Obama already felt failure?

CaraFawn

I personnaly feel like Obama's projects, actions and budget for 2010 is already a failure.

I am not gonna comment on the cash injection or loans/depositis protections for banks, which we have already seen has failed miserably all over the world, banks already cheated over their own asset values to get bigger amounts of cash etc.

But Obama's war in Irak/Afghanistan budget for 2010 is 200BN.

Seriously, helping those countries out today, after the mess created by the US (As usual thanks), fair enough, but another 200BN is a non-sense and is impacting the global economy more than long term now.

This is less than the 2008-2009 budget but as we know the annual budget for the World Food Program that feed 700 million in the world each year (Well up to a few months back) is 2BN.

Many of our economical issues we had in the past couple of years were direct implication of wars and conflicts and still are...

For fcuk sake when are we going to move forward at some stage one day or what?

Overheal

I kept an eye on this after the Inauguration/Election. Before the Election, Obama swore in blood to pull out, but after getting his Top Secret Clearance, he started to phase in a different tune entirely. He let us know months ago there would be more action in Iraq before we were done.

I can only conclude something in the Intelligence Briefings and upon the Advice of the Joint Chiefs, that there is more going on in the Middle East that we the public are not entirely privy to. I helped vote him in and this is the course of action he is taking. Its a big gambit for his image, so I imagine its being done for a good reason. Im gonna give a little faith here.

limklad

I don't think he felt failure but more reality that impacts and changes plans. His predecessor let a bigger mess than he relies. It was not as easy to achieve his aims when he has to do the cleaning first.

Manic Moran

I can only conclude something in the Intelligence Briefings and upon the Advice of the Joint Chiefs, that there is more going on in the Middle East that we the public are not entirely privy to. I helped vote him in and this is the course of action he is taking.

Which is why I didn't think Obama winning would be the end of the world as we know it: If the Generals were telling him outright that a pullout from Iraq as fast as he was proposing in the campaign was a bad idea (Which they were), there was probably a reason for it. I'm sure Obama isn't stupid and that when fully briefed in on everything, he's understood the reasoning why and has scaled back his withdrawl plans.

Besides, he's already in, now. He doesn't need to pander to voters with unrealistic promises any more.

I'm certainly not about to write him off as a failure. Trying to declare success or failure at this point is simply impatience or unrealism. He's only just taken office, it's going to take him half a year to simply find his feet, let alone to allow the time for his policies to take effect. Talk to me again in Jan 2010 (Or maybe April, after I'm back from Afghanistan...) and we'll discuss his success or failure.

NTM

Manic Moran

I don't think he felt failure but more reality that impacts and changes plans. His predecessor let a bigger mess than he relies. It was not as easy to achieve his aims when he has to do the cleaning first.

Interesting how perspective can colour an interpretation.

You: Obama was right, but it's Bush's fault that his correctness cannot be applied so Obama needed to change his plan.

Me: Obama was wrong, but he's seen the reality now and is acting correctly.

Both say pretty much the same thing, but lay the 'blame' (such as it is) on opposite sides of the aisle.

NTM

Running Bing

I was personally disappointed when he didnt turn the loaves into $800 billion and then walk on the Lincoln memorial reflecting pool after his inauguration.


I think the problem is one of expectations. People need to realise that sometimes the most powerful man in the world is not that powerful.

GarretWilliams

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE51B7H820090213

But I thought O'Bama was taking the troops out. That is what all the little smug middle class irishmen were spouting around the time of the election. (why they were so interested in the election I have no idea, vanity?)

Anyway, "needs must", "the country would fall into chaos if we left". What a farce. And the little people still believe.

Pocono Joe

Spendzilla is still wreaking havoc through the streets of Washington, impervious to a public still mesmerized by every mundane "historic moment" associated with this president

Legislatures huddle together cringing and paralyzed by the enormous liberal spending spree engulfing the nation in its march to economic ruin.

Can Conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats unite to stop the slide into economic abyss and fall into socialism upon realizing they are running out of other peoples money? Stay tuned... same dingbat time same dingbat station.

(Pitchforks and torches are on sale at stopliberalshockandawe.waste/)

Oh the humanity!

zod

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Legislatures huddle together cringing and paralyzed by the enormous liberal spending spree engulfing the nation in its march to economic ruin.

1. He has already said he will try halve the deficit by the end of his term

2. He has put the wars back on the books

3. Don't forget how they got the deficit in the first place.

Pocono Joe

zod wrote: »

1. He has already said he will try halve the deficit by the end of his term.

Yeah... and I’m the king of the world.

2. He has put the wars back on the books.

And when they begin to scale down the war in Iraq, he will be able to claim he’s decreasing the budget.

3. Don't forget how they got the deficit in the first place.

So the answer is to spend 10 times as much?

Overheal

Theres a bit of a difference though between spending a trillion investing in the economy and expending a trillion on two foreign wars.

silverharp

A good blog piece by Mish

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/dear-mr-president-with-all-due-respect.html

Dear Mr. President, With All Due Respect ....


Dear Mr. President, I read your New Era $3.6 Trillion Budget Proposal. I also listened to your speech Tuesday night. You made a great campaign speech. However, the campaign is over. You won. And the reason you won is you offered hope as well as a promise of change.

With all due respect Mr. President, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke are offering the same policies as President Bush and Secretary Paulson. Those policies are to bail out banks regardless of cost to taxpayers. Mr. President, it's hard enough to overlook Geithner's tax indiscretions. Mr. President, it is harder still. if not impossible, to ignore the fact that neither Geithner nor Bernanke saw this coming. Yet amazingly they are both cock sure of the solution. Even more amazing is the fact that solution changes every day.

With all due respect Mr. President, Geithner and Bernanke are a huge part of the problem, and no part of the solution and the sooner you realize that the better off this nation will be.

With all due respect Mr. President, your budget proposal is the same big government spending as we saw under President Bush. The only difference is you promised more spending and bigger government, while President Bush promised less government and less spending and failed to deliver on either count.

With all due respect Mr. President, it is impossible to spend one's way out of a problem, when the problem is reckless spending.

With all due respect Mr. President, you and Congress want to force banks to lend when banks (by not lending) are acting responsibly for the first time in a decade. Mr, President can you please tell us who banks are supposed to lend to? Do we need any more Home Depots? Pizza Huts? Strip malls? Nail salons? Auto dealerships? What Mr. President? What? And why should banks be lending when unemployment is rising and lending risks right along with it?

With all due respect Mr. President, we were hoping your administration would not carry on the war mongering policies of your predecessor. Instead we see amazingly that you Seek $75.5 Billion More for Wars in 2009. Mr. President, do we really need another $75 billion for wars? Was there nothing in the military budget that could be cut?

With all due respect Mr. President, The United States spends more on its military budget than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined; The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending; The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. Isn't that enough Mr. President?

With all due respect Mr. President, the downfall of every great nation in history has been unsustainable military expansion. Mr. President, the US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. You act as if we can. Mr. President, can you please tell us how we can afford this spending?

With all due respect Mr. President, Fannie Mae Reported A Fourth Quarter Loss Of $25.2 Billion. Can you please tell us where you draw the line on taxpayer bailouts of Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? AIG? Mr. President is there a line anywhere, on anything? If there is, we would appreciate knowing where it is.

With all due respect Mr. President, how can you talk about reducing the budget deficit while proposing the biggest budget in history?

With all due respect Mr. President, how is it possible to talk about reducing health care costs while proposing to increase the health care budget?

With all due respect Mr. President, you have talked about "hard choices". Can you please tell us what hard choices you have made other than to throw money at every problem? Sure a few programs have changed but Bush orchestrated the biggest Medicaid/Medicare package in history and you upped it. You upped military spending. You criticized McCain for cutting programs that amount to peanuts, and all you can find to cut out of the budget is peanuts.

With all due respect Mr. President, your "Era of New Responsibility" is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration Era of Irresponsibility. Mr. President, we hoped for more and deserved more. Yet, behind the charade of campaign messages of hope and change, we essentially see the same fiscal irresponsibility and misguided policies as before. Oh sure Mr. President, your budget priorities have shifted a bit, sadly the irresponsible spending did not.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Overheal

With all due respect Mr. President, The United States spends more on its military budget than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined; The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending; The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. Isn't that enough Mr. President?

I'd invite you to join me in a serious discussion about aliens sometime.

Pocono Joe

The other day my youngest daughter asked, "Daddy? Do all Fairy Tales begin with Once Upon A Time?" I replied, "No hunny, just last year there was a Fairy Tale that began with 'When elected I promise...'

Manic Moran

Theres a bit of a difference though between spending a trillion investing in the economy and expending a trillion on two foreign wars

Where did the trillion on the two foreign wars go?

We've just got nice new armoured Hummers. Made by AM General in Indiana.
A whole pile of M4 Carbines were just delivered to my unit, made in Hartford, Connecticut.
Ammunition is made by Alliant Lake Systems in Missouri.
Bradley upgrades are done by BAe in California.
Tank upgrades by GD in Ohio.
Predator UAVs built in California, firing Hellfire missiles built in Florida.
And, of course, my military pay cheque comes to me in California, whilst another person is hired to fill my civilian job, also bringing money into California and reducing unemployment. He tells me he's going to use the money to buy a Harley, made in Wisconsin, I believe.

Now, you may argue that the money should be going to highway workers and nurses instead of aviation engineers and machinists, but most of the money is not evaporating into thin air or leaving the borders of the country and is indeed being used to provide jobs in the US for Americans. Indeed, by law major military purchases must be made in the US.

NTM

Overheal

Conceded. But havent we handed over a lot of money to the Iraqui's for reconstruction? I know, Charlie Wilson's war, etc. I can see the merit, but out of curiosity, how much?

Sand

Rhetoric can win electoral campaigns but thats about it. He is an exceptional politician, capable of getting people to vote him based on little more than promises.

Never mind, Im sure he can learn on the job.

But Obama's war in Irak

Clearly his education policies have a long way to go....

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Conceded. But havent we handed over a lot of money to the Iraqui's for reconstruction? I know, Charlie Wilson's war, etc. I can see the merit, but out of curiosity, how much?

I have absolutely no idea. I doubt anyone outside of the bureaucracy knows. Actually, I doubt even anyone in the bureaucracy knows.

It is certainly true that a number of reconstruction contracts have gone to Iraqi companies. It is also certainly true that the majority of the rest which have gone to American companies are being used to pay Iraqi workers. Similarly the workers directly paid by the US military such as interpreters or local labourers. But how many of those Iraqi companies are purchasing or using American products?

On the other hand, Iraqi salaries aren't all that much to begin with. Just what the raw dollar value is which is entering non-American hands is difficult to estimate. Similarly, business grants have been on the order of $2,000 per business. Pennies by US standards, but enough to get the locals going again. Then again, a million here and a million there, and soon you're talking some serious money.

Still, the high-use, large-dollar-value items, like something akin to a quarter-million per HMMWV or $100,000 per Hellfire, or a Westerner's pay salary, are staying in the US. Thus, though I can't tell you exactly what proportion of war funds end up staying in the US economy, it is certainly incorrect to assume that the two trillion (or whatever) spent thus far has even in large part evaporated from the US economy. As the old adage goes, nothing is as good for an economy as a war. Or, as one geezer put it centuries ago, 'To carry out war, you need three things. Money, money and yet more money.' That money basically circulates inside the economy. If you really want to spend your way out of an economic crisis, go invade someone!

NTM

CaraFawn

Anyway accordig to his plan announced today in 18 months time US soldiers would leave Irak, with only up to 50k staff remaining in 2009 instead of 145k today.
Ence the 200 billion USD only for 2009, well covering Afghanistan too :-)

CaraFawn

silverharp wrote: »

The United States spends on its military 10.2 times more than Russia

I very seriously have doubts about this figure.
Was probably true during the cold war, certainly not the case today.
A russian soldier paid 200 USD a month is a happy soldier.
Russia certainly does not even get close to 1/10 of that the Pentagon is assigned each year.
Russia has one of the oldest park of military equipment in the world.

Edit:
Hum found this actually, pretty interresting
2009 budget for russia is 50BN, pretty descent I would say alright...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Ok Pentagon budget for 2008 was about 500BN, so yeah ok 10%

Also soldiers got salary increases in 2007. Base soldier is getting aruond 350 euro/month apparently now. Been doubled...

Overheal

CaraFawn wrote: »

Irak,
Ence

Where? What?

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

Where? What?

Iraq is "Irak" in Turkish if that helps. The second one is obviously "hence". Back on track?

Manic Moran

CaraFawn wrote: »

Anyway accordig to his plan announced today in 18 months time US soldiers would leave Irak, with only up to 50k staff remaining in 2009 instead of 145k today.

Amazing how similar his plan is to that drawn up by the Republicans, isn't it?

But 'staff'?

We're talking soldiers, not office workers here. I'm not convinced that 'staff' is quite the right word to use.

NTM

Sand

We're talking soldiers, not office workers here. I'm not convinced that 'staff' is quite the right word to use.

Heavily armed staff. With air support. And tanks. Its all there in the fine print of his campaign pledges.

Overheal

That Predator is carrying 10 kilotons of autonomous hope and change.

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

That Predator is carrying 10 kilotons of autonomous hope and change.

Well it certainly delivers change... but not much hope.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

I kept an eye on this after the Inauguration/Election. Before the Election, Obama swore in blood to pull out, but after getting his Top Secret Clearance, he started to phase in a different tune entirely.

I thought that he promised a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in roughly 18 months time after he was sworn into office? September of 2010 would be roughly this time frame?

Manic Moran

I think it was 16 months, making it June 2010. I'm not sure if he ever made any statements as to the numbers of troops remaining, though I do seem to find myself in agreement with Pelosi et al that the impression given was more like 20,000. Still, hunting around, I am now of course bombarded with Google results from the recent announcement, it's hard to find the archives off the cuff from the election campaign. I've not found anything in which he gives an answer other than 'I'll figure out how many troops to leave in Iraq later', so I could well be suffering from just an unfounded impression. Even his 'Get the troops out by Mar08' bill he submitted in May07 was non-specific about just how many troops would be pulled out. (Good politician: Keep your options open, never get pinned down!)

Here's his position in July 08. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/04/10111

I find it inconceivable that this is going to come to pass. I can't think of any organisation which will leave 50,000 troops around for training and 'just in case' and not have any of them be combat brigades. They may not have a primary combat role and will be off the streets unless requested, but there will be combat brigades in the country. That's the whole point of leaving soldiers!

But given how similar the Obama schedule in Iraq is to the Bush schedule in Iraq, makes you wonder. Did Obama just feed people a line to get elected, or did he honestly believe his initial intent was viable and then discover that the truth wasn't so simple after he had gotten into office?

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't think of any organisation which will leave 50,000 troops around for training and 'just in case' and not have any of them be combat brigades.

Oh Boy, a game show answer! "What is.... US troops stationed for years at South Korea's DMZ?"

**B!ue drops flash bang down the open hatch in JWM's old model tank while he takes a snooze, then she runs!**

Manic Moran

You know, we sleep on the outside of the tank? Where the big flat areas are?

The troopers at the DMZ seem to like it, as long as they're not married. One of the few places left in the Army where they still do Army stuff. You know, drills, maneuvers with the tanks, that sort of thing.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know, we sleep on the outside of the tank? Where the big flat areas are?

Oh, I'll keep that in mind the next time I capture your flag.

People should cut Obama a little slack. After all, he has only had a month in office to mess up, when GW had years of practice.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

People should cut Obama a little slack. After all, he has only had a month in office to mess up, when GW had years of practice.

Now that’s rich (and maybe the single most inane comment I’ve read here so far).

In that one month, this president submitted to Congress the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States. It’s estimated the package would cost every family in the country $52,000 over the next ten years in interest payments alone. On top of that, almost every day I’m hearing about another multi-billion dollar government spending plan being proposed in a march to a new American socialist experiment. One by which the government owns banks and car companies, directs employers on how to pay and treat their employees, limits industrial output, and runs the healthcare system.

I want to know who is in favor of all this, other than the liberals who only make up 22% of the electorate, democrat stooges (and a few RINOs), and the drive-by media?

Now, instead of working hard so our children can have a better life tomorrow, we are making our children, our children’s children, and their children work harder so that we don’t have to make tough choices today.

So how long should we wait until we gather the proverbial pitchforks and torches and storm the castle Capital... two months, three, one year, or 2012 when the government controls the distribution and usage of pitchforks and torches?

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Now that’s rich (and maybe the single most inane comment I’ve read here so far).

Can't debate an issue without making a rude personal insult?

The Mad Hatter

Pocono Joe wrote: »

In that one month, this president submitted to Congress the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States. It’s estimated the package would cost every family in the country $52,000 over the next ten years in interest payments alone. On top of that, almost every day I’m hearing about another multi-billion dollar government spending plan being proposed in a march to a new American socialist experiment. One by which the government owns banks and car companies, directs employers on how to pay and treat their employees, limits industrial output, and runs the healthcare system.

Well, the healthcare system in the US is third-world standard - you should count yourself lucky that you've (finally) got someone who's doing something about it.

Now, instead of working hard so our children can have a better life tomorrow, we are making our children, our children’s children, and their children work harder so that we don’t have to make tough choices today.

Hang on, how are universal healthcare and proper education going to make your children have to work harder? How is supporting the idea of fair pay and conditions for work going to cause your children to work harder?

So how long should we wait until we gather the proverbial pitchforks and torches and storm the castle Capital... two months, three, one year, or 2012 when the government controls the distribution and usage of pitchforks and torches?

If no-one marched to the White House when Bush II was occupying it, then it's a safe bet that no-one's going to march to it.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Now that’s rich (and maybe the single most inane comment I’ve read here so far).

In that one month...

Lets just see here:

1/20/2001 and counting...

Day 1 Reversed dozens of Clinton's initiatives including environmental protections

Day 3 Blocked US funds to international family planning groups who provide abortion counseling and services in foreign countries.

Day 4 Reform and funding for higher education standards introduced the voucher system which benefitied charter schools rather than public.

Day 10 Created office to distribute US funds to faith based groups for social service work; criticized as breaking down the wall between church and state.

Day 18 Treasury Secretary O'Neill defends Bush's budget plans, says there will be a "trillion dollars ... over this next 10-year period. ... [sic]... We have in front of us a continuation of ... a golden era of economic prosperity."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june01/oneill_2-8.html

Day 20 Budget proposal includes refund of $ 1.6 trillion via tax cuts

Day 24 Bush ask for $5 billion increase in military spending

Day 27 US Navy submarine rams and sinks Japanese fishing boat carrying high school students, killing 9, says "Oops, sorry" to Japan. Commander gets official slap on the wrist and honorable discharge.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/collision_02-12.html

Day 28 Bush orders air strikes on radar stations in Baghdad, killing 2.

Day 39 First address to Congress televised to the public, outlining his administration's goals.

Day 40 Presents $1,960,000,000,000 ($1.96 Trillion) budget: increased funding for education (mixed + & - to the plan), reduced funding for research and energy conservation, eliminated funding for anti-drug programs in public housing, ended program for marine and coastal protections.

Day 50 Bush advisors promote reduced carbon dioxide emissions to fight Global Warming.

Day 53 Bush reneges on campaign promises for environmental controls saying "It's too expensive," undermining his EPA chief and succumbing to special interest groups.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/co2_3-14.html

Day 60 Bush reverses Clinton initiative to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water.

Day 63 Bush's EPA chief announces the U.S. withdrawal from the 1997 Kyoto Global Warming Agreement, its desire to open up the pristine National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling in Alaska, and other environmental initiatives like the "Clean Air Act."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/bushenv_3-29.html

Day 73 US spy plane collides with Chinese fighter jet off the coast of China, creating international crisis as 24 US crew men held in China. "Oops, we did it, but no apology."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/china_plane.html

Day 82 Bush finally says "I'm sorry" without admitting guilt to get 24 US navy crewmen released.

Day 87 Bush upholds two Clinton environmental policies regarding wetlands protections.

Day 91 Three day summit with North American leaders to discuss Free Trade Agreement.

Day 100 Hosted lunch for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/100_days.html

The curtain goes up to the next 100 days

Day 194 Bush goes on vacation for the month of August.

Day 214 Bush's Incredible Shrinking Budget Surplus: "Congressional Budget Office numbers ... will be presenting us with a projection of budget deficits, exclusive of Social Security and Medicare-- for some years to come. And that means we've got to sit down with this budget and rethink our priorities.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec01/surplus_8-21.html

Day 235 U.S. mainland is attacked in a 3 pronged assault by foreign terrorists for the first time in history, killing 2,752 civilians.

Day 666 Bush administration promises to limit environmental protections and make it easier for ranchers to graze livestock on public lands. "The Department of Interior is seeking ways to prevent federal laws like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act from restricting grazing on public lands. We should not be using the Endangered Species Act... as a land management tool. It is not there as a tool for zoning on federal lands."

Immediately upon taking office, Roosevelt set the U.S. on a 100-day course to recovery.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-179441

Trouser_Press

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Now, instead of working hard so our children can have a better life tomorrow, we are making our children, our children’s children, and their children work harder so that we don’t have to make tough choices today.

Is that a verse from a Whitney Houston ballad, or an extract from a Bobby Jindal speech?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Lets just see here:

Reversed dozens of Clinton's initiatives including environmental protections

Probably some good reversals as well. It's pretty much standard procedure.

Reform and funding for higher education standards introduced the voucher system which benefitied charter schools rather than public.

Are you saying that Charter Schools are not worthy of them? Part of the function of charter schools is that they are held accountable for their performance. What's wrong with giving them money if you're holding them to it?

Created office to distribute US funds to faith based groups for social service work; criticized as breaking down the wall between church and state.


Yet Obama has no particular objection to faith-based initiatives either.

Treasury Secretary O'Neill defends Bush's budget plans, says there will be a "trillion dollars ... over this next 10-year period. ... [sic]... We have in front of us a continuation of ... a golden era of economic prosperity."

Well, I don't think anyone really had grounds to think otherwise at the time.

Budget proposal includes refund of $ 1.6 trillion via tax cuts

Cool!

Bush ask for $5 billion increase in military spending

Best decision of the list so far. Shown to be correct by events later on.

US Navy submarine rams and sinks Japanese fishing boat carrying high school students, killing 9, says "Oops, sorry" to Japan. Commander gets official slap on the wrist and honorable discharge.

"Oops, Sorry" is the correct thing to say in Japanese culture. Commander took retirement after receiving Admiral's Mast, which is a career-killer. Court-Martial proceedings were deemed by the court of inquiry to be inappropriate, so a 15-6 was followed. In a nutshell, it was an honest accident with a few contributory causes.

Bush orders air strikes on radar stations in Baghdad, killing 2.

He waited longer than Obama did, then (2 days, killing 25).

Presents $1,960,000,000,000 ($1.96 Trillion) budget: increased funding for education (mixed + & - to the plan), reduced funding for research and energy conservation, eliminated funding for anti-drug programs in public housing, ended program for marine and coastal protections.

So what got increased then? The $5bn for defence doesn't account for the gap.

Bush reneges on campaign promises for environmental controls saying "It's too expensive," undermining his EPA chief and succumbing to special interest groups.

Fair gripe. He wasn't be first, I doubt he'll be the last.

Bush reverses Clinton initiative to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water.

The famous 'Arsenic Trap.' "I've got a great idea. Let's set a standard which looks good to the public by way of an executive order just before I leave office. Either my successor will go broke trying to meet it, or he'll look bad for not caring about arsenic levels." Quite a few cities would have had financial problems trying to meet a standard created by the stroke of a pen. After the Bush reversal, Congress went and passed it anyway, only to see the EPA have to provide exemptions for States from Nevada to Maryland because they couldn't meet them.

Bush's EPA chief announces the U.S. withdrawal from the 1997 Kyoto Global Warming Agreement, its desire to open up the pristine National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling in Alaska, and other environmental initiatives like the "Clean Air Act."


The same Kyoto agreement that the Clinton administration recommended that Congress not ratify, because it sucked. Of course, it cost them nothing to sign it but they got the column inches at the time.

US spy plane collides with Chinese fighter jet off the coast of China, creating international crisis as 24 US crew men held in China. "Oops, we did it, but no apology."

They did not do it. An old propeller airliner doesn't just crash into a fighter jet, the jet-jocky was showing off and fecked up. (He was known by name to the Americans based off prior incidents).

Bush finally says "I'm sorry" without admitting guilt to get 24 US navy crewmen released.

Cost nothing, but got the men back. Sounds like a good deal to me. So it apparently did to 72% of the voters, according to a CNN poll.

Interesting to note that 100 days in, his approval rating was higher than that of Clinton's when he was 100 days in. (62% vs 55%)

NTM

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know, we sleep on the outside of the tank? Where the big flat areas are?

The troopers at the DMZ seem to like it, as long as they're not married. One of the few places left in the Army where they still do Army stuff. You know, drills, maneuvers with the tanks, that sort of thing.

...without the sand and the whole sniper/roadside bomb thing. As long as nobody has to eat that kimchi stuff...apparently its an "aqquired taste"....

Trouser_Press wrote:

Is that a verse from a Whitney Houston ballad, or an extract from a Bobby Jindal speech?

Bobby is now yesterdays man. Apparently 'Republican activists' prefer Mitt Romney.....I'd say they'd be better off with Whitney.

Trouser_Press

Nodin wrote: »

Bobby is now yesterdays man. Apparently 'Republican activists' prefer Mitt Romney.....I'd say they'd be better off with Whitney.

I sense that while Mitt might be today's man by tomorrow he'll be yesterday's, if you know what I mean. I have a Republican friend (just the one, mind) who assures me that the baseball chap Curt Shilling is the future. I'm excited.

Black Swan

Nodin wrote: »

As long as nobody has to eat that kimchi stuff...apparently its an "aqquired taste"....

Please pass the kimchi to me, I want seconds! Especially that fermented in earthen pots found on the outlying farms I ate while in So Korea. Yum!

Nice job Overheal on the historical comparison. Well cited too! The Mad Hatter did well to point out how American healthcare suffered under GW Bush (46.6 million uninsured, including millions of innocent children without healthcare), as well as the No Child Left Behind joke (where teachers taught to the test, rather than focusing on learning).

Who was president in 2005? Did he care through action (not political rhetoric)? Obama seems to care, but only time will tell.

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,”

Source: http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Pocono Joe

Mr. Obama is proposing a major expansion of the federal commitment to health care even though the government can barely afford the health insurance programs it already has. The financial condition of Medicare is deteriorating because of the recession, according to new information from federal officials, and the Medicare trust fund could be depleted several years sooner than expected.

And according to Obama, he would tax upper-income households and require new "efficiencies" in health care to pay for the new plans. "Efficiencies" and the "US Government" is an oxymoron to be sure. He also tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Does anyone really believe that?

Now lets talk about that 46 million uninsured number some like to bandy about.

According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America. In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. Most of us would agree that people like that should probably be able to afford some type of coverage.

And then there are the young who consider themselves invincible. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care. They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.

14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. They represent %31 - nearly one third - of the uninsured in America.

An then the U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants and "anchor babies" who don't buy health insurance but still get health care. They are also included in these figures as Uninsured.

So, how many does that leave that are truly uninsured not by choice or illegal? (Also realize there are some crossover data in the figures listed above)

Granted the recession is contributing to the growing number, but lets be real... we’re talking about 8 million legitimately uninsured here.

Pocono Joe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hang on, how are universal healthcare and proper education going to make your children have to work harder? How is supporting the idea of fair pay and conditions for work going to cause your children to work harder?.

Lets see here. Our entire national debt is about $11 Trillion. Obama is proposing a $3.6 Trillion budget. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. I addressed the healthcare above, and simply just throwing money at education has historically never worked. So either our children will have to pay for most all that Obama is proposing, or we’ve got to hope for another sneak attack by Japan.

Trouser_Press

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets see here. Our entire national debt is about $11 Trillion. Obama is proposing a $3.6 Trillion budget.....

The really disturbing thing here, Pocono Joe, is that Obama has been handed an economy in pristine condition (and just the two wars) and he's, clearly, set on a path that will destroy that wonderful legacy.

It beggars belief. I share your pain. Truly.

Manic Moran

There are many different types of Kimchi. Very few of which I find even remotely palatable.

Bulgogi, on the other hand...

Then again, they really do have odd tastes. Dad's office used to be at the entrance to Nam-dae-mun market. Shoe shop, bag shop, shoe shop, bag shop, leather shop, bag shop, tailor, bag shop, food stall, bag shop...

Walking down one day, was attracted to the smell and sound of frying at one of the stalls. I'm sorry. There's no comparison between a California food stall selling BBQ Tri-tip vs a Korean food stall selling fried beetles. Call me ethnocentric if you will, but I didn't even consider trying them.

NTM

Pocono Joe

Trouser_Press wrote: »

The really disturbing thing here, Pocono Joe, is that Obama has been handed an economy in pristine condition (and just the two wars) and he's, clearly, set on a path that will destroy that wonderful legacy.

It beggars belief. I share your pain. Truly.

Maybe Obama would garner more support if someone explained to him the difference between Stimulus and Porkulus.

And with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd still in charge and calling the shots on what caused this entire mess in the first place, we have nothing at all to fear (I like to use sarcasm also, even if it is the lowest form of wit).

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets see here. Our entire national debt is about $11 Trillion. Obama is proposing a $3.6 Trillion budget.

The 2008 GW Bush budget totaled $2.9 trillion?

That $11 trillion estimate of the federal deficit left by GW Bush after 8 years in office is consistent with what I have sourced from the US Dept of Treasury site. It should also be noted that during the 8 years of Clinton, the federal deficit only grew by roughly $1 trillion to $5.6 trillion total when leaving office, which GW Bush almost doubled to the $11 trillion quoted figure. Certainly not a positive endorsement of the GW Bush administration for fiscal responsibility?

I am very concerned about bailout monies lack of oversight during this severe recession. GW Bush failed to control abuse by corporate America during his final year in office, with posh resort Marriott $400,000 parties by AIG after bailout (part of which was for $23,000 in massages) for example, and now a $1 million party with live rock bands by an east coast bank after receiving a $1.5 billion bailout during the first month of the Obama administration. The GAO should investigate, and if abuse found, carry the case to the US Justice Dept for prosecution of the CEOs and the executives that report to them.

If I were president, I would push to take the bailout monies back from corporations that abuse the benefit, allowing their collapse to be a warning to other corporations. If they didn't collapse, through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance I would deny these abusive corporations an opportunity to bid on federal contracts for 4 years.

Pocono Joe

Blue... there are some things we do agree on! Abusers of the bailout funds should be hammered... big time! I was just speaking to an executive at the bank our firm utilizes. I asked him what they used their portion of the bailout money for. His answer was they bought another bank almost the same size as they were. Now how did that stimulate the economy?

And you also bring up something notable. The deficit (national debt) grew every year under Clinton (granted by no means as much as Bush), so how then can he claim a SURPLUS? A quandary methinks.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Blue... there are some things we do agree on!

Shhhhhhhhh, keep that a secret!

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And you also bring up something notable. The deficit (national debt) grew every year under Clinton (granted by no means as much as Bush), so how then can he claim a SURPLUS? A quandary methinks.

I struggle with this issue too. I have found news media sources reporting considerably lower federal deficit numbers, no matter the administration in office. And yes, some report a Clinton surplus. That's why I go to the US Treasury site for this information, which shows the deficit growing going back decades under all the administrations. It's like a scary clock that keeps ticking upwards, with the US government pulling out the federal credit card and mortgaging present and future generations of Americans to a life of debt.

Nodin

Trouser_Press wrote: »

The really disturbing thing here, Pocono Joe, is that Obama has been handed an economy in pristine condition (and just the two wars) and he's, clearly, set on a path that will destroy that wonderful legacy.

It beggars belief. I share your pain. Truly.

You wonder why others can't see that "I'm on a highway to hell" glint in his eye.....

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

You wonder why others can't see that "I'm on a highway to hell" glint in his eye.....

Although I’m more partial to AC/DC’s "Highway to Hell," a take on the chorus of Roger Miller’s "Dang Me" might be more apropos here.

Damn me, damn me,
They're gonna take a vote to hang me.
Can tolerate me to a certain degree,
Then GuanYin will put a ban on me.
Beup Beup Beup Beup Beup Beup Buep
Beau Beau Beau Beau Beum
Boop Boop Boop Boop Boop Boop Boow
Boop Boop Boop Boow Boow

Trouser_Press

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I like to use sarcasm also

Are you Sarah Palin?