[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term.
Without a doubt. 99.7643% of blacks will vote for him, 95% of hispanics, and all poor white trash. I don’t think anybody else has a chance unless they really strike a cord with these populations like Obama did.
Do you think Trump really sees himself as presidential material, or is he just looking for attention? He has so much money to buy validation, and surrounds himself with sycophants that only further inflate his already over bloated ego.
I don’t like any of the current crop of republican presidential candidates, but I would take nearly any of them over Trump.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term.
Without a doubt. 99.7643% of blacks will vote for him, 95% of hispanics, and all poor white trash. I don’t think anybody else has a chance unless they really strike a cord with these populations like Obama did.
[/quote]
Ha, that’s quite a constituency that you’ve given him. But in all fairness it is larger than that. Namely unions, and the majority of women as well. Not to mention the many liberal special interest groups that benefit directly from having a give-a-way democrat in the White House.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term.
Without a doubt. 99.7643% of blacks will vote for him, 95% of hispanics, and all poor white trash. I don’t think anybody else has a chance unless they really strike a cord with these populations like Obama did.
[/quote]
More mythology (even if just implied).
The President had a much broader base of support than this when he won the election.
Mufasa
[quote]forlife wrote:
Do you think Trump really sees himself as presidential material, or is he just looking for attention? He has so much money to buy validation, and surrounds himself with sycophants that only further inflate his already over bloated ego.
I don’t like any of the current crop of republican presidential candidates, but I would take nearly any of them over Trump.[/quote]
I remember when Arnold ran for Gov. no one took him seriously until he won
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(the NSA is actually 7 times larger than the CIA), [/quote]
so what you try to tell us, is that you think “good will hunting” is a good film.
Ha! He’s right! Someone did their homework before Damon said that.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term.
Without a doubt. 99.7643% of blacks will vote for him, 95% of hispanics, and all poor white trash. I don’t think anybody else has a chance unless they really strike a cord with these populations like Obama did.
[/quote]
What’s sad is that they could be shown the following and it wouldn’t matter one iota.
"CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion
A new assessment of President Barack Obama’s budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.
The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years – an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama’s budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
But the agency also rejects the administration’s claims of more than $300 billion of that savings – to pay for preventing a cut in Medicare payments to doctors – because it doesn’t specifying where it would come from.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M1R1R80.htm
Maybe Trump will put him in prison, where he belongs. Let him share a cell with Larry Sinclair.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What’s sad is that they could be shown the following and it wouldn’t matter one iota.
"CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion
A new assessment of President Barack Obama’s budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.
The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years – an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama’s budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
But the agency also rejects the administration’s claims of more than $300 billion of that savings – to pay for preventing a cut in Medicare payments to doctors – because it doesn’t specifying where it would come from.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M1R1R80.htm
Maybe Trump will put him in prison, where he belongs. Let him share a cell with Larry Sinclair.[/quote]
Not to worry, HH…
The GOP is taking care of any future deficits by cutting funding to NPR and Public TV.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What’s sad is that they could be shown the following and it wouldn’t matter one iota.
"CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion
A new assessment of President Barack Obama’s budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.
The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years – an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama’s budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
But the agency also rejects the administration’s claims of more than $300 billion of that savings – to pay for preventing a cut in Medicare payments to doctors – because it doesn’t specifying where it would come from.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M1R1R80.htm
Maybe Trump will put him in prison, where he belongs. Let him share a cell with Larry Sinclair.[/quote]
Not to worry, HH…
The GOP is taking care of any future deficits by cutting funding to NPR and Public TV.
Mufasa[/quote]
While everyone realizes that this won’t make a dent in the deficits it is something that is long over-due. If the democrats want their own TV/radio network I guess they’ll just have to fund it without tax payer dollars.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term. [/quote]
We have a ways to go, but I wouldn’t be surprised by this. As is, I know a number of Republicans who worry about such things and have said that they, of course, want the GOPer to win but don’t really worry about a second Obama term as much as you might think so long as the House remains in the hands of the GOP and there is a chance of gaining Senate seats.
The reasoning was - he is a weak executive. The “big moves” since 2008 have been done basically with Obama as a bystander. Obama was not the quarterback of Obamacare - he was more of a blocking tight end. As such, even his signature victory was really the work of Pelosi, Hoyer, Waxman, Weiner, etc. Thus, there really isn’t a fear of him as policymaker.
The fear is primarily that this weakness in the Oval Office is quite bad for the US generally, especially in foreign policy, but can be contained enough for Congress to address domestic problems in 2012-16.
We are already seeing people in both parties beginning to roll their eyes at the President.
The problem with Christie (I do like him) is that the media will pick on him being fat. Sad truth but he will be badgered over it. He has balls that we need in the WH, but the Derms will tear his weight apart.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with Christie (I do like him) is that the media will pick on him being fat. Sad truth but he will be badgered over it. He has balls that we need in the WH, but the Derms will tear his weight apart. [/quote]
Christie has been losing some weight. When questioned about it at his endless Town Hall meetings throughout the state, he admits he’s losing but smartly refuses to get into the details. His suit jackets, which are more wide than long, are starting to look too big. He should get them altered (or get new ones). Perhaps he’s getting some advise from Huckabee.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term. [/quote]
We have a ways to go, but I wouldn’t be surprised by this. As is, I know a number of Republicans who worry about such things and have said that they, of course, want the GOPer to win but don’t really worry about a second Obama term as much as you might think so long as the House remains in the hands of the GOP and there is a chance of gaining Senate seats.
The reasoning was - he is a weak executive. The “big moves” since 2008 have been done basically with Obama as a bystander. Obama was not the quarterback of Obamacare - he was more of a blocking tight end. As such, even his signature victory was really the work of Pelosi, Hoyer, Waxman, Weiner, etc. Thus, there really isn’t a fear of him as policymaker.
The fear is primarily that this weakness in the Oval Office is quite bad for the US generally, especially in foreign policy, but can be contained enough for Congress to address domestic problems in 2012-16.
We are already seeing people in both parties beginning to roll their eyes at the President. [/quote]
I think this a good way to look at it, and probably the most realistic. If we can maintain control of the House and perhaps gain control of the Senate we then block the Obama spending machine.
And it seems that it is becoming more possible to do both. Here is what Dick Morris has to say:
As you say however our biggest fear should be about the amount of confidence gained by our enemies as an ineffective weak US President sits on the sidelines never quite knowing what to do. And even when he does know what to do he takes far too long to do it. This worries me far more than our domestic troubles recessionary cycles come and go. There is much chaos abroad. At a time when we need a Ronald Reagan we have a Jimmy Carter.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with Christie (I do like him) is that the media will pick on him being fat. Sad truth but he will be badgered over it. He has balls that we need in the WH, but the Derms will tear his weight apart. [/quote]
To begin with we have to remember that any republican (even the thin ones) will be badgered by the left wing media. That is a fact which has been going on for many years and was intensified with the Obama candidacy. However, I think the press would be walking on egg shells when it came to Christie’s weight. With 68% of the US population overweight there could be a serious backlash. In fact, Christie being over weight may actually help in the long-run as he launches an “I’m an every man” candidacy. After four years of the Obama elite the voting public might find Christie refreshing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve been predicting Obama will most likely get a second term. [/quote]
We have a ways to go, but I wouldn’t be surprised by this. As is, I know a number of Republicans who worry about such things and have said that they, of course, want the GOPer to win but don’t really worry about a second Obama term as much as you might think so long as the House remains in the hands of the GOP and there is a chance of gaining Senate seats.
The reasoning was - he is a weak executive. The “big moves” since 2008 have been done basically with Obama as a bystander. Obama was not the quarterback of Obamacare - he was more of a blocking tight end. As such, even his signature victory was really the work of Pelosi, Hoyer, Waxman, Weiner, etc. Thus, there really isn’t a fear of him as policymaker.
The fear is primarily that this weakness in the Oval Office is quite bad for the US generally, especially in foreign policy, but can be contained enough for Congress to address domestic problems in 2012-16.
We are already seeing people in both parties beginning to roll their eyes at the President. [/quote]
Bolt:
As always…thanks for the insights. Here is my problem.
At some point, “blaming” Pelosi, Reid, et.al. for all the countries ills…and our international standing on the President, begins to wax weak, as the GOP gains more and more power. As I’ve often said, it’s one thing to “just say no” (which the GOP had the luxury of prior to the mid-terms)…and its another to govern.
As its stands, they have done what Political Parties tend to do when they get in power…“coddle” to their base (e.g. Union busting; end funding to “Liberal” media like NPR and Public TV; attack Planned Parenthood, Federal Abortion funding, smaller, but “liberal” agencies like Education; and their biggest hard-on, “ObamaCare”)…with very little, if any, true focus on the issues that stand to bury us as a country (Medicare, Social Security, and the countries overall rising deficit).
And I have to say that the Tea Party as a “grass roots” organization is starting to look like what many felt it was…a Political Wing of the GOP. The mantra of “Take our Country Back…” is looking more like “Take out Country Back…and give it to the GOP…”
Where are their rallies and town meetings? As the Government is more under the control of the GOP, has it somehow become more fiscally responsible?
No it hasn’t.
I really have no “love” for any particular political party, Bolt…but I hate hypocrisy even more.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
At some point, “blaming” Pelosi, Reid, et.al. for all the countries ills…and our international standing on the President, begins to wax weak, as the GOP gains more and more power. As I’ve often said, it’s one thing to “just say no” (which the GOP had the luxury of prior to the mid-terms)…and its another to govern.[/quote]
Here’s your problem - the GOP doesn’t have the numbers to govern. They have a majority in the House, but not in the Senate, and the don’t occupy the White House. Your point would make more sense if the GOP had been handed the reins and they weren’t “governing” and simply were decrying Pelosi. But no such thing has happened, and it still makes perfectly good ense to blame Pelosi, et al. for the countries’ ills because the genesis of some of the most egregious ills were enacted in the past two years.
It’s hard to know where to begin. First, attacking Obamacare isn’t throwing red meat to “the base” - go have a look at general polling on the bill, and continue to watch the polling as the general public continues to learn about the fiscal illusions Pelosi and Obama made to get it passed (Medicare double counting, inaccurate and overly optimistic economic forecasting, the “doctor fix”, etc.). Thus, the “hard on” that you are so dismissive of - a radical overhaul of 1/6 of the economy and the catalyst for trillions of deficits in the near term - isn’t some opportunity to massage the pleasure buttons of the base: it’s an integral part of the most salient issue of the day with the general public.
Second, the GOP can’t have “true focus” on Medicare, Social Security and the deficit - the Democrats and the White House in particular aren’t interested in playing along. The President won’t even take the advice of the bipartisan deficit commission he appointed, and Democrats have pushed back on any substantial cuts to spending, especially in Social Security and Medicare.
Your theme - that the GOP isn’t using its power to solve “real” problems - doesn’t add up, primarily because the GOP doesn’t have the power to set the agenda and run the table. If you look more closely, you’ll see that the President and urban/liberal Democrats are the real bulwark against the kind of change needs to be made.
[quote]Where are their rallies and town meetings? As the Government is more under the control of the GOP, has it somehow become more fiscally responsible?
No it hasn’t.[/quote]
On what planet has the government come under the control of the GOP?
I can respect that, but truthfully, given that post, I find it a little hard to believe you are as neutral between the parties as you contend. I don’t care what your leanings are, but your “great pains” to find fault with the GOP with respect to the biggest issues of the day while not recognizing the basic fact that the GOP controls 1/2 of Congress and nothing else and that Democratic leadership is, by far, the most detached from the crisis of debt, are making your “neutrality” less and less believable.
The President has submitted a budget that CBO now says blows out an additional $3.2 trillion over the next decade than the American public was told (the administration had used overly optimistic forecasting, according to CBO). The GOP can’t control the budget submitted by Obama - where is your complaint about such an irresponsible fiscal approach?
The President appoints a deficit committee, then tells them to go pound sand. It was a bipartisan committee - Bowles and Simpson are its ringleaders and out on every news channel begging the leadership to do something soon, else we face fiscal catastrophe. The President pretends they don’t exist. Where is your post complaining about Obama’s “hard on” for spending?
Oddly, the President might be the worst offender at getting serious about the very things that you note are the real crises of the day (entitlement reform and unsustainable debt), and yet, you are as quiet as a church mouse as to his culpability.
Hypocrisy? Indeed.
Bolt:
There is no way that I have your knowledge of the workings of government…and I’ve conceded that before (and most likely will continue to do so).
A few points:
I do have “neutrality” about parties, in that they are both full of hypocrisy. If it came off the I felt the DEMS were less hypocritical than the GOP; it was due to my attempt to illustrate that whatever “mandate” that the GOP was given by the electorate is not being met; but is instead being directed toward “hot button” issues that fire up peoples passions.
My feeling about the Health Care overall was too much was taken on with no Bi-Partisan support…not that I was writing it off as trivial. Something that large and so important to the Country’s overall well being should have been the most Bi-Partisan piece of legislation that we have ever had…and it wasn’t.
I’m now a little confused about what was “gained” by the GOP in the Mid-Terms? If the Speaker of the House states that they have been given a “mandate”…and you essentially state that they were given nothing in terms of power…I will concede being confused about the mid-terms and what exactly they meant. Without power, nothing appears to have been gained.
One thing that I do know…that the recommendations of “Bi-Partisan Commissions” have always been ignored…even the last “debt” one before this most recent one. Ignoring them is not a trait that is particular to one particular Party.
If in fact the DEMS are in fact the ones “truly” still in power; and nothing is being done to get our fiscal house in order…then yes…they are the biggest hypocrites of all.
Mufasa
One more point:
To your last point…my personal wish is that the President had spent his greatest efforts on deficit reduction, Medicare, SS, etc…and with Bi-Partisan support.
With that being said…I really don’t know if we’ll ever have any politicians ready and willing to deal with such difficult issues.
I guess I’ve been though enough political cycles to be pretty sure about that.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Whatever “mandate” there was, the House Republicans can’t just send up bill after bill of huge spending cuts and waste the political capital knowing that the Senate will quash it, or, even if it made it out of Congress, the White House would veto it. The “mandate” can’t be met in the way that you keep insisting and then faulting the GOP for not accomplishing - you create a false standard.
I never said they were given nothing - I said they can’t govern because they can’t set the agenda. We have divided government. The GOP has some power, but they weren’t given control of the lawmaking branches. The mid-terms meant, I think, that the electorate was furious with the overreach and fiscal responsibility, and they want someone to deal with it, and they didn’t think Democrats were the party to do it.
The lack of power gained is a function of elections, not mood. There were only a certain amount of Senate seats up for election, and of course, the election for president wasn’t taking place.
I don’t care about what has happened in the past - I want to know if it is a bad thing that Obama is ignoring his own debt commission’s recommendations after he appointed it to deal with the existential crisis of our time.
But more noticeable - I start naming names on the very kinds of fiscal irresponsibility you yourself claim is the real crisis of the day, and your response? A dismissive “Meh, everyone does it.” What gives? Why can’t you “call out” the President the same way you “call out” House Republicans, given your admitted stance regarding the dangers of deficits?
It’s strange - as a fiscal hawk (or at least someone who takes the dangers of deficits seriously), why are you so protective of the President when you are otherwise so quick to condemn other politicians for what you suspect to be a lack of devotion to solving the debt crisis?
Well, they are, because they can quash bills in the Senate, and above all else, they wield the veto pen.
“…It’s strange - as a fiscal hawk (or at least someone who takes the dangers of deficits seriously), why are you so protective of the President when you are otherwise so quick to condemn other politicians for what you suspect to be a lack of devotion to solving the debt crisis?..”
I’ll answer that, Bolt, because you’ve always given me straight answers:
My sometimes ignorance and naivety about the way things work in Washington.
My desire to see the President succeed in ways that would be beneficial to the Country.
As always; thanks for your insights.
Mufasa