What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I honestly think this is a major foreign policy gaffe. I just don't see how anyone could see it as anything but. This isn't of Bay of Pigs or an invasion of Iraq but it's up there.

Ok...time to reel it in yet again.

Media Falsely Claim Obama "Betrayed" Britain By Complying With Treaty Language

The right-wing media have seized on a Wikileaks cable to claim the Obama administration "betrayed" the United Kingdom by revealing data to Russia regarding the sale of nuclear material. In fact, the information was passed in compliance with nuclear arms treaties and "with respect to the longstanding pattern of cooperation," as officials in both the U.S. and U.K. governments have confirmed.

Treaty text...notification, no later than 48 hours after it has been completed, of the transfer of items to or from a third State in accordance with a pattern of cooperation existing at the time of signature of the Treaty referred to in Article XVI of the Treaty and the First Agreed Statement in the Annex to the Treaty on Agreed Statements. Such notification shall include: the number and type of items transferred; the date of transfer; and the location of transfer; [Department of Defense, accessed 2/7/11]

...and that's not new START but rather START I...1991.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the information sharing about U.S. transfers of nuclear weapons to the U.K. dates back to the original START treaty. "We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent." This was an assertion backed up by the White House and British government officials.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Why don't we sell the Brits something useful like dentists to fix their *'ing teeth?
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Got to see President Obama in Marquette today. Pretty interesting, regardless of your party affiliation.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So Obama released his budget today.

Chuck Todd with a Twitter breakdown:
1) Budget projects 2012 spending at 3.7T and a budget deficit of 1.1T. For 2011, WH estimates deficit at 1.6T, more than CBO
2) Obama budget lowers the deficit over 10 years by 1.1T, two-thirds of that money comes from program cuts, one-third comes from tax hikes.
3) Most well known cuts are less subsidies for lower income Americans for heating and cooling. And no more Pell grants for summer college
4) The tax hikes: capping charitable deductions for wealthiest at 28% rate. Bush tax rates gone in 2013. Estate tax wd rise back to 09 level
5) The 5-year spending freeze (at 2011 levels) is included in the budget.
6) The budget attempts to pay for both the AMT-tax and "Doc" Medicare fixes for 3 years and 2 years respectively.
7) Obama WH projects that by 2017 the only yearly deficit will be from interest on national debt.
8) There are $78B in cuts over 5 years in the Pentagon budget
9) The Obama WH projects federal spending to surpass $5T a year in the year 2019
10) No attempt on dealing with Social Security or tax reform in this budget. WH says those are separate convos to have

I don't like the idea of freezing spending at '11 levels. Already way too high to begin with.

I'd also note that Obama's $78B in defense cuts over 5 years is only $5B more than Rand Paul's $73B in defense cuts over 7 months. But I'm sure that will go unnoticed.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Nothing's more annoying then a White House projecting that their budget will have stuff running just fine after they're constitutionally limited from office. Clinton would say crap about how his budget would do x by 2002, Bush by 2011, and here's Obama with 2017-19.

Yeah, except that your replacement will have a bunch of stupid-*** unfunded campaign promises and we'll be even worse off by then. But keep throwing out magic fairy unicorn numbers, guys.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Nothing's more annoying then a White House projecting that their budget will have stuff running just fine after they're constitutionally limited from office. Clinton would say crap about how his budget would do x by 2002, Bush by 2011, and here's Obama with 2017-19.

Yeah, except that your replacement will have a bunch of stupid-*** unfunded campaign promises and we'll be even worse off by then. But keep throwing out magic fairy unicorn numbers, guys.

It's irrelevant anyway. If they don't find a way to grow the middle class (which was the goose that laid the golden egg) then we're going bankrupt anyway. They don't have the balls, nor the inkling to either go after the people that have all the money and/or cut things to the point where we'll have Egypt level demonstrating in the streets. Either of which is required at current government funding levels.

It was just in the Mpls. paper today that if that budget passes Minnesota will lose over 5 billion in Federal funding. We're already 6 billion in the hole and we had the big Gov. with Presidential aspirations running the joint for the last 8 years. And in our State (despite what they may tell you) the Governor has a lot of power and generally gets most of what they want.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Nothing's more annoying then a White House projecting that their budget will have stuff running just fine after they're constitutionally limited from office. Clinton would say crap about how his budget would do x by 2002, Bush by 2011, and here's Obama with 2017-19.

Yeah, except that your replacement will have a bunch of stupid-*** unfunded campaign promises and we'll be even worse off by then. But keep throwing out magic fairy unicorn numbers, guys.
So, business as usual. But it's amazing how the media mostly portrays Obama as this guy making the tough calls to cut the budget. What rubbish.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So, business as usual. But it's amazing how the media mostly portrays Obama as this guy making the tough calls to cut the budget. What rubbish.

Actually, he's calling the House Republicans bluff. He put a number of cuts into his budget, and called it a down payment. Now it's up to the folks that ran on the issue to put their money where there mouth is. My guess is they don't have the guts and they'll just whine about it.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Actually, he's calling the House Republicans bluff. He put a number of cuts into his budget, and called it a down payment. Now it's up to the folks that ran on the issue to put their money where there mouth is. My guess is they don't have the guts and they'll just whine about it.
Oh, stop your Obama worshipping. He talk up balancing the budget and all in his election also. Of course he also promised huge amounts of new spending, so nobody who actually thought about it believed him, but many people did. The moment the House Republicans talk about additional cuts, you'll be crucifying them.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Oh, stop your Obama worshipping. He talk up balancing the budget and all in his election also. Of course he also promised huge amounts of new spending, so nobody who actually thought about it believed him, but many people did. The moment the House Republicans talk about additional cuts, you'll be crucifying them.

I'm just reporting what I've heard. But you get down with your bad self and shoot the messenger. And as far as Obama worship goes, that's a laugh. I REPEAT I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. I did not want him to be President. I don't think he's doing a great job.

Again. We have 3 branches of government. The legislative branch holds the purse strings. It's up to them, not the President to cut the budget. I find it curious that Obama fired the first shot. I figured the House Republicans since they ran on this crap would get out ahead on the issue.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm just reporting what I've heard. But you get down with your bad self and shoot the messenger. And as far as Obama worship goes, that's a laugh. I REPEAT I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. I did not want him to be President. I don't think he's doing a great job.

Again. We have 3 branches of government. The legislative branch holds the purse strings. It's up to them, not the President to cut the budget. I find it curious that Obama fired the first shot. I figured the House Republicans since they ran on this crap would get out ahead on the issue.
I just judge you by what you say, and you moan about the Republicans constantly, but rarely say anything bad toward Obama. A tree is known by its fruit.

So then why does Clinton get all the credit for the small deficits during his terms, when the Republicans controlled Congress? Because, the President has significant influence over the budget and spending, as does Congress.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So then why does Clinton get all the credit for the small deficits during his terms, when the Republicans controlled Congress?

I'm not sure he does. I think the brief surplus is usually described either as a bipartisan effort or, more frequently, as part of an obeisance to the Dark Lord of Gridlock (PBUH).

I've always thought the best mix of branches would be a moderate president, a fiscally conservative Congress and a socially liberal Supreme Court. 2 out of 3 aint bad, particularly since from 2006-08 we had literally the worst possible mix.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm not sure he does. I think the brief surplus is usually described either as a bipartisan effort or, more frequently, as part of an obeisance to the Dark Lord of Gridlock (PBUH).

I've always thought the best mix of branches would be a moderate president, a fiscally conservative Congress and a socially liberal Supreme Court. 2 out of 3 aint bad, particularly since from 2006-08 we had literally the worst possible mix.

All I know is that I hear liberals around here constantly trumpet what a wonderful fiscally conservative President Clinton was. Glad to hear not everyone takes such simplistic and at least somewhat inaccurate views.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

All I know is that I hear liberals around here constantly trumpet what a wonderful fiscally conservative President Clinton was. Glad to hear not everyone takes such simplistic and at least somewhat inaccurate views.

And what do we gain by given Republicans the credit? Let's say that Clinton had NOTHING to do with it (I'll concede that, no problem). How does that excuse what the Republicans did to the budget, and the economy from 2000-2006? (Look at that, I'm even giving them a pass when the ceded the Legislature to the Democrats).

At least when Clinton was in office (whoever did it) the bubble paid some bills. When Bush was in office the bubble lined fat cats pockets. That's the difference and it is irrefutable.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And what do we gain by given Republicans the credit? Let's say that Clinton had NOTHING to do with it (I'll concede that, no problem). How does that excuse what the Republicans did to the budget, and the economy from 2000-2006? (Look at that, I'm even giving them a pass when the ceded the Legislature to the Democrats).

At least when Clinton was in office (whoever did it) the bubble paid some bills. When Bush was in office the bubble lined fat cats pockets. That's the difference and it is irrefutable.

I always look to give credit when credit is due, and not give credit where it isn't due. To me that's just being straight up and calling things they way they are, even if sometimes credits falls to those one typically doesn't back or criticism falls to those one typically likes.

I think both Clinton and the Republicans deserve a bit of credit for the relatively small deficits in the 90s, though the biggest player was the financial bubble that led to lots of revenue showing up through capital gains taxes, etc. during that time, artificially inflating revenue short term. Very few deserve any credit in the 2000s, particularly those in the Oval Office, but I'll cheer on anyone who pushes the fiscal responsibility angle, whether it be Pelosi (hypothetical mind you) or Obama or Boehner or whoever.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I always look to give credit when credit is due, and not give credit where it isn't due. To me that's just being straight up and calling things they way they are, even if sometimes credits falls to those one typically doesn't back or criticism falls to those one typically likes.

I think both Clinton and the Republicans deserve a bit of credit for the relatively small deficits in the 90s, though the biggest player was the financial bubble that led to lots of revenue showing up through capital gains taxes, etc. during that time, artificially inflating revenue short term. Very few deserve any credit in the 2000s, particularly those in the Oval Office, but I'll cheer on anyone who pushes the fiscal responsibility angle, whether it be Pelosi (hypothetical mind you) or Obama or Boehner or whoever.

I can't disagree with any of that.
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I find it curious that Obama fired the first shot. I figured the House Republicans since they ran on this crap would get out ahead on the issue.

You do? Where have you been for the past decades? The process (though not required to) usually begins with the President submitting his budget request to Congress. How is this different?
 
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

All I know is that I hear liberals around here constantly trumpet what a wonderful fiscally conservative President Clinton was.

Really? Who?

I point out that there was, in fact, a surplus but I don't say Clinton was fiscally conservative.

So which liberals constantly trumpet that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top