Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

Article about President Obama recent claim to have had the 'lowest levels of government spending in the last 60 years'Turns out he came up with those numbers by excluding the 17.9% increase of 2009.How would they do that you ask?They claimed that it was Bush's fault.Even though the 2009 budget was presented and voted on by Obama and Pelosi.So if you too want to preside over the smallest level of government spending rises in history...just grow it massively real quick, then start your official presidency from after you do that. Of course you should hope that no one notices and you can trust sheep to use your numbers on interweb sites, all while having a nagging voice in your head telling you something smells in Denmark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

NYTimes: Poor poor Obama. The world is making it hard on him to get re-elected..AND ITS JUST NOT FAIR!!!! WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
As President Obama left on Sunday for an international summit meeting in Mexico, the daunting array of overseas issues underscored the challenges for an incumbent who is trying to manage global affairs while arguing a case for re-election. Although American voters are not particularly focused on foreign policy in a time of economic trouble, the rest of the world has a way of occupying a president’s time and intruding on his best-laid campaign plans....But for all the attention on Syria, Egypt and other areas of conflict, the most important crisis for Mr. Obama remains the European economy because of its impact at home. “Europe’s weakness is likely to blow back on Obama’s efforts this fall — just at the wrong time,” she said. “He’ll have to run harder because of it.”
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like President Obama lied about his grandfather's imprisonment in his autobiographyNow to remind you, when Obama took office he had a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the oval office and told the Brits to remove it from American soil because Winston Churchill was in charge when Obama's grandfather was 'tortured daily' by the brits.I guess when you see a man write a story about his life before he's actually done anything...you have to expect him to make stuff up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama invokes executive privilege in Fast and Furious.Executive privilege relates to communications between the president and others. Obama has previously said he knew nothing about Fast and Furious. So, was he lying back then, and he really knew about it, or is he blatantly abusing a constitutionally questionable doctrine to cover up the crimes of his friends?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama invokes executive privilege in Fast and Furious.Executive privilege relates to communications between the president and others.
http://thinkprogress...ions/?mobile=ncNot exactly. I miss the Henry that wasn't a blatant Republican shill."Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications. And Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey invoked the same “deliberative process privilege” as recently as 2008, rejecting congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation."
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://thinkprogress...ions/?mobile=ncNot exactly. I miss the Henry that wasn't a blatant Republican shill."Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications. And Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey invoked the same “deliberative process privilege” as recently as 2008, rejecting congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation."
So as long as someone before has done the same wrong, it is OK to do it?I think the whole 'executive privilge thing is a scam. They work for us, there is no executive privilege.From a political standpoint, it is always a ridiculous move, basically an admission of guilt.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm just pointing out that the assertion that executive privilege implies presidential knowledge or communication is patently false which is what you implied.I'm not a fan of executive privilege but it seems to be a tradition that every president does it once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read several reports today referencing court cases which state that it only applies to communication with the president. I, of course, did not check the accuracy of that statement, but saw it a couple of times in relatively neutral sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every administration needs to defend and protect executive privilege, right or wrong. It's a fundamental separation of powers thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe whole concept of executive privilege is a joke. We are paying their salary, they have no secrets from us. The only thing they should be able to withhold from the people who pay their salary is things that are a direct threat to national security or the lives of agents of that security, as determined by a non-partisan panel with clearance to see everything. Everything else should be public record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
THe whole concept of executive privilege is a joke. We are paying their salary, they have no secrets from us. The only thing they should be able to withhold from the people who pay their salary is things that are a direct threat to national security or the lives of agents of that security, as determined by a non-partisan panel with clearance to see everything. Everything else should be public record.
As I understand it, their argument is that the requested papers would reveal information about current agents working in Mexico. They're not denying that the program happened.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand it, their argument is that the requested papers would reveal information about current agents working in Mexico. They're not denying that the program happened.
"Protecting the identity of (agents/confidential informants)" is a pretty standard stonewall tactic to keep from providing robust and accurate information in a timely manner. They say that all the time.There was a Federal case where they indicted a guy about a week before the statute of limitations was due to expire. Trivial shit (drug possession, tiny amount for personal use, incidentally discovered during an unrelated search warrant when the guy happened to be on the premises). When the judge asked the DEA agents present why they had waited so long, that was the excuse they cited. The guys defense attorney showed that the particular 'confidential informant' in question had been used in a half-dozen other cases and was even indexed in Google in several court records.As best anyone can figure, the reason they waited so long to indict was they found themselves in a rush to quickly pad their arrest figures. His case had apparently been filed in the 'who ****ing cares' pile but they dusted it off and hauled the poor SOB in when the arrest rate for that particular fell below the national average and they needed some low hanging fruit to quickly juice up their numbers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Protecting the identity of (agents/confidential informants)" is a pretty standard stonewall tactic to keep from providing robust and accurate information in a timely manner. They say that all the time.There was a Federal case where they indicted a guy about a week before the statute of limitations was due to expire. Trivial shit (drug possession, tiny amount for personal use, incidentally discovered during an unrelated search warrant when the guy happened to be on the premises). When the judge asked the DEA agents present why they had waited so long, that was the excuse they cited. The guys defense attorney showed that the particular 'confidential informant' in question had been used in a half-dozen other cases and was even indexed in Google in several court records.As best anyone can figure, the reason they waited so long to indict was they found themselves in a rush to quickly pad their arrest figures. His case had apparently been filed in the 'who ****ing cares' pile but they dusted it off and hauled the poor SOB in when the arrest rate for that particular fell below the national average and they needed some low hanging fruit to quickly juice up their numbers.
Is this autobiographical by chance?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

 

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

 

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

 

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries – six cents worth."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

 

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

 

 

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

 

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries – six cents worth."

 

 

 

Skin in the game. I salute your patriotism sir...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...