It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Polynomial C
He Tried to Give us all Health Care.. He Tried to Helped us all...
.. We are trying to make you reason... but you don't listen...
.. The Blood of millions uninsured Americans is in your hands now...
Originally posted by djusdjus
Jack Webb never met Obama. Probably never even heard of him.
Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
He tried to financially break this country for the sake of his own ego...
Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by andrewh7
so???????? Also, why are we staying in Afgan until 2017, when again the all mighty Obama said we would be out sooner?????
"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three."
Barack Obama on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 in Afghanistan
No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 164: Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan
No. 165: Train and equip the Afghan army
No. 166: Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
If you actual beleive that he is so great, why has he endorsed the patriot act, instead of getting rid of it as he promised to do so????????
Promises about Civil Rights on the Obameter
No. 160: Clarify legal status for defense contractor personnel - Not yet Started
No. 179: Revise the Patriot Act to increase oversight on government surveillance - Not yet Started
No. 180: Restrict warrantless wiretaps - In The Works
No. 181: Restore habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants" - Stalled
No. 267: Strengthen federal environmental justice programs- Not yet started
No. 291: Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity - In The Works
No. 295: Vigorously pursue hate crimes and civil rights abuses - Not Yet Started
No. 296: Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law- In The Works
No. 297: Restore funding to the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs - Not Yet Started
No. 298: Eliminate caps on damages for discrimination cases - Not Yet Started
No. 299: Eliminate disparity in sentencing for crack and coc aine - In The Works
No. 300: Reform mandatory minimum sentences - Promise kept
No. 301: Enhance drug courts - Not Yet Started
No. 302: Create loan-forgiveness programs for law students who become public defenders - Not Yet Started
No. 303: Ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies - Not Yet Started
No. 304: Encourage videotaping of interrogations in capital cases - Not Yet Started
No. 305: Create a prison-to-work incentive program - Not Yet Started
No. 390: Safeguard the right to privacy - - Not Yet Started
No. 412: Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act - Not Yet Started
No. 509: Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power - Stalled
The only thing left is for you to admit it, but that is up to you.
Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by andrewh7
, swore unemployment wouldn't go over 8% now it's well over 10%. Yeah, I gotta admit obama The Destroyer's doing a bang up job.
We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed)."
Eric Cantor on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 in a PBS interview.
The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.
We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise."
They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.
But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.
In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.
Here's what Romer herself said in a July 2 interview on Fox: "None of us had a crystal ball back in December and January. I think almost every private forecaster realized that there were other things going on in the economy. It was worse than we anticipated. What the private forecasters are saying now is that they do anticipate that the economy will start growing again in the second half of the year, and that usually, then, employment and unemployment start to respond shortly after that. So I think that is a realistic expectation."
Biden also acknowledged the discrepancies in a July 5 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," Biden said. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't — I'm not laying — it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in."
Stephanopoulos correctly noted that projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's. In January, the CBO projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus.
In a White House news conference on June 8, 2009, Bernstein, the co-author of the February projections, said they were off because the fourth-quarter economic numbers weren't available at the time. When they were released a short time later, they revealed the economy was in more dire shape than economists realized.
Bernstein maintained in that June news conference that the stimulus is working, and that without it, the unemployment rate would be even worse.
The debate about the numbers comes from the inherent uncertainty in economic forecasting. How can you ever prove that if the unemployment rate gets to X percent, it would or would not have gotten a point or two higher if not for the stimulus? The same holds true for Republicans who say the rising unemployment rates prove the stimulus isn't working. Again, it's difficult to empirically prove whether they're right or wrong.
We're certainly not going to try here. What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.
What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.
We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True
Originally posted by ufoptics reply to post by andrewh7 so???????? Also, why are we staying in Afgan until 2017, when again the all mighty Obama said we would be out sooner?????
Could you possibly backup that HOAX? You see, as per the Fact sources he never promised or claimed America would be out of Afghanistan sooner.
"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three." Barack Obama on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 in Afghanistan
Originally posted by vegno
Hey December Rain, don't mean to rain on your parade but you should take a look at this video. I believe it will back up that hoax you mentioned.
...you can take that to the bank!
And before you argue that he meant Iraq not Afghanistan, the troops are still present in large number at both locations.
Unfortunately even Lord Obama succumbed to flip-flopping on the topic when his odds at the presidency got better and better.
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq - Done
No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq - In The Works
No. 127: Encourage political accommodation in Iraq- Not Yet Started
No. 128: Launch robust diplomatic effort with Iraq and its neighbors - - In The Works
No. 129: Form international group to help Iraq refugees Not Yet Started
No. 130: Provide at least $2 billion for services to Iraqi refugees Not Yet Started
No. 131: Present Iraq status-of-forces agreement to Congress for approval Not Yet Started
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq Not Yet Started
No. 161: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war - In The Works
His campaign Web site says the following: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Time Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."
• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."
• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."
• On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."
Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to anti-war audiences and "about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security.
The Plouffe statement, however, stands out. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground.
After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another press conference the same day.
"I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."
Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False
It's not even clear if he is talking about Mars, Sudan, Pakistan, North pole let Iraq and Afghanistan from that specific video you cite as source.