Worst President in U.S. History

[Faun]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

 

[AmericanGirl05]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

My guess is that you're referring to the Leftist n the 09 Legislature, of which obama was part and parcel... during the period it was not Peasantpimp, as a means to obscure responsibility of the peasantpimp.

 

[Faun]

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

The continuing resolution the government was operating under until Obama signed the appropriations bill was signed into law in September 2008. That kept spending going until March, 2009.

 

[Faun]

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

My guess is that you're referring to the Leftist n the 09 Legislature, of which obama was part and parcel... during the period it was not Peasantpimp, as a means to obscure responsibility of the peasantpimp.

Your whining aside, try answering the question ... how does an incoming president unilaterally "repeal" a bill? Show me the article & section in the Constitution where it grants the president such a power....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

Only morons (like yourself) argue a series of cogent points by posting kiddy toons.

 

[Dad2three]

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!


Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol

 

[Faun]

With brain-dead righties here positing an incoming president has the Constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal a bill, it begs the questions ... why do we still have social security? Why do we still have affirmative action? Why do we still have gun restrictions. Certainly, if a president could wipe all those away by crossing his arms and blinking, a Republican president would have done that by now, right?

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

Only morons (like yourself) argue a series of cogent points by posting kiddy toons.

You and the rights inability to accept that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP job creator policies the US was falling off a cliff, AND it's 100% on Obama's shoulders the day he stepped into office. *shaking head*


You Klowns have amnesia of Dubya and Ronnie Reagan (most corrupt admin in modern times)

 

[Faun]

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!


Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol

When Obama wasn't even presdent for almost a third of FY2009, no less.

 

[MaryL]

GW Bush and his Iraq debacle. But, then Obama and his health care sort of cost my last job of twenty years. I can only speak from current memories and experience. It's a tie.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

ROFLMNAO!

So Obama the Marxist Fireman having watered down the markets... is being chastised by the Progressive Republicans, who agreed with his Marxist policies, for damaging the markets, through policy they approved?

HYSTERICAL!

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

You mean you don't understand WHO and how the debt was created? I'll boil it down for you Bubba

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS CONSERVATIVES/GOP HAVE REFUSED TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, INSTEAD PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE LIBERALS/DEMS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WERE FOUGHT BY THE GOP/CONSERVATIVES. Weird you don't know that? But no one who is serious is worried about the current debt, why do you think money floods into the treasury to buy US bonds?


IF the GOP worked WITH Obama instead of fighting him, the US economy could grow it's way clear!

Right, because liberals have been so honest in debt negotiations, they say if you just give us more of your money we'll hold the line on spending. Never happened, never will. Every penny spent by the feds should be reflected in the budget, no off books expenditures and no base line budgeting. Let the citizens see exactly what shape we're in. Both parties are complicit and it needs to stop.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Remember HOW Clinton got 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP $792= billion tax cut?

PLEASE don't go to the canard about Ronnie Reagan, I don't want to have to embarrass you!

So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a honesty and reality check here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

My guess is that you're referring to the Leftist n the 09 Legislature, of which obama was part and parcel... during the period it was not Peasantpimp, as a means to obscure responsibility of the peasantpimp.

Your whining aside, try answering the question ... how does an incoming president unilaterally "repeal" a bill? Show me the article & section in the Constitution where it grants the president such a power....

You're asking me how an Incoming President, repeals a law which he approved of, as a sitting 2008 Legislator, endorsed as a candidate and doubled down on after taking power?

I can't see that happening, because it would actually require two people. One of whom having contested the policy... . Which in reality was not the case.

So, would ya like to revise your question to fit reality? Or just concede here?

Tell ya what, in the mean time I'll just note your concession and accept it, but if you find a way to make Obama two people, one of whom stood out against obama's policy advocacies, I'll hear what ya have to say.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Donald Polish]

Franklin D Roosevelt
I dislike him for many reasons, but I don't feel like arguing economics right now. But whether or not you think he was a savior during the Depression and WWII, you cannot deny that ordering the unconstitutional act of detaining the Japanese Americans without a trial is unforgivable.
He essentially threw out the Constitution and betrayed citizens of the United States. That alone should qualify him for, at least, one of the worst presidents ever.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Franklin D Roosevelt
I dislike him for many reasons, but I don't feel like arguing economics right now. But whether or not you think he was a savior during the Depression and WWII, you cannot deny that ordering the unconstitutional act of detaining the Japanese Americans without a trial is unforgivable.
He essentially threw out the Constitution and betrayed citizens of the United States. That alone should qualify him for, at least, one of the worst presidents ever.

FDR was a disaster, he prolonged the depression a decade with his asinine socialist policies... but his interning of the Japanese was essential and helped keep the US homeland out of the war.

Had he not done so, Japanese insurgents would have reaped havoc all over the United States, not the least of which would have been in manufacturing.

In today's mamby-pamby PC world it was cruel... but in the reality of the 1940s US. There was no reasonable alternative.

 

[Dad2three]

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

You mean you don't understand WHO and how the debt was created? I'll boil it down for you Bubba

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS CONSERVATIVES/GOP HAVE REFUSED TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, INSTEAD PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE LIBERALS/DEMS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WERE FOUGHT BY THE GOP/CONSERVATIVES. Weird you don't know that? But no one who is serious is worried about the current debt, why do you think money floods into the treasury to buy US bonds?


IF the GOP worked WITH Obama instead of fighting him, the US economy could grow it's way clear!

Right, because liberals have been so honest in debt negotiations, they say if you just give us more of your money we'll hold the line on spending. Never happened, never will. Every penny spent by the feds should be reflected in the budget, no off books expenditures and no base line budgeting. Let the citizens see exactly what shape we're in. Both parties are complicit and it needs to stop.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Remember HOW Clinton got 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP $792= billion tax cut?

PLEASE don't go to the canard about Ronnie Reagan, I don't want to have to embarrass you!

So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a honesty and reality check here.

Like MOST right wingers, you don't understand the difference with budget surpluses versus debt. I'm shocked


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have??

ROFLMNAO!

So Obama the Marxist Fireman having watered down the markets... is being chastised by the Progressive Republicans, who agreed with his Marxist policies, for damaging the markets, through policy they approved?

HYSTERICAL!

Yes, you are. Amnesia of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies 2001-2009 that hosed US.

 

[Dad2three]

Franklin D Roosevelt
I dislike him for many reasons, but I don't feel like arguing economics right now. But whether or not you think he was a savior during the Depression and WWII, you cannot deny that ordering the unconstitutional act of detaining the Japanese Americans without a trial is unforgivable.
He essentially threw out the Constitution and betrayed citizens of the United States. That alone should qualify him for, at least, one of the worst presidents ever.

Lincoln did the same. So did Reagan on Iran/Contra. Weird right?