View topic - President Obama

[GodfatherofSoul Profile]

10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill. Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6421, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[26] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[27] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT.
Here are 12 pieces of legislation vetoed by the last administration.
BUT ONE QUARTER OF THEM - 25% -BECAME LAW DESPITE THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO POWER THAT WAS USED AN EXCUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESS FROM 2006-2008 somehow not being at all responsible for the mess things are.

FACTS ARE THAT BUSH VERY RARELY USED THE VETO POWER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

President -Regular Vetoes -Pocket vetoes -Total vetoes -Vetoes overridden - % vetoes overridden
Calvin Coolidge 20 30 50 4 8%
Herbert Hoover 21 16 37 3 8%
Franklin Roosevelt 372 263 635 9 1%
Harry Truman 180 70 250 12 5%
Dwight Eisenhower 73 108 181 2 1%
John Kennedy 12 9 21 0 0%
Lyndon Johnson 16 14 30 0 0%
Richard Nixon 26 17 43 7 16%
Gerald Ford 48 18 66 12 18%
Jimmy Carter 13 18 31 2 6%
Ronald Reagan 39 39 78 9 12%
George H. W. Bush 29 15 44 1 2%
Bill Clinton 36 1 37 2 5%
George W. Bush 11 1 12 4 33%

The problem with arguing with you Hammer is you don't know what you don't know. Bush has low veto numbers because for the first 6 years of his teram he had a Republican majority that did whatever he wanted. In fact, the Republicans worked so closely together that they hardly ever bothered to include Democrats. That's how they broke the "Do nothing Congress" record for convening the least amount of times!

Secondly, vetos are used a bit like filibusters. Sometimes the President can just state that he'll veto a bill and Congress won't even bother to submit the bill if they don't have the votes for a veto override. Look up the terms "majority whip" and "minority whip."

Third, you doubted my argument on Bush's vetos and FOS GAVE YOU A LIST! How does that "prove your point?"

Honestly, I don't think you're deceitful or unintelligent, you can obviously do research. But, you really need to understand what's been happening the last 8 years before you start slamming other posters for their own views.

[thesteelhammer Profile]

I understand just fine.
It's you that seems to lack understanding.
I'm talking about the past TWO years, when the Dems controlled congress.
You can make excuses about threats of vetos and all that other SPIN.
but the truth is they were there, and they had control of the legislative arm of the government and therefore they are also responsible for the current state of things.

[steelcitymetal Profile]

i have faith in obama saving our country

i mean, remember that time when he fed that crowd of 5000 with just 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish?

[gutofsteel Profile]

Support and agreement with Obama, while still strong, has taken a decent hit.

But seriously, can you imagine the criticism Bush would have taken if he filled out an NCAA bracket and then made an appearance on the Tonight Show?

Give Obama some credit, he has apparently mastered the socialistic policies and promotion that appeals to the lowest common denominator which is basically your average American.

And Obama does deserve more blame than he is getting for the stock market. The market was very leery of Obama to begin with on the economics front, and a good chunk of the hit we've taken is the market's reaction that his stimulus contains too much pork, too many entitlements, and isn't direct enough or effective enough at fixing the problem. When you start flushing massive amounts of money like that down the toilet the market factors in a weakening dollar and inflation to the values.

It's still very early and I give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm highly skeptical.

[gutofsteel Profile]

i have faith in obama saving our country

i mean, remember that time when he fed that crowd of 5000 with just 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish?

I believe what actually happened was he only paid for 5 loaves and 2 fish, but distributed about 100X that amount and sent the bill for the remainder to the fattest 2% of the population.

[thesteelhammer Profile]

... and sent the bill for the remainder to the fattest 2% of the population.

And all of our kids and grandkids.

[GodfatherofSoul Profile]

And Obama does deserve more blame than he is getting for the stock market. The market was very leery of Obama to begin with on the economics front, and a good chunk of the hit we've taken is the market's reaction that his stimulus contains too much pork, too many entitlements, and isn't direct enough or effective enough at fixing the problem. When you start flushing massive amounts of money like that down the toilet the market factors in a weakening dollar and inflation to the values.

My friend, I don't think you truly understand what is causing this Depression if you think it's because a bunch of investors are scared by the stimulus package. The vast majority of economists agree that what we're doing is the right thing to right the ship. If you doubt that, go review your history books and Hoover's economic policy circa 1929-1932. All of the Republican arguments are a regurgitation of what happened back then. It's just that humans are doomed to repeat history.

[gutofsteel Profile]

And Obama does deserve more blame than he is getting for the stock market. The market was very leery of Obama to begin with on the economics front, and a good chunk of the hit we've taken is the market's reaction that his stimulus contains too much pork, too many entitlements, and isn't direct enough or effective enough at fixing the problem. When you start flushing massive amounts of money like that down the toilet the market factors in a weakening dollar and inflation to the values.

My friend, I don't think you truly understand what is causing this Depression if you think it's because a bunch of investors are scared by the stimulus package. The vast majority of economists agree that what we're doing is the right thing to right the ship. If you doubt that, go review your history books and Hoover's economic policy circa 1929-1932. All of the Republican arguments are a regurgitation of what happened back then. It's just that humans are doomed to repeat history.

I don't think you understand what I was talking about. And, my friend, if you want to really understand what is causing this recession and will lead to the next bubble, somewhere, go do some reading circa 2001. Follow that up with some "lost decade" reading on Japan. And then top it all off with a piece on LTCM and the Russian default in 1998.

[Witchblade Profile]

"The last and most dramatic bubble is total US debt. There is no doubt that it is unsustainable - If our government follows the path Obama and the Democrats have chosen, our country will be bankrupted"

Analysis:

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index ... e=Page+One

[AZ Steel Profile]

To assert that democrats and Obama are the cause of the national debt problem is ridiculous. Honestly, I don’t like either party. I firmly believe that all politicians are nothing more than corporate bitches. Liberals and conservatives alike do everything they can to line their own pockets and those of their big business cronies. But here are some facts for you:

During the Clinton presidency, the national debt rose from 4.536 trillion dollars to 5.943 trillion. This is over an 8 year span and represents an increase of about 30% and 1.4 trillion dollars. The debt actually decreased slightly toward the end of his presidency.
During the Bush presidency, the national debt rose from 5.943 trillion dollars to 10.670 trillion. This is also over an 8 year span. This is an increase of about 80% and 4.727 trilion dollars. I’m just curious why Bush gets a pass for almost doubling the national debt. Oh, I forgot, he was fighting that ever so important, albeit entirely bogus, war in Iraq. I just think it’s funny that conservatives fail to mention this fact at their “tea parties” or anytime they are railing against those darn “tax and spend” liberals. Someone said it earlier on this post, the problem is pork, which is not a phenomenon exclusive to either party.

An even greater and insidious problem is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation. Yes, our “national bank” (the one that issues every cent of American currency) does whatever the hell it wants with the American people’s money. There is absolutely no oversight of the fed by ANY elected official – not senators, not representatives, not presidents. The Fed answers to NOONE except its own greed. If you don’t believe me, look it up. There are plenty of books written on this subject.
Think about it, why would the government owe anyone money? It really doesn’t make sense. You just print more money and pay your debts – but the government doesn’t print the money anymore, the fed does. It is perhaps the greatest scam ever perpetrated against the American people besides what the US government did to the native population. But that’s a whole other story that you east coasters don’t get to experience on a daily basis.
By the way, the last president to actually take meaningful steps to dissolve the fed was also the last president to be assassinated – John Kennedy.
Before you start talking shit about the economy and pointing fingers, please educate yourself on this subject. No realistic or even remotely honest conversation about the national debt and economic problems can leave out the complicity of the Federal Reserve.

[Coke Oven Profile]

"That's why there's almost a unanimous consensus among top economists that Obama's doing the right thing."

THINK. Just who do economists work for? THINK. Ever see a want ad for an economist? Are there any in private industry? 99% of the sonsabitches are government employees and the other 1% work for the universities. Ya expect anything objective or factual from their ilk?