Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[FrazeeDK]

x'actly so Parrot... I doubt anybody on the Forum is an Affordable Care Act expert. We'll all understand it more as the various phased elements of it are implemented.. Some may be mighty fine and some may get us all screaming.. Of course, that's the gripe there... The Dem Congress/Senate and Administration ramrodded it through with no proper review....

Of course the economy will get "better". Historically it is cyclical.. When way down, it's coming back, eventually.. Even Rommney promised 12% growth in four years if he was elected and that's what most Economists predicted would happen..

[WBU ALUM]

For those who think ObamaCare is done and cannot be reversed, here is some enlightening news. It only takes a simple majority in both houses of Congress to totally defund it and make it vanish into thin air.

The American people were sold a bill of goods -- told that it would reduce the deficit (and make health care and insurance less expensive, but that's another myth for another day). I laughed when I heard the story about reducing the deficit. Nothing big government funds reduces the deficit. Turns out the CBO has now said that ObamaCare will steadily increase the deficit. I only bring that up because THAT is the reason why only a simple majority is necessary to eliminate it. Any issue that reduces the deficit, and eliminating it WOULD reduce the deficit according to the CBO, only requires a simple majority vote.

If Republicans gain six seats in the Senate in 2014, they'll have 51 votes. There are even Dem Senators who are now talking about issues that have been brought to their attention by constituents that make them question the implementation of ObamaCare (even thought they voted for it). Some Dems are even talking about repealing parts of it. Why? Because they didn't read it, didn't know what was in it themselves, and they now realize that it could damage them politically if they don't repeal parts of it.

Republicans already control the House and are likely to maintain that control.

Not saying that all of this will play out, or even predicting it, just providing information as to why only a simple majority would be necessary to eliminate it.

[gudtymchuk]

The American people were sold a bill of goods -- told that it would reduce the deficit (and make health care and insurance less expensive, but that's another myth for another day). I laughed when I heard the story about reducing the deficit. Nothing big government funds reduces the deficit. Turns out the CBO has now said that ObamaCare will steadily increase the deficit. I only bring that up because THAT is the reason why only a simple majority is necessary to eliminate it. Any issue that reduces the deficit, and eliminating it WOULD reduce the deficit according to the CBO, only requires a simple majority vote.

As the ultimate disintegration of Obamacare continues and the negative effects are unraveled the spineless legislators who created this monstrosity will see the importance of protecting their political skin rather than maintain their allegiance to the lame duck name sake. The push back from the over reaching arrogance coming to light by this administration will also encourage more defections as we get closer to the mid-term elections.

[WBU ALUM]

the spineless legislators who created this monstrosity will see the importance of protecting their political skin rather than maintain their allegiance

Sadly, the "spineless legislators" didn't even write it themselves. It was all done by special interest staffers and Lib think tanks. The Dems themselves who voted for it, and only Dems voted for it, even admitted they didn't read it and didn't know what was in it. In the next congressional elections, and in less than a year, those members of the House who voted for it were thrown out. The People rejected them. It was the largest upheaval of political power in the House since 1948.

Approximately 82.5 million people voted. The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races, to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974. This left Republicans in control of 25 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Why are State Legislatures so important? THEY VOTE and RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2010

[LilRed]

JS:


In answer to your question:

Has yet another President (this one unsanctified) OK'd the sale of weapons to the enemy, but will also flatly deny it?

Yes, but, it was Jr. Bush...


PG:

I still hadn't got a straight answer about the military knowin or not knowin Stevens was there ON THAT DAY/DURING THE TIME FRAME. The dots do not fully connect yet...


For you Obama critics, this from a friend of mine:

ATM

[WBU ALUM]

ObamaBudget.jpg

Anyone can make a graphic to show anything they wish. How does your friend explain the $5 Trillion to $6 Trillion PLUS increase in the deficit? The deficit spending far surpasses the $1.4 Trillion shown in the graphic. In fact, I think JUST Obama's deficit spending has exceeded $1 Trillion in every year of his presidency.

Washington Post: Obama can’t blame Bush for deficits any longer
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... nding-cuts

In January, during the “fiscal-cliff” standoff, Obama succeeded in repealing most of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Yes, Obama agreed to raise the cutoff to $450,000 (rather than the $250,000 he had wanted), but the vast majority of the tax cuts he opposed are now history. So he can’t blame the Bush tax cuts anymore.

He also can’t blame “two wars that weren’t paid for.” Obama has withdrawn all U.S. forces from Iraq and is on track to withdraw most, and possibly all, U.S. troops from Afghanistan during his second term. War spending, which was once as high as $186 billion, is now projected to fall to $37 billion annually from 2015 to 2021 — and zero after that under Obama’s budget. So war spending should no longer be driving the deficit.

How about Medicare Part D? Despite his complaints, Obama supports keeping the program in its current form. He has proposed reforms that would save about $13 billion annually.

As for the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” the recession formally ended in June 2009. And while Obama presided over the weakest recovery since the Great Depression during his first term, his new budget projects that we will finally turn a corner next year and return to robust 3 percent growth beginning in 2014. So under Obama’s own economic projections, a weak economy should no longer be driving deficits.

In other words, the policies and problems that Obama blamed for most of the budget deficit are mostly gone. We should be headed back to the pre-Bush surpluses of the 1990s, before the tax cuts and wars and economic crisis that Bush wrought caused our deficit and debt to skyrocket.

Obama himself, according to this article, projects that the federal deficit will double to $20 Trillion.

So why, then, does President Obama’s budget project $5.3 trillion in deficits, and $8.1 trillion in new debt, over the next decade?

Despite peace, prosperity and the wealthy paying their “fair share,” under Obama’s budget deficits will remain in the $500 billion range for the next 10 years. And by the president’s own projections, the federal debt will double during his presidency — from $10 trillion when he took office to $20 trillion when he leaves.

Here's a graphic made from US Government statistics, not from my friend.

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget, Congressional Budget Office and US Department of the Treasury

[WBU ALUM]

Obama Threatens the UK
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... ve-eu.html

In Obama's apology tour right after his inauguration in 2009, he made repeated comments about "America's arrogance" in dictating to other countries. What happened to that idea? Just something to say and be forgotten like a lot of other things? I suppose so.

The link comes from the reliably Left wing Guardian, but even they can't conceal the fact that what we have here is a sitting American president attempting to blackmail an ally financially to influence maters that directly pertain to their sovereignty.

To underline this, the story reveals that President Obama's BFF, Islamist Prime Minister Tayipp Erdogan of Turkey flew to DC earlier this month to get President Obama to include Turkey in the TTIP...even though Turkey is not a member of the EU.

As the author states, "Perhaps it's time the British realized that he just doesn't like them all that much, and never has."

[jackspratt]

Obama Threatens the UK
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... ve-eu.html

In Obama's apology tour right after his inauguration in 2009, he made repeated comments about "America's arrogance" in dictating to other countries. What happened to that idea? Just something to say and be forgotten like a lot of other things? I suppose so.

The link comes from the reliably Left wing Guardian, but even they can't conceal the fact that what we have here is a sitting American president attempting to blackmail an ally financially to influence maters that directly pertain to their sovereignty.

To underline this, the story reveals that President Obama's BFF, Islamist Prime Minister Tayipp Erdogan of Turkey flew to DC earlier this month to get President Obama to include Turkey in the TTIP...even though Turkey is not a member of the EU.

As the author states, "Perhaps it's time the British realized that he just doesn't like them all that much, and never has."

If anyone wishes to understand the reality of this, I suggest you read both articles ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... CMP=twt_fd ), and then make up your own mind whether the Joshua Pundit blog ("A Digest and Commentary on the War Against Jihad") bears any resemblance to the Guardian article upon which it is supposedly based.

[LilRed]

About Obamacare:

I am NO expert. I have read parts of the ACA, and, with 2 other Feds/friends a mine, I have spoken at some length with the FEHB and BC/BS folks that handle my (and my friends') health insurance.

We reviewed the salient points in the ACA, with the FEBH coordinator... The only change affecting us: We can now carry our kids under our policies until they are 26...

It's still too early to judge its performance. I suspect that it will require "tuning"...


Saw this, and thought of our thread... An analysis of lying by political party:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 ... ref=topbar


WBU: I agree with you, that there's somethin wrong with that last poster I posted... I did query my friend as to what the %'s were of... He sez "spending increases"... WTFO?

I think this one's a great example of Pure Unadulterated Bull Sheisten (PUBS). Apparently, by the liberals... I am concerned, tho, that there may be other suspects maliciously postin this stuff to "stir the pot"...

I really tolerate both sides well, long as neither one of 'ems lyin... I hate liars of whatever stripe.


ATB

[WBU ALUM]

The first two paragraphs of the Guardian article:

The Obama administration has warned British officials that if the UK leaves Europe it will exclude itself from a US-EU trade and investment partnership potentially worth hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that it was very unlikely that Washington would make a separate deal with Britain.

The warning comes in the wake of David Cameron's visit to Washington, which was primarily intended as a joint promotion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Barack Obama, which the prime minister said could bring £10bn a year to the UK alone, but which was overshadowed by a cabinet rebellion back in London.

It must be an obsession with me. Some voice even more opposing views, but they are ignored by The Stalker. Yes, it's personal. Yes, it's about me; but I hope in this case that the old adage isn't true ... about hating the one you love.

[WBU ALUM]

Yes, Red, I did some research and found that that number for Obama was the percentage increase. Stands to reason that as spending SKYROCKETS, the percentage of INCREASE will be lower each time.

Kind of like a bench press. As you get stronger and get closer to maximum output, your percentage of increase over time will get smaller and smaller. It is also important to note which party has control of the purse strings in the House during each of those administrations, where all spending legislation must originate. In that graphic, Bill Clinton's is low because the GOP dominated the House. Gingrich was the Speaker during that time.

[jackspratt]

The first two paragraphs of the Guardian article:

The Obama administration has warned British officials that if the UK leaves Europe it will exclude itself from a US-EU trade and investment partnership potentially worth hundreds of billions of pounds a year, and that it was very unlikely that Washington would make a separate deal with Britain.

The warning comes in the wake of David Cameron's visit to Washington, which was primarily intended as a joint promotion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Barack Obama, which the prime minister said could bring £10bn a year to the UK alone, but which was overshadowed by a cabinet rebellion back in London.

It must be an obsession with me. Some voice even more opposing views, but they are ignored by The Stalker. Yes, it's personal. Yes, it's about me; but I hope in this case that the old adage isn't true ... about hating the one you love.

Clearly you agree with the interpretation of the Guardian article by JoshuaPundit - which comes as no surprise whatsoever.

I don't, and that's why I suggested to those who were interested to read both articles, and form their own opinion.

Obsession/Stalker/Tag Team - how long will you persist with this juvenile and puerile behavior Rico?

[WBU ALUM]

Obsession/Stalker/Tag Team - how long will you persist with this juvenile and puerile behavior Rico?

As long as you continue to be obsessed with me and stalk me while ignoring others with the same or more intense view. It's personal with you. You are obsessed, and you have exposed yourself with all of your incessant and weak criticisms -- of my posts and of me -- which is why you are alone on the bandwagon. In fact, it appears that it is no longer a bandwagon, but a bicycle with one person playing a harmonica.



And before anyone steps in and decides that this is a situation where two posters are going after each other, it is not. One has been the stalker/attacker and the other has had to retaliate in defense.

And by the way, Mr. Jack, I realize that you're trying to dazzle with vocab, but 'juvenile' and 'puerile' is redundant.

[WBU ALUM]

More news. It's starting to get thick.

Krauthammer Says the Obama/Clinton 10:00 PM Phone Call May Be 'The Biggest Scandal Of All'
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... dal-Of-All

It's a theory, but it's plausible and it asks the question that everyone has been asking. What was Obama doing during the eight hours that Americans were being killed? He didn't talk to the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, but he talked to Hillary at 10:00 pm. About what?



Krauthammer must know something from an extremely reliable source.

We now know that the talking points were manipulated to conceal the truth about what happened and pin the blame for the attack on a spontaneous demonstration against the "inflammatory" Youtube video. The Regime would continue the ruse until it was no longer tenable.

I have always wanted to know what Valerie Jarrett was doing and so does Peggy Noonan.

[LilRed]

Uh, back to President Obama...


Did any a you all catch this: http://news.yahoo.com/u-launches-first- ... Q--;_ylv=3?

The drones work very, very well in several ways...


WBU:

Your analysis of the poster data is right on, IMHO.

ATB

[WBU ALUM]

Apparently, some who provided cover for Obama are opening up and sharing their observations.

Saudi voice calls Obama a failure
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/saudi-voice- ... a-failure/

Of course, most of the criticism has to do with failing to act in Syria, but Obama acted in Egypt and Libya using that phony Arab Spring crap to justify some fight for democracy that has now made the region even more unstable. Democracy is never successful in uncivilized and intolerant societies. The Muslims in those "new democracies" have only used their vote to punish non-believers and outlaw freedom for everyone.

“The problem of U.S. President Barack Obama can be summed up in a single word: hesitation. The man is short-sighted, confused and diffident,” wrote Mashari al-Zaydi, a columnist for the daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

MEMRI reported the column called Obama out as the weakest president in U.S. history and blamed him for allowing the crisis in Syria to escalate.

He warned that Obama’s failures in the Middle East have set the foundation for an extremism and sectarian violence that will be greater than al-Qaida.

[WBU ALUM]

This piece cuts to chase and eliminates all the clutter that has clouded it all from the media and the White House.

Blame the President for Benghazi
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... r-Benghazi

When the American mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked on September 11th, 2012, only one person had the positional authority, legal mandate, and communications apparatus to give the order to defend our personnel on the ground: the President of the United States.

The President did not give that order, and four Americans died in Benghazi that day. All the rest of the nonsense to which we have been treated–from prepared talking points, congressional hearings, and finally to the outright lies–matter not when compared to the ignominious moments in which the President of the United States refused to do his job.

That same day, two other American embassies in the Middle East were also under attack in Sana, Yemen and Cairo, Egypt. As a result, our intelligence systems were on high alert. When the calls, satellite and drone feeds, faxes, and reports began bombarding every command center from Germany to the United States, our nation, already at war for eleven years, was again under siege. Staffs from Africa Command, European Command, the National Military Command Center, the CIA Operations Center, the State Department Operations Center, and the White House Situation Room were fully operational.

This all means that on September 11, 2012, our national security apparatus was on full alert. It means everyone was briefed. This is how it works; no games, no conjecture, no television and movie looks, just real battle in real time with real lives at risk.

In summary ...

There is one simple point to be made about Benghazi: the President of the United States is the only human being on the planet that can order a bullet, a missile, a plane, a drone, a boat, a helicopter, a soldier, sailor, spy, or push cart with a squirt gun attached to go into another country and perform an aggressive action.

On September 11, 2012, we know the President failed to give that order. We don’t know where he was, what he was doing, or why he failed to act. But we do know he failed to act, and that inaction cost the lives of four brave Americans.

That last paragraph is at the core of this entire matter.

[WBU ALUM]

About Obamacare:

. . .

It's still too early to judge its performance. I suspect that it will require "tuning"...

It's not too early for these parents and this little girl. This is the kind of crap that happens when BIG GOVERNMENT is dictating -- yes DICTATING -- what you can have. Big Government is deciding this, NOT the doctor and the patient.

Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/04/s ... -year-old/

I don't want government involved in health care. Period. For any reason. Just more red tape and stall tactics of consulting manuals and procedures instead of cutting to the chase and doing what is necessary. A child is dying from cystic fibrosis and has about a month to live unless she gets a lung transplant. Adult lungs can be modified for a child her age in a way that’ll save her life, but because she's only 10 and not 12, she’s not eligible for them. The “adult” list starts at 12; everyone younger than that goes to the children’s list, where lungs are much harder to come by.

The question isn't whether the government or one of its bureaucrats should have the authority to waive that requirement. The issue is whether government should be involved AT ALL!!!

[gudtymchuk]

Obama and his outragous lies, ie: will be the most transparent Presidential administration....

U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.

Just another example of the Clown in the White House continued arrogance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us ... ml?hp&_r=1&

[gudtymchuk]

When a Liberal Lame Duck looses the New York Times whose been in Obama's pocket from the get go, you know your goose is cooked.... make some room Jimmy, Barry's on his way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opini ... ef=opinion
From the New York Times;
"Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it".