IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[bobblehead]

reading gunakor's take on this thread makes me think all my time typing on the other threads were a waste of time.

Someone on TV the other day said Coke made more than any oil company last year so he was advocating a windfall profit tax for alternate forms of soft drink. I don't know if it was true or not, but it was damn funny.

Look, Clinton vetoed drilling in anwar during his tenure and if I recall, Al Gore cast the tie breaker on the balanced budget amendment so, yes, a lot of the shit going on now is partly the responsibility of past politicians. SS was raided by LBJ, and every congress since goes right along with it. We have big problems gun, and voting status quo and thinking they are recent manifestations tells me you haven't really thought it all through.

Bush, by recent history standards has been a very so so president. I dont' like a few things he did, but much of his agenda both passed and not was good for the country, Some of what was passed was very bad for the country. I forget who's sig is small gov't, low taxes, ect. is the real change, or something like that, but it is oh so true.

[bobblehead]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.

Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?

I seem to recall a republican led gov't in the 80s that destroyed whatever cohesive enery plan that was trying to be implemented by a fairly ineffective democrat president. A president who really fell down in terms of picking staff and working with congress to implement those ideas

Carter, who was a major proponent of taking the oil industry out of U.S. foreign policy, solar energy, and controversially nuclear energy.

Carter was a major proponent of coal and nuke power. He created the Dep't of Energy.

Oil imports plummeted during the Carter administration. Renewable energy research skyrocketed. Cars got more miles per gallon of gas. Thermostats were lowered to 55 degrees at night. On Feb. 2, 1977, Carter donned a wool cardigan and asked a national TV audience to conserve energy. Two months later, he likened America's struggle to reduce Middle Eastern oil imports to the "moral equivalent of war."

Conserving...something that a current VP dismissed...may be a personal virtue.

This, of course, became fodder for the repub party...ie, the "malaise" speech. But, to be fair...term first coined by Teddy Kennedy.

Ethanol, biodiesel, solar and other alternative fuels supply no more energy than they did in 1980.

Reagan in 1986 took out the solar panels off the white house. That, my friend, is a major symbol..or repudiation of a previous admin...of how we are looking progressively forward.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This current admin has yet to ask anything from US. Remember, self sacrifice...it helped us win a WW2. Has this gov't asked us to do one thing that would drastically reduce our oil consumption. Nope.

What should Bush do? Abandon Exxon and Halliburton and do what's good for this country and good for the American people.

It is in our own best interest to lessen our demand on oil. Take away power from those crazy, unstable countries...and return us to self sufficiency, and foreign policy that isn't dependent on oil.

[Freak Out]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

The missile defense shield should have taken care of this.

[Freak Out]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?

What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

[MJZiggy]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

When Bush took over, there was a budget SURPLUS. Gore wanted to put it to Social Security and Bush wanted to "give it back to the taxpayer." Bush won. End of surplus.

[mraynrand]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

[sheepshead]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?

What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Dont you mean congress?

[sheepshead]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

OK, out of all the lame brain things about the fact that somehow the president of the united states is supposed to clean up after hurricanes-this takes the fucking cake. Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.
How you people buy this crap hook line a sinker is remarkable to me.

Fema is not a responsive organization, do you REALLY want to depend on the federal government bailing you out of something?? WTF?

IT IS NOT HIS FUCKING JOB!

[MJZiggy]

Methinks that was sarcasm, sheep.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

[Freak Out]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?

What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Dont you mean congress?

Congress is always part of the equation. Well...........

[swede]

I voted no because Tank isn't here to vote for himself.

President-elect Obama should feel free to use whatever means necessary to screw up the country.

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought the evidence indicated Tank = PackerFan#1.

I disagree that the question is biased. It's indisputable that current policies have been 100% effective at preventing repeats of 9/11. Obama just stated yesterday that he supported the Law Enforcement approach. And beyond that, it's a simple Yes or No--do you think the CHANGE is dangerously irresponsible--or was it irresponsibly dangerous? That seems pretty even handed to me.

My whole point is that THIS--preventing the mass murder of Americans and potentially the destruction of our whole way of life if it's multiple nuclear acts of terror--is far and away THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. And Obama is clearly and dangerously on the WRONG side of that issue.

High oil and gasoline prices, the economy in general--which really isn't that bad anyway, the national debt, social issues like gay marriage, really anything else you can name PALE INTO NOTHINGNESS in comparison to death of tens of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, not to mention the destructions of our rights and freedoms and our prosperity and enjoyment of life, ALL of which would be in serious jeopardy from significant acts of terror at home.

Could anybody possibly disagree with that?

[bobblehead]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

When Bush took over, there was a budget SURPLUS. Gore wanted to put it to Social Security and Bush wanted to "give it back to the taxpayer." Bush won. End of surplus.

First off, that is falacy, we NEVER had a surplus. Go look at the records and show me ONE year where the national debt went down, or didn't increase for that matter. Not ONE on record dating back like 30 years.

Second, Gore "campaigned" on putting it towards SS, I don't buy it, Clinton campaigned on middle class tax cuts....uh-huh.

Third, Gingrich resigned due to a bunch of BS that amounted to his lawyer making a typo while responding to the 300+ ethics charges that he was aquitted of, and with him all fiscal restraint in gov't went out the window. In the '99 budget where we had a "suplus" with gingrich gone and mealy mouthed pussy republicans deciding it would be neat to spend more on their pet projects the revolution was over. You can split that blame between any and all parties involved at that time.

Gingrich fought a war and shut down gov't to get spending under control before finally negotiating much smaller increases in future budgets and getting us a surplus, and the minute he left EVERY politician in both parties got giddy over all the "extra money" they could spend now that the budget was balanced...and they did and we never had a year where the debt went down.

You wanna blame bush for deficits, stick to the war, or criticize medicare part D, or criticize spending, because tax cuts are not the problem. Revenues went up under his tenure, but spending went way up. Gov't has a nasty habit of putting built in future spending increases of around 10% per area then whining when they don't have enough to meet that number and demand tax increases. Anyone who suggests that 10% is too high of an increase and says we should maybe put it at 3% is accused of draconian cuts, starving old people, wanting kids to die and be uneducated ect. Remember dick gephardt and that bullshit about his mom (or grandma?) having ot eat canned dog food because newt gingrich was cutting too many programs and wanted to take her SS away, now if that prick died, I would be guilty of starting a thread like tex did.

We have a growing problem that gets worse every year. The INTEREST on 9 trillion dollars is 540 000 000 000. Let that one sink in a bit. 540Billion. When bush took office the interest on the debt was a mere 270 billion a year....what were his deficits again?? Yea, its his fault we are in trouble.

Wanna talk unfunded liabilities..you know, promises the gov't has made for the future to SS, medicare, gov't employee pensions ect. let me get a new line.

59 000 000 000 000. Translation 59 TRILLION dollars.

He tried one itty bitty attempt to do something about that with SS reform and he got demagogued to high hell. Is the 59 trill his fault too? Our gov't has been run like a rich boys trust fund for the past 40 years and no party is without blame. People are so busy with their bush bashing, or their obama boner that they will let the next president run us even further into debt. Obama, McCain, it doesn't really matter, it is just a matter of hitting a brick wall at 100 mph or 200 mph, your fucked either way.