idrankwhat

at that point in time, TARP was booked as a major cost. Doesn't account for 2010 or 2011, either. The earlier link that I posted addresses that, or a least a significant portion of it. President #44 inherited the largest growth of the Federal Govt. since FDR from #43, and it was done while fighting two wars, part of which was off the books, and without asking the public to sacrifice anything. To the contrary, we were given a tax cuts during massive growth and going to war. And those tax cuts had a sunset for a reason. When they were passed the legislators knew that they were unsustainable but they were kicking the can down the road for their own personal gain. We can't (honestly) cut revenue, grow the government and let the financial industry go on a major, economy crushing binge and then blame it the next guy. Obama has his own problems but I think that we need to be honest about how we got to the situation we're in. I think arguing about how to best get us out is completely legitimate. But the tendency to ignore the mistakes of the past decade, and the immensity of their impact, starts the discussion off on the wrong foot.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/ Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly. * Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion." * Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below. So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15). In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

According to the OMB in January of 2009 that extra trillion (actually $1.2 Trillion) was to be inherited by President #44, regardless of who he/she was. It was the result of a collapsing casino economy, unfinanced wars and the largest growth in our Federal Government since FDR. Along with a tax policy which reduced revenues without producing jobs. It was a really lousy inheritance, for all of us. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=1 True. But in the latter it's one of those problems that he probably would not have initiated however is having trouble wiping off of his shoe. When you have a Congress which is afraid to help tackle that problem (NIMBY) then what is he supposed to do? And while many of those incarcerated in Gitmo may not have been a national security threat 8-9 years ago, they may very well be now. If I were wrongly detained for a decade I might just want some payback. Obama could use the bully pulpit on that one issue but risk losing support in other aspects of his agenda. It's a balancing act which cost him another campaign promise.

There are definitely some similarities. I've just come to the conclusion that the lobbyist plutocracy is simply too powerful. I agree with a fair amount of candidate Obama's philosophies and I think he still would like to implement a number of them. Building a new economy based on green energy is a good example and one that I do not think Bush (43) would actively pursue. Actually trying to tackle the health care problem is one where I think the two differ (although the aforementioned plutocracy got in the way of that one). Consumer financial protections? Bush wouldn't touch it. Mending fences with our allies. That saves us money in the long run. Practicing tough love with Israel. Obama seems to mean what he says instead of saying "now you cut that out" while winking at Israel's leadership. (lobbyists will probably win that one too). Actually fighting the the war on terrorism where it is/was instead of making shit up in order to start an elective war. Probably too late to get the result we could have had though. Fighting wars on budget for a change. Admitting that there was an obvious reason for the sunset clause on the Bush tax cuts. Doing slightly better at enforcing environmental laws. At least it's not being directly run by the petroleum industry any more. I don't think he's grown the size of the federal government as much as his predecessor but I could be wrong. That's the short list (don't have time for more at the moment). But you're right. #44's policies rhyme waaayy too much with #43 for my taste. I think his policies are a step in the right direction but it's not a very big step.

Pants on fire

It weakens their argument.

And here is the solution. Too expensive. We're trying it in Afghanistan to the tune of $20 billion/yr and it's still not enough.

I'll agree, arguing about what is not reported will take up more time than any of us have. It's just annoying that with so many stories, such as those you listed, our news media will ignore them in favor of entertainment or a political cat fight. Again, I don't watch or listen to much from the MSNBC crowd. And like I said, theirs is a market response to the type of annoying programming that FOX built itself on. If FOX had actually been "fair and balanced" then I'm pretty sure MSNBC would not have produced as many opinion shows as they do. Now everyone does it because it sells. And we're all stupidererer for it. One last thing though, it's possible that I do have some form of filter that makes me dislike angry right wing dialog more. Everyone has some sort of bias. But as I originally stated, I seriously dislike rude interviewers. And I've never heard MSNBC hosts tell their guests to "shut up". (Of course, I admitted that I don't watch MSNBC. Do they do that too?)

One way to do it is to wait for the human population to reach the Earth's carrying capacity. The resultant population crash will be significant. The results will be ugly. It's been shown that educated women have fewer babies. I think a heavy emphasis on education promotion all around would help. It would also help if we imported diet and eating habits from Asia as opposed to exporting our non-sustainable, energy intensive lifestyle to the rest of the world. Those ideas won't solve the problem but it will likely delay the inevitable crash.

MSNBC is a market response to FOX. I'd comment more if I watched them. I think Olberman is now on Current (Al Gore's channel). He's a self-proclaimed opinion journalist. I did hear a recent interview with him though. This quote stuck with me. "This is not specific to NBC or MSNBC, but I just saw an environment growing in which there were more and more conflicts of interest within these large national corporations where no matter what you said, you had the potential to affect some other part of the big company's business," Olbermann explains. "The more that that's true, the less they want you to say. Even if there is no explicit attempt to censure or to proscribe or otherwise to interfere, there becomes an issue of the larger the corporation, the more fear in the part of the people involved in its production." As for the power of the right wing rabble rousers, it's pretty significant. They yell the loudest and that allows them to direct the national dialog. FOX presents the train wreck of a story and then the rest of the media repeats it for a few days. And if you don't repeat it then you're accused of being a media outlet that is in the pocket of the libs and protecting them.

Because they lead an army of angry, misinformed "Hannitized" "dittoheads" who think that their brand of humor and commentary are indeed news. And actually, I think Hannity's radio lead in does describe his show as "the best news and information...." or something along those lines. The problem that I have with them is that their brand of angry, bottom shelf commentary has helped to destroy most reasonable dialog on the part of the corporate media. It's all sensationalism because that's what sells. And unfortunately it's polluting our political process, which was ugly enough to start with. Politics is the new "reality TV" programming where the most outrageous comments and activity are rewarded with the lion's share of the media attention. Can't wait to see the high production "trailers" in the upcoming election.

Stewart is an entertainer who comments on politics but focuses mainly on the failures of news media. In FOX's case that's agenda driven. In the rest of the corporate media it's, as Stewart puts it, "sensationalist and lazy". Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly (and Roger Ailes for that matter) comment on politics but are agenda driven to change America's social and political direction. Hannity is probably the most aggressive when you consider the national tours (Stop [insert non-conservative-politician's name] express) he helps host. Fox is mostly opinion based broadcasting with enough "news" thrown in to confuse viewers. Heck, even FOX admits they're not "news". Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

Here's the problem.

I COMPLETELY agree. That interview style drives me nuts. Stewart is even guilty at times on his show. A good interviewer asks a question and then allows an answer. He/she also speaks less than his guest. I do have a question for the right wing media. What would they call a reporter who simply stated what happened at an event without any sort of spin? Is that liberal because it doesn't put pressure on the left? I get the impression, especially from the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd, that if a report doesn't either promote the "conservative" angle or take it to the left in some form then it's "liberal". I think that market based media sucks. When you get your news from the same people who feed you, clothe you, entertain you, lend money to you, drug you and defend you, the quality and completeness of the information you receive suffers dramatically.

So, "Obama did it first"? I guess he owes beer.

Another less than obvious cost of war: $20 Billion/yr in air conditioning (listen to the audio link)

Actually he hasn't been lax. The "liberal" "news" media just thinks that other things, like Palin sightings and pecker tweets, are more important. From a year ago: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=128826285

Alright, I read the first page of posts and got nothing out of it. I'm leaving the thread, because I'm bored.

That is EXACTLY the problem. And it IS a problem. Disparities like that are what lead to social upheaval. Two words......"guillotine futures".

Those figures can be deceiving. With the current wealth disparity the top 1% can pay a lower tax rate and still contribute a significant portion to the pot of total taxes collected for a given year. For example, we could give massive tax cuts as economic "stimulus", cut the Treasury's tax receipts in half and the wealthiest would be paying nearly all of the taxes in "the pot" yet still manage to do it while being taxed at the capital gains rate (or less). The fact that the wealthiest can pay such a significant portion of the total receipts is a more a reflection of the immenseness of the wealth disparity. That's what happens when the 1980 CEO makes 40 times the salary of the average worker and the 2010 CEO makes 350 times the salary of the average worker. (not sure if I'm explaining that concept effectively. Need more coffee.)

Seems you have it right, unfortunately Dream Dancer cannot understand reality. For some of us the notion that Israel has "won" the West Bank and Gaza through a "right of conquest" is difficult to understand given that neither Israel nor the US nor any other country officially makes that claim. That notion is used simply as a justification for "natural growth" (illegal under the Geneva Conventions) into areas that do not belong to Israel.

Don't worry, I'm not laughing with you.

though fashionable to say, it's a load of crap. They finance our elections. They dominate our airwaves from within and without. Not only do they influence our legislators they actually write much of our legislation. There is a revolving door between legislators, government appointees and lobbying firms. They also deserve their own thread though. Looks like another "agree to disagree" situation.

I appreciate the honesty and clarification. We'll have to disagree. I tend to take the view of the UN and the application of the Geneva Conventions. I also think that the Geneva Initiative is a good start for a resolution. Right now defensive lines are being drawn and I only can hope that cooler heads prevail. If Obama does nothing else other than to bring this debate back into the spotlight for some extended and honest dialog then I think he's done well.

Lobbyists run our country. This isn't much different. I can only hope that this President is serious. Like other big ideas such as energy, health care and financial reform, it may cost him his Presidency if he tries to go for too much too fast. Neither side can end hostilities overnight. The framework has to be put in place and pursued regardless of the response by the fanatical fringe. Some say Israel has no right to exist. Others say that the Palestinian "problem" needs to be solved so Israel can encompass the Kingdom of David. That's where real leaders come into play. Both sides need to treat the the other as human and quit with the "my kind of human is better that your type of human".