Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're joking, right? That was Obama's plan from the very beginning.
Quote:
You're still regurgitating that out-of-context quote? Heck, even the sheep over at DU have stopped with that one.
I understand the context it was made in. Even in that context ("we'll stay there for 100 years if we need to") it's still a dumbassed idea. Obama made it pretty clear that while we could be flexible in our time tables, we'd be pulling out sooner rather than later.
I love how you completely ignored the findings of a non-partisan source. Since you apparently can't click the link yourself and get a better grasp of the issue, I'll post the important part for you.
So, Pence is right. Obama did say that cap-and-trade would be costly to power plants and to consumers.
Quote:
What's fuzzy, however, is how costly. PolitiFact has already looked into the issue and found that estimates vary. Republicans say each household will pay $3,100 a year, a figure they came up with based upon a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study that predicted a cap-and-trade proposal would generate $366 billion annually. On March 24, 2009, we gave the claim a Pants on Fire ruling because the GOP's calculation was badly flawed and because the GOP used the figure even though the author of the MIT study had told them it was wrong. And in an April 1 letter to House Republicans, authors of the MIT study said that the report was being misinterpreted; by their count, estimates hover closer to $340 per family.
Congress has its own estimate: A 15 percent cut in carbon emissions would cost the average household about $1,600, according to a March 12, 2009, Congressional Budget Office testimony.
It is worth noting that the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly a year and a half ago. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. Furthermore, revenue from auctioned permits will help consumers pay for increased energy prices, according to Obama's first budget.
Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would "necessarily skyrocket," and because Pence got Obama's words just right, we give Pence a True.
Quote:
Are we really supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of stuff? Do you EVER think for yourself, or do you just get your daily talking points from Kos and HuffPo and parrot them like a good little lemming?
Oh please. I pull more of my information from multiple non partisan sources than just about 95% of this board and I don't think I've ever used either Huffington Post or Daily Kos as a source except maybe once or twice. Hell, I don't even read either of those so.
So far, the he has not accomplished any quality items and of course anyone can promise things that were already in place before you took a job.
The problem with that is that you're a massive flaming Republican cheerleader (and a very dimwitted and uneducated one at that) so what most people would consider to be "quality" legislation, you vehemently bash because it doesn't fit your narrow and warped mind view.
Quote:
Pretty darn bad when you have total control of the country and your list of failures are more then your list of accomplishments.
Factually incorrect. The scoreboard currently reads 91-17 in favor of promises kept.
Sorry, I don't see what those links ultimately have to do with the Bush administration drastically growing the size of government, especially when they come from pretty biased sources (Jack Kelly and Mike Flynn's website) .
Quote:
And please don't bring the previous administration up. We had an unwelcome infiltration into the congressional chamber somewhere along the way. Nice try.
I assume you're talking about the Democrats taking control in 2006? That happened for a reason (hint; the people weren't real happy with you) and the Bush administration had already established themselves as an utter failure by that point.
Even more suprising than Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is the rabid partisan right’s blindness to the accomplishments of Obama’s still-young presidency. Apparently, they need reminders. Let’s begin here:
$2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion, according to Treasury officials.
Obama created a White House Urban Affairs office to strengthen U.S. cities. In addition to listening to and acting on the concerns of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and securing for the DOJ 2 billion in Byrne Grants targeting anti-gang and illegal gun control:
The Administration also included an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant – conceived by The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the top priority in the mayors’ Ten Point Plan — in the Recovery Bill. This Grant positions cities to receive an unprecedented $2.8 billion, and supports mayoral efforts to meet the goals of the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, which commits cities to meet Kyoto Protocol Standards by 2012.
This might not be a completely horrible point if the previous administration hadn't gone and completely blown the budget surplus left to them and increased the size of the government by record numbers.
Who controlled congress during the last 2 years of Bush's Presidency. (oh that's right it was the Democrats) They were the ones that created and passed the budgets. Do not keep trying to push what is happening onto someone else who is no longer running the show, but try and find out where our tax money is going now and how to stop the bleeding. Show me a link to the actual growth of government that Bush had his hand in and I will be happy to look over it, and while you are at it get the link for how much Obama has been able to make it as well.
I do appreciate the info on what Obama has accomplished however there was so much more I think he could have done that he hasn't and can not really find another reason other than he is weak in his curremt position.
Who controlled congress during the last 2 years of Bush's Presidency. (oh that's right it was the Democrats) They were the ones that created and passed the budgets. Do not keep trying to push what is happening onto someone else who is no longer running the show
And as I said, by 2006 everyone and their mother knew that the Bush administration was a failure. People love to use the increased Democrat influence as a scapegoat but I've never found anyone to explain why and how the Dems showed up and destroyed everything in such short order.
The simple answer is that they didn't. They just hadn't to be in power when the bill came due.
Quote:
but try and find out where our tax money is going now and how to stop the bleeding.
Anyone with an internet connection and can find out where our tax money is going. You just have to be willing to look.
Quote:
I do appreciate the info on what Obama has accomplished however there was so much more I think he could have done that he hasn't and can not really find another reason other than he is weak in his curremt position.
I agree that I would have liked more out of Obama than what his first year brought, but I'm not really disappointed either.
Oh well. Wait and see I guess. We got 3 more years (7 actually, provided he isn't a total flop in this first term) to see what this man can do.
It's wrong when they take the money out my employer's pocket, and give it to the government, who then puts it in someone else's pocket. You haven't done anything other than rob Peter to pay Paul. In addition to the exchange of money that is available, you are creating fear. So now my employer not only won't give me my dollar, they will hang on to ALL their dollars, for when the government comes back for more. Now they have to let me go, because there's no more dollars.
And that government employee that got the dollar? They're doing half the work of me, because it's not their money, or the government's money. So they aren't motivated to earn that money.
Got it?
I got it. Most of your post is innaccurate and and your opinion I think is in error. There's no robbing of anyone. Tax dollars from every taxpayer in the country (there's no new tax directed at your ER) are allocated by the government to create jobs where gov. workers perform valuable services for those dollars adding to our country's productivity/economic performance.
There's no robbing, no unmotivated workers...that's just propaganda to slam government.
Except that it's not my argument at all. Let's try this.
Let's say you have a guy (George Bush) who moves into a house one day. The house is in pretty good but not great shape and this guy has tons of money to spend.
Rather than putting money into improving the house or just saving it, he blows all his money on coke on strippers while inviting lots of people to party in and subsequently trash his place. 8 years later and he's on his way when the next guy (Obama) buys the house. By this point, the house is on the verge of being condemned.
At first the new guy is going to have to dump a ****load of money into this house that had been neglected over the years. Unfortunately he doesn't have deep pockets like the last guy so he has to use loans and credit cards to pay for the improvements. In the end he will make most of his investment back by the increased resale value of the home, but unfortunately some of that money is gone forever, yet the new guy is ultimately OK with this as he now has a nice place to live.
That, in a nutshell, is how I see our situation. Obama had to spend a whole bunch of money to keep the economy from failing and get our decaying infrastructure back up to standards while setting us on the correct path for the future.
That's an interesting analysis bosco55david, except you left out the part about the guy who was there even before Bush who had a series of home invasions that started right after he moved in. These animals blew things up and killed lots of people every time the broke-in. He had an alarm system left by another previous owner, but he started tinkering with it after the first break-in and it didn't work very well after that. He made some new rules about who the alarm company could hire which made some of the hiring managers resign in protest. All together he allowed a 25% attrition rate at the alarm company while he lived in the house. Now he knew who the thugs were and where to go find them whenever he worked up the balls to take care of business, but he never did. I guess he didn't care since he was moving out soon anyway. Well, the break-ins continued right up to the time he sold the house to Bush, and by that time the robbers were already planning their biggest caper to date.
He also made some changes to the wiring which were not up to code. He took some bad advice from his roommates (Summers, Rubin and Gramm) on the matter and it seemed to work OK, but after he sold the house, this bad wiring started a fire that cause all sorts of damage. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if some of his neighbors (Obama, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, and Waters) hadn't stored all that highly flammable paper on their adjoining properties. Bush warned them about the fire hazard and even tried to get it removed in 2003 when he sent his representative (Snow) to City Hall to lobby for a new fire marshal to replace Captain Ofheo, but they still wouldn't listen.
After the blaze, Bush's lease was up and he really didn't have much time to do the needed repairs. The person who moved in after Bush left knew what really happened, but he blamed Bush for everything because he was one of the people storing the highly flammable paper which made the fire so big and uncontrollable. In fact, he not only stored the paper but worked for an organization that forced the paper companies to create a special type of highly flammable paper. He, along with Bush's other paper storing neighbors, also worked to remove the requirement that the owners of the paper install a special sprinkler system called "cash reserves". Later on, he also gave $8000 to anyone who would make more paper because he still didn't understand part of the reason the paper was so highly flammable was because some people just shouldn't have paper.
Even more suprising than Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is the rabid partisan right’s blindness to the accomplishments of Obama’s still-young presidency. Apparently, they need reminders. Let’s begin here:
Gag me with a baseball bat.
If you measure success by how much money you can spend, then yes, he is successful.
Yes, remind us of this big spender's success. His only skill is spending money.
I think that the people feeding, housing and clothing their family from these 'unnecessary government jobs' would tend to disagree with your opinion.
This country (per Constitution) was never meant to have the "government" feed, house and cloth families." Each person is responsible for themselves. Any welfare "should" be taken care of at the local level! Federal Government should never spend $'s like this.
BO is a disaster. I cannot agree that anything he has done so far has been good...just the opposite. All he has done is made the economy worse and lengthened same! Everything he is still proposing will do the same. I only hope we can survive another nearly 2 years of this man who is not fit for the job!
What's wrong with gov. created jobs? They provide income and services and stimulate the economy. What's wrong with that?
Sorry, government-created jobs just "suck" $'s out of our economy and don't earn anything. The small amount of taxes these employees pay aren't anywhere near what they cost.
Government jobs should be held at the very minimum possible. The rest need to be private enterprise. Government needs to get out of probably about 80% for which it currently hires employees.
It is the States, counties and local governments that are responsible for the problem citizens. Not the Federal. Unless it is some problem that consistently crosses State lines...that's a different problem, but actually minimal!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
