Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: obama and congress think you are idiots

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 23, 2012, 4:47 p.m. EST by FreeDiscussion1 (109)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The White House told Congress on Monday that its budget will be late this year, meaning President Obama once again will miss the deadline set in law.

Congressional officials said the president now will send up his budget on Feb. 13, which is a week later than the usual date. The law requires the budget be sent by the first Monday in February.

Late budgets are common in the first year of a presidency, but this move, in Mr. Obama's fourth year, drew fire from Congress. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it an "abdication of leadership." Mr. Obama missed the mark in 2009 and 2011, though he was on time with his 2010 budget.

"This will mark the third time in four years the president has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time, while trillion-dollar budget deficits continue to mount," Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said.

Tuesday, when Mr. Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress, also marks the 1,000th day since Congress passed a budget.

House Republicans last year powered a budget through their chamber, but Senate Democrats never put one on their chamber's floor. The last budget that passed was in 2009, which set the stage for the health care bill's passage in early 2010.

And a budget may not pass this year either. Overall spending levels for 2011 and 2012 already were set in the debt deal Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, agreed to last summer, meaning the toughest job of setting an overall discretionary spending ceiling already has been done.

The budget is the blueprint that governs the dozen annual spending bills Congress is supposed to pass to fund the basic operations of government.

"In this, the final year of his term, one would think he would be ready and eager to lay out his detailed plan for our nation's financial future," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

122 Comments

122 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

As part of the "War Supplement Bill for FY2011", The House of Representatives "deemed" the 2011 Budget, and the Senate completely discarded the Presidential Budget Proposal. So there was not Federal Budget for FY2011. Similarly, the President submitted a budget for FY2012, but Senator Reid tossed it, and would not let Congress vote on it. The House of Representatives also sent a 2012 budget proposal to the Senate. Same result. There is no U.S. Federal Budget for FY2012. Instead, we have a series of "continuing resolutions", allowing Congress to continue spending without the guidelines of a budget. But the Treasury Department has to borrow money to pay for that spending. It adds to the National Debt. The fault lies on the shoulders of legistlature and executive ... to lay it all on Obama is not fair or accurate.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

What are doing man. You can't provide these idiots with facts. Their head will explode. Don't you see that you are killing them?

[-] 2 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

I am not a obama hater. I do not think it is obamas fault. He probably will be re elected. I of course do not want rommney to be president.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Facts are what they are. Most people I read have no knowledge of facts and/or history and simply run off at the mouth. When you present these people with facts you can physically injure them. I mean their head explodes, their veins pop out and you actually can cause them great harm.

The facts are Bush#2 took unemployment from 3.8% to 7.2% and steadily increasing and took the deficit from 5.5Trillion to 9.5Trillion and steadily increasing because the National Budget went the same route with two wars over in the Middle East with the US committed for x years until we could untangle ourselves from the mess.

If you walk into that as president mess it will take years to get out of it. How do you explain cause and effect to idiots that are so stupid they voted for Bush after he lied to the American people?

As LBJ said, these people "can't walk and fart at the same time". For those that voted for Bush, look up the quote.

[-] -2 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

At this point anyone but Obummer, worst POS in history

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Well, it is a good thing that I was obliged to look up the facts. It is easy to have discussions with people I agree with; it is more of a challenge to answer the apparent actual beliefs of others, if only for my own awareness.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, i seem to see a lot of people with opinions and/or beliefs founded in misinformation. This is usually because they are to lazy to go loo up the information. These idiots cling to their ignorance like some sort of security blanket.

I am happy to see facts posted whether they support or don't support my position/opinion. I tracked the data I have on the federal government sites. It was 4.9Trillion but I would have to look again to see where the national debt started and ended.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

We all have grown up in a world that taught us what to think, what to believe. Too often, we do not question any of those beliefs, but find the niche into which we fit, and get stuck there. For example, some things it appears our society believes with which I disagree are: a college degree makes one a better person; lots of stuff, ditto. Christianity is the "correct" religion; white people are naturally superior to everyone else. I'm sure you can think of some, too. This forum shows me the world from a lot of different perspectives, which I otherwise would not be exposed to. It also demonstrates the inherent difficulty in governing such a diverse culture.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Yep. The world is diverse and at times people are stupid and injure others. It doesn't have to be that way. Knowledge is power to change yourself and change the world. Some just do not have the drive to learn or are simply afraid they will be wrong.

I have given a lot of thought about slavery and why people looked so down on blacks, asians and other non-whites. I come to the conclusion that these racist believe these folks are inferior because no matter how screwed up they and their lives are they will always be able to say they are better then these other people.

Some people need that security blanket.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

One of the biggest discoveries I have made is realizing that bigots actually believe what they say is fact, so they do not consider themselves bigots. My mother was a bigot, but I didn't see her as such until I realized that what she believed about black people simply was not true. Education is vital, but not teaching erroneous histories. We need to teach people to think and communicate, to solve problems. www.ted.com is a site that has a lot of different ideas.
I call the system you refer to as the "seesaw school of self esteem" -- in order for me to rise, I must put you down.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Yep, building your self worth by putting another down.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There was a tornado in Alabama. Unusual for this time of year. How did Bush's off budget spending on the wars sit with you? You seem to be a detail person.

[-] 1 points by Lardhead2 (67) 2 years ago

What does that idiot Bush have to do with this?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I thought he set the new standard for creative accounting. That is why we didn't have to pay for the two wars and Medicare Part D. If we could get the definitive ruling on that idea (off budget accounting) then a balanced budget could be easily prepared. But if you have to put everything in it, as Bush said, "that's hard work."

If you are new to this, here is how this works. Regardless what is in the budget from the President, the House Leader, Immediately or sometimes even before he gets it, says, " this is dead on arrival" and since only the house can originate spending bills they produce on that is a cosmetic wish list, which is a political document that they can point to in the next campaign, but never expected to pass into law, and start working on a compromise continuing resolution.

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 2 years ago

The president will be looking for another 1.3 trillion soon No more spending...will it ever stop? Why can't we face that. We are not doing so well financially in this country?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

"Now, we go to the White House for this presidential announcement." "Good evening. Tonight, I have directed every federal agency to present to ME, the location of fraud, the amount of fraud, and the plan to get rid of it. Each agency already knows where the fraud is, so that should be easy. I will give them 30 days to get their teams together. I expect a report in 60 days. If they can not come up with a way to rid the fraud I will get rid of them and get someone in that can. 60 days, the clock starts NOW. Good night and God Bless America."

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

How often have we heard the promises of nominees for the presidency and the congress that haven't come to pass? Obama stating "we need to change the way Washington works" or something similar and those running for the congress doing the same. 'Vote for change.' Pathetic.

These folks get elected and some may actually intend to try to change the 'inside the beltway' culture of what gets done and how it gets done. Then they get to Washington and soon learn the reality of the situation: people don't change Washington, Washington changes people. If they don't conform, they go home - either because they are voted out for having failed to live up to their promise to their constituency or because they resign in frustration.

Next up: Politics as theater and The 24 Hour News Cycle

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

OWS = Useful Idiots

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

This is really interesting and provocative.

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (17974) 2 years ago

"Gormen--Aghast" !!! You sound 'Morethyn Peaked' !! lol ! ;-)

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Yes, it almost makes Titus Groan

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (17974) 2 years ago

LOL !!! ;-)

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

The only thing obama and his cohorts are eager to do is totally destroy the USA as it ws founded.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I hope so. Finally an end to slavery, the wealthy having all the power. Oh, you are serious and don't know your history. My bad.

Crack open a history book, not your fourth grade kids book, a real historical non-fictional account of the US history and get back to me you can have an informed discussion with me.... I'll wait.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you have NO idea what you're talking about.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Read a book and get back to me.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

I have read the Constitution,........something obama takes great pleasure in trashing.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights are documents. I said read a book. A book has more information in it and is not just a document. You do know that you look really ignorant when you refuse to accept the facts, in fact I usually refer to folks that are intentionally ignorant or self-impose ignorance on themselves as stupid.

BTW you never bother to say what I was wrong about which left the door swinging wide open for my comments about your "intelligence".

Care to try again?

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

a book written by who about what? revisionist history?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

History cannot be revised and be truthful.

"BTW you never bother to say what I was wrong about"

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

of course history is revised. the writers of textbooks do it.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

History is not revised, only the account of history was revised and there is a difference.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Not really when the account is being taught as a truth.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I missed the assignment speaking about our founding fathers being slave owners, the presidents of the United States being slave owners, the elected officials being slave owners.

A lie by omission is still a lie.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

were your ancestors slaves?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

So you have accepted that fact this country was founded by mostly slave owners. That is a good start. Now you can see why we want to destroy the America they created, where slavery was legal, no women, no man under 25 that did not own property, no person of color could not participate in our democracy. Today, where our country is controlled by corporations.

What America is it that you think we have?

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

slavery has been illegal since 1863.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

Stupid Democrats........................Too late as usual.

(R)epelicans already wrecked it.

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

during obama's tenure, the price of gas has doubled, the cost of food steadily rising, the cost of energy rising, unemployment has also steadily risen.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

When you run the train over the cliff, that's what happens.

It accelerates.

That's what the (R)epelicans did.

Note: It's happening all over the World.

Slowing it down at all, in the face of the continuing (R)epelican stonewalling, is almost miraculous.

For all major intents and purposes, we are still running under Bush's economic doctrines.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

obama had a majority in the hosue and senate for the first 2 years of his presidency.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

Seems to me that time was taken up by lobbying efforts and debate over Obamacare.

Plus that whole brand new, and rather major World economic crises thingy.

You know the one that's on going?

Back when those naive Democrats still believed the (R)epelicans would actually cooperate in the process.

Now that the (R)epelicans have set national records for all forms of stonewalling, you should probably let that one go.

Proof is in the pudding and all.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

No one with common sense would agree with (O)bama's agenda of destruction.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

when dems talk about cooperation and compromise , they mean that the republicans should roll over for the dems. harry reid said he would never work with the republicans. the republicans were shut out of healthcare, closed door meeting by dems , for dems.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

That's just what the press release said.

The (R)epelicans have since set (R)ecords for all manner of stonewalling..........records!!!

This, after the economy crashed on their watch.

That's damn close to treason!!!!!!

Throw the (R)epelican bums to the curb. It's where they belong.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

(O)bama's bitch Pelosi did in fact lock the opposition out. The good thing is democrats can take full responsibility for the debacle, as the common sense party did not give a single vote to the cause.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

anything to say about obama disregarding the constitution?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

He's not the only one.

The Patriot Act, made it all legal.

It is the LARGEST, most intrusive government agency ever created.

Brought to you by those small government liars...................................................The (R)epelicans!!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

(O)bama loves the patriot act too you brick head.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the patriot act was voted on, cordray was not.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

Apples and oranges.

Though it figures, (R)epelicans would be against anything to do with consumer protection.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

wrong, with appointment of cordray, obama disregarded the constitution.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

(R)epelicans were playing games against the agency the whole time.

I guess they should have accepted Elizabeth, in the first place.

Stonewalling bitches.

How long did they stonewall any appointment at all?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Oh silly me. I thought oil and gas and commodity price speculation by Wall Street had something to do with it. But it must be all Obama's fault. Damn - he's good. He really should get a second term being that he is oh-so powerful.

And gee whiz golly, I also was under the impression that the unemployment rate had a little something to do with Wall Street too. You know, that financial crisis thing-y. Where Wall Street nearly destroyed the entire economy while imploding themselves with their criminal greed.

Shucks skylar, thanks for setting me straight about all this!

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Interesting to note that gas was actually higher under Bush II, and that it dropped more than 50% from its highs in mid 2008, just before the election.

Magic!

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

War, magic, taking over an oil rich country, lying to the American people, idiots believing the lie.... I guess you can call that magic.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Since January of 2009 , under obama,the price of gasoline has gone up 67%

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Look at the chart

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

before you blame BO.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

obam is actively killing the USA.

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Is this Newt Gingrich :)

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I hear/read this sentiment often. Can you tell me how the USA will be destroyed under his policies, and why they would want to do so?

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

closing coal plants = higher energy costs No keystone pipeline = no jobs, higher energy cost, obamacare = fewer doctors, medical care for older people is called "comfort care" meaning no medical care , epa making laws and calling them regulations that strangle both private citizens and business, eric holder ( DOJ) has said he won't prosecute "his people" ,....clearly a racist stance. a president that promotes class ( economic) warfare. "investing " in "green" companies that waste billions of taxpayer money ( solyndra, light squared) suing state that are trying to enforce immigration laws ( arizona), anti voter I.D. to promote voter fraud.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, dude you know class warfare has been going on ever since Republicans got rid of the estate tax. You need to listen to Unimportant and get yourself a clue and quick too. Unless you educate yourself you'll continue to drink that kool aid like a good little pawn. Read a book and become a rook.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Really? you mean no one had any money before? In any society, there will always be people with more money than you and people with less money. There is no utopia,.........it' a lib/dem/socialist wet dream.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

you are right, there is no such thing as utopia but there is such thing as an aristocracy and you are defending it.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

But there is the concept of fair. Each person earns a livings based on their ability, knowledge and effort. This is simply not the case currently. It is like Gingrich preaching conservative family values while being married three times and cheating while he was married. This doesn't even go into cheating on a wife with cancer, a wife with MS or even if he asked the second wife to have an open marriage.

Some "conservative" family values. My values are married for almost 25 years to the same woman, no cheating. I like my liberal family values much more than Newt's.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

No, I am not.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You don't know what an Aristocracy is. You didn't even know the Constitution was drafted for the most part by slave owners for their own benefit. History, you can't learn from it if you don't know it.

Nothing I said was a lie, untrue and/or inaccurate. The US does not teach the true history of this country so we live in a perpetual cycle of the same bullshit just a different decade.

Seek out the truth so that you can make informed choices about who is right and who is wrong.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

what a bitter person you are. Heres's what happened to the men who signed the declaration of independence. They were considered to be "rebels".they pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor".franklin was the oldest, 18 of them were under 40 and 3 were in their 20's.they were jurists, lawyers, merchants, farmers, doctors ministers and few were politicians. they all had considerable property. they all had more to lose that to gain from the revolution, excpet where principle and honor were concerned, but it principle that brought them together. they all risked death by hanging for treason. some prospered,..jefferson, and john adams became presidents.sam adams, hancock, bartlett, wolcott rutledge, harrison, and gerry became govenors. charles carroll founded the baltiomore and ohio railroad. the home of francis lewis was burned and his wife was carried away by the british.eventually she was freed but died from the effects of what the british had done to her. the british took the home of william floyd. his wife and children escaped to conn. where they lived as refugees with no income. phillip livingston's business and property was seized by the british. his family becam refugees while he sold off what remained of his property in an effort to maintain the U.S credit. lewis morris of ny saw his timber, crops and livestock taken and was barred from his home for 7 years. hart was hunted down, when he was able to get back home , his wife was long dead and 13 children had been taken away. he never found them. clarks' 2 sons were taken prisoner by the british and tortured. stockton was betrayed by tory sympathizers. he was arrested and beaten by the british. his library ( the finest private one in america) was burned. the remains of his house became the official residenc of the govenors of nj. he died and his family was forced to live off of charity. of the 56 signer of the declaration, 9 died of wounds or hardship during the war. 5 were captured and imprisoned , in case with brutal treatment. several lost wives sons or family. all , at one time or another , the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. 12 signers had their house burned. 17 lost everything they owned. NO ONE defected or went back on their pledged word.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

"what a bitter person you are" now that is a great start.

How many owned slaves again? How many fought to free the slaves in the Constitution? Yes, all these folks fought for their freedom, er, the poor fought the battles and died. Much like the Civil War. Hey, I had family on both sides of that war but only a patriot in the Revolutionary War.

Blacks were still their slaves. 15 presidents own slaves, 8 while in office and 1 that I know of had a slave in the White House itself.

What in there is false?

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

no one was forced to fight in the revolution. slavery was not illegal. and yes , you are a bitter person.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You equate honesty with bitterness.... you seem pretty unbitter. People are always forced to do things they don't want to do. And no, slavery was not illegal for a people declaring their own freedom.... And yes, almost all the founding fathers were slave owners

And yes, you have yet to show I said something untrue.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you said "finally an end to slavery". are you a slave?or do you think you're one because you have to work for someone in order to pay your bills?

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You did say "The only thing obama and his cohorts are eager to do is totally destroy the USA as it ws founded" and the Country was founded by slave owners.

Anything else?

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Some of the people that risked their lives to found the USA were slave owners. slavery has been illegal since 1863. get over it. the principles upon which this county was founded are still what makes the USA a great country. were your ancestors slaves?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I see. Thank you.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Sorry, I didn't. The poster is an idiot but I suspect you were being polite.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

A Wall Street Journal article indicates that it is the high cost of a medical education/residency, not the AHCA, that will cause a shortage. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

The idea that comfort care was all one could get at age 70 was debunked: “On November 22, 2011, an individual claiming to be a “brain surgeon” made several statements referencing neurosurgical care on a Mark Levin radio show segment. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) reviewed this segment and found that it contained several factual inaccuracies. Please read the following statement regarding this matter. Should you have additional questions, contact Alison Dye, AANS/CNS Senior Manager of Communications, at 202-446-2028.” The statement continues: “The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided. Furthermore, in conducting our own due diligence, it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon, nor was there any session at the recent Congress of Neurological Surgeons’ scientific meeting in Washington, DC at which a purported government document calling for the rationing of neurosurgical care was discussed. Neurosurgeons are committed to providing timely, compassionate, and state of the art treatment for all patients — regardless of age — who have neurosurgical conditions. As such, we have requested that this podcast be removed from Mark Levin’s website as it portrays inaccurate information which could potentially be harmful to the patients that we serve.”

[-] 3 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you again, Skylar, for making me do some research. I never heard of "comfort care" or the need for doctors in the near future, or how much the economy has actually improved until I looked up facts in response to your fears. BTW, one friend of mine had a preexisting condition and was self-employed. Her insurance was costing $24000 per year. Because of the changes implemented by the AHCA, she is now able to get insurance for $4000 a year. I know of no one who has actually been harmed by anything that has been done in the last three years,except of course, our military personnel. Keep us on our toes, dear.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

The government loaned Solyndra $535 Million...not billions. I could not find a dollar amount related to Light Square; apparently that is an FCC issue regarding conflicts between GPS providers and Light Square.

As for Arizona, I live here and many of us residents did not like the laws and felt they should be challenged.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

"loaned"? gave ( squandered, wasted) is more accurate. why is arizona being sued by the federal govt for enforcing the law?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Squandered? It was an investment representing 1.9% of all the otherwise very successful R&D industrial portfolio of the government. Solyndra failed largely because the Chinese has outspent the US in subsidizing solar panels, and also controlled the rare earth metals needed to manufacture them. A 1.9% failure rate is one that any investment banker would KILL to have. The lesson is that more, not less, investment is green energy and jobs is needed.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Yes, squandered . solyndra was a company that they knew was a failure in the making and yet a half billion dollars was wasted( thrown away , lined the pockets of his cronies) on this mess.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, they had concerns. But the market tanked after the investment, not before. Regardless, the fact that it's being used as a poster boy for no government investment in green tech and jobs is disingenuous, at best. No administration, Rep or Dem, do not invest in infrastructure and R&D. his 1.9% failure is blown high high only for the dual purpose of supporting the oil industry and embarrassing a sitting president for purely partisan, political gain.

The internet we're communicating on, EKG machines, cell phones, radar, microwave ovens, and thousands of other things we use or need, were all a result of similar, and even riskier investments. And many of those past investments went bad, but you really don't hear much about them, because they were never used as cynically as Solyndra is being used today by the right wing.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

solyndra was known to be a failure in the making by the obama administration. still, they went forward with it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

There were CONCERNS. There was no failure until after the loan went through. Your timeline is off, and your desire to paint government investment in the most negative light possible is ideologically motivated. A 1.9% investment failure rate is an amazing success. It is 98.1% successful. No investment firm in the world has that level of successes.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

it was known by the people that worked at solyndra that it was a failure from the get go. why waste money ( a half billion dollars ) on this?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Oh, so it was known by people at Solyndra? (It wasn't - the statement is a complete fabrication - but for the sake of argument...) Those workers must have ben very good at keeping it a secret, since the the company attracted over a billion dollars in PRIVATE investment. You must expect the government to be psychic.

And the amount was half a billion, not half a trillion.

Solyndra was an extremely promising company. It attracted over one billion dollars in private loans from a variety of private investors who saw tremendous potential in their unique, cylindrical solar technology. And looking back over the numbers, I was wrong. The loan guarantees did not amount to 1.9% of the government portfolio, but 1.3%.

Please read this. You have been lied to and manipulated by oil company propaganda. Maybe you could get some facts instead.

http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/09/14/the-phony-solyndra-solar-scandal/

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

A women that worked at solyndra said she and the other employees knew that soyndra was a bust from the begining. By not allowing the keystone pipeline , obama has payed off buffet. the cost to ship oil via the pipeline,........$1. 50. by rail it will cost 2.00 or more per barrel, and guess who wholly owns the railway? Burliington Northern Santa Fe is owned by warren buffet.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to post below. You made a claim of corruption. As such it is up to you, not the reader, to show your sources. As to Obama winning supporters, it was a real trade-off. He lost both Unions AND oil companies. There was no net gain for him. If you thought about it for two seconds instead of puppeting right wing talking points, you would know that.

As to Solyndra, you STILL haven't read the article, have you? And you call me lazy!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Skylar, you really don't get it. Solyndra was a promising company. If a single woman who worked there said she and other workers "knew" it was a bust, they didn't tell anyone. And, since you provide zero sources, I frankly can't believe what you say at face value.

I linked an article for you. Did you even bother to read the article? It sure doesn't appear so based on your response.

As to the pipeline, Obama went against a huge part of his base to put a hold on it: the Unions. What's more, I, among several hundred thousand others, sent several petitions to the White House, our congressmen, and senators, to demand a halt to the pipeline. It would have ben an environmental disaster, threatening the larger aquifer in the whole country. Owners of companies on BOTH sides of the issue were valuable to Obama. What he may have gained in support from Buffet (and, again, since you don't provide sources, I suspect your "information" regarding Buffet is not true) he lost in terms of all the others.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

solyndra was never a promising company. sure , against to unions but for the greenies. what environmental disaster? there over 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines in the usa. Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is owned by berkshire hathaway. buffet owns berkshire hathaway. too lazy to do a search on your own?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

The law has been challenged on its infringement on civil rights. It allows for law officers to pull anyone aside and demand they show their papers for no real reason. We have a lot of citizens who could be interpreted as "foreign" looking, and they could be (and have been) harassed. I, for one, do not carry my birth certificate with me.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

i don't carry mine either but i do have a photo I.D. license.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

So do a lot of people who are in the country illegally. In New Mexico, right next door to Arizona, no proof of citizenship is required to get a drivers license.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

then new mexico needs to change their laws. in nj you have to provide documents that prove who you are.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yes, New Mexico does need to change it's laws. Even if it did so now though, licenses are valid for many years. Just sayin that Arizona laws are a far greater imposition on hispanic Americans than just showing a license.

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

not good enough under this law. proof of citizenship.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't mind republicans. But I want you to know clear and well, the people you support in your blind baseless crap is all a show for people that have no real interest in politics or even hopes to win the presidency. They want to sell books and get paid for speeches. What they are doing at this moment is creating a "Brand" of themselves the same way pop-stars and actors do. In such an arena, any press is good press. To them, you look like a willing fool. To the rest of us, you look like an idiot. You are nothing more than a pocket to pick because you haven't the motivation and self awareness to see through them, they count on as much.

[+] -4 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

The US was founded by rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes.

[-] 5 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Most of the signers of the Declaration ,( "we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor")died in poverty.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

+9?! That's as many votes as you have in your "new" one-day-old account.

Exactly how many accounts do you have here? LOL

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Top of the charts, but I had to dig through collapsed threads to find this.

Amazing ... especially considering that the "highly rated" post in question is patently false.

[-] 3 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

how did their slaves fare?

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Not well. Some were supposed to be freed upon their death but weren't. I think Dolly Madison freed her husband's, the former President, slave because there was a clause in his will that the slave(s) would be freed upon her death and she feared they would kill her.

History is such a harsh teacher.

[-] 0 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That's not true at all. Paul Jennings was Madison's personal slave; he was sold in 1846 by Dolly Madison to cover debts. She sold slaves after Madison's death, and some were included in the sale of Montpelier in 1844. She also willed some slaves to her relatives.

Nearly all the men who founded the US had no problem trading in human beings; in contrast, Simón Bolívar made it clear slavery would be abolished immediately upon taking control of territory from Spain.

The rights our Founding Fathers waxed so eloquent about certainly did not apply to slaves nor did they apply to anyone who wasn't male, wealthy and/or a landowner.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Paul Jennings or some of the slaves were supposedly freed because Dolly was afraid they might kill her is what I heard. Paul Jennings was actually a slave at the White House.

You are absolutely correct about our founding fathers. I think this was based on Greek Democracy. In Greek, Athens, Sparta and the other City States, it was 25, male, been through the military. Similar to what was done here at first.

[-] 0 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No, Dolly Madison just didn't give a damn. She was white and privileged and thus had no moral qualms about selling a human being to maintain her standard of living. Jennings was the President's personal servant and would have certainly been with him when he was living at the White House and elsewhere.

Daniel Webster bought Jennings and made arrangements for him to pay off the debt and that is how Jennings became a free man. In other words, he had to pay for his freedom because Dolly refused to honor her husband's will (I'd be afraid someone was going to kill me too if I was a lying, dirty bitch ).

I'm not going to give history lessons here but you really need to study our history and the history of the Americas to understand our present condition. You should also understand how the myth of the Founding Fathers came about.

[+] -4 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

A troll with a 0 day old account. Go back to your litter box.

[-] 0 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

That's hardly a good argument.

[-] -1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

"Obama and his cohorts" LOL Would that be the GE, the GOP, and Goldman Sachs?

I wasn't making an argument, I was making a point about trolls. skylar didn't come here for discussion.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

so,......you're the long time idiot in residence on ows?

[-] -2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Are you here to participate in a constructive discussion of issues, or are you just a shit throwing monkey who's previous accounts (that you use to vote up your own posts) were no longer tenable?

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

if anyone is throwing anything it's you.

[-] -2 points by Lardhead2 (67) 2 years ago

Interesting. So if a white person is rich he/she is evil and........?

[-] -3 points by Obummer2012 (1) from Pittsburgh, PA 2 years ago

Obama has no intentions of fixing the economy. His sole concern is thumbing his nose to the rules, and seeing how far he can push the American public until we put our foot down and say enough is enough.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Think about this. Unless they break the law, the president has 4 years. He has 4 years to get his THING done. They run knowing they have 4 years and make promises on what they can do in 4 years. IF,,, however, you solve the problems,,,,, you could get re-elected for another 4 years. obama never fixed the economy has he promised 4 years ago. He should not get another 4 years. HE FAILED THE TEST.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

The MOST transparent President in history,,,, was his promise. If you dont submit a budget you are so transparent,,, your invisible.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (20531) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the repelican party is DONE

.


.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago

You have deluded yourself.

↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

.


.

That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.

Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.

The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.

Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.

Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.

It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.

It's just a matter of time.

It's also a matter of national security.

  • the repelican party is DONE.

You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.

What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.

we will see.