Barack Obama Gives Himself a B+

[Frankg]

Besides being a self centered narcisistic asshole, obama is also delusional.

B+.....:lmao2:
Barack Obama Gives Himself a B+ For Tripling Deficit & Nearly Doubling Unemployment in One Year
Monday, December 14, 2009, 5:42 AM
Jim Hoft

So what would an “F” look like?

Barack Obama told Oprah Winfrey (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/14/2009-12-14_b_for_me_bam_sez_first_couple_hosts_oprah_on_ab c.html) last night that he deserved a B+ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/13/obama-gives-b-plus-grade/%20/?test=latestnews) for the year.

After all… Obama and Democrats only tripled the national deficit (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/us-budget-deficit-triples-under-obama-democrats-media-silent-update-dems-plan-2nd-stimulus/) in less than one year.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obama-deficit.bmp
Obama increased the national debt to $12 Trillion (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np).

And he nearly doubled (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/holy-nightmare-unemployment-rate-spikes-to-10-2/) the unemployment rate since the Bush years with his failed Stimulus Plan (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/08/surprise-six-months-in-dems-stimulus-bill-isnt-working/).
If his goal was to destroy the US economy then a B+ would fit.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

[bairdi]

frankie, how many times must it be pointed out to you that the 2009 budget was submitted by George Bush? Please pass the memo to that dumbass Jim Hoft.

[Socialist_Revolution]

frankie, how many times must it be pointed out to you that the 2009 budget was submitted by George Bush? Please pass the memo to that dumbass Jim Hoft.
Why not let him live in his delusional gateway punkdicks life...that is all he has so dont burst his childlike bubble.:lmao2:

[Pat]

frankie, how many times must it be pointed out to you that the 2009 budget was submitted by George Bush? Please pass the memo to that dumbass Jim Hoft.
The stimulus package was in Mr Bush's budget?
Who knew?

[JJGlanton]

Pat, Why not let them live in their delusional gateway punkdicks lives...that is all he has so dont burst their childlike bubbles.

[Socialist_Revolution]

Pat, Why not let them live in their delusional gateway punkdicks lives...that is all he has so dont burst their childlike bubbles.
wow, thats soooooo original of you its scary!:lmao2:

[bairdi]

The stimulus package was in Mr Bush's budget?
Who knew?
You couldn't possibly be claiming that the 2009 budget was not Bush's are you? And you couldn't possibly be claiming that the stimulus tripled the national deficit could you?

Whynot just admit that the gatewaypundit bullshit is just that, deceptive bullshit and nothing more. I guess that would be too much to ask.

[Pat]

You couldn't possibly be claiming that the 2009 budget was not Bush's are you? And you couldn't possibly be claiming that the stimulus tripled the national deficit could you?

Whynot just admit that the gatewaypundit bullshit is just that, deceptive bullshit and nothing more. I guess that would be too much to ask.
TARP wasn't in Mr Bush's budget. He did sign it into law, but don't forget, both presidential candidates at the time helped to arrange it.
The stimulus package wasn't in Mr Bush's budget either.

[Smurf-Herder]

You couldn't possibly be claiming that the 2009 budget was not Bush's are you? And you couldn't possibly be claiming that the stimulus tripled the national deficit could you?

Whynot just admit that the gatewaypundit bullshit is just that, deceptive bullshit and nothing more. I guess that would be too much to ask.

Bush started with a $450 billion deficit. Then the Democrats Omnibus Bill got added to it early in the year. Then there was TARP and Obamas Stimulus Bill.

All I can be sure of it, the fiscal spending year ends in October. I don't know how they figure which year the extra stuff goes to. But Bush started out with only a $450 billion deficit in his budget, before all the other shit came in.

BTW, everything after 2006 involves the Democrats controlling the purse.

[bairdi]

It's Bush's Deficit, the Republicans Are Not Telling the Truth
March 14, 2009

As a general rule, politicians will say anything that they think they can get away with which will advance their agenda. Truth is not usually a major consideration. That applies to politicians of both political parties.

In principle, the media places a limit on politicians' ability to lie, since calling your opponent a murderer is likely to backfire if the headline reads "Senator Fabricates Murder Story."

Unfortunately, budget reporters largely fall down on the job. Hence we get the headline "Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush," with the subhead "Points to 'Inherited' Economy."

Okay, let's get serious folks. It is not a "inherited" economy, it is a inherited economy. There is no dispute that the economy was in horrible shape at the time that President Obama took office. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply lying.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the budget deficit that the Republicans are now complaining about is directly attributable to President Bush's policies. The additional deficit for 2009 that it is attributable to President Obama's efforts to fix the disastrous economy that he was handed by President Bush is trivial in comparison, as can be clearly seen. (The projections are taken from CBO).

--Dean Baker

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/deanbaker/2009/03/14/Book1_28736_image001.gif

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2009

[Pat]

It's Bush's Deficit, the Republicans Are Not Telling the Truth
March 14, 2009

As a general rule, politicians will say anything that they think they can get away with which will advance their agenda. Truth is not usually a major consideration. That applies to politicians of both political parties.

In principle, the media places a limit on politicians' ability to lie, since calling your opponent a murderer is likely to backfire if the headline reads "Senator Fabricates Murder Story."

Unfortunately, budget reporters largely fall down on the job. Hence we get the headline "Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush," with the subhead "Points to 'Inherited' Economy."

Okay, let's get serious folks. It is not a "inherited" economy, it is a inherited economy. There is no dispute that the economy was in horrible shape at the time that President Obama took office. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply lying.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the budget deficit that the Republicans are now complaining about is directly attributable to President Bush's policies. The additional deficit for 2009 that it is attributable to President Obama's efforts to fix the disastrous economy that he was handed by President Bush is trivial in comparison, as can be clearly seen. (The projections are taken from CBO).

--Dean Baker

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/deanbaker/2009/03/14/Book1_28736_image001.gif

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2009
And yet that blog doesn't explain how he arrived at that conclusion, does it?

[bairdi]

And yet that blog doesn't explain how he arrived at that conclusion, does it?
Just an FYI. We go through this same bullshit discussion every time frankie posts that gatewaypundit propaganda.

[Socialist_Revolution]

And yet that blog doesn't explain how he arrived at that conclusion, does it?
Interesting that you point out that Bairdi posted a blog....do you feel the same way about your buddies on the right that post BLOGSalmost DAILY like Frankie and others or is it that just conservative BLOGS can be reliable and all others are crap?

[Pat]

And yet that blog doesn't explain how he arrived at that conclusion, does it?

Just an FYI. We go through this same bullshit discussion every time frankie posts that gatewaypundit propaganda.

Your post completely failed to address mine.
<Insert dodge, shuck and jive smiley here>

[Pat]

Interesting that you point out that Bairdi posted a blog....do you feel the same way about your buddies on the right that post BLOGSalmost DAILY like Frankie and others or is it that just conservative BLOGS can be reliable and all others are crap?
See above post.

[wayers57]

B+:lmao2: what a fucking joke, he has not shown DC to be transparent, has not passed healthcare, we are still at war, can't even secure the whitehouse, has created more unemployment and tanked the economy because of poor decsions. The American people gave him a 47% just last week. Where the fuck did he get that was a B+. No wonder he is such a dumbass.:lmao2:

[Pat]

I suppose posting a graph without any supporting evidence behind it is now considered a valid argument.

[Pat]

B+:lmao2: what a fucking joke, he has not shown DC to be transparent, has not passed healthcare, we are still at war, can't even secure the whitehouse, has created more unemployment and tanked the economy because of poor decsions. The American people gave him a 47% just last week. Where the fuck did he get that was a B+. No wonder he is such a dumbass.:lmao2:
47% is a B+ in Liberalville.

[Bill Cosby]

frankie, how many times must it be pointed out to you that the 2009 budget was submitted by George Bush? Please pass the memo to that dumbass Jim Hoft.

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[bairdi]

Your post completely failed to address mine.
<Insert dodge, shuck and jive smiley here>
Excuse me for not having it at my fingertips. I've done this exercise before and might do it again though it will probably be a waste of my time.
<Insert go screw yourself and taunt smiley here>

[Pat]

Excuse me for not having it at my fingertips. I've done this exercise before and might do it again though it will probably be a waste of my time.
<Insert go screw yourself and taunt smiley here>
The link you posted that led to the article showed that the article had no data behind it, just some bloggers claim that it was true. (And a cute little graph that he created without any substance behind it)
Try not to take it personally, I was pointing out that the source article was lacking in substance and proof.
You probably just feel mad because you didn't discover that on your own. Never fear, I'm here to help.

[bairdi]

The link you posted that led to the article showed that the article had no data behind it, just some bloggers claim that it was true. (And a cute little graph that he created without any substance behind it)
Try not to take it personally, I was pointing out that the source article was lacking in substance and proof.
You probably just feel mad because you didn't discover that on your own. Never fear, I'm here to help.
I don't take it personal. I told you before that we have had this same discussion before, probably 4 to 5 times, all before you joined the board. I and others have posted that graph before and have provided the information to back it up. It always falls on deaf ears and a few months later, frankie will return and post another gatewaypundit bullshit piece using his same freaking graphic. And around and around we go and where it stops nobody knows. I really don't know if I want to research it again to humor you or just let you believe whatever you want to believe.

[Pat]

I don't take it personal. I told you before that we have had this same discussion before, probably 4 to 5 times, all before you joined the board. I and others have posted that graph before and have provided the information to back it up. It always falls on deaf ears and a few months later, frankie will return and post another gatewaypundit bullshit piece using his same freaking graphic. And around and around we go and where it stops nobody knows. I really don't know if I want to research it again to humor you or just let you believe whatever you want to believe.
If the source data has been posted on this forum before, just point me to the thread.

[bairdi]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits. This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable. America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. Moreover, if deficits are perceived as the problem, that means both spending restraint and higher taxes are solutions. The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.

In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.

http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/200911_blog_mitchell1.jpg
But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg
It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush presents $3 trillion budget
Includes deficits, not cost of wars

By Mark Silva and Washington Bureau
February 05, 2008
WASHINGTON -

President Bush, facing his final go-around on spending with a Democratic-run Congress during this presidential election year, on Monday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget for 2009 that boosts defense spending and pares Medicare costs while leaving a near-record deficit.
It is unlikely that Bush will win all of what he is seeking in the budget,with Republicans and Democrats grappling for control of the White House.However, the president and Congress already are moving toward agreement on a tax-relief plan to stimulate the economy – and that is certain to sharply increase a federal budget deficit that had fallen from a record high in 2004.
“We’ve made a determination to drive up the deficit in order to stimulate the economy,” said Jim Nussle, Bush’s budget director. “I’d much rather work with a balanced budget … but I also would much rather make sure that our country is protected.”
The spending plan proposed by the White House envisions a 7.5 percent boost in defense spending, while acknowledging that the full costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not included. As it stands, the proposal represents a70 percent increase in defense spending during Bush’s two terms.
The Bush blueprint also asks doctors and hospitals to hold the line on what they charge the elderly for medical care, in a bid to slow the expected increase in spending on Medicare next year from 7.2 percent to 5 percent. This and other measures would save $178 billion over the next five years.
The budget also takes into account something that the Republican president and Democratic-controlled Congress already have agreed to in principle:Offering individuals, families and businesses about $145 billion in tax relief this year in an attempt to spur the economy.

'Uptick’ in deficit seen
The combination of all this at a time of slowing economic growth augurs a sharp increase in the nation’s budget deficit, which had reached a record $413 billion in 2004 and had fallen to $162 billion. The White House projects what it calls “an uptick” – a deficit of $410 billion in 2008 and $407billion in 2009.
These deficits could well surpass the record, in sheer dollar terms, when the full costs of war are accounted for in 2009 – though the White House maintains that the deficit is shrinking as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product.
White House budget documents allow that the accumulated national debt, $9.6trillion this year, will rise to an estimated $10.38 trillion by 2009. It stood at $5.77 trillion at the end of Bush’s first year.
“It’s a good budget,” the president said Monday. “It’s a budget that achieves some important objectives. … It understands our top priority is to defend our country. … Secondly, the budget keeps out economy growing.”
But Democratic leaders were quick to denounce it.
“For seven years, President Bush’s budgets have weakened our economic security,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Today’s blueprint is no different.”
The budget holds the increase in “discretionary” spending – areas of the budget outside of Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements – to less than 1 percent. And Congress has in the past year hewed to that limit set by the White House.
The White House is seeking some increases in education spending – for PellGrants, college scholarships for lower-income students – while cutting elsewhere.
\Painless Medicare cuts?
While Bush is seeking boosts in defense and homeland security (7.7percent), he proposed cuts at the Justice Department (10.7 percent), for agriculture (4.8 percent), at the Environmental Protection Agency (4.4percent), and in health and human services (2.1 percent).
Putting limits on Medicare payments and moving seniors into privately run Medicare plans “target the most vulnerable,” said George Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “Only in Washington could this be the work of a ‘compassionate conservative.’”
The White House maintained that cuts in Medicare can be painless – even lowering premiums that seniors pay by capping what doctors and hospitals can charge – and will help control Medicare costs that could, if unchecked,consume the entire budget in four decades.
Yet, at the same time, the White House is low-balling the costs of war in2009, seeking just $70 billion in this budget, after already seeking nearly$200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.
“This is just utterly dishonest,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who criticized the White House for “hiding”war spending.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/feb/05/news/chi-budget5feb05