Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#773134 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a pipeline to import Canadian oil help with energy independence?
You do know that Canada is not part of this country, right?
Okay, let's simplify.

America is on a continent, we call call it the North "American" continent. So is Canada, which means for starters-neither is in or off the middle east.(cool huh?) Thus, instant reduction on dependency of middle east oil, because when things are not stable in the middle east, that poses fluctuations and risk for those nations dependent upon it. Like for example-Libya.
You're webbie search for the day-please research and then post back to us, what nations form the orginization called OPEC.

Then, research how many jobs would be opened up, due to KEYSTONE running from the top of the United States (aka the northern continental United states) from Canada (alos the northern continent) all the way down to the bottom of the United States.

That'll be enough for one day-we won't go in to the positive cause and effects on the American economy just yet.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012
YES to American energy independence!!!!
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#773136 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
posting this again.
All you right whiners want a surplus & fiscal responsibility.
We had it!!!!!
We were on track to have a 5.6 trillion dollar SURPLUS in 2012.
Then Bush took office in 2001.
In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[38][39]
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).
Several other articles and experts explained the causes of change in the debt position.
So there Tea Party members. We had what you wanted.
Look who took us off that path.
Paul Ryan, voting yes yes yes.
Republicans did this.
Well, you did good there-for a MINUTE DUHMMY.

Figured out the Saddam the catalyst thing there yet? And where did Saddam live?

Try not to overload the space between yer ears with TOO much data FACTS.

WTH we doing (bombing) in Libya?? Hillary sayz-we will not retreat, on issues involving "american interests and values" Hmmm.

KEYSTONE-YES we can have American energy independence, w/
ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!!!!!!!
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#773137 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
The difference is Clinton did not protest FOR the war.
WTH we doing in Libya? Big black flag..as in "viva usama".

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#773138 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a pipeline to import Canadian oil help with energy independence?
You do know that Canada is not part of this country, right?
Canada is friendly to the United States, idiot. That makes a huge difference.
Well, that was true until Obama and the Democrats enacted a law in 2009 that placed strict controls on the Canada - US border. And that's the reason the Prime Minister of Canada looked like he wanted to strangle Obama in the photo op after their meeting in 2009.
Imagine that. Obama and the Democrats seal the border with Canada and erase the border with Mexico.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#773139 Oct 16, 2012
To the annoyance of the Romney campaign, members of Washington’s reality-based community have a habit of popping up to point out the many deceptions in the campaign’s blue-sky promises of low taxes and instant growth.[...]

Even Fox News isn’t buying it. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said on Fox News Sunday that Mr. Romney would work out those details later with Congress. As the program’s moderator, Chris Wallace, pointed out, that’s like offering voters the candy of a 20 percent tax cut without mentioning the spinach they will have to eat.[...]

It is increasingly clear that the Romney tax “plan” is not really a plan at all but is instead simply a rhapsody based on old Republican themes that something can be had for nothing. For middle-class taxpayers without the benefit of expensive accountants, the bill always comes due a few years later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/mit...
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#773140 Oct 16, 2012
Jesus H Flynt Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
Have to put on a show for the uneducated religous kooks.Remember make a contribution and get the better seat.
How's that working out for dem dar feller constituants in chitcargo?

(what a flippin pathetic bunch of NO moral fiber what so ever)

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#773141 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a pipeline to import Canadian oil help with energy independence?
You do know that Canada is not part of this country, right?
... and you ran away from a discussion yesterday when you got caught mindlessly repeating the indoctrinated lies invented by the Democrats about Vietnam.

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
blah... blah... blah... indoctrinated lies invented by the Democrats... blah... blah... blah...

DBWriter educated reality-challenged Dave thusly:

We knew who he was, like we know who anyone of significance is. Ho Chi Minh didn't become a concern until he asked the Soviet Union to help him in the war he started against the French after he went to Paris and asked them to come back to Veitnam. The Soviet Union used this as an opportunity to expand their influence during the Cold War. He didn't become significant until the Soviet Union was supporting his invasions of South Vietnam. If he never invaded South Vietnam, he'd be about as significant as some other small-pond bullshit dictator with too big of an ego in the world.
Listen carefully to this. This is the key ingredient to understanding the US involvement in Vietnam:
As the Soviet Union increased its involvement in the invasions of South Vietnam, the US increased its involvement in the defense of South Vietnam.
That means the US involvement didn't become significant until after Ho Chi Minh asked the Soviet Union to petition the UN to divide the country.
Let's say that again:
Ho Chi Minh asked the Soviet Union to petition the UN to divide the country.
Immediately after the UN authorized the creation of North Vietnam and South Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh began invading South Vietnam.
This is exactly like how the proxy war in Korea started.
Now, idiot, here's the key:
As the Soviet involvement in the communist invasions of South Vietnam increased, the US involvement in the defense of South Vietnam increased.
US involvement didn't become direct until AFTER the UN divided the country.
The Soviet Union involvement was already at a significant level prior to this. In fact, as I told your ignorant ass previously, the communist used Soviet weapons at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, which was before the Soviet Union petitioned the UN to divide Vietnam into two separate countries.
The Cold War is a global war.
The Soviet Union is engaged in Vietnam.
The communists divide Vietnam into two countries.
The communists begin invading free South Vietnam.
The US assists South Vietnam.
The strategy of the United States during the Cold War was not to abandon our allies and run away.
You seem to be ignorant of all of this.
As for Nixon winning the war, the war was all but over in 1970 when the NVA ran away to avoid destruction when the US forces entered the Parrot's Beak in 1970. They waited until US ground forces left Vietnam in 1971 to launch the largest communist invasion of the war. They were defeated by the South Vietnamese WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM US GROUND COMBAT UNITS.
Now, I want you to begin your next post with one of the lies in the system of lies the Democrats invented about Vietnam:
"The South Vietnamese wouldn't fight for themselves."
Then tell us about how the communists defeated the South Vietnamese in 1972 when they mounted the single largest invasion of the war, the Easter Offensive of 1972.
... got a problem, don't you....
It seems the single largest invasion of the war wasn't successful, and there is no history of any US ground combat units fighting against the communists.
Was it aliens from space that beat the communists?
Or, was it the South Vietnamese?
Now, tell us how the Democrat-controlled congress of 1973 helped the ally of the United States after they defeated a massive communist invasion during the Cold War.
Nobama

Allentown, PA

#773142 Oct 16, 2012
Queen Moosebutt Claims Two More Victims.....

DELAWARE, Ohio - Two law enforcement officials were injured in a crash while part of a motorcade escort for First Lady Michelle Obama on Monday.

According to the Delaware County Sheriff's Office, the motorcycles crashed at about 4:15 p.m. along U.S. Route 36/ state Route 37 and South Old State Road.

It was unknown if the motorcyclists collided or were struck by another vehicle.

One Genoa Township police officer and one Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper were transported to Grant Medical Center in Columbus with unknown injuries.

Michelle Obama spoke at about 2:45 p.m. at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware.

U.S. 36/S.R. 37 was backed up because of the crash.

Obama was not injured in the crash, and her motorcade continued on after the crash.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#773143 Oct 16, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
... and you ran away from a discussion yesterday when you got caught mindlessly repeating the indoctrinated lies invented by the Democrats about Vietnam.
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
blah... blah... blah... indoctrinated lies invented by the Democrats... blah... blah... blah...
DBWriter educated reality-challenged Dave thusly:
We knew who he was, like we know who anyone of significance is. Ho Chi Minh didn't become a concern until he asked the Soviet Union to help him in the war he started against the French after he went to Paris and asked them to come back to Veitnam. The Soviet Union used this as an opportunity to expand their influence during the Cold War. He didn't become significant until the Soviet Union was supporting his invasions of South Vietnam. If he never invaded South Vietnam, he'd be about as significant as some other small-pond bullshit dictator with too big of an ego in the world.
Listen carefully to this. This is the key ingredient to understanding the US involvement in Vietnam:
As the Soviet Union increased its involvement in the invasions of South Vietnam, the US increased its involvement in the defense of South Vietnam.
That means the US involvement didn't become significant until after Ho Chi Minh asked the Soviet Union to petition the UN to divide the country.
Let's say that again:
Ho Chi Minh asked the Soviet Union to petition the UN to divide the country.
Immediately after the UN authorized the creation of North Vietnam and South Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh began invading South Vietnam.
This is exactly like how the proxy war in Korea started.
Now, idiot, here's the key:
As the Soviet involvement in the communist invasions of South Vietnam increased, the US involvement in the defense of South Vietnam increased.
US involvement didn't become direct until AFTER the UN divided the country.
The Soviet Union involvement was already at a significant level prior to this. In fact, as I told your ignorant ass previously, the communist used Soviet weapons at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, which was before the Soviet Union petitioned the UN to divide Vietnam into two separate countries.
The Cold War is a global war.
The Soviet Union is engaged in Vietnam.
The communists divide Vietnam into two countries.
The communists begin invading free South Vietnam.
The US assists South Vietnam.
The strategy of the United States during the Cold War was not to abandon our allies and run away.
You seem to be ignorant of all of this.
As for Nixon winning the war, the war was all but over in 1970 when the NVA ran away to avoid destruction when the US forces entered the Parrot's Beak in 1970. They waited until US ground forces left Vietnam in 1971 to launch the largest communist invasion of the war. They were defeated by the South Vietnamese WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM US GROUND COMBAT UNITS.
Now, I want you to begin your next post with one of the lies in the system of lies the Democrats invented about Vietnam:
"The South Vietnamese wouldn't fight for themselves."
Then tell us about how the communists defeated the South Vietnamese in 1972 when they mounted the single largest invasion of the war, the Easter Offensive of 1972.
... got a problem, don't you....
It seems the single largest invasion of the war wasn't successful, and there is no history of any US ground combat units fighting against the communists.
Was it aliens from space that beat the communists?
Or, was it the South Vietnamese?
Now, tell us how the Democrat-controlled congress of 1973 helped the ally of the United States after they defeated a massive communist invasion during the Cold War.
yawn
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#773145 Oct 16, 2012
No one disagrees that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, just as no one contests that throwing gasoline on a campfire will cause it to temporarily burn hotter. The more important question is whether such stimuli are sustainable - whether putting more wood on a fire or blowing on its embers might be a better way to keep it going than fueling it with "liquidity," just as whether it really makes sense (if ones goal is more jobs and economic growth in this country) to give finite tax dollars to wealthy investors who might plant it overseas as Mitt Romney has done with his Bain Capital investments in China.

If the problem with our economy is not inadequate demand, as Democrats say, but rather that the rich do not have enough money in their hands, as Republicans contend, then what were we to make of the record $2 trillion in free cash currently sitting idle with America's banks and corporations - a large portion of which I would submit is being sequestered so as to deliberately suppress the economy to Obama's disadvantage in order that America's plutocracy can get the compliant Romney puppet regime these oligarchs so obviously desire.[...]There is a reason Paul Ryan did not bring up Ronald Reagan's name in his debate with the Vice President last seek. It's because when Reagan jumped into the deep end of the supply-side pool he immediately found himself underwater as deficits began to rise - eventually increasing from $700 billion when Reagan came into office in 1980 to $3 trillion when he left.

History shows that right after passing the largest tax cut in American history, Reagan raised taxes eleven times throughout his term, including the largest corporate tax increase in history, which Joshua Green said would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."

http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/10/...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#773147 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
posting this again.
All you right whiners want a surplus & fiscal responsibility.
We had it!!!!!
We were on track to have a 5.6 trillion dollar SURPLUS in 2012.
Then Bush took office in 2001.
In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[38][39]
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).
Several other articles and experts explained the causes of change in the debt position.
So there Tea Party members. We had what you wanted.
Look who took us off that path.
Paul Ryan, voting yes yes yes.
Republicans did this.
... and that explains how the Republicans turned over all the purse strings of the government to the Democrats in January, 2007, and a declining 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollar deficit; and the Republicans turned over to the Democrats a total debt of 5 trillion dollars to the Democrats in January, 2007.
What have the Democrats done to that deficit since?
Did you say they increased it by ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT?
And what have the Democrats done to that total debt since?
Did you say they more than tripled it to the 16 trillion dollars it is tocay?

And what kind of plan do the Democrats have to reverse the economically suicidal course they put us on in January, 2007?

Did you say the Democrats don't even have a plan?
Did you say we haven't even had a budget since Obama took office?
Did you say the only two budgets Obama submitted to Congress in the 4 years he's been in office couldn't get even one goddam vote in the entire Congress?
Wouldn't you conclude after being informed of these facts that every Democrat in Congress thinks Obama is an idiot?

So, please tell us why the Democrats in Congress think Obama is a nutcase and they still put him on the ballot to run for another term.
Nobama

Allentown, PA

#773149 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
This is because you are stupid.
The Nafta Treaty was signed by Bush.
The Nafta legislation was signed by Clinton.
If you weren't such a moron, you would know the difference.
GFY
free trade is essential in the modern world.....NAFTA is not the problem....

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#773151 Oct 16, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
yawn
You ran away from this, too, after you got your ignorant ass kicked all over this board.
... yawn.
Nobama

Allentown, PA

#773152 Oct 16, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a pipeline to import Canadian oil help with energy independence?
You do know that Canada is not part of this country, right?
North American energy independence eliminates reliance on Middle East sources.....
Nobama

Allentown, PA

#773154 Oct 16, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
No one disagrees that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, just as no one contests that throwing gasoline on a campfire will cause it to temporarily burn hotter. The more important question is whether such stimuli are sustainable - whether putting more wood on a fire or blowing on its embers might be a better way to keep it going than fueling it with "liquidity"
sounds like the Obama/Bernanke policy of QE3......and Porkulus....
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#773155 Oct 16, 2012
Blaming Obama for George W. Bush’s Policies

Bruce Bartlett

Just to be clear, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the private research group that determines the starting and ending points of recessions, says the latest economic downturn began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

The report points to various causes of the recession as if they all just happened without the responsibility of one party or administration. As the report says,“No single party or administration is responsible for structural headwinds to growth.”

That is probably true. But what about cyclical changes in growth and unemployment? These are the ups and downs in the economy that occur around the trend rate of growth, which is determined by structural factors, as the report correctly asserts.

Factors affecting the business cycle are necessarily short-term in nature. They include Federal Reserve policy; international capital flows; industry-specific policies such as those affecting housing; fiscal policy and many others.

Such factors must necessarily have occurred after the previous recession, which ended in November 2001, according to the N.B.E.R. That’s the nature of business-cycle analysis; once a previous recession ends, the cyclical factors that gave rise to it are assumed to have been purged. The next recession will necessarily result from those factors that postdate the previous recession.

So whatever caused the 2007-9 recession had to have resulted from policies that the Bush administration was responsible for – either by initiating them or failing to act against them.

Space prohibits a full discussion of these issues, but certainly one factor had to be the squandering of budget surpluses that resulted from the policies of the Bill Clinton administration and their replacement by huge deficits under President Bush.

Mr. Bush inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from Mr. Clinton in 2000, which fell to $128 billion in 2001. By 2002, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $158 billion, which rose to $377 billion in 2003, and $413 billion in 2004. The deficit fell to $318 billion in 2005,$248 billion in 2006, and $161 billion in 2007, then shot up to $459 billion in 2008.

It should be noted as well that the fiscal 2009 budget was submitted to Congress by Mr. Bush in January 2008 and took effect on Oct. 1 of that year – almost four months before President Obama took office.

Thus the government was running historically large budget deficits long after the end of the 2001 recession. As I have previously documented, these deficits resulted to a large extent from legislated tax cuts during the Bush years.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/...

So how much revisionism will we have to suffer through in response to that? Some more right wing chain emails from 4 years ago?
Nobama

Allentown, PA

#773156 Oct 16, 2012
Jesus H Flynt Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
We get nice contaminated land in return.
just one solar power project will "contaminate" more land than the entire Keystone pipeline.......
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#773157 Oct 16, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You ran away from this, too, after you got your ignorant ass kicked all over this board.
... yawn.
You've forgotten "keel hauled" in a very big hurry.

Though I must say you always have the best wingnut posts of any of the wingnuts. At least every time some other wingnut sends you an email.
fred

Milford, CT

#773158 Oct 16, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
You've forgotten "keel hauled" in a very big hurry.
Though I must say you always have the best wingnut posts of any of the wingnuts. At least every time some other wingnut sends you an email.
The Kenyan communist campaign is a pack of lies.

OOPS: Obama:‘We Got Back Every Dime’ of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 Billion.“In fact, CBO reported that as of now $65 billion in TARP funds remain outstanding.”
fred

Milford, CT

#773159 Oct 16, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
To the annoyance of the Romney campaign, members of Washington’s reality-based community have a habit of popping up to point out the many deceptions in the campaign’s blue-sky promises of low taxes and instant growth.[...]
Even Fox News isn’t buying it. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said on Fox News Sunday that Mr. Romney would work out those details later with Congress. As the program’s moderator, Chris Wallace, pointed out, that’s like offering voters the candy of a 20 percent tax cut without mentioning the spinach they will have to eat.[...]
It is increasingly clear that the Romney tax “plan” is not really a plan at all but is instead simply a rhapsody based on old Republican themes that something can be had for nothing. For middle-class taxpayers without the benefit of expensive accountants, the bill always comes due a few years later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/mit...
65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama - YouTube http://ow.ly/evM5G

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min loose cannon 177,986
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min mdbuilder 46,605
IL Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in I... (Oct '10) 46 min Weneedchange 150
Amy 9-16 1 hr Mister Tonka 31
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 615
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 2 hr Blwlgo 1,923
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr D-U-H 49,807
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr cheluzal 98,213
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••