The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

Apparently Obama had an affair with one of his Senate campaign staff. But I think it was being reported by the Enquirer, so who knows if its true.

I thought he wanted to distance himself from Clinton? :fluff:

[hblask 1]

A proposal: multiquoting posts be completely forbidden under penalty of lifetime ban from FCP.

I don't understand this proposal.

Reply to someones post with one single fluid, lucid, contiguous stream of thought. No parsing down of posts into individual sentences and paragraphs that each receive their own reply. hblask has taken this to a new level with actually creating four consecutive, unique posts to generate what amounts to one single reply, which demonstrates how completely out of hand this method is.

I'm #1, I'm #1!!!!Seriously, though, I think a long post reads better when it is near the item that is addressing, so I don't have to write: "as to your point about x being the best way to y, I would say.....". Instead, include it, and the people who already read what the other person said don't have to read it again, while the people who haven't read every post can get a context.It's actually shorter this way.And I don't normally break it into little posts, only if it's really long. We have the attention span of squirrels, so if it gets too long we don't read it.

[El Guapo 8]

so if it gets too long we don't read it.

Read what?

[El Guapo 8]

I will be shocked if this happens, but this seems like good news:Fate of Bush tax cuts unclearJeanne Sahadi, senior writer, On Wednesday July 7, 2010, 9:44 am EDTOdds are good that the middle-class will get to keep their tax cuts. The question now is for how long.The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in six months. President Obama had promised to make them permanent for the majority of Americans. But the reality of the federal budget's impending shortfalls is making that a hard promise to keep.Indeed, some influential players in Washington have signaled that it's no longer a given that the tax cuts will be made permanent, at least not right away.The most prominent Democrat to suggest as much is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. In a speech last month, Hoyer said point-blank that lawmakers can't ignore the budget consequences of extending the cuts."We need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," Hoyer said.In May, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who was President Reagan's top economic adviser and now sits on Obama's recovery advisory board, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary that while he favors temporarily extending the cuts for everyone, the country can't afford to make them permanent.The cost of doing so for everyone would top $3 trillion over 10 years. Making them permanent for families making less than $250,000 -- which tracks with Obama's promise -- would cost less but not much less: an estimated $2.2 trillion.Two prominent Senate Democrats recently told The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress, that the $250,000 threshold is not necessarily a done deal with Congress.Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, said he didn't think there was "any magic" in $250,000. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted "you could go lower ... why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee is considering a one-year extension of the tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, according to a report in Congress Daily. The extension would be accompanied by a two-year "patch" to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. The estimated cost of those measures combined is $270 billion over 10 years.The political responseLooming over the debate about extending the tax cuts is the mid-term elections in November.Republicans who like to campaign as deficit hawks are portraying the potential change in direction on tax cuts as a betrayal of Obama's promise to the American people. Spending, they say, is what needs to be cut to tame the growth in debt.Budget and debt experts, however, have said repeatedly that the magnitude of changes needed to bring better balance to the U.S. fiscal situation will require changes both to the spending and tax sides of the ledger.They acknowledge that an immediate increase in taxes could harm the economic recovery. They favor extending the cuts for a short period of time but not making them permanent. Any long-term extension would constrain lawmakers as they consider broader tax reform.Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats have blocked benefits for the long-term unemployed because they would add $33 billion to the deficit. So it's easy to think there would be even more opposition to a one-year extension of the tax cuts that would cost almost 10 times as much.Ironically, though, there could be less pushback."Sometimes it's easier to do things that are bigger rather than smaller," said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte Tax LLC. For instance, he said, it might be easier to vote for a $270 billion package because it will benefit far more Americans than the far less expensive extension of unemployment benefits.But there will likely be plenty of objections along the way, especially in the Senate, Stretch said. Among the potential points of disagreements: Should the tax cuts be extended temporarily for everyone, or everyone except high-income households? Should the cuts be extended for one or two years? And should the extension be paid for, even though it's not required?The jury is also out on when Congress will take up formal legislation on the issue. Since the legislative agenda is so back-logged, especially in the Senate, a tax-cut extension bill might not come up for a vote until after the mid-term elections.But there's good reason to believe it may come before, Stretch said. "It's hard to understand why you'd want to campaign defending your inaction on the middle class."

[strategy 4]

obama's trying to get another four years. the one certainty is that it won't happen if we double-dip. I'm sure he's aware of what needs to be done to make it happen.

[hblask 1]

I'm sure he's aware of what needs to be done to make it happen.

I'm no longer convinced of that. He seems to have surrounded himself with Keynesian progressive lapdogs who are totally disconnected from reality. I think Obama seriously believes he can deficit-spend his way to prosperity.

[El Guapo 8]

I'm no longer convinced of that. He seems to have surrounded himself with Keynesian progressive lapdogs who are totally disconnected from reality. I think Obama seriously believes he can deficit-spend his way to prosperity.

He and congress ignored the overwhelming majority of the public and put the Health Care bill in place as well.I have seen numbers between 57% and 63% were not in favor of the bill.

[brvheart 1,752]

He and congress ignored the overwhelming majority of the public and put the Health Care bill in place as well.I have seen numbers between 57% and 63% were not in favor of the bill.

I heard yesterday that it was currently at 62%.

[mk 11]

I'm no longer convinced of that. He seems to have surrounded himself with Keynesian progressive lapdogs who are totally disconnected from reality. I think Obama seriously believes he can deficit-spend his way to prosperity.

Or, put another way, Bernanke, who actually is in charge of monetary policy, isn't disconnected from reality, but instead is quite connected with history, as he is probably the world's leading academic on the Great Depression and is therefore committed to making sure what happened then doesn't happen now. The first page of one of his most famous papers is rather telling. If you pay $10 you can read the whole thing! The dismal science!

[mk 11]

He and congress ignored the overwhelming majority of the public and put the Health Care bill in place as well.I have seen numbers between 57% and 63% were not in favor of the bill.

Something important to note in those poll numbers that claimed over 50% against included the 10-15% of the more progressive population that felt the bill didn't do enough. All the polls that were worded reasonably showed splits almost exactly down party lines.Also, I find it: RATHER COMICAL that Republicans are now chastising this president for (possibly) steering (slightly?) against public opinion whereas when Dubya was in charge it was all: HIM AINT A GON GOVN BY POLLZ HES A KEEPIN URS SAFES.*****George W. Bush, New York Times, March 15, 2000:"I don't care what the polls say. I don't. I'm doing what I think what's wrong."*A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention.* Jan. 14, 2006 Fox News Sunday transcript:CHENEY: Polls change day by day, week by week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq. The challenge for us is to be able to provide that. But you cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, "Gee, public opinion's against; we'd better quit.[...] It's exactly the wrong thing to do. This president does not make policy based on public opinion polls; he should not. It's absolutely essential here that we get it right.*March 2008 Good Morning America transcript:RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.CHENEY: So?RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.---This type of thinking was met with cheers by the right. FUNNY HOW THE TABLES TURN, or less pleasantly: your hypocrisy sandwich, HOW DOES IT TASTE?

[hblask 1]

This type of thinking was met with cheers by the right. FUNNY HOW THE TABLES TURN, or less pleasantly: your hypocrisy sandwich, HOW DOES IT TASTE?

I think everyone agrees Bush sucked. Defending Obama by saying "Bush sucked too" is really cliched and ineffective.

[CaneBrain 95]

I think everyone agrees Bush sucked. Defending Obama by saying "Bush sucked too" is really cliched and ineffective.

Why?A) I dont think everyone agrees that Bush sucked at all. 2) The right was still blaming Clinton for things in 2008. Why is it so wrong for Obama to blame things on Bush only 1.5 years into his presidency?

[strategy 4]

Defending Obama by saying "Bush sucked too" is really cliched and ineffective.

Except he didn't say anything resembling that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Why?A) I dont think everyone agrees that Bush sucked at all. 2) The right was still blaming Clinton for things in 2008. Why is it so wrong for Obama to blame things on Bush only 1.5 years into his presidency?

I agree with both these points.Bush's spending and passive attempts at stopping the unrestricted borrowing that could only end bad did in fact leave Obama with a mess that anyone would have a hard time dealing with. Especially a no-experience socialist ideologue with no clue what he is doing.The rest of Obama's mess is all his, and will be our way of dealing with the criticisms of the republican president elected in 2012

[CaneBrain 95]

I agree with both these points.Bush's spending and passive attempts at stopping the unrestricted borrowing that could only end bad did in fact leave Obama with a mess that anyone would have a hard time dealing with. Especially a no-experience socialist ideologue with no clue what he is doing.The rest of Obama's mess is all his, and will be our way of dealing with the criticisms of the republican president elected in 2012

if only you guys had someone to run in 2012.....

[mk 11]

Except he didn't say anything resembling that.

Right, at no point did I pass judgment on either president; I pointed out the hypocrisy of the discourse.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think going against the polls to do what you think is right is called leadership. Pretty sure President Bartlett said as much too.But it doesn't help your re-election cause, right? Isn't that what started this particular discussion?Edit: Hmm, maybe not. Oh well.

[Balloon guy 158]

if only you guys had someone to run in 2012.....

Remember 2008?You were going to win because of our guy, not because of yours.It will repeat in 2012She will be a lock

[El Guapo 8]

I think polls for public health vs. going to war or not are two completely different things.In regards to the health bill, the information is public. The public cannot know all the information for going to war, because it is classified.

[mk 11]

She will be a lock

oh god

I think polls for public health vs. going to war or not are two completely different things.In regards to the health bill, the information is public. The public cannot know all the information for going to war, because it is classified.

There's a Bush quote I included from 2000, pre-9-11, prior to any national security measures. Not giving a shit about public opinion--on everything, not just wars of choice--was pretty much their platform, their mantra, their gospel.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think polls for public health vs. going to war or not are two completely different things.In regards to the health bill, the information is public. The public cannot know all the information for going to war, because it is classified.

Now that it passed, it's public, but it wasn't before.Funny how the left decried citizens united ruling, saying big corporations would ruin campaigns.Unions outspending corporations on campaign ads despite court ruling

[mk 11]

Funny how the left decried citizens united ruling, saying big corporations would ruin campaigns.Unions outspending corporations on campaign ads despite court ruling

Corporations are smart and wait until they know who the actual candidates will be before they start writing checks.

[Balloon guy 158]

Corporations are smart and wait until they know who the actual candidates will be before they start writing checks.

And they usually give to both candidates.

[AmScray 355]

She will be a lock

Do you mean Sarah Palin?Because if so- if the braintrust heading the Republicans seriously nominates that slatch to represent the party- then here's a picture of what their decision-makers look like...

[Balloon guy 158]

Do you mean Sarah Palin?Because if so- if the braintrust heading the Republican party seriously nominates that slatch to represent the party- then here's a picture of what their decision-makers look like.

Honestly now...Do you think she would have done a better or worse job than Obama has?Not fair to compare her to our great presidents, like Nixon, or Reagen.