Obama is flunking economics

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111
This is what Paul Krugman said last time the US was in a recession:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02...gs-debt-and-taxes.html

The responsible thing, for both the couple and the federal government, is not to give up on planning for the future; it is to make alternative investments. And if this means that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds must buy stocks and bonds from the private sector, so be it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01...ion/the-quiet-man.html

Last month, for example, Karl Rove explained that the tax cut, although originally proposed amid an economic boom, was designed to cope with the current recession. ''All the signs were there in the second, if not the second, the third quarter of 2000,'' Mr. Rove said. When a questioner gently pointed out that Mr. Bush had laid out his tax plan way back in 1999, Mr. Rove brushed him aside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07...-banana-republics.html

The latest antics of the White House Office of Management and Budget have even the most hardened cynics shaking their heads. It's not just that projections for fiscal 2002 have gone from a $150 billion surplus to a $165 billion deficit in the space of a few months; it's not just that the O.M.B. projects a much smaller deficit next year, when everyone else -- including the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee -- says the deficit will increase. It's also the fact that O.M.B officials simply lie about what their own report says.


Oh, and this gem, about the deficit, in 2003:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01...ion/off-the-wagon.html

There's a reason Mr. Hubbard said what he did in his textbook. When the government sells bonds it competes with private borrowers. By the usual rules of economics, this competition should, other things equal, drive interest rates higher and investment lower.

It's O.K. to run a deficit during a recession, as long as the deficit is clearly temporary.

Correct

I guess he forgot his own advice.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111
This is what Paul Krugman said last time the US was in a recession:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02...gs-debt-and-taxes.html

The responsible thing, for both the couple and the federal government, is not to give up on planning for the future; it is to make alternative investments. And if this means that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds must buy stocks and bonds from the private sector, so be it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01...ion/the-quiet-man.html

Last month, for example, Karl Rove explained that the tax cut, although originally proposed amid an economic boom, was designed to cope with the current recession. ''All the signs were there in the second, if not the second, the third quarter of 2000,'' Mr. Rove said. When a questioner gently pointed out that Mr. Bush had laid out his tax plan way back in 1999, Mr. Rove brushed him aside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07...-banana-republics.html

The latest antics of the White House Office of Management and Budget have even the most hardened cynics shaking their heads. It's not just that projections for fiscal 2002 have gone from a $150 billion surplus to a $165 billion deficit in the space of a few months; it's not just that the O.M.B. projects a much smaller deficit next year, when everyone else -- including the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee -- says the deficit will increase. It's also the fact that O.M.B officials simply lie about what their own report says.


Oh, and this gem, about the deficit, in 2003:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01...ion/off-the-wagon.html

There's a reason Mr. Hubbard said what he did in his textbook. When the government sells bonds it competes with private borrowers. By the usual rules of economics, this competition should, other things equal, drive interest rates higher and investment lower.

It's O.K. to run a deficit during a recession, as long as the deficit is clearly temporary.

Correct

I guess he forgot his own advice.

He did?

 

[OCGuy]

Remember folks, no matter what Obama does to screw up this country, he gets a pass. Bu$h and his lying cabal of torturers and war profiteers and war criminals invaded Iraq, remember?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

He did?

2003
Trust me: we're going to miss Rubinomics. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

2006
One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics ? the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.

The answer, I believe, is no.

2008
Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn?t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn?t take effect until 2011.


I guess he meant 1-2 decades. $150 billion is a tragedy, and 10 times that for 2 years is a modest increase.

Shrug.

Edit: and this one is the best of all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07.../passing-it-along.html

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Medellon

Really? Tell me 5 things he has done that you are pleased with. Hell, tell me 3.[/quote]

Craig being the liberal that he is I can do that easily.

1. Lifted a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information.

2. Set a deadline for the closing of Guantanimo.

3. Lifted the ban on stem cell research.

[/quote]

1) We have enough problems at home that you are pleased to read that he paved the way to spend our money to pay for other countries having abortions? Awesome.

2) I thought he backtracked on this and it wasn't exactly what people wanted?

3) As far as I know 'stem cell research' was not fully banned.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

He did?

2003
Trust me: we're going to miss Rubinomics. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

2006
One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics ? the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.

The answer, I believe, is no.

2008
Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn?t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn?t take effect until 2011.


I guess he meant 1-2 decades. $150 billion is a tragedy, and 10 times that for 2 years is a modest increase.

Shrug.

Edit: and this one is the best of all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07.../passing-it-along.html

Uhh, no. Recessions benefit from Deficits, but when not in Recession Balance/Surplus must be achieved. The Bush Admin just maintianed Deficits through Recession or Growth with no concern about it.

The size of Deficits depend on the size of the Economic contraction. $150billion is no better/worse than $1trillion, if the depth of the Recession requires it.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

He did?

2003
Trust me: we're going to miss Rubinomics. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

2006
One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics ? the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.

The answer, I believe, is no.

2008
Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn?t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn?t take effect until 2011.


I guess he meant 1-2 decades. $150 billion is a tragedy, and 10 times that for 2 years is a modest increase.

Shrug.

Edit: and this one is the best of all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07.../passing-it-along.html

Uhh, no. Recessions benefit from Deficits, but when not in Recession Balance/Surplus must be achieved. The Bush Admin just maintianed Deficits through Recession or Growth with no concern about it.

The size of Deficits depend on the size of the Economic contraction. $150billion is no better/worse than $1trillion, if the depth of the Recession requires it.

:laugh:

I guess you lefties might want to look at the projected 2010-2019 deficit. He was crying about $300 billion earlier; I wonder what he has to say about $800 billion.

So if $150 billion was too large of a deficit in 2001-2002 during that recession, what was the appropriate value?


Let's rewrite this column a bit.

It has been obvious all along, if you were willing to see it, that the administration's claims to fiscal responsibility have rested on thoroughly cooked books. [...] There's no mystery about why the administration's budget projections have borne so little resemblance to reality: realistic budget numbers would have undermined the case for tax cuts [2009: spending increases & new programs]. So budget analysts were pressured to high-ball estimates of future revenues and low-ball estimates of future expenditures ...

Furthermore, this time huge deficits have emerged [2009: increased] just a few years before the baby boomers start retiring and placing huge demands on Social Security and Medicare. ...

But haven't administration officials said they'll cut the deficit in half by 2008 [2009: 2013]? Yeah, right. I could explain in detail why that claim is nonsense, but in any case, why bother with what these people say? ...

The last defense of the budget deficit is that it helps a depressed economy ? to which the answer is "yes, but." ... And yes, deficits are appropriate as a temporary measure when the economy is depressed ? but these deficits aren't temporary ...

Still, do deficits matter? Some economists worry, with good reason, about their long-run effect on economic growth. But I worry most about America's fiscal credibility.

You see, a government that has a reputation for sound finance and honest budgets can get away with running temporary deficits; if it lacks such a reputation, it can't. Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger [2009: much, much bigger], as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into crisis. The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order.

But Mr. Bush [2009: Mr. Obama] shows no inclination to deal with the budget deficit. On the contrary, his administration continues to fudge the numbers and push for ever more tax cuts [2009: spending increases & new programs]. Eventually, markets will notice. And tarnished credibility, along with a much-increased debt, is a problem that Mr. Bush [2009: Mr. Obama] will pass along to other Congresses, other presidents and other generations.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

He did?

2003
Trust me: we're going to miss Rubinomics. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

2006
One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics ? the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.

The answer, I believe, is no.

2008
Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn?t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn?t take effect until 2011.


I guess he meant 1-2 decades. $150 billion is a tragedy, and 10 times that for 2 years is a modest increase.

Shrug.

Edit: and this one is the best of all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07.../passing-it-along.html

Uhh, no. Recessions benefit from Deficits, but when not in Recession Balance/Surplus must be achieved. The Bush Admin just maintianed Deficits through Recession or Growth with no concern about it.

The size of Deficits depend on the size of the Economic contraction. $150billion is no better/worse than $1trillion, if the depth of the Recession requires it.

:laugh:

I guess you lefties might want to look at the projected 2010-2019 deficit. He was crying about $300 billion earlier; I wonder what he has to say about $800 billion.

So if $150 billion was too large of a deficit in 2001-2002 during that recession, what was the appropriate value?


Let's rewrite this column a bit.

It has been obvious all along, if you were willing to see it, that the administration's claims to fiscal responsibility have rested on thoroughly cooked books. [...] There's no mystery about why the administration's budget projections have borne so little resemblance to reality: realistic budget numbers would have undermined the case for tax cuts [2009: spending increases & new programs]. So budget analysts were pressured to high-ball estimates of future revenues and low-ball estimates of future expenditures ...

Furthermore, this time huge deficits have emerged [2009: increased] just a few years before the baby boomers start retiring and placing huge demands on Social Security and Medicare. ...

But haven't administration officials said they'll cut the deficit in half by 2008 [2009: 2013]? Yeah, right. I could explain in detail why that claim is nonsense, but in any case, why bother with what these people say? ...

The last defense of the budget deficit is that it helps a depressed economy ? to which the answer is "yes, but." ... And yes, deficits are appropriate as a temporary measure when the economy is depressed ? but these deficits aren't temporary ...

Still, do deficits matter? Some economists worry, with good reason, about their long-run effect on economic growth. But I worry most about America's fiscal credibility.

You see, a government that has a reputation for sound finance and honest budgets can get away with running temporary deficits; if it lacks such a reputation, it can't. Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger [2009: much, much bigger], as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into crisis. The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order.

But Mr. Bush [2009: Mr. Obama] shows no inclination to deal with the budget deficit. On the contrary, his administration continues to fudge the numbers and push for ever more tax cuts [2009: spending increases & new programs]. Eventually, markets will notice. And tarnished credibility, along with a much-increased debt, is a problem that Mr. Bush [2009: Mr. Obama] will pass along to other Congresses, other presidents and other generations.

Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

 

[sciwizam]

Text

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

Nah, it's what happens when you use your Brain. The Projections merely show that the Status Quo can not be maintained, they do not indicate what changes to the Fiscal situation will be made in the Future. As others have pointed out in other Threads, if Projections were an indication of the Future as you are using them, the US would have a huge Surplus right now. What changed the outcome was Bush's change from the Status Quo setup under Clinton.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Text

:laugh:, sums it up.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

Nah, it's what happens when you use your Brain. The Projections merely show that the Status Quo can not be maintained, they do not indicate what changes to the Fiscal situation will be made in the Future. As others have pointed out in other Threads, if Projections were an indication of the Future as you are using them, the US would have a huge Surplus right now. What changed the outcome was Bush's change from the Status Quo setup under Clinton.

Then why was Paul Kruman whining about projections in 2002? Oh, and that 1.3 trillion deficit for 2010 that's being built right now, when Obama claims that we will be out of the recession and maintaining massive growth, is that accurate?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

Nah, it's what happens when you use your Brain. The Projections merely show that the Status Quo can not be maintained, they do not indicate what changes to the Fiscal situation will be made in the Future. As others have pointed out in other Threads, if Projections were an indication of the Future as you are using them, the US would have a huge Surplus right now. What changed the outcome was Bush's change from the Status Quo setup under Clinton.

Then why was Paul Kruman whining about projections in 2002?

You use Projections to see where things are going from the current point. You need to change Policy/Direction to avoid the Projections from occuring.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

Nah, it's what happens when you use your Brain. The Projections merely show that the Status Quo can not be maintained, they do not indicate what changes to the Fiscal situation will be made in the Future. As others have pointed out in other Threads, if Projections were an indication of the Future as you are using them, the US would have a huge Surplus right now. What changed the outcome was Bush's change from the Status Quo setup under Clinton.

Then why was Paul Kruman whining about projections in 2002?

You use Projections to see where things are going from the current point. You need to change Policy/Direction to avoid the Projections from occuring.

So what are these policy changes that will get us a surplus in 2011?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, see, you = Fail as always. Budgets go out 1-2 years, Projections are Based on Status Quo going out many years. Next Year those Projections could be very different, 2 years from now they could be showing Surplusses.

This is what happens when you do drugs.

Nah, it's what happens when you use your Brain. The Projections merely show that the Status Quo can not be maintained, they do not indicate what changes to the Fiscal situation will be made in the Future. As others have pointed out in other Threads, if Projections were an indication of the Future as you are using them, the US would have a huge Surplus right now. What changed the outcome was Bush's change from the Status Quo setup under Clinton.

Then why was Paul Kruman whining about projections in 2002?

You use Projections to see where things are going from the current point. You need to change Policy/Direction to avoid the Projections from occuring.

So what are these policy changes that will get us a surplus in 2011?

We'll have to wait and see.

If I were doing it, Tax Increases, Spending Cuts, and Spending Freezes would all be part of it.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
WTF? CNN allowing thoughtful commentaries that make sense??? I don't really know who Navarrette is, but I'm liking him!

He's a right-wing commentator at a city newspaper, and his article made little sense. CNN runs plewty of right-wing junk, despite your surprise.

Soon, America will realize it only elected a junior senator with no real executive experience.

More of this crap from you? Give it a rest. I's diet popcorn, if not the hot air that popped it.

Obama's rubber boat is getting holes poked in it by the day. And I hope the media is realizing more and more that elevating an idiot to the level of Messiah simply because of the color of his skin is no way to create a President.

But it does explain why the media 'elevated' Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the same way, as you play the race card in one of the most asinine and clumsy ways I've seen in years.

Obama's an idiot? You and the four other people who think that must get lonely.

Perhaps during good times. But give us another 4-8 years with an idiot in times like these, bye bye USA.

Not a bad comment - for 2001.

We are already bankrupt. This nation is living on borrowed time. Pay off the federal debt...or else.

Uh, ya, the debt your boys made - and first we generate the wealth with which to do it.

Why don't you just go watch sports or something and leave the economy to the non-idiots.

You and your guys had your shot, and you blew it again and again.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

thanks for proving the commentator correct.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Medellon


Really? Tell me 5 things he has done that you are pleased with. Hell, tell me 3.

Craig being the liberal that he is I can do that easily.

1. Lifted a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information.

2. Set a deadline for the closing of Guantanimo.

3. Lifted the ban on stem cell research.

1) We have enough problems at home that you are pleased to read that he paved the way to spend our money to pay for other countries having abortions? Awesome.

2) I thought he backtracked on this and it wasn't exactly what people wanted?

3) As far as I know 'stem cell research' was not fully banned.

I don't believe stem cell research was banned.

For only one type of stem sell research, namely embyionic, government funding was banned (but not the research itself).

I.e., Obama just opened up the federal purse strings for this.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
WTF? CNN allowing thoughtful commentaries that make sense??? I don't really know who Navarrette is, but I'm liking him!

He's a right-wing commentator at a city newspaper, and his article made little sense. CNN runs plewty of right-wing junk, despite your surprise.

Soon, America will realize it only elected a junior senator with no real executive experience.

More of this crap from you? Give it a rest. I's diet popcorn, if not the hot air that popped it.

Obama's rubber boat is getting holes poked in it by the day. And I hope the media is realizing more and more that elevating an idiot to the level of Messiah simply because of the color of his skin is no way to create a President.

But it does explain why the media 'elevated' Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the same way, as you play the race card in one of the most asinine and clumsy ways I've seen in years.

Obama's an idiot? You and the four other people who think that must get lonely.

Perhaps during good times. But give us another 4-8 years with an idiot in times like these, bye bye USA.

Not a bad comment - for 2001.

We are already bankrupt. This nation is living on borrowed time. Pay off the federal debt...or else.

Uh, ya, the debt your boys made - and first we generate the wealth with which to do it.

Why don't you just go watch sports or something and leave the economy to the non-idiots.

You and your guys had your shot, and you blew it again and again.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

thanks for proving the commentator correct.

Please point out one salient criticism in GTaudio's post that isn't overblown hyperbole worthy of a reasoned response. When someone calls Obama an "idiot" they've pretty much forfeited any right to a reasonable response because like him or hate him, agree with him or disagree with him, only a hack could call that man dumb.

 

[Fern]

Obama is flunking economics

He's just taking the exam now.

The grades will be posted later.

(I'd him less responsible if he, and those in his admin, had drafted the stim bill. But he willingly and completely handed that over to Pelosi.

If Geithner screws up, it's on Obama because he chose him.)

Fern

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Obama is flunking economics

He's just taking the exam now.

The grades will be posted later.

(I'd him less responsible if he, and those in his admin, had drafted the stim bill. But he willingly and completely handed that over to Pelosi.

If Geithner screws up, it's on Obama because he chose him.)

Fern

yup

 

[First]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


WTF? CNN allowing thoughtful commentaries that make sense??? I don't really know who Navarrette is, but I'm liking him!

If you honestly thought that was thoughtful or insightful, I'm afraid to tell you that you're just not that intelligent.

 

[Medellon]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
WTF? CNN allowing thoughtful commentaries that make sense??? I don't really know who Navarrette is, but I'm liking him!

Gotcha, op-ed pieces you agree with are 'thoughtful commentaries' and op-eds you disagree with make no sense. You then go on to call one of the brightest, most intellectual presidents we've had an "idiot." Well done.

Originally posted by: Medellon
Obama a brillant man? If I have heard that once I've heard it a thousand times. What makes him brilliant, the fact that he can read and present a prepared speech well? Honestly I just don't see his brilliance.

If Einstein tried to explain relativity to you you'd probably walk away muttering that he was some crazy dude with out of control hair. You can't see that Obama's exceptionally bright? Go read his books, or skim them even. The reason you keep hearing how bright he is is because people who know (love him or hate him) him cite that as a defining characteristic. Only a partisan could attack Obama on his intellectual credentials with a straight face.

That still proves nothing. Go read his books, what does that prove? Only that he had good editors probably. I have said he is a good presenter of material prepared for him. What the hell has he done? What fresh ideas has he originated? What original thought and theory has he presented?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Medellon

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
WTF? CNN allowing thoughtful commentaries that make sense??? I don't really know who Navarrette is, but I'm liking him!

Gotcha, op-ed pieces you agree with are 'thoughtful commentaries' and op-eds you disagree with make no sense. You then go on to call one of the brightest, most intellectual presidents we've had an "idiot." Well done.

Originally posted by: Medellon
Obama a brillant man? If I have heard that once I've heard it a thousand times. What makes him brilliant, the fact that he can read and present a prepared speech well? Honestly I just don't see his brilliance.

If Einstein tried to explain relativity to you you'd probably walk away muttering that he was some crazy dude with out of control hair. You can't see that Obama's exceptionally bright? Go read his books, or skim them even. The reason you keep hearing how bright he is is because people who know (love him or hate him) him cite that as a defining characteristic. Only a partisan could attack Obama on his intellectual credentials with a straight face.

That still proves nothing. Go read his books, what does that prove? Only that he had good editors probably. I have said he is a good presenter of material prepared for him. What the hell has he done? What fresh ideas has he originated? What original thought and theory has he presented?

No one can meet your criteria.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Medellon


Really? Tell me 5 things he has done that you are pleased with. Hell, tell me 3.

Craig being the liberal that he is I can do that easily.

1. Lifted a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information.

2. Set a deadline for the closing of Guantanimo.

3. Lifted the ban on stem cell research.

1) We have enough problems at home that you are pleased to read that he paved the way to spend our money to pay for other countries having abortions? Awesome.

2) I thought he backtracked on this and it wasn't exactly what people wanted?

3) As far as I know 'stem cell research' was not fully banned.

I don't believe stem cell research was banned.

For only one type of stem sell research, namely embyionic, government funding was banned (but not the research itself).

I.e., Obama just opened up the federal purse strings for this.

Fern

Literally correct, but you say that as if federal funnding is just one small part of funding.