Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

President Obama - 2012 He is the President for all . . .


 

Poll

Question: Do you pay for your own healthcare? If you do, how much does it take out of your family's budget on a monthly basis?

Options:

Less than $300 a month

Between $300 and $400 a month

Between $400 and $500 a month

Between $500 and $600 a month

Between $600 and $700 a month

Between $800 and $900 a month

Over $900.00 a month

Over $1,300 a month


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 30

View Results

President Obama deserves a 2nd term in office. It took many years to get us in the mess we are in and it will take more than 2 years for the President to make positive changes that hopefully will change the course of our history. I am tired of selling our democracy to large Corporations. We the people need to take our power and voice back. President Obama has made great strides is seeing that the American dream is able to be realized by everyone . . . not just a select few.

He is committed to making healthcare a right of every American. He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can. He gives me HOPE and has kept me together during periods of unemployment and despair.

I was a Republican my entire life until Barack Obama ran for President. He was the first Democrat I ever voted for and his Presidency and term in office has changed by political views and beliefs forever. I will support him in his re-election and am embarrassed that I ever considered myself a Republican.

I applaud the work that the President has tried to carry out and I thank him and his family for all they have done to help make this country a better place.

by on Jun. 15, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Replies (31-40):
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jun. 16, 2012 at 10:21 PM
6 moms liked this

About all I have the patience to say to stuff like this post, is you wouldn't know common sense if it hit you on the head.

Quoting theyaremyheart:

OBAMA 2012 . . . he has not created this mess we are in. He has been the clean up man since he took office. Of course you are going to have to spend more money when someone else drives the economy into the ground . . . that my friends is common sense. What would you rather do? Have people that lost their jobs starve? The truth of the matter is is that we as a nation have to decide what our priorities are. For those who still have jobs and healthcare through their employers, healthcare is a non-issue but for those who have lost their jobs and healthcare, it is an issue. For those with children with illnesses it is an issue. Thank God now children with pre-existing conditions like asthma must have access to health insurance. There have been a lot of changes put in place to protect EVERY American. We cannot go backwards . . . we must go forward. What is our countries choice right now? To elect someone like Mitt Romney who has made a career and who has lined his pockets with taking over companies and firing people. This  is insane. This is NOT what this country needs. Do you really want a President who cares so much for his country that he sends our jobs overseas and banks his money overseas???? Is that what a true American does??? Is that what a Patriot does???? We need someone who is going to protect our country (and not just with a strong military). Do you all understand that having a country where EVERYTHING is manufactured by other countries is just as dangerous as having a weak military????? Does anyone out there see that? If you had to depend on some foreign entity for everything . . . you are very vulnerable and dependent. GREED is destroying this nation and the party that claims to have a stronger relationship with God has really a stronger relationship with the almighty dollar. Does anyone see that we have a nation controlled by a few rich entities at the top? We need to refocus on what we are doing here. Voting for Mitt Romney is not the answer. It would only bring things back to where they were. His policies are what has gotten us into this mess. If you really want to vote for him, then I suggest the first thing you do when your child graduates from college is get him or her a good set of luggage, a passport and send them on their way, because that is what your child will need to get a job. He or she will need to pack up and leave the US. Is that what you want? If you look at this country's history, it was manufacturing jobs that pulled people out of poverty. For the middle class to do better it took a college degree. Well look at what we are doing people. The system under the Republican Party is trying to take away the manufacturing jobs for the real poor in this country . . . thus giving them no hope . . . they are trying to make a college education so unaffordable for the middle class . . . thus taking away their hope . . . and they think this will ultimately better themselves because this will give them more power but in essense if you take away the hope of the poor and the hope of the middle class (the buying power of the whole pyramid, the true foundation of the economy), it will all come tumbling down . . . so if you are wondering . . . this is what is happening now. Plain and simple. It doesn't take a degree, it doesn't take a master's certificate, a rocket scientist to see this . . . it just takes common sense. Well here are your choices now .... you have a man who is running who wants to give power and hope back to the poor and middle class so the foundation gets stronger again after years and years of it getting pummeled on. Your other choice is voting for someone who will continue the policies that have done all the damage until there is nothing left of us. I know my choice. I know my leader. It is President Obama and I will proudly pull the lever with his name on it on election day. It is an easy choice for me.


theyaremyheart
by New Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So vote for the Party who put us in this mess . . . that does not make any sense.

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM


Quoting blondekosmic15:

I would like to address a few issues. Unemployment is over 8% and much higher { 16% } when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. College grads are having a difficult time finding jobs in the field they majored in. Many are forced to take low paying jobs if they are lucky to find employment. The gov't has taken over student loans etc. If Barack Obama was the only Candidate running for President, I would stay home. He is destroying the economy. He has tripled the nat'l debt in 3 and a half yrs compared to Bush's 8 yrs. He has lil' respect for human life. Barack Obama has divided America more than any President in my lifetime. He is weakening our military { lay off 80,000 troops } and nat'l defense to the level of 3rd world Countries, leaving this Nation very vulnerable to her enemies etc etc etc.....God help us if Obama is re-elected! Barack Obama was groomed very well by the corrupt Mayor Daley machine from the 'windy city!'

quote from OP>

He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Clinton surplus was due to a Republican Congress beginning in '94 and Bill's willingness to work with the opposing party. Under Obama Dems controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for a few yrs, they snubbed the Republicans.

But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,

So Bush wiped out Clinton's surplus in a year?...

$378 billion in 2003,

Then Bush more than doubled his own deficit?...

$413 billion in 2004,

Added another $35 billion to the deficit?...

$318 billion in 2005,

Brought it back down by $95 billion?...

$248 billion in 2006,

Brought it back down by another $70 billion?...

$162 billion in 2007,

Brought it back down again by another $86 billion?...

and $410 billion in 2008.

And then with the financial collapse it went back up another $248 billion?...

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending/103610

Nuking our Nukes

AP Images
 
 
 

Obama's Associates

http://theobamafile.com/_associates/obamaassociates.htm


love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The blame resides on both parties shoulders...I will vote for a president who is capable and a party that is committed.

For the most part, I don't see Dems pushing for fiscal responsibility, but the GOP is NOW, and the regular Rep party citizens are much more committed and supportive of it, so I will go with those who have the skills and the will :)

Quoting theyaremyheart:

So vote for the Party who put us in this mess . . . that does not make any sense.


The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jun. 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting theyaremyheart:

So vote for the Party who put us in this mess . . . that does not make any sense.

And you support the guy who has tripled the nat'l debt compared to the former President. Many economists have cited Obama has spent more than all the Presidents combined!  Did you forget about Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac under the guidance of Democrats? Ever heard of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the current President who benefited tremendously from the Housing Market fiasco? Did you forget the Dems controlled Congress the final 2 yrs of the Bush Presidency? Unemployment was below 5% during Bush's 1st term. Sure Republicans made their share of mistakes but Nancy Pelosi as SOH and Harry Reid are big time spenders. When they took control of Congress in Jan '07, the debt increased~

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jun. 17, 2012 at 4:05 PM

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

I would like to address a few issues. Unemployment is over 8% and much higher { 16% } when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. College grads are having a difficult time finding jobs in the field they majored in. Many are forced to take low paying jobs if they are lucky to find employment. The gov't has taken over student loans etc. If Barack Obama was the only Candidate running for President, I would stay home. He is destroying the economy. He has tripled the nat'l debt in 3 and a half yrs compared to Bush's 8 yrs. He has lil' respect for human life. Barack Obama has divided America more than any President in my lifetime. He is weakening our military { lay off 80,000 troops } and nat'l defense to the level of 3rd world Countries, leaving this Nation very vulnerable to her enemies etc etc etc.....God help us if Obama is re-elected! Barack Obama was groomed very well by the corrupt Mayor Daley machine from the 'windy city!'

quote from OP>

He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Clinton surplus was due to a Republican Congress beginning in '94 and Bill's willingness to work with the opposing party. Under Obama Dems controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for a few yrs, they snubbed the Republicans.

But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,

So Bush wiped out Clinton's surplus in a year?...

$378 billion in 2003,

Then Bush more than doubled his own deficit?...

$413 billion in 2004,

Added another $35 billion to the deficit?...

$318 billion in 2005,

Brought it back down by $95 billion?...

$248 billion in 2006,

Brought it back down by another $70 billion?...

$162 billion in 2007,

Brought it back down again by another $86 billion?...

and $410 billion in 2008.

And then with the financial collapse it went back up another $248 billion?...

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

 


Wars are expensive mommygiggles but I believe American lives take precedent when our nat'l defense is severely compromised from a monumental attack such as 911. I prefer to fight the enemy on their territory and not in American streets and our front yards. I have acknowledged Republicans made mistakes in terms of fiscal responsibility but you are attempting to defend the indefensible...the current President, the biggest spender ever! Obama was inexperienced and clueless when he entered the WH and his economic record continues to confirm the obvious. I am willing to give Mitt Romney a chance who espouses business experience, a former State Governor and exhibits wisdom in the area of leadership compared to Obama, a community organizer & Senator of about 4 yrs, the majority of time spent campaigning for President. Barack Obama and his admin are hoping enough Americans are ignorant of the political process and reality when they enter the voting booth in Nov....

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

I would like to address a few issues. Unemployment is over 8% and much higher { 16% } when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. College grads are having a difficult time finding jobs in the field they majored in. Many are forced to take low paying jobs if they are lucky to find employment. The gov't has taken over student loans etc. If Barack Obama was the only Candidate running for President, I would stay home. He is destroying the economy. He has tripled the nat'l debt in 3 and a half yrs compared to Bush's 8 yrs. He has lil' respect for human life. Barack Obama has divided America more than any President in my lifetime. He is weakening our military { lay off 80,000 troops } and nat'l defense to the level of 3rd world Countries, leaving this Nation very vulnerable to her enemies etc etc etc.....God help us if Obama is re-elected! Barack Obama was groomed very well by the corrupt Mayor Daley machine from the 'windy city!'

quote from OP>

He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Clinton surplus was due to a Republican Congress beginning in '94 and Bill's willingness to work with the opposing party. Under Obama Dems controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for a few yrs, they snubbed the Republicans.

But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,

So Bush wiped out Clinton's surplus in a year?...

$378 billion in 2003,

Then Bush more than doubled his own deficit?...

$413 billion in 2004,

Added another $35 billion to the deficit?...

$318 billion in 2005,

Brought it back down by $95 billion?...

$248 billion in 2006,

Brought it back down by another $70 billion?...

$162 billion in 2007,

Brought it back down again by another $86 billion?...

and $410 billion in 2008.

And then with the financial collapse it went back up another $248 billion?...

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.



Wars are expensive mommygiggles but I believe American lives take precedent when our nat'l defense is severely compromised from a monumental attack such as 911. I prefer to fight the enemy on their territory and not in American streets and our front yards. I have acknowledged Republicans made mistakes in terms of fiscal responsibility but you are attempting to defend the indefensible...the current President, the biggest spender ever! Obama was inexperienced and clueless when he entered the WH and his economic record continues to confirm the obvious. I am willing to give Mitt Romney a chance who espouses business experience, a former State Governor and exhibits wisdom in the area of leadership compared to Obama, a community organizer & Senator of about 4 yrs, the majority of time spent campaigning for President. Barack Obama and his admin are hoping enough Americans are ignorant of the political process and reality when they enter the voting booth in Nov....

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

Please stop telling me what YOU feel that I am trying to say. All I was concerned about were the numbers you posted and that was all, so that I can do my own research... I didn't comment on anything else, so I'll be honest and let you that you wrote a whole bunch of stuff for nothing... sorry... not going there with you today...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jun. 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

I would like to address a few issues. Unemployment is over 8% and much higher { 16% } when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. College grads are having a difficult time finding jobs in the field they majored in. Many are forced to take low paying jobs if they are lucky to find employment. The gov't has taken over student loans etc. If Barack Obama was the only Candidate running for President, I would stay home. He is destroying the economy. He has tripled the nat'l debt in 3 and a half yrs compared to Bush's 8 yrs. He has lil' respect for human life. Barack Obama has divided America more than any President in my lifetime. He is weakening our military { lay off 80,000 troops } and nat'l defense to the level of 3rd world Countries, leaving this Nation very vulnerable to her enemies etc etc etc.....God help us if Obama is re-elected! Barack Obama was groomed very well by the corrupt Mayor Daley machine from the 'windy city!'

quote from OP>

He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Clinton surplus was due to a Republican Congress beginning in '94 and Bill's willingness to work with the opposing party. Under Obama Dems controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for a few yrs, they snubbed the Republicans.

But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,

So Bush wiped out Clinton's surplus in a year?...

$378 billion in 2003,

Then Bush more than doubled his own deficit?...

$413 billion in 2004,

Added another $35 billion to the deficit?...

$318 billion in 2005,

Brought it back down by $95 billion?...

$248 billion in 2006,

Brought it back down by another $70 billion?...

$162 billion in 2007,

Brought it back down again by another $86 billion?...

and $410 billion in 2008.

And then with the financial collapse it went back up another $248 billion?...

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

 


Wars are expensive mommygiggles but I believe American lives take precedent when our nat'l defense is severely compromised from a monumental attack such as 911. I prefer to fight the enemy on their territory and not in American streets and our front yards. I have acknowledged Republicans made mistakes in terms of fiscal responsibility but you are attempting to defend the indefensible...the current President, the biggest spender ever! Obama was inexperienced and clueless when he entered the WH and his economic record continues to confirm the obvious. I am willing to give Mitt Romney a chance who espouses business experience, a former State Governor and exhibits wisdom in the area of leadership compared to Obama, a community organizer & Senator of about 4 yrs, the majority of time spent campaigning for President. Barack Obama and his admin are hoping enough Americans are ignorant of the political process and reality when they enter the voting booth in Nov....

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

Please stop telling me what YOU feel that I am trying to say. All I was concerned about were the numbers you posted and that was all, so that I can do my own research... I didn't comment on anything else, so I'll be honest and let you that you wrote a whole bunch of stuff for nothing... sorry... not going there with you today...

You have Always defended Barack Obama and the left side of politics unless you have experienced a recent change of heart. And I would like to add, the article I included addressed the points you referred to~ 

matreshka
by Gold Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM
There are definite problems with obama's plan. It gives too Mich power to the private insurance companies. But because of obama we have affordable health care from my db's job that covers my preexisting conditions.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Jun. 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting mommygiggles317:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

I would like to address a few issues. Unemployment is over 8% and much higher { 16% } when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. College grads are having a difficult time finding jobs in the field they majored in. Many are forced to take low paying jobs if they are lucky to find employment. The gov't has taken over student loans etc. If Barack Obama was the only Candidate running for President, I would stay home. He is destroying the economy. He has tripled the nat'l debt in 3 and a half yrs compared to Bush's 8 yrs. He has lil' respect for human life. Barack Obama has divided America more than any President in my lifetime. He is weakening our military { lay off 80,000 troops } and nat'l defense to the level of 3rd world Countries, leaving this Nation very vulnerable to her enemies etc etc etc.....God help us if Obama is re-elected! Barack Obama was groomed very well by the corrupt Mayor Daley machine from the 'windy city!'

quote from OP>

He is committed to seeing that any child that wants to go to college can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Clinton surplus was due to a Republican Congress beginning in '94 and Bill's willingness to work with the opposing party. Under Obama Dems controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House for a few yrs, they snubbed the Republicans.

But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,

So Bush wiped out Clinton's surplus in a year?...

$378 billion in 2003,

Then Bush more than doubled his own deficit?...

$413 billion in 2004,

Added another $35 billion to the deficit?...

$318 billion in 2005,

Brought it back down by $95 billion?...

$248 billion in 2006,

Brought it back down by another $70 billion?...

$162 billion in 2007,

Brought it back down again by another $86 billion?...

and $410 billion in 2008.

And then with the financial collapse it went back up another $248 billion?...

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.



Wars are expensive mommygiggles but I believe American lives take precedent when our nat'l defense is severely compromised from a monumental attack such as 911. I prefer to fight the enemy on their territory and not in American streets and our front yards. I have acknowledged Republicans made mistakes in terms of fiscal responsibility but you are attempting to defend the indefensible...the current President, the biggest spender ever! Obama was inexperienced and clueless when he entered the WH and his economic record continues to confirm the obvious. I am willing to give Mitt Romney a chance who espouses business experience, a former State Governor and exhibits wisdom in the area of leadership compared to Obama, a community organizer & Senator of about 4 yrs, the majority of time spent campaigning for President. Barack Obama and his admin are hoping enough Americans are ignorant of the political process and reality when they enter the voting booth in Nov....

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

Please stop telling me what YOU feel that I am trying to say. All I was concerned about were the numbers you posted and that was all, so that I can do my own research... I didn't comment on anything else, so I'll be honest and let you that you wrote a whole bunch of stuff for nothing... sorry... not going there with you today...

You have Always defended Barack Obama and the left side of politics unless you have experienced a recent change of heart. And I would like to add, the article I included addressed the points you referred to~ 

And I will continue to defend what I believe in... just like you will. the only reason why I even responded was because you and I always get into conversations about the defict and what Obama did and what Clinton left us with, but whenever I ask you about Bush's deficit numbers, our conversations come to an end. So this was the first time that I've seen you say anything about Bush's deficit. I already know what angle you are coming from. I'm well aware of your side and I appreciate that. I get information from you that is vital and helps me understand the other side... So for that I thank you. Now, I will do my own research, try my best to find independent unbiased sources and draw my conclusion and I will get back to you... Thanks...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN