Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Ernie S.]

Voting for Romney does nothing of the sort.

That sounds like far left corruption to me when you demean the solid right of center in America.

Mark my words Jake. The centrist Republicans are being purged by the far right teabaggers, Grover Norqiust and the fundies. Ask Dick Lugar, Bruce Bartlett and David Frum.

You REALLY don't know what's going on, do you Jake???

How the GOP Purged Me

That bolded I support. The rest of your drivel... is drivel.

 

[Ernie S.]

Actually, you are allowed your opinion but not your own facts and definitions. Those are fixed. Yes, progressives exist in both parties. Some conservatives are statists wanting government to do certain things: limit abortions for instance. Think carefully before posting, please.

Thats not opinion thats fact.

Yes, I am posting facts while you wallow in opinion. Statism exists in the Republican party right.

As you define it, yes. I prefer to call it morality although you would, perhaps, rather we repeal all laws against murder, theft, rape?

Being against abortion is no more "Statist" than being against manslaughter.

 

[Ernie S.]

I keep hoping the smart ones here will stop responding to Jake so that we can get this thread back on track. He is intentionally derailing it and some of ya'll keep taking the bait.

It's an interesting topic. And in my opinion, if we don't thoroughly vet this President this time around--even the mainstream media admits that was not done in the last campaign--we get what we deserve come November.

Thank you, Foxy, but you have to admit, it is nearly impossible not to swat at mosquitoes.

So you see why I found Sowell's column interesting, then. If we accept Dr Sowell's premise, the logical progression is from fascism to Socialism, once a government gains enough power that it is no longer worried about it's ability to remain in power.
obam's goals, in my opinion are socialism for example, single payer government run health care. Realizing that government can't deliver mail efficiently, he knows that any such system would be fraught with problems and likely not only end his chances of reelection, but damage his party permanently.
So, he opted for a fascist program of government regulated health care with most of the commerce still in the private sector.
He gets to control it, take credit for any success and place blame back on the private sector for the inevitable failures.
Once the sheeple accept his crap package as SOP, he or his party can point at the failures and claim the only solution is single payer.
Some call it incrementalism, Dr. Sowell calls it fascism. I tend to agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

I keep hoping the smart ones here will stop responding to Jake so that we can get this thread back on track. He is intentionally derailing it and some of ya'll keep taking the bait.

It's an interesting topic. And in my opinion, if we don't thoroughly vet this President this time around--even the mainstream media admits that was not done in the last campaign--we get what we deserve come November.

Thank you, Foxy, but you have to admit, it is nearly impossible not to swat at mosquitoes.

So you see why I found Sowell's column interesting, then. If we accept Dr Sowell's premise, the logical progression is from fascism to Socialism, once a government gains enough power that it is no longer worried about it's ability to remain in power.
obam's goals, in my opinion are socialism for example, single payer government run health care. Realizing that government can't deliver mail efficiently, he knows that any such system would be fraught with problems and likely not only end his chances of reelection, but damage his party permanently.
So, he opted for a fascist program of government regulated health care with most of the commerce still in the private sector.
He gets to control it, take credit for any success and place blame back on the private sector for the inevitable failures.
Once the sheeple accept his crap package as SOP, he or his party can point at the failures and claim the only solution is single payer.
Some call it incrementalism, Dr. Sowell calls it fascism. I tend to agree.

For somebody who will argue with a post when sufficiently motivated, I am having a tough time finding anything to argue with in this.

I would only add that I think it is Obama's deep seated Marxist convictions that motivate him, and the fascism he endorses and/or promotes is a component of those larger goals. It is good to remember from history, however, that all fascists who come to power through other than military force do so by convincing the people that he is doing what he does for their greater good.

 

[The T]

I keep hoping the smart ones here will stop responding to Jake so that we can get this thread back on track. He is intentionally derailing it and some of ya'll keep taking the bait.

It's an interesting topic. And in my opinion, if we don't thoroughly vet this President this time around--even the mainstream media admits that was not done in the last campaign--we get what we deserve come November.

Thank you, Foxy, but you have to admit, it is nearly impossible not to swat at mosquitoes.

So you see why I found Sowell's column interesting, then. If we accept Dr Sowell's premise, the logical progression is from fascism to Socialism, once a government gains enough power that it is no longer worried about it's ability to remain in power.
obam's goals, in my opinion are socialism for example, single payer government run health care. Realizing that government can't deliver mail efficiently, he knows that any such system would be fraught with problems and likely not only end his chances of reelection, but damage his party permanently.
So, he opted for a fascist program of government regulated health care with most of the commerce still in the private sector.
He gets to control it, take credit for any success and place blame back on the private sector for the inevitable failures.
Once the sheeple accept his crap package as SOP, he or his party can point at the failures and claim the only solution is single payer.
Some call it incrementalism, Dr. Sowell calls it fascism. I tend to agree.

For somebody who will argue with a post when sufficiently motivated, I am having a tough time finding anything to argue with in this.

I would only add that I think it is Obama's deep seated Marxist convictions that motivate him, and the fascism he endorses and/or promotes is a component of those larger goals. It is good to remember from history, however, that all fascists who come to power through other than military force do so by convincing the people that he is doing what he does for their greater good.

In other words Foxy? It's ALL about Himself...and those he attached himself to and thier ideologies...OR BUST

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you, Foxy, but you have to admit, it is nearly impossible not to swat at mosquitoes.

So you see why I found Sowell's column interesting, then. If we accept Dr Sowell's premise, the logical progression is from fascism to Socialism, once a government gains enough power that it is no longer worried about it's ability to remain in power.
obam's goals, in my opinion are socialism for example, single payer government run health care. Realizing that government can't deliver mail efficiently, he knows that any such system would be fraught with problems and likely not only end his chances of reelection, but damage his party permanently.
So, he opted for a fascist program of government regulated health care with most of the commerce still in the private sector.
He gets to control it, take credit for any success and place blame back on the private sector for the inevitable failures.
Once the sheeple accept his crap package as SOP, he or his party can point at the failures and claim the only solution is single payer.
Some call it incrementalism, Dr. Sowell calls it fascism. I tend to agree.

For somebody who will argue with a post when sufficiently motivated, I am having a tough time finding anything to argue with in this.

I would only add that I think it is Obama's deep seated Marxist convictions that motivate him, and the fascism he endorses and/or promotes is a component of those larger goals. It is good to remember from history, however, that all fascists who come to power through other than military force do so by convincing the people that he is doing what he does for their greater good.

In other words Foxy? It's ALL about Himself...and those he attached himself to and thier ideologies...OR BUST

Yep. At least it is about his notions of how things should be and his own perceived power that if he can just get re-elected, he will then be unrestrained in working toward it. So far as him having any discernible convictions about anything, I haven't been able to detect any, and he probably could not articulate it, but I do believe he is infused with a sense that American exceptionalism must be destroyed before the vision can be a reality. I do not for a minute believe he has any appreciation or love for America and doesn't give a flying fig about any of us.

 

[The T]

For somebody who will argue with a post when sufficiently motivated, I am having a tough time finding anything to argue with in this.

I would only add that I think it is Obama's deep seated Marxist convictions that motivate him, and the fascism he endorses and/or promotes is a component of those larger goals. It is good to remember from history, however, that all fascists who come to power through other than military force do so by convincing the people that he is doing what he does for their greater good.

In other words Foxy? It's ALL about Himself...and those he attached himself to and thier ideologies...OR BUST

Yep. At least it is about his notions of how things should be and his own perceived power that if he can just get re-elected, he will then be unrestrained in working toward it. So far as him having any discernible convictions about anything, I haven't been able to detect any, and he probably could not articulate it, but I do believe he is infused with a sense that American exceptionalism must be destroyed before the vision can be a reality. I do not for a minute believe he has any appreciation or love for America and doesn't give a flying fig about any of us.

That's IF he ever belived in 'American Exceptionalism'...which we KNOW he doesn't...(He sees it nothing different than any other Country...which is a CLUE)...I'm sure his accolytes were applauding this day...

I found the speech rather disgusting and INSULTING...

 

[The T]

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that."

~B H O

On American Exceptionalism and Barack Obama - Conor Friedersdorf - Metablog - True/Slant

What a Horses ASS he is.

 

[francoHFW]

OOOOOH! A Ugly 'Merican Pub dupe circle jerk!

"Obviously, Obama is neither , but a centrist and a pragmatist".

Butthanks for the depression, 9/11, and the stupidest wars ever. Pub dupes!

 

[buckeye45_73]

OOOOOH! A Ugly 'Merican Pub dupe circle jerk!

"Obviously, Obama is neither , but a centrist and a pragmatist".

Butthanks for the depression, 9/11, and the stupidest wars ever. Pub dupes!

i like to buttslam truthers, I guess you're next, oh wait i've reemed you like a san francisco bathhouse already

 

[Bfgrn]

Voting for Romney does nothing of the sort.

That sounds like far left corruption to me when you demean the solid right of center in America.

Mark my words Jake. The centrist Republicans are being purged by the far right teabaggers, Grover Norqiust and the fundies. Ask Dick Lugar, Bruce Bartlett and David Frum. You REALLY don't know what's going on, do you Jake??? How the GOP Purged Me

Left Wing Extremism playing to the fears of the mainstream, are you?

The TP movement has had some local successes, but far fewer than last year.

Watch Romney does to the survivors of the TP in Congress after January. Either they support his programs, or he will go after their patronage and raise money against them in the next primaries.

Romney is not going to put with extremism of the left or the right.

Obama is a centrist. Romney is not. Romney is running for president. NOT the governor of a liberal state. Your worship of Mitten is scary.

Today's GOP is not mainstream Jake. You are really uninformed. I am not fear-mongering, I am only stating facts. You want extremism? How about the most extreme anti-environment House of Representatives in our nation's history? House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections. Would king Romney veto these bills Jake?

You 'claim' to oppose the far right, but you have no clue just how far right the whole party has become. The 2008 election should have been a signal to the GOP to move towards the center. Instead they have move farther to the right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thats not opinion thats fact.

Yes, I am posting facts while you wallow in opinion. Statism exists in the Republican party right.

As you define it, yes. I prefer to call it morality although you would, perhaps, rather we repeal all laws against murder, theft, rape?

Being against abortion is no more "Statist" than being against manslaughter.

When your rely on state and national government to manage major issues, national defense or abortion or homosexuality or social entitlement programs or prohibition, etc., then, yes, that is statism, which comes in liberal and conservative fashions.

Rightwing conservatism is not determined by libertarian philosophy.

Libertarian or extremist right believers simply cannot be allowed to redefine terms have lengthy historical and narrative definitions. This has nothing to do with personalities, such as Foxfyre (whom I respect as a decent, caring human being) or you (whom I don't). It has to X = X, not X = Y.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark my words Jake. The centrist Republicans are being purged by the far right teabaggers, Grover Norqiust and the fundies. Ask Dick Lugar, Bruce Bartlett and David Frum. You REALLY don't know what's going on, do you Jake??? How the GOP Purged Me

Left Wing Extremism playing to the fears of the mainstream, are you?

The TP movement has had some local successes, but far fewer than last year.

Watch Romney does to the survivors of the TP in Congress after January. Either they support his programs, or he will go after their patronage and raise money against them in the next primaries.

Romney is not going to put with extremism of the left or the right.

Obama is a centrist. Romney is not. Romney is running for president. NOT the governor of a liberal state. Your worship of Mitten is scary.

Today's GOP is not mainstream Jake. You are really uninformed. I am not fear-mongering, I am only stating facts. You want extremism? How about the most extreme anti-environment House of Representatives in our nation's history? House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections. Would king Romney veto these bills Jake?

You 'claim' to oppose the far right, but you have no clue just how far right the whole party has become. The 2008 election should have been a signal to the GOP to move towards the center. Instead they have move farther to the right.

Obama is left of center, and Romney is far closer to the mainstream of American than him. Have you studied Romney on environmentalism? You will be amazed at what you find?

This election is the signal that the far extremist wings of the left and the right are out.

 

[Bfgrn]

Left Wing Extremism playing to the fears of the mainstream, are you?

The TP movement has had some local successes, but far fewer than last year.

Watch Romney does to the survivors of the TP in Congress after January. Either they support his programs, or he will go after their patronage and raise money against them in the next primaries.

Romney is not going to put with extremism of the left or the right.

Obama is a centrist. Romney is not. Romney is running for president. NOT the governor of a liberal state. Your worship of Mitten is scary.

Today's GOP is not mainstream Jake. You are really uninformed. I am not fear-mongering, I am only stating facts. You want extremism? How about the most extreme anti-environment House of Representatives in our nation's history? House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections. Would king Romney veto these bills Jake?

You 'claim' to oppose the far right, but you have no clue just how far right the whole party has become. The 2008 election should have been a signal to the GOP to move towards the center. Instead they have move farther to the right.

Obama is left of center, and Romney is far closer to the mainstream of American than him. Have you studied Romney on environmentalism? You will be amazed at what you find?

This election is the signal that the far extremist wings of the left and the right are out.

WOW, you are beyond help here Jake. I am really disappointed. I never realized how uninformed you are.

Barack Obama signaled that the far extremist wings of the left are out. There is NOTHING Obama has done that could be called anything but center or right of center. And there is no doubt that the far right will be kept in check by Obama. Romney is a different story. He is parroting the very same dangerous ideas the far right promotes.

I am old enough to remember when there was a left that had power in America. It was by FAR the greatest era of shared wealth in our history. We had a REAL middle class. You keep talking about this so called far left...WHO are they? What have they been able to get passed in this country? Did we get single payer health care Jake? Did we even get a public option Jake?

What the GOP has said in word and deed since the 2008 election is that they don't recognize the current president as legitimate. They don't care about how their extreme obstructionism hurts our economy, our people or our future. That they refuse to govern in any way that could allow Obama to receive credit, and that they and ONLY they should be sanctioned to govern. It is their way or obstructionism.

If Romney wins, EVERYTHING the GOP has done will be validated. It will NOT turn them toward the center Jake. It will galvanize their extremism.

I am SHOCKED that you are unable to see that fact Jake.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Obama is a centrist. Romney is not. Romney is running for president. NOT the governor of a liberal state. Your worship of Mitten is scary.

Today's GOP is not mainstream Jake. You are really uninformed. I am not fear-mongering, I am only stating facts. You want extremism? How about the most extreme anti-environment House of Representatives in our nation's history? House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections. Would king Romney veto these bills Jake?

You 'claim' to oppose the far right, but you have no clue just how far right the whole party has become. The 2008 election should have been a signal to the GOP to move towards the center. Instead they have move farther to the right.

Obama is left of center, and Romney is far closer to the mainstream of American than him. Have you studied Romney on environmentalism? You will be amazed at what you find?

This election is the signal that the far extremist wings of the left and the right are out.

WOW, you are beyond help here Jake. I am really disappointed. I never realized how uninformed you are.

Barack Obama signaled that the far extremist wings of the left are out. There is NOTHING Obama has done that could be called anything but center or right of center. And there is no doubt that the far right will be kept in check by Obama. Romney is a different story. He is parroting the very same dangerous ideas the far right promotes.

I am old enough to remember when there was a left that had power in America. It was by FAR the greatest era of shared wealth in our history. We had a REAL middle class. You keep talking about this so called far left...WHO are they? What have they been able to get passed in this country? Did we get single payer health care Jake? Did we even get a public option Jake?

What the GOP has said in word and deed since the 2008 election is that they don't recognize the current president as legitimate. They don't care about how their extreme obstructionism hurts our economy, our people or our future. That they refuse to govern in any way that could allow Obama to receive credit, and that they and ONLY they should be sanctioned to govern. It is their way or obstructionism.

If Romney wins, EVERYTHING the GOP has done will be validated. It will NOT turn them toward the center Jake. It will galvanize their extremism.

I am SHOCKED that you are unable to see that fact Jake.

Well I agree that Jake is uniformed, he told me the left didnt have a philosphy based on Marxism, even lefties admit that. But Obama is not center or center right. All those programs and money he has spent. The Healthcare bill, the auto bailout and OWNING GM, nah....that's left wing, maybe not kook single payer stuff, but still left wing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama is left of center, and Romney is far closer to the mainstream of American than him. Have you studied Romney on environmentalism? You will be amazed at what you find?

This election is the signal that the far extremist wings of the left and the right are out.

WOW, you are beyond help here Jake. I am really disappointed. I never realized how uninformed you are.

Barack Obama signaled that the far extremist wings of the left are out. There is NOTHING Obama has done that could be called anything but center or right of center. And there is no doubt that the far right will be kept in check by Obama. Romney is a different story. He is parroting the very same dangerous ideas the far right promotes.

I am old enough to remember when there was a left that had power in America. It was by FAR the greatest era of shared wealth in our history. We had a REAL middle class. You keep talking about this so called far left...WHO are they? What have they been able to get passed in this country? Did we get single payer health care Jake? Did we even get a public option Jake?

What the GOP has said in word and deed since the 2008 election is that they don't recognize the current president as legitimate. They don't care about how their extreme obstructionism hurts our economy, our people or our future. That they refuse to govern in any way that could allow Obama to receive credit, and that they and ONLY they should be sanctioned to govern. It is their way or obstructionism.

If Romney wins, EVERYTHING the GOP has done will be validated. It will NOT turn them toward the center Jake. It will galvanize their extremism.

I am SHOCKED that you are unable to see that fact Jake.

Well I agree that Jake is uniformed, he told me the left didnt have a philosphy based on Marxism, even lefties admit that. But Obama is not center or center right. All those programs and money he has spent. The Healthcare bill, the auto bailout and OWNING GM, nah....that's left wing, maybe not kook single payer stuff, but still left wing.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have no right to call out Jake. They don't come any more uniformed than you.

1) The health care bill Democrats passed is almost a carbon copy of the bill Republicans proposed back in 1993, including the BIG GOP idea, the individual mandate.

2) The auto bailout was not based on political philosophy, it was based on pragmatism. Even President Bush who started the auto bailout recognized that.

Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) And in regards to 'All those programs and money he has spent'...

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wall Street Journal

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

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. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next...

 

[tjvh]

WOW, you are beyond help here Jake. I am really disappointed. I never realized how uninformed you are.

Barack Obama signaled that the far extremist wings of the left are out. There is NOTHING Obama has done that could be called anything but center or right of center. And there is no doubt that the far right will be kept in check by Obama. Romney is a different story. He is parroting the very same dangerous ideas the far right promotes.

I am old enough to remember when there was a left that had power in America. It was by FAR the greatest era of shared wealth in our history. We had a REAL middle class. You keep talking about this so called far left...WHO are they? What have they been able to get passed in this country? Did we get single payer health care Jake? Did we even get a public option Jake?

What the GOP has said in word and deed since the 2008 election is that they don't recognize the current president as legitimate. They don't care about how their extreme obstructionism hurts our economy, our people or our future. That they refuse to govern in any way that could allow Obama to receive credit, and that they and ONLY they should be sanctioned to govern. It is their way or obstructionism.

If Romney wins, EVERYTHING the GOP has done will be validated. It will NOT turn them toward the center Jake. It will galvanize their extremism.

I am SHOCKED that you are unable to see that fact Jake.

Well I agree that Jake is uniformed, he told me the left didnt have a philosphy based on Marxism, even lefties admit that. But Obama is not center or center right. All those programs and money he has spent. The Healthcare bill, the auto bailout and OWNING GM, nah....that's left wing, maybe not kook single payer stuff, but still left wing.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have no right to call out Jake. They don't come any more uniformed than you.

1) The health care bill Democrats passed is almost a carbon copy of the bill Republicans proposed back in 1993, including the BIG GOP idea, the individual mandate.

2) The auto bailout was not based on political philosophy, it was based on pragmatism. Even President Bush who started the auto bailout recognized that.

Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) And in regards to 'All those programs and money he has spent'...

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wall Street Journal

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

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. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next...

 

[Bfgrn]

Well I agree that Jake is uniformed, he told me the left didnt have a philosphy based on Marxism, even lefties admit that. But Obama is not center or center right. All those programs and money he has spent. The Healthcare bill, the auto bailout and OWNING GM, nah....that's left wing, maybe not kook single payer stuff, but still left wing.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have no right to call out Jake. They don't come any more uniformed than you.

1) The health care bill Democrats passed is almost a carbon copy of the bill Republicans proposed back in 1993, including the BIG GOP idea, the individual mandate.

2) The auto bailout was not based on political philosophy, it was based on pragmatism. Even President Bush who started the auto bailout recognized that.

Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) And in regards to 'All those programs and money he has spent'...

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wall Street Journal

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

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. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next...

If you like cartoons, here's the best one that describes the right in America today...

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[Texanmike]

WOW, you are beyond help here Jake. I am really disappointed. I never realized how uninformed you are.

Barack Obama signaled that the far extremist wings of the left are out. There is NOTHING Obama has done that could be called anything but center or right of center. And there is no doubt that the far right will be kept in check by Obama. Romney is a different story. He is parroting the very same dangerous ideas the far right promotes.

I am old enough to remember when there was a left that had power in America. It was by FAR the greatest era of shared wealth in our history. We had a REAL middle class. You keep talking about this so called far left...WHO are they? What have they been able to get passed in this country? Did we get single payer health care Jake? Did we even get a public option Jake?

What the GOP has said in word and deed since the 2008 election is that they don't recognize the current president as legitimate. They don't care about how their extreme obstructionism hurts our economy, our people or our future. That they refuse to govern in any way that could allow Obama to receive credit, and that they and ONLY they should be sanctioned to govern. It is their way or obstructionism.

If Romney wins, EVERYTHING the GOP has done will be validated. It will NOT turn them toward the center Jake. It will galvanize their extremism.

I am SHOCKED that you are unable to see that fact Jake.

Well I agree that Jake is uniformed, he told me the left didnt have a philosphy based on Marxism, even lefties admit that. But Obama is not center or center right. All those programs and money he has spent. The Healthcare bill, the auto bailout and OWNING GM, nah....that's left wing, maybe not kook single payer stuff, but still left wing.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have no right to call out Jake. They don't come any more uniformed than you.

1) The health care bill Democrats passed is almost a carbon copy of the bill Republicans proposed back in 1993, including the BIG GOP idea, the individual mandate.

2) The auto bailout was not based on political philosophy, it was based on pragmatism. Even President Bush who started the auto bailout recognized that.

Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) And in regards to 'All those programs and money he has spent'...

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wall Street Journal

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

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. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next...

It is incorrect to say that Obama did not spend money in FY09. He was elected in November of 08 and took office in January of 09. That would mean that in FY09 he was in office for a little over 8 of the 12 months in FY09. Not only that but the Congress that spend the money was a Democratic congress. To say that Bush spend all of that money is either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid.

Mike

 

[Political Junky]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have no right to call out Jake. They don't come any more uniformed than you.

1) The health care bill Democrats passed is almost a carbon copy of the bill Republicans proposed back in 1993, including the BIG GOP idea, the individual mandate.

2) The auto bailout was not based on political philosophy, it was based on pragmatism. Even President Bush who started the auto bailout recognized that.

Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

“Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-president, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. “If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay,” he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former president has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009 – though he did call the bailout “the only option” in his 2010 book, “Decision Points” — leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, “The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) And in regards to 'All those programs and money he has spent'...

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Wall Street Journal

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

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. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next...

If you like cartoons, here's the best one that describes the right in America today...

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

Awesome cartoon.