Obama 2012-Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?

[SparrowHawk]

Not sure what you mean by 'nature taking its course'

Allowing the natural flow of events unfold absent further government interference into the lives of it's citizens. The Civil Rights Act IMO was required in order to kick Jim Crow square in the ass. What may or may not have been needed was some of the laws/regulations that came after.

 

[777 fixer]

Without going back and finding it, I'm pretty sure I stated that the Civil Rights Act should have been passed and then let "Mother Nature" take it's course. Government gets itself into trouble when it tries to pick winners and losers. I happen to think that Malcom, MLK and the rest of the leaders had the situation well in hand.

They did? If they did how long would have it taken for "mother nature" to take it's course? Another thing, Malcom X did put his butt on the line by going to the deep south like MLK did. He just talked a lot.

 

[SparrowHawk]

They did? If they did how long would have it taken for "mother nature" to take it's course? Another thing, Malcom X did put his butt on the line by going to the deep south like MLK did. He just talked a lot.

I don't know how long it would have taken. I was more into where the journey ends. Governments in general stink at making decisions for their citizens when it comes to things like religion, morals, race relations. I think we might be in a better place if we had not been quite to "involved" and allowed the individuals affected the most take the lead.

As to Malcolm X I think both he and Dr King each had their audience and message. One without the other at that time and I wonder what might have been. IMO it wouldn't have been good. In a way they played off each other. Face it, Malcolm X scared the crap out of white people and drove them to actually listen to what other more moderate advocates were saying. King's message was more acceptable to whites and in many ways Malcolm has like a hearing aide in that he helped whites hear and understand Dr King.

 

[SparrowHawk]

This just in from the Hero of the Stupid Department

Biden: US Needs More Stimulus

Friday, 26 Aug 2011 12:21 PM

Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday the U.S. economy needed more stimulus to get it moving, putting in a plug for government intervention shortly before the White House unveils new proposals to boost job growth.

Article


YO Benny crank up the printing presses, we need more dough for our so called stimulus. This way we can inflate the cost of commodities and make even more proud Americans rely on us because they need food stamps to feed their family. See Benny they'll look at the stimulus and think we're trying to do something and re-elect me and Barack.

Well we've seen this before

 

[delldude]

Here's what you conviently ignore. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the south. If you think the people who ran those states were going to do away with them on their own you are high. Just look at the fight they put up agaisnt things like the 1964 act.

You obviously referring to the democrats.

 

[delldude]

This is a result of the tea party extremists tying the budget fight with our debt ceiling. By signaling that this was the way our congress is going to do business, the rating agency downgraded.

Maybe next time we will actually account for the war spending and benefit programs when the funds are obligated. GAAP were not used by Bush and his complicit congress.

Time to pay the piper. I am sure we would have been much better off if Bachmann had her way and were trying to figure out who we could pay right now as our ability to pay the bills ran dry.

I would like to ask her to prioritize who she would have paid, with a timeline.

S&P said they wouldn't have down graded if Congress had followed the Tea Party recommendations.

 

[delldude]

Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker. Polly wants a cracker.

If Polly be Black, that may be a racist statement.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Boehner Asks Obama to Disclose Costly US Regs
Saturday, 27 Aug 2011 11:30 AM

WASHINGTON - With a battle looming over U.S. regulations on businesses, the top Republican in Congress asked President Barack Obama on Friday to identify all proposed rules with a projected economic impact of at least $1 billion.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said he wants the information before Congress returns early next month from its summer recess. He said the House will consider legislation calling for a congressional review and approval of any proposed federal government regulation.

While the administration is pushing to eliminate what it considers to be old and unneeded regulations, Republicans and the business community complain it is not pushing hard enough and fear new regulations would hurt an already weak economy.

The speaker's letter came three days after the White House released a list of more than 500 possible rule changes it said could save $10 billion over five years.

Boehner unsuccessfully made the same request last year when Obama's fellow Democrats held the House. Now with Republicans in charge, the president is under pressure to comply and a big battle is expected over government regulations.

Once again the Back bench junior senator and wannabe leader of the free world is busy destroying job creation with excess regulations. Surprised? I'm not, the man is a giant weeping Scar upon the land

 

[delldude]

Once again the Back bench junior senator and wannabe leader of the free world is busy destroying job creation with excess regulations. Surprised? I'm not, the man is a giant weeping Scar upon the land

This is a much needed step in the right direction. I've felt for quite some time Congress needed to wake up and stop these circumventions around the Constitution. Reg's become costly unlegislated laws.

 

[tech2101]

S&P said they wouldn't have down graded if Congress had followed the Tea Party recommendations.

Show me.

 

[Ms Tree]

Show me.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Ms Tree]

S&P statement Aug 5

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.
The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure
growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two
steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5
trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no
measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee
could recommend them.

 

[delldude]

Show me.

WASHINGTON --

The Senate has taken up tea party-backed House legislation tying an increase in the government's borrowing authority to a series of conservative demands including a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called up the measure Thursday to placate Republicans demanding a vote. But he said it "doesn't have one chance in a million of passing the Senate."

Democrats argue that the so-called "cut, cap and balance" measure would impose untenable spending restraints and set spending levels, as a percentage of the overall economy, on par with the mid-1960s — before the advent of Medicare and automatic Social Security cost-of-living adjustments.

Duh....

 

[tech2101]

Duh....

S&P said they wouldn't have down graded if Congress had followed the Tea Party recommendations.

Where is the S&P quote saying that if the Tea Party plan was passed, they would not have lowered the rating?

I will wait.

You will produce that the day when President Bachmann is inaugurated?

 

[delldude]

Where is the S&P quote saying that if the Tea Party plan was passed, they would not have lowered the rating?

I will wait.

You will produce that the day when President Bachmann is inaugurated?

Mr. Beers of the S&P said on FNC, ”Cut, cap and balance would have overted the downgrade since it is the only serious outlook on the debt.”

S&P official, David Beers, added that ‘fiscal policy, like other government policy, is fundamentally a political process.’ But, rather than building consensus on how to best rein in the nation’s staggering debt, the downgrade left political leaders as divided as ever. Politicians on both sides used the decision to bolster their ideological positions.

The drama, which would culminate late Friday and into the weekend, actually began to gather speed on Wednesday, when S&P executives came to the Treasury Department to meet with a group of administration officials led by Mary J Miller, the assistant secretary for financial markets.
At the meeting, the S&P executives walked the Treasury Department team through its analysis. Government debt was growing rapidly, they said, and the just-completed deal wasn’t going to do enough to slow it down, endangering the AAA rating.
As early as April, S&P had changed its credit outlook on the US to negative. By July, S&P warned that if the government did not agree to a deficit reduction package of about US$4 trillion, there was a one-in- two chance of a downgrade.
Still Treasury officials claim they were taken by surprise on Wednesday. Just the day before, Ms Miller and her team met at the Hay-Adams Hotel with a group of senior Wall Street executives who advise the Treasury on its borrowing. None of the members believed that the government’s credit rating would be lowered in the near-term.

Even then, one administration official said, ‘We didn’t think they would actually do it.’

My link