Promises kept By Obama
- Thread starter dukeanthony
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but seriously, thanks to the promises obama has kept, most of us have been able to keep more of our hard earned money, or, if unemployed thanks to the gop recession, were exempted from taxes on a lot of our unemployment insurance.
also, my wife can buy health insurance and my drive into town and back is not so ridden with traffic as they have added extra lanes to the highway.
everyone can go cry in their corn flakes about what a bad man obama is.
also, my wife can buy health insurance and my drive into town and back is not so ridden with traffic as they have added extra lanes to the highway.
everyone can go cry in their corn flakes about what a bad man obama is.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Hit 'em like we did Libya
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Lol@gop recession. You can thank Barney Frank and your dems for that.
dukeanthony
New Member
Imagine If your Roommate Started a party
A Great big Huge Fucking Party
You call him and tell him to end it
Want him to get everyone out including himself and leave the door open Until whenever You get home
- you get burglarized?
-fire burns your pad down?
OR
Do you want him to make sure Everyone is out and secure the place ?
if we just Left Iran Would of (and probaly will ) move right in
Sorry we started the Fire We should at least Put it out before we move on
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Sympathizers.
Obama should have thought of that before he lied to America. Keep squirming for excuses. He's only winding the war down now because it's getting to reelection time. Don't kid yourself.
Nobody held a gun to Obama's head and told him to promise America that it would be the first thing he would do. He did that himself. Your example is terribly flawed.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/radio031806.htm
dukeanthony
New Member
Obama Didnt start the wars
But he is ending them. Deal with it
Black man became President.
Deal with it
But he is ending them. Deal with it
Black man became President.
Deal with it
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Libya... Uganda... plus the propaganda campaign on Iran. We see a term 2 with Obama, I'll bet you $1,000 that he takes us into military conflict with Iran. Ending them my ass.
dukeanthony said:
What does that have to do with anything at all?
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Sync0s, that Bush speech is from 2006...are you aware that citing a Bush speech as a "source" is pretty lame? That's pointing to propaganda and saying "look, that's why..."
Also, a big reason why he is pulling troops out is the lack of immunity for the soldiers...but we will still have a large contingent force in the region to act as a check against any moves made by countries like Iran. A big reason we can do this: the GCO wants us there because they have never trusted Iran, and they know that Iraq is prone to Iranian influence.
Also, a big reason why he is pulling troops out is the lack of immunity for the soldiers...but we will still have a large contingent force in the region to act as a check against any moves made by countries like Iran. A big reason we can do this: the GCO wants us there because they have never trusted Iran, and they know that Iraq is prone to Iranian influence.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
for some reason i don't think it would be such a short affair in iran.
are you asserting that barney frank and the dems secretly controlled congress from 200-2006? that is news to me. magical, happy news.
i believe that one sentence totally erases the historical facts of shrub boasting of the "ownership society" in SOTU speeches.
LOL!
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I was unaware that I was using a Bush speech as a source. Only thing I was doing is exactly what your saying. Bush and Obama are using the same rhetoric, and so have been Obama supporters (read back to post #26, please). However, no go ahead. Keep distancing Obama from Bush. Continue what you were doing.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I was unaware as to how that made it a gop recession when the democrats had been pushing the same agenda? I'm non-partisan. I hate both parties equally. The republican bags of hate and the democrat bags of lies. Though the description is equally interchangeable.
dukeanthony
New Member
Not even Close
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Guess I'll have to take your word for it?
Change my mind, please. I'd like a wake up call from my past two weeks of news article searches on google from 2000-2006
dukeanthony
New Member
Your Mind is already Closed.
Obama Has Been Proposing regulations to stop a repeat of this Recession
Who is fighting him?
BTW Own a credit Card?
dukeanthony
New Member
Unlike many charges lobbed at Mr Obama, this one is well grounded. In his first two years in office the federal government issued 132 “economically significant” rules, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University. (“Economically significant” means that either the rule’s costs, or its benefits, exceed $100m a year.) That is about 40% more than the annual rate under both George Bush junior and Bill Clinton. Many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come.
Existing rules are also being enforced more keenly. The workplace-safety regulator slapped employers with 167% more violations in Mr Obama’s first year than in Mr Bush’s last, according to OMB Watch, a liberal watchdog. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stepped up scrutiny of drugs that have already been approved for sale. Last year it barred the use of Avastin for breast cancer, not because it was unsafe but because its benefits seemed too uncertain. The regulatory workforce has grown 16% in Mr Obama’s first two years in office, to 276,429, while private employment has fallen (see chart 1).
Has this extra regulation made the economy worse off? Not necessarily. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which vets most new federal rules, reckons that although Mr Obama’s regulations cost more than his predecessors’, they also bring greater benefits (see chart 2): fewer lives lost from inhaling mercury, being hit by lorries, or eating contaminated food. “I take any costs seriously, but they may be worth incurring if, in return, we get much higher benefits,” says Cass Sunstein, who heads OIRA and, like Mr Obama, taught law at the University of Chicago.
Even business concedes that some new rules were long overdue. A law passed last December gives the FDA sweeping new authority to order food recalls, track the supply chain for fresh food and order companies to submit food-safety plans, while authorising some 1,000 new staff to carry out its orders. Despite its intrusiveness, food manufacturers backed the law in the hope that it would restore public trust in the food system, which had been shaken by fatal outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella.
Nonetheless, Mr Obama now seems more sympathetic to business complaints about regulatory overkill. On January 18th he signed an executive order laying out his philosophy of regulation. It reiterates guidelines first issued by Mr Clinton and adhered to by Mr Bush: rules should be subject to cost-benefit analyses, imposed in the least costly way and leave companies free to work out how to comply. Mr Obama also went further, ordering all regulatory agencies to put in place within 120 days a system for reviewing old rules to see if they can be amended or repealed, and to ease the burden of regulation on small businesses.
Yet the order also expands the scope of regulation by telling agencies that they may consider “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts”. That is an important consideration for rules such as better access to toilets for the disabled. The risk is that such criteria could be used to justify rules that cost the earth. Banning limits on health insurance, for example, as the health-care law does, may reduce the anxiety of people who might otherwise lose coverage, but whether that is worth the increase in premiums is impossible to say.
A similar attitude underlies both the thicket of homeland-security rules that has sprung up since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, and financial reforms since the banking crisis. These are justified largely by arguing that another terrorist attack or financial crisis would be unimaginably damaging. But since the probability of either event seems unknowable, so are the benefits that might accrue from the laws. Vikram Pandit, the chief of Citigroup, has likened the new Basel capital rules to maintaining a standing army large enough to fight the second world war.
Also unquantifiable is the innovation that may be deterred by regulation. Michael Mandel, a scholar at the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank, says some of Mr Obama’s rules, though well intentioned, interfere with the most dynamic parts of the economy. Rules meant to deter the abuse of student aid by for-profit colleges could stunt the growth of college courses taught over the internet; tighter conditions on drug approvals, prompted by much-publicised scandals, raise the cost of drug research, especially for small companies; and “net neutrality” rules could expose internet-access providers to stifling litigation.
Mr Obama’s regulatory surge would be less damaging if it had not followed one by Mr Bush, Mr Mandel says. Because of fears about national security, telecoms and internet companies came under pressure to accommodate federal eavesdroppers. The Sarbanes-Oxley accounting law has made it more expensive for start-up companies to list their stock publicly.
Perhaps Mr Obama’s new edict will hack away some of the regulatory undergrowth that has flourished over the decades. But business could be waiting a while for results. In December the Environmental Protection Agency took saccharine, an artificial sweetener, off its list of hazardous materials—more than a decade after scientists had concluded it was not carcinogenic after all. Mr Sunstein vows: “It isn’t going to take ten years to get rid of rules that deserve to be got rid of.”
Existing rules are also being enforced more keenly. The workplace-safety regulator slapped employers with 167% more violations in Mr Obama’s first year than in Mr Bush’s last, according to OMB Watch, a liberal watchdog. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stepped up scrutiny of drugs that have already been approved for sale. Last year it barred the use of Avastin for breast cancer, not because it was unsafe but because its benefits seemed too uncertain. The regulatory workforce has grown 16% in Mr Obama’s first two years in office, to 276,429, while private employment has fallen (see chart 1).
Has this extra regulation made the economy worse off? Not necessarily. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which vets most new federal rules, reckons that although Mr Obama’s regulations cost more than his predecessors’, they also bring greater benefits (see chart 2): fewer lives lost from inhaling mercury, being hit by lorries, or eating contaminated food. “I take any costs seriously, but they may be worth incurring if, in return, we get much higher benefits,” says Cass Sunstein, who heads OIRA and, like Mr Obama, taught law at the University of Chicago.
Even business concedes that some new rules were long overdue. A law passed last December gives the FDA sweeping new authority to order food recalls, track the supply chain for fresh food and order companies to submit food-safety plans, while authorising some 1,000 new staff to carry out its orders. Despite its intrusiveness, food manufacturers backed the law in the hope that it would restore public trust in the food system, which had been shaken by fatal outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella.
Nonetheless, Mr Obama now seems more sympathetic to business complaints about regulatory overkill. On January 18th he signed an executive order laying out his philosophy of regulation. It reiterates guidelines first issued by Mr Clinton and adhered to by Mr Bush: rules should be subject to cost-benefit analyses, imposed in the least costly way and leave companies free to work out how to comply. Mr Obama also went further, ordering all regulatory agencies to put in place within 120 days a system for reviewing old rules to see if they can be amended or repealed, and to ease the burden of regulation on small businesses.
Yet the order also expands the scope of regulation by telling agencies that they may consider “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts”. That is an important consideration for rules such as better access to toilets for the disabled. The risk is that such criteria could be used to justify rules that cost the earth. Banning limits on health insurance, for example, as the health-care law does, may reduce the anxiety of people who might otherwise lose coverage, but whether that is worth the increase in premiums is impossible to say.
A similar attitude underlies both the thicket of homeland-security rules that has sprung up since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, and financial reforms since the banking crisis. These are justified largely by arguing that another terrorist attack or financial crisis would be unimaginably damaging. But since the probability of either event seems unknowable, so are the benefits that might accrue from the laws. Vikram Pandit, the chief of Citigroup, has likened the new Basel capital rules to maintaining a standing army large enough to fight the second world war.
Also unquantifiable is the innovation that may be deterred by regulation. Michael Mandel, a scholar at the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank, says some of Mr Obama’s rules, though well intentioned, interfere with the most dynamic parts of the economy. Rules meant to deter the abuse of student aid by for-profit colleges could stunt the growth of college courses taught over the internet; tighter conditions on drug approvals, prompted by much-publicised scandals, raise the cost of drug research, especially for small companies; and “net neutrality” rules could expose internet-access providers to stifling litigation.
Mr Obama’s regulatory surge would be less damaging if it had not followed one by Mr Bush, Mr Mandel says. Because of fears about national security, telecoms and internet companies came under pressure to accommodate federal eavesdroppers. The Sarbanes-Oxley accounting law has made it more expensive for start-up companies to list their stock publicly.
Perhaps Mr Obama’s new edict will hack away some of the regulatory undergrowth that has flourished over the decades. But business could be waiting a while for results. In December the Environmental Protection Agency took saccharine, an artificial sweetener, off its list of hazardous materials—more than a decade after scientists had concluded it was not carcinogenic after all. Mr Sunstein vows: “It isn’t going to take ten years to get rid of rules that deserve to be got rid of.”
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Duke,
I don't know why you have such a man crush on Obama, but oh well. All I know is I'm making way more than I ever did. Yet every time I go to the grocery store to get the same amount I always did, I'm also spending way more than I always did. Seems all I'm doing is spending more. Fees like spent nuclear rod disposal. Even though I don't support nuclear. Computer monitor disposal fees I never had to pay before. 3% increase in sales tax. $3 increase in gas. All these fees, taxes, and sales increases are all increasing at a rate faster than the supposed inflation rate. All hail Lord Obama!
I don't know why you have such a man crush on Obama, but oh well. All I know is I'm making way more than I ever did. Yet every time I go to the grocery store to get the same amount I always did, I'm also spending way more than I always did. Seems all I'm doing is spending more. Fees like spent nuclear rod disposal. Even though I don't support nuclear. Computer monitor disposal fees I never had to pay before. 3% increase in sales tax. $3 increase in gas. All these fees, taxes, and sales increases are all increasing at a rate faster than the supposed inflation rate. All hail Lord Obama!
What evidence leads you to this conclusion? When was the last time Iran occupied another country? When was the Last time Iran started a war? 1739? LOL if anything I would say that it is HIGHLY likely that Iran will be demonized in some way (Nuclear power?) so that NATO (USA) can go in and take over. Probably plenty of hub bub how that countries citizens are repressed and how the government doesn't listen to them and doesn't let them have protests and such.
When Was the last time the USA started a war? 2011?