Subj : Re: Vote 4 Obama To : All From : cdl@live.nail.com Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 19:20:08 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september ..org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-septemb er.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cade Larson Newsgroups: az.politics,rec.collecting.coins,dfw.politics Subject: Re: Vote 4 Obama Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 13:23:27 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 162 Message-ID: References: <50953445.C3D1D3FB@nospam.net> <509571C8.4D05FEAD@nospam.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f659d18098261207f5fe324ac67b4059"; logging-data="31382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19czfLlCMSNOeTPDzH6wuAEDAb8uQwdX8Y=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.10) Gecko/20121024 Thunderbird/10.0.10 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZnzTs6BMlvNPnN4Hh9cUpFUrnpM= Xref: news.eternal-september.org az.politics:2726 rec.collecting.coins:5544 dfw.politics:349 On 11/4/2012 11:24 AM, Deets wrote: > > > "Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message news:509571C8.4D05FEAD@nospam.net... > > Mark Hill wrote: >> >> On 11/3/2012 9:12 AM, Frank Galikanokus wrote: >> >> > Obama-Nation is an Abomination. >> > This kind of lunacy does not deserve a response. >> >> This does: >> >> http://online.wsj.com/ >> >> Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the >> economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition." >> Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus >> was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several >> months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a >> "summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago. >> >> In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr. >> Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the >> unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the >> rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly >> seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007. >> The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981. >> >> So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about >> where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit >> would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit >> (estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458 >> billion). >> >> Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a >> typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for >> employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009, >> according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. >> >> He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable >> energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in >> solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in >> green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10 >> and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy. >> The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit >> for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration >> has done so much to obstruct. >> >> Associated Press >> There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that >> don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's >> predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end >> up one-termers.) >> >> The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that >> government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and >> housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and >> with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for >> 2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could >> have been expected. >> >> The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a >> recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr. >> Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has >> been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions. > > Ya don't think the party of NO had anything to do with this do ya? > > JAM > How many Republican bills were rejected by Dingy Reid?? 36?? he is the > senate Majority leader of DemocRAT No's! > http://online.wsj.com/ Even if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win on November 6, his agenda will be stymied if Republicans can't pick up at least three more seats than their current 47 and control the Senate. That's clear from the last two years, when Harry Reid's not-so-deliberative body became the graveyard for fiscal and other reform. House Republicans won an historic midterm election in 2010, picking up 63 seats. They also gained six Senate seats, but a handful of weak GOP candidates (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell) cost them control of the upper body. Back in charge in 2011, Mr. Reid proceeded to stop nearly everything that House Republicans passed. President Obama hasn't even had to sweat a veto fight because nothing escapes Mr. Reid's lost world. Consider the record. In 2011 and 2012 the House passed more than three-dozen economic or jobs-related bills and with only a few exceptions they died in the Senate without a vote. The bills dealt with regulatory relief, tax reduction, domestic drilling for energy, offshore drilling, a jobs bill for veterans, repeal of ObamaCare and many more. Many passed the House with significant Democratic support, as the nearby list shows. Then there is the Democratic failure on their constitutional obligation of passing a budget. House Republicans passed their budgets in each of the past two years in the spring. The latest one, crafted by Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, contained $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction—at least twice as much as Mr. Obama's budget proposal. By contrast, the Senate failed to pass any budget in 2012. Or 2011. Or 2010. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 1,200 days. Sorry, Harry, you can't blame that on a Republican filibuster, because it takes only 51 votes to pass a Senate budget resolution. In 2011 and 2012 the Senate Budget Committee never even drafted a budget, thus inspiring a House bill to dock the pay of Senate Budget Committee Members for not doing their job. Mr. Reid even declared in 2011 that it would be "foolish for us to do a budget," no doubt because he thought that would allow voters to see that what Democrats really want is even more spending and higher taxes. This would have made life difficult for vulnerable Democratic incumbents who pass themselves off as moderates in election years, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, Montana's Jon Tester and Florida's Bill Nelson. So Democrats simply sat back and took shots at the Ryan budget. Meanwhile, these same incumbents are now campaigning at home as champions of domestic energy, lower taxes, spending restraint and regulatory relief—everything the Democratic Senate helped to kill. Enlarge Image Getty Images Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid The Senate also failed in 2010 and 2012 to pass a single appropriations bill. According to an analysis by Senate Republicans, that hadn't happened before in the 150-year history of the current spending process. This year the Senate even failed to enact a national defense authorization bill, which almost never happens. The House passed a bill to avert the tax cliff looming in January, but the Senate failed to act on that too. Last week Mr. Reid's chief Senate lieutenant, Chuck Schumer of New York, warned that Democrats will stop any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year, calling the idea "obsolete." He's essentially promising pre-emptive gridlock in 2013 no matter who wins. Voters can be forgiven for not knowing all this because the media mostly ignore Senate obstructionism these days. Instead, they dutifully follow Mr. Obama's lead when he says of Congress that "I think the American people will run them out of town because they are frustrated and they know we need to do something big and bold." He means Republicans. But if it's big and bold that voters want, House Republicans have passed it. What stands in their way are Senate Democrats. One reason the Reagan policy revolution became law in 1981 is because Republicans scared enough Democrats into cooperating by picking up a net gain of 12 Senate seats in 1980 to gain control 53-46. If voters want to break the gridlock of the past two years and start addressing the country's urgent fiscal and economic problems, they're going to have to elect a Republican Senate as well as Mr. Romney. A version of this article appeared October 29, 2012, on page A20 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Harry Reid's Graveyard. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1 * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013) .