Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is anyone stupid enough to still be standing by Obama's side. He is no doubt one of if not the worst president in our history. He has turned out to not only be incompetent but also indecisive, hypocritical, and disloyal his supporters. In other words he is just like most presidents in recent times. how is that "Hope and Change " coming.
Guess I'm stupid because I still believe that I voted for the best candidate. Am I happy with everything he's done up to this point? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I regret my choice.
The CBO creates estimates based 100% on numbers given to them by the White House, there was NEVER a Clinton surplus. It's a myth that is pushed hard by ignorant liberals who can't count or read.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but based on how the government calculates its budget, [SIZE=3]cash basis that the government has always used,[/SIZE] Clinton had surplus of $1.9 billion and $86.4 billion, 1999 and 2000 respectively. That is without adding any SS funds. If you include SS funds the surpluses were greater.
Even if you used [SIZE=3]"..accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000..."
FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html - broken link)
I guess if you want to invent a new accounting method that the government doesn't use you might be able to find a way to say anything you want, but it would be nice if you just admit you were wrong... have a nice day.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but based on how the government calculates its budget, [SIZE=3]cash basis that the government has always used,[/SIZE] Clinton had surplus of $1.9 billion and $86.4 billion, 1999 and 2000 respectively. That is without adding any SS funds. If you include SS funds the surpluses were greater.
Even if you used [SIZE=3]"..accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000..."
FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html - broken link)
I guess if you want to invent a new accounting method that the government doesn't use you might be able to find a way to say anything you want, but it would be nice if you just admit you were wrong... have a nice day.
You're wrong, there was NEVER a Clinton surplus. EVER.
Do some reading, it even addresses your Factcheck link which is still wrong. Here's one of the many websites that have all the real numbers and details on why you're wrong. The Myth of the Clinton Surplus According to the US Treasury there was never a Clinton surplus, ever.
Q: Has President Obama taken more vacation time than his predecessors?
A: According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
FULL ANSWER
President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.
Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and is known for keeping detailed records on presidential travel, counts the following among President Obama’s "vacations" in 2009:
A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.
An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.
A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.
An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.
Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.
President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)
President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.
By the end of his trip, President Obama will have taken nine vacations and visited Camp David 14 times for a total of 80 vacation days since he took office. But at the same point in his first term, President George W. Bush had taken far more time away - 14 trips to his ranch in Midland, Texas, and 40 to Camp David, totaling 225 days.
Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.
The factcheck cited three years of budget documents. you on the other hand cited a opinion piece that includes intragovernmental holdings (IGH), something no administration uses in the budget calculations. The problem with including IGH as you have, is that the Federal budget is the total of all departments, assets against liabilities. An IGH is a liabilty to one department and an asset to another, they zero out. SS only accounts for about 50% of IGH, so 50% of them are other types of assets that have been borrowed.
Even adding IGH Perot seems to think there was a reduction around 2000.
You're wrong, there was NEVER a Clinton surplus. EVER.
Do some reading, it even addresses your Factcheck link which is still wrong. Here's one of the many websites that have all the real numbers and details on why you're wrong. The Myth of the Clinton Surplus According to the US Treasury there was never a Clinton surplus, ever.
Here you go, since you wanta invent new ways to audit the government: On the last day of 1999 the TOTAL federal debt was $5,776,091,314,225.33 and on the last day of 2000 the TOTAL federal debt was $5,662,216,013,697.37 for a surplus of $3,712,596,017.10. Surplus for Clinton, year over year.
Last edited by buzzards27; 03-27-2011 at 10:08 PM..
Guess I'm stupid because I still believe that I voted for the best candidate. Am I happy with everything he's done up to this point? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I regret my choice.
I can't agree with you on this one Natalay - but I get what you're saying about the choices we were being offered at the time. I voted for Hiliary in the Primary and was flabbergasted when she didn't win the Party Nod. I like Obama the Man. I liked him as a Senator. Heck, I even liked him without question since he was a Democrat. But I drew the line there. I watched him, I listened to him, I looked into his background, I especially watched the debates. I was hoping for the newer version of JFK - but then I started seeing chinks in the hologram program we were viewing. The guy did not have the experience or the chops for this role. He was young - too young to have established deep connections with some of the senior statesmen that he would need on occassion for advice. Everyone at that level needs an Inner Sanctum of Trusted Advisors. He didn't have one - and WORSE - he appeared to think he didn't need one.
Therefore, when the general election rolled around, and with a heavy heart, I abstained from voting. And just so we're clear, I wanted to support him. I wanted him to win at everything he turned his hand to. It just has not worked out that way. And I'm truly sorry for so many of us that this is the case.
I am truly hoping for a Democratic Party Split in 2012. I'm sorry, girlfriend, but Obama is not strong enough (yet) to lead us out of the many troubles we have. Don't get me wrong - I don't want a Republican. I just want another Democratic candidate. This is truly not the time for a President who needs training wheels. And for the future success of the Democratic Party - and for the good of the entire country - he needs to step down.
I can't agree with you on this one Natalay - but I get what you're saying about the choices we were being offered at the time. I voted for Hiliary in the Primary and was flabbergasted when she didn't win the Party Nod. I like Obama the Man. I liked him as a Senator. Heck, I even liked him without question since he was a Democrat. But I drew the line there. I watched him, I listened to him, I looked into his background, I especially watched the debates. I was hoping for the newer version of JFK - but then I started seeing chinks in the hologram program we were viewing. The guy did not have the experience or the chops for this role. He was young - too young to have established deep connections with some of the senior statesmen that he would need on occassion for advice. Everyone at that level needs an Inner Sanctum of Trusted Advisors. He didn't have one - and WORSE - he appeared to think he didn't need one.
Therefore, when the general election rolled around, and with a heavy heart, I abstained from voting. And just so we're clear, I wanted to support him. I wanted him to win at everything he turned his hand to. It just has not worked out that way. And I'm truly sorry for so many of us that this is the case.
I am truly hoping for a Democratic Party Split in 2012. I'm sorry, girlfriend, but Obama is not strong enough (yet) to lead us out of the many troubles we have. Don't get me wrong - I don't want a Republican. I just want another Democratic candidate. This is truly not the time for a President who needs training wheels. And for the future success of the Democratic Party - and for the good of the entire country - he needs to step down.
I know - I'm bummed writing it
I understand what you're saying but I couldn't abstain from voting. If I choose to not be part of the process then I don't feel I can be angry with the results.
On a side note: I don't like being called girlfriend.
So basically what you and most of your left leaning links claim is that if Bush wasn't in the White House he was on vacation? Was Obama listed as "on vacation" during his latest trip to South America? Bush spent a ton of time at his Ranch in Crawford TX but that doesn't mean he was "on vacation" since he was still in command and still doing a typical daily work schedule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
