Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[Jingthing]

In a horrible economy, deficit cutting is not a wise priority according to most prominent economists. Also you have no hope of deficit cutting by following the radical right wing republican ideology of no tax increases ... EVER. You need a mix of targeted stimuli, wise cuts, AND prudent tax increases done PROGRESSIVELY.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Neurath]

Meanwhile, according to a new poll, Thurston Howell III has Lovey's vote locked up, but Ginger not so much, and no way he's getting MaryAnn's vote.

http://shine.yahoo.c...-140400745.html

Go Thurston Go!

"All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax …

"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Eh? that's my Pop he's talking about!! Two wars and this thrown at him by Romney. He's not happy and he's a registered Republican. Perhaps Romney should go on Letterman, man-up, and apologize. Oh, I forgot, he never apologizes.

[Jingthing]

People don't hate Thurston Howell III. But, they mostly don't want him as president.

[chuckd]

"A government report on Friday showed a decline in real personal income in August"

No doubt put together by a bloody bush appointee, eh?

What does your link have to do with an alleged 386,000 new jobs created under the Obama administration in the past year and somehow overlooked in their monthly reporting?

Until 40 days before the election, that is.

It works like this: if you see good news from a government department which, at this stage in the election you hate to see, you attribute immediately it to the nefarious activities of Obama appointees trying to skew the election in his favor. The principle of symmetry would dictate an ideologically driven knee-jerk saying that bad news from a government department must be from a Bush appointee. Though I doubt that the principle of symmetry or consistency is one the idols your tribe.

Thank you for the lesson in symmetry. When did Bush get in the campaign?

I thought my post, which you referenced, was about Obama's performance on creating jobs and the magical appearance of 386,000 jobs that had been missing for a year.

I must have overlooked that little gem about the Bush appointee since it had nothing to do with either consistency or symmetry relating to this topic.

Thank you for caring.

[Neurath]

"A government report on Friday showed a decline in real personal income in August"

No doubt put together by a bloody bush appointee, eh?

What does your link have to do with an alleged 386,000 new jobs created under the Obama administration in the past year and somehow overlooked in their monthly reporting?

Until 40 days before the election, that is.

It works like this: if you see good news from a government department which, at this stage in the election you hate to see, you attribute immediately it to the nefarious activities of Obama appointees trying to skew the election in his favor. The principle of symmetry would dictate an ideologically driven knee-jerk saying that bad news from a government department must be from a Bush appointee. Though I doubt that the principle of symmetry or consistency is one the idols your tribe.

Thank you for the lesson in symmetry. When did Bush get in the campaign?

I thought my post, which you referenced, was about Obama's performance on creating jobs and the magical appearance of 386,000 jobs that had been missing for a year.

I must have overlooked that little gem about the Bush appointee since it had nothing to do with either consistency or symmetry relating to this topic.

Thank you for caring.

No worries. It's sometimes ridiculously easy to overlook things - it's what an ideologically driven world view will do to person.

And thanks for caring that I care - that must put me in the 53%! Yippeee.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Neurath

[Ulysses G.]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

[maccaroni man]

my most vivid memories of Obama's 4 yrs; beer sumit, blame and campaign and watching the country sink lower and lower into a hole. If he gets another 4 yrs the USA is doomed to more of the same and that is a real shame.

[Credo]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

I am sure you can tell us about all the Presidents who have achieved what they promised.

[chuckd]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

I am sure you can tell us about all the Presidents who have achieved what they promised.

None of them have. But then, in my lifetime, which has stretched from FDR to the present, none have come in with quite the bluster and bravado based on nothing more than personal charm and an ego larger than all outdoors.

The guy is a charlatan.

[Ulysses G.]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

I am sure you can tell us about all the Presidents who have achieved what they promised.

Reagan inherited a terrible economy and his mix of across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped fuel an economic boom that lasted two decades. Under Reaganomics, 16 million new jobs were created. He also won the Cold War and rebuilt the armed forces, while cutting the number of nukes. Those are accomplishments that he promised and delivered on.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

"President Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929 but since 1987‚ also on Ronald Reagan's watch."

http://campaign-promises.com/

[Scott]

Post deleted. This topic is not about Ronald Regan or Jimmy Carter for that matter.

[koheesti]

my most vivid memories of Obama's 4 yrs; beer sumit, blame and campaign and watching the country sink lower and lower into a hole. If he gets another 4 yrs the USA is doomed to more of the same and that is a real shame.

Obama and his supporters wouldn't call it a shame, they'd call it "the new normal".

[koheesti]

Love that pic. I might have to make one of Obama standing over the grill.

[koheesti]

In a horrible economy, deficit cutting is not a wise priority according to most prominent economists. Also you have no hope of deficit cutting by following the radical right wing republican ideology of no tax increases ... EVER. You need a mix of targeted stimuli, wise cuts, AND prudent tax increases done PROGRESSIVELY.

So even in your eyes Obama is a failure. Good to see you finally coming around.

[Neurath]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

I am sure you can tell us about all the Presidents who have achieved what they promised.

Not exactly but here's something:

• Percentage increase in average federal spending during the Obama administration: 2.4
  
• Rank of that rate of increase among the lowest under any President since Truman: 1
  

So a big shout out to Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd - all of whom managed a higher percentage increase than the Communist in White House.

[Ulysses G.]

This is what Forbes Magazine had to say about the figures that you are using.

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

[Chicog]

A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship.

But it's all smoke and mirrors. If they don't get in this time (which I doubt), they'll probably get in next time, and then deregulate, steal and f*** it up all over again.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Chicog

[Neurath]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term.

That is QUITE the understatement.

I am sure you can tell us about all the Presidents who have achieved what they promised.

Reagan inherited a terrible economy and his mix of across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped fuel an economic boom that lasted two decades. Under Reaganomics, 16 million new jobs were created. He also won the Cold War and rebuilt the armed forces, while cutting the number of nukes. Those are accomplishments that he promised and delivered on.

Why, oh why, did you not vote for him in 1980 and 1984. It's mind boggling. Have you even considered that you might be as wrong now as you were then?

[koheesti]

A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship.

Actually, rich people clean up during down periods. Who is left to scoop up great properties at bargain basement prices only to turn around and resell for x-times what they bought it for? Or who else can afford to load up on company stock that has temporarily tanked? Nope, rich people love a good bust (don't we all )

[Neurath]

Love that pic. I might have to make one of Obama standing over the grill.

Or

Overview:

2034, Romney and Obama, great mates at last, comrades like German and US combat veterans of the great global conflagration of Chuck's teens.

Romney pulls up to Obama's driveway in his large and sensible wood paneled vehicle, dog on roof.

Obama says: you brought lunch - and the twelve wives of your 5 sons.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Neurath

[Neurath]

A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship.

Actually, rich people clean up during down periods. Who is left to scoop up great properties at bargain basement prices only to turn around and resell for x-times what they bought it for? Or who else can afford to load up on company stock that has temporarily tanked? Nope, rich people love a good bust (don't we all )

Too right! If I had a big discretionary spend right now it would be on US property/housing stock. I'd then be able to rent it out at primo prices during the Obama led recovery to all Republicans and Republican campaign advisers who bet their houses on this election. I'd make a killing

Edited September 29, 2012 by Neurath

[Chicog]

A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship.

Actually, rich people clean up during down periods. Who is left to scoop up great properties at bargain basement prices only to turn around and resell for x-times what they bought it for? Or who else can afford to load up on company stock that has temporarily tanked? Nope, rich people love a good bust (don't we all )

You have a good point there. They stimulate growth by encouraging people to spend money they don't have, then cash in before it goes tits up. Then they can do exactly what you describe. So they're quids in all round.

It's a pretty efficient system, since folks don't seem to realise they are being had.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

[Ulysses G.]

the Obama led recovery

That joke never gets old!

[Neurath]

the Obama led recovery

That joke never gets old!

It's a keeper alright. It's right up there on the top shelf along with your testimony here of having voted for Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Obama. Now that might seem strange until one notices that the Republican candidate is Governor Romney who is of a similar questionable consistency on any, and perhaps all, issues

[chuckd]

Not exactly but here's something:

• Percentage increase in average federal spending during the Obama administration: 2.4
  
• Rank of that rate of increase among the lowest under any President since Truman: 1
  

So a big shout out to Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd - all of whom managed a higher percentage increase than the Communist in White House.

Since you did not provide a link to verify your allegations about how cheap Obama is, I must presume you are referring to this debunked article: http://articles.mark...-drunken-sailor

Please provide a link to the article you used for your so-called facts if I am incorrect.

This claim has been proven false by so many others the Obama campaign isn't even using it anymore. Following is what the Washington Post says about it, in part:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Obama campaign web page is cleverly worded to make it appear as if “independent fact checkers” support the claim that spending has grown slower under Obama than any president since Eisenhower. Fact checkers have certainly found fault with the claims made by the Romney campaign about Obama’s spending, but we have also all disputed the analysis touted by the Obama campaign.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. And while campaigns love to cite fact-checking organizations, that does not give them license to anoint a supportive columnist as a “fact checker.”

To have any credibility, the White House should be citing a real analysis by the Congressional Budget Office or career officials at the Office of Management and Budget — not an opinion article that had been found deficient by fact checkers and other analysts.

THREE PINOCCHIOS

http://www.washingto...9YhGV_blog.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there is this...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budgets are hardly worth the paper on which they are written. It is the accompanying appropriation legislation that puts meat on its bones. Nutting glosses over the fact that the final appropriations package for FY2009 wasn’t signed until March 2009…by President Obama himself.

Secondly, Nutting’s account redacts the accomplishments so loudly lauded by the White House in its first year: Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which increased discretionary spending by 84 percent, the $410 billion omnibus bill he signed into law in the spring of 2009 and expansion of the TARP bailouts.

Attributing Obama’s first year to Bush allows Nutting to claim an “annualized increase” of only .4 percent under the current administration. Allowing Obama to take credit for his “stimulus” plan, the appropriations package and expansion of TARP, even the Washington Post estimates the annual rate of growth under President Obama to be 5.2 percent.

Entire article here: http://www.freerepub...s/2889113/posts

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Neurath]

Got if from here:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that addresses federal budget and fiscal issues. It was founded in 1981 by former United States Representatives Robert Giaimo (D-CT) and Henry Bellmon (R-OK), and its board of directors includes former Members of Congress and directors of the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve.^[1] CRFB is also host of the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, which released its initial report, Red Ink Rising, in December 2009 and its second report, Getting Back in the Black, in November 2010.^[2]

[Ulysses G.]

Please provide links when you use cut and paste information in a post.

I assume that comes from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget

Edited September 30, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Got if from here:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that addresses federal budget and fiscal issues. It was founded in 1981 by former United States Representatives Robert Giaimo (D-CT) and Henry Bellmon (R-OK), and its board of directors includes former Members of Congress and directors of the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve.^[1] CRFB is also host of the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, which released its initial report, Red Ink Rising, in December 2009 and its second report, Getting Back in the Black, in November 2010.^[2]

I scanned through both reports, "Red Ink Rising" and "Getting Back in the Black", and was unable to locate your referenced information.

Help out an old man here. Show me where it is.

Thank you.

[Neurath]

Got if from here:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that addresses federal budget and fiscal issues. It was founded in 1981 by former United States Representatives Robert Giaimo (D-CT) and Henry Bellmon (R-OK), and its board of directors includes former Members of Congress and directors of the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve.^[1] CRFB is also host of the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, which released its initial report, Red Ink Rising, in December 2009 and its second report, Getting Back in the Black, in November 2010.^[2]

I scanned through both reports, "Red Ink Rising" and "Getting Back in the Black", and was unable to locate your referenced information.

Help out an old man here. Show me where it is.

Thank you.

My apologies Chuck, should have provided the precise link. Here you go: http://crfb.org/blogs/fiscal-fact-checker-how-much-has-spending-increased-under-president-obama'>http://crfb.org/blogs/fiscal-fact-checker-how-much-has-spending-increased-under-president-obama

Many good papers here: http://crfb.org