Obama Will Focus On Deficit
by Big Dog on Oct 24, 2010 at 22:09 Political
Barack Obama said that he will spend the next two years focusing on the deficit. This is the same Barack Obama who has run the deficit sky high during his first two years. It also happens to be the same guy who said he would halve the deficit by the end of his first term. That simply will not happen. The deficit is simply too high and it will be impossible, barring manipulating the CBO with numbers, to halve it.
If Obama plans to focus on the deficit like he did jobs (he was going to focus like a laser beam) then we are even more screwed. The article discussing Obama’s plans lays out what he intends to do in his second term as he faces the reality of not having a majority in the House:
Obama will try to make gains on deficit reduction, education and energy. He will enforce his health care and financial overhauls and try to protect them from repeal should Republicans win control of Capitol Hill. He will use executive authority when blocked by Congress, and steel for scrutiny and investigations if the GOP is in charge. Yahoo News [emphasis mine]
Basically, Obama plans to do what he wants and if Congress does not give him his way then he will use executive orders to get what he wants. Fat chance this will work for long because Obama does not have the authority to appropriate money via executive or any other authority. Congress has sole responsibility for appropriating money and I have a feeling that Republicans will stop appropriating money for those things that Obama demands or tries to get using executive authority.
Congress has the power of the purse and though a Republican led Congress might not have enough votes to override an Obama veto, it will certainly have the power to withhold money.
Isn’t it funny how Barry Obama, the man-child, was so against the “abuse” of executive power by George Bush but will abuse it himself to get what he wants.
I predict Republicans will pick up more than 55 seats in the House and will have a large enough majority to prevent Obama from doing any more damage to this country.
The only unanswered question is; will they have the testicular fortitude to actually do so.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: deficit, executive authority, majority, Obama
You hit on the biggest question, will the Republicans do what they were sent to Washington to do or will they cave in to Barack Obama and the Democrats? We are watching and we expect results or we will vote them out also!
55 is a start, Big Dog. I predict a 100-SEAT LOSS by the Demo☭rats!
“Basically, Obama plans to do what he wants and if Congress does not give him his way then he will use executive orders to get what he wants.”
I wonder what “clues” the author is going by to suggest that is Obama’s plans considering a few lines down it says:
You write your whole post as if you’re quoting Obama. I wish the article would have gone further to actually quote him so we’d get a better sense.
“I predict Republicans will pick up more than 55…”
Maybe 75. Not 100 as Macker wants but but 55 is probably about the average. Democrats could hold back the tide a little but I still doubt they can save the majority there either way. They will most likely maintain control of the Senate but just barely.
We have already seen Obama use EOs to legislate what he can’t get from Congress. He also used one to scam people into signing up for Obamacare.
Even a 50-50 split would give Dems a lead in the Senate because Biden would cast the tiebreaker and he will always go left. So you have a 51-50 advantage.
No worry if the Senate is in control of Dems. Without anything close to 60 votes they CANNOT bring items to cloture. A lot will die because of that (and for both sides). It will be a stalemate.
The House is where all appropriations must start. They might have a hard time getting money. But maybe not.
“He also used one to scam people into signing up for Obamacare.”
Remind me how it was a scam.
The no federal funds for abortion fooled the Stupak group to sign on when the legal experts said it would carry no weight and we are seeing federal dollars pay for abortion.
That EO secured the votes and it was worthless.
Federal funds? I’d like to see your source for that.
We The People, and our representatives were not allowed the time to read it- that is a scam- would you sign a contract without reading it? If you would, you are either a raging liberal, or a total fool.
Maybe not 100 but the fact that 100 are in play is significant…
I don’t really believe 100 are in play. More like 75.
Will the Republicans do any different? Sadly, it’s not likely. They might, but they won’t be able to overcome vetoes or the Senate.
For the Republicans to get a majority in the Senate, they need about 55 seats. You have to remember there are solid Democrat votes in a number of Senators with an “R” after their name.
And it is odd that Obama will need EOs. After all, for the past 2 years, he has literally had an unstoppable super-majority. Democrats could literally do anything they wanted because it was completely impossible for Republicans to stop anything Democrats wanted — yet still they flounder.
It’s not that odd if you understand the structure of the Democratic Party better. There is simply far more diversity of race, religion, gender and ideology in the party than Republicans have. Even with a large majority the Democrats could not always do whatever it is they wanted because they don’t all vote in lockstep every time.
From an ideological standpoint alone the Democratic Party is made up of not only moderates, liberals and all in between, but also conservative Democrats. Such a thing doesn’t exist in the modern Republican Party.
So a party with Snow, Colling, McCain and Graham does not have liberals and moderates? Interesting how you see it that way considering that these folks often vote with the Democrats.
The folks to whom you refer on the left vote based on getting reelected. their opposition is based on how it will play back home. This is why Pelosi allows some of them to vote against something so long as she has enough votes for it to pass.
I didn’t say the GOP was without moderates and for the record the GOP does have some diversity. Yet, I doubt highly you can consider any of those you list as “liberals” except in the sense that your side calls people “liberal” as a smear and not because a person is truly a liberal.
This is not to say GOP remembers are all without support for certain liberal policies. But I support several typically conservative policies that I can think of off the top of my head but I would not consider myself conservative.
My point is simply that the level of diversity in the Democratic Party is not seen in the Republican Party. Because of this fact the Democrats are far less likely to vote in lock-step than the GOP seems to want to pretend.
Delusion and denial are powerful things.
Well Adam, the Re4publican party is diverse but there is a problem getting some of the diverse candidates to office. When a black or a woman runs as a Republicans the blacks and the women come out in force to smear that person. You know, Uncle Tom and all that.
Now saying the woman is not a feminist and does not represent woemn blah blah.
We have plenty of diversity but it does not equate to elected office because of the bigotry of the voting public and the minority population worried someone will lower their dependence on government.
You know, Democrats are always giving stuff away to the peeps.
They just give stuff away that does not belong to them.
And yes, there are liberals in the Republican party.
Or let me put it this way. We have liberals like you have conservatives. You don’t view them as liberal just like I do not view yours as conservative.
Or to use your words, you guys do not have conservatives except in the sense that your side calls them conservative in order to fool voters in red states and not because they are truly a conservative person.
“When a black or a woman runs as a Republicans the blacks and the women come out in force to smear that person. You know, Uncle Tom and all that.”
Funny how all the talk of Uncle Tom’s and Oreo cookies typically turn out to be overblown. Your party core and base is the white christian male voter. You cannot run from this fact.
“…the minority population worried someone will lower their dependence on government.”
Careful there. You might want to check yourself before you say something ignorant or bigoted.
“We have liberals like you have conservatives. You don’t view them as liberal just like I do not view yours as conservative.”
I don’t claim the Democrats have full blown conservatives but for instance this list of American Conservative Union ratings shows several Democrats in the 40% range. Can you point to similar ratings of Republicans for their liberalism?
Ignorant or bigoted? A larger percentage of minorities depend on government. You need to use the percentage since non minorities are a small number in the population. It is like crime stats, larger percenatges of blacks commit crimes than whites even though more whites might commit crime. It is simple math and I am sure you can figure it out.
It is not bigoted or ignorant to say dependence on government. It is true. Democrats devised programs to enslave minorities and keep them voting Democrats many decades ago.
It worked.
The list shows mostly LOW ratings and only one person above 50% which makes him moderate, as I stated. They are not conservative, just conservative when compared to the left wing Socialists.
This site lists Senators and 3 Republicans are in the middle where your two moderates were located (the low numbers in yours meant they were liberal).
And this (from 2007) shows some Republicans right in the middle, just like your guys. High number progressive low number conservative.
Some of them are no longer in Congress but some are and this lists is about the same as yours.
And my two are how LIBERAL interest groups rate them…
Big Dog said, “It is simple math and I am sure you can figure it out.”
My response: Not too likely. Facts cannot compete with emotions in the liberal world. Reality is second to feelings there.
What percentage of minorities depend on government and how do you define what dependent means?
Maybe Ogre can provide us with this “simple math” since he’s weighing in as well.