Obama just lost the election tonight

[DavidS]

Clinton submitted a balanced budget to congress to congress on Feb 2, 1998.

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that warm welcome. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Bowles, members of our economic team, members of the Cabinet and administration. And I thank the large number of members of Congress who have come here today, and others, all of you here for the submission of the first balanced budget in 30 years, one that will truly strengthen our nation for the 21st century".
President Clinton Submits First Balanced Budget in 30 Years


First Balanced Budget in 30 Years

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You mis-understand my point. In order to have a balanced budget, you need to have higher income. -2 + 1 is still -1. -2 + 2 is balanced and zero.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You mis-understand my point. In order to have a balanced budget, you need to have higher income. -2 + 1 is still -1. -2 + 2 is balanced and zero.

People balance their budgets every day without higher income. We have a spending problem, not an income problem.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You mis-understand my point. In order to have a balanced budget, you need to have higher income. -2 + 1 is still -1. -2 + 2 is balanced and zero.

-1 + 1 is balanced and zero as well.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think if the Senate passes it's Reid plan and it dies in the House, and the Houses passes it's 2-step plan and it fails in the Senate then the Congress takes a lot of the blame off of Obama for it's failures. If either plan ir another one gets through both chambers and the president signs it, then he's off the hook. If he doesn't sign it then he's really going to take a political hit. He's already not looking good cuz of the economy, I don't think he can afford to veto anything that comes out of Congress.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obama's pushing a higher ups agenda. He's never had a thought worth talking about.

Months and Months pass by and all of a sudden it has to be done at the last minute..
This whole thing reeks of shit!

Politicians.... and we buy into it.

Stupid ass, what 'higher ups'? Who is protecting the people that pay less taxes on a million than I pay on 100,000?

This is class warfare, folks. And this time, we cannot let the oligarchs win. Shut it down, and if things go truly bad, we know where they live.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Please note: I used to be a Republican, then converted to a Democrat in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have largely defended his actions...

But tonight?

His speech was terrible. He delivered it terribly.

S&P has said that if Boehner's plan is passed, the credit rating of the country will be downgraded. Obama is in a lose-lose situation here and it looks like the Republicans are the only ones who are going to win.

The only thing left for Obama to do right now is let the country go into default and not extend the cap until Republicans increase revenues. Obama MUST stand firm on this. No short term deal. Let the country go into default in order to win this battle.

Unfortunately, we as middle class Americans, are stuck in the middle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and we're both going to have to pay for it.

The Dems have also been warned that their gimmicks such as Reid's 1 Trillion "budget cut" (over 10 years) resulting from not being in Iraq and Afghanistan also will not fly. They are being called out for the ridiculous proposals. They said, go ahead and try it, and you will still likely be downgraded.

Thanks for voting for Obama, btw. The country is in great shape because of your decision.

The country's in better shape than it would've been if we would've voted for McCain and something would've happened to him and Palin would be our President. That's a scary thought right there.

A scary thought is our rapidly deteriorating economy in which there are between 14 and 20million unemployed. This is happening under Obama not McCain.

 

[Flopper]

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

You mis-understand my point. In order to have a balanced budget, you need to have higher income. -2 + 1 is still -1. -2 + 2 is balanced and zero.

I'm missing your point. You can lower the deficit by cutting spending or by increasing taxes.

 

[Flopper]

I think if the Senate passes it's Reid plan and it dies in the House, and the Houses passes it's 2-step plan and it fails in the Senate then the Congress takes a lot of the blame off of Obama for it's failures. If either plan ir another one gets through both chambers and the president signs it, then he's off the hook. If he doesn't sign it then he's really going to take a political hit. He's already not looking good cuz of the economy, I don't think he can afford to veto anything that comes out of Congress.

You are probably correct. Obama needs to put this behind him. He has a hard campaign ahead and this will distract from the campaign. This is why Republicans would like to see a series of short term fixes so this issue will continue into 2012. Another reason why Republicans don't want to see a resolution at this time is it puts another cloud over the economy which could lead to another recession, particular if there is a credit downgrade or a default, another plus for Republicans in 2012.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Please note: I used to be a Republican, then converted to a Democrat in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have largely defended his actions...

But tonight?

His speech was terrible. He delivered it terribly.

S&P has said that if Boehner's plan is passed, the credit rating of the country will be downgraded. Obama is in a lose-lose situation here and it looks like the Republicans are the only ones who are going to win.

The only thing left for Obama to do right now is let the country go into default and not extend the cap until Republicans increase revenues. Obama MUST stand firm on this. No short term deal. Let the country go into default in order to win this battle.

Unfortunately, we as middle class Americans, are stuck in the middle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and we're both going to have to pay for it.

Good, he didn't deserve to be elected the first time.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You saying he lost the election for 2012 because of tonight's speech...did you post this before or after he gave the speech?

Oh and who exactly will beat him in 2012?

Anyone can. He has proven to be a lame duck.

 

[Zona]

Please note: I used to be a Republican, then converted to a Democrat in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have largely defended his actions...

But tonight?

His speech was terrible. He delivered it terribly.

S&P has said that if Boehner's plan is passed, the credit rating of the country will be downgraded. Obama is in a lose-lose situation here and it looks like the Republicans are the only ones who are going to win.

The only thing left for Obama to do right now is let the country go into default and not extend the cap until Republicans increase revenues. Obama MUST stand firm on this. No short term deal. Let the country go into default in order to win this battle.

Unfortunately, we as middle class Americans, are stuck in the middle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and we're both going to have to pay for it.

Try Islam... Maybe that will work for ya. You'll still fit in. The liberals love Muslims.

And the right hates muslims....look at Oslo.

 

[Zona]

You saying he lost the election for 2012 because of tonight's speech...did you post this before or after he gave the speech?

Oh and who exactly will beat him in 2012?

Anyone can. He has proven to be a lame duck.

So if Palin runs, she wins!!! ?? Really? Or perhaps Bachmann? Perry? West? LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[highway234]

And the right hates muslims....

only because they're so much alike. look at how the taliban treats its women, and then look at how the conservative south spits on women's right to choose, and is even trying to ban them from getting contraception. notice the similarity?

 

[Sactowndog]

Please note: I used to be a Republican, then converted to a Democrat in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2008 and have largely defended his actions...

But tonight?

His speech was terrible. He delivered it terribly.

S&P has said that if Boehner's plan is passed, the credit rating of the country will be downgraded. Obama is in a lose-lose situation here and it looks like the Republicans are the only ones who are going to win.

The only thing left for Obama to do right now is let the country go into default and not extend the cap until Republicans increase revenues. Obama MUST stand firm on this. No short term deal. Let the country go into default in order to win this battle.

Unfortunately, we as middle class Americans, are stuck in the middle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and we're both going to have to pay for it.

I would agree that I thought it was a poor performance. He lacked any visuals to explain the facts to the American people. But before Obama can lose he has to have viable Republican options and people have to believe the Republicans won't pursue their extremist agendas. I am not sure that is the case.

 

[ShackledNation]

Clinton submitted a balanced budget to congress to congress on Feb 2, 1998.

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that warm welcome. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Bowles, members of our economic team, members of the Cabinet and administration. And I thank the large number of members of Congress who have come here today, and others, all of you here for the submission of the first balanced budget in 30 years, one that will truly strengthen our nation for the 21st century".
President Clinton Submits First Balanced Budget in 30 Years


First Balanced Budget in 30 Years

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

75%? Why is it that people throw out such lies?
Out of those 12 instances:
-58% of the time the President was a Democrat
-58% of the time the Senate was controlled by Democrats
-50% of the time the House was controlled by Democrats
-83% of the time, one party controlled the Presidency and the other controlled the Congress

According to your own source, "the largest uninterrupted stretch of surpluses came between 1920 and 1930." During this time, both Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Republicans. If you asked who was in charge of the balanced budgets since 1920, the results would be quite different.
-68% of the time the President was a Republican
-68% of the time the Senate was controlled by Republicans
-73% of the time the House was controlled by Republicans
-45% of the time Republicans had total control of both branches
-9% of the time Democrats had total control of both branches
46% of the time control was split between the two parties

So clearly your conclusion is incorrect. But that is not to say Republicans are great at balancing budgets. To test that hypothesis, you would have to see how often Republicans, when in control, had balanced budgets, test the same for Democrats, and see who has the higher percentage.

IMO, neither party is great at balancing the budget. But your numbers are made up and false.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

Wait, was that with higher taxes?? Ohhhh yes it was!

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

75%? Why is it that people throw out such lies?
Out of those 12 instances:
-58% of the time the President was a Democrat
-58% of the time the Senate was controlled by Democrats
-50% of the time the House was controlled by Democrats
-83% of the time, one party controlled the Presidency and the other controlled the Congress

According to your own source, "the largest uninterrupted stretch of surpluses came between 1920 and 1930." During this time, both Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Republicans. If you asked who was in charge of the balanced budgets since 1920, the results would be quite different.
-68% of the time the President was a Republican
-68% of the time the Senate was controlled by Republicans
-73% of the time the House was controlled by Republicans
-45% of the time Republicans had total control of both branches
-9% of the time Democrats had total control of both branches
46% of the time control was split between the two parties

So clearly your conclusion is incorrect. But that is not to say Republicans are great at balancing budgets. To test that hypothesis, you would have to see how often Republicans, when in control, had balanced budgets, test the same for Democrats, and see who has the higher percentage.

IMO, neither party is great at balancing the budget. But your numbers are made up and false.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right neither party is very good at controlling the deficit, but Democratic presidents have done a better job of balancing the budget. Keep in mind it is the president that is responsible for creating and submitting the budget. Congress's responsibility is to approve or disapprove. Of course Congress makes up their own budget based on the president budget and makes alterations, but basically it is the president's budget. My statement did not address the make up of congress, only the presidents since the President is responsible for creating the budget and seeing the government sticks to that budget.

Since the Great Depression, we had only one Republican president, Eisenhower who balanced the budget. We have had three Democratic presidents who balanced the budget, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton. During that period we have had 7 Republican and 7 Democratic presidents.

 

[MitchMan]

I am a staunch liberal. Any other staunch liberals out there think that this president has to go besides me?

We need an authentic leader with a back bone and a commitment to principles that he/she is willing to fight for, stand up for, and lead others in that direction.

I will say that the right wing knows how to fight and our liberal/Democrat leaders have none of the attributes that constitute a fighter: strong conviction, courage to fight, knowledge of how to fight, inclination and desire to fight, inspiration to fight, inspiration to organize a fight and to develope fighting tactics.

I am so disgusted that I am all for regrouping, dumping Obama (the great conciliator) in 2012, creating a grass roots liberal movement within the Democratic party to locate a real leader to elect as president.

I mean, how does a party elect a president in 2008 and have both houses and lose so much? When republicans were soundly defeated in 2008, they didn't capitulate their cause, they dug their heels in. All the pundits and their leaders took to the airways and reasserted their commitment to their principles, and they didn't look to "compromise" and "conciliation" to revive their politicial agenda, they dug their heels in and looked inward to their principles for their conviction and strength faught and faught and faught without letting up.

The right wing ideology is all wrong, mean spirited, damaging to humanity and to this country, and for the most part immoral in many, many ways. We liberals have logic and morality on our side. The facts and reality of life favor the liberal agenda, but we still consistantly lose.

The blame is not all on Obama, he's just a cog in the woosie liberal wheel. The blame is on us liberals and democrats for not voting for a real leader, a strong leader, and not messaging on the public airways.

What we liberals need to do is regroup, decide to fight, and start from the beginning with a clean slate. Define our principles and shout it loudly and clearly to the public at every opportunity. We need to develop an aggressive strategy to promulgate our agenda which includes finding and electing strong fighting vocal committed liberals, engage in effective public tactics using our talking points with consistency, argue and debate and to effectively spin and spin and spin, consistantly and frequently criticize our opponents at every opportunity, communicate to the public the realities of basic economics about how our economy is legally, politically, and culturally biased to overwhelmingly favor and over reward the wealthy and under compensate the working class (which is at least 95% of our population - lots of dumb right wingers in there). BTW, this last point in the previous sentence IS the major problem in the USA and the republican agenda is just making the country's condition worse and worse by the second.

We need to stand up and fight. Obama's not the man to do it. He's just leading us down a losing path by concession after concession and has from the beginning. We have to be fortified with our own individual conviction, regroup. Let the Republicans win this budget battle - actually, they already have. Let this next 2012 election go to the republicans if we must in order to take the time to regroup and resurrect with strength and in numbers and find new strong leaders. Stay strong, stay on message, argue, debate, fight, publically message relentlessly, spin, use language and name branding to communicate to the average American effectively and vote for our own while we influence the majority to vote democrat.

Want some evidence? Very few if any democrat politicians will admit publically they are a liberal. In fact, since Reagan, Democrats have been afraid to admit they are "liberal", but republicans sound out very publically and pronounce that they are a conservative with pride. Liberal is bad word and Democrat politicians refuse to admit that they liberals publically. Republicans say it with pride and hold it as a badge of honor. Right wingers have coopted "Americanism", patriotism, pro military, pro business, pro family values, pullng oneself up by the bootstraps, pro religion, pro God, the work ethic, etc., etc., etc. We liberals are for all those things as well, but the righties have coopted all those things as their own and we are successfully portrayed as the opposite. See? It's all about fighting, public messaging and not about the facts. Get it?

We have to fight fire with fire... more fire! If you go into battle unwillingly, you will definitely lose. If you go into battle with a stronger fighting spirit than the opponent, you will win.

 

[Salt Jones]

I am a staunch liberal. Any other staunch liberals out there think that this president has to go besides me?

We need an authentic leader with a back bone and a commitment to principles that he/she is willing to fight for, stand up for, and lead others in that direction.

I will say that the right wing knows how to fight and our liberal/Democrat leaders have none of the attributes that constitute a fighter: strong conviction, courage to fight, knowledge of how to fight, inclination and desire to fight, inspiration to fight, inspiration to organize a fight and to develope fighting tactics.

I am so disgusted that I am all for regrouping, dumping Obama (the great conciliator) in 2012, creating a grass roots liberal movement within the Democratic party to locate a real leader to elect as president.

I mean, how does a party elect a president in 2008 and have both houses and lose so much? When republicans were soundly defeated in 2008, they didn't capitulate their cause, they dug their heels in. All the pundits and their leaders took to the airways and reasserted their commitment to their principles, and they didn't look to "compromise" and "conciliation" to revive their politicial agenda, they dug their heels in and looked inward to their principles for their conviction and strength faught and faught and faught without letting up.

The right wing ideology is all wrong, mean spirited, damaging to humanity and to this country, and for the most part immoral in many, many ways. We liberals have logic and morality on our side. The facts and reality of life favor the liberal agenda, but we still consistantly lose.

The blame is not all on Obama, he's just a cog in the woosie liberal wheel. The blame is on us liberals and democrats for not voting for a real leader, a strong leader, and not messaging on the public airways.

What we liberals need to do is regroup, decide to fight, and start from the beginning with a clean slate. Define our principles and shout it loudly and clearly to the public at every opportunity. We need to develop an aggressive strategy to promulgate our agenda which includes finding and electing strong fighting vocal committed liberals, engage in effective public tactics using our talking points with consistency, argue and debate and to effectively spin and spin and spin, consistantly and frequently criticize our opponents at every opportunity, communicate to the public the realities of basic economics about how our economy is legally, politically, and culturally biased to overwhelmingly favor and over reward the wealthy and under compensate the working class (which is at least 95% of our population - lots of dumb right wingers in there). BTW, this last point in the previous sentence IS the major problem in the USA and the republican agenda is just making the country's condition worse and worse by the second.

We need to stand up and fight. Obama's not the man to do it.

If medicare and social security are growing faster than the GDP what are we supposed to do?

If baby boomers are going to overwhelm medicare and ss what are we supposed to do?

Why not end all Bush tax cuts for everyone?

 

[ShackledNation]

So??
He did what no other president has done in 30 years when Johnson another Democrat balanced the budget. In fact the budget has been balanced 12 times since 1940. 75% of time it's been Democrats who did it.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

75%? Why is it that people throw out such lies?
Out of those 12 instances:
-58% of the time the President was a Democrat
-58% of the time the Senate was controlled by Democrats
-50% of the time the House was controlled by Democrats
-83% of the time, one party controlled the Presidency and the other controlled the Congress

According to your own source, "the largest uninterrupted stretch of surpluses came between 1920 and 1930." During this time, both Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Republicans. If you asked who was in charge of the balanced budgets since 1920, the results would be quite different.
-68% of the time the President was a Republican
-68% of the time the Senate was controlled by Republicans
-73% of the time the House was controlled by Republicans
-45% of the time Republicans had total control of both branches
-9% of the time Democrats had total control of both branches
46% of the time control was split between the two parties

So clearly your conclusion is incorrect. But that is not to say Republicans are great at balancing budgets. To test that hypothesis, you would have to see how often Republicans, when in control, had balanced budgets, test the same for Democrats, and see who has the higher percentage.

IMO, neither party is great at balancing the budget. But your numbers are made up and false.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right neither party is very good at controlling the deficit, but Democratic presidents have done a better job of balancing the budget. Keep in mind it is the president that is responsible for creating and submitting the budget. Congress's responsibility is to approve or disapprove. Of course Congress makes up their own budget based on the president budget and makes alterations, but basically it is the president's budget. My statement did not address the make up of congress, only the presidents since the President is responsible for creating the budget and seeing the government sticks to that budget.

Since the Great Depression, we had only one Republican president, Eisenhower who balanced the budget. We have had three Democratic presidents who balanced the budget, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton. During that period we have had 7 Republican and 7 Democratic presidents.

Why are you starting since the great depression and not the 1920s? If you started earlier, it would be 3 and 3. And you have to look at years, not presidencies. Calvin Coolidge had a balanced budget for 8 years. Some of those democratic presidents had only 1 or 2 years of balanced budgets.

And you are incorrect that the budget is basically the president's. Congress ultimately controls the power of the purse, and can completely alter the president's budget if it pleases, so long as they can override the veto or pressure the president into agreeing with the new budget. You cannot just look at presidents. Doing so will give you incredibly incomplete data. A budget with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President will not look the same as a budget with both a Democratic Congress and President, or both branches controlled by Republicans.

Even if you do assume the President has the most power, if you look at all the surpluses and deficits per year and the party of the president that year since 1920, Republicans ran surpluses 32% of the time, a pathetic showing, but democrats ran surpluses only 20% of the time, even less. Still, because of the power of Congress, I would not claim that Republicans are better at balancing budgets.

If you look at the Senate, there is an even greater distinction. 49% of the time, Senates under Republican control balanced the budget. When Democrats controlled the Senate, the budget was balanced only 11% of the time.

To remove the variable of division of power between parties, I looked at years in which the presidency and both houses of congress were controlled by the same party.
61% of the time, Republicans in charge of both branches balanced the budget. Only 6% of the time was the budget balanced when democrats were in full control.

Obviously, from this data it is impossible to conclude that Democrats are more likely to balance the budget than Republicans. I would not say Republicans are more likely to balance the budget either, based on the way the party has shifted away from its older principles.

 

[jgarden]

Based on the "debt ceiling" impasse of 1995/96, the US Treasury will not default on the debt, but shut down all non-essential federal branches of government and redirect the savings to cover the interest payments.

If the Republicans in the House were really serious about controlling government spending, where were they for those 6 years of the Bush Administration when they held a majority in both Houses - yet continued "rubber stamping" the president's record federal deficits.