Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Everything Political

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:54 am

Etherian wrote:My concern....., it ain't going to happen before it's Venezuela time.


You are soooo right, Eth. In fact, it is already too late. As most people who understand physical systems know (which includes economies) all physical systems possess response lags to inputs. The fools in power could raise taxes way beyond the peak of the Laffer curve AND promise handouts for all, but it is still too late. The post by Mur over in his Economic Meltdown thread makes this clear. It started with the FED in trouble, and since that time we have seen so many states feeling the pain. Now we are seeing the cities begin bleeding.

There is a morbid humor in all of this... The "politicians" who have been "running" the country, the states, and the cities while debts built were so focused on acquiring and holding power, for themselves and their party, that they were simply NOT doing their jobs and minding the store. As a result, THEY are the ones, through their own inaction, who have painted themselves into a corner. There is really only ONE thing they can do...

The Tea Party (while the left wishes to poke fun at it and laught it off) is a symptom of the way the vast majority of people feel about their government. It is NOT going away, and it will only grow...even if not all people who join them buy into their entire schtick. That symptom is a clear sign that We The People will simply NOT accept massive tax increases (i.e. us paying more) as the solution for bailing out the inaction of politicians for so many years. In fact, even if they don't raise taxes, the writing is on the wall that the "spend spend spend" crowd is not going to hold power. As a result, not only can they not raise taxes, but the writing is on the wall that continued spending of what we do not have is unaccetpable, as it is further kicking the can down the road.

So what is the ONLY option left? Answer: It is the ONLY option available to you and me when we have massive debt and either limited or reduced income problems. We don't have all those other options above, which the crook politicians have now exhausted. The ONLY option left is DRASTIC cuts in budgets. There really is no other option, and as I say, it is the ONLY thing you and I could ever do. Had they done it long ago, we never would have gotten here.

And, unfortunately (the morbid part), those budget cuts are going to certainly cause a double-dip recession, and quite possibly a depression. It is going to be painful. But those of us who do not depend on government handouts, and have lived responsibly, will be able to grimace and bear it. Sadly, however, it is the very people that the idiots of the far left always say they are championing....the working poor... who are going to be hurt the most.

While I possess firearms, I have never been the rabid gun freak who always talks about them, or even worse tries to convince others to "arm up", because there has never been a true need for it. But now... as a person who knows what survival looks, sounds, and tastes like... I am politely advising all law-abiding citizens, who need to take care of themselves and their family... to arm-up. Because it will, once again, be left to We The People to recover our country, maintain the peace, and protect ourselves and our own from harm.

Time to face Reality. As brutal, and possibly scary, as it may be.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Etherian » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:11 pm

Absolutely Ray.
We are facing a future unlike anytime in our lifetimes. Even for an oldster like me.
Though many are waking up to this, I think that there are still plenty that are living in a "fool's paradise" and the media and all attempt to keep things in line by holding to the idea that life goes on.

But when you fully examine the reality of where we stand, no one is providing an answer or solution to the train wreck that is coming.
Etherian
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:59 am

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:11 am

I wouldn’t be running to the hills just yet…

U.S. Agency Trims Estimate of the Deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/us/po ... obama.html

The Obama administration on Friday trimmed its estimate of the federal budget deficit for this year but said the weak economy had led it to increase its deficit projection for next year.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget projected that the deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 would be $1.47 trillion, $84 billion lower than it estimated in February but still a record in dollar terms. Much of the reduction stemmed from lower than anticipated outlays for unemployment insurance.

Measured as a percentage of total economic output — the gauge that economists say is most meaningful — the deficit would be 10 percent of gross domestic product. That would be about the same as last year, a level that could not be sustained over the long run without endangering the economy, but well below the records set during World War II.

For next year, the White House projected a deficit of $1.42 trillion, $150 billion more than estimated in February. Next year’s projected deficit would be 9.2 percent of the economy.


Image
United States deficit or surplus percentage 1901 to 2006

Image
Gross debt as percentage of GDP from 1977-2007

Also, it should be noted (as I’ve mentioned here before) that historically, most of our debt was added under Republican presidencies…

National debt by U.S. presidential terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Image
Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with partisan affiliation of the White House. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data is from the 2009 U.S. Budget)

In fact Bush Jr. was responsible for the single greatest increase in debt as a % of GDP since WWII… 20% or 2.63 Trillion dollars total just in his last term. Bush Sr. comes in behind Bush Jr. with a 15% increase and Reagan with an 11.3% increase in his first term.

Beginning with Truman in 1945, all Democratic presidents have actually managed a decrease

It remains to be seen if Obama can reverse, or at the very least, stabilize this disturbing trend… 10% of GDP isn’t too bad in the larger scheme of things. Especially with three wars going on... however, those can be ended. This I'm not so sure about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medic ... _Chart.png

Image

Explanation
Eventually, Medicare and Medicaid spending absorbs all federal tax revenue, which has averaged around 19% of GDP for the past 30 years.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:46 pm

Access Denied wrote:Also, it should be noted (as I’ve mentioned here before) that historically, most of our debt was added under Republican presidencies…


Don't you think that is just a tad disingenuous (and misleading) since it is the Congress that appropriates funds and passes the budget? Why do you think so many presidents (mostly Republicans, but Clinton wanted it to) were asking for a line item veto? If you are going to show party affiliation for spending, why not show the proper chart which delineates which party was controlling the House and Senate when debt was added? That might be interesting, too, AD...and it would tell the whole story.

Explanation
Eventually, Medicare and Medicaid spending absorbs all federal tax revenue, which has averaged around 19% of GDP for the past 30 years.


And that is not the whole story either, now is it AD? I find it interesting how little anyone is talking about social security anymore, even though it is even more of a looming issue than when Al Gore constantly was yapping about his "lock box". Add social security to that chart above (which is due to go cashflow negative sometime in the next 10 years depending on who's estimates/number fudging you accept), and you have a serious problem in cutting deficits when all entitlement programs are off-limits.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:08 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Don't you think that is just a tad disingenuous (and misleading) since it is the Congress that appropriates funds and passes the budget? Why do you think so many presidents (mostly Republicans, but Clinton wanted it to) were asking for a line item veto? If you are going to show party affiliation for spending, why not show the proper chart which delineates which party was controlling the House and Senate when debt was added? That might be interesting, too, AD...and it would tell the whole story.

No, not disingenuous at all. From the link I gave…

[which also shows which parties were in control of Congress]

It is important to note that the President proposes the budget and then congress can change it. Since the budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, it does not go to the President for his signature or veto.[3] While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, Louis Fisher writes, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities."[4]

The reference below has more insight into the process…

Policy Basics: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

As we’re seeing right now with the NASA budget for example, they approved the total amount Obama asked for but pretty much gutted his (actually the Augustine Panel’s) call for more spending to stimulate commercial space efforts… something that ironically Republicans should be all for but aren’t.

[don’t get me started lol]

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:And that is not the whole story either, now is it AD? I find it interesting how little anyone is talking about social security anymore, even though it is even more of a looming issue than when Al Gore constantly was yapping about his "lock box". Add social security to that chart above (which is due to go cashflow negative sometime in the next 10 years depending on who's estimates/number fudging you accept), and you have a serious problem in cutting deficits when all entitlement programs are off-limits.

I anticipated this when doing my research to fact check the NYT article…

Is there a crisis?

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, deriding what he called "the hype about a Social Security crisis", wrote:[36]

“[T]here is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.”

And as noted in the article…

Proponents of the current system argue if and when the trust fund runs out, there will still be the choice of raising taxes or cutting benefits, or both.[37]

[…]

These Social Security proponents argue that the correct plan is to fix Medicare, which is the largest underfunded entitlement, repeal the 2001–2004 revenue reductions, and balance the budget.

I agree, Bush’s privatization plan was not the way to go…

Image
The Trust Fund, under current law (blue) and under privatization (red) as per "Model 2" considered in the 2001 commission report. (Graph from "Social Security Trust Fund"[32] by zFacts.com)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:33 pm

Access Denied wrote:No, not disingenuous at all. From the link I gave…

[which also shows which parties were in control of Congress]


I say it is disingenuous, and misleading.

Spending is a Two-Party Problem. Politicians are always involved!

What about Congress? In 2004, looking at real annual government spending per capita since 1947, Liberty's R.W. Bradford concluded that while spending grows faster if Republicans control the White House, it also grows faster if Democrats control Congress. Furthermore, some empirical studies, such as David R. Mayhew's 2005 book Divided We Govern, suggest that when one party controls the White House and the other controls at least one house of Congress, the result is slightly slower spending growth, increased oversight, and longer-lasting reforms.

Based on these findings, we can rate the different Congress/White House combinations from mediocre to worst: 1) Democratic White House and Republican Congress, 2) Republican White House and Democratic Congress, and 3) unified Republican or Democratic rule.


"Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests."


Right. Now do you wish to tell the whole story, and discuss supplemental spending bills? Because as we all know, that is where the pork-spenders love to channel their energies.

Omnibus Spending Bill

The House has already passed-and the Senate will soon take up-a mammoth FY 2009 omnibus appropriation bill[1] that:

Provides an 8 percent discretionary spending hike for the second consecutive year;
Combines with the "stimulus" bill for a staggering 80 percent increase in these discretionary programs;
May contribute to a permanent $2,000 per-household tax hike;
Contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion; and
Likely terminates the Washington, D.C., school voucher program, removing 1,715 low-income students from their current schools.

This bill represents nearly everything Democrats had criticized about the earlier Republican Congresses. It forces lawmakers to vote quickly on a bloated package combining nine separate appropriations bills. It irresponsibly expands the already-record budget deficit. And despite strongly worded proclamations about cleaning up Washington, the 2009 appropriation bills will have the second-most earmarks in history.


[don’t get me started lol]


Too late, cuz you already got me started with references like this:

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, deriding what he called "the hype about a Social Security crisis", wrote:


Ooooookaaaaaay! Where do we begin with this guy?

1) A Nobel prize means nothing anymore except "we social democrats that run Nobel like what this guy did because he follows our socialist themes". One only need look at Al Gore and Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize to see that this prize means nothing.
2) Krugman is an unabashed Keynesian economist. So don't you think that makes him just a bit biased to continue public funding and the status quo (as long as the status quo is controlled by government)?
3) The guy's column for the New York Times is entitled "The Conscience of a Liberal". 'Nuff said.
4) In the above link, Krugman (who was a big Obama-lover in the campaign days) says "He Wasn't The One We've Been Waiting For". But he is not criticizing Obama for his spending...no, no, no! He is criticizing Obama for not being liberal enough! As if the most liberal member of Congress during his term in the Senate was not enough!

But enough about Krugman's bias (there is enough dirt on him to fill an entire thread). Let's examine what Krugman is quoting:

“[T]here is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending ...”


Ah yes, the CBO. They are always spot-on with their estimates, right? Uhhh, not so much.

Image
Actual costs vs. projected (CBO) costs for Medicare.

Freedomworks Investigates Accuracy of CBO Scores

Through its research, the FreedomWorks Foundation found that although the score is important, it should at best be considered the very least a given bill may cost. At worst, actual costs have been as much as 2,600% higher than initial government estimates.

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented, “This report reveals how often the government severely underestimates the cost of new government programs. Far too often, members of Congress depend on the estimates released by the CBO to determine how they will vote on a piece of legislation. But past reliance upon such scores has lead many of them to vote for bills that ultimately cost American taxpayers billions of dollars more than was originally predicted.

“The CBO recently estimated the 10 year cost of the proposed government takeover of the healthcare system at $848 billion. If history has taught us anything, it is that this estimate will fall woefully short of the total cost of reform. In reality, the bill will likely cost the American people trillions of dollars in new taxes and higher premiums. Congressional Democrats are already moving preemptively to prepare for higher costs by raising the debt ceiling to $14 trillion—a 55 percent increase from where it was when they took control of Congress in 2007.”


So once again, AD, I would ask that you not simply portray the left-leaning data (who are the people that control Wikipedia again?)

Proponents of the current system argue if and when the trust fund runs out, there will still be the choice of raising taxes or cutting benefits, or both.[37]


Yeah, note the underlined part. They are the proponents of the current system saying this... no bias there, eh? LOL

I guess the only bright spot on the horizon would be that, because of the sniping between Krugman and Obama, it is not likely we will see Krugman appointed as the chair of POTUS economic advisors anytime soon! :lol: I've gotta be happy for the little wins, these days.

And given the analysis at the reason.com article I posted at the top, if things keep going the way the tea leaves read right now, perhaps we will end up with a Republican Congress with Obama in the WH this coming fall. That would be the least-worst of the profligate spending of politicians, at least as far as history goes.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:41 pm

Oh yeah... I almost forgot about this gem I found while researching things to falsify your offerings, AD:

Access Denied wrote:While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, Louis Fisher writes, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests."


Ignoring the difference between budgets and supplemental spending bills (which I had pointed out in my last response), we see that "rarely" may apply to when a DEM-controlled Congress wants to pass a lot of pork and blame a Republican president for it...such as back in 2007:

Congress does, indeed, appropriate more than a president requests, especially for pork!

The Senate bill is $18 billion more than President Bush requested for military operations. The House bill, which passed last week, exceeded the administration’s request by $21 billion and included money for spinach growers, peanut storage and citrus farmers.

If the Senate bill goes to conference committee as written, the two chambers may find themselves fighting over the best cuts of pork


Falsified again, eh AD?
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

No More FOIA for SEC!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:31 pm

So here we have the latest loss of Freedom...to know how (or IF) the GOV SEC is protecting your investments!

I would just LOVE to see how AD, or any other Obama apologists, put a nice little bow on this one:

SEC Says New Finacial Reform Law Exempts oit from FOIA Disclosure!

As the article begins: So much for that whole "transparency" promise Obama made! [-X This guy is EVIL!

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission
no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.


Please explain to me how THIS IS NOT A STEP TO SOCIALIST CONTROL! Guvmint knows best...you peon citizens don't need to know how we are regulating or what we are finding as we investigate the places that manage your investment money!

This is what happens when you push thru MASSIVE bills that are certainly not completely read and understood by the maroons casting votes in Congress... "vote whatever the Party tells you to vote".

Another Obama "true colors" moment...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

The Hypocritical EPA

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:56 pm

This is purty darned funny, and sad at the same time:

EPA rejects Va. AG's greenhouse gases challenge

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected 10 petitions for reconsideration of its finding that carbon dioxide and other emissions contribute to dangerous global warming.

(snip)

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the petitions were based on selectively edited data and provided no evidence refuting the agency's conclusions.


Never mind the FACT that the foundation of the EPA's conclusions are based on the greatest scam involving "selectively edited data" known to mankind. We know of the "tricks" engaged by Mann and Jones to make sure temperature proxies "fit" actual temperature measurements, when in fact they diverged (indicating problems with those proxies). We also know that the EPA's findings ignored the DATA that has been generated in the past 10 years that falsifies Michael Mann's "hockey stick", and therefore puts into severe question the link between CO2 and warming (i.e. the concentrations of CO2 have continued to rise in the past 10 years, but temperatures have NOT continued their upward trend as their precious computer models suggest).

So it is OK for the EPA to use "selectively edited data" (instead of ALL THE DATA) to arrive at their conclusion (which is NOT PROOF) that CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated. However, even though they have not proven their case (because they ignored falsifying data) they now demand others to disprove what they have not proven!

AMAZING! If ever there was an example of 1984's doublespeak/doublethink in government, there it is!
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

The Obsolescence of Barack Obama

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:39 pm

As Obama's mid-term election approaches, I think it is just about time that all those who were so high on Obama, and his ability to infuse emotion into his teleprompter-reading, need to finally admit that he was a big, inexperienced, mistake.

The Obsolescence of Barack Obama

The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The "progressives" want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still.


Yes, failed. But the political nattering class (of the "progressive" flavor) will tell you "oh but it would have been much worse if we had not appropriated and spent this money." To which I would then ask: Do you know how much of that money remains unspent? How much was earmarked for the "outyears" as some type of freakish "political insurance" that Obama will need to spend to try and pretend he is not a lame duck.

From the embedded link:
34% of the total $787.2 Billion in economic stimulus funding has been spent to date


Back to the WSJ article...

Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government.


Indeed. No experience. But when that was brought to the attention of his supporters, they refused to address it. However, they would certainly address Sarah Palin's inexperience to be Veep, even though she had actually held a GOV executive position in Alaska, where Obama had nothing even remotely similar.

It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of "malaise" at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.


Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences.


An important distinction. Obama was all about himself and his "gift", and his audacity of two autobiographies published before he ever really accomplished anything big. Reagan was about the country.

There remains the fact of his biography, a man's journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a "tingling sensation" when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office.


While it goes without saying that many black folks would never speak openly about their disappointment in the first black president, one wonders how much they feel that Obama really and truly "connects" with them. He has lived a charmed life, and we still don't know who funded his stellar education and helped grease his way to the top... but many have speculated about who those handlers/enablers were...

The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.


Indeed, let us hope that everyone is awake as we go into the midterm elections, and remains awake as the next batch of wanna-be presidents begin to throw their hat in the ring in the upcoming 2-year campaigning process. :roll:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Political Pendulum Swings Back

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:31 pm

Caveat: Just because certain people here desperately wish to paint me as a Republican (cough-AD-cough!), does not mean it is so. And it does not mean I am relishing in the pendulum swinging way back to the right. Rather, I am citing this poll because I predicted this oscillation from right to left to right almost two years ago now, and I pointed out its dangers in instability. Sadly, I am right again. I would much prefer a pendulum that makes small-displacement swings across the centrist stable point (Ryan will get the control systems aspect of what I am insinuating here). So without further adieu:

Americans Give GOP Edge on Most Election Issues

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling seven of nine key election issues. The parties are essentially tied on healthcare, with the environment being the lone Democratic strength.


7 of 9...makes me think of that Star Trek babe....mmmmmmm. :D

The Democrats' advantage on the issue of the environment is likely not something the party can leverage to improve its 2010 electoral fortunes, as Americans rank it at the bottom of the list in terms of its importance to their vote. Rather, economic concerns are paramount, with a majority of Americans rating the economy, jobs, and federal spending (along with government corruption) as extremely important.


Huh...as someone once said "It's the economy, stupid." And how about draining that swamp, Nancy? :lol:

It is not clear whether Americans give the Republicans the edge on these issues because they have confidence in the GOP to make progress in addressing the major problems facing the country, or whether the ratings have more to do with the public's frustration with the incumbent Democratic Party's performance to date.


Probably the latter is my guess. Being primarily of Libertarian views, I don't trust the Repubs to do any better. It is frustration. And as much as the Dems want to paint it as "astroturf" or manufactured rage, doing so only shows just how out of touch they are with their electorate.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:20 am

I for one welcome our new Republican Overlords and shall wait with bated breath for you to begin bashing them when you realize the economy’s still in the tank… :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:34 am

Yes, Charles Krauthammer is definitely on the far right...too far right for my tastes. But the guy has a very good capability to point out the elitist attitudes of the far left, and how they refuse to see themselves as possibly being out of touch. And in this sense, Krauthammer has hit the nail on the head (pardon the pun):

The Last Refuge of the Liberal

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the tea party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

[...]

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant lites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious hought to those who dare oppose them.


Even their name for themselves ("progressives") smacks of the belief that they are more advanced than people who don't think like them.
Ray
Last edited by Access Denied on Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: fixed paragraph formatting and trimmed excessive quote of copyrighted material
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:35 am

I hate to burst your bubble Ray but I’m afraid the best you can hope for is a split Congress. As of this writing the Republicans need to win 28 out of the 37 seats up for election in the Senate to gain control… nobody is predicting that.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/election.2010/the.races/

That said, the independent projections I’ve seen predict no change in the overall balance of power…

We’ll see though... a lot can change by the time it's all over and done.

Good luck. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:29 am

Access Denied wrote:As of this writing the Republicans need to win 28 out of the 37 seats up for election in the Senate to gain control… nobody is predicting that.

Correction, some are now predicting there’s a chance it could happen…

Sixty Days to Go
The Crystal Ball's Labor Day Predictions
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crysta ... 010090201/

In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).

Rating change: GOP picks up two more Senate seats
http://www.electionprojection.com/blog/ ... 090310.php

The balance of power in the Senate, in my view, hinges on a few Democratic leaning seats. No doubt Republicans will pick up several seats in the Senate, but whether that number will be enough to take back the majority is unknown. […] California and Washington are both colored crimson this morning as a result of a SurveyUSA poll from California and a Rasmussen poll out of Washington. […] Since the independents caucus with the Democrats, the GOP needs just one more seat to earn the majority. Remarkable.

Hang in there Ray, you just might get you chance to start bashing Republicans! :)

To that end I’ll be voting for Carly Fiorina (R) over Barbara Boxer (D) for US Senate here in California… even though her actions (specifically the merger with Compaq) as CEO of Hewlett-Packard led to one of my best friends being laid off from HP before he could retire.

Who knows, maybe she can run Capital Hill and help Meg Whitman (the former CEO of eBay) as Governor run the state better than she did a Fortune 500 company…

They can’t be any worse than a Hollywood actor can they? :mrgreen:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron