Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
32

Obama Wrecks Clinton Legacy

20 comments, 219 views, posted 1:05 am 08/08/2012 in Politics by griffin
griffin has 12973 posts, 1900 threads, 604 points
Teoti Teoti Teoti

KILLING WELFARE REFORM: OBAMA RUNS ON CLINTON LEGACY WHILE DISMANTLING IT


by JOHN NOLTE 7 Aug 2012, 7:05 AM PDT 45 POST A COMMENT

President Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars of our children's and grandchildren's money in a Kenyesian binge that not only hasn't lowered unemployment or created economic growth, but likely got in the way of what would've been a stronger economic recovery had Obama simply done nothing. This is a difficult economic record for a sitting president to run for reelection on but, with the help of a corrupt and complicit media, Obama's not only a couple of points ahead of his challenger in the polls; he's pulling off the neat trick of running on Bill Clinton's record even as he dismantles Clinton's legacy -- including welfare reform.

Under Clinton and the Gingrich congress that reigned him in, America saw boom times – an extension of an unprecedented economic growth period that started with Reagan's tax cuts in the early eighties and was interrupted only by a single short-lived and shallow recession that, ironically, would be the downfall of Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush.

During the '90s, Clinton got out of the way of the economy, Congress controlled spending, tens of millions of jobs were created, and the economy exploded. Because most of America was working and paying taxes (instead of unemployed, paying no taxes, and draining revenues through welfare and food stamps), tax revenues flooded into the Treasury, and we enjoyed the first federal surpluses in years.

This is exactly the opposite of what President FailureTeleprompter has done. Instead, Obama went full-Kenyesian, exploded the deficit into the trillions; micro-managed, punished, and terrorized the free market with Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare; and constantly creates economic uncertainty with non-stop class-warfare talk and promises of tax increases.

And yet, although he is a Bizarro-Clinton, Obama is attempting to sell himself as Clinton II based solely on the fact that Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. To hear Obama and the media tell it, these tax increases are the secret sauce that made the 1990's the 1990's.

Our president is nothing if not an audacious liar:

Let me just point out that the approach that I’m talking about has also been tested. Just like their theories have been tested and didn’t work, my theories have been tested. The last time they were tried was by a guy named Bill Clinton. And we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficits to surplus, and we created a lot of millionaires to boot.

In Oakland, California, on Monday, the president said the deficit cannot be reduced “without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we’ve been getting for a decade. I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well.”

Let me count the lies….

1. "We created 23 million jobs…" ---We? This is Obama pretending his economic plan in any way resembles Clinton's, when the complete opposite is true.

2. "…asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed…" ---No one blessed these folks, unless their last name is Kennedy – most of them they worked their butts off.

3. "I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford…" So says the president who normalized the word TRILLIONS into discussions of our federal budget and deficits.

4. "…but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well." ---Yeah, because it was those tax increases that created the economic boom and nothing else. What about what Clinton didn’t do? Clinton didn’t terrify the free market with Obama Care (though he tried), didn’t suppress job creators with Dodd-Frank, didn’t run around demanding tax increases on job creators, didn't demean job creators, and didn’t explode the deficit in ways we never imagined possible.

Naturally, the media's letting Obama get away with this, just as they let him get away with quietly dismantling one of Bill Clinton's most popular and effective policies -- welfare reform. The Romney campaign is going to attempt to make this an issue today, but the media will almost certainly be more interested in week five of obsessing over the fact that Romney is releasing the same two years of tax returns John McCain did.

But here are the facts:

In a blatant challenge to the legislative branch, Obama by executive order tossed out the Clinton-era welfare reform that required able-bodied aid recipients to work, saying the federal government will no longer enforce the law.

This follows the president's unilateral rewrite of immigration law, using an executive order to implement elements of the DREAM Act, which Congress refused to adopt. He also has thumbed his nose at the No Child Left Behind Act, and has put in place cap-and-trade carbon rules that were specifically rejected by Congress.

He can't do these things, by any reading of the Constitution. And yet he is. Because Congress, whose powers he is usurping, hasn't risen to stop him.

The Constitution separates powers between the legislative, administrative and judicial branches to more effectively limit government authority, and thus protect individual liberty.

Obama apparently does not recognize those constitutional limits on his power.

The work requirement is the whole reason welfare reform has been so successful:

[Rep. Dave] Camp, one of the original authors of the legislation, called the move “a brazen and unwarranted unraveling” of the law that “ends welfare reform as we know it.”

“Welfare reform provided states a simple deal: fixed federal funding and enormous flexibility in exchange for a requirement that they engage welfare recipients in work and related activities,” Camp, R-Mich., wrote in a statement. “In response, states helped record numbers of low-income parents go to work, earnings soared, and dependence on welfare and poverty plunged by record levels.”

At times, Republicans unfairly suggest that Clinton was muscled into signing welfare reform by the Gingrich Congress. This is unfair. Clinton ran for president on reforming welfare. One of the more memorable centerpieces of Clinton's '92 campaign was ending welfare as we know it.

And now, with yet another illegal and un-Constitutional stroke of the pen, Obama's ended welfare reform as we know it.

Source.
So. How do you make George W Bush look like a towering genius?

Extra Points Given by:

z0phi3l (5), Viscera (25)

Comments

2
1:06 am 08/08/2012

Flee

easy there... Clinton had a legacy???

2
1:38 am 08/08/2012

z0phi3l

I'm just glad someone in the Right or a Libertarian is starting to call these lies what they are big stinking lies, it's what the Democrats have been running on for the last 12 years and no one would call the lies a lie. Yet we really need someone out there with the guts to say "That's a lie and we all know it"

2
3:05 am 08/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by griffin:
Our president is nothing if not an audacious liar



...which would actually make him Clinton II

1
3:09 am 08/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by griffin:
So. How do you make George W Bush look like a towering genius?



Ummm... say H.W. Bush did it?

3
3:10 am 08/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Flee:
easy there... Clinton had a legacy???



Yeah, it's on here somewhere...

2
3:28 am 08/08/2012

bytehead

It's Breitbart. And as such, I can't say that it really has anything rational to say. Especially when they are talking about Clinton's legacy.

Complaining about why the stimulus evidently hasn't worked, meanwhile acts totally ignorant that the big tax reductions that Bush (II) and that Obama continued still haven't done shit for the economy either. Pushing two big wars has done pretty much zero for the economy, unless you're one of the whore's sucking on the government's teats. Which is why I really hope that it goes into effect. 4% of GDP for what? Even the height of the Cold War, it was only 3% spending. Good God, what the hell are we fighting? A war on terror that is just about successful as the War on Drugs, and even less effective as it seems to be nothing but security theater for the American public?

And the Republicans bitching about the sequestration? Uh, aren't you the stupid punks that wrote it like that in the first place? Obama double dared them and signed it into law.

2
4:32 am 08/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
omplaining about why the stimulus evidently hasn't worked, meanwhile acts totally ignorant that the big tax reductions that Bush (II) and that Obama continued still haven't done shit for the economy either.



Bush Tax Cuts were put in place in 2001 and 2003. After the 9/11 dip you see in the beginning on 2002 (when the first cuts took effect) a jump in GDP and then through the second tax break we were doing ok until the banking crisis hit in 2007. (BTW, thank Clinton for signing in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the Glass–Steagall Act. A bi-partisan clusterfuck that removed barriers in the market among banking companies which is what allowed much of the toxic trading to happen outside of regulation).

It also ignores the repeated, demonstrable failure of Kenyesian economics. Basically, he did exactly what FDR did after the market crash, started spending and expanding the government like crazy while ignoring that those policies caused the Great Depression.

Quote by bytehead:
Pushing two big wars has done pretty much zero for the economy, unless you're one of the whore's sucking on the government's teats.



Yup, but wars give the president much more power thanks to the War Powers Resolution... why do you think Obama and Bush were able to issue all those executive orders? Seriously, what are a few trillion dollars and a couple thousand soldiers lives compared to gaining that kind of power?

Quote by bytehead:
A war on terror that is just about successful as the War on Drugs, and even less effective as it seems to be nothing but security theater for the American public?



Don't forget, it's an effective excuse to intrude more and more into our private lives. First it was taking off shoes and metal scanners, now it's domestic spy drones... all in the name of 'protecting us'.

Quote by bytehead:
And the Republicans bitching about the sequestration? Uh, aren't you the stupid punks that wrote it like that in the first place? Obama double dared them and signed it into law.



Yes they did. Of course a good start would be to actually pass a budget so we know what we're actually cutting, but Congress hasn't bothered with that little (Constitutionally mandated) detail since Obama took over, and since Obama has executive privilege he can just order whatever spending he wants anyway! The Republicans shot themselves in the foot by punting the ball and hoping Obama was going to be held responsible... they should have known the press would never pin anything bad on Obama, ever.

3
11:49 am 08/08/2012

Viscera

facts facts facts

you're ruining my day with facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0
2:38 pm 08/08/2012

griffin

Quote by bytehead:
It's Breitbart. And as such, I can't say that it really has anything rational to say. Especially when they are talking about Clinton's legacy.


That's it. Don't feel compelled to actually address the issues raised in the article. Instead have some freestyle bitching about republicans in general.

Oh. You already did. Good job.

0
2:44 pm 08/08/2012

griffin

Quote by bytehead:
Pushing two big wars has done pretty much zero for the economy, unless you're one of the whore's sucking on the government's teats.


AKA 'stimulus'. Why is military spending (on Made in USA equipment) not considered 'stimulus'? Why do you think this 'stimulus' has failed? How do you think this realisation can be applied to the President's claim of 'stimulus', and what part of Fantasyland do you think he inhabits?

BTW, I think it's hard to get ''greener' than camouflage. That's right, military spending is a green stimulus (ha ha). And might I point out that military spending has risen under Obama? Look down, see? Those are the clay feet of your idol. Beats looking up, and seeing the President's new clothes, if you ask me.

0
8:10 pm 08/08/2012

Flee

Quote by griffin:
some freestyle bitching about republicans in general.


Its only fair that boths sides have one. z0p needs some competition

1
8:23 pm 08/08/2012

Quaektem

you want the list?

1
8:28 pm 08/08/2012

Flee

No, I don't need the starting line-up of the Dems v. Reps games on Teoti, thanks

Seen that game too many times already

1
8:29 pm 08/08/2012

Flee

If you want to know why the 2 parties don't work together, just look at how their supporters act

1
10:56 pm 08/08/2012

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
thank Clinton for signing in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the Glass–Steagall Act.

And people seemed to think the Clinton legacy was so positive.

And I like how the chart doesn't even show a full year of Obama. Who owns that downward swipe? It can be argued either way, I suppose, but does one really think that the numbers would be that much different if McCain had won?

And I'm still waiting to seem some real improvements with the tax cuts.

Quote:
but wars give the president much more power thanks to the War Powers Resolution.

And who gave those powers to the President to start with?

Quote:
First it was taking off shoes and metal scanners, now it's domestic spy drones

I expect it to only get worse.

Quote:
Of course a good start would be to actually pass a budget so we know what we're actually cutting,

Obama has done his part, submitting a list for Congress' consideration. That nobody voted for it is hardly a black mark on Obama. It's really Congress' job to come up with a budget and pass it. It's the gridlock that has been going on for decades. And if it isn't at a head yet, it will be within the next five years. Compromise is now a dirty word.

Quote by griffin:
Don't feel compelled to actually address the issues raised in the article.

What issues exactly?

#1, job creation is shit? It's been shit for 12 years now. Who's fault? Well, if you believe the contender for Obama's job, it certainly isn't the President:

I really don't understand what the fuck #2 is going off about except for something about the Kennedy's.

#3 was going to happen regardless of who is or was President, and I'd actually put the blame of normalizing trillions on Bush (II), not Obama.

#4, well, again, I don't see a damn thing that says our economy was improving much from the tax cuts.

Quote:
Why is military spending (on Made in USA equipment) not considered 'stimulus'?

Just how much is actually "Made in the USA"? With the exception of Intel processors, there's not much being made in electronics here. It might get assembled here, but where do you think we're getting those rare earth elements from? Instead of a flood light of stimulus, it was a laser beam that didn't really do much for the rest of the population. I'm not exactly wild about stimulii myself, but austerity doesn't seem to be working out too well. Just ask Greece and Spain.

Meanwhile, we waste billions upon trillions for weapons platforms that don't even meet minimum requirements.

And yes, I consider Breitbart to be nothing but a mouthpiece for radical right Republicans. Just like Fox News.

Just like I think MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the left Democrats.

0
1:39 am 09/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
And I like how the chart doesn't even show a full year of Obama. Who owns that downward swipe? It can be argued either way, I suppose, but does one really think that the numbers would be that much different if McCain had won?



I would say that Bush 'owns' it insofar as it happened during his term. That dive would have been the same if McCain had won, it would only be speculation where we would be today under McCain policy, but frankly given his record in the Senate I would not suspect an overwhelming response from McCain (then again, doing nothing would have been better than what was done). I did not vote for McCain, I voted third party last election... that's how much I trusted the 'conservative' candidate... and frankly Romney isn't much better but at this point anything is better than what we have.

Quote by bytehead:
And I'm still waiting to seem some real improvements with the tax cuts.



Sorry byte, even Obama won't eliminate them (except for those making over $250,000) because he knows that to increase taxes will be a death knell.... so they are helping but not enough. If this were a medical case the common sense thing to do would be to increase the dosage. Further tax cuts (or even a tax holiday) would have been a better use of three trillion dollars than bailing out those responsible for this mess.

BY THE WAY... BUSH STARTED THAT BALL ROLLING WITH TARP SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ATTACKING OBAMA!

Quote by bytehead:
And who gave those powers to the President to start with?



Sorry, I'll retract the reference to the War Powers Act. That was a legislative restriction on Nixon's power. I was intending to talk about the abuse of Executive Orders which though occasionally challenged have steadily more abused since the early 1900's. My apologies for the error.

Quote by bytehead:
I expect it to only get worse.



As so I... no matter which of the two is elected.

Quote by bytehead:
Obama has done his part, submitting a list for Congress' consideration. That nobody voted for it is hardly a black mark on Obama. It's really Congress' job to come up with a budget and pass it. It's the gridlock that has been going on for decades. And if it isn't at a head yet, it will be within the next five years. Compromise is now a dirty word.



I actually wasn't blaming Obama for that, that's Congress's job and Reid and Pelosi have done everything they can to prevent a budget from being passed (and causing a perpetual 'budget crisis' to hang around the necks of 'obstructionist' Republicans). As for Obama's budget... that NO ONE voted for it at all? That certainly should be a black mark as it demonstrates how completely unrealistic and incompetent it was.

As for Gridlock... when one party has super majorities in Congress and the Presidency gridlock comes about from dissent within that party. For two years there should have been no gridlock at all, even if every Republican went into the chamber in a unified effort to block every pen stroke Democrats created, they had no chance. It is a testament to how radical Obama's ideas were that he could not rely on hos own party to support them and ultimately had to cram his policy through on Christmas Eve before a lawful election could be resolved... remember MA (Kenndy Land) voted in Scott Brown solely to vote down Obamacare and they ensured that it was going to be pushed through while a Duval appointed replacement was sill occupying the seat.

Quote by bytehead:
#3 was going to happen regardless of who is or was President, and I'd actually put the blame of normalizing trillions on Bush (II), not Obama.



Bush was Prez... but Obama voted for TARP while in the Senate so actually it's his fault too, not to mention how much more he's spent (and 'quantitative eased') since.

Quote by bytehead:
#4, well, again, I don't see a damn thing that says our economy was improving much from the tax cuts.



7th post on this thread, in case you missed it.

Quote by bytehead:
And yes, I consider Breitbart to be nothing but a mouthpiece for radical right Republicans. Just like Fox News.

Just like I think MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the left Democrats.



Breitbart is the counter to MSNBC, FOX is the counter to the rest of the Main Stream Media which is predominantly left but pretends to be as unbiased as FOX pretends to be. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT... all left leaning (86 percent of Romney coverage negative). The only reason Obama has a chance of reelection is the complacent media.

0
6:52 pm 09/08/2012

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
BUSH STARTED THAT BALL ROLLING WITH TARP SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ATTACKING OBAMA!

You could have fooled me.

Quote by Quaektem:
7th post on this thread, in case you missed it.

Two spikes in yearly change, with most of the yearly change negative. You call that an improvement.

Quote by Quaektem:
Obama voted for TARP

It was overwhelmingly approved if memory serves me right. And if he had voted against it?

Quote by Quaektem:
Main Stream Media which is predominantly left

Everybody says this, but where is their proof?

This discussion is nothing but a train wreck. Breitbart has shown multiple times that it has little to no credibility. Regurgitating this shit still makes it shit.

0
9:46 pm 09/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
You could have fooled me.



You see what you want to see, but go to the archives and you'll see that I've bashed Bush for quite a few things, the TARP bailout being one of them. Bottom line though is that Bush is not the President now and is not the one running for office on a platform of lies. When the next president fucks things up I'll also go to town on them.

Quote by bytehead:
Two spikes in yearly change, with most of the yearly change negative. You call that an improvement.



Compared with that post 9/11 plunge? Yes. Also take not that the graph represents the change in GDP between quarters so anything above the bold black line is an increase in the rate of positive growth. This may illustrate the Bush years a bit better for you:

Quote by bytehead:
It was overwhelmingly approved if memory serves me right. And if he had voted against it?



Why, if he had voted against it he could do what he's doing now and lay the blame for all that spending at Bush's feet, but you don't get to blame someone else for something you helped accomplish!

Also, Iraq was overwhelmingly supported too, not that the Democrats like remembering that tidbit either!

Quote by bytehead:
Everybody says this, but where is their proof?



... do you read the links I post? Better yet, do you actually watch the news with any objectiveness? Just take a bit, go to Youtube and compare interviews of Republicans and Democrats.

And if you need more proof... here's a list of journalists who wrote political checks and who they wrote them out to... and if you're Breitbartaphobic relax... this is a MSNBC report (and there are FOX reporters that donate to Dems too!)

0
9:53 pm 09/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
This discussion is nothing but a train wreck. Breitbart has shown multiple times that it has little to no credibility. Regurgitating this shit still makes it shit.



If you can't attack the message: attack the messenger. Classic Ad Hominem with a bit of straw man thrown in for good measure.

I will wager you that for every one case you can find where Breitbert has demonstrated a lack of credibility I can find five cases where the mainstream media has done the same or worse. Game on!

0
2:26 pm 11/08/2012

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
If you can't attack the message: attack the messenger.

I've attacked both. Thank you for playing.

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!