Quantcast

What is the most important issue that Obama should tackle in his second term?

ABC News U.S. 2013/01/16 17:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
President Obama is putting his chips on guns. It wasn’t an issue he campaigned on — actually, it was almost the opposite of that. It did more to grab him than he did to grab it.

But a month after the unfathomable tragedy at Sandy Hook, the president has positioned himself to take on a fight with long odds as his biggest domestic-policy initiative this side of the never-ending fiscal fights.

The valuable run-up to the inauguration — traditionally a White House’s best chance to put forward a bold new policy initiative — is being dominated by the polarizing debate over gun control. The coming fight has broad implications on virtually every other Washington priority in 2013 and beyond.

obama

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/analy...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • divinemissm 2013/01/22 09:02:38
  • Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 00:04:28
    Immigration Reform
    Lt. Fred
    Unemployment.
  • Lt. Fred Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 00:09:42
    Lt. Fred
    As everyone knows, the debt doesn't matter.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:31:16
    CorrectOpinion
    Yea, who cares about our kids and grand kids. screw them. Hand out the phones.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:39:17
    Lt. Fred
    The worst thing we could do for our children and grandchildren is slash medicare and social security, allow high youth unemployment, defund education, ignore crumbling road and rail infrastructure, continue the use of inefficient fossil fuels, ignore climate change.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:45:52 (edited)
    CorrectOpinion
    No ONE but Obama is slashing medicare. Social Security is a joke, and has been for a while. The public was scammed into thinking it was some sort of retirement PLAN, which it wasn't, isn't and never was. it was also a safety net for dumbasses that forgot to save money. Or lost it late in life investing in solar panel manufacturing. Rail??? What century are you in.??? INEFFICIENT FOSSIL FUELS??? HOLY CRAP BATMAN, a man living in EGYPT, or DENILE to be more accurate. Never heard of Natural Gas? Of course not, only the evil methane from yours and the cows behinds. Climate Change????? Yea, that will kill us. Not war. Not starvation. Not plague. But Climate Change! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA...
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:53:10
    Lt. Fred
    The official republican party budget reply, the so-called 'Ryan Budget', would have completely repealed Medicare down to the last penny. It would have been partially replaced with a less-efficient privatised system that would be gradually phased out.

    {Social Security is a joke}

    I'm not sure why you believe this; it's obviously not true.

    {Rail??? What century are you in.?}

    Rail is probably the best mass transit system for the US continent, particularly for freight. Also, inter-city travel should be mostly by rail. But the American government has not the money or the will to establish a modern rail network.

    It is a crime that China has a better rail network than the US.

    {INEFFICIENT FOSSIL FUELS?}

    Coal is probably the least efficient way of generating power. Nuclear would be the best, if we could find a way to do it cheaply. In the meantime, solar will have to do, perhaps with a side of wind, geothermal and tide power.

    {Never heard of Natural Gas?}

    Natural gas is too costly.

    {Climate Change????? Yea, that will kill us. Not war. Not starvation. Not plague.}

    Well, climate change would cause plague, famine and war. So there's that.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 04:05:00
    CorrectOpinion
    Solar, Geothermal, tide? YOU ARE FUNNY. If you think China, India, and the entire African Continent, not to mention South America plans on using those methods, very very inefficient COST WISE, to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world....you are living in a liberal bubble de jour. Natural Gas is CHEAP and can be even cheaper. Also, the US has more than the entire world and you can FUND your safety hammocks for people who don't want to work with all the income exporting would bring in. And finally , Social Security...it isn't a joke to those that depend on it. Which is why it wasn't going to be touched for 55 and up. but for unlucky people like me , at 48 years old, the ONLY way to have any money worth anything without collapsing the economy funding both health care and social security, (and pensions)...would be to raise the age limit, cut the benefits percentage wise in each age, and to means test it and not give it to those that do not need it...like insurance..if you don't need it ..you don't get it. That it the ONLY way it will survive , if the economy and the dollar make it that long, which is less than certain...I hope you are old...cause you would kick yourself as you saw just how wrong you were.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 04:17:42
    Lt. Fred
    Part of the problem with fossil fuels are the huge external, associated costs that are not measured in the bottom line. Coal, for instance, causes mass lung cancer and other health problems. And, of course, pollution is very bad. In fact, the estimated cost of those health concerns exceeds the value of each watt of power produced.

    Natural gas has similar problems, though not as severe.

    {would be to raise the age limit, cut the benefits percentage wise in each age, and to means test it and not give it to those that do not need it}

    That's certainly the preferred policy of the Republican party; gradually erode public support by means testing, gradually exclude millions of people, slash benefits. None of these measures are required, of course. Nor is there any sense in slashing benefits out of fear of a future where the government might be forced to... slash benefits.

    The best way to deal with what small short-fall Social Security is facing right now is to expand the taxable base so rich people have to pass for Social Security as well. At the moment, revenue over about 100,000 is exempt from the tax.
  • Bob Dra... Correct... 2013/04/25 22:37:21
    Bob Drasner
    Mankind is responsible for a very small persentage of the greenhouse gasses generated. The largest contributors are the volcanoes that encircle the Pacific (Ring of fire). You can send us all back into the cave man days by shutting down all the plants that generate electricity as well as those that consume energy and produce things and all you will do is spread poverty so vast, that more lives will be lost then ever would have been if you do nothing. IF the world is warming, and there is much smoke and mirrors on both sides, all I can do is look to where this has been tried... Europe bought into that nonsense and it has not outweighed the detriment of the enourmous taxes required to pay for it. Are you ready to pay $10-12 a gallon for gas and 45-60 cents per kwh for electricity? Think through the unintended consequences before you speak ... your idiology will cause you and your family to live like the average German ... with a refrigerator like that in a motel room and ZERO air conditioning... and you wonder why there are no ice cubes over there. HA!
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 04:07:52
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:48:27
    CorrectOpinion
    If I didn't know better...I would assume you are making your POV up. I know there are ignorant idiots out there....Obama voters and such, but you Leftenant Freddie....take the cake on lost in space.
  • Bob Dra... Lt. Fred 2013/04/25 22:22:59
    Bob Drasner
    The best thing you can do for your kids is NOT to be looking for a TEAT.
    Teach them to fish instead of feeding them. Teach them to save for their own retirement and healthcare, instead of buying into the governments "Whimpy" (Remember Popeye's buddy?) ... if you give me a hamberger now, I will gladly pay you Friday BS. Tell them the truth (you just may be the only one willing) tell them that we were all lied to, some of us knew better but went along with the rest anyway and the impossible math of Roosevelt and Johnson proved just as impossible as if Charles Ponzi has designed the scheme ... who, by the way, was arrested right around the time of Roosevelt's Social Security program. Hmmmm makes ya wonder! Naaaa ... doesn't make ME wonder ... Average age back then was 63 and Social Security would kick in at 65 ... it was designed to be an enourmous river of revenue to buy votes and the spending began and has continued to this day never facing the fact that, if you want it to remain solvent, the retirement age SHOULD have been going up with the average age. Daaaaaa These are the people we trust with our tax money. The best plan is for you to teach your children to be self reliant instead of trying to figure out how to get someone else to pay for OUR bills as we squander ou...
    The best thing you can do for your kids is NOT to be looking for a TEAT.
    Teach them to fish instead of feeding them. Teach them to save for their own retirement and healthcare, instead of buying into the governments "Whimpy" (Remember Popeye's buddy?) ... if you give me a hamberger now, I will gladly pay you Friday BS. Tell them the truth (you just may be the only one willing) tell them that we were all lied to, some of us knew better but went along with the rest anyway and the impossible math of Roosevelt and Johnson proved just as impossible as if Charles Ponzi has designed the scheme ... who, by the way, was arrested right around the time of Roosevelt's Social Security program. Hmmmm makes ya wonder! Naaaa ... doesn't make ME wonder ... Average age back then was 63 and Social Security would kick in at 65 ... it was designed to be an enourmous river of revenue to buy votes and the spending began and has continued to this day never facing the fact that, if you want it to remain solvent, the retirement age SHOULD have been going up with the average age. Daaaaaa These are the people we trust with our tax money. The best plan is for you to teach your children to be self reliant instead of trying to figure out how to get someone else to pay for OUR bills as we squander our earnings on toys and houses we NEVER should have considered. The formuls is VERY simple. If you plan to work for 30 years and be retired for 30 years, you had better be living on half of what you make and saving the other half. If you think that is rediculous, then it means you are planning on spending someone elses money and continueing the demise of the USA.
    (more)
  • Lt. Fred Bob Dra... 2013/04/25 23:35:25
    Lt. Fred
    {Teach them to fish instead of feeding them.}

    More education spending? I'm for that, not austerity.

    {Teach them to save for their own retirement and healthcare,}

    More employment? I'm for that, not austerity.

    {the impossible math of Roosevelt and Johnson}

    Funded in full for at least three decades, funding in full in perpetuity if everyone (including rich people) have to pay payroll tax.

    {Average age back then was 63 and Social Security would kick in at 65}

    Life expectancy at 65 is the same today as it was in the 80s, the last time Social Security was reformed.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:39:27
    Lt. Fred
    Also, the Obamaphone thing is a lie.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:41:09
    CorrectOpinion
    NO it ISN'T. You think it is a lie??? What a libtard you are. Because you DON'T want to believe it I assume.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:43:51
    Lt. Fred
    The program that provides free phones is at least a decade old. As with most anti-Obama smears, this one consists of describing a long-standing bipartisan policy as Marxist and blaming Obama for it.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:49:48
    CorrectOpinion
    no, the policy was made huge by Obama. Again, he took something that was for a specific reason, and just gave it away. No freaking responsibility.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:54:02 (edited)
    Lt. Fred
    No, the program has not been changed in any way. Really, they should be called BushPhones, but that doesn't have the same ring.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:42:56
    CorrectOpinion
    IN FACT, the money is in a tax on all phone service. The giveaway was actually going on under G.W. Bush. Not a big deal...but it was going on. Obama took it and ran with it for buying more votes. But if you think it is a lie. YOU MY FRIEND, are just an Ostrich and need to go away.
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:45:39
    Lt. Fred
    The program has not been changed in any way since George Bush created it. As usual, you've described a Republican party policy as Marxist and blamed Obama.
  • Correct... Lt. Fred 2013/01/22 03:50:36
    CorrectOpinion
    again, no, I never said the free phone thing was marxist. I said it was OBAMA buying votes. And that is true!
  • Lt. Fred Correct... 2013/01/22 03:54:34
    Lt. Fred
    A simple lie.
  • Bob Dra... Lt. Fred 2013/04/25 22:47:46
    Bob Drasner
    Where do you get your news sir? The program was introduced so that those in rural areas could have phones. Cost was in the millions and FAR less then the cost of running wires out there. It was written so loosly, with zero oversight) it wasn't long and the program started being abused. Now the program costs in the billions and growing geometrically. With all do respect sir, please find a second opinion for news. They are letting you down. Welcome to realty. You and your kids will be safe here. http://images.sodahead.com/pr...
  • Lt. Fred Bob Dra... 2013/04/25 23:31:19 (edited)
    Lt. Fred
    It's the first half of Obamaphone that's the myth.

    The myth goes- Obama created a program to use your tax dollars to give free phones to those people, who do not deserve them. You know who we mean.

    In fact, as with 80%-90% of the things conservatives blame Obama for, they did it. The program dates without substantial changes to the mid-2000s. Remind me, who was president then?
  • Dave Ryan 2013/01/21 20:15:34 (edited)
    Reducing the Debt
    Dave Ryan
    +1
    Obama called it "unpatriotic" for W. Bush to have average annual deficits over his 8 years of 400 billion. I agree, and other conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck vocally opposed these deficits as well. Bush should have raised taxes in a "pay as you go" fashion to pay for the wars in Afghanistyan and Iraq.



    But how much **MORE** "unpatriotic" are Obama's average annual deficits in his first term of $ 1.4 trillion --almost four times the annual deficits of his predecessor.



    Obama has demonized any plan from conservatives to actually address reduce the deficit. But what would you expect from a marxist radical who is surrounded by marxists in his administration (Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Ron Bloom, and former staffers Anita Dunn and Van Jones, who are still working for Obama from outside the White House).

    Obama has even rejected the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson recommendations.

    Republicans have offered actual plans (Paul Ryan's plan, that revised Bowles-Simpson, and Connie Mack's "penny plan") Democrats and the president offer nothing but demagoguery. And then accuse those they demagogue of demagoguery!

    I expect the federal debt to reach somewhere between 22 and 25 trillion by the end of Obama's presidency. If he doesn't beyond that collapse the dollar. A...

    Obama called it "unpatriotic" for W. Bush to have average annual deficits over his 8 years of 400 billion. I agree, and other conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck vocally opposed these deficits as well. Bush should have raised taxes in a "pay as you go" fashion to pay for the wars in Afghanistyan and Iraq.



    But how much **MORE** "unpatriotic" are Obama's average annual deficits in his first term of $ 1.4 trillion --almost four times the annual deficits of his predecessor.



    Obama has demonized any plan from conservatives to actually address reduce the deficit. But what would you expect from a marxist radical who is surrounded by marxists in his administration (Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Ron Bloom, and former staffers Anita Dunn and Van Jones, who are still working for Obama from outside the White House).

    Obama has even rejected the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson recommendations.

    Republicans have offered actual plans (Paul Ryan's plan, that revised Bowles-Simpson, and Connie Mack's "penny plan") Democrats and the president offer nothing but demagoguery. And then accuse those they demagogue of demagoguery!

    I expect the federal debt to reach somewhere between 22 and 25 trillion by the end of Obama's presidency. If he doesn't beyond that collapse the dollar. And given Obama's familiarity and indoctrination in "Cloward and Piven strategy" and Saul Alinsky, and the hatred of America in his own autobiography, I believe collapsing the dollar is exactly his plan.

    Far from reducing the debt. The notion that Obama intends to reduce the debt is an obvious delusion, quickly disproven by the facts of his well-known beliefs and how he has governed.
    (more)
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/01/22 00:07:30
    Lt. Fred
    Running a deficit in a recession is a good move. Running a deficit in a boom is a bad move. They're different.
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/01/24 08:57:30
    Dave Ryan
    Respectfully, that doesn't pass the smell test. W.Bush was in a recession when Obama called Bush's deficits "unpatriotic".

    And the overwhelming majority of what Obama is deficit-spending on is new spending and VAST expansion of entitlements, as well as hosing cash away on things like Solyndra, and the pending chaos that is Obamacare.

    Any president, Democrat or Republican, should be able to cut federal spending by at least 15 or 20 percent, and push us back into the black, on the path to debt reduction and solvency. Canada --on the same path as us a few years ago-- is now reducing their debt annually. They have shown us the way. Britain as well.

    Every household in America can reduce their debt by 10, 20 or 50 percent if necessary. The same is true of the federal government. Obama simply lacks the will to do so. I hope that his successor --Democrat or Republican-- has the resolve to do what is necessary to save the nation. if it's not already too late by then.
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/01/24 09:07:36 (edited)
    Lt. Fred
    Which year did Obama call Bush unpatriotic for running a deficit? Was it 2001? If not, the US was not in recession.

    {And the overwhelming majority of what Obama is deficit-spending on is new spending and VAST expansion of entitlements, as well as hosing cash away on things like Solyndra, and the pending chaos that is Obamacare.}

    In fact, this is not true. Virtually all of the deficit is explained by 1) George Bush-era policy or 2) the recession itself. Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Despite severe budget cuts, this has made no impact on the deficit.
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/04/30 01:02:21
    Dave Ryan
    Obama criticized Bush on the campaign stump all throughout 2008.

    Regarding Obama's new debt "all explained by Bush policy"... nice try. Annual deficits under Bush were 400 billion. Under Obama they have averaged 1.4 trilion.
    A trillion a year more!
    Almost quadruple Bush's annual deficits. Obama's Stimulus and Omnibus bills alone approach 1.5 trillion.

    And Obama's bad economic policies that discourage creation of new jobs ARE responsible for the "unemployed people who do not pay taxes." If Obama had not declared war on the oil, coal and natural gas industries to discourage their growth, those industries and related industries would have alone created 1 to 2 million jobs.
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/04/30 04:33:28
    Lt. Fred
    That's certainly an interesting, though dishonest, way of looking at debt. Bush left office with a 2 trillion dollar deficit. Obama has reduced that deficit over a half. Bush's lower average deficit is explained by the Clinton surplus he inherited.

    [And Obama's bad economic policies that discourage creation of new jobs ARE responsible for the "unemployed people who do not pay taxes."}

    {If Obama had not declared war on the oil, coal and natural gas industries to discourage their growth, those industries and related industries would have alone created 1 to 2 million jobs.}

    False.
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/04/30 11:06:48 (edited)
    Dave Ryan
    It is dishonest for you to portray my answer as dishonest. It is an absolute fact that Bush's annual deficits averaged 400 billion a year, and Obama's have averaged 1.4 trillion a year. Bush's high deficit in his last year rose entirely from the bipartisan 750 billion TARP bailout (which unlike the Stimulus, Omnibus and other deficit spending of Obama, TARP was repaid).

    Regarding Obama's punitive and wasteful policy that hoses billions away on sham green technology (that causes shortages of corn and other crops diverted from food to hybrid feuls), there is no shortage of news about that:
    Forbes: "Obama Wages War Against Cheap Energy"
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

    AOL: "Oil Refiners Launch Counter-Offensive To Obama's War On Fossil Feul"
    http://energy.aol.com/2012/06...


    Even Washington Post's "Factcheck" strains to defend and explain Obama's remarks. They allege Obama was treated unfairly in an ad that condensed his videotaped interview comments were condensed down to a few minutes, and still give it "one Pinocchio" despite that Obama HAS hurt the coal industry and reduced public land drilling permits for the Oil industry, at a cost of thousands of jobs in both industries, and blunted expansion that would have created tens of thousands of jobs under McCain or Romney, an...

    It is dishonest for you to portray my answer as dishonest. It is an absolute fact that Bush's annual deficits averaged 400 billion a year, and Obama's have averaged 1.4 trillion a year. Bush's high deficit in his last year rose entirely from the bipartisan 750 billion TARP bailout (which unlike the Stimulus, Omnibus and other deficit spending of Obama, TARP was repaid).

    Regarding Obama's punitive and wasteful policy that hoses billions away on sham green technology (that causes shortages of corn and other crops diverted from food to hybrid feuls), there is no shortage of news about that:
    Forbes: "Obama Wages War Against Cheap Energy"
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

    AOL: "Oil Refiners Launch Counter-Offensive To Obama's War On Fossil Feul"
    http://energy.aol.com/2012/06...


    Even Washington Post's "Factcheck" strains to defend and explain Obama's remarks. They allege Obama was treated unfairly in an ad that condensed his videotaped interview comments were condensed down to a few minutes, and still give it "one Pinocchio" despite that Obama HAS hurt the coal industry and reduced public land drilling permits for the Oil industry, at a cost of thousands of jobs in both industries, and blunted expansion that would have created tens of thousands of jobs under McCain or Romney, and reduced foreign dependency.
    Proving once again that "Factcheck" is still the Washington Post/liberal media, hiding under a veil of objectivity.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com...
    (more)
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/04/30 12:19:11 (edited)
    Lt. Fred
    {It is an absolute fact that Bush's annual deficits averaged 400 billion a year,}

    It also paints a misleading picture. Bush's deficit average was low due to left over Clinton-era surpluses. Obama's average is due to left-over Bush deficits. The trend is what matters.

    {Bush's high deficit in his last year rose entirely from the bipartisan 750 billion TARP bailout}

    Partly. Also, the recession had a major impact on the deficit (and continues to have that impact).

    {reduced public land drilling permits for the Oil industry, at a cost of thousands of jobs in both industries,}

    Thousands though. Not ten million. You're not going to have an oil-driven recovery, even if you let oil companies devastate the environment.
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/04/30 12:47:13
    Dave Ryan
    DAVE RYAN: "It is an absolute fact that Bush's annual deficits averaged 400 billion a year"
    LT FRED:"It also paints a misleading picture. Bush's deficit average was low due to left over Clinton-era surpluses. Obama's average is due to left-over Bush deficits. The trend is what matters."

    No, it doesn't. Bush's deficits were pretty steady throughout his 8 years, except the last one due to the TARP bailout (which Democrats also voted for).
    And the deficit surplus was eaten up by 9-11-2001 and homeland security spending, that would have occurred under ANY president, not specifically due to Bush policies.
    Democrats in the Senate and Congress authorized Bush's war spending in Iraq adn Afghanistan. (20% of the new debt)
    Democrats in the Senate and Congress bipartisanly signed Bush's prscription drug plan and other entitlements expansions (80% of the new debt).


    DAVE RYAN: "Bush's high deficit in his last year rose entirely from the bipartisan 750 billion TARP bailout"
    LT FRED: "Partly. Also, the recession had a major impact on the deficit (and continues to have that impact)"

    If you mean the recession resulted in lower federal tax revenues, I partly agree. But for most of Bush's last year, unemployment was still in the 5% range. It only hit the 7% range as he left office.
    And Obama f...











    DAVE RYAN: "It is an absolute fact that Bush's annual deficits averaged 400 billion a year"
    LT FRED:"It also paints a misleading picture. Bush's deficit average was low due to left over Clinton-era surpluses. Obama's average is due to left-over Bush deficits. The trend is what matters."

    No, it doesn't. Bush's deficits were pretty steady throughout his 8 years, except the last one due to the TARP bailout (which Democrats also voted for).
    And the deficit surplus was eaten up by 9-11-2001 and homeland security spending, that would have occurred under ANY president, not specifically due to Bush policies.
    Democrats in the Senate and Congress authorized Bush's war spending in Iraq adn Afghanistan. (20% of the new debt)
    Democrats in the Senate and Congress bipartisanly signed Bush's prscription drug plan and other entitlements expansions (80% of the new debt).


    DAVE RYAN: "Bush's high deficit in his last year rose entirely from the bipartisan 750 billion TARP bailout"
    LT FRED: "Partly. Also, the recession had a major impact on the deficit (and continues to have that impact)"

    If you mean the recession resulted in lower federal tax revenues, I partly agree. But for most of Bush's last year, unemployment was still in the 5% range. It only hit the 7% range as he left office.
    And Obama failed to do anything to significantly reduce unemployment, wich is stil roughly where it was when he took office (7.8% vs 7.6%)

    Obama is responsible for the last 4-plus years. Reagan at this point had pulled us into recovery with strong annual growth.


    DAVE RYAN: "reduced public land drilling permits for the Oil industry, at a cost of thousands of jobs in both industries,"
    LT FRED: "Thousands though. Not ten million. You're not going to have an oil-driven recovery, even if you let oil companies devastate the environment."

    Read it again. I didn't say "ten million" jobs, I said "TENS OF THOUSANDS" of new jobs would have been created if Obama had not denied permits for drilling on public land. All the oil growth has occured on PRIVATE land, in spite of Obama! The Keystone Pipeline alone would creates tens of thousandds of jobs. Obama's stutting down offshore drilling in the Gulf eliminated 50,000 jobs.
    Eric Bolling said that the oil industry alone could create 1 to 2 million jobs in the oil industry, combined with growth enabbled in related industries, and THAT ALONE could pull us out of recession and into strong growth. And would also help to reduce our trade deficit for oil we would be producing at home and not purchasing from overseas.
    And would also increase federal tax revenues, corporate and personal incomes from the jobs created.

    But for ideological reasons, Obama resists an obvious win-win situation. And the Keystone pipeline instead will be built to the West coast, and shipped off to China. Which is a national security risk to the U.S., and deprives us of cheap oil from our closes ally. The Canadians are PISSED about this, because it makes absolutely o sense. It hurts both our nations, and is a gift to the Chinese.
    (more)
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/04/30 13:16:20
    Lt. Fred
    {Bush's deficits were pretty steady throughout his 8 years}

    (Clinton: 2000: 0.2%)

    2001: 1.3%
    2002: 4.0%
    2003: 5.2%
    2004: 5.1%
    2005: 4.3%
    2006: 4.3%
    2007: 3.6%
    2008: 7.1%
    2009: 13.4%

    Obama:

    2010: 11:4%
    2011: 4:4%

    {the deficit surplus was eaten up by 9-11-2001 and homeland security spending}

    Nope. The Department of Homeland Security was not that costly. The major Bush costs included his rich-people tax cuts and the War on Iraq- very much controversial.

    {Democrats in the Senate and Congress bipartisanly signed Bush's prscription drug plan and other entitlements expansions (80% of the new debt).}

    Medicare Part D, another disaster, was yet another Bush Baby.

    {And Obama failed to do anything to significantly reduce unemployment, wich is stil roughly where it was when he took office (7.8% vs 7.6%)}

    Obama did make some attempt, early in his first term. It was inadequate and more needed to be done. At that point, Republicans like yourself insisted nothing be done and Obama caved. Then Republicans insisted on austerity- ie driving up unemployment. Again, Obama caved.

    {Read it again. I didn't say "ten million" jobs}

    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be accusing you of lying there. I'm sorry that you read it like that, I was unclear.

    The problem is a lack of jobs to the tune of 1 or 2 million. That's not going t...















    {Bush's deficits were pretty steady throughout his 8 years}

    (Clinton: 2000: 0.2%)

    2001: 1.3%
    2002: 4.0%
    2003: 5.2%
    2004: 5.1%
    2005: 4.3%
    2006: 4.3%
    2007: 3.6%
    2008: 7.1%
    2009: 13.4%

    Obama:

    2010: 11:4%
    2011: 4:4%

    {the deficit surplus was eaten up by 9-11-2001 and homeland security spending}

    Nope. The Department of Homeland Security was not that costly. The major Bush costs included his rich-people tax cuts and the War on Iraq- very much controversial.

    {Democrats in the Senate and Congress bipartisanly signed Bush's prscription drug plan and other entitlements expansions (80% of the new debt).}

    Medicare Part D, another disaster, was yet another Bush Baby.

    {And Obama failed to do anything to significantly reduce unemployment, wich is stil roughly where it was when he took office (7.8% vs 7.6%)}

    Obama did make some attempt, early in his first term. It was inadequate and more needed to be done. At that point, Republicans like yourself insisted nothing be done and Obama caved. Then Republicans insisted on austerity- ie driving up unemployment. Again, Obama caved.

    {Read it again. I didn't say "ten million" jobs}

    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be accusing you of lying there. I'm sorry that you read it like that, I was unclear.

    The problem is a lack of jobs to the tune of 1 or 2 million. That's not going to be substantially improved, even at severe environmental cost, by oil mining.

    {The Keystone Pipeline alone would creates tens of thousandds of jobs.}

    The Keystone Pipeline was blocked by Republicans, not Obama.

    {Obama's stutting down offshore drilling in the Gulf eliminated 50,000 jobs.}

    As any president would have.

    {Eric Bolling said that the oil industry alone could create 1 to 2 million jobs in the oil industry, combined with growth enabbled in related industries, and THAT ALONE could pull us out of recession and into strong growth}

    Eric Bolling is lying. There has actually been a massive resources boom, the largest boom in decades. Is unemployment lower even in places like Pennsylvania, the epicentre of the boom? Not at all.

    {And would also increase federal tax revenues, corporate and personal incomes from the jobs created. }

    This, though, is interesting. You seem to admit that the deficit is largely caused by unemployment. Do you agree the US government should do something about unemployment, even at the cost of short-term deficits? Do you agree that this would reduce deficits in the medium-run?
    (more)
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/04/30 14:24:01
    Dave Ryan
    This is tiresome. Much of what you've said is simply repeating your earlier allegations, and calling any sources I cite (without sources of your own) as "liars".

    Clinton NEVER would have balanced the budget if not pressured to do so by Gingrich and the 1994 Republican revolution.
    But you liberals ignore that Clinton repeatedly vetoed their offered balanced budget amendment, and that it was Republicans who campaigned on it, drafted it, and repeatedly pushed it before Clinton until he finally signed it under popular pressure.

    And it was on CBS' 60 Minutes that I first saw it said that even if Gore had been president, the budget surplus would have disappeared, due to war spending of obligatory retaliation on Afghanistan.

    You evasively show percentages (of what?) rather than actual numbers for annual deficits(or something) to shave it to your point of view.


    LT FRED: "Medicare Part D, another disaster, was yet another Bush Baby."
    That avoids that Ted Kennedy and other Democrats were orgasmic in their bipartisan support of it.



    The rest is your opinion vs. my opinion, where I cited sources to back my assertions, and you called them liars.

    I think we're done here.
  • Lt. Fred Dave Ryan 2013/04/30 21:38:52
    Lt. Fred
    {Clinton NEVER would have balanced the budget if not pressured to do so by Gingrich and the 1994 Republican revolution. }

    As usual, Republicans get all credit and Democrats all blame. The President switches from being totally powerless (and therefore not deserving credit for a balanced budget) to being blamed for deficit spending (Obama). You're being inconsistent.

    {But you liberals ignore that Clinton repeatedly vetoed their offered balanced budget amendment}

    Because it's perhaps the stupidest policy in history. Want to run surpluses during a war? What about WW2. Tell me why the US should have built fifteen less aircraft carriers to maintain a surplus.

    {And it was on CBS' 60 Minutes that I first saw it said that even if Gore had been president, the budget surplus would have disappeared, due to war spending of obligatory retaliation on Afghanistan.}

    Without Iraq, tax cuts, ect.

    {You evasively show percentages (of what?) rather than actual numbers for annual deficits(or something) to shave it to your point of view.}

    Those are measures of the deficit/GDP, the only accurate measure. Raw numbers are misleading (because the economy grows).
  • Dave Ryan Lt. Fred 2013/04/30 22:06:14
    Dave Ryan
    LT FRED: "As usual, Republicans get all credit and Democrats all blame. The President switches from being totally powerless (and therefore not deserving credit for a balanced budget) to being blamed for deficit spending (Obama). You're being inconsistent."

    As I already said, Republicans wrote and championed the legislation that Clinton repeatedly vetoed. It was not Clinton who pushed to create a balanced budget.


    DAVE RYAN: "But you liberals ignore that Clinton repeatedly vetoed their offered balanced budget amendment"
    LT FRED: "Because it's perhaps the stupidest policy in history. Want to run surpluses during a war? What about WW2. Tell me why the US should have built fifteen less aircraft carriers to maintain a surplus."


    While I mistakenly said "amendment" and meant to say "legislation", what I otherwise said remains correct. Clinton vetoed a balanced budget proposal repeatedly, and under pressure eventually signed it.
    You seem to be conflating Clinton and Obama (and W W II) . There is a different standard for the 1940's when the U.S. was fighting for its life.


    DAVE RYAN: "And it was on CBS' 60 Minutes that I first saw it said that even if Gore had been president, the budget surplus would have disappeared, due to war spending of obligatory retaliation on Afghanistan."
    LT...














    LT FRED: "As usual, Republicans get all credit and Democrats all blame. The President switches from being totally powerless (and therefore not deserving credit for a balanced budget) to being blamed for deficit spending (Obama). You're being inconsistent."

    As I already said, Republicans wrote and championed the legislation that Clinton repeatedly vetoed. It was not Clinton who pushed to create a balanced budget.


    DAVE RYAN: "But you liberals ignore that Clinton repeatedly vetoed their offered balanced budget amendment"
    LT FRED: "Because it's perhaps the stupidest policy in history. Want to run surpluses during a war? What about WW2. Tell me why the US should have built fifteen less aircraft carriers to maintain a surplus."


    While I mistakenly said "amendment" and meant to say "legislation", what I otherwise said remains correct. Clinton vetoed a balanced budget proposal repeatedly, and under pressure eventually signed it.
    You seem to be conflating Clinton and Obama (and W W II) . There is a different standard for the 1940's when the U.S. was fighting for its life.


    DAVE RYAN: "And it was on CBS' 60 Minutes that I first saw it said that even if Gore had been president, the budget surplus would have disappeared, due to war spending of obligatory retaliation on Afghanistan."
    LT FRED: "Without Iraq, tax cuts, ect."

    Respectfully, I'm not buying that. Between Bush Sr and Clinton, I saw a lot of the same foreign policy. Stuff Clinton had railed on Bush for doing (naval blockade of Haiti, for example) Clinton himself enacted.
    W. Bush criticized Clinton's interventionism, and pledged to be more isolationist and less a nation-builder. But post-9-11, Bush ended up doing military interventions to eliminate a gathering threat.
    Likewise, Obama oversaw a surge in troops in Afghanistan, excalated drone strikes, and kept Guantanamo bay open, all against what he pledged to do when campaigning in 2008.

    DAVE RYAN: "You evasively show percentages (of what?) rather than actual numbers for annual deficits(or something) to shave it to your point of view."
    LT FRED: "Those are measures of the deficit/GDP, the only accurate measure. Raw numbers are misleading (because the economy grows)."

    Still sounds like an evasion and remains unclear.
    Bottom line: Bush's annual deficits (also high) averaged 400 billion a year.
    Obama's deficits: average 1.4 trillion a year.
    Almost QUADRUPLE the deficits of Bush. No liberal rationalization can possibly explain how "Bush's debt" resulted in Obama maintaining that kind of sustained spike in annual deficits, with no end in sight.

    I was not a fan of Bush's policy, which I considered a betrayal of Reagan conservatism (and conservatives like Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan were vocal in criticizing Bush economic policy too).
    But what Obama is doing now threatens to collapse our economy, and his own CBO and GAO have called Obama's deficits "unsustainable".
    (more)
  • Fidelito 2013/01/21 19:12:57
    Reducing the Debt
    Fidelito
    I say; Go of the fiscal cliff, and blame it on Congress for becaming a dead beat country.
  • DebraJMSmith 2013/01/20 21:30:05
    Immigration Reform
    DebraJMSmith
    And he should begin with his own illegal status.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 31 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/19 10:00:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals