How much vacation time do you get?

[thevoice]

6 vacations in 20 months? Sounds a bit excessive. Even left wing tools like Lettermen are turning against him.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/25/letterman-knocks-obama-for-latest-vacation/

[student4ever]

His ability to do everything almost exactly the same as Bush has been a bit mind-boggling.

[Stuck in Seattle]

His ability to do everything almost exactly the same as Bush has been a bit mind-boggling.
He takes heat and loses ground whenever he moves away from Bush's policies, true...but he's already golfed more rounds in 2 years than Bush in 8. Yet Bush took more heat for it.

[thevoice]

His ability to do everything almost exactly the same as Bush has been a bit mind-boggling.

So where is this "change" that he promised? Or was that just the bumper sticker to get elected?

[BustNChops]

I hope he keeps up the vacation schedule and encourages the Hosue and Senate to extend theirs. At least they can stop screwing the country over. I think they have caused enough damage this year. Given them the rest of it off!

Hope and Change! Yes, we can!

[student4ever]

So where is this "change" that he promised? Or was that just the bumper sticker to get elected?

To counter your question with a question, if he hasn't changed anything, what has he done to piss you (and other republicans) off? How does that outrage work when you contradict yourself like that?

Seriously though, he hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off, but he (and democrats in general) caved on the health care bill and the economic reform bill wasn't nearly as strong as it should have been, both of which I was definitely on board with.

I have to give credit to the Republicans for being able to stick together well enough to keep him from being able to actually change anything, thereby keeping the economic situation from getting better and ensuring that they would gain seats in the midterms. After all, it is more about the politics than it is what's best for the country.

[Posturedoc]

To counter your question with a question, if he hasn't changed anything, what has he done to piss you (and other republicans) off? How does that outrage work when you contradict yourself like that?

Seriously though, he hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off, but he (and democrats in general) caved on the health care bill and the economic reform bill wasn't nearly as strong as it should have been, both of which I was definitely on board with.

I have to give credit to the Republicans for being able to stick together well enough to keep him from being able to actually change anything, thereby keeping the economic situation from getting better and ensuring that they would gain seats in the midterms. After all, it is more about the politics than it is what's best for the country.

Yep....about how I feel too.

+1

[NevadaConvert]

Yep....about how I feel too.

+1

Obama & the Dems have the House and the Senate, yet he can't get everything he wants passed (even though a lot has gone through). So to say that he hasn't been able to put his stamp on things is bogus. And to blame the GOP for anything else he can't get through is pretty lame because there's enough Dems that don't want his legislation that it doesn't pass. What do you think most Dems did when Bush tried to pass something?

Parties will obviously disagree based on philosophy. But when you have decent numbers of your own party voting against you, that's who you blame.

And when Obama's stimulus plans, etc. haven't worked, you go back to the blame Bush thing. So everything is the GOP's fault. It's time to take some responsibility for something! Crap.

[Packfan11]

To counter your question with a question, if he hasn't changed anything, what has he done to piss you (and other republicans) off? How does that outrage work when you contradict yourself like that?

Seriously though, he hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off, but he (and democrats in general) caved on the health care bill and the economic reform bill wasn't nearly as strong as it should have been, both of which I was definitely on board with.

I have to give credit to the Republicans for being able to stick together well enough to keep him from being able to actually change anything, thereby keeping the economic situation from getting better and ensuring that they would gain seats in the midterms. After all, it is more about the politics than it is what's best for the country.

I think what our KOH buddy was referring to is the yearning for change the dems so desparately sought after George W. The fact that nothing's changed and the dems are finding out that politics.....is politics. It doesn't matter what party talking head is in the white house. Until a 3rd party emerges to break up this stalemate nothing will get done.

And thanks for the credit you're giving Repubs - we didn't have a conservative president in the white house, and we didn't have any majority in either the house or senate. I'll take the party credit, but it took MANY dem defectors to stall any legitimate legislation this past year and a half. The repubs didn't do it (or undo it) alone.

And to the court of public opinion - these vacations seem a bit excessive don't you think? If I was the most powerful man on the planet I would be using every minute I had to push my agendas.......on second thought, let him vacation all he wants. :D

[Stuck in Seattle]

Huge majority in the House and 60 senators yet the Republicans are the bad guys. Too funny. Billions and billions pissed away as payoffs to organized labor and the public employees that got him elected instead of things that would help floundering private industry. Subsidizing failure and punishing the rest...but it's all the Republicans fault as they are playing politics. As usual, the only solution to the failure of Dem policies is to throw more and more money at it. :rolleyes:

[wolf_chatter]

He has aged 5 years or more already and being the President of the USA is the toughest job in the world. They all deserve vacations and a lot of em.

You act like all he has to do is sit at a desk all day pushing papers. The guy works more in 1 week than most people do in 2.5 weeks. So why don't you quit worrying about it.

And deal with serious issues like the Economy etc... it was a stupid story when Bish was president and its a stupid story now. As far as I am concerned the President should get 40-60 days off a year.

[Nosebleed]

He has aged 5 years or more already and being the President of the USA is the toughest job in the world. They all deserve vacations and a lot of em.

You act like all he has to do is sit at a desk all day pushing papers. The guy works more in 1 week than most people do in 2.5 weeks. So why don't you quit worrying about it.

And deal with serious issues like the Economy etc... it was a stupid story when Bish was president and its a stupid story now. As far as I am concerned the President should get 40-60 days off a year.

I don't think Obama would enjoy a cut in his vacation days.

Rick

[student4ever]

Huge majority in the House and 60 senators yet the Republicans are the bad guys. Too funny. Billions and billions pissed away as payoffs to organized labor and the public employees that got him elected instead of things that would help floundering private industry. Subsidizing failure and punishing the rest...but it's all the Republicans fault as they are playing politics. As usual, the only solution to the failure of Dem policies is to throw more and more money at it. :rolleyes:

The House doesn't have any problem passing stuff even with defectors. You're wrong on the senate though. There are 57 democrats and 2 independents. That equals 59 and not 60. Even if you count Olympia Snowe as a Democrat, then you have to count Ben Nelson as a Republican and you still can't get to 60. You make it sound like everything should just get railroaded through with the numbers that are there, but while the numbers are close, if the republicans stick together, then they can stop anything from actually happening. Like I said, credit the Republicans for blocking everything with the power they do have. It has been an impressive spectacle to watch and I'll be interested to see if the strategy of voting no on almost everything proposed by a democrat continues after this upcoming election, when the democratic caucus is only projected to maintain 52 or 53 seats. Will one more two year stint of saying no guarantee a takover of the senate or will the country get sick of it and tell them to get off their asses and actually do something?

As for your characterization of democrats' solution, I'm pretty sure that's republicans' solution when they're in power too. It's just the direction the money is being thrown in that changes.

[thevoice]

It is the lousiest job in the world. However, he wasn't sentenced to it. He applied for it, ran for it, and won it. He wanted it. He asked for it. Anybody that even thinks about taking that job is either completely nuts or so egotistical and power hungry. I think all of them fall in the latter category. I just have a really hard time hearing the WH say "buckle down" and "hang in there" when all politicians (Repub or Dem) are not doing either. And for the record S4E, I am not a republican. I'm a registered independent.

[student4ever]

And for the record S4E, I am not a republican. I'm a registered independent.

Apologies then. For the record, I'm registered Non-Partisan. I'm not as left as I come off on this board, but there are so many conservatives on this board that this place could turn into an echo chamber very easily, which would really suck. Besides, Republicans have been doing everything they can to distance themselves from my views for the past few years, starting with the "real America" crap. If the republicans could find somebody like Kenny Guinn on a national scale, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.

[wolf_chatter]

It is the lousiest job in the world. However, he wasn't sentenced to it. He applied for it, ran for it, and won it. He wanted it. He asked for it. Anybody that even thinks about taking that job is either completely nuts or so egotistical and power hungry. I think all of them fall in the latter category. I just have a really hard time hearing the WH say "buckle down" and "hang in there" when all politicians (Repub or Dem) are not doing either. And for the record S4E, I am not a republican. I'm a registered independent.

But again the stress they must feel is nothing you or I have ever or will ever know on a day to day basis. I agree that it takes a special type of ego to want to be president but it doesn't take away from the fact that they are human and need down time.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want the job.

Teachers get more time off. I think Fireman do as well when its all added up. Hell my wife gets 6 weeks and she just a drug rep!

Again I thought it was a stupid story when Bush got hit with it and its a stupid story now. How many days did Reagan take, Carter or Abe Lincoln for that matter? Who gives a rats ass. even if you hate the guy, you cant deny he deserves time off from the pressure cooker.

[BustNChops]

To counter your question with a question, if he hasn't changed anything, what has he done to piss you (and other republicans) off? How does that outrage work when you contradict yourself like that?

I take it more as a jab at the man we call president. He liked throwing his barbs in his well rehearsed teleprompter speeches. However, he didn't realize what a difficult and crappy job it was to actually be president. Now that is is in the position, he can barely wear the suit.

He was unqualified for the job and now many of the independents and those on the left are seeing that. His rating numbers keep dropping big time. Pundits are starting to say his message is incoherent. He has spearheaded policies that will have a much longer negative affect than anything that Bush ever did. Hopefully Obamacare won't even fully become law. So much more detail and unintended consequences are being reported. His revamp of the financial markets, but not touching Freddie and Fannie?!?! How about his virtual take over of student loans and pushing for more and more and backing them with federal money?!?! The debts are now larger than credit card debt and defaulting at an incredibly high rate! (That is the next collapse on the horizon.) How about unemployment rate at 9.5%+ nationally - getting worse, not better? How about the housing collapse getting worse, not better? He has been on the job long enough that today's problems and lack of fixes are his.

I don't put the cause of all of this on this plate. Much is the result of 20+ years of bad leadership in Washington. However, he wanted the job and the job is his. He thought he was America's savior and was going to "fundamentally change America for the better". He has brought change, but not for the better. To be certain, I don't know which Republican I would want president right now - perhaps Romney given his business background it may have been real applicable given his mindset. America does not have leaders in the Washington that are looking to do the tough work and look for the long term good. It is all feel good today and forget about how it is paid for. >> Edit: I am talking about both parties here.

[Stuck in Seattle]

The House doesn't have any problem passing stuff even with defectors. You're wrong on the senate though. There are 57 democrats and 2 independents. That equals 59 and not 60. Even if you count Olympia Snowe as a Democrat, then you have to count Ben Nelson as a Republican and you still can't get to 60. You make it sound like everything should just get railroaded through with the numbers that are there, but while the numbers are close, if the republicans stick together, then they can stop anything from actually happening. Like I said, credit the Republicans for blocking everything with the power they do have. It has been an impressive spectacle to watch and I'll be interested to see if the strategy of voting no on almost everything proposed by a democrat continues after this upcoming election, when the democratic caucus is only projected to maintain 52 or 53 seats. Will one more two year stint of saying no guarantee a takover of the senate or will the country get sick of it and tell them to get off their asses and actually do something?

As for your characterization of democrats' solution, I'm pretty sure that's republicans' solution when they're in power too. It's just the direction the money is being thrown in that changes.
As for the solutions...money's always involved, but the only problem with any Dem program is: we didn't spend enough. I completely disagree that that's the Rep solution or position.

Senate: IIRC correctly he had 59 dems and Bernie Sanders the socialist for the first year +, so yes they should have been able to pretty much do what they wanted. But I would add that the President's roll is limited...though when Bush was the President he took the heat for everything that went wrong regardless of his level of control...including the things that the Dem congress screwed up in his last two years. Now, with a bigger majority than Bush ever had, it's that damn minority party that's the problem.

Just as you are more conservative than you come across on the board, I like rhetorically poking things with sharp sticks; not because I necessarily believe it, but because the inconsistencies need to be pointed out. If two years ago the President was an all powerful being responsible for every ill in the country...why is it different for the new guy?

[wolf_chatter]

Huge majority in the House and 60 senators yet the Republicans are the bad guys. Too funny. Billions and billions pissed away as payoffs to organized labor and the public employees that got him elected instead of things that would help floundering private industry. Subsidizing failure and punishing the rest...but it's all the Republicans fault as they are playing politics. As usual, the only solution to the failure of Dem policies is to throw more and more money at it. :rolleyes:

Broken fu900in record SiS.

Answer me this: When was the last president that didn't spend more and dig us into more debt than the last one?

That would Clinton!!! Oh my wasnt he a Democrat. from 93-97 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 66.1% to 65.4% a decrease by .07% then from 97-2001 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 65.4% to 56.4% a whopping 9% drop.

Now lets see how your Cut spending Republican Presidents did shall we?

Reagan: 81-85 Start Debt/GDP 32.5% End Debt 43.8% OH SIT!!! Thats a 11.3% JUMP!
Reagan: 85-89 Start Debt/GDP 43.8% End Debt 53.1% UH_OH!!! Thats a 9.3 % JUMP!
Bush: 89 -93 Start Debt/GDP 53.1% End Debt 66.1% HOLY SCHMIT!!! A 15% Jump!!!
Bush: 01-05 Startd Debt/GDP 56.4% End Debt 63.5% WOOPS!! A 7.1% JUMP!!
Bush: 05 -09 Start Debt /GDP 63.4% End Debt 93.4% HOLY FUG!!!! A 20% JUMP!!!

So instead of the same tired ass bullship line your are taught to spout by your puppet masters. Why don't you crack a book and learn something on your own?

Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility! Never have been and never will be. So can it about Obama's spending. The guys you voeted in didn't do any better.

Oh by the way. Carter - 3.3% in his one term. Ouch! So for the record. National Debt DECLINED let me rewrite that so you doesn't miss it. DECLINED during Carter and Clinton years and INCREASED YES THATS INCREASED DURING REAGAN and BUSH1 and BUSH2 years.

By the way the last true Fiscally Responsible Republican ...... Eisenhower! He was great with -11% and 5% in his terms!

Mayhaps you should quit being the party of Reagan and become the party of Dwight! He was a much better man and President... thats for sure.

[BustNChops]

Teachers get more time off. I think Fireman do as well when its all added up.

Quick math... if its right:

Teachers (summer off) get = 1/2 June, July, August + 10-days = 85days +/-

Firefighters on average work 3 days per week (24-hr shift). It varies between the 1 on 2 off vs 2 on 4 off or other changes I haven't heard of. So quick math says... 156 days on and 208 days off +/-, not including vacation. might be worth a dbl check on my math though.

Damn! I knew I should have gone that route out of high school!

[wolf_chatter]

I take it more as a jab at the man we call president. He liked throwing his barbs in his well rehearsed teleprompter speeches. However, he didn't realize what a difficult and crappy job it was to actually be president. Now that is is in the position, he can barely wear the suit.

He was unqualified for the job and now many of the independents and those on the left are seeing that. His rating numbers keep dropping big time. Pundits are starting to say his message is incoherent. He has spearheaded policies that will have a much longer negative affect than anything that Bush ever did. Hopefully Obamacare won't even fully become law. So much more detail and unintended consequences are being reported. His revamp of the financial markets, but not touching Freddie and Fannie?!?! How about his virtual take over of student loans and pushing for more and more and backing them with federal money?!?! The debts are now larger than credit card debt and defaulting at an incredibly high rate! (That is the next collapse on the horizon.) How about unemployment rate at 9.5%+ nationally - getting worse, not better? How about the housing collapse getting worse, not better? He has been on the job long enough that today's problems and lack of fixes are his.

I don't put the cause of all of this on this plate. Much is the result of 20+ years of bad leadership in Washington. However, he wanted the job and the job is his. He thought he was America's savior and was going to "fundamentally change America for the better". He has brought change, but not for the better. To be certain, I don't know which Republican I would want president right now - perhaps Romney given his business background it may have been real applicable given his mindset. America does not have leaders in the Washington that are looking to do the tough work and look for the long term good. It is all feel good today and forget about how it is paid for.

How do you fix it?

You guys understand that there is no fix.. right? You can't stop unemployment. You can't create jobs (unless the Govt pays for it) you can't stop prices from dropping on houses. This is a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, the market dictates whats happening.

The President can't do a ferking thing to make it any better although he can make it worse. Obama couldn't print enough money to stabalize the economy much less even slow the fall down. We are in a bigtime recession or depression and Romney wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it.

I love how many republicans say Govt. get out of my life! Govt. get out of the business of American Businesses. Than when the stuff hits the fan! President SAVE ME! Save my job! Create JOBS for me! Wheres my bailout? Wheres my tax break? Gimme gimme gimme!!!

[wolf_chatter]

Quick math... if its right:

Teachers (summer off) get = 1/2 June, July, August + 10-days = 85days +/-

Firefighters on average work 3 days per week (24-hr shift). It varies between the 1 on 2 off vs 2 on 4 off or other changes I haven't heard of. So quick math says... 156 days on and 208 days off +/-, not including vacation. might be worth a dbl check on my math though.

Damn! I knew I should have gone that route out of high school!

Chicks dig Firefighters!!!

[Stuck in Seattle]

Broken fu900in record SiS.

Answer me this: When was the last president that didn't spend more and dig us into more debt than the last one?

That would Clinton!!! Oh my wasnt he a Democrat. from 93-97 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 66.1% to 65.4% a decrease by .07% then from 97-2001 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 65.4% to 56.4% a whopping 9% drop.

Now lets see how your Cut spending Republican Presidents did shall we?

Reagan: 81-85 Start Debt/GDP 32.5% End Debt 43.8% OH SIT!!! Thats a 11.3% JUMP!
Reagan: 85-89 Start Debt/GDP 43.8% End Debt 53.1% UH_OH!!! Thats a 9.3 % JUMP!
Bush: 89 -93 Start Debt/GDP 53.1% End Debt 66.1% HOLY SCHMIT!!! A 15% Jump!!!
Bush: 01-05 Startd Debt/GDP 56.4% End Debt 63.5% WOOPS!! A 7.1% JUMP!!
Bush: 05 -09 Start Debt /GDP 63.4% End Debt 93.4% HOLY FUG!!!! A 20% JUMP!!!

So instead of the same tired ass bullship line your are taught to spout by your puppet masters. Why don't you crack a book and learn something on your own?

Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility! Never have been and never will be. So can it about Obama's spending. The guys you voeted in didn't do any better.

Oh by the way. Carter - 3.3% in his one term. Ouch! So for the record. National Debt DECLINED let me rewrite that so you doesn't miss it. DECLINED during Carter and Clinton years and INCREASED YES THATS INCREASED DURING REAGAN and BUSH1 and BUSH2 years.

By the way the last true Fiscally Responsible Republican ...... Eisenhower! He was great with -11% and 5% in his terms!

Mayhaps you should quit being the party of Reagan and become the party of Dwight! He was a much better man and President... thats for sure.
Yawn...this again? Debt declined under Clinton when he got a Rep congress and senate and from the dotcom bubble (that began to burst late in his last term). But keep beating that drum.

[Stuck in Seattle]

How do you fix it?

You guys understand that there is no fix.. right? You can't stop unemployment. You can't create jobs (unless the Govt pays for it) you can't stop prices from dropping on houses. This is a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, the market dictates whats happening.

The President can't do a ferking thing to make it any better although he can make it worse. Obama couldn't print enough money to stabalize the economy much less even slow the fall down. We are in a bigtime recession or depression and Romney wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it.

I love how many republicans say Govt. get out of my life! Govt. get out of the business of American Businesses. Than when the stuff hits the fan! President SAVE ME! Save my job! Create JOBS for me! Wheres my bailout? Wheres my tax break? Gimme gimme gimme!!!
You're kidding right? This isn't close to a free market economy. And you sure don't improve the economy by beating up on the private sector and creating so much uncertainty about the future that businesses are afraid to spend and afraid to hire. The government can only create the conditions for a strong economy. Right now our government has done nothing to improve those conditions...quite the opposite.

[student4ever]

As for the solutions...money's always involved, but the only problem with any Dem program is: we didn't spend enough. I completely disagree that that's the Rep solution or position.

Senate: IIRC correctly he had 59 dems and Bernie Sanders the socialist for the first year +, so yes they should have been able to pretty much do what they wanted. But I would add that the President's roll is limited...though when Bush was the President he took the heat for everything that went wrong regardless of his level of control...including the things that the Dem congress screwed up in his last two years. Now, with a bigger majority than Bush ever had, it's that damn minority party that's the problem.

Just as you are more conservative than you come across on the board, I like rhetorically poking things with sharp sticks; not because I necessarily believe it, but because the inconsistencies need to be pointed out. If two years ago the President was an all powerful being responsible for every ill in the country...why is it different for the new guy?

Re: Paragraph 1--Republicans throw money through tax breaks, particularly to the "rich" and big business. It's the same amount of money getting thrown, it's just the direction that changes.

Re: Paragraph 2--The difference between the two is that when the republicans were in control, they were much more effective at getting democrats to vote with them. Of course, the flip side to that is that the democrats were much worse at staying together as one voting block. Overall, I think things generally work out pretty well because of the republicans' strength to stand as one and the democrats inability to do the same. We never move too far left at any given time, and the country is already pretty far right, meaning that the republicans are more interested in keeping the status quo than moving the country further right, which works out just fine for me. It is when the republicans try to take the country on a big right shift that I will get really concerned.

Re: Paragraph 3--Pointing out inconsistencies is what got me going in this thread in the first place. When Bush took tons of vacation, liberals blasted him and conservatives defended him tooth and nail. When Obama did it, conservatives blasted him for it and liberals defend him tooth and nail. I thought the inconsistency in the argument was amusing so I pointed it out. You'll note that I never took a side on the vacations. As for your final question, if you'll recall, I said at the time that I didn't particularly have anything against Bush, and in much the same way, I don't particularly have anything against Obama either. I thought Bush was an idiot, but I didn't vote for a Democrat in either of his elections. My vote for Obama had more to do with McCain's dramatic shift to the right, and as outlined in the previous paragraph, dramatic shifts to the right concern me. Will I vote for Obama again? There's no way to know that yet. Will the republicans tell me I'm not a "real American" again? For their sake, I hope not. That didn't work out for them last time.

[BustNChops]

You're kidding right? This isn't close to a free market economy. And you sure don't improve the economy by beating up on the private sector and creating so much uncertainty about the future that businesses are afraid to spend and afraid to hire. The government can only create the conditions for a strong economy. Right now our government has done nothing to improve those conditions...quite the opposite.

+1 - my man SiS is on his game today.

[wolf_chatter]

Yawn...this again? Debt declined under Clinton when he got a Rep congress and senate and from the dotcom bubble (that began to burst late in his last term). But keep beating that drum.

dealing with it you push it aside.

The truth is your vaunted repulican ideals of less govt. less spending isn't true and your know it. Its a BS spin that you guys like to trot out every time a Dem spends a dime. Fact is your party spends as much as the Dems do.

[wolf_chatter]

+1 - my man SiS is on his game today.

Obama is causing any of this? More tax cuts won't create jobs. DEMAND creates jobs and the govt. cant create demand. The USA relys on the entire world to buy our products, services etc... and when the rest of the world is in the shitter, well so are we.

[wolf_chatter]

You're kidding right? This isn't close to a free market economy. And you sure don't improve the economy by beating up on the private sector and creating so much uncertainty about the future that businesses are afraid to spend and afraid to hire. The government can only create the conditions for a strong economy. Right now our government has done nothing to improve those conditions...quite the opposite.

Name me one bill that the president has signed that has destabalized the economy? What should he do? What can the House, Senate and Pres. do to get us out of this mess?

Why are you a Less Govt. Republican looking to the Govt to fix it?

How about a solution from you? All I see is gum flapping and jibber jabber.

I like your idea on healthcare and I wish it would come true.

So please in your clearly superior wisdom pray tell.. how do we fix the economy.

and if you say tax cuts your full of crap and have no idea waht your talking about.

[renowiggum]

Seriously though, he hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off, but he (and democrats in general) caved on the health care bill and the economic reform bill wasn't nearly as strong as it should have been, both of which I was definitely on board with.

Though it might get lost in all the, shall we say hearty debate, and though it's going back a couple of pages:

I'm particularly curious to know what you think should have ben in the economic reform bill. I'm also unsure if you mean the original stimulus bill (which I'd consider economic), or the financial reform bill that was just passed.

On the stimulus, I think Obama could have gotten more if he had wanted it. He specifically wanted to keep the price tag on it under $1 trillion, presumably for political reasons, but I'd lay any blame for an undersized stimulus at his feet, not the Republicans at that point in time.

On the financial reform bill... well, I'm not sure that there's much in there at all that (1) addresses the problems that were revealed in the recent crisis, or (2) that anyone has any great ideas how to fix things. I think the bill was thousands of pages of "we have to look like we're doing something" that will end up having little to no positive effects, but will end up imposing additional costs on companies that had nothing to do with the crisis to begin with.

Particularly if you are referring to the latter, I'd much rather have had no bill than what we got. I'm all for fixing regulatory problems as they are identified, but I think that it bears more analysis and less politics than the "reform" bill could really accomplish. What did we do? Create new agencies, new oversight boards, when one of the key problems we have already is a profusion of boards, such that there is too much decentralized oversight. Seriously? We noticed there was a fire burning out of control, and decided to douse it with gasoline?

[BustNChops]

Obama is causing any of this? More tax cuts won't create jobs. DEMAND creates jobs and the govt. cant create demand. The USA relys on the entire world to buy our products, services etc... and when the rest of the world is in the shitter, well so are we.

Already posted this above:

"He has spearheaded policies that will have a much longer negative affect than anything that Bush ever did. Hopefully Obamacare won't even fully become law. So much more detail and unintended consequences are being reported. His revamp of the financial markets, but not touching Freddie and Fannie?!?! How about his virtual take over of student loans and pushing for more and more and backing them with federal money?!?! The debts are now larger than credit card debt and defaulting at an incredibly high rate! (That is the next collapse on the horizon.) How about unemployment rate at 9.5%+ nationally - getting worse, not better? How about the housing collapse getting worse, not better? He has been on the job long enough that today's problems and lack of fixes are his."

I will also add to Obama adding to the instability of the Gulf region and the BP oil spill by instituting a drilling moratorium and then suing to try and keep it. That moratorium has the ability to do more damage to the region (economically) than the oil spill. This the position Seantor Landrieu's office - not just my own opinion.

Want more?

Our company grew 40% Y/Y for the 2nd quarter. We could and would like to hire someone, however we are holding off given the uncertainty. We don't want to hire someone and then have to lay them off. I'm not saying that is 100% Obama's fault. I would say that he is contributing greatly to its instability.

[student4ever]

Though it might get lost in all the, shall we say hearty debate, and though it's going back a couple of pages:

I'm particularly curious to know what you think should have ben in the economic reform bill. I'm also unsure if you mean the original stimulus bill (which I'd consider economic), or the financial reform bill that was just passed.

On the stimulus, I think Obama could have gotten more if he had wanted it. He specifically wanted to keep the price tag on it under $1 trillion, presumably for political reasons, but I'd lay any blame for an undersized stimulus at his feet, not the Republicans at that point in time.

On the financial reform bill... well, I'm not sure that there's much in there at all that (1) addresses the problems that were revealed in the recent crisis, or (2) that anyone has any great ideas how to fix things. I think the bill was thousands of pages of "we have to look like we're doing something" that will end up having little to know positive effects, but will end up imposing additional costs on companies that had nothing to do with the crisis to begin with.

Particularly if you are referring to the latter, I'd much rather have had no bill than what we got. I'm all for fixing regulatory problems as they are identified, but I think that it bears more analysis and less politics than the "reform" bill could really accomplish. What did we do? Create new agencies, new oversight boards, when one of the key problems we have already is a profusion of boards, such that there is too much decentralized oversight. Seriously? We noticed there was a fire burning out of control, and decided to douse it with gasoline?

I was talking about the financial reform bill. Most stories I read at the time said that those on Wall Street were disappointed in that it didn't really do anything and they wanted much more specific regulation and I agree with them. Basically that bill didn't do much of anything when it could have been a stabilizing force.

[wolf_chatter]

Already posted this above:

"He has spearheaded policies that will have a much longer negative affect than anything that Bush ever did. Hopefully Obamacare won't even fully become law. So much more detail and unintended consequences are being reported. His revamp of the financial markets, but not touching Freddie and Fannie?!?! How about his virtual take over of student loans and pushing for more and more and backing them with federal money?!?! The debts are now larger than credit card debt and defaulting at an incredibly high rate! (That is the next collapse on the horizon.) How about unemployment rate at 9.5%+ nationally - getting worse, not better? How about the housing collapse getting worse, not better? He has been on the job long enough that today's problems and lack of fixes are his."

I will also add to Obama adding to the instability of the Gulf region and the BP oil spill by instituting a drilling moratorium and then suing to try and keep it. That moratorium has the ability to do more damage to the region (economically) than the oil spill. This the position Seantor Landrieu's office - not just my own opinion.

Want more?

The Gulf I agree with you 100% on. I find it ridiculous that the Dems are using one catastrophy (and a big one no doubt) as leverage to stop drilling. I hate our dependence on oil but understand at this point aint squat we can do about it but drill our own.

As far as the student loans. He has been in office for 1.5 years. How many loans is his bill responsible for so far? hell they haven't even come due yet on 95% of them or more. You have no idea what it will or won't due until a few years down the road. How is the current economy his doing? He didn't create the problem as President did he? You honestly think any person or persons could have staved off this recession?

Freddie and Fanny - I wish he would have let them fail. Same goes for Wallstreet.

Housing - how and the hell is this his fault? He cant do a thing to make your house more valuable and to think otherwise is crazy.

[BustNChops]

The Gulf I agree with you 100% on. I find it ridiculous that the Dems are using one catastrophy (and a big one no doubt) as leverage to stop drilling. I hate our dependence on oil but understand at this point aint squat we can do about it but drill our own.

As far as the student loans. He has been in office for 1.5 years. How many loans is his bill responsible for so far? hell they haven't even come due yet on 95% of them or more. You have no idea what it will or won't due until a few years down the road. How is the current economy his doing? He didn't create the problem as President did he? You honestly think any person or persons could have staved off this recession?

Freddie and Fanny - I wish he would have let them fail. Same goes for Wallstreet.

Housing - how and the hell is this his fault? He cant do a thing to make your house more valuable and to think otherwise is crazy.

Gulf: See you aren't so ***easonable it is intolerable! :D

Student Loans: Yes, you are 100% correct that student loans under him have not come due and won't for a number of years. What he has done though this basically made it a Government program now and it is federally backed (all his doing and I believe it is in the neighbor hood of 90%). There is already talk about student loan forgiveness programs. Loans that weren't government guaranteed now are. Student loans are not earased in BK. Diving economy. Debt larger than credit card debt. Add it up...

Economy: Obama did not create this mess. I agree that not a single person could have prevented it. Nor did Bush create is completely. It is decades in the making. BUT, he is the man at the helm and is not steering the ship in a direction to get out. He talks a big game and backs it up with very little. The policies he has in place are doing more damage than good. He is responsible for the continuing decline. Economy is getting worse not better and that is on him.

Housing: Again, not his fault. It is programs put in place by Senate/House 10-years ago +/- and the unforeseen consequences bit us. As an FYI, many of the same business minds and practices are now steering the college loans. However, after 1 - 2 - 3 -4 - and working on what now, 6 programs to fix the housing mess and it is still in a spiral. Again, that is on him and his administration. They have bandaids... they have feel good programs, but nothing with teeth and nothing that is working. Ultimately, I have about "20%" equity in my house today. I anticipate in 3-years that I will have 0% equity, but the market will finally have hit the very bottom. Obama's policies/programs are ensuring that to be true. You don't try the same stupid program of giving banks $1,500 to complete a short sale. What kind of carrot is that?!?! Threaten cramdown's on the 1st! Put some teeth to program! All I see is lipstick on a pig. The Government should have stayed out of bailouts and this mess and said "it will be a difficult few years, but we will get out of this".. instead they throw money at bad programs that fix nothing and delay the inevitable.

Crap.... it's 10:20. I have to get some work done!

[wolf_chatter]

Gulf: See you aren't so ***easonable it is intolerable! :D

Student Loans: Yes, you are 100% correct that student loans under him have not come due and won't for a number of years. What he has done though this basically made it a Government program now and it is federally backed (all his doing and I believe it is in the neighbor hood of 90%). There is already talk about student loan forgiveness programs. Loans that weren't government guaranteed now are. Student loans are not earased in BK. Diving economy. Debt larger than credit card debt. Add it up...

Economy: Obama did not create this mess. I agree that not a single person could have prevented it. Nor did Bush create is compeltely. It is decades in the making. BUT, he is the man at the helm and is not steering the ship in a direction to get out. He talks a big game and backs it up with very little. The policies he has in place are doing more damage than good. He is responsible for the contiuing decline. Economy is getting worse not better and that is on him.

Housing: Again, not his fault. It is programs put in place by Senate/House 10-years ago +/- and the unforeseen consequences bit us. As an FYI, many of the same business minds and practices are now steering the college loans. However, after 1 - 2 - 3 -4 - and working on what now, 6 programs to fix the housing mess and it is still in a spiral. Again, that is on him and his administration. They have bandaids... they have feel good programs, but nothing with teeth and nothing that is working. Ultimately, I have about "20%" equity in my house today. I anticipate in 3-years that I will have 0% equity, but the market will finally have hit the very bottom. Obama's policies/programs are ensuring that to be true. You don't try the same stupid program of giving banks $1,500 to complete a short sale. What kind of carrot is that?!?! Threaten cramdown's on the 1st! Put some teeth ta program! All I see is lipstick on a pig.

SL: Conjecture at this point. Bring it up in 8-10 years when what happens actually happens.

Economy: Yes he is at the helm and yes the buck stops with him. Problem is too big to be "fixable" there isn't a damn thing he can (house and senate either) to fix it. It must work its self out and it will take 10 years or more is my guess.

Housing: I agree that his programs don't have enough teeth but honestly how does he force and Industry to do whats probably right morally but bad business economically. Talk about communism creeping in to the US!!! If he put so many teeth into the bill that he effectively forced banks to redo millions of loans then all those commie posters would be more accurate. He shouldn't have done a thing. until everyone loses their house that will lose their house... the true bottom will not be hit and the economy will not begin a real recovery.

We keep artificially inflating the bubble and we need to let it bust for good. Come hell or highwater.

[NMpackalum]

Funny that all the high priority bills,( financial reform, health care reform, economic stimulus, mortgage reform) that gets passed in this administration have the same criticisms. Large expenditures for little overall effect :Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac still bleeding billions with similar lending and underwriting policies. Health insurance reform that covers everyone but no increased access for anyone not to mention inevitable rate increases for paying customers to cover the non paying customers among other consequences. Lets move on to Cap and Trade and card check so we can spend more on meaningless legislation and keep ignoring the real important ones.

[BustNChops]

Here is ObamaCare. How great does this look?!?

“For Americans, as well as Congressional Democrats who didn’t bother to read the bill, this first look at the final health care law confirms what many fear, that reform morphed into a monstrosity of new bureaucracies, mandates, taxes and rationing that will drive up health care costs, hurt seniors and force our most intimate health care choices into the hands of Washington bureaucrats,” said Brady, the committee’s senior House Republican. “If this is what passes for health care reform in America, then God help us all.”

LINK (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=a4c3d652-5120-4a2e-9d3c-10ef1331253e&type=.jpg

[BustNChops]

Seems a lot like selling toothbrushes:

The kids filed back into class Monday morning. They were very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on productive salesmanship.

Little Sally led off: "I sold girl scout cookies and I made $30," she said proudly, "My sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success."

"Very good," said the teacher.

Little Jenny was next:

"I sold magazines," she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events."

"Very good, Jenny," said the teacher..

Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn.

The teacher held her breath ...

Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467," he said.

"$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"

"Toothbrushes," said Little Johnny.

"Toothbrushes!" echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"

"I found the busiest corner in town," said Little Johnny, "I set up a Dip & Chip stand and gave everybody who walked by a free sample."

They all said the same thing, "Hey, this tastes like dog $hit!"

Then I would say, "It is dog shit. Wanna buy a toothbrush?"

"I used the governmental approach of giving you something Shitty for free, and then making you pay to get the Shitty taste out of your mouth."

[renowiggum]

Broken fu900in record SiS.

Answer me this: When was the last president that didn't spend more and dig us into more debt than the last one?

That would Clinton!!! Oh my wasnt he a Democrat. from 93-97 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 66.1% to 65.4% a decrease by .07% then from 97-2001 he dropped the Start Debt/GDP from 65.4% to 56.4% a whopping 9% drop.

Now lets see how your Cut spending Republican Presidents did shall we?

Reagan: 81-85 Start Debt/GDP 32.5% End Debt 43.8% OH SIT!!! Thats a 11.3% JUMP!
Reagan: 85-89 Start Debt/GDP 43.8% End Debt 53.1% UH_OH!!! Thats a 9.3 % JUMP!
Bush: 89 -93 Start Debt/GDP 53.1% End Debt 66.1% HOLY SCHMIT!!! A 15% Jump!!!
Bush: 01-05 Startd Debt/GDP 56.4% End Debt 63.5% WOOPS!! A 7.1% JUMP!!
Bush: 05 -09 Start Debt /GDP 63.4% End Debt 93.4% HOLY FUG!!!! A 20% JUMP!!!



Out of curiosity, why use the Debt/GDP ratio? That's a poor measure of absolute, or even inflation-adjusted spending - particularly when GDP is being affected by a bubble (Larger denominator = smaller ratio, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with actual debt).

I know that some analysts like to use it as a proxy for debt relative to the size of the economy, but particularly if you are talking about the percent change over 4-year increments, there's more reasons not to use it than reasons to use it.

But until I hear Republicans that want to cut taxes talking about how much spending they will cut to offset those tax cuts, I refuse to take them seriously on matters of fiscal responsibility. If they want to talk deficits, I'm game. If they want to talk tax cuts, I'll at least listen. But for the Republican leadership to wail about the deficit and then say with a straight face "you don't have to offset tax cuts with spending cuts," well, I simply can't respect that.

[renowiggum]

Here is ObamaCare. How great does this look?!?

“For Americans, as well as Congressional Democrats who didn’t bother to read the bill, this first look at the final health care law confirms what many fear, that reform morphed into a monstrosity of new bureaucracies, mandates, taxes and rationing that will drive up health care costs, hurt seniors and force our most intimate health care choices into the hands of Washington bureaucrats,” said Brady, the committee’s senior House Republican. “If this is what passes for health care reform in America, then God help us all.”



That is an awesome chart, even though I'm sure they added everything they possibly could to it - like a line showing that the Secretary of Health and Human services reports to the President (gasp! who knew!)

[wolf_chatter]

Out of curiosity, why use the Debt/GDP ratio? That's a poor measure of absolute, or even inflation-adjusted spending - particularly when GDP is being affected by a bubble (Larger denominator = smaller ratio, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with actual debt).

I know that some analysts like to use it as a proxy for debt relative to the size of the economy, but particularly if you are talking about the percent change over 4-year increments, there's more reasons not to use it than reasons to use it.

But until I hear Republicans that want to cut taxes talking about how much spending they will cut to offset those tax cuts, I refuse to take them seriously on matters of fiscal responsibility. If they want to talk deficits, I'm game. If they want to talk tax cuts, I'll at least listen. But for the Republican leadership to wail about the deficit and then say with a straight face "you don't have to offset tax cuts with spending cuts," well, I simply can't respect that.

it probably isnt the best tool for the job but it does show that the party of "fiscal" responsability is anything but.

[BustNChops]

That is an awesome chart, even though I'm sure they added everything they possibly could to it - like a line showing that the Secretary of Health and Human services reports to the President (gasp! who knew!)

Oh yes, there is some sensationalism going on, but interesting none the less.

Here is an article that was interesting (http://www.economics21.org/commentary/mid-year-update), but I have to re-read and digest. Talks to the current financial irresponsibility. This is what is fueling the Tea Party and what they are finding success with. LINK (http://www.economics21.org/commentary/mid-year-update)

[wolf_chatter]

Oh yes, there is some sensationalism going on, but interesting none the less.

Here is an article that was interesting (http://www.economics21.org/commentary/mid-year-update), but I have to re-read and digest. Talks to the current financial irresponsibility. This is what is fueling the Tea Party and what they are finding success with. LINK (http://www.economics21.org/commentary/mid-year-update)

Please.

As far as T-Party success its limited and so far hasn't produced the winners they had hoped.

[renowiggum]

In that report, CBO found that a massive tax hike is already in the offing. Historically, federal taxes have hovered at around 18 to 19% of GDP. CBO expects that number to rise to 23% of GDP by 2035, even if nothing is done to change current law. Income taxes will begin to rise automatically next year if Congress lets tax rates revert to their pre-Bush levels. In addition, the cuts to rates on dividends and other investment earnings from 2003 – cuts that were which instrumental to igniting growth during the post-9/11 slump – would also vanish.

Hardly news at all: the CBO's current-law estimates include things like the AMT reverting to normal instead of being regularly patched, and the end of the temporary tax cuts congress passed in 2001.

That's one thing that makes the medium-term picture so distressing... but it's not an Obama creation. It's been a long time building, and is a result of the failure of both parties to address things.

The Republicans would have to suggest HUGE spending cuts in order to narrow the gap, even without cutting taxes, yet the policies they suggest (hey, let's cut foreign aid!) are drops in teh bucket, more useful for stirring up the masses than changing things.

"We need to control what procedures Medicare will pay for" turns into "death panels." Republicans have even been turning against their own suggestions, in order to try to score emotional points - on spending cuts, like with Medicare, that are desperately needed to help close the gap.

A few months back, the Republicans (in the House, as I recall) ran a "vote on spending reductions!" website that made one think that maybe they would have a say in reducing the deficit. But the reality of the situation was that every single proposal on there, of 5 or so, totalled about $250 million in cuts, or about one six-thousandth of the deficit (not even the debt).

"We need to cut spending." That's well and good. But we have a long, long way to go... and the "we need to cut taxes above any other priority" rhetoric takes us further from balancing the budget - not closer.

Tax cuts and balanced budgeting have their individual merits. But trying to cram both into the same proposal ("we have a huge deficit, and need to avoid job-killing tax hikes!") is laughable. Either statement, on its own, could be argued rationally. Together, without specific, sufficiently large spending cut proposals to recconcile the effect on the deficit of declining revenue... it's blatheringly incoherent, at best.

[BustNChops]

Please. "No partisan BS."

As far as T-Party success its limited and so far hasn't produced the winners they had hoped.

1) Never claimed it not to be written by someone on right. Yes, he is writing to his audience on site and is a well respected in doing so.

2) What news do you watch / listen to / read? The T-Party is finding big success in the election primaries.

[wolf_chatter]

1) Never claimed it not to be written by someone on right. Yes, he is writing to his audience on site and is a well respected in doing so.

2) What news do you watch / listen to / read? The T-Party is finding big success in the election primaries.

Here are some major T-Party folks that lost:

Clint Didier
Rita Meyer
Karen Handle
Bob MCconnell
CeCe Heil
Todd Tiahart
Cecile Bledsoe
Angela McGowan
Vaugh Ward
Tim Burris
Doug Hoffman

amongst others. Yeah they have some primary wins but they have just as many or more losses and they will take some more losses come General election. A bit too premature at this point to call it anything but ..Meh.