Listening to his speech reminded me of the book of 1984, were history can be re-written and nothing that he said can be believed.
His speech was delivered well, but in the end was "white-noise". It is as if he never left the campaign trail, I guess we can look forward to the 4 year campaign season from now on.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Where was history rewritten and what was said that could not be believed be specific
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/fact_check_obamas_state_of_the.html
• We found Obama was exaggerating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance when he said it would "open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections." We rated that Barely True.
• Obama incorrectly described his "revolving door" policy on former lobbyists being barred from policy jobs in his administration.
• Obama exaggerated the role that "pay as you go" policies had on the budget in the 1990s.
• Obama earned a Full Flop on our Flip-O-Meter for supporting a spending freeze, which he opposed during the campaign.
Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed:
- Unemployment increase from 8% to 10%. While he may have "saved" government jobs or increased construction jobs, you can't tell whether is policies caused other jobs to be lost or not created.
"That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development"
- I wish this could be believed. If we need to reduce our use of oil in the future, isn't it better to use our oil than buying if from Iran?
"why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia. "
- The Democrats were behind blocking the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia.
"Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."
- There is no way that can be true.
our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
- that assumes the "doctor" fix and cuts to Medicare would not be reversed.
By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.
- he voted for those bills.
. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. -Last year he increased those programs by 20%, so already it has increased beyond inflation for 4 years.
And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. - He said the same things about earmarks. Not believable.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work.
- He said that in the campaign and did not do it. It is not believable.
Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. - Democrats had complete control of Congress and the Presidency.
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. - He blames Bush and the "last 8 years" for everything - not a change.
but I am not interested in re-litigating the past - unless it can be blamed on Bush or the Republicans
Enough for now.
So after 8 years of Bush and 1 year of Obama whom would you rather see as President now Bush or Obama?
Obama has not been perfect by any means but far better than Bush on all fronts that you would have to agree with I assume, if not name me one policy where Bush was better than Obama or two or three or more if you can.
The Democrats were against free trade with Colombia because Colombia is exporting thousands of tons of cocaine into America, further it is a brutal military dictatorship not a democracy.
Although not a great president, Bush was better the Obama. Sure Obama speaks better. But Bush was better at handling the war on terror (Gitmo, trials, etc.) Bush weakened towards the end when he realized the Dems were going to take control.
Bush also wouldn't waste $750 Billion on the stimulus package. Obama has shown that Bush's approach to Iran and North Korea was just as good as Obama's.
Obama is moving to Bush's position of more nuclear energy and offshore oil drillings. Obama's position on cap-and-trade and Medical Insurance reforms are also worse the Bush's.
so you prove my point again
The point that you see everything by the twisted view of beliefs?
Bush gain into office during a recession and produce a thriving economy with lowest employment (ever?) despite 9/12, two wars, national disasters. Obama came into office, and in one year increase the debt more than Bush, increase unemployment to 10%, and allowed 3 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
when Bush came into office there was a 500 Billion Surplus when he left there was 8 Trillion in debt..that says it all, oh and he invaded Iraq and murdered millions for oil
Too bad you never check your facts. If you did you would have found, that the debt held by the public increased from 3,319.6 in 2001 to 8,531.4 in 2009. The surplus was a budget surplus. In between a drug prescription plan was added to Medicare, a trillion in Tarp, and 9/11 and Katrina. At the end of 2000, the U.S. was in recession following the dot com bust. Nine months later 9/11 happened putting another damper on the economy.
You have to be blind as bat or dumber than a donkey not to be able to understand that the Republicans screwed the American people royally during the Bush years...all the debt, the wars, the unemployment, the financial crisis etc are due to Bush letting the Corporations do whatever they wanted...I don't know if Obama will do better, it seems he's doing a little better but not much better yet we can't judge Obama until 2011...what is clear is we have to get Republicans and right wing Democrats out of the Congress and replace them with left wing Democrats or nothing will change for the better.
Can you be more specific.
http://costofwar.com/aboutcounter.html
Cost of Wars:
Cost of War in Afghanistan since 2001 To date, $299 billion
Cost of War in Iraq since 2003
To date, $747.
Assuming the above is correct, that is about what Obama/Democrats spent on his stimulus bill and clash for clunkers in the FIRST year.
The Dems had control of congress during the financial crisis.
Unemployment rose as it became clear Democrats were going to control government (and thus raise taxes, increase spending) and increase as the uncertainty of cap-and-trade and medical reform. With expected increase costs, business either don't hire or get rid of people. It is surprising that unemployment started rising with raising of the "minimum wage"?
As usual if your source your facts from FOX you're likely to get them wrong
The following was sourced from the CBO
There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.
The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.
The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.
Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.
The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts.
Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.
Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”
“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”
When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.
Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.
First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.
Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.
Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.
But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.
Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.
What, then, will happen?
“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.
The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.
That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.
E-mail: Leonhardt@nytimes.com
"The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years."
- That was before the tech dot com but, 9/11, Katrina, the Wars, and the prescription drug bill (which would have been twice as expensive if the Democrats got what they wanted). It assumes lots of things, like future revenues will match past revenues, despite jobs going overseas, the emergence of China as a manufacturing giant, etc.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts.
- Increasing the cost of producing energy reduces the profits of business which then reduces the taxes the government gets on those profits.
As usual if your source your facts from FOX you're likely to get them wrong
Which facts were wrong?
Post a Comment