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
Cway

United States

#887573 Apr 13, 2013
By the way, I see Obama signed off on the National Defense Authorization Act a year ago.

Of course, it passed with the blessings of both parties.

Suffice to say, I'm going third party. The two major ones are both damned.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#887574 Apr 13, 2013
Deficit Hawks, Rejoice! We’re in a Golden Age of Deficit Reduction

There’s been no grand bargain. And you’ll never get deficit hawks to admit it. But in four years Obama has presided over a remarkable deficit reduction.

This is the Golden Age of deficit reduction. Really.

You wouldn’t know it if you listen to the professional deficit hawks, who have plowed hundreds of millions of dollars and countless op-eds into a fruitless effort to drive a grand bargain on taxes and spending. But it is. Policy is nobody’s idea of optimal. But nonetheless the gridlock of the past few years has produced spending restraint and higher tax rates. President Obama has proposed more of both in the budget he released on Wednesday. The sequester has just kicked in. And sustained economic growth, the miracle deficit cure, continues to work its magic. The expansion is now in its 46th month.

While the national debt mounts, I’ve noted that the primary deficit—the annual mismatch between revenues and expenditures—is melting away. Check out the March Treasury Monthly Statement, which was released Wednesday. In March 2013, the government collected $186 billion in revenues and spent $292.5 billion, for a deficit of about $106 billion. Pretty bad. But in March 2012, revenues were substantially lower and spending was significantly higher. Then, revenues were $171.2 billion and spending was $369.37 billion, for a deficit of $198 billion. From last March to this March, revenues rose 8 percent while spending fell 21 percent, and the monthly deficit shrank 46 percent.

Now, monthly numbers can move around—if a big tax payment comes in on March 31 one year and arrives on April 1 the next year, or if a benefits payment that went out on March 1, 2012, instead went out on Feb. 28, 2013. So it’s useful to look at the trend. The fiscal year is now six months old. And guess what? It shows more deficit melting. Through the first six months of this fiscal year, revenues are $1.196 trillion, up 12.5 percent from $1.063 trillion in the first six months of fiscal 2012. Meanwhile, the government has spent $1.797 trillion in the first six months of fiscal 2013, down 2.4 percent compared with the first six months of fiscal 2012. The deficit for the first half of the fiscal year is $600.5 billion, down 22.5 percent from $775 billion in the first half of fiscal 2012.

The last six months of the fiscal year are always good ones for the government, as tax payments tend to produce surpluses in April and again in September. Should the current trends continue for the rest of the year, we’ll be looking at an annual deficit of about $850 billion for fiscal year 2013, down from $1.089 trillion in fiscal 2012.(The Obama administration projects a $972 billion deficit for the current fiscal year, but it will surely be less than that.) Put another way, that’s $240 billion in deficit reduction in a single fiscal year—in the absence of a grand bargain. The reduction is even more impressive when you consider that in fiscal 2009, the deficit was more than $1.4 trillion. It’s hard to envision a time in recent history when the deficit has shrunk so much in dollar terms in the space of four years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#887575 Apr 13, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
And ended four months after Obama was in office.
Is this what I'm hearing from these loony libtards? 9/11 was 8 months into Bush's term so it's his fault but Obama has been in office over 4 years and the economy is Bush's fault. Libtards are SO stupid!!! The economy would better off if Obama did nothing. In fact I'm sure his policies and Obamcare are responsible for making it worse. With more to come.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#887577 Apr 13, 2013
The 'Emerging Democratic Majority' Isn't Assured—Unless the GOP Refuses to Change

....Perhaps the next GOP candidate’s rebranding effort will combine immigration reform with a Sister Souljah moment on cultural issues:“I believe in evolution, I support contraception, there’s no such thing as legitimate rape, I like science, I think climate change is real, and I’m willing to compromise.” But even if modest changes are sufficient to keep the GOP competitive in 2016, over the next two decades the party will face constant pressure to revise its positions. Just because the Democrats might not have a permanent majority doesn’t mean Republicans won’t need to change to avoid becoming a permanent minority.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112870/eme... #
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#887578 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know sh*t.
Yesterday you wondered how the state were going to pay 10% f the subsidies for people to buy insurance when the states don't contribute to that part
You were too uninformed to know the ACA is paid for.
You have no clue how the exchanges save buyers money.
Adding 30 million to the ranks of the insured does not ruin healthcare. What a dumb comment.
The Republicans had from 1993 through 2006 to do something about healthcare.
What did they do about it????????
Not a GD thing.
So if you don't like the way Democrats tackled it blame your buddy right whiners for doing NOTHNG.
The only thing you spew is shit, libtard.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#887579 Apr 13, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Yep. You notice his handler who is never more than ten feet away? Can't be letting him get any capitalistic idea.
With the cost of golf in China that kid could teach capitalism at college level. The club his father belongs to costs nearly $150,000 per year.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#887580 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know sh*t.
Yesterday you wondered how the state were going to pay 10% f the subsidies for people to buy insurance when the states don't contribute to that part
You were too uninformed to know the ACA is paid for.
You have no clue how the exchanges save buyers money.
Adding 30 million to the ranks of the insured does not ruin healthcare. What a dumb comment.
The Republicans had from 1993 through 2006 to do something about healthcare.
What did they do about it????????
Not a GD thing.
So if you don't like the way Democrats tackled it blame your buddy right whiners for doing NOTHNG.
ACA = oxymoron

RealDave = moron
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#887581 Apr 13, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
The 'Emerging Democratic Majority' Isn't Assured—Unless the GOP Refuses to Change
....Perhaps the next GOP candidate’s rebranding effort will combine immigration reform with a Sister Souljah moment on cultural issues:“I believe in evolution, I support contraception, there’s no such thing as legitimate rape, I like science, I think climate change is real, and I’m willing to compromise.” But even if modest changes are sufficient to keep the GOP competitive in 2016, over the next two decades the party will face constant pressure to revise its positions. Just because the Democrats might not have a permanent majority doesn’t mean Republicans won’t need to change to avoid becoming a permanent minority.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112870/eme... #
Perhaps that guy could challenge for POTUS but he can't make it through the primaries not to mention the debates.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#887582 Apr 13, 2013
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
What's lame is you closing your eyes and screaming "I CAN'T SEE! I CAN'T SEE! WHO TURNED OUT THE LIGHTS? OBAMA TURNED OUT THE LIGHTS! HE MAKES ME SO MAD...."
Another silly response.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#887584 Apr 13, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
<quoted text>Then go get a job at pre-recession wages. No, the recession is still going on so stop lying. Or, do you think as idiot Obama does "we do not have a job problem, we have a skills and education problem and you need to go get more education in a different area." Duh, Obama, the hardest hit sector in the economy was banking, mortgage, loans and real estate, so mr. president you are suggesting that people no longer need housing, loans and finances? You are wrong, what Obama wants is for us all to become part of NAFTA and get out in the fields and pick strawberries, lemons, grapes and mangoes.
On the official records it ended May 2009. Four months after Obama entered office. So no, I do not feel the left can claim this continuing mess of an alleged recovery-that hasn't happened- can be blamed on anyone but the person who is in office.
Stoneman

Boise, ID

#887585 Apr 13, 2013
News flash: Lord Obama pays 18% INCOME TAX!

So while he preaches FAIRNESS, how rich people need to be soaked for more, HE PAYS AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

There is nothing preventing him from paying more. He could simply mail Uncle Sam a check.

Another news flash: Dickweed Biden contributed LESS THAN 2% TO CHARITY in 2012. So good ol' Joe, all caring and thoughtful for the poor and working class, can't seem to break loose more than a few hundred bones WHEN IT'S HIS MONEY.

Liberals. Hypocrites.
nobamaredux

Philadelphia, PA

#887586 Apr 13, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>In this area the depressed have the option of committing suicide in a gun range with a rented pistol. We had another one yesterday.
One broke but very clever fellow brought his own bullet to a pawn shop and asked to look at a pistol then loaded it and blew his brains out.
Suicide and abortion are moral equivalents.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#887587 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The recession started 15months before Obana took office.
We do't blame Bush or 9-11. We blame him for Iraq.
RealDave Bush’s recession ended June, 2009 now if Clinton would have done his Job and taken out Bin Laden 9/11/Iraq would have never happen!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#887588 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know sh*t.
Yesterday you wondered how the state were going to pay 10% f the subsidies for people to buy insurance when the states don't contribute to that part
You were too uninformed to know the ACA is paid for.
You have no clue how the exchanges save buyers money.
Adding 30 million to the ranks of the insured does not ruin healthcare. What a dumb comment.
The Republicans had from 1993 through 2006 to do something about healthcare.
What did they do about it????????
Not a GD thing.
So if you don't like the way Democrats tackled it blame your buddy right whiners for doing NOTHNG.
conservative Heritage Foundation is one that originally wrote was is now known as the ACA(obamacare) since it was modeled after Romneycare which was modeled after the Heritage Foundations "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D from 1989.

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M.
October 1, 1989

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assu...

Young People Under Obamacare: Cash Cow For Older Workers

The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states. That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect. And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012...
nobamaredux

Philadelphia, PA

#887589 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it indicate anything other than being armed for militia purposes.
If they were separate ideas, that comma would have been a period.
I took guns out of it to eliminate the frothing-at-the-mouth response it typically brings from a rabid right.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the initial phrase is merely introductory.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#887591 Apr 13, 2013
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
As I told Sappy Saphire, the amount of time the plot took is irrelevant.
The man on duty has the responsibility of stopping it.
Bush was warned by Tenet and did nothing.
As for the Bush recession, it was in full swing before Obama took over. 500,000 jobs being lost each month during Bush's final quarter. Banks in crisis and government debt doubled from 5.7 to 11.4 trillion during his two terms.
And you would have us believe Obama came into office with the nation in some kind of economic paradise?
Try the snake oil pitch on the lame-brains of your party. It won't work anywhere else.
Cway… Your continuous Alibis/excuses just elevates Obama’s incompetents and removes all doubt or perception’ He’s In Over His Head’
nobamaredux

Philadelphia, PA

#887593 Apr 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
In the ACA is a provision where al health insurance policies that people would "BUY ( note the word buy - in case you were not aware, it means not free) would include contraceptive services with no co-pay.
So, what is the discount for those who don't want contraceptive services?

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#887594 Apr 13, 2013
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> Where in the constitution does it say man & man & man shall have the same rights as man & woman in regards to marriage? When it speaks on equal rights, it's speaking on the rights of individuals, not the rights of groupings. The constitution also says,"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed apon, yet it's illegal for felons to possess firearms. It's becoming more & more clear Dupont, you want to get rid of the whole damn thing, because you're arguing for more gun laws. Now I'm not against the newly proposed gun laws, but I think it's rather hypocritical of you to use the constitution to push gay marriage, but argue in opposition of the 2nd amendment when it already restricts a group of tax passing citizen their right guaranteed by the constitution. I brought that up because, the majority of felons in America are black, due to unequal rights for blacks to start off with. Now we both know that is fact so, why the big push for gays equal rights, over the rights of others? I don't see you exalting the same energy to get blacks their equal rights guaranteed by the constitution!
Marriage of any type was not mentioned in the Constitution, Loser, and prohibiting felons from owning guns is covered in the Fifth Amendment. "This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.

Marriage

In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point."

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#887595 Apr 13, 2013
nobamaredux wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what is the discount for those who don't want contraceptive services?
The same as the discount for all those policy holders who didn't want to pay for your Viagra all those years.
nobamaredux

Philadelphia, PA

#887596 Apr 13, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, maybe we can get Ryan White to check in__or not!
Many if not most of the hemopheliacs of that era died before life extending drug treatments were discovered and many were infected by sharing needles. Try keeping it real for once.
Ryan White was an innocent victim, unlike the AIDS-infected homosexual who sold the blood resulting in White's death.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 min positronium 50,184
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 26 min Rogue Scholar 05 184,278
Amy 1-25-14 1 hr Sublime1 2
South Side man faces charges in Englewood shooting 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
3 injured in daytime shootings Saturday 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr PEllen 98,971
Abby 1-25 2 hr PEllen 1
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 15 hr Chooch 73
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots