President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

This is the equivalent of saying “meet me in the school yard after recess”.
Once again, real hardasses who've served time, or at least had run-ins with the law don’t foolishly talk like this.
Grow up dude.

Oh that's not a threat...I asked you to come DEBATE me in person...you won't...because you are a coward. Hell I'd even pay for your ticket to the show.

You see you hide behind anonymity...Most of the MR people have met me at one time or another in person, so everyone know what I am really about. You on the other hand hijack people accounts, and do nothing but stir up trouble.

As for the liberties...the Republicans free spending ways under Bush impacted all those things...and allowed the travesty that it happening now...cause and effect...If the republicans had stayed marginally true to their espoused conservative values then

As for being in lock step...I am so out of lockstep with the current GOP it's not funny...I differ from RWF and FF by significant degrees...particularly on social issues...but also on things like extending unemployment benefits (Bunning is an idiot).

I've laid out my positions clearly over and over on things. All you do is harp on the GOP...

So again, I will pay for your ticket...even your airfare if you live to far away to drive...but come to MR2 and debate me live and in person.

[Andrew]

You're a dickhead...we ALL know it...fuck off and die...how's that for non-partisan? Deano is as rabidly liberal as you are, but he is a lovable character...same with 7 for the most part...you on the otherhand just need to be sterilized so you can't contaminate the world with your seed. Yes...you need your balls cut off, fed to you and then have you dumped into a ditch somewhere. You are about as American as Stalin, and you are a STAIN on the honor of the people who gave and still give freedom to this country. And if I EVER EVER meet you in person I will literally piss on you...no matter the venue...

Whoh there.... ok ok....enough of this kind of talk thanks.

[Andrew]

So again, I will pay for your ticket...even your airfare if you live to far away to drive...but come to MR2 and debate me live and in person.

No, you can instead donate that money to the Save MelodicRock fund and keep politics out of it. MRF2 is a politic free zone.

[Rockindeano]

You're a dickhead...we ALL know it...fuck off and die...how's that for non-partisan? Deano is as rabidly liberal as you are, but he is a lovable character...same with 7 for the most part...you on the otherhand just need to be sterilized so you can't contaminate the world with your seed. Yes...you need your balls cut off, fed to you and then have you dumped into a ditch somewhere. You are about as American as Stalin, and you are a STAIN on the honor of the people who gave and still give freedom to this country. And if I EVER EVER meet you in person I will literally piss on you...no matter the venue...

Whoh there.... ok ok....enough of this kind of talk thanks.

Ok, that was harsh but his is MR. Go back and finish knitting your blanket you syphilitic marsupial.

Fuck STU, the guy certainly brings some wise discussion to the table, like him or not. Pissing on him? Duuude.

[hoagiepete]

Slim pickins', these are. What a lot of Obama supporters fail to realize is: the rest of us don't fawn all over every word that Obama says. We really don't. In fact, he's begun often to seem to us a lot like a condescending ass when he opens his mouth. That schtick is wearing thin, very quickly. The White House apparently doesn't think that diminishing marginal utility and decreasing returns to scale apply to Obama's speeches and televised press events. They do.

Agree 100%.
You’ll note they have cut back on the number of primetime press conferences, which were a good idea if Obama was half the engaging speaker the media made him out to be.
But he’s not - very professorial, dry, with a start-and-stutter cadence that falls somewhere between George W. Bush and Elmer Fudd.
I’m at a loss to why people are just catching on now to his teleprompter crutch, when he could barely formulate a sentence worth a damn in the primaries.
Just really a horrible debater.

Rarely agree with you TNC, but you are always well researched (some times I wonder what you do all day!) and articulate your views well. The above confirms you're not just drinking the cool aid. Kudos to you, Deano and the others that have your philosophies (which are much different than mind), but are not blind to what we are dealing with in the oval office. Your credibility just went up in my book. Fucker.

[lights1961]

Doctors tell Barack Obama to quit smoking

The American president has been trying to kick the habit for sometime, apart from the smoking he is in excellent health

Ewen MacAskill, Washington guardian.co.uk,

Monday 1 March 2010 01.29 GMT Article history

Barack Obama has had his first medical examination since becoming president.

Barack Obama is still struggling to kick smoking, according to his first medical examination since becoming president.

Obama is sensitive about his cigarette habit and tetchy with reporters who raise it. But after his 90-minute medical at the Navy hospital outside Washington yesterday morning, his doctors confirmed he had not yet managed to conquer the habit and suggested he "continue smoking cessation efforts".

The doctors said the president used medication to try to ease the pangs, they described it as "nicotine replacement therapy, self-use".

Obama promised Michelle when he embarked on his campaign to become president he would quit, at the time he said he was smoking about eight a day.

He told reporters last year he had quit but still had an occasional cigarette, without specifying how many.

The doctors also recommended "moderation of alcohol intake".


__________________________________________________________________________________

WTF, is this guy a lush? If this was Bush the news would be 24/7 about his drinking.

how ironic would THIS BE...lets just say for theory sakes, just a moment here... if the president gets cancer from smoking....what would happen if his insurance plan wont cover him because of his smoking, how sureal that would be???? just saying...

[separate_wayz]

A good bipartisan critique of the so-called health care summit by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in The Fiscal Times:

If President Obama's health care summit showed anything it is that when it comes to controlling health care costs there is bipartisan agreement in favor of looking for the easy solution. Both sides dragged out the traditional villains, "fraud, waste, and abuse." There was the usual search for silver bullets. Republicans dwelled at length on medical malpractice. Democrats talked about pooling and the advantages of comparative shopping through the exchanges. Everyone was in favor of preventive care.

But both sides seem curiously unwilling to address the most important participant in the health care equation — the consumer.

Democrats appear to see consumers only as a class needing protection. Their focus is almost exclusively on government action.

Republicans at least give lip service to a consumer-focused health care system, but seem reluctant to really endorse proposals that shift more risk and responsibility to those consumers ....

Health care reform cannot just be about giving more stuff to more people. It should be about actually "reforming" the system. That means scrapping the current bills, and crafting the type of reform that makes consumers responsible for their health care decisions.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.org/Blogs/201 ... anner.aspx

[7 Wishes]

So, no comment on my prior post? No outrage that it was considered "tradition" and "acceptible" for the GOP to push through bills (via reonciliation) that were entirely debt-funded and only helped the rich get richer? But it's OK to hold the Democrats over the flame?

Complete bullshit and pure hypocrisy at its worst.

[separate_wayz]

Here's a good article on the limitations of economic models, like the kind used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

A summary of the article: large-scale Keynesian models (like the kind used by the CBO) have been largely abandoned by the economics profession because they didn't work. They've effectively been discredited.

But the CBO still uses then. The result: overly-optimistic forecasts of the effects of policies like the $862 billion "stimulus". Instead of 1.4 to 3.0 million jobs created (as originally forecast by the CBO) by the stimulus, the real figure is almost assuredly less, and probably dramatically so.

(As of today, the recovery.gov website lists only 594,894 "Recovery funded jobs reported by recipients".)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... R9kzhHr0eQ

[7 Wishes]

It looks like my post is DOA...kind of like the GOP.

The House and Senate will, for the good of the people, pass a modified healthcare plan that will help tens of millions of Americans. The Republicans will look like fools for continuing to stymie efforts to pass legislation to help their constituency.

Again - no comment on the DeLay remarks? None? Hmmmmm....surprise, surprise.

[Lula]

you know the game 7- do as i say, not as i do

[separate_wayz]

It looks like my post is DOA...kind of like the GOP.

The House and Senate will, for the good of the people, pass a modified healthcare plan that will help tens of millions of Americans. The Republicans will look like fools for continuing to stymie efforts to pass legislation to help their constituency.

Again - no comment on the DeLay remarks? None? Hmmmmm....surprise, surprise.

Hmmmm.

Not sure how the Republicans "will look like fools" when the polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the health care plan being considered right now -- 52% oppose, 44% support. And the enthusiasm is with those who oppose it -- 43% strongly oppose it, while only 22% strongly support it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

I agree with Mitch McConnell on this one. Republicans in both the House and Senate will run in 2010 on the idea of repealing it if elected (if the legislation passes). And that argument will carry a lot of weight in competitive, swings districts. It will become a national referendum of sorts.

[conversationpc]

The doctors also recommended "moderation of alcohol intake".

It's a non-issue...Obama's Drinking Problem? Get Over It!

WTF, is this guy a lush? If this was Bush the news would be 24/7 about his drinking.

You're right about that, hence the last paragraph of my blog post.

[7 Wishes]

You already used that one, dude.

Anyway, I'm saying that the GOP is counting their chickens, and there has already been some backlash. Couple that with idiots like Bunning (and people therefore make associations about Republicans in general on that idea) and the spectre of the Tea Party splitting the GOP vote in half this November, and you might have some very squeamish right-wing politicians who are at the moment beaming with pride. When they discover that new baby looks a lot like the pool guy and everything else crumbles to pieces, don't say I didn't tell you so.

I would still like someone to address the DeLay comments, as they have gotten conveniently swept under the rug as I have (deservedly) been thrown under the bus.

[7 Wishes]

Except Bush's cocaine and alcohol abuse are well-documented and proven as factual by legal documents and first-hand testimony. Conjecture about Obama remains that until there is proof positive to the contrary.

[7 Wishes]

Again, anyone care to discuss DeLay's comments? They seem pretty fucking significant to me and everyone else I know, and they tell you ALL you need to know about the GOP, to boot.

[Saint John]

Again, anyone care to discuss DeLay's comments? They seem pretty fucking significant to me and everyone else I know, and they tell you ALL you need to know about the GOP, to boot.

I'll bite ... what did TD say?

[conversationpc]

Except Bush's cocaine and alcohol abuse are well-documented and proven as factual by legal documents and first-hand testimony. Conjecture about Obama remains that until there is proof positive to the contrary.

During his presidency? I don't think so. Again, people who buy into either side of this are morons.

[conversationpc]

Two weeks ago, Tom DeLay said it was "tradition" and "just accepted" that GOP-sponsored legislation would be passed (via reconciliation) even though it couldn't be paid for in the budget (i.e. it added to the defecit) under Dubbya.

So - why the change of approach? Why does every single piece of Democratic legislation have to be part of a balanced budget (which is NOT the way to get out of this, Dubbya's second recession)? Plus, this Dem sponsored legislation usually has, at least in theory, a way to cover its costs in the long term. The GOP exercised no such restraint, yet - hmmm. come election time - they are preaching the same old worn out talking points? Hypocritical assholes who don't know shit about economics.

First off, Tom DeLay is a piece of crap. I've never cared for that guy and wouldn't trust him any farther than I could throw him.

Question, though...I admittedly don't know much about the reconciliation process but isn't it intended to reconcile the differences between bills for economic/financial differences only? If not, then the Dems are right. If so, then there's no way in hell the reconciliation process should be used to ram the healthcare bill up the collective asses of Americans who don't want it.

Regardless, both Obama and Harry Reid were two of the loudest voices against what the Republicans were trying to do just a few years ago with the reconciliation process. If it's true that it's to be used only for financial/economic differences, then they are hypocrites of the highest order (as are a majority of other politicians, for that matter).

[conversationpc]

Looked it up...If this Wikipedia page is correct, it does look as if the reconciliation process is only supposed to be used for budget bills...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcilia ... ongress%29

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party...

[Rockindeano]

Looked it up...If this Wikipedia page is correct, it does look as if the reconciliation process is only supposed to be used for budget bills...

\\

Tough shit. Bush and Cheney used this reconciliation practice at will, and I am not sure these bills meet the criteria of "budget bills"

The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33.
The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention.
The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44

I say FUCK YOU to the republicans. Elections have consequences. I say present this bill to an up or down vote and get it passed. You bunch of fuckin crybabies. If you are so against the current bill, offer up an idea, just one?! They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

[conversationpc]

Looked it up...If this Wikipedia page is correct, it does look as if the reconciliation process is only supposed to be used for budget bills...

\\

Tough shit. Bush and Cheney used this reconciliation practice at will, and I am not sure these bills meet the criteria of "budget bills"

The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33.
The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention.
The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44

I say FUCK YOU to the republicans. Elections have consequences. I say present this bill to an up or down vote and get it passed. You bunch of fuckin crybabies. If you are so against the current bill, offer up an idea, just one?! They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

Those are all budget/financial-related bills you listed, you moron. This healthcare bill, according to the definition I posted above, is not.

I say a pox on both Repubs & Dems. Both corrupt parties. Both have their own interests in mind. Both suck.

[RossValoryRocks]

They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

Actually right now that is EXACTLY what a MAJORITY of the American people want.

We have NO WAY to pay for this...NONE...Oh except to tax the "rich"...you know the people that invest in starting new businesses and create jobs? No matter how much they raise taxes they will NEVER be able to pay for this or just about anything else anymore.

Cut Medicare/Medicaide? Never gonna happen. They stuffed the Medicare payback to doctors in the jobs bill yesterday so they can hide from the people and remove it from the cost of the healthcare bill...even though it is part of the whole healthcare reform fiasco.

What a fuckin' joke. You guys aren't libs anymore...communists or marxists are a better description.

The US is broke...our national debt is approaching 90% of GDP. In a short 7 years the PAYMENT on our debt will be near a trillion dollars...A TRILLION.

The people, not just Republicans, but a majority of independents and a good chunk of Democrats are outraged that they would try and pass this.

[conversationpc]

They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

Actually right now that is EXACTLY what a MAJORITY of the American people want.

Isn't it something on the order of 60-70% DON'T want healthcare reform as it's currently being offered? I don't believe in straight majority rule since we're not really a democracy (or we're not supposed to be anyway) but that seems like a pretty big mandate to me.

[separate_wayz]

Looked it up...If this Wikipedia page is correct, it does look as if the reconciliation process is only supposed to be used for budget bills...

\\

Tough shit. Bush and Cheney used this reconciliation practice at will, and I am not sure these bills meet the criteria of "budget bills"

The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33.
The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention.
The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44

I say FUCK YOU to the republicans. Elections have consequences. I say present this bill to an up or down vote and get it passed. You bunch of fuckin crybabies. If you are so against the current bill, offer up an idea, just one?! They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

I agree -- elections do have consequences. And sometimes, likewise, consequences are reflected in elections (as a sort of referendum). That's the likely outcome of this process: nationalizing the health care debate, so the consequences are reflected in the November 2010 elections. And if Republicans pick up a majority in the House and/or Senate, they're welcome to modify or overturn anything passed this year.

You assert that that's "not what the American people want". What the tracking polls have clearly shown is that Americans are in opposition to this bill and this process. The American people themselves have said "no". (See my previous post for poll numbers.)

By the way, ALL of the bills that you cite clearly meet the criteria for reconciliation and for budget bills.

[RossValoryRocks]

What people don't realize is what taxation does....

No matter how high or low you set tax rates you never capture more than about 20% of GDP...however...lowering taxes increases the GDP...while raising them lowers it.

But they want to increase the taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for this? Doesn't anyone see what is wrong with this picture? It will lower GDP...which means less money flowing in which means we are even more broke as a country? It also means less jobs...it's a DOWNWARD spiral...and it is ONLY going to get worse ala USSR in the late 80's early 90's.

[Rockindeano]

I agree -- elections do have consequences. And sometimes, likewise, consequences are reflected in elections (as a sort of referendum). That's the likely outcome of this process: nationalizing the health care debate, so the consequences are reflected in the November 2010 elections. And if Republicans pick up a majority in the House and/or Senate, they're welcome to modify or overturn anything passed this year.

Go for it. I'll take my chances.

You assert that that's "not what the American people want". What the tracking polls have clearly shown is that Americans are in opposition to this bill and this process. The American people themselves have said "no". (See my previous post for poll numbers.)

The "American People" have been lied to, and falsely scared by the wacko right. There are a many different polls which suggest that many Americans DO like this bill in certain forms. They overwhelmingly want health Care reform.

By the way, ALL of the bills that you cite clearly meet the criteria for reconciliation and for budget bills.

Yeah ok. And look at all the good those tax cuts did? You people just don't get it. Your economic policies in which you so strongly stand for, ruin the country and provide recessions. Yet you somehow find a way to blame the Democrats. Hilarious stuff.

[Rockindeano]

What people don't realize is what taxation does....

No matter how high or low you set tax rates you never capture more than about 20% of GDP...however...lowering taxes increases the GDP...while raising them lowers it.

But they want to increase the taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for this? Doesn't anyone see what is wrong with this picture? It will lower GDP...which means less money flowing in which means we are even more broke as a country? It also means less jobs...it's a DOWNWARD spiral...and it is ONLY going to get worse ala USSR in the late 80's early 90's.

Again, prop up your holier than thou economic policies and bring us to yet another recession. Gee I can't wait to get back under GOP control again.

[lights1961]

Looked it up...If this Wikipedia page is correct, it does look as if the reconciliation process is only supposed to be used for budget bills...

\\

Tough shit. Bush and Cheney used this reconciliation practice at will, and I am not sure these bills meet the criteria of "budget bills"

The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33.
The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention.
The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44

I say FUCK YOU to the republicans. Elections have consequences. I say present this bill to an up or down vote and get it passed. You bunch of fuckin crybabies. If you are so against the current bill, offer up an idea, just one?! They haven't offered up anything except "no." That's not what the American people want.

these were all GREAT FOR AMERICA...because ITS OUR MONEY... so yes tax cuts were needed during this time... and whatever it took to make it happen...

health care will be interesting to see if they can muster the votes for it... I am not against using this tactic... and deano is correct
elections have consequences... your party will feel it... if its passed...

[RossValoryRocks]

What people don't realize is what taxation does....

No matter how high or low you set tax rates you never capture more than about 20% of GDP...however...lowering taxes increases the GDP...while raising them lowers it.

But they want to increase the taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for this? Doesn't anyone see what is wrong with this picture? It will lower GDP...which means less money flowing in which means we are even more broke as a country? It also means less jobs...it's a DOWNWARD spiral...and it is ONLY going to get worse ala USSR in the late 80's early 90's.

Again, prop up your holier than thou economic policies and bring us to yet another recession. Gee I can't wait to get back under GOP control again.

That doesn't even make sense. You off the meds again? Or maybe back on them?

What holier than thou? You don't like extra money in your paycheck?? I like it in mine.

The recession was the fault of BOTH parties thank you...lower taxes is better for us all...and no government boondogle of heathcare bill. I am all for healthcare reform IF, and that is big IF, they can A) Make it actually lower healthcare costs, B) Not raise taxes, C) no expand our national debt.

Its DC...they can't do it. It isn't part of their paradigm.

Let me ask you Dean, what is an acceptable tax rate for you? If a person makes a million dollars (or more) what should the government have a right to take...percentage-wise? What about a person making 500K? 200K? 100K?