Obama - Worst President Ever

[daybreaker3]

What's happened to all the hoopla about the federal deficit and all that mess? That's all we heard from the liberal media and the demos for 8 years, Bush is running up a deficit! And, he did, and I think he mismanaged the budget, at times.

But obama has quadrupled (400%) Bush's deficit, and all in 100 days! Where's the outrage and the concern now?

The Three Stooges (no offense meant to the original comedic trio) obama/pelosi/reid have spent MORE money in 100 days, than the combined efforts of every president and congress since the country's founding.

But, I guess that's okay now....

Again, you guys have no sense of context.

If someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger with hundreds of people, and you need to spend $40,000 to fix your house, is spending $40k REALLY worse than the initial spending of $10k? Would you whine and complain about QUADRUPLING the amount spent in the house??? No. Because the $10k CAUSED the mess, and the $40k is needed to CLEAN UP the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible, and one type is REQUIRED to fix the irresponsible spending.

It's all about WHAT you spend it on. W spent trillions throwing a kegger for all his friends and ****ed the country up.

Then the adults came home, and now Obama has to clean up the mess, which costs EVEN MORE.

ALL spending is not created equal. W's spending was wasteful. Obama's spending is required to fix things that W ****ed up.

[Guisslapp]

How about an actual apples to apples comparison of the bad spending verse the good spending instead of an analogy?

[FishingBack]

Again, you guys have no sense of context.

If someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger with hundreds of people, and you need to spend $40,000 to fix your house, is spending $40k REALLY worse than the initial spending of $10k? Would you whine and complain about QUADRUPLING the amount spent in the house??? No. Because the $10k CAUSED the mess, and the $40k is needed to CLEAN UP the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible, and one type is REQUIRED to fix the irresponsible spending.

It's all about WHAT you spend it on. W spent trillions throwing a kegger for all his friends and ****ed the country up.

Then the adults came home, and now Obama has to clean up the mess, which costs EVEN MORE.

ALL spending is not created equal. W's spending was wasteful. Obama's spending is required to fix things that W ****ed up.

1. Bush didn't cause Chevy to suck at making profitable cars - Obama is throwing away billions on that.
2. Bush had stimulus packages and Obama did more of that.
3. Obama passed the same bloated deficit. Bush tried to cut 34 billion and obama tried to cut 17, but then later added on 89 billion. These are .5 to 1% changes. It's essentially the same.

Sorry DB3, your broad swath of bash-bush crap didn't fly this time.

[duckbillplatty]

Obama's spending is required to fix things that W ****ed up.

How? No analogies needed. How is it required and how is it fixing what Bush screwed up? I see it as neither necessary or effective. Prove me wrong.

[MoonPieBlue]

Again, you guys have no sense of context.

If someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger with hundreds of people, and you need to spend $40,000 to fix your house, is spending $40k REALLY worse than the initial spending of $10k? Would you whine and complain about QUADRUPLING the amount spent in the house??? No. Because the $10k CAUSED the mess, and the $40k is needed to CLEAN UP the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible, and one type is REQUIRED to fix the irresponsible spending.

An alternate theory on your analogy. Someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger for hundreds of people. You can spend $5,000 cleaning up and fixing the damage, but hell you've got control of the money so why stop there. Sweetthing's been asking for a pool in the backyard for $15,000 so let me go ahead and tack that on. If anyone ask just tell them that the damage cost a little more to fix. My sister down the road has been having trouble with her AC so lets just take care of that situation for $5,000 so maybe she'll spend less time at my house. Oh, and junior's going away to college next year so for $15,000 we can get him out of the house and me and Sweetthing can have it all to ourselves.

While $10,000 caused the mess I'm going to say it takes $40,000 to fix the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible and one type of spending is required to fix the mess and get a few other things on the side.

[dhussdawg]

Again, you guys have no sense of context.

If someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger with hundreds of people, and you need to spend $40,000 to fix your house, is spending $40k REALLY worse than the initial spending of $10k? Would you whine and complain about QUADRUPLING the amount spent in the house??? No. Because the $10k CAUSED the mess, and the $40k is needed to CLEAN UP the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible, and one type is REQUIRED to fix the irresponsible spending.

It's all about WHAT you spend it on. W spent trillions throwing a kegger for all his friends and ****ed the country up.

Then the adults came home, and now Obama has to clean up the mess, which costs EVEN MORE.

ALL spending is not created equal. W's spending was wasteful. Obama's spending is required to fix things that W ****ed up.

The kegger has stopped, and Obama has turned it into an uppity wine and cheese party that is even more expensive. I could believe this if Obama wasnt throwing bad money down the drain too. Socialized healthcare plans, throwing money at the auto guys (the town drunks), etc. Sure he cleaned up some of the country's wasteful spending, but he has invited a new group to come party it up.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

An alternate theory on your analogy. Someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger for hundreds of people. You can spend $5,000 cleaning up and fixing the damage, but hell you've got control of the money so why stop there. Sweetthing's been asking for a pool in the backyard for $15,000 so let me go ahead and tack that on. If anyone ask just tell them that the damage cost a little more to fix. My sister down the road has been having trouble with her AC so lets just take care of that situation for $5,000 so maybe she'll spend less time at my house. Oh, and junior's going away to college next year so for $15,000 we can get him out of the house and me and Sweetthing can have it all to ourselves.

While $10,000 caused the mess I'm going to say it takes $40,000 to fix the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible and one type of spending is required to fix the mess and get a few other things on the side.

Now there's the correct analogy.

[FishingBack]

The kegger has stopped, and Obama has turned it into an uppity wine and cheese party that is even more expensive. I could believe this if Obama wasnt throwing bad money down the drain too. Socialized healthcare plans, throwing money at the auto guys (the town drunks), etc. Sure he cleaned up some of the country's wasteful spending, but he has invited a new group to come party it up.

Not really a significant amount. It was just a posturing move with no real impact. He also spent that money on equally bad endeavors.

[dawg80]

An alternate theory on your analogy. Someone spends $10,000 wrecking your house by throwing a kegger for hundreds of people. You can spend $5,000 cleaning up and fixing the damage, but hell you've got control of the money so why stop there. Sweetthing's been asking for a pool in the backyard for $15,000 so let me go ahead and tack that on. If anyone ask just tell them that the damage cost a little more to fix. My sister down the road has been having trouble with her AC so lets just take care of that situation for $5,000 so maybe she'll spend less time at my house. Oh, and junior's going away to college next year so for $15,000 we can get him out of the house and me and Sweetthing can have it all to ourselves.

While $10,000 caused the mess I'm going to say it takes $40,000 to fix the mess. One type of spending is irresponsible and one type of spending is required to fix the mess and get a few other things on the side.

Bingo!

These obama-worshipers have zero credibility. Doesn't matter how many stupid and wreckless things BHO does, those idiots find a way to defend it, and blame Bush.

[Guisslapp]

Because of Obama's RECKLESS spending, each US household will own $155,000 in federal debt in ten years.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/reti...ion=2009060914

The bill is far too big for only the rich to pick up. There aren't enough of them. America will have to lean on citizens far below the $250,000 income threshold: nurses, electricians, secretaries, and factory workers. Within a decade the average household that pays income tax will owe the equivalent of $155,000 in federal debt, about $90,000 more than last year. What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda. To keep the debt from wrecking the economy, the U.S. would need to raise annual federal income taxes an average of $11,000 in 2019 for all families that pay them, an increase of about 55%. "The revenues needed are far too big to raise from high earners," says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The government will have to go where the money is, to the middle class." The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals.

[DogtorEvil]

The Obama Pattern

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009...ma_pattern.php

The Obama Administration appears to me to be pursuing many goals, poorly. Here are four:

1) The stimulus failed to meet Larry Summers' famous criteria of timely, targeted, or temporary.

2) The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.

3) The proposed financial reforms are mostly cosmetic and fail to address the key issues of housing policy and regulatory capital arbitrage.

4) In championing health care reform, the President stresses the unsustainability of our current system, while insisting that nothing will change (you can keep your insurance, keep your doctor, etc.).

The pattern that I see is one of following the path of least political resistance, even if it means failing to make any significant contribution to solving the actual public policy problem. I cannot say that I am completely shocked by this. It is sort of Public Choice 101. But there are a lot of bright, highly-educated people in the Obama Administration who, if they were to step back and evaluate what is happening, would see the pattern for what it is. They believe that they inherited such bad policies that they could not possibly do worse. That belief is starting to look shaky.

[ChipDog]

The Obama Pattern

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009...ma_pattern.php

The Obama Administration appears to me to be pursuing many goals, poorly. Here are four:

1) The stimulus failed to meet Larry Summers' famous criteria of timely, targeted, or temporary.

2) The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.

3) The proposed financial reforms are mostly cosmetic and fail to address the key issues of housing policy and regulatory capital arbitrage.

4) In championing health care reform, the President stresses the unsustainability of our current system, while insisting that nothing will change (you can keep your insurance, keep your doctor, etc.).

The pattern that I see is one of following the path of least political resistance, even if it means failing to make any significant contribution to solving the actual public policy problem. I cannot say that I am completely shocked by this. It is sort of Public Choice 101. But there are a lot of bright, highly-educated people in the Obama Administration who, if they were to step back and evaluate what is happening, would see the pattern for what it is. They believe that they inherited such bad policies that they could not possibly do worse. That belief is starting to look shaky.

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing. --Margaret Thatcher

[DogtorEvil]

US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...or-treaty.html

MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

[JuBru]

US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...or-treaty.html

MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

That won't win him any support. Doesn't matter who you are, they don't like "giving up" anything they control.

[DogtorEvil]