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.
Now THAT'S what I call pandering! Down in the polls? Pissed off your base? Need a good lift? By golly....pull out the Gay Agenda! That'll take the edge off that Massachusetts/New Jersey/Virginia hangover!
Campaign promise my ass. Gays, you are officially Obama's Ace In The Hole. How does it feel to be used?
Anyone who can't see right through the timing of all of this needs some serious help. Thank God I don't need to be pandered to. That would be embarrassing.
The person you voted for is the one who pandered to you the most. Every voter is pandered, its just the way it goes in Politics.
The person you voted for is the one who pandered to you the most. Every voter is pandered, its just the way it goes in Politics.
...and that's probably fairly accurate as a general statement. To refine it down more accurately though, you'd have to admit that demonRATs have raised "pandering" to an art from in politics.
LBJ pandered to poor blacks with the Not-So-Great-Society and along came the women's lib movement and they pandered to the working gals of the 60sand 70s too. Then along came the 70s and McGovern pandered to EVERYONE with his promise of a guaranteed minimum income for ALL Americans. Fortunately we saw through him. His failure opened the doors of the White House to Tricky-Dicky Nixon who pandered to no-bah-dee, because most everybody mistrusted him and he mistrusted everybody. His sad legacy was to open the doors for The Georgia Peanut Vendor Jimmy Cah-tahuntil now, generally conceded to be the most disastrous President of the modern era. I recall at the time saying that he was a basically nice Christian soul and a demonRAT I could actually vote for if he was running for the position of Official White House Back-Door Greeter. With that toothy smile and infectious way about him he pandered to world leaders all over the globe. In the 80s it was who? Oh yeah...Reagan. He didn't pander to anyone, because he was the absentee Prez who preferred the company of his horses, who he definitely pandered to. At the time, I found myself highly critical of him for that, but later came to realize that when considering the quality of the breed..., he'd made the right choice. Horses over horse's *sses! In the 90s an aberration named William J. 'Bubba' Clinton succeeded Bush the Elder and did he ever pander? Listing those Bubba pandered to would be self-indulgent and too easy, so I'll mercifully pass on that. That takes us into the 21st century and Little Georgie-boy Bush. He pandered to the neo-cons about him and to the globalists who had and still have a vested interest in bringing down this once great republic. His successor, the Oba-monster panders to anybody and everybody who he thinks will vote for him. He does that moreso that ANY President before him and without moral or ethical reservation convinced that the ends justify ANY MEANS.
Your stats quote, broken down::
"131 veto threats since the beginning of the 110th Congress" (demonRAT congress)
"115 veto threats from May 1, 2007" (demonRAT congress) Just a MINOR point. A quick read might give someone the ERRONEOUS impression that you add those numbers to make Bush look real bad showing a total of 246 vetoes. WRONG! What you FORGOT to include are these words> 'of which there were'..."115 veto threats from May 1, 2007" You are a deviousfellow Mr. walid muhammad.
"86 veto threats during the 1st session of the 110th Congress (demonRAT congress)
"45 veto threats during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress (as of July 29, 2008)" (demonRAT congress)
Oops! Little problem with HOW you present stats. Please to follow along. demonRATs in control of BOTH houses of congress from 1/3/2007 through PRESENT....Gee! You forgot to mention that!
The list of bills President Bush has threatened to veto (as of July 29, 2008). (For more details, see our report, "Obstruction by Veto (http://assets.ourfuture.org/con_20080612_obstruction_by_veto.pdf - broken link).")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr walidm, an impressive list you've cut and pasted into your response. Funny that you didn't think to include the amendments added to these bills, which may alter the context in which Bush vetoed them. You do realize that the demonRATs regained control of both houses for Bush's last half of his second term. Just wanted to make those few incidental points for the record.
More significantly, YOU...friend, I must observe, are a devout student of your Great Leader. Almost without fail, every time his performance as President is challenged he drags Little Georgie-boy Bush out, lashes him to the 'whipping post" and with tears flowing commences another public beating. You've done your Rich Little best to mimic him and for that I complement you, but ONLY for that. The incessant reminder of a whiner par excellance are the public tears he sheds. Spare us the shoddy performance. In his image you seek to obfuscate and divert the issue at hand.
May I remind you that despite your lengthy posting on Bush's vetoes, it is OBAMA'S State of the Union speech and Obama's responsibility for the disastrous first year accomplished with control of both houses of congressand Obama's laying blame upon the "mean-spirited" minority Republicans as obstructionists that is at issue. ROTFLMAO.
He might do well to look to the opposition within HIS OWN party...no!
Your "reply" is "off-topic" and I've been gracious to even respond to the content, but thanks for the misguided effort in any event.
lol...the reply isn't off topic Bob, you just aren't paying attention to what you wrote.
Excellence.....lol
You're probably going to want to spell that one right to lend credibility to your effort to dole out admonishment.
btw, The stats didn't require you to do any math, it was done for you, factually correct and simply rebutted your incessant claim that the "Democrats weren't doing enough for you" and "the President shouldn't blame the prior Administration", and pointed to the opposition party's excessive use of obstructionist measures via parliamentary procedure as one possible reason your satisfaction has been denied.
I must say Mr. Robert Weiss, while I agree there are plenty of obstructionists within the President's own party, I find it unfortunate we can have no further objective conversation regarding the State of the Union, as I now recognize my inability to have reasonable discourse with a closed mind.
Let's look at Obama's lament about what he inherited when he took office. He says Bush left him a deficit of $1.3 trillion, and that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion. Not exactly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
Actually, at the start of the financial meltdown, the deficit was about $600 billion, not $1.3 trillion as Obama claims.
Bush passed TARP ($700 billion) before he left office, that pushed the deficit (on paper) to $1.3 trillion, except that it's not a true picture since the TARP money was a loan, and was to be repaid ($500B has been repaid).
So, in fact, the real deficit that Obama inherited is the $600 billion deficit plus $200 billion of TARP loan if it remains unpaid -- that's $800B.
Merrily sailing along on the choppy waters of the fiscal crisis (humming the motivating theme of "never let a crisis go to waste"), he continued to spend, which resulted in Obama's $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009. That's Obama's deficit, and it's nearly double what he inherited from Bush. Hoping to make us feel good about him, he says he will raise it to ONLY $1.6 trillion this coming year.
You can't take anything he says at face value. We are being misled at every turn.
Interesting.
500B of TARP has been repaid?
Isn't over 70% of TARP still outstanding?
Your comment in response here with mine inserted in blue:
Quote:
lol...the reply isn't off topic Bob, you just aren't paying attention to what you wrote. (Au contrare Walid. The topic is the State of The Union speech made by the head whiner of YOUR party. I didn't see Bush standing alongside him, did you? If so, Bush would have been fair game, but then again Obama doesn't out Bush to his face 'personally'. His style is to 'recruit' him for a mercy mission of non-partisan endeavor, backslap him and shake his hand and wish him well as he departs for Haiti and THEN go before the cameras and plunge the Oba-dagger in his back.)
Excellence.....lol
You're probably going to want to spell that one right to lend credibility to your effort to dole out admonishment. (Not at all Wally. Why should I. It's obvious you were errant on purpose. and I only admonish those who deserve redirection judging by their comments.)
btw, The stats didn't require you to do any math, it was done for you,(HA! You bet it was!) factually correct (STOP. Wally, as I noted the stats were laid out so as to give the incorrect impression.) and simply rebutted your incessant claim that the "Democrats weren't doing enough for you" and "the President shouldn't blame the prior Administration", and pointed to the opposition party's excessive use of obstructionist measures via parliamentary procedure as one possible reason your satisfaction has been denied. (Good try Wally, but no prize! My compliments on the diversionary tactic though. I haven't gone through all my posts to validate that which youbattribute to me, but think you may be in error in the quote so atrtibuted wherein you use the reference of Democrats (and capitalized no less. I usually reserve that for the pre-'60s era version of that party ONLY wh the title of "loyal opposition" also was commonplace.). I rarely describe you folks as that, it's usually demonRATs as you may have noted.)
I must say Mr. Robert Weiss, while I agree there are plenty of obstructionists within the President's own party, I find it unfortunate we can have no further objective conversation regarding the State of the Union, as I now recognize my inability to have reasonable discourse with a closed mind.(Aw c'mon Wally...You can do better than that for a parting shot! I realize you're dangling the bait with that "closed mind" reference, but you're being too obvious. You need some subtlety to your technique. In any event, it's been enjoyable exchanging little barbs with you. Please do come back when you have something of signiifcance to criticize me for or to debate, such as why Great Leader took the self-indulgent opportunity to insult and humiliate the members of the Supreme Court for political aggrandizement and made a jerk of himself in the bargain!)
If I add up the amount repaid ($72,316,490,000), add in Bank of America ($45,000,000,000) and the revenue generated ($14,687,071,318, which should logically go toward paying down the debt, one hopes), and subtract that subtotal ($132,003,561,318) from the original amount actually loaned out ($491,950,683,115), I calculate that the TARP loans are still 73.17% unpaid.
Yes, it's confusing with so many sources out there. Maybe *they* are looking at it wrong. We know that even the CBO doesn't get it right all the time.
Either way, no matter how much of the TARP loan has been repaid, it is still a loan so ought not be considered part of Bush's deficit because according to the rules most of it has to be repaid. According to the Hill article, only $200B is expected to remain unpaid. (Not sure if that's forgiveness of debt, or what.
Hopefully, it's not special interest favors again.)
What the current administration plans to do with that money is still in question. They *should* put it toward the deficit and not save it for other spending. I suspect, though, that they'll do the latter.
Your comment in response here with mine inserted in blue:
lol..."there's no whining in Baseball"
Bob, seriously...you're actually crying about that little shot at a SC that's supposed to be "above politics" from a President who "is a politician"....lol Next you're going to tell us how upset you are with FDR for draping the Great Depression around Hoovers neck <---inference alert!!...lol
I digress...it is unfortunate we can have no further objective conversation regarding the State of the Union, as I now recognize my inability to have reasonable discourse with a closed mind.
Yes, it's confusing with so many sources out there. Maybe *they* are looking at it wrong. We know that even the CBO doesn't get it right all the time.
Either way, no matter how much of the TARP loan has been repaid, it is still a loan so ought not be considered part of Bush's deficit because according to the rules most of it has to be repaid. According to the Hill article, only $200B is expected to remain unpaid. (Not sure if that's forgiveness of debt, or what.
Hopefully, it's not special interest favors again.)
What the current administration plans to do with that money is still in question. They *should* put it toward the deficit and not save it for other spending. I suspect, though, that they'll do the latter.
Currently the Administration is considering allocating 30B of the funds to small Banks to help shore them up (they need it in light of the stress from Commercial RE in their portfolios) and open up and extend credit to small businesses.
Quote:
The Treasury said along with a new “focus on the challenges of helping families avoid foreclosure,” TARP will aim to bring down unemployment from record highs. Other initiatives in the budget include $30bn in TARP funds to help community and smaller banks extend credit to small businesses and $500m in efficiency savings in the Treasury Department, including using paperless processing for electronic benefit payments and tax collections.
“After stabilizing our economy and steering it back from the brink this past year, this budget reflects the President’s commitment to invest in innovation and reform our financial system,” said Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner.
An estimated 4.5m homeowners are “on the brink” of losing their homes, according to Mike Dawson, Freddie Mac’s (FRE: 1.20 -0.83%) vice president of deal and contract management, who spoke Monday at the American Securitization Forum (ASF) 2010.
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.
LittleMathYou
.
and Obama's laying blame upon the "mean-spirited" minority Republicans as obstructionists that is at issue. ROTFLMAO.
and I've been gracious to even respond to the content
, but thanks for the misguided effort in any event.
)
We know that even the CBO doesn't get it right all the time. 
