President Obama is a pretty cool guy.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

In this thread, Roose claims that making a trillion dollar deficit disappear is as easy as causing said deficit

oh my god I am dying

[Attaman]

I'm just going to leave these here.

Further relevant cool guy material, and I'll highlight the chief points for those who were too lazy / "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING FUGGIN LIBRULS" for the last bunch of posts:

The surplus -- the first of Barack Obama’s presidency -- was the result of both increased tax collection and lower government spending.

Obama's wish list includes a number of proposals that he has outlined previously but have failed to gain traction in Congress. They include eliminating tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and promoting new tax credits for small businesses and for companies to develop clean energy.

CBO estimated that receipts were $30 billion higher in April than the same month a year ago, due to declining refunds that month and higher corporate income tax receipts. Spending fell by $69 billion compared to April 2011, marked by lower outlays on defense, Medicaid and the Postal Service.

My, it's almost like productivity happens if you don't purposefully obstruct everything the President tries. And increasing taxes / reducing refunds helped to provide thirty billion extra? Without the entire nation collapsing immediately? It's like the "KILL BUSINESS!" rhetoric was just that: Rhetoric.

EDIT: Oh, and fun game: What's $30 billion USD times 36? I seem to think... yes, reduced refunds and increased taxes could theoretically have provided some one trillion USD over the course of three years. Evidently these proposals - which, again, have been having trouble getting passed through Congress - were nothing but bad news. Or, alternatively, "See? Obama's terrible because he didn't have the power to overcome a Congressional cock-block. Let's not blame the cock-blocking persons, but the guy who people would apparently rather tank the global economy before listening to."

[Term_the_Schmuck]

My, it's almost like productivity happens if you don't purposefully obstruct everything the President tries.

Impossible.

This surplus is clearly from the efforts of the courageous individuals fighting against the evil president's efforts to destroy America.

And if it's not, he probably stole that money. :V

[Icen]

Voting for Obama again myself. Because IMO fuck the republican candidates. They have never been good in my eyes.

[LouyieBlu]

I feel a can of shit has been opened up. This thread could turn very nasty, very fast. Well in my opinion, politics are fucked.

[Commiecomrade]

I don't always agree with his decisions but I can commend him for his motives. He certainly does right in a number of places.

[Roose Hurro]

In this thread, Roose claims that making a trillion dollar deficit disappear is as easy as causing said deficit

oh my god I am dying

Nope... I said Obama took a "trillion dollar" deficit and made it 15 trillion

Impossible.

This surplus is clearly from the efforts of the courageous individuals fighting against the evil president's efforts to destroy America.

And if it's not, he probably stole that money. :V

It's known as "creative" accounting. Because we still have this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, Attaman... who's to "blame" for the above? Are you also aware of the issues with Medicaid and the fact the US Postal Service is going broke?

[Zaraphayx]

I feel a can of shit has been opened up. This thread could turn very nasty, very fast. Well in my opinion, politics are fucked.

NOT IN A POLITICS THREAD.

CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD.

[CannonFodder]

Nope... I said Obama took a "trillion dollar" deficit and made it 15 trillion

The problem is the republicans don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy. They're kicking and screaming and will hear nothing of it. So you can't place all the blame on Obama.

[Ikrit]

how can obama be bad if he got his daughters a puppy?

bad people don't get others a puppy :c

[Shànwàng]

The fact the US Postal Service is going broke?

I take exception to this. You can thank George Bush and small government conservatives for that one too.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/up-un.../#.T7EnjOtYv10

PAEA law passed in 2006 requires prepayment to fund for health
benefits for future retirees. 10 year plan 2007-2016. About $5.5 Billion
required each year. This is a manufactured crisis via a poison pill.
The current $44 Billion in fund has enough to pay benefits for at least
20 years. A well designed attempt to privatize, sorry, I mean PROFITIZE,
the mail. First kill it, then take all the lucrative parts away.

The USPS is an efficient and fairly intelligent organization whose execs can tell that the writing on the wall is saying that the future of the post is parcel delivery and email will slowly phase out most lettered mail. Unfortunately, instead of being able to devote resources to accommodate the changing market the USPS has a boat anchor that prevents them from devoting any meaningful resources to programs other than funding the stupid pension plan. Not Obama's fault.

[Attaman]

It's known as "creative" accounting. Because we still have this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, Attaman... who's to "blame" for the above? Are you also aware of the issues with Medicaid and the fact the US Postal Service is going broke?

I find funny that you missed:
1) Postal Service gutting started in Bush presidency
2) Only about 25% of those articles take place during the Obama presidency
3) We see a similar jump during the Bush Presidency regarding debt (10 Apr 05 - Editorial: $7,782,816,546,352 in Debt (CBS News), 7 Oct 08 - Opinion: National Debt passes $10 trillion, no one notices (Huffington Post)), but Bush was not taking office / holding office in the middle of a major economic collapse.

I'm also curious as to why Democrats cutting Medicaid is bad because "Think of those who need it!", but Republicans cutting Medicaid (without proposing any alternatives or reform either, just "RAWR CUT SPENDING!") is good. And don't try to weasel out and say this is not how it went, it's exactly how it went when earlier in the Obama presidency there was a Democrat-proposed reform that would cut several hundred billion from Medicaid and funnel it back into other projects (such as a more effective Healthcare alternative), and the news was full of "Democrats hate Americans!" About 1-2 years later, Republicans try to cut a smidge less (I believe it was $600bil for the Democrat bill, $400bil for the Republican one) but without offering to put any of it back into Medicaid-supplementing programs, and suddenly it was "Democrats support bloated entitlement".

I'm also extremely curious how you can justify "Let's cut FDA funding" and "Propose Budget Bills specifically to vilify Democrats when they refuse" as being superior alternatives to "Close some tax loopholes for higher incomes to draw in another $1,000,000,000,000 over four year period".

[Roose Hurro]

The problem is the republicans don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy. They're kicking and screaming and will hear nothing of it. So you can't place all the blame on Obama.

As President, it is up to him to guide Congress, whether that Congress is controlled by Republican or Democrat. So, though you are right that not ALL the blame can be placed at Obama's feet, he is still the man in charge, and failed to control those who were kicking and screaming. Just as he failed to stop and has continued to spend money he doesn't have. And then we come to this:

I take exception to this. You can thank George Bush and small government conservatives for that one too.



The USPS is an efficient and fairly intelligent organization whose execs can tell that the writing on the wall is saying that the future of the post is parcel delivery and email will slowly phase out most lettered mail. Unfortunately, instead of being able to devote resources to accommodate the changing market the USPS has a boat anchor that prevents them from devoting any meaningful resources to programs other than funding the stupid pension plan. Not Obama's fault.

What George Bush and small government conservatives did, Barak Obama and his big government liberals can undo. But they didn't, did they...

I find funny that you missed:
1) Postal Service gutting started in Bush presidency
2) Only about 25% of those articles take place during the Obama presidency
3) We see a similar jump during the Bush Presidency regarding debt (10 Apr 05 - Editorial: $7,782,816,546,352 in Debt (CBS News), 7 Oct 08 - Opinion: National Debt passes $10 trillion, no one notices (Huffington Post)), but Bush was not taking office / holding office in the middle of a major economic collapse.

I'm also curious as to why Democrats cutting Medicaid is bad because "Think of those who need it!", but Republicans cutting Medicaid (without proposing any alternatives or reform either, just "RAWR CUT SPENDING!") is good. And don't try to weasel out and say this is not how it went, it's exactly how it went when earlier in the Obama presidency there was a Democrat-proposed reform that would cut several hundred billion from Medicaid and funnel it back into other projects (such as a more effective Healthcare alternative), and the news was full of "Democrats hate Americans!" About 1-2 years later, Republicans try to cut a smidge less (I believe it was $600bil for the Democrat bill, $400bil for the Republican one) but without offering to put any of it back into Medicaid-supplementing programs, and suddenly it was "Democrats support bloated entitlement".

I'm also extremely curious how you can justify "Let's cut FDA funding" and "Propose Budget Bills specifically to vilify Democrats when they refuse" as being superior alternatives to "Close some tax loopholes for higher incomes to draw in another $1,000,000,000,000 over four year period".

Sorry for quoting this whole thing without bolding, but... this sounds an awful lot like someone passing the buck. And where did I ever say I liked what either side was doing? I thought I made it clear I don't like either of the choices for President, as well as the fact I'm not happy with either party. Yeah, just call me a "party" pooper... they BOTH need to be flushed.

[Sai_Wolf]

As President, it is up to him to guide Congress, whether that Congress is controlled by Republican or Democrat. So, though you are right that not ALL the blame can be placed at Obama's feet, he is still the man in charge, and failed to control those who were kicking and screaming. Just as he failed to stop and has continued to spend money he doesn't have. And then we come to this:

It always makes me chuckle a little, when I read something like this. A lot of people have this misconception that the POTUS can just do whatever he wants, and if he doesn't get his way then he's not 'guiding' congress or 'doing his job right'. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE, etc, etc, etc.

You want to know where we got that sense of entitlement from? Bush. Never before has a POTUS used his executive power so gratuitously than in those 8 years. Now we've come to expect that, and it baffles the public when Obama refrains.

Let us not forget that when the Dems held majority, they resisted Obama on his policies. It's only been during the Republican's majority that they've rallied behind him. When Congress doesn't agree with you, the president, you're fucked. That's how our checks and balances system works, though there exists executive powers that allow signing of laws without congressional approval.

So, Roose, stop your bitching about what Obama 'should' have done, and look at it objectively. I don't agree with the man in all issues, but your assertion in that quote is ridiculous.

[CannonFodder]

So, Roose, stop your bitching about what Obama 'should' have done, and look at it objectively. I don't agree with the man in all issues, but your assertion in that quote is ridiculous.

I agree with Sai on this.

Also congress has become pretty much republicans vs democrats, us vs them. Obama is the leader of the democrats, but boehner has a boner he wants to bone the government with.

[Roose Hurro]

You want to know where we got that sense of entitlement from? Bush. Never before has a POTUS used his executive power so gratuitously than in those 8 years. Now we've come to expect that, and it baffles the public when Obama refrains.

Bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._United_States

Most of the nation's Founding Fathers expected the Congress, which was the first branch of government described in the Constitution, to be the dominant branch of government; they did not expect a strong executive.[57] However, the power of the presidency has shifted over time, and some today would describe the modern presidency as too powerful,[58][59] unchecked, unbalanced,[60] and "monarchist" in nature.[61] Critic Dana D. Nelson believes presidents over the past thirty years have worked towards "undivided presidential control of the executive branch and its agencies."[62] She criticizes proponents of the unitary executive for expanding "the many existing uncheckable executive powers – such as executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements – that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress."[62] Activist Bill Wilson opined that the expanded presidency was "the greatest threat ever to individual freedom and democratic rule."[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_..._United_States

President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a "bully pulpit" from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate. A president's power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.

As you can see, not only has the President's executive powers been growing for a long time, they've been growing since well before Bush took office, so Bush is not the one who started the whole steamroll. And Obama has certainly not done anything to try and reverse the still growing trend. This continued grab for power. And further, from the second quote, you can see how a President who is also a strong leader can be a force for change, be that change bad or good. If you go through the first Wiki, you'll also note how American government actually worked at the beginning, so you can see how much it's changed over time.

And even more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._United_States

The President of the United States of America (acronym: POTUS)[6] is the head of state and head of government of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_..._United_States

The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the Constitution, implied powers, powers granted by Acts of Congress, and enormous

influence and soft power from his position of leader of the United States.

http://scott-jackman.suite101.com/wh...esident-a62372

The Constitution is the document that forms the foundation of our government. It highlights the power that is taken from the citizens and given to the President. This is expressed power. According to Article II, Section 2, the President shall:

•be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services
•have the power to grant reprieves and pardons
•have the power to make treaties (with concurrence of the Senate)
•appoint Ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, and all other Officers of the United States
•appoint vacancies that may occur during the recess of the Senate
•receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers
•care that the laws be faithfully executed

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepre...aboutpotus.htm

The primary duty of the president of the United States is to make sure that all U.S. laws are carried out and that the federal government is run effectively.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-govern...ecutive-branch

The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.

I could continue to dig up bits, but:

Let us not forget that when the Dems held majority, they resisted Obama on his policies. It's only been during the Republican's majority that they've rallied behind him. When Congress doesn't agree with you, the president, you're fucked. That's how our checks and balances system works, though there exists executive powers that allow signing of laws without congressional approval.

So, Roose, stop your bitching about what Obama 'should' have done, and look at it objectively. I don't agree with the man in all issues, but your assertion in that quote is ridiculous.

Oh, yes, let's not forget! Soon as the Repubs took majority, suddenly the Dems "rallied"... which they weren't doing when they were in the majority. Doesn't that tell you something? And if you've read what I presented above, then you will also realize that the "checks and balances system" is broken... that a President can defy Congress, which Obama has done: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ment/?page=all

And more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1168276.html

Again more: http://gerarddirect.com/2012/04/28/o...to-terrorists/

Aaand yet more:

http://republic-mainstreet.blogspot....ing-acorn.html

http://4closurefraud.org/2012/01/04/...n-bureau-cfpb/

Are these the actions of a non-partisan President? Of a President who wishes to lessen the powers of the Executive Branch? Is this a President Congress has fucked? "Congress doesn't agree with you, hey, just defy it with raised middle finger."

So, I'll continue to bitch.

I agree with Sai on this.

Also congress has become pretty much republicans vs democrats, us vs them. Obama is the leader of the democrats, but boehner has a boner he wants to bone the government with.

From the above, I'd say Obama has a bigger boner than Boehner.

[Serbia Strong]

Holy linkspam batman!

From the above, I'd say Obama has a bigger boner than Boehner.

....What???

[Shànwàng]

Holy linkspam batman!

....What???

I'm sure if I read those links someone else's valuable opinion might mean something to this discussion.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

It always makes me chuckle a little, when I read something like this. A lot of people have this misconception that the POTUS can just do whatever he wants, and if he doesn't get his way then he's not 'guiding' congress or 'doing his job right'. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE, etc, etc, etc.

ITT, Roose asserts that yes, the president IS a dictator

[LuchadoreBob]

NDAA
National Defense Preparedness Act

He's for gay marriage now for votes in November. Im not saying he hasn't done some good stuff, I am saying that he's done some horrible stuff. Ill hate all politicians as long as money is a deciding factor in legislation.

[zachhart12]

I am saying that he's done some horrible stuff. Ill hate all politicians as long as money is a deciding factor in legislation.

Then you should never...vote...again? . Money will never stop...super pacs, all that shit will go on FOREVAR!

[Roose Hurro]

NDAA
National Defense Preparedness Act

He's for gay marriage now for votes in November. Im not saying he hasn't done some good stuff, I am saying that he's done some horrible stuff. Ill hate all politicians as long as money is a deciding factor in legislation.

You should really hate Obama then, considering he'll be pumping $1billion into his re-election campaign.

[Mayfurr]

You should really hate Obama then, considering he'll be pumping $1billion into his re-election campaign.

Well, that's what you get for having the best electoral system money can buy, where the measure of your campaign's value isn't the ideas you espouse but the amount of money you can raise - with absolutely NO limit on the latter.

It does seem rather obscene that in order to have any decent chance at running for US president AT ALL, candidates (on BOTH sides) have to raise the equivalent of the combined GDP of five African countries for ONE friggin' election campaign. Or to put it another way, the campaign spending of ALL New Zealand political parties put together in our last election would barely be visible as small change against just Romney's nomination campaign in his own party!

[Rilvor]

Well, that's what you get for having the best electoral system money can buy, where the measure of your campaign's value isn't the ideas you espouse but the amount of money you can raise - with absolutely NO limit on the latter.

It does seem rather obscene that in order to have any decent chance at running for US president AT ALL, candidates (on BOTH sides) have to raise the equivalent of the combined GDP of five African countries for ONE friggin' election campaign. Or to put it another way, the campaign spending of ALL New Zealand political parties put together in our last election would barely be visible as small change against just Romney's nomination campaign in his own party!

Gary Johnson, for example. I didn't hear anything about him until I discovered the information on my own, but by then he'd already given up.

[Sai_Wolf]

Holy linkspam batman!



....What???

Yeah. I figured Roose would reply with links out the ass. It doesn't pay to reply to him, as it'll just be a back and forth with him spamming links. I said my piece.