Obama on Reining in Budget Deficits: Won’t Accept ‘Opposition for Opposition’s Sake’

when is anybody in congress or the Pres going to get some guts and just come out and say how the big 3 entilement programs are going to bankrupt the country?
____________________________________
Obama pretty much identified that as a primary concern at the Q&A with the Republicans on Friday – and that addressing this was one of his major priorities and a major focus of the health care bills in Congress.

Obama is clearly setting up Republicans to get hammered when they do the obvious and oppose much of the president’s cost-cutting agenda. It’s laying the groundwork for what could be a successful push against the GOP, still the “party of no,” in time for the fall elections.

“And President Obama again called for his proposed spending freeze on non-security discretionary spending.”
This is posturing. Obama said he wants it.
That’s code for “it’s never going to happen under Obama”
He always does the opposite of what he says. The left never catches on to that. They’re satisfied with the words.

Look. As an Independent here, Roger Olson, Tierra, Jan, Matt, Mary, Dr. John, Axey – you all need to take the partisanship out of your collective voices. It’s clear that you either lean hard to the left or hard to the right. As an “in-between” it’s easy to watch and listen to both sides and quickly discover the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Obama put it on record on Wednesday when he talked about Jobs and the Economy being priority number one in 2010. Yes, I know he put things on the record in 2009 and didn’t deliver on all (and for the record, he did deliver on about 30%, began steps to deliver on about 50%, and completely abandoned about 20% of his promises). I chalk that up to year 1 in the White House. How any person can expect any candidate to go from election to execution in their first year in office considering the complexity and size of our society, is beyond me. So I’ll give him just a little bit of slack in year 1.
Now that he’s put the Year 2 agenda out there for the world to see I for one am going to call him out on it throughout the year.
That said, in 2009 it was very clear that the Republican Party was set on defeating anything this administration wanted to accomplish. They took a political stance in the name of their party. It was a calculated move to see if they could divide the country and to a large extent, they succeeded. People on the right and left started hating one another.
But this will be different. What Obama is proposing right now are things every American wants, more Jobs, a better economy, a better life period. So, as we move through 2010 and the administration introduces proposals to cut spending, create jobs and help the economy, if the Republicans continue to play politics, they’ll be left with egg on their face, much like they were after losing the White House and the majority vote in Congress and the Senate. I’m not saying they need to say yes to everything Obama wants to do. But they need to stop politicking and start doing the job. A repeat of their strategy from 2009 in 2010 won’t fly.
So, my overly loyal and partisan bloggers, it’s time to look in the mirror and ask yourself – are you an American, or are you a Politician? In the end, Obama is right. We no longer have time for people in Washington acting so Washington-like. And that goes for the everyday American spewing hatred on-line merely because a person from the opposite party has something to say. It’s the words the we need to listen to, and the actions that we need to critique. Focusing on the deliverer of the message makes you part of the problem. So stop being part of the problem, pick up a shovel, and help dig our country out of the hole we’re in. And remember, God doesn’t belong to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Neither should you.

===
Posted by: WeaponX | Jan 30, 2010 9:33:38 AM===
A very non-partisan post. Sort of like Obama’s reaching out to republicans yesterday in a non-partisan way. You both need to work on your bipartisanship delivery.

It is not the most corrupt but runs a very tight second. Fire them all.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 30, 2010 10:01:54 AM
I think you need to comb through the history books, Bob. This is total b.s.

I will be voting for every third party candidate I can find on the ballot.
Posted by: jan | Jan 30, 2010 7:39:49 AM
It would be really interesting to see what happened if most incumbents were voted out and replaced with free thinking third party, independent and innovative reform/solution-oriented candidates. I still like the President– but I’ll be looking at third party candidates myself.

Mr. Obama won’t accept “opposition for opposition’s sake”. He got to be the worst President America has ever known.

This wouldn’t be politics as usual by the president, would it? Politics as usual in Wash DC is when one person doesn’t get their way then they complain to the media. What a hypoccrit!

Our president is articulate and speaks well because he is an intelligent person, and intelligent people do make mistakes, we all do regardless of how smart we are, and it’s a bumpy road for him because of so many things to grapple with, our recession was nearly a depression a year ago, now we are contending with a dire job situation, the prez wants to impose tax cuts for the middle class, tax breaks for small businesses which do most of the hiring in the United States for jobs…the big companies continually outsource, manufacturing is in China, customer and information services are in India. The irony is that the big conglomerate banks accepted American tax dollars for the bailout and turned around laid off thousands of American workers and replaced them with foreign nationals…I have no deference to other nations, however, as a matter of survival for bread and butter, one needs a job, and if big multinationals aren’t hiring American citizens but the potential for small and medium businesses are there for the U.S. worker, don’t you think they need a little support?

Laughable! I can’t belive that there are people in this country that still trust and believe this clown.

Is Obama getting his Ron Paul groove on? Let’s hope so, but somehow I still have my doubts given his big government mantra.

I don’t think reinstating paygo will do a thing. These guys disregard the law whenever it suits them. Obama obviously has no respect for the supreme court or congress, stating he’ll just write executive orders if they don’t do what he wants.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 30, 2010 11:24:07 AM
*************************************
No repsect for the Supreme Court? Let me explain what the Supreme Court did. They accepted a case to rule on if “Hillary The Movie” was indeed a corporation involving itself into a campaign. They just had to rule on THIS movie. Only they decided, ON THEIR OWN, to sweep out and just decide now on if corporations can involve themselves into campaigns. It’s like they just got up and said “let’s change some law today.” So Obama is right and then some to get on this court. Evidently now they can just get up and choose to change law somehow attaching it to some similar case. It’s not supposed to work this way. And some day? In the future? When some more liberal judges do this? I do not want to hear you whining then. This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Mike | Jan 30, 2010 11:24:07 AM: And why, may I ask, would making it mandatory for congress to answer that simple question “HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?” not be a good thing, or for that matter, a bad thing? GOP will not tell you why they voted against it, I will: THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN’T GET EVERYTHING WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT, AND THAT MEANS RAISING TAXES! This is a simple math equation every household is familiar with: You need to increase revenue in order to pay for increased expenses. In any and all governments, local, state, federal, foreign countries, there are 2 ways to increase revenue: 1- Keep tax rates stable, GDP increase will add to revenue, when you have a cushion (surplus) you can cut taxes by up to, not more than, your surplus, to keep the books balanced. GOP went 1 step further and were proven wrong time and again under Reagan, GHWB (although he had the courage to repel his own “READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES” when he realized the budget was going to the dogs thanks to Ronald), then under GWB. They all claimed that cutting taxes would result in enough economic – thus GDP – growth (the trickle down theory), as to offset the tax rate decrease. 2- Raise tax rates to the level necessary to both pay for your current expenses, and make just enough more to pay down the debt, thus getting rid of deficits, lowering the interest payments on the Debt, leading to possible long-term tax cuts as GDP grows and debt diminishes. This is what happened in Canada for the last 15 years: 14 budget surpluses in a row, a law that mandates at least 50% of any surplus to go to pay down the debt. Debt has been reduced by 40%in that period, Canada has the lowest DEBT/GDP ratio in the G-20, and there have been tax cuts in Canada for the last 5 years, as GDP was growing. There won’t be any tax cuts this year, since we are in a recession and have had to spend in our own “stimulus package” and had lower revenues, resulting in a 56 billion $ deficit, the first since 1993. ——-In 2008, on foreign-owned debt, the US spent 242 billion$, or 9,6% of tax revenues, in interest alone(no capital). If you include domestic-owned debt – Federal Bonds and T-Bills, it rises to 454 billion$, or 18% of tax revenues. Remember, that is interest on the debt alone. Nothing is free my friends, time to ask the question: “HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

Let me get this straight: Obama’s going to accuse the Right of not being concerned about runaway federal spending/record deficit spending during the first six months of this president’s term? Now he’s a deficit hawk! How ignorant does this delusional snob think we are? The $787 billion “stimulus” bill was an enormous waste. NOW he’s concerned about reigning in spending?! Child, please!

All economists experts on all sides and independently are all stating that the recession is over thanks to Obama’s actions with TARP.
All economists experts on all sides and independently are all stating that if those meassures were not taken than we would be right now experiencing an even worst recession.
Yet all the Republican talking heads do never want to admit that they are wrong.
So the Good Old boys Republican Party continue with their blah blah blah.

Every time the little moron (BHO) opens his mouth I get another example of complete incompetence. He cannot take responsibility for anything!
Let’s review:
Democrat house
Democrat senate
Democrat president
And he wants the GOP to be the ones to exercise budget restraint.
This is hilarious.
Oh yes I forgot Bush did it!

“Exercise budgetary restraint”
Obama may as well state before he gives another speech/comment:
This is directed to the 45% of Americans that are still buying my BS.
He is a total joke.

Obama’s going to accuse the Right of not being concerned about runaway federal spending/record deficit spending…
____________
Everybody should think about it, though accusation is a strong term to use here.
Per Political Animal: “…I can see why this may have a certain, surface-level appeal for some people. Never mind what happened before; let’s just focus on problem-solving in the present and future. To look backwards, point fingers, and assign blame doesn’t get us anywhere… As Clive Crook put it, “Who cares? … What does it matter who caused the problem?…Except, of course, “who did what in the past” matters very much. It’s not about “finger-pointing”; it’s about credibility. It’s about understanding that those who are responsible for creating a mess deserve to be held accountable for their failures. It’s about voters appreciating whose ideas work, whose ideas fail, and making electoral decisions accordingly.
It’s about realizing who deserves to be taken seriously and who doesn’t.”

How a guy comes off BEING such a snob, whose grammar is sooo bad he routinely… and so on (insert anti-Obama partisan stuff, any will do , it all sounds the same)
_______
For me, Mike Pence came immediately to mind. I can’t stand Chris Matthews but it was interesting that Pence came off much worse on Hardball following the President’s meeting with House Republicans. Did you all catch that? What a doofus. He’s descended into gibberish before when discussing evolution, but this was another classic performance.
Yglesias: “For an example of what I’m talking about with regards to dumb-as-a-post Representative Mike Pence, watch his answer to the question of what kind of compromise he would propose for health reform:
“Well, look, you know, I was, uh, yeah, yeah, look, uh”
Pence then pivoted away from addressing the issue to a kind of stammering evocation of the idea that the health insurance industry should be completely deregulated under the guise of allowing you to buy insurance across state lines. This, of course, is just a longstanding conservative proposal and not an idea for a compromise….Unfortunately, Chris Matthews didn’t seem to have the policy chops to dig deeper with Pence on the insurance regulation issue.”

Last Ranger | Jan 30, 2010 1:53:14 PM: Every president, GOP or DEM, even with a majority in both houses, needs input from the opposition to craft bills that will appeal also to the voters that did not vote for their party, making those bills more “government” bills than DEM or GOP bills, not opening the flood gates from the opposition that they have been “shut out”. Or did I not hear that recently? But I digress. Obama doesn’t want the GOP to exercise restraint, he asked them to contribute to writing a bill in that sense. He will ultimately pass the Agenda he was elected upon, GOP help or not. Just did so with PAY-GO without 1 GOP vote. Before you DEMonize this, be informed that the first PAY-GO bill was passed by GOP Pres. GHWB in 1990, as a way to reign in expenses and eliminate deficits after HIS predecessor, – who was it… Ronald something…. oh yeah! REAGAN – had left the finances in shambles. Who then, will you ask, let such a fiscally responsible legislation as PAY-GO lapse? 5 seconds! 4… 3… 2… 1… 0. Time’s up! Answer: GOP Pres. GWB in 2002.

=== Who then, will you ask, let such a fiscally responsible legislation as PAY-GO lapse? 5 seconds! 4… 3… 2… 1… 0. Time’s up! Answer: GOP Pres. GWB in 2002. ===
I personally can’t think of a thing that would have caused GWB to do something so irresponsible. What on earth could have caused him to…oh wait, it’s coming to me…downtown Manhattan looked like a war zone, the Pentagon was damaged and there was a giant hole in a Pennsylvania farm field. How quickly you forget those days, months and years after 9/11 when our economy was in free fall, unemployment was rising, stocks were in the basement. How quickly you forget Bush held the country together and brought it back.

helloooo

Axey | Jan 30, 2010 2:28:41 PM: Wrong…Again… PAY-GO did not prevent military spending, security increase or any such measure. So, when your economy is in free fall you: Pass 2 unfunded tax cuts, pass a 686 billion $ entitlement profiting PhRma without any means to pay for it while it creates 0 new jobs? (This one, PAY-GO would have prevented) And let me guess: While the financial sector is about to collapse, and the economy is going down the tubes, Obama should not have spent money for a stimulus package… Right?

The grave situation our country is in can be fixed. As satisfying and true as pointing fingers may be, it does nothing to deal with the issues and get them fixed. Ever since the filibuster
bill was written and passed into law, like a car with a dead battery, it has become obvious that one dissenter has the power to tie up the entire Senate. Effectively stopping a good bill from passing because this minority Senator opposes the bill. Rendering the Senate majority useless and very ineffective. A lone Senator can quell the voices of the majority of Americans who sent their Senators to Washington to get something done. No longer does a clear majority allow our government to function responsibly and effectively for the people.
SECREG_666

Not accept ? Really ? Who does this guy think he is ?

===He basically reminded them that the party that has elected the president and a large majority in both houses had the moral and political authority and duty to advance the agenda on which they were elected. ===
So you are aware that the party in power, with large majorities, is Obama’s own party? I wasn’t sure since you are blaming Republicans for stopping Obama’s radical agendas, instead of his own party. It would seem to me that your beef is with the blue dogs that Rham and Schumer helped get elected. Not the minority party.

I read last week, the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, published an essay about the difference between true deficit hawks and showy “deficit peacocks.” The article said, You can identify deficit peacocks, by the way they pretend that our budget problems can be solved with gimmicks like a temporary freeze in non defense discretionary spending.
In Obama’s State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a temporary freeze in nondefense discretionary spending. Justifying the freeze, Mr. Obama used language that was almost identical to remarks made early last year by John Boehner. Boehner had said “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt.” Obama’s SOTUA said, “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”
I’m interested to know what’s going on inside obama’s head?
SECREG_666

Wait a minute Obama, you can’t have it both ways!! —- Either, 1)the GOP is the “party of NO” and they stopped you from a $1 Trillion healthcare expenditure (which makes them more fiscally responsible) — OR — 2) The GOP wants to be fiscally irresponsible and spend money, but then they wouldn’t be obstructing your spending plans, so then they can’t be the “party of NO”.

When Obama speaks of the trillion-dollar-plus defict that he “inherited,” he wants the listener to think that it was a George Bush budget. It wasn’t. It was a “contnuing resolution” passed by the Democratic congress. Senator Barack H. Obama voted for it, but he never mentions that.
This is not an honest man. The public now knows this, which is one reason he is below 50%.

The GOP Congress proved exactly what happens when you become indoctrinated by the “Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Republican Studies” (L.I.A.R.S). You don’t know how to function in a democratic debate that doesn’t rely strictly on talking points and misinformed soundbites. I would also note that Fox, seeing how badly the GOP was being wupped by Obama, shut the broadcast down 20 min before the end to switch to a panel of Obama bashers, then Glenn Beck. I guess the “We report, you decide” depends a lot on what they choose to report, and in what vein.

treblig56 it could be partially paid for by passing health care reform with a strong public option. According to CBO reports, a think tank both patry’s recognize as neutral. A strong public option would save the country 120 billion dollars.
SECREG_666

Angie- technically the recession is over. Google the definition of the word recession. With yestrday’s GDP report. America can not be considered in another recession for at least nine more months. And that the current recession is going to end in the next 90 days.
SECREG_666

Fascist Hyena | Jan 30, 2010 3:13:32 PM
Why would I respond to a hyena, especially fascist, I can’t explain. —-Continuing resolutions are routinely passed to maintain levels of financing of government operations, so that they do not cease if they overspend their initial budget, or if they did not exist at the start of the fiscal year. You will find such easily by googling “continuing resolution 2005″ or 2009, or 2006 or 2010 or any year for that matter. Here’s a list of what is allowed to continue under this CR: — Intelligence programs and counter-drug activities; Guantanamo Bay restrictions; Stop-loss payments to U.S. troops; Child nutrition programs;
Surface and aviation transportation programs; Housing programs, including the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, the Government National Mortgage Association, HOPE VI, and FHA Home Equity Conversion;
Mortgages at a slightly reduced formula;
Flood insurance and pre-disaster mitigation programs;
Religious worker, physician, and investor visa programs;
E-verify;
The Chemical Facility Security Program. I forgot: Postal service.—- Without a CR these programs would have to stop until the next appropriations period, in this case October 31. Although not in the GWB original budget, it has been inherited by the Obama administration, not CREATED by it. From what I gather, the sum-total of the 2010 CR is less than 25 Billion dollars, out of a 1,3 Trillion dollars defcit, or 1.9%. GWB, while inheriting a 200+ billion budget surplus, inherited a CR as well, as some operations needed more money that had been initially budgeted for them. This is why nobody from the GOP has raised CR as a problem. BECAUSE IT IS NOT ONE!

I know liberals believe most Americans, excepting themselves, are too dumb to govern or take care of themselves, but how can the King of Liberals stand up and lecture us about the dangers of deficit spending when his party passed the most pork filled, special interest pay back bill of all time, aka the stimulus bill just months ago. We aren’t that dumb, Mr. President. Your speechifying has reached an all new level of phoniness and you had already raised that ceiling to record heights.

OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS INVENTED DEFICIT SPENDING, THEY MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK LIKE SKINFLINTS. (D) = DEFICIT

Maybe having the guts to say no to 9,000 earmarks would help.
Another campaign promise broken.
But it sounded good when he was running for president.

Axey | Jan 30, 2010 3:06:15 PM: You’re making this difficult for me… Would you point in which post you addressed PAY-GO; saying 9/11 was a reason is false as I told you, so let’s have your opinion on this. Tax cuts I referred to were 2001-1,35 Trillion (passed in JUNE 2001; doesn’t JUNE come BEFORE SEPTEMBER?)and the 2003 -550 billion tax cuts while in deficit and the economy in trouble and both, especially the first, geared towards capital gain, estate tax, cutting the top 5% bracket rate from 39,5 to 35%, not so much middle-class, small-business. BTW, Unemployment was still higher throughout both GWB terms than it was when he took office. The Obama plan is for a 300-billion lower-middle income tax cuts and a direct small-business hiring incentive. — I appreciate your candor about the MEDICARE PART D fiasco!

No more date nights in NYC for Michelle on taxpayer’s dime.
No more $1M to fly pols and their families to Copenhagen for “climate change”.

Seagreg666- . What you just printed is a the most blantent pure lie on this board. To go there is just true lies. Every news station tells the news. All swing it in a direction for them, and some even choose not to air a story that is news worthy because it can hurt their side. To single out one news organization is just senseless. One of those liberal polls just came out this week with a poll about who they trust the most and believe it or not the consensus was FOX NEWS was the most reliable. WOW. I was shocked too. I mean they are the most watched news outlet of CNN, MSNBC. If you are going to say that about fox you have to also say CNN, MSNBC, ABC.

The stimulus that was passed had NO pork or special interest in it…again, I know Fox News Tuned you OUT yesterday from hearing the Truth, but that meeting between the President and the GOP will be rebroadcast over this weekend….Now you can TUNE in, IF you can think for yourself.
________________________________________
The President was so excellent in deflecting all the Republican nonsense yesterday, FOX news cut away from it! They couldn’t stand to see the President making mincemeat of the Republican attempts to embarrass him.
The President was clearly masterful in his defense of his policies and the Republicans were shown for the endlessly campaigning obstructionists they are.

Canada has a universal public healthcare system that costs HALF what the US spends per person.— and Canada
does not go all over the world and
spend large amounts of money on wars…

whatever | Jan 30, 2010 4:49:26 PM: 2 reasons for that: Like most of the world except the UK, Canada tends to trust UN inspectors when they say they found no WMDs in 2 years of inspections. BTW UK’s Prime Minister of the time is currently being grilled by a parliamentary commission trying to understand the REAL reasons the UK went to war. Canada also does not arm or finance dictators or dissidents that eventually turn on them. Saddam, Northern Alliance – aka Taliban – Iran Shah, Cuba’s Bautista, Manuel Noriega… It does not prevent Canada to go to war when there is a just cause, such as the 2 World Wars, Korea and recently Afghanistan where Canadians shed 139 lives fighting alongside the US. One major difference between the 2 countries is that canadians do not believe they can get everything and pay for nothing, nor that the welfare of each citizen is his own problem only. So Canadians are ready to pay more taxes to pay for the services they want, and are ready to pay a little more still to cover their compatriots’ arses should they fall on hard times… Works well for the most part. Current unemployment rate 8,4%, down from a Sept’09 peak of 8,7%.

He went to the Republican retreat for one reason. A Public Relations opportunity.
__________________________________
The President went the the Republican retreat because the Republicans invited him.
They asked him very tough very aggressive questions on his policy and approach, and he answered those questions forcefully and masterfully with great expertise, detail, warmth, humor and feistiness.
The Republicans set out to show him up with their accusations, and the President showed himself as a great president in the making. The Republicans really tended to make themselves look like obstructionist partisan campaigners with their preambles of accusations. The President stood in the fire and was excellent.

Obama: “if politicians just do what’s necessary to win the next election instead of what’s best for the next generation.”
He’s speaking from his experience.
Obama accuses for what he himself does.

Rasmussen has Obama at an overall 49% approval rate for the past few days. Let’s hear now from the Left about how Rasmussen’s polling can’t be believed. Come on. Let’s hear it.

hopesprings52 | Jan 30, 2010 6:13:37 PM: Right! Do you know the original bill for PAY AS YOU GO was passed by GOP Pres. GHWB in 1990, reconvened many times by Clinton but left to lapse by GWB in 2002? And this time around, since it’s proposed by a Democrat, the GOP voted 40/40 AGAINST it Thursday? And Obama is not bi-partisan?

The only reason we’re hearing this bipartisan talk from Obama now, after first snubbing the Republicans ever since his election, is because the American people are fed up with him and want the change we thought we were getting. Now, and only now, that Obama’s leadership and competence is in question and that his power just might trickle through his clenched political fists, does he now want to make nice with the Republicans.
He is telling them to stop the bipartisanship, but what he’s really doing is raising a white flag. Or in his case, a yellow flag because while he cries ‘uncle’ he’s simultaneously blaming the Republicans.
Obama’s reaction to the Scott Brown victory reveals more of his true colors. He is afraid of losing his monopoly on their control over the American people.
Obama is nothing more than a thinly disguised dictator.

I support Obama and I believe the polls.
Posted by: treblig56 | Jan 30, 2010 7:01:54 PM
Well I’m glad you believe the polls because Rasmussen was NOT believed when the approval rating was in the low 40′s. Scott was basically called a hack doing FoxNews’ bidding. I’m just saying I better not see an “progressives” commenting on his higher rating now.
re: GOP. I am disappointed in all politicians whose main goal is simply to get the power back. At this point, I think that’s what many are doing. However, I think there is plenty of blame to go around and for me it focuses on the word “politician” more than anything else. It reminds me of the incestuous environment in the Roman Empire.
The debt bothers me the most. And raising the debt ceiling to accommodate spending is very scary. Can we spend our way out of this? I don’t know but time will tell I guess.
I’m worried about the impact baby boomers will have on this (I am one). That’s where politicians really bug me. They should have been preparing – really preparing – for this 20 years ago. Just like health care, it was kicked down the road because they cannot see farther down the road than the current day, month or year.

“Or in his case, a yellow flag because while he cries ‘uncle’ he’s simultaneously blaming the Republicans”
The real uncle was FOX cutting coverage of the Republicans getting schooled.

Freezing spending is a good idea – If the freeze takes place at January 2008 levels.

The real uncle was FOX cutting coverage of the Republicans getting schooled.
Posted by: Skip | Jan 30, 2010 7:19:43 PM
Isn’t Ron Paul a Republican?
Was he there?
Did he get schooled?
Or can’t he be bothered.

Does anybody know many large employers self-insure for healthcare? They negociate fees with doctors and hospitals, pit drug manufacturers against each other when more than one makes a similar drug to get better prices, and pay care and a % of medication costs out of payroll deductions and a small corporate participation. Still, some say it can’t be done on a national level. Imagine the savings with a 307 million strong group negociating costs without anywhere else to turn for drug companies and medical outfits! That is what the “socialist” countries have understood long ago…

Skip | Jan 30, 2010 8:16:12 PM: Exactly! And that is why the public option has been GOP’s enemy #1 from the start of the healthcare debate…

Rasmussen has Obama at an overall 49% approval rate for the past few days. Let’s hear now from the Left about how Rasmussen’s polling can’t be believed. Come on. Let’s hear it. Posted by: For The Record | Jan 30, 2010 6:28:14 PM
*************
Gallup has him 47% approval rating. How long will it be before the WH attacks gallup AGAIN.

Freezing spending is just another way of saying I’ll keep on with deficit spending . . . just at a slightly less rate. Or that I am quitting smoking, I’ll just smoke two packs and 19 cigarettes per day instead of three packs!

Rasmussen has Obama at an overall 49% approval rate for the past few days.
_____________________________________
Relying on any one poll is a bit foolish
Posted by: tierra | Jan 31, 2010 12:54:48 AM
But you have no issues with Rasmussen right now, correct? If it was 42% or so, you would be screaming foul, correct?

Reagan hit 35% approval during his first term.
Posted by: tierra | Jan 31, 2010 12:54:48 AM
No really? I guess I missed it the first 8,000 times you posted it.
Posted by: For The Record | Jan 31, 2010 1:33:24 AM
____________________________________
The same people, make the same big deal over the President’s rating being around 50%.
These figures seem to be important to them – they post them over and over.
The 35% Reagan approval rating is just as important in establishing the relative value of those poll ratings.

Im a Democrat, but I don’t think that giving all that stimulus money out to the “red states” was a very smart thing to do. For one, they already get more government assistance than the blue states, and two, they aren’t where the money is needed the most.

“What I won’t accept is opposition for opposition’s sake.”
—
He won’t? Unless he plans to take them out behind the woodshed and beat the fire out of ‘em he’ll accept it. That opposition doesn’t work for Obama, they work for those who put them into office!