E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhite House officials today shot down reports that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are getting close to a “major budget deal” to raise the debt limit.
Moments before the daily press briefing, the New York Times ran the headline: “Boehner and Obama Nearing Budget Deal, Leaders told.” A few minutes later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney addressed the issue head-on. “There is no deal.”
Carney added, “We are not close to a deal... The president is in discussions with all the leaders of Congress, as well as other members, and exploring the possibility of getting the biggest deal possible, which is a position he has held for a long time now."
The rumblings about a possible deal came as top White House officials were spotted on the Hill. The administration’s budget director, Jack Lew, was seen going into a Senate Democratic lunch and Rob Nabors, the White House's legislative affairs director, was spotted waiting outside of Boehner’s office. When Lew was asked if a deal was close he replied, “There are conversations going on at multiple levels... I’m not aware of a deal.”
According to multiple reports, the potential deal in discussion would be $3 trillion in deficit reduction –- which would include cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security, as well as future revenue increases by reforming the tax code.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters he was not aware of an imminent deal. “The president always talked about balance that there had to be some fairness in this," he said. “This can't be all cuts -- there has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue in the cuts. My caucus agrees with that. I hope the President sticks with that, and I'm confident he will"
Leaders on all sides seem to agree time is running out. According to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner the nation will default on its loans for the first time in History unless the debt ceiling is raised by Aug. 2. Geithner has warned a default could be economically calamitous, because the country would be unable to its bills and the value of the U.S. dollar would almost certainly decline.
Leave a Comment:
NY Times got it wrong?
Again?!?!
Sad times for the Grey Lady. They get that Blair character back?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters he was not aware of an imminent deal. “The president always talked about balance that there had to be some fairness in this," he said. “This can't be all cuts -- there has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue in the cuts. My caucus agrees with that. I hope the President sticks with that, and I'm confident he will" "
In other words, if Harry Reid doesn't get more tax money to spend, he's ready to shut the government down?
Where is YOUR plan, Harry Reid? Come to think of it, where is your BUDGET, for 2012 Harry Reid?
You never passed a Budget for 2009 when Bush was in office, and you didn't pass a Budget for 2011 until the fiscal year was almost over, and now you won't even try to present a budget cutting plan. COWARD.
4 trillion in spending cuts. Whats your plan? no taxes, no SS, no medicare, no medicaid, no Affordable Healthcare, no consumer protection and no decrease in my wages but decrease my staff's and others wages.
ctborn56 "4 trillion in spending cuts. Whats your plan?"
Details, please.
Or is it just another "Give me some more tax money to spend, and I 'promise' to do something in another 5 to 10 years, if a different Congress doesn't change their minds when the time comes".
Who's responsible for the Budget Deficits and the Debt?
While it's tempting to blame the President for Budget Deficits, it's actually the responsibility of Congress to pass a spending budget, which establishes the amount of the Deficit each year and any required borrowings on the Debt. So what does the record show based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years;
DEFICITS
Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.
NEW DEBT
Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.
Spin it all you want, but these are the FACTS
(a) – Contrary to popular belief, the National Debt increases far more than the Deficits for each year.
Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify National Debt increases is;
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np You have to select dates.
The White House government site to verify Deficits is;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.1
I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is more fiscally responsible.
What do Obama's Budget Projections Show?
Obama's own 2012 Budget calls for the National Debt to increase to $20.825 Trillion (a) by the end of fiscal year 2016 - only 5 years away (vs a National Debt figure of only $10.025 Trillion for Bush's last fiscal year in office (2008). That's an increase of almost $11 Trillion within 5 years if Obama gets reelected.
Our children and grandchildren are going to be neck high in debt for their entire lives - all to fund the grand schemes of Obama. That will be an average debt for a family of 4 of about $250,000, and just the interest alone for a family of 4 will be over $10,000 per year - in new taxes required - Basically another mortgage for an expensive house on every American family - just to pay interest to foreigners.
Congratulations on that "Change we can believe in" that you voted for.
(a) - See the White House Budget for 2012 - Table S-14. The link is below;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
Actually, Obama's projection is very optimistic and assumes an economic growth rate of over 6% per year (economists think 3% to 4% is realistic), which could raise the National Debt to over $25 Trillion - again in only 5 years, which would be an increase of $15 Trillion under Obama.
Roy Wilson: Swing and a Miss! A President's policies and budget requests dictate the deficits. Two examples:
In 1993, Clinton and a Dem Congress passed, without a single Goper vote, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that raised taxes and PAID for things. During the post-passage years the economy endured expansion and the country experienced one of the longest peacetime periods of prosperity, creating a SURPLUS by the end of President Clinton's term. The result: 23 MILLION JOBS.
At the beginning of the Bush years, Goper Congress passed the Bush Tax Cuts which did NOT PAY for things and accelerated the deficits. Let's not forget about the lies by the Bush Administration of WMD's in Iraq that drove us into that trillion dollar war. The result: 2.3 Million jobs and a deficit. BTW, they were extended because the GOP was holding Unemployment Insurance hostage during Christmas of last year.
Job Growth Under Bush, Worst Since WW II II
Lost Decade for Family Income
What's driving the deficits ( 2 unpaid for wars and the bush tax cuts):
St. Ronnie and the $12 Trillion in Republican Debt (the blue line is Obama):
Congress? No.
Links didn't post, go to zfacts and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years, Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers.
END BUSH TAX CUTS! I can't afford to support anymore people. I can barely keep my own head above water anymore.
END OBSENE SPENDING FOR LOCAL, STATE, & FEDERAL POLITICAL RACES! The money alone that's been spent in WI by Walker, Ryan, Johnson, Darling & their buddies the Koch Bros., etc. is ridiculous. It's interesting that Teapublicans & their business accounts BENEFITING FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS, have NO PROBLEM writing another check for $10,000 - a couple MILLION for campaign contributions. Alberta Darling claims most of her recall campaign money is from regular contributors who always write her checks for $5000-$10,000. How many average people can afford that every couple years? Not the people I live/work with & I'm part of the dwindling WI middle class who's not yet being foreclosed on.
On the dem side, the unions have been pouring equal dollars into these WI campaigns. I was a public employee, in a union- until Walker ended that for me:(- but I've never been in favor public unions being involved in campaign contributions.
How about THE PAYDOWN RACE TO THE TOP- see who can contribute the most $$ to the national debt by having all these moneybags corporations & people send their mega$$ to retire the debt, rather than pay for advertising for all these ridiculous political wannabes for the next 10 years. Give at the rates they're giving now along with some program cuts that require "lifestyle" changes for people getting handouts & maybe we'll balance the budget without creating a 2 caste system of mega-rich & poor. The political "side" that wins the race gets an oscar-like award and a 1 hr. prime time special to blow their horn & then the next 10 yr. race starts again.
Political candidates: Give them all the same amount of public service announcements on public radio/tv. Enough with the continuous commercials- for the most part you don't tell the truth anyway- it's all half-truths & convoluted pitches against your opponent(s). Since all the politicians are actually millionaires anyway if you need signs, billboards, mailings - PAY FOR IT YOURSELF and no Ron Johnson- you can't get your "company" to repay you years of "owed backpay that equals the $2 million" you paid out-of-your-own-pocket for your campaign! Interesting the self-made man paying for his own campaign, wins & the comapny he married into decides to pay him years of owed, but never paid salary. Wonder why I have no trust of politicians?
Lifestyle changes: Enter the country legally, or you don't stay, we don't educate your children or give you $$ for anything. Stop increasing payments to those who increase the size of their family to increase their benefits. Free birth control/sterilization is cheaper than paying for generations of people who never even try to work. I can't afford unlimited kids, why should I pay for yours? After 2nd one you are not completely financially responsible for- you & your partner are out of the procreation business. Dialysis patients: you're counseled on what to eat/not eat. Don't follow the diet & scheduled dialysis treatments, continue to HABITUALLY show up for ER treatment due to NOT FOLLOWING DR. orders- Medicare payments for your care STOP immediately! Pay for it yourself! Yup adult kids if you don't "have time or care to monitor" what mom/dad are doing regarding their illness- DON'T PLAN ON THAT BIG INHERITANCE when they die & all end stage renal patients will die eventually. Care enough to make sure they follow the right path, Medicare pays & you will get all that $$ your parents saved up for you to have. Obsenely overweight people who continue to eat themselves to death on public assistance: lose weight/exercise/get a job if not rather than a life of cruising thru WalMart in your powerchair with a basket overflowing of junkfood you're off to the Biggest Loser FatCamp where you will stay until you are at a healthy weight. You will regularly check in & maintain to continue receiving benefits, upon successful completion & release from your monitored lifestyle you better maintain forever or again YOU or YOUR FAMILY better be ready to PAY, because no more assistance for you! Same type of treatment for those with alcohol/drug abuse. If you don't like that, we'll give you an "out-source ticket" to whatever 3rd world country you choose & see if you get anywhere near what we've invested in you from them! They may make you a suicide bomber, but only once and frankly you were on that path here anyway from your extreme lifestyle.
For those truly frail, infirm, elderly and unable to work- they should be able to continue receiving assistance. We know who is really deserving of help. It's just those with "learned helplessness" that prey upon the system, causing abuses that are getting out of hand. Lose you job, you should get unemployment with no waiting period. Your bills won't wait and your family needs food/shelter. We need to bring family values and work ethic back to America. The rich must pay their part and if that means a few less of the excesses in their lifestyle, WELCOME TO 2011 USA where I've had to change and do without many of the things I enjoyed or thought was necessary. I found I didn't need them, don't miss them much anymore and can live without them. It's time others did too!
I hope they can work out a reasonable agreement. Good commentary on the budget and Catholic issues at #/.
Actually, I think it is a good sign that both the President and House Republicans aren't saying much and what they are saying is that there is "no deal." I think this is a sign that the negotiations ARE making progress and that a deal could be in the works in the next few days. If they were at an impasse, there would be all kinds of posturing in the media (see Cantor, Eric).
Al in Visalia CA "Actually, I think it is a good sign that both the President and House Republicans aren't saying much and what they are saying is that there is "no deal." I think this is a sign that the negotiations ARE making progress and that a deal could be in the works in the next few days. If they were at an impasse, there would be all kinds of posturing in the media"
Good observation. Whenever there is a real 'impasse', the blame game starts. If there is silence, there must be progress.
Good post Roy, and thanks for connecting the dots about which party does increase the debt when they control.
And I don't see why the Republicans are the bad guys for not compromising. Why should they compromise on their plan when it is the only plan on the table? The "Gang of 6" is quoted, but the specifics of their proposal is nothing more than basic assumptions without actual specifics. And where is the Reid plan or the Obama plan that outline specifics?
But without their own plan, they can be critical of the Republicans. They and the liberal media who haven't performed anything of value in reporting for some time, as well as the liberal Obama Fan Club of this site.
Now really LOFC members, how can you spin this to a favorable Obama win?
With all do respect to Dick Morris here's his thoughts on this situation. I copied from someone else's collapsed post on another topic.... no doubt from liberals not willing to accept reality:
Here's what's going to happen:
1. The Senate leaders from both parties and President Obama will coalesce around the Gang of Six deal based on the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission.
2. After initially voicing reservations, House Speaker John Boehner and, perhaps, Majority Leader Eric Cantor will sign off on the deal in return for some unimportant modifications.
3. When the deal reaches the House floor, all hell will break loose and the rank and file Republicans will revolt en masse. Defying their leadership, they will reject the Gang of Six deal in caucus.
4. The House Democrats, who could provide the votes to pass the bill when their ranks are added to those Boehner-loyalists who back the proposal, will refuse to go along unless there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats voting for the Gang of Six proposal. Not wanting the albatross of passing the gang's proposal as a Democratic plan, they will withhold the votes on the House floor for its passage. Boehner won't bring it up for a vote.
5. The deadlock in the House will push the government beyond the August 2nd deadline and Obama will be forced to admit that it was a phony date all along. He will suddenly "discover" enough coming in via tax collections to pay for the debt service but other functions of government will have to be trimmed back or halted after the debt limit fails to pass.
6. Then a stalemate will ensue in which the House Republicans will call Obama's bluff and stand firm against caving in to more tax increases.
7. And then???? Who knows who will win that standoff. The debt limit will go up. Really conservative Republicans will still be outraged. So will really liberal Democrats. But the majority of both parties will vote to pass it. And everyone will debate who the winner was politically.
I know who the losers will be: American taxpayers!
Did you just copy & post that with a straight face?
Dick Morris??? ROTFLMFAO! *make it stop* ;o)))
I see you found the 'stupid' button!
Feisty, They are really taking about THAT Dick Morris, the guy who what: got into a scandel while he was a advisor to Clinton????
God, the boards today started out really fine, but by 11:00 the tide came in and what a lot of garbage surfaced.
That would be the one Northstar! lol
Can you say grasping at straws?
What's next? Quoting old uncle racist Pat Buchannon's opinions as facts?
Time to clean up the beach & get rid of the trash! ;o)
hahaha.... feisty redwig must be deep into happy hour! She is the queen of the cut and paste crowd... and other than insulting anyone who doesn't follow her socialist agenda... she has very little to say!
To ridicule others for posting articles from other commentators is the height of hipocrisy... but we know that's redwig's style! Hey feisty.... come up with a legitimate case to support your blind love for a failed administratiion! We are waiting?
These days I'm disappointed in most of our politicians, but especially those who would dare take money out of our pockets without giving anything back in return! And at the top of that list is the liberals. or as feisty redwig prefers... the progressives, makes me almost vomit!
She can out-debate you in 15 seconds chump. You are not worthy to drink her bath water!
Cowering under the porch while Feisty is away is no substitute for solid debate, kid.
Try showing yourself when Feisty is around.
gopextinct - fiesty debates???? Puuuhleeze! her only strength lies with dragging her azz of insults across any opposition. Ever wonder why she is referred to as chihuahua? Comic relief? Her only debate techniques consist mainly of quoting the op-ed pieces think progress spews out.
If you believe fiesty can debate, then it appaers that you gopextinct are the chump, the chimps chump at that.
We're more than a match for you too (A)merican.
And mr anon is a god among men that you worship. ROTLMAO!!! If that is your selling point for being a debater please do carry on and dazzle us with more BS!
O please! This whole "crisis" was engineered by the Repugnicans. The debt ceiling has been raised scores of times in U.S. history, usually by Repugnicans themselves. There is no crisis, but the Dems, Obama and far too many citizens have swallowed the far-right kool-aid once again. So what do they do? Go after programs for those least able to help themselves. Obama & the Dems are throwing widows & orphans under the bus. Now there's even talk of lowering the tax rate for the wealthy rather than ending the Bush tax cuts for the filthy rich. Goodbye America!
Why isn't there more outrage over Obama's role (or lack of) in this process. Other than lies and political rhetoric.... not to mention the weak threat of withholding social security and military payments... he has done very little? Why?
Because not everyone sees what has taken place through a far-right ideology; many see the truth which has nothing to do with what you have posted. Thank God.
So spouting talking points and grandstanding to the media is what you want the President to do? That is all that the Republicans have done.
Pay attention, Robin. If President Obama didn't have a "role" in this, why is it Boehner and Cantor have made so many trips to the White House and then promptly issued statements about what took place?
Robin - First read/First thoughts is a very left leaning blog for liberals to post on and one which is incapable of following newsvines code of honor. The chances of any lefty and in particular, obama, being skewed by the libs here are pretty low.
Only a few conservative posters have the balls to question obamas motives here, and for sure maybe only one lib from texas.
WOW. SteveH USA got it all worked out based on something some guy wrote. Now where's that EASY button . . .
If Mr. Obama has any plans of even running for a second term, he would do well to keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment benefits off the bargaining table. If even one cent is cut from any of those already poorly funded programs, he will likely have to fight just to win his party's nomination. I can guarantee, he does not want to piss off all the grandmas and grandpas, the poor and the disabled. Not a good idea. Nevertheless, I predict that the next president will be neither republican nor democrat. It is now the age of third party candidates, and they will be the ones winning in the 2012 elections.
I hold the view I think espoused by Matthew H.in Houston, Texas which states that President Obama can pull the trigger on this debt ceiling whenever he wants to.
He will do so at 11:59 p.m. on Aug 2nd.
The repubs will be left standing around with stunned looks on their faces and papers in their hands.
The ceiling will be raised, disaster (temporarily) averted, and Obama will have a huge cudgel to beat the repubs with in 2012.
Repubs will sign up for the witness protection program and bounties of $500 will be posted for any republican pelt. Regular right-wing contributors to these boards will be absent for months hiding in Canada where they can finally get health care for free.
It will be discovered that Spanky is actually a twelve-year-old living in his parent's basement.
Mr. Obama hasn't shown much leadership to date, why would you think he will do so now? Has Harry Reid woke up from his nap? Most recognize that dirty Harry is pulling the strings.... but most also realize he's lost a step or two....
Obama will pull the trigger at 11.59 pm Aug 2?? I really, really hope he does. Blatently withholding action untill the last minute will be a tremendoius campaign point for the republican candidate for potus in 2012 to harp on concerning obamas lack of leadership skills. Obama will easily be labeled and shown as a divider and not a unifier.
Why are republicans now saying there is no crisis? The new republicans were voted in because, well at first they said they would create jobs, but in the background they were also saying the deficit is too high and that they would go to Washington to fix the problems that are creating this chaos. Well, since they have not created no jobs and there is no deficit; they can all go home now and let the adults take care of the people of this country. buyh bye. I am so sick of these obstructionist. sheeit, I told myself I wouldn't let myself go there. I apologize; just had to vent.
ctborn, got names to go with your allegations. I sure don't recall the congressional leadership ever saying anything good would come about with a default. Yes it is true that some of the freshmen congressmen don't believe this is true..
Create jobs??? More like create a pro business atmosphere conducive for business to increase hiring as demand warrents. Better question you need to ask yourself is why aren't you encouraging others to spend their $$$ and ply your plastic to buy manufactured goods and services to drive up demand so that business hires more to meet increased demand.
Interesting on how obama gave only token acknowledgement to our debt/deficit untill only recently. I really feel bad about him losing campaign time to stay in washington and having to partake in official government business. Funny, i always thought that incumbants had the campaign advantage.
I am going to settle this once and for all.
The national debt was at its highest after WWII (120% of the GDP). In the 35 years after WWII, however, the various administrations (both Republican and Democratic) brought down the debt consistantly. Then one day, a man named Ronald Reagan started spreading scare tactics about how the debt was "out of control", even though he knew it was at its lowest since WWII. He somehow one the election due to poor campaigning from the other guy. As he was going into office, he claimed he would lower the debt faster than anyone else. Guess what happened.
For the first time since WWII, the debt started to skyrocket. He, and Bush Sr. followed "supply side" economics, and increased the debt more than any other president in history. After Bush Sr., William Clinton came in, and even though he never claimed he would do so, for the next 8 years reversed the deficit to a large surplus that paid down a big chunk of the debt. After Clinton, Bush Jr. won the white house illegally, and like Reagan, claimed he would reduce the debt more than anyone else. From his FIRST BUDGET, he once more reversed a surplus and started increasing the debt. Due to the INTEREST of Reagan and his father's debt, plus the cost of his tax cuts, plus the cost of his illegal wars, he skyrocket the debt to incredible proportions. Barrack Obama, who is actually a legitimate president (contrary to what you birthers think), never claimed that he would reduce the debt. His focus in his first two years was to improve the economy. He (correctly) thought that the deficit is much lower priority than the economy, as it can wait. Unfortunately, the Republicans in congress managed to stall most of his legislation, causing both the economy and the deficit to worsen, though the economy was saved from catastrophy.
There are several claims GOTPs make to the contrary. They claim that Reagan's debt was due to a Democratic congress. This is false. If you look at a comparison between Reagan's requested budget and the actual budget that congress passed, they are virtually the same. In fact, congress' budget was lower than Reagan's budget by a small amount. Republicans also claim that the Clinton surplus was due to a Republican congress, though this is also false for similar reasons.
Now, they also claim that Bush Jr.'s deficits were mostly due to the Democratic congress in his last quarter, as that was when the deficits were the largest. Let's stop for a moment and consider the facts. The Democrats never claimed to wish to reduce the deficit. Bush did, and every single one of his budgets was a deficit, even though some of his congresses were Republican.
The Republicans attacked Obama from the start for not addressing the economy, and now that they are in slight power, they claim that "government can't do anything to fix the economy". How hypocritical. Or should I say, how Republican.
You got it right, Mr. Anon. Reagan turned the USA from a creditor nation into a debtor nation and whenever they are in power, the GOP ensures it stays a debtor country.
Time for your meds, mr anon. From your dream world it is apparent that the left carries no responsibility for anything. So sad that you as well as other left wing dreamers can only place blame for everything on the right. Really, really sad.
BTW - got any links to posters to prove your allegations. Please do tell us your rational for switching back and forth between government, obama, the economy, reagan, bush clinton, congress and debt. You seem to be trying to correlate apples to whatever.
Seems that the right doesn't really need to attack obama on anything. Our sluggish GDP growth, rising unemployment, increasing military involvements and the fact that he can't get congress to work together is a fine example of his effectiveness.
First off, this post is the biggest strawman I have ever seen. I think you are either A. A parodist or B. An outright troll.
However, I will give you credit by responding. Think of this as a favor, because, quite frankly, it is.
There are plenty of things I criticize Obama for. For example, I attacked him big when he decided to reopen Guantanimo. Or when he compromised on the Bush Tax cuts. Or when he dropped public option. Obama is not a perfect president.
However, he addressed the recession well. Unemployment was dropping until he compromised with the Republicans and started cutting spending. Have you noticed that the rise in unemployment is corrolating very nicely with the compromise budget deals?
My points still stand. In fact, I don't even think you read them. By the looks of your post, you merely skimmed though them.
As I noted, this is largely because of the Bush administration, as well as Republican stalling through Democratic congresses.
Not even true. Iraq war is pretty much over. Troops are pulling out of Afghanistan right now. Libya is projected to not even last until 2012.
Also, that point is extremely hypocritical. Where were you when Bush declared a war based on false information? And continued it long after his grounds were proven false? Where were you when Bush spent 7 years fighting another war with no progress whatsoever?
The president is not in charge of Congress. Congress is currently mostly Republican. The Democrats are merely doing what the Republicans have done for the last 4 years.
Mr anon - thank you for proving that you continue to blame the right for our countries ills.
You do realize that obamas meddling into the soverign affairs of of north african and middle eastern countries is really no different than what bush did. Then again obama hasn't faced a 911 issue yet has he? As for Iraq, it will be years (if ever) before we find out what the behind the scenes actions took place between the coalition forces and irags neighbors. Another item to consider is this, We knew saddam used WMD's on two seperate occasions, and he was threatening to use them again against coalition forces. It was wrong to think that he didn't still have them? And yes hindsight is always 20/20.
So cool, the republicans do not control congress, they control the house and the democrats control the senate. The democrats also control the WH. A WH function is to guide the country and to keep congress and the populace united and focused. IE the WH should be the least partisan next to the judicial branch. But yet obama seems to relish poking the right and promoting class warfare. Perhaps obama's campaign slogan for 2012 should be "just a little more".
Amazing that both reagan and clinton knew how to work with congress but that obama can't.
BTW - please review what a strawman argument is.
I have reviewed what a strawman argument is. It matches your post quite well.
That is not the president's job at all. Please read up on that next time.
Iraq and Afghistan were both started by Bush and no progress was made for 6 and 7 years respectively. Obama immediately made progress in both within the first 3 years of his term. I wonder who has a better foreign policy?
So you admit that what Bush did was wrong?
Also bro, you might want to check your spelling. "Bush" is spelled with a capital "B".
And I see you didn't even address any of my points concerning how the deficit is Reagan and the Supply Side people's fault.
Mr. Anon, that was a tome worthy of Homer's Illiad.
You are a god among men.
Let us worship thee.
Pretty much a follower eh GOP? At least you admit you're a sheep. Sorry to keep you, continue to pray.
Obama can't address unemployment,....but I can.
I plan to make as many republican politicians unemployed as possible.
That'll help America's jobs situation right there.
GOPisextinct,
Now I find your #12 post rather funny......you made the mistake of using republican before politician, when you should have used Democrat instead.
Please person, the majority of Americans are not as stupid as you may believe - they are aware of the issues with the Spending Party, their deisre NOT to pass a budget. They know the current debate and lack of interaction by the Progressives is to attempt to pass blame on the Republicans.
If the situations isn't so, why then haven't they submitted a budget plan? Why isn't the media reporting in stead of attempt to pass policy with their op eds?
You should think of firing the bunch of Spenders, along with the leader of the administration. Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue for taking this country forward.