Vote the Bassturds out

[Hoss]

Nice.  I am gonna plagiarize the hell out of this...at least parts of it....just thought you should know...  Just call me 'Melania'.!!

But I thought he was divisive? 

[erfalf]

Like war crimes - waterboarding, rendition....  Big on Trumps list!
Lying to the US about things that got us into the wrong war, then not bothering to clean up any of the mess.  Especially Osama...  Killing 4,000+ of our kids and squandering $4 trillion off budget.
Massive increases in budget, and deficit.  While giving his richest buddies the biggest tax cuts in history.

You just described Obama as well. Again, what's the difference? He has reduced troops and employed a drone/air strike tactic, which reduces our casualties. But it kind of flies in the face of the whole anti-waterboarding crowd because instead of torturing we just deprive them of their breathing ability...permanently. But I guess if that's better, whatever.

And yes, I may be young and I have not "lived" it all. But can you tell me with a straight face that Obama has been a unifying force, or at least attempted to be one?

Oh, and Obama increased the budget (all though not as much as he had asked for thanks to congress) and all the while the rich are getting richer.

[AquaMan]

Cannon,  I too plan on swiping your remarks on the Obama record and its likely continuation under another strong Democrat. I think some of the unintended consequences of a do nothing Congress has actually helped us in many regards. They spent so much time saying "hell no" that they never accomplished much of their negative agendas.

Erfalf, its not your fault you are young, but it is your fault you're not reading history objectively and not listening to those who lived through it. The divisiveness is not from Obama, its from the weak link in our chain, the unreformed southern states. Its like blaming the assault of a woman on her beauty.

I have to ask. What is it that Obama did that fostered divisiveness during the last 8 years?

[heironymouspasparagus]

But I thought he was divisive? 

I sure didn't say he was divisive!  At least no more than any other President who has the other party against him.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You just described Obama as well. Again, what's the difference? He has reduced troops and employed a drone/air strike tactic, which reduces our casualties. But it kind of flies in the face of the whole anti-waterboarding crowd because instead of torturing we just deprive them of their breathing ability...permanently. But I guess if that's better, whatever.

And yes, I may be young and I have not "lived" it all. But can you tell me with a straight face that Obama has been a unifying force, or at least attempted to be one?

Oh, and Obama increased the budget (all though not as much as he had asked for thanks to congress) and all the while the rich are getting richer.

Nooooo...it's not the same.  Killing an enemy in a war situation is kinda the whole point.  When that same enemy has been subdued, surrendered, or come into one's custody by whatever means, there are specific rules and laws of treatment that are required.  It's called "Rule of Law".  



Attempted to unify - yes!  Much more than most.  Successful?  No.  Not through lack of effort, but more through lack of participation by the Republicontins.  There are MANY cases in the last 8 years where Obama has agreed with and endorsed ideas advanced by Republicontins, which were then sandbagged and resisted by them.  Cap and Trade - Republicontin concept, developed by HW Bush and his cronies.  Then, when Obama said, yeah, that sounds like a good idea, all the right wing extremists were against it.

Another one - a small group of moderate Republicans endorsed/developed the idea of universal health insurance and implemented the plan in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney.  And then when the Dems said yeah, that would help, let's do it.... well, you know the story - it is now something to be against.   Granted, Dems have been in favor of this for decades - more than 5 - but have always been obstructed until the Repubes thought they could spin it to their benefit.

Tell me again about all your great 'unifiers' on Faux News...??


As for budget - well, the budget does go up every year.  And for the last 8 years, at the slowest rate of increase in a VERY long time - since before Reagan.  And more importantly - the increase in the national debt has gone down by hundreds of billions!  Baby Bush last unfunded debt increase was $1.9 trillion dollars.  Obama's first increase was down about $300 billion from that to about $1.5xx trillion.  And is now down to around $400 billion.  This is something I have talked about over and over again and obviously you missed it.  Perspective and sense of history moment...

Want the reference??  It's the US Treasury - the guys that have to count all those big numbers!

Again.  And again.  And again...until people pull their heads out of Roger Ailes a$$....

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

[erfalf]

Cannon,  I too plan on swiping your remarks on the Obama record and its likely continuation under another strong Democrat. I think some of the unintended consequences of a do nothing Congress has actually helped us in many regards. They spent so much time saying "hell no" that they never accomplished much of their negative agendas.

Erfalf, its not your fault you are young, but it is your fault you're not reading history objectively and not listening to those who lived through it. The divisiveness is not from Obama, its from the weak link in our chain, the unreformed southern states. Its like blaming the assault of a woman on her beauty.

I have to ask. What is it that Obama did that fostered divisiveness during the last 8 years?

Come on. This Alito-Obama 2010 State of the Union. Calls out every group that doesn't agree with him and paints them as either un-patriotic or bigots. That's a way to be inclusive. Again, I understand I haven't lived the history you have, but that doesn't mean you all somehow have some better understanding of it. The patronizing tone is off putting and incredibly disrespectful. I understand how Democrats work. Those that oppose their views do not just have differing views, they are wrong. That's not the case. I can't give you empirical evidence that Obama is the MOST divisive, but I can certainly point to anecdote evidence that says he is. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong entirely.

[erfalf]

Nooooo...it's not the same.  Killing an enemy in a war situation is kinda the whole point.  When that same enemy has been subdued, surrendered, or come into one's custody by whatever means, there are specific rules and laws of treatment that are required.  It's called "Rule of Law".  

They are self imposed and by no means are our opponents afforded any type of rights. I'm not for or against either particularly. I just find it similar to those that are pro life and pro death penalty. They seem at odds with each other in my opinion. (key word opinion).

Attempted to unify - yes!  Much more than most.  Successful?  No.  Not through lack of effort, but more through lack of participation by the Republicontins.  There are MANY cases in the last 8 years where Obama has agreed with and endorsed ideas advanced by Republicontins, which were then sandbagged and resisted by them.  Cap and Trade - Republicontin concept, developed by HW Bush and his cronies.  Then, when Obama said, yeah, that sounds like a good idea, all the right wing extremists were against it.



Another one - a small group of moderate Republicans endorsed/developed the idea of universal health insurance and implemented the plan in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney.  And then when the Dems said yeah, that would help, let's do it.... well, you know the story - it is now something to be against.   Granted, Dems have been in favor of this for decades - more than 5 - but have always been obstructed until the Repubes thought they could spin it to their benefit.

Tell me again about all your great 'unifiers' on Faux News...??

First, no where did I compare anyone to Fox news. That's a pretty low bar. Can you please stop caracturing everyone that disagrees with you as some Fox news watching, confederate flag waving, teeth missing rube. And judging by your tone, your divisive meter may be off somewhat. However, your examples of political back and forth are not examples of coming together. It's a cunning president trying to make the other side look bad (just like the Rs were doing by attempting to defeat it). Nevermind that both of those ideas, while at the time may have seemed good, are not really good plans. Cap and trade was initiated to stop acid rain I believe that was caused by sulfur emissions which in the end weren't really causing acid rain. And let's not go down the Obamacare way.

As for budget - well, the budget does go up every year.  And for the last 8 years, at the slowest rate of increase in a VERY long time - since before Reagan.  And more importantly - the increase in the national debt has gone down by hundreds of billions!  Baby Bush last unfunded debt increase was $1.9 trillion dollars.  Obama's first increase was down about $300 billion from that to about $1.5xx trillion.  And is now down to around $400 billion.  This is something I have talked about over and over again and obviously you missed it.  Perspective and sense of history moment...

Want the reference??  It's the US Treasury - the guys that have to count all those big numbers!

Again.  And again.  And again...until people pull their heads out of Roger Ailes a$$....

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

There are a lot of things to analyze when it comes to budget and actual spending, but I'll just say two things.

1. Often 2009 is used as a baseline. 2009 is an anomaly in that it included a TON of one time spending (stimulus). That is not a baseline.

2. If it weren't for congress and it's budget, Obama would not look nearly as good. Just as the case for all presidents (all though some hurt...Reagan). Reagan actually submitted budgets less impactful on the debt than congress ended up enacting, which I understand he then authorized.



Somehow those "decreases" don't make me feel that much better.

[cannon_fodder]

Re spending...

The only spending that can really be considered in any short-term period is discretionary spending. Under Obama, discretionary spending has been falling fast a percent of  GDP. It is as low as it has been in 50 years and dropping fast.  Spending peaked under Reagan. The deficit is also falling, and should be down to less than 2% of GDP by the time Obama leaves the White House (6% under Reagan, 10% at the end of Bush II).

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/economy/spending-obama/
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp

Yes, the President does not dictate this metric. But he has a lot of influence (Bush II deficit was a combination of the wars, Medicare expansion, and the recession). Congress has more of an impact, and under Obama there have been more Democratic years than Republican.

My main point on my rant isn't that Obama is a rock star - it's merely that had a Republican been in the White House when all this happened, the GOP would crown him King for Life and sign his praises. While there is legitimate criticism, it's only because of the "D" that he is hated so much (I don't believe it is racism, they hated Clinton just as much).

[heironymouspasparagus]

They are self imposed and by no means are our opponents afforded any type of rights. I'm not for or against either particularly. I just find it similar to those that are pro life and pro death penalty. They seem at odds with each other in my opinion. (key word opinion).


First, no where did I compare anyone to Fox news. That's a pretty low bar. Can you please stop caracturing everyone that disagrees with you as some Fox news watching, confederate flag waving, teeth missing rube. And judging by your tone, your divisive meter may be off somewhat. However, your examples of political back and forth are not examples of coming together. It's a cunning president trying to make the other side look bad (just like the Rs were doing by attempting to defeat it). Nevermind that both of those ideas, while at the time may have seemed good, are not really good plans. Cap and trade was initiated to stop acid rain I believe that was caused by sulfur emissions which in the end weren't really causing acid rain. And let's not go down the Obamacare way.


There are a lot of things to analyze when it comes to budget and actual spending, but I'll just say two things.

1. Often 2009 is used as a baseline. 2009 is an anomaly in that it included a TON of one time spending (stimulus). That is not a baseline.

2. If it weren't for congress and it's budget, Obama would not look nearly as good. Just as the case for all presidents (all though some hurt...Reagan). Reagan actually submitted budgets less impactful on the debt than congress ended up enacting, which I understand he then authorized.



Somehow those "decreases" don't make me feel that much better.

Self-imposed??  I really want to know exactly what you mean by that before I reply in detail - it almost sounds like you think that we just decided not to torture out of the goodness of our hearts as opposed to being actual law.  Is that your meaning - that we don't torture only because we don't want to??  Not because it is the law of the land?

Edit;  And your statement is wrong about rights of prisoners


I don't have to caricature anyone - I couldn't do nearly as good a job as Faux News does anyway, so I will just let them take the lead and carry on in their own imitable way.


Cap and trade is a concept that is much more than that - always has been.  It is a tool - an umbrella covering a much wider range of topics.  Reagan used it for leaded gas.  HW sulfur dioxide, then was morphing into carbon sequestration about the time it became evil - or agreed to by the Dems.  Started by Repubes.

Scared of talking Obamacare?  Yeah...such a terrible thing that 20 million people are able to have affordable health insurance.  Plus the ones that Romney got on board in MA.

1.  Why 2009?  Baseline for you maybe but there are over 200 years before that.  Why not pick 1835 - all time low of $33,000 debt.   If you mean to ignore everything before 2009, well, there really is no hope.  2008 was the year with the biggest increase in a national debt deficit in the history of the world.  That is something I am sure all the Repubes wish could be ignored - and they have been successful in getting most to ignore that reality.  

As for a "ton" of stimulus - well, once again a knowledge of history would be nice.... The Obama stimulus that actually led to the end of that recession was about $700 billion dollars.  Much of it went to various entities, companies, and about $350 billion of it went to you and me (if you were working at that time) in the form of temporary tax cuts spread over several years.  That all happened early in the year - around Feb/March.  By July/Aug, we were out of the recession.

As opposed to when it started - Remember 2007/2008?  When Bush gave all his rich buddies trillions.  We gave banks $2.5 trillion dollars over a 2 week period.  Plus many more tens of billions to various other entities.  NONE of which stopped a recession that dragged on from late 2007, all the way through 2008 and into 2009 - until we got a real stimulus for real people.

If you look at the debt history (link below) you will see a leveling out of the increases during the Clinton years, the accelerated growth again, with another period of leveling out in the last 8 years.  It really is a very big difference and very clearly shows the absolute difference in what has happened in recent debt history.  And how even when Congress is in session throughout - it is the Presidential terms that show where the difference occurs.  Congress just keeps on blabbing/spending and yet, somehow Presidents can make a difference.  

The Republicontin lie for decades has been about Dems "tax and spend".  When you look at the reality, it's all about Repubes "tax cuts for the richest and spend more".  Excel is your friend!  The data IS all there.

If one's biggest concern is fiscal policy, as a single topic voter, then there is very clearly only one choice that could possibly be made for at least many decades past.  And that was Dem.


https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

[heironymouspasparagus]

Re spending...

Yes, the President does not dictate this metric. But he has a lot of influence (Bush II deficit was a combination of the wars, Medicare expansion, and the recession). Congress has more of an impact, and under Obama there have been more Democratic years than Republican.

I forgot the Medicare Part D welfare plan for big pharma....thanks for reminding me.

That's the one where we paid big pharma $900 billion over a 3 year period BEFORE any Medicare recipient received one penny or one pill of benefit from the program.  Front end loading the profits of the companies....

[AquaMan]

Come on. This Alito-Obama 2010 State of the Union. Calls out every group that doesn't agree with him and paints them as either un-patriotic or bigots. That's a way to be inclusive. Again, I understand I haven't lived the history you have, but that doesn't mean you all somehow have some better understanding of it. The patronizing tone is off putting and incredibly disrespectful. I understand how Democrats work. Those that oppose their views do not just have differing views, they are wrong. That's not the case. I can't give you empirical evidence that Obama is the MOST divisive, but I can certainly point to anecdote evidence that says he is. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong entirely.

Nah. We do have a better understanding of "it". Not because we're older but because we have more direct experience with the insanity of politics. Question everything including your own (anecdotal) views. I got that from Thomas Jefferson. Such a radical. You haven't earned my respect by merely repeating boilerplate conservative stuff and saying both sides do it or there is no right or wrong. Or with your 3rd grade analysis of how Democrats work. You don't have empirical evidence, you probably don't have good reason to be repeating that he is the most divisive leader in history. That's Fox news stuff. Make good arguments supported with objective sources and old people will listen.

[swake]

Come on. This Alito-Obama 2010 State of the Union. Calls out every group that doesn't agree with him and paints them as either un-patriotic or bigots. That's a way to be inclusive. Again, I understand I haven't lived the history you have, but that doesn't mean you all somehow have some better understanding of it. The patronizing tone is off putting and incredibly disrespectful. I understand how Democrats work. Those that oppose their views do not just have differing views, they are wrong. That's not the case. I can't give you empirical evidence that Obama is the MOST divisive, but I can certainly point to anecdote evidence that says he is. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong entirely.

Of course Obama is the most divisive leader ever. He's black.

That's all that measure needs. No matter what he does a good percentage of the population hates him and another percentage distrusts him. Through no action of his own.

Obama, with his words, manner and demeanor has been about the most inclusive president I have ever seen. And that's in the face of the most intractable political divisions I have ever seen. I actually think this has been to his detriment, he's too aloof and cool and isn't great at political combat. That 2010 State of the Union happened because Obama was completely rebuffed and reviled for his outreach efforts to Republicans. He held golf outings with Republicans, beer parties at the White House, met with leaders as much as he could and was confronted with utter hostility and questions from actual elected leaders about his being a secret Muslim born in Kenya as some kind of Manchurian Candidate style plant to end America. Obama has never been very good at dealing with confrontation.

The Republican party is about to relearn what it means to have a tough political operative in the White House is like.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Of course Obama is the most divisive leader ever. He's black.

That's all that measure needs. No matter what he does a good percentage of the population hates him and another percentage distrusts him. Through no action of his own.

Obama, with his words, manner and demeanor has been about the most inclusive president I have ever seen. And that's in the face of the most intractable political divisions I have ever seen. I actually think this has been to his detriment, he's too aloof and cool and isn't great at political combat. That 2010 State of the Union happened because Obama was completely rebuffed and reviled for his outreach efforts to Republicans. He held golf outings with Republicans, beer parties at the White House, met with leaders as much as he could and was confronted with utter hostility and questions from actual elected leaders about his being a secret Muslim born in Kenya as some kind of Manchurian Candidate style plant to end America. Obama has never been very good at dealing with confrontation.

The Republican party is about to relearn what it means to have a tough political operative in the White House is like.

*Like*

[davideinstein]

Your "white privelidge" is showing. sarc

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/23/under_obama_blacks_are_worse_off_--_far_worse_127497.html

Half of my family is African-American. Next.

[davideinstein]

Only if you count GDP, unemployment (halved), total jobs (+10 mil!), the stock market (more than doubled), corporate profits (more than doubled), or real wages (up 4.2%). I guess the trade deficit is down 24% and exports are up 28%. Or, I guess, if you count the decrease military deaths, terror attacks claiming US lives, or deaths of US diplomatic personnel its been pretty good too. All the while killing more terrorists than any world leader in history including more leaders, and of course Osama. Or, perhaps, that the Federal budget has grown at the slowest pace since before Reagan was in office, tax revenues are up, and even the social welfare programs are on more stable ground.  Sure, I guess we have more border security than ever before and the number of deportations and enforcement actions is up too, the total number of new illegal immigrants is down 9%. Then again, I guess you could consider that more people have health insurance than ever before and the annual rise in the cost of health insurance has slowed for the first time in decades. And the fact that our domestic energy supply has hit an all-time high (+87%) and our imports have fallen (-61%). Of course, most of our closet allies and largest world economies have had a dramatic uptick in their favorable views of the USA at the same time (Japan, Italy, France, Britain, etc...). Other than that, thanks for nothing Obama.

Still waiting for him to come for my guns.

(I'd argue not a huge success on real wages, but reversed the trend anyway, also his diplomatic agenda has been a mixed bag, and well, plenty of other stuff to whine about too. And yes, much of that has little to do with the guy who is sitting in the White House - but he'd surely be blamed if it went poorly. The point is if a Republic was in the White House at the moment the conservatives would be howling with pleasure at what a great job he's done.)

Stop scaring me with facts!