Wrong. It lists people who used to work for lobbyists. They aren't doing so now. There is also zero evidence other than the fact that at one time they worked for bundlers to indicate they are doing the same thing now. You have purely circumstantial evidence and flimsy circumstantial evidence at that. He doesn't have lobbyist bundlers working for him lobbying. It isn't at all odd that people who know the business would be working for Obama IT seems smart a candidate would hire that even if they weren't related to a lobbying firm. It also doesn't mean they are doing the same thing lobbyists do. The odd thing is that it doesn't really make any sense to argue about people who used to work for lobbyists. Lobbyists are dangerous because they offer to raise money for candidates who may pledge to make decisions favorable to the lobbyists interests. It compromises their impartiality and judgement. The fact that people used to work for a lobbying firm and are still dangerous doesn't make too much sense unless it is shown that they are still trying to influence policy with their financial influence. That hasn't been shown at all.
If you don't think lobbyists are working for Obama right now, then you are hopelessly naive. Sorry, but this is modern day politics.
There is a huge difference between a balanced budget and debt. The budget is a projection of spending. Fed Debt is borrowing money. When the budget is balanced it only means they spent what they budgeted. Clinton borrowed money every year he was in office, increasing the debt. I will give him credit for doing it at far smaller levels that the gouging that Bush borrowed. So many people are confused about this. A balanced budget means nothing. Absolutely nothing. What does it matter if we spend 100 billion more than the budget or 100 billion less than the budget is we still borrow more money either way? The only thing that matters at this point is our debt load. We are over about ??? trillion and climbing; That is personal and federal debt. (EDIT- I need to check that later- I think it might be 9.25 trillion or that is only Fed debt- anyways the debt is way out of control) and the estimates of real debt are over Edit - not sure of this number, going off of my bad memory-- (but it is a bad number for certain) 50 trillion. (reading about the complexities of derivitive exposures etc) Our economy is at high risk and our standard of living at risk, because of the force of debt against money supply and liquidity and savings.
that's a ridiculous statement, the budget surplus that could be use for oh I don't know, paying off debt.
What happened to that same Republican congress when they got a Republican president? Somehow they decided to stop balancing it?
yes, it was the republican congress, the same under the republican president who immediately decided that wasn't important, a decision I'm sure you supported. edit dammit blade that was too easy
Exogenous shocks to the system render your comparison invalid. Sorry. 9-11 (planning occurred on Clinton's watch), corporate scandals (offenses occurred on Clinton's watch), War on Terror, and the credit crisis of 2007 all happened. There is no denying their tremendous impact on our nation's economy. It's amazing that our economy has held up as well as it has over the last 7 years, to be honest.
Wrong, let me explain once more. Congress has 3 trillion budgeted of which they will borrow 2.5 trillion. They borrow the 2.5 trillion and then spend only 2.2 trillion. They came in 0.8 trillion under the budget, giving an allusion to a surplus, when in fact they borrowed 2.5 trillion and the real surplus was the 0.3 trillion they borrowed that they didn't spend. Govt. revenues currently are really close to the interest on the debt. One of the ways they get around panic mode is by using bookeeping manuvers on the social security trust funds. These funds have surpluses which are used to right off some of the budget. By using bookeeping they are able to borrow from the trust funds. Is there really any money in the social security trust funds? I guess if it can be put there (by debt) there is. At least I am sure they account for it somehow. There are plenty of websites that confirm that Clinton increased the fed. debt. Please check it out.
No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, reduced scrutiny on Federal contracts, increased earmarks, handouts for "economic stimulus". What do any of thes have to do with 9/11, corporate scandals, the War on Terror, or the Credit Crisis?
pgabs, you do your reputation a disservice each and every time you press the 'submit reply' button. You simply are not qualified to discuss 90% of these topics with our somewhat educated group here. Please step aside for the good of the discussion.
did bush not propose eating into budget surplus in his first budget proposal. Secondly,if you were paying attention, last week bush proposed the largest budget deficit in history with his last budget, only to break the record he set in 2004. 9-11 changed everything.
It's not an overall surplus because the debt is so huge, but it is a surplus which can be used to reduce the interest and overall debt eventually. Repeated surpluses are the best way to eventually lower the debt and get rid of the awful interest.
A perfect example of using the platitudes that you criticize Obama for. "experience" is just as much nonsense as "hope" unless you can give useful specifics. It's telling that after 3 pages, no one has posted a substantive reason that Hillary is more experienced and a better manager than Obama, despite those being the two platitudes constantly used to describe her.
For what it's worth, I think the strongest argument for Hillary (and one that neither she nor anyone except for John Edwards really makes) is if you believe Obama's "style" is actually the wrong style. That partisanship is a better strategy and more likely to get your priorities accomplished. If you believe that, then Hillary is the better choice. That's the John Edwards style as well - being the "fighter". I would disagree, but it's certainly a legitimate and defensible position. Far more so than "she's ready on day one", whatever that means.
this web site is from the government, look at clinton's last few years, total deficit goes down http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml this factcheck.org's take on the subject http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
A true surplus would occur if the govt. spent less than they took in as actual revenues. That has not happened in the last 30 yrs. The budget surplus only means that they spent less than they budgeted. It is a completely separate issue from how much they borrowed. If you set for yourself a personal budget of spending only 12 million dollars in 2008 and you had to borrow 11.8 million to spend that much, and if you only actually spent 10.5 million- I would think your 'surplus' really only equates to the fact you didn't really need to borrow as much as you thought. It does not mean you didn't have a big debt problem. Do this kind of spending and borrowing year after year and you can begin to see the problem we will eventually have to face in our standard of living.
