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

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.

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.

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...

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.

{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?

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".