Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1263855 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#831061 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol, the fiscal cliff seems to be the only act of Congress that cut government spending. The Democrats have only one plan, to increase the size of government until the government dominates everything. If they create a catastrophe in doing so, that will give them justification for using the government to take control of everything.
Boehner won't do anything but give the Democrats everything they want. That's why Nancy Pelosi asked Boehner to arrance the selection of Speaker in November, and not as it should be done on the first day of the next Congressional session. Boehner ordered the 112th Congress to select the Speaker for the 113th Congress.
We have to let the fiscal cliff happen. If we don't, then there's absolutely no reason to believe the insanity we saw the past 4 years, to include 2 years with a Republican House, will end.
There's no way to pay for the government the Democrats are creating. It's an impossibility. There's just not enough earnings to be taxed.
The fiscal cliff cuts government spending. The fiscal cliff raises taxes. We need both to happen.
And, we also need to increase the number of people paying taxes. 47 percent getting a free ride just don't sound right.
Now, don't allow any more debt. We can't afford any more debt. Every dollar we borrow brings us closer to the inevitable collapse perpetual borrowing causes.
Well, if the Democrats only plan is to increase the size of government and the Republicans only track record is increasing the size of government don't you feel pretty stupid voting for either one if what you want is smaller government?

lp.org
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#831062 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an ignorant dupe.
I know you and Obama have never read the Constitution, so you really don't understand how government works here. I'll give you an education.
Congress is the sole authority on revenue and spending.
If you bother to look at the real-world data, you will find the insane spending beginning in January, 2007. Coincidentally, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007.
If you need to see actual figures, here's the only reference you need:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
All you have to do now is learn something about American history and what happened when, for instance, in January, 2007, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of the government when the annual deficit was 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollars, and the total debt had increased from 5 to 8 trillion dollars between the years 2001 and 2007.
I've crammed the facts up your ass so many times, it's a wonder there was room for these facts.
The GOP's Lost Year In The Fox News Bubble

.....the right-wing bubble was a comfortable place to inhabit if you thought of Obama as an historic monster, or if you required to be reminded of that fact many time a day, every day of the year. The bubble is the place where followers for four years were fed the feel-good GOP narrative about how Obama's presidency was a fiasco, that the Americans suffered a severe case of 2008 buyer's remorse, and that the president's re-election defeat was all but pre-ordained.

The one-part-panic, one-part-denial message may have cheered obsessive Obama-haters, but it didn't prepare conservatives for the reality of the campaign season.

And it cost the GOP a lost year in the Fox News bubble.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/30/the-g...

cram all you want. your 'message' is for losers. the 'winners' are just laughing at you while you pretend that the right wing BS we've all put up with for 4 years really matters.

only an idiot/conservative revisionist would think that the 6 years before the Dems took Congress matters naught. we were in the shit the minute Bush took the WH. one year in and we're borrowing money from China because of the tax cuts when a smart man should have looked at Reagan and figured out the correct way to fix the mistake......

RAISE TAXES!!

and when was the last time that raising taxes hurt the economy? eh mister info?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#831063 Dec 30, 2012
Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2...

sorry. no leap of faith.
impeach Congress

Morrow, GA

#831064 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Get over yourself.
In case you haven't figured it out, dumbass, Boehner is a Democrat.
What needs to happen is government spending gets cut. The fiscal cliff does that. And, taxes need to increase. The fiscal cliff does that.
What fucking problem do you idiots have with that?
Now, all we need to do is increase the number of people paying taxes. 47 percent of the population mooching off the other half won't survive, no matter what kind of government or economy you have.
You moochers are going to have to get some patriotism going and get a job, and start paying your fair share of what the government costs.
... you really didn't prepare yourself to get a real job, did you?
Well, go get fitted for a leaf blower, or learn to wash dishes. There just isn't any money left to carry your lazy ass anymore. You're going to have to do like eveyone already paying for everything you have - get a fucking job and pay your fair share of taxes.
Oh My God! Can you ALL see what I mean about the ignorance ass level of these dip sticks? LOL Here bubba... FACT CHECK!

John Andrew Boehner is the 61st and current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. A member of the Republican Party, he is the U.S. Representative from Ohio's 8th congressional district, serving since 1991. The district includes several rural and suburban areas near Cincinnati and Dayton, and a small portion of Dayton itself.

Makes the rest of what you had to say sorta "Not Worth Reading" You related to Mitt Romney's lying ass?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#831065 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an ignorant dupe.
I know you and Obama have never read the Constitution, so you really don't understand how government works here. I'll give you an education.
Congress is the sole authority on revenue and spending.
If you bother to look at the real-world data, you will find the insane spending beginning in January, 2007. Coincidentally, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007.
If you need to see actual figures, here's the only reference you need:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
All you have to do now is learn something about American history and what happened when, for instance, in January, 2007, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of the government when the annual deficit was 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollars, and the total debt had increased from 5 to 8 trillion dollars between the years 2001 and 2007.
I've crammed the facts up your ass so many times, it's a wonder there was room for these facts.
How many times does it have to be proven to you? Are you really that thick?

Below is a list of the amount spending increased over the previous year (in millions of dollars) from 2002-2007. See that? The last year with a Republican President and Republican Congress netted a spending increase of $183 billion. Dems take Congress in 2007 and the increase drops to $73 billion, less than half of the average increases every year the GOP held the trifecta. You've been shown this before, how can you continue to come on here and lie through your teeth like that? When your lies are exposed do you suppose that's helping your cause any? Don't bother with your Treasury BS, we're talking about spending. That may fool the stupid but it won't fool me.

148,048
149,005
132,942
179,116
183,093
73,636

Table 1.1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historic...
impeach Congress

Morrow, GA

#831066 Dec 30, 2012
DBwriter...put down your pen...unless you want to continue writing FAIRY TALES.

What world are you living in where the speaker of the house is now a Democrat. Never mind...go stick your dumb ass head back in the sand and try not to respond to my posts. Clearly you are not qualified. LOL

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#831067 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an ignorant dupe.
I know you and Obama have never read the Constitution, so you really don't understand how government works here. I'll give you an education.
Congress is the sole authority on revenue and spending.
If you bother to look at the real-world data, you will find the insane spending beginning in January, 2007. Coincidentally, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007.
If you need to see actual figures, here's the only reference you need:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
All you have to do now is learn something about American history and what happened when, for instance, in January, 2007, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of the government when the annual deficit was 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollars, and the total debt had increased from 5 to 8 trillion dollars between the years 2001 and 2007.
I've crammed the facts up your ass so many times, it's a wonder there was room for these facts.
Oh, I see. The old "percent GDP trick". That's true, in late 2007 spending as percent GDP started skyrocketing in the 4th quarter but as I showed you in the previous post, spending went up considerably less than it did the five prior years.

Did you hear about the Great Recession? The one that started in 4Q07? Spending didn't go up, GDP dropped as it does in a recession which raises the spending/GDP ratio.

Or was that too much math thinking for you?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#831072 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if the Democrats only plan is to increase the size of government and the Republicans only track record is increasing the size of government don't you feel pretty stupid voting for either one if what you want is smaller government?
lp.org
Where the f**k do you get your information from?

Perhaps you equate the necessary cost of fighting a global war the Arab jihad declared with increasing the size of government. Perhaps you are just as ignorant of how government works as Obama. My guess is, neither of you have ever read the Constitution and know just how government works. It works like this:
All government programs begin in Congress.
Let's take a look at what happened after January, 2007, when the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government:

From 2001 to 2007 government spending went from 1.86 to 2.73 trillion dollars. During a war.

Democrats take control of government spending.

From 2007 to 2012 government spending went from 2.73 to 3.80 trillion. After the war.

What the hell have you clowns been spending the money on? One thing's for sure, we haven't gotten anything from it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spend...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#831073 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see. The old "percent GDP trick". That's true, in late 2007 spending as percent GDP started skyrocketing in the 4th quarter but as I showed you in the previous post, spending went up considerably less than it did the five prior years.
Did you hear about the Great Recession? The one that started in 4Q07? Spending didn't go up, GDP dropped as it does in a recession which raises the spending/GDP ratio.
Or was that too much math thinking for you?
Percent of GDP....
I'm thinking you don't know the difference between GDP and GNP, and the Democrats changed the method of calculating the economy in the 60s to make the economy look better than what it was (is).
It's the government that raises the spending to GDP ratio. There isn't any low of economics that makes that happen. Some argue that, because government is actually an expense on the economy, constantly increasing the percentage of GDP the expense of government, there are inevitable corrections, the so-called "great recession" being just a naturally occurring event when government spending (consumption of capital, thus starving the economy of capital) continually increases.
The most logical thing to do when revenue decreases is decrease spending. Our government did the exact opposite. As a result, today the clowns in the White House are promoting expanding a government that is already beyond the ability of the economy to pay for.
You can't get more ignorant than that.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#831074 Dec 30, 2012
The Democrats want to raise taxes. The fiscal cliff raises taxes.
So, just what the hell don't the Democrats like about the fiscal cliff?

... it also cuts spending. That's poison to the Democrats.
GhostofRaygun

Russellville, KY

#831075 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if the Democrats had passed a budget in 3 years, others on Capital Hill wouldn't be cranky they're not making it easier on anyone now either.
What was the name of the other President that failed to have 3 budgets passed?????????? Reagan.
GhostofRaygun

Russellville, KY

#831077 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
The Democrats want to raise taxes. The fiscal cliff raises taxes.
So, just what the hell don't the Democrats like about the fiscal cliff?
... it also cuts spending. That's poison to the Democrats.
It raises taxes on 100%. They only want the 2%top Rich to go back to the 1996 rates when America was growing 22 million new jobs.
Raising SOME of the rich taxes is "poison" to Repubs. But don't be too upset. Mitt and thousands more like him will still have their 15% tax rate.
.
JEB

Pompano Beach, FL

#831078 Dec 30, 2012
GhostofRaygun wrote:
<quoted text>It raises taxes on 100%. They only want the 2%top Rich to go back to the 1996 rates when America was growing 22 million new jobs.
Raising SOME of the rich taxes is "poison" to Repubs. But don't be too upset. Mitt and thousands more like him will still have their 15% tax rate.
.
Good; then maybe leeches like you will be inspired to actually work for a living and pay some taxes yourself. LOL
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#831079 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an ignorant dupe.
I know you and Obama have never read the Constitution, so you really don't understand how government works here. I'll give you an education.
Congress is the sole authority on revenue and spending.
If you bother to look at the real-world data, you will find the insane spending beginning in January, 2007. Coincidentally, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007.
If you need to see actual figures, here's the only reference you need:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
All you have to do now is learn something about American history and what happened when, for instance, in January, 2007, the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of the government when the annual deficit was 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollars, and the total debt had increased from 5 to 8 trillion dollars between the years 2001 and 2007.
I've crammed the facts up your ass so many times, it's a wonder there was room for these facts.
lol! You mean like how cons took control in 2010 and we're still headed down that same path?

amazing!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#831082 Dec 30, 2012
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
only time will tell
Greece is the alternative to budget control.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#831083 Dec 30, 2012
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Lindsey Graham On Fiscal Cliff:'Hats Off To The President. He Won.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/lind...
Lindsey Graham will have difficulty winning re-nomination.

However, the problem occurs when Obama wins a political battle that loses the long-term financial war for the U.S.

“A PROUD”

Since: Dec 12

Kentuckian

#831084 Dec 30, 2012
How many of you fellow posters can answer this question?

Are WE a Republic
or a Democracy ?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#831085 Dec 30, 2012
lily boca raton fl wrote:
What's happening in Washington right now is pathetic. When you think about what the revolutionary generation did, what the civil war generation did, what the World War II generation did -- we're asking not to bankrupt our children and we've got a shambolic, dysfunctional process," Brooks said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Most of the blame still has to go to the Republicans," he continued. "They've had a brain freeze since the election. They have no strategy. They don't know what they want. They haven't decided what they want."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/davi...
If leftwing radical lily from the boca Kosher ghetto had a shred of intellectual honesty, she would post the rest of the same story:

"But Brooks also reserved some of his criticism for the president, stating that Obama has at times "governed like a visitor from a morally superior civilization," appearing to undermine the very point he'd made about the value of the high moral fiber of previous generations just seconds earlier.

"He comes in here and he'll talk to [John] Boehner, he won't talk to the other Republicans," Brooks said. "He hasn't built the trust. Boehner actually made a pretty serious concession,$800 billion in tax revenues, probably willing to go up on rates. But the trust wasn't there. If the president wants to get stuff done over the next four years, it's got to be about a lot more than just making the intellectual concessions."
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#831086 Dec 30, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
The Clinton Tax Challenge for Republicans
Republicans are adamant that taxes on the ultra-wealthy must not rise to the level they were at during the Clinton administration, as President Obama favors, lest economic devastation result. But they have a problem – the 1990s were the most prosperous era in recent history. This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade.
....According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993,$203 billion in 1994,$164 billion in 1995,$107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.
.....This has created a problem for Republicans, leading to economic revisionism.
Last year, the Republican anti-tax activist Grover Norquist asserted that the boom of the 1990s resulted from the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, because business people and financial markets somehow knew this would lead to a cut in the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax was in fact cut in 1997. But the boom and the improvement in the budget deficit long predated that event.
In July, Charles Kadlec, a Forbes columnist and author of the book “Dow 100,000”(New York Institute of Finance, 1999), insisted that it is a “myth” that the economy prospered under President Clinton’s policies. He offers no actual evidence for this assertion except to say that the economy would have done even better under Reagan-type policies. Like Mr. Norquist, he attributes anything good that happened in the 1990s to the Republican Congress, which did not take office until 1995.
Last week, the investor Edward Conard, author of a recent book glorifying the ultra-wealthy, addressed the Republicans’ Clinton problem in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal. He said that the boom of the 1990s was the result of Internet-driven growth and that President Clinton was just lucky that it happened on his watch.
Maybe so, but Mr. Conard left unexplained why the budget went from a large deficit to a large surplus simply because of the Internet or why the big tax cuts on the rich he favors failed to raise growth one iota in the 2000s.
I would not argue that tax increases are per se stimulative. It all depends on circumstances. But it is clear from the experience of the 1990s that they can play a very big role in reducing the budget deficit and are not necessarily a drag on growth. And the obvious experience of the 2000s is that tax cuts increase the deficit and don’t necessarily do anything for growth. Those arguing otherwise need to make a much better case than they have so far.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/...
Democrats have complained for years about the Bush tax cuts, but now insist that the same tax cuts should be extended except for the evil rich, admitting that the Bush tax cuts are a good idea.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#831087 Dec 30, 2012
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you think it is odd that some of the richest people on the planet are Liberals. I mean you have to go outside the top 10 richest people in the world down to the Walton family (11) before you get into the greedy republican supporters list.
So it seems to me this label of Liberals with their hand out is exactly the opposite. Of the top 10 richest ppl in the world they are known for their giving more than their taking.
So its another example of the warped universe you righties live in, which distorts reality in order to push a message which is total BS.
If you are a billionaire it's a lot easier to dismiss higher taxes than if you are earning $250K by working 80 hours a week while trying to pay college tuition for your children.

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Dr Guru 194,550
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr ritedownthemiddle 54,358
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 3 hr VeganTiger 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr Mister Tonka 100,298
Ask Amy July 31 8 hr Julie 6
abby7-31-15 11 hr mrs gladys kravitz 5
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 13 hr Mark 52,069
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages