[sunnykerr]

http://www.fanforum.com/f117/barack-...ober-62863447/
Caroline Kennedy qualified for senate seat?
Birth of Octuplets in California Raises Ethical Questions
Republicans elect first black national party chairman
Riots erupt in Oakland after slain father laid to rest
Edwards Admits Affair
Sen. Edward Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

Banner by 4N6 DNA

[sunnykerr]

Debt debate cheat sheet Key figures • $14.29 trillion -- current debt limit. That's also nearly the value of the European Union's gross domestic product -- or everything produced in the EU -- last year. • August 2 -- the date when the federal government is forecast to hit the debt limit and see all new loans cut off. Falls during "Simplify Your Life Week." Really. • $2.4 trillion -- the increase to the debt limit officials think is needed to get the government through November 2012. • $4 trillion -- the amount of deficit reduction in a longer, broader, "grand compromise" idea. Plans in the discussion From smallest to largest: 1. The "fallback": The McConnell and McConnell/Reid plans These plans are built in case Congress and the White House cannot reach a specific deal on raising the debt ceiling. In theory, they include relatively simple legislation and could lead to an increase in the debt ceiling in a matter of days. Specifically, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, proposes a shift in how government raises debt ceilings, resting the decision and power more with the White House. McConnell's plan would allow the debt ceiling to go up if a) the president requests a specific increase, b) the president submits proposed budget cuts in an amount greater than the debt ceiling increase and c) if two-thirds of Congress does not vote against it (if one-third supports the debt ceiling increase). The mechanisms for that plan are complex, but just believe us that those are the bottom lines. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is working with McConnell to add more components to this plan. The two leaders are considering an attachment of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. And they are talking about a commission or group that would propose spending cuts and possibly wider reform. This plan is fluid, but right now the idea is to create something similar to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, guaranteeing the commission's recommendation a straight up-or-down vote in each chamber of Congress. That group could speed up the process to cut spending. Supporters: This "fallback" could save the U.S. from hitting an unprecedented financial wall. It also takes the politics out of debt ceiling debates. Opponents: The McConnell plan requires no spending cuts or change in fiscal policy. It demands only proposals, which Congress may or may not pass. Even if the McConnell/Reid spending cuts are included, this idea makes few or no difficult fiscal decisions. Odds: Increasing rapidly. 2. The 'kick the can' short-term deal This proposal could take many forms but would raise the debt ceiling for a matter of weeks or a few months, with offsetting spending cuts and/or revenue changes. It may be as much as $1.5 trillion or as little as a few hundred billion. President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he will not sign such a deal. But in White House talks Wednesday, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, suggested looking at a short-term bill, famously leading to a pronounced pushback and a musical flourish, Jed Bartlet-style moment. "This could bring my presidency down," Obama said, according to Republicans, "but I will not yield." Both sides agree he ended the meeting at that point. Supporters: The two sides cannot agree, and this deal is the best they can do. Opponents: It's putting off the tough decisions and barely scratches the surface of the problem. Odds: Very unlikely. Cantor told reporters that Obama said he would not relent, even if it risked his presidency. 3. The 'just get to 2012' middle-term deal This kind of compromise would raise the debt ceiling about $2.4 trillion, giving the government enough funding power to get through next year's elections. The president insists this time frame is a minimum for any debt ceiling compromise. But thus far, Republicans and Democrats have not been able to agree on any way to offset the $2.4 trillion. Republicans demand this plan be offset with spending cuts and that it include no revenue increases. Democrats say it's not fair, nor mathematically realistic, to get all the money for deficit reduction from program cuts. It is not clear if such a deal would include a significant entitlement overhaul but probably not. Supporters: This is a down payment on the debt problem. It is a first, small bite toward reducing deficits. And it is politically easier (on all sides) than a longer term fix. Opponents: Whimps! Incompetent procrastinators! This is a long-term crisis, and lawmakers must start coming up with long-term solutions. Odds: At the moment, more likely than the next one. 4. The 'grand compromise' long-term deal This deal would be the most sweeping and would take a significant bite out of the deficit colossus. A plan in this realm would reduce the deficit over the next 10 or 12 years by roughly $4 trillion (though, it does not solve the entire problem). This compromise would likely include major reform of Medicare, possibly Social Security reform and a potentially sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system. It could mean: changing retirement ages as well as how much seniors pay on Medicare and simplifying taxes so there are fewer deductions but also fewer, lower tax rates. Obama continues to urge lawmakers on both sides to forge such a deal. But the politics are the stuff of the "Divine Comedy." The second book. All sides are warm to broad tax reform. But Democrats sharply oppose anything resembling benefit cuts to Medicare or Social Security. Republicans likewise are fierce in rejection of any net increase in revenue, which seems to be part of the Democratic offer on tax reform. Supporters: This is why we sent members to Congress, to make difficult political decisions that may be tough for them but that are good for the country in the long run. Our debt crisis won't be solved with lollipops and starlight. It will hurt, but lawmakers need to pull the trigger. Opponents: No such deal could get the votes to pass. Republicans will block any perceived tax increases and Democrats will stand against benefit cuts to Medicare. It's simply impossible. Odds: It's not dead. Those rooting for it, see a path toward a late breakthrough. Others say "no way."

Source

[Comfortably Numb]

Governments shouldn't be able to build up that much debt, they should balance the books.

[sunnykerr]

George H. W. Bush put in a law that, for every new spending program the federal government created, the funding had to be clearly established and taken from another federal program. The "pay as you go" system, if you will.

His son let that law lapse when he was waging two wars and didn't want to raise taxes to pay them, but prefered cutting taxes for the very richest, the corporations and the oil companies...

[Comfortably Numb]

Well I don't like what Jr. did. But Sr. had a plan that made some sense. I just think oil companies are the last group that needs tax breaks, but yeah there was a personal connection there which is probably why he did it.

[sunnykerr]

Yeah, well Sr was a one-term president because, when faced with a war in a time of recession, he elected to raise taxes in order to pay for said war. Problem was, one of his most prominent electoral promises was to not raise taxes. So I guess he lost his support.

It's actually very rare that incumbents don't get re-elected in the United States. It happens, obviously, but it's rare.

And I guess Jr looked at what happened to his father and so he went the other way.

[Comfortably Numb]

I didn't know that. So if you win once you are likely going to win twice.

[sunnykerr]

Likely, but that's not automatic.

Behold what happened to George H W. And Obama could very well be a one-term president as well. He's not popular at home (don't ask me why).

And, mind you, it's not hard science here. If you look at U.S. presidential history, it's muddled at best.

But there's this... I don't know what you'd call it... but this notion that it's easier for an incumbent to get elected president.

[Comfortably Numb]

What do you think caused his unpopularity? I don't know, he caught Ben Laden , which I would think would help. Is it maybe just the poor job market?

[sunnykerr]

I honestly couldn't tell you. The guy's got his heads on his shoulders. He's making as much headway as he can with the Republicans actively trying to prevent him from accomplishing anything. And he's put an end to two costly wars.

[Comfortably Numb]

Yeah, I am surprised that he isn't more popular. Ending the war should have made his popularity skyrocketed.

[Gray Ghost]

The War on Terror isn't over. There are still U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of the blame has to go on Obama and his cronies/handlers. They just put way too much pressure on Obama with all of the ideas and unrealistic promises he made back in 2008. With all the crap he promised, there was no way realistically that he could deliver the goods. I know he was saying those things to get elected but people remember that crap. When you have such high expectations, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
With the way things are going, Obama is either going to win or lose a close election in 2012.

[Comfortably Numb]

People hate when they feel lied to.

[sunnykerr]

But I still don't get it.

Because how is anyone out there really taking electoral promises that seriously that they would feel lied to if things didn't go that way?

Do they not realize that, for one thing, he's tried to do a lot of things he promised he would (close Gitmo, get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, get universal health care, etc.) and the Republicans have blocked him on some of it (only so much anyone can do with a House determined to undermine them) and the rest is just either taking the time it realistically has to or the consequence of idealism meeting reality.

I mean, people can't have seriously expected him to bring back a surplus, can they? There's an international economic crisis that's been going on for about four years now. And he came in with a budget heavy on spending bills with absolutely no tax revenue to account for it. The man isn't Superman.

[Comfortably Numb]

LINK

American voters are divided on Barack Obama’s overall performance [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]as [COLOR=blue !important]president[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], and by double-digit margins they not only think the economy is getting worse, but also that it’s the Obama administration’s fault. Some 45 percent of voters approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 46 percent disapprove, making this his lowest approval for the year so far. Previously, the president’s [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]job [COLOR=blue !important]rating[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] was split evenly 46-46 (June 26-28, 2011). A year ago, 43 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved of the president’s performance (13-14 July 2010). These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Wednesday. Click here to see more findings from the Fox News poll Approval of the president among Democrats currently stands at 76 percent, which is just one percentage-point higher than his record low 75 percent approval among the [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]party [COLOR=blue !important]faithful[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] (December 2010). Among independents, 44 percent approve and 46 percent disapprove of Obama’s job performance. Voters are more than twice as likely to say the economy is getting worse than to say it is getting better. The new poll found 58 percent of voters think the economy is getting worse. That’s up from 52 percent who felt that way last year and 42 percent in 2009. On the flip side, 26 percent think things are getting better economically -- down from 35 percent who thought things were improving last summer, and 40 percent in 2009. Likewise, by a 15 percentage-point margin, more voters say the Obama administration has made the economy worse (49 percent) rather than better (34 percent). While over half of Democrats think the Obama administration is helping, about one in six says it is making things worse (17 percent). Independents are 20 points more likely to think the White House is doing damage to the economy. Current views are mostly unchanged from last summer when 47 percent of voters said the administration was making the economy worse, 36 percent said better and 12 percent said no difference (September 2010). Meanwhile, a 58-percent majority thinks it is unfair for President Obama to continue to blame former President George W. Bush for the country’s economic problems. Thirty-six percent think it is still fair -- including 6 percent of Republicans. A majority of independents (61 percent) and 28 percent of Democrats think it is unfair for Obama to keep [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]blaming [COLOR=blue !important]Bush[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Moving from domestic policy to international affairs, by a slim margin more voters think Obama has improved America’s reputation around the world (43 percent) than think he has damaged it (38 percent). Another 13 percent say it hasn’t changed. Most Democrats (72 percent) think Obama has improved the country’s image, while the same number of Republicans holds the opposite view (72 percent). Among independents, views are split: 39 percent say improved and 37 percent say damaged. The [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Fox [COLOR=blue !important]News[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 904 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw Company Research (R) from July 17 to July 19. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

To be honest, I don't think the average person is really qualified to judge whether or not he is doing a good job. HOwever, I guess alot of people don't think that way. Now I won't lie I had no idea this was the case, I thought he was very popular.

WHo knows, maybe the numbers are skewed? I think the route of the unhappiness is more economic. Whenever people get something good, for instance catching Ben-Laden, the effects are short lasting. Not having enough money would be something we all feel worse about esp. over time.

I do wish the sample size was bigger, to ensure validitity. This isn't taking into account the more poor American's, those who don't have phones; but they don't count in these types of things anyways.

The question that I thought was interesting was the one about whether people though Obama has increased or decreased the popularity of the US.

What do you guys think?