cola mine" moment... for all of us.

The TRUE real "crisis" is one of morality... on the part of those we elect to Congress. They should be above the lobbying, the special interests... but they aren't... and it's that very immorality that is so pervasive and party-blind... that has rendered Congress morally impotent, no longer having even a modicum of moral integrity. Until we get morality back in governance... it will not matter which party is in power...


The credit crisis of 2008, and all the malaise we are living through now is just one of the consequences of it.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

right.. let's continue down that tack...

... if the "good regulation" had not been repealed... we'd likely not have had the 2008 crash... or the mortgage crisis (banks were one of the largest loan originators, so they bear the bulk of the blame for the creation of bad loan vehicles). Yet - Even the banks agreed there are "their own worst enemies"... so much so that they asked then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson directly... "why won't you regulate us?"

Simply put - there is a very high likelihood none of this would have occurred had Congress not repealed the very legislation a previous Congress had enacted. Doing so with direct evidence of why it was enacted... IMHO is a real "canary in the cola mine" moment... for all of us.

The TRUE real "crisis" is one of morality... on the part of those we elect to Congress. They should be above the lobbying, the special interests... but they aren't... and it's that very immorality that is so pervasive and party-blind... that has rendered Congress morally impotent, no longer having even a modicum of moral integrity. Until we get morality back in governance... it will not matter which party is in power...


The credit crisis of 2008, and all the malaise we are living through now is just one of the consequences of it.

Whilst you are fishing in the right pond here Slucero, I think your analysis is missing a discussion of the principle of business risk and how its abandonment got us into this mess.

To take a step back and look at the general principle In an unregulated free market economy one or two things happen in terms of a business decision. Either 1) Smart business people apply the principle of business risk and don’t make risky business decisions , loans , etc and every one is ok OR 2) they ignore risk, and the resulting economic damage causes a market downturn, but this bad debt is cleared as the business cycle reaches rock bottom, eventually these bad business mistakes (and those who make it) are purged from the economy. In a free market economy the presence of risk and worry over it is a positive thing- it is a mechanism that makes sure decision are correctly made. (It is in fact “ a good regulation” itself self imposed by private economic agents.)

To apply it to this situation specifically (the banking crises and subprime crash)- ever since the Carter administration (Equal Opportunity Lending Act 1977) was passed, we’ve been encouraging banks to make risky loans as a measure of achieving social equality . This lending act was half-heartedly pursued until the Clinton administration again raised it as a top priority - provide cheap subprime loans for everyone. Not only was there pressure on business to ignore sensible business risk, the abandonment of this risk was further backed up by the way Freddie and Fannie insured loans and the idea that the government would bail people out if things went wrong . As a result banks started doing silly things with no prudent consideration of risk.

It might be tempting to blame the repeal of Glass Stegall and the resulting securitisation/ selling of loan bundle- but you could have repealed Glass Stegall, deregulated banking and had no ill effect on the economy, if the government wasn’t meddling with the principle of risk and trying to discourage the private sector from following common sense. The market has all of these “good regulations” built into it , as long as it isn’t messed with.

[RedWingFan]

POLL: OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX HITS LOWEST EVER...

Fox News' Fault

New home sales on pace for worst year in history...

Donald Trump's Fault

NATIONAL DEBT RISES BY $3 MILLION EACH MINUTE...

John Boehner's fault

Obama sets record: $4,247,000,000,000 debt in just 945 days...

The Tea Party's fault

YORK: Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit...

The Heritage Foundation's fault

$500,000 federal stimulus grant created 1.72 jobs...

Bush's fault

[slucero]

right.. let's continue down that tack...

... if the "good regulation" had not been repealed... we'd likely not have had the 2008 crash... or the mortgage crisis (banks were one of the largest loan originators, so they bear the bulk of the blame for the creation of bad loan vehicles). Yet - Even the banks agreed there are "their own worst enemies"... so much so that they asked then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson directly... "why won't you regulate us?"

Simply put - there is a very high likelihood none of this would have occurred had Congress not repealed the very legislation a previous Congress had enacted. Doing so with direct evidence of why it was enacted... IMHO is a real "canary in the cola mine" moment... for all of us.

The TRUE real "crisis" is one of morality... on the part of those we elect to Congress. They should be above the lobbying, the special interests... but they aren't... and it's that very immorality that is so pervasive and party-blind... that has rendered Congress morally impotent, no longer having even a modicum of moral integrity. Until we get morality back in governance... it will not matter which party is in power...


The credit crisis of 2008, and all the malaise we are living through now is just one of the consequences of it.

Whilst you are fishing in the right pond here Slucero, I think your analysis is missing a discussion of the principle of business risk and how its abandonment got us into this mess.

To take a step back and look at the general principle In an unregulated free market economy one or two things happen in terms of a business decision. Either 1) Smart business people apply the principle of business risk and don’t make risky business decisions , loans , etc and every one is ok OR 2) they ignore risk, and the resulting economic damage causes a market downturn, but this bad debt is cleared as the business cycle reaches rock bottom, eventually these bad business mistakes (and those who make it) are purged from the economy. In a free market economy the presence of risk and worry over it is a positive thing- it is a mechanism that makes sure decision are correctly made. (It is in fact “ a good regulation” itself self imposed by private economic agents.)

To apply it to this situation specifically (the banking crises and subprime crash)- ever since the Carter administration (Equal Opportunity Lending Act 1977) was passed, we’ve been encouraging banks to make risky loans as a measure of achieving social equality . This lending act was half-heartedly pursued until the Clinton administration again raised it as a top priority - provide cheap subprime loans for everyone. Not only was there pressure on business to ignore sensible business risk, the abandonment of this risk was further backed up by the way Freddie and Fannie insured loans and the idea that the government would bail people out if things went wrong . As a result banks started doing silly things with no prudent consideration of risk.

It might be tempting to blame the repeal of Glass Stegall and the resulting securitisation/ selling of loan bundle- but you could have repealed Glass Stegall, deregulated banking and had no ill effect on the economy, if the government wasn’t meddling with the principle of risk and trying to discourage the private sector from following common sense. The market has all of these “good regulations” built into it , as long as it isn’t messed with.

Great point and I agree!

I think you've also supported my original point regarding "good regulation vs. bad regulation"...

It is this immorality, born of special interest influence, that ultimately leads our leaders to support legislation that goes against fundamental economic principles.

[SF-Dano]

Opinion Peace from the Washington Post. Not sure I believe what this guy is selling here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is true either.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... _multiline

The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor
By Harold Meyerson, Published: August 23
America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

And when taxes come chiefly from the middle class and the poor, all those anti-tax right-wingers have no problem raising them. In an editorial this weekend, the Wall Street Journal termed the payroll tax reduction “an inferior tax cut,” arguing that tax cuts should be “broad-based, immediate and permanent.” Broad-based? The payroll tax cut, which the Journal dismisses so contemptuously, benefits every employed American, while the tax cuts the paper champions — on capital gains and millionaires’ income — accrue to a far smaller group. Immediate? Unlike taxes paid annually or quarterly, the payroll tax is drawn from each paycheck from the moment the law takes effect. Permanent? The payroll tax is the tax that funds Social Security, so reducing it really can’t be a permanent policy. But the impermanence of the Bush tax cuts, which had been set to expire this year but were extended, presented no obstacle to the Journal’s fervent support for them.

This tax-Joe-Six-Pack mania doesn’t end with the Journal. While President Obama has made clear that he supports extending the lower 4.2 percent payroll tax rate for another year, to keep the economy from contracting further, congressional Republicans have made their opposition equally clear. “I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Camp complained that it would push the deficit higher. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man who’d have us scrap Medicare, concurred. “It would simply exacerbate our debt problems,” he said on Fox News Sunday this month.

This concern for the debt, touching though it may be, didn’t keep Republicans from enacting two waves of tax cuts under George W. Bush. It hasn’t kept them from opposing our current president’s proposal to restore the Clinton-era tax rates on the wealthy. But when we’re talking about taxes on the majority of Americans, those who work for a living and don’t make six-figure incomes, the Republican brain lobe devoted to debt reduction through tax increases goes abuzz with synaptic frenzy.

The most telling Republican reaction to the president’s proposal to extend the lower rate has been one man’s equivocation. The man is Grover Norquist, author of the anti-tax-increase pledge that the vast majority of House Republicans have signed. On Tuesday, pressed by a number of journalists (most prominently, The Post’s Greg Sargent) to state his position on raising the payroll tax, Norquist sought to quietly steal away. “One would have to see the final legislation,” his spokesman, John Kartch, told Sargent, to determine “what is the net effect on total taxes.”

But unless Congress votes to extend it, the lower rate will expire on Jan. 1 regardless of its effect on total taxes. Norquist flat-out opposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire — though he did tell The Post’s editorial board that it didn’t technically violate the pledge, a position that he has since tried to obfuscate. Now that the payroll tax is slated to expire, though, Norquist is lost in contemplation (or something). Congressional Republicans inclined to increase the payroll tax — and I’m not aware of any who have come forth to oppose that idea — can do so, apparently, without fear of being labeled tax-increasers just because they’ve increased taxes.

Republicans like to complain that Democrats practice “class warfare” and “the politics of division,” as House GOP leader Eric Cantor argued on this page Monday. What the Republicans’ position on the payroll tax makes high-definitionally clear is their own class warfare on working- and middle-class Americans. Their double standard couldn’t be more obvious: Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct; tax cuts for everyone else don’t really matter. Norquist, Cantor, Ryan, Camp, the Journal editorialists and the whole Republican crew give hypocrisy a bad name.

[Saint John]

the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

I'm completely in favor of this. Look, either lower the tax rate on the upper income earners to match that of the middle class and poor, or raise the taxes on the middle class and poor to match that of the upper income earners. This is so astoundingly simple in its fairness that one has to wonder who would, or could, be against it!

[Seven Wishes2]

the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

I'm completely in favor of this. Look, either lower the tax rate on the upper income earners to match that of the middle class and poor, or raise the taxes on the middle class and poor to match that of the upper income earners. This is so astoundingly simple in its fairness that one has to wonder who would, or could, be against it!

Dan, you see, purely in priciple, I agree with you.

However, there is simply NO WAY to make this work. You can only slash so much spending before it starts to irreperably harm the economy. Like it or not, government creates jobs. 85% of Rick Perry's employment gains in Texas were either state jobs or created with stimulus or other job creation money from Washington.

There is no way to modify the system, as it stands, to create that kind of pure, unadulterated income tax equity. It's far too late.

[Seven Wishes2]

Opinion Peace from the Washington Post. Not sure I believe what this guy is selling here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is true either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... _multiline

Good piece. This is what I've been talking about for the past few days. There's no way around the fact the GOP's desire to end the payroll tax cuts will cost the average American thousands of dollars.

[S2M]

the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

I'm completely in favor of this. Look, either lower the tax rate on the upper income earners to match that of the middle class and poor, or raise the taxes on the middle class and poor to match that of the upper income earners. This is so astoundingly simple in its fairness that one has to wonder who would, or could, be against it!

Dan, you see, purely in priciple, I agree with you.

However, there is simply NO WAY to make this work. You can only slash so much spending before it starts to irreperably harm the economy. Like it or not, government creates jobs. 85% of Rick Perry's employment gains in Texas were either state jobs or created with stimulus or other job creation money from Washington.

There is no way to modify the system, as it stands, to create that kind of pure, unadulterated income tax equity. It's far too late.

Of course there is - it is called the FairTax. Read up on it. It is revenue neutral, and is the same for EVERYONE.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Dan, you see, purely in priciple, I agree with you.

However, there is simply NO WAY to make this work. You can only slash so much spending before it starts to irreperably harm the economy. Like it or not, government creates jobs.

There is no way to modify the system, as it stands, to create that kind of pure, unadulterated income tax equity. It's far too late.

No government doesn't create jobs. The study of Economics is about who gets what and how much of it. When the government spends it needs to finance the spending through borrowing, printing money or taxes- and it does it imperfectly and inefficiently. That activity has opportunity cost - there less money for the private sector to use to efficiently invest or create jobs.

Here's how to fix the tax system- You have a choice of rates 9% if you sign a contract saying you will opt out of welfare, Social security, govt backed home loans, pell grants and all the other stuff the federal state offers you. You are only entitled to make use of the defense services of the state .
(and as long as we are not fighting unnecessary foreign wars, it should be fundable in this flat 9%. you get unemployed, sick, want to go to school or retire, pay for it your self. you should have plenty of cash from your lower tax payments . if you dont, its your fault.

Or if you want to live off the state you can opt in a flat 18% where you get a card that entitles you welfare , pell grants , social security, and whatever millstone you want to hang around your neck. At least you can choose your own slavery. if the system cant stay solvent, this 18 percent rate will go up.

To start this scheme off in the early days we could end our foreign wars, end subsidies to corporations like GE, abolish the Department of Education, cut the IRS by 80%, and sell half of the federal land which we dont need to own. .

[Seven Wishes2]

Bullshit, Matt.

Of course, the government is far and away the biggest employer in the United States — staffing the military, the postal service, fire stations, schools, museums, the regulatory agencies, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, parks and numerous other institutions. The government creates jobs both directly, by hiring people into the federal and state workforces, and indirectly, by creating aggregate demand and letting private businesses cater to those additional dollars.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Bullshit, Matt.

Of course, the government is far and away the biggest employer in the United States — staffing the military, the postal service, fire stations, schools, museums, the regulatory agencies, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, parks and numerous other institutions. The government creates jobs both directly, by hiring people into the federal and state workforces, and indirectly, by creating aggregate demand and letting private businesses cater to those additional dollars.

One dollar spend by the government does not create to one dollar plus x like the Keynesian economists claim. It gets a dollar wastes a quarter of it managing that dollar through bureaucracy and then invests the other seventy five cents without any knowledge of the the best way to get a return on the dollar. The dollar would be much better invested in the private market. And who ever said that the private sector can't and wouldn't run park, museums, schools , engage in health research and do it more efficiently and in so doing hire more people in the process.

Also bear in mind you can't have aggregate demand unless there is something to be demanded. Classical Economists understood Say's Law - the principle that supply creates it own demand though the mechanism of pricing. Govt spending can't create demand - it distorts market pricing mechanism that encourage production which stimulates demand. Gov't cant create aggregate demand though spending.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

What Seven is really trying to say is....

It reminds me of something I heard the other day that was spouted out by one of these apoglists for oppressive govt spending.
He said "one dollar in food stamps yields one dollar and sixty cents in additional spending "

of course By that logic we ought to put all 300 million Americans on foodstamps. The economy would grow sixty percent a year.
Now how silly is that ? very but thats how these folks think.

[Seven Wishes2]

Must I once again post the chart showing how Republicans are responsible for 73% of the increase in the size of government since Kennedy, but only 25% of the net job gains? Or the other one showing how GDP has grown at a 40% higher rate under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones? Or the one showing that trickle-down economic theory is a complete failure and has been completely debunked? Or are you going to continue to pretend that data doesn't exist? Or fail to address all the other facts I've proven in the past five or six pages?

Didn't think so.

[RedWingFan]

Yet another brilliant call 7. Still batting .000

Bush's idiocy is a piss-poor reason to support Democrats.

Realizing, however, that their fiscal policy is more sound, and their stimulus package will actually generate secondary capital and jobs, is.

[RedWingFan]

And yet another. Barb did her best to talk some sense into you, but you insisted on being 7 Wishes and being wrong. You owe her an apology, you Obama voter.

He is abysmal and after four years, I'm guessing most of this country (if we survive) will be screaming for CHANGE once again.

Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover.

You are ridiculous, dude. And yes, ABYSMAL.

Fantastic response, Barb. You really proved your point. Wow...I stand corrected.

I'm beginning to suffer from compassion fatigue...for instance, Barb, your qualifier that Obama is "abysmal" cannot be based in actual fact, since there will be no way of knowing how his policies impact the economy, the nation, and the world until enough time passes to give us a sense of perspective. Keep in mind that his policies are similar to those the rest of the world is advocating - tried and tested, and proven, methods for stopping recessions.

[conversationpc]

I'm beginning to suffer from compassion fatigue...for instance, Barb, your qualifier that Obama is "abysmal" cannot be based in actual fact, since there will be no way of knowing how his policies impact the economy, the nation, and the world until enough time passes to give us a sense of perspective. Keep in mind that his policies are similar to those the rest of the world is advocating - tried and tested, and proven, methods for stopping recessions.

[Seven Wishes2]

Let's look at those God awful Bush Tax cuts...

Dipshit! Overall wealth PLUMMETED after the Bush tax cuts were enacted! The success of America is not predicated upon how rich its richest citizens are. Wow, man. Spit out the Tea Bagger spooge.

[Seven Wishes2]

Sorry, but you and the other hypocritical wingnut rethugs have lost ALL credibility, in perpetuity, on taxes, because of the payroll tax hike.

I'd like to hear just ONE Republican on this board "man up" (as your heroine Sarah Palin so often blurts) and oppose the GOP's official support of it. Hell, even Grover is rumored to soon be on the record as opposing it. It's going to cost the average American (that means 98% of the people on this board on both sides of the aisle) $1,000 a year.

The ONLY reason the right is supporting it is because they want the economy to tank so badly that people will look to the GOP in the 2012 Presidential elections. Yes, they would rather put the well-being and livelihood of all middle class Americans on the line in order to support their warped ideaology, than to lend ANY support to the Black Man Who Broke Into The White House. Supporting the payroll tax hike is INDEFENIBLE for anyone who defends Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

[Seven Wishes2]

Whatever. Sure, being black has been a HUGE advantage since, well, Jamestown, hasn't it? Lucky bastards.

Anyway, as I've said...your support of the payroll tax increase renders any opinion on this issue null and void from this point on.

[RossValoryRocks]

7...I actually agree with you in principle on the payroll tax, however if you look at the marginal rates they are lower for everyone and especially those making under $100g a year...so you are wrong there.

A better way to fix things would be to simplify the tax code, eliminate the loopholes and drop the marginal rates on everyone. Then raise the payroll tax. The elimination of the tax loopholes will raise revenue, the lowering of the rates makes the US a tax haven and businesses will flock here.

No matter how you try and parse it, the government can't tax the country to prosperity. For the actual leadership of the liberals in this country it's about wealth redistribution plain and simple not about creating a single job.

[RossValoryRocks]

In addition 7, I am interested in hearing you tell us exactly how much of the wealth anperson has created through their own hard work they should be allowed to keep? What tax rate do you propose as fair to a person who has earned a million dollars? $250,000? Hell, $100,000?

[steveo777]

Herman Cain might have this right.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... eat-thing/

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said it would be "great" to impeach the president, but that the Democratic controlled Senate would prevent such action.

On a conference call with bloggers Tuesday night, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO called the health care law and the Obama administration's stance over the Defense of Marriage Act impeachable offenses.

The news was first reported by POLITICO and later confirmed to CNN by the Cain campaign.

"There are a number of things where a case could be made in order to impeach him, but because Republicans do not control the United States Senate, they would never allow it to get off the ground," Cain said on the call. "The president is supposed to uphold the laws of this nation … and to tell the Department of Justice not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is a breach of his oath."

[S2M]

I'm gonna say this for the last time...obviously, my posts are ignored here...

Research the FairTax, and shut the fuck up. No other plan will save this country. People are being taxed to death due to out of control govt. spending....cut spending, and implement the FairTax.

[Melissa]

I'd say we're just about fucked...

In fact, a shocking 49 percent of all babies born in the U.S. are born to families receiving food supplements from the WIC program, according to Jean Daniel, spokesperson for the USDA.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger-home-am ... d=14367230

Yep! I fill out WIC forms at work all the time. And what amazes me most is the mamas of these babies, who "need" this free formula and food, can miraculously still somehow afford iPhones, Coach purses, BMW SUV's, etc.

[Seven Wishes2]

The only way to solve issues like that is reguation. Which, of course, the GOP is opposed to.

[conversationpc]

I'm gonna say this for the last time...obviously, my posts are ignored here...

Research the FairTax, and shut the fuck up. No other plan will save this country. People are being taxed to death due to out of control govt. spending....cut spending, and implement the FairTax.

Unfortunately, this is no more than...

[S2M]

I'm gonna say this for the last time...obviously, my posts are ignored here...

Research the FairTax, and shut the fuck up. No other plan will save this country. People are being taxed to death due to out of control govt. spending....cut spending, and implement the FairTax.

Unfortunately, this is no more than...

Where do you people find this stuff?!?!

A smiley face pummeling Amy Winehouse...amazing.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The only way to solve issues like that is reguation. Which, of course, the GOP is opposed to.

so how would you go about regulating it?