PDA

View Full Version : Another AP Attempt to Give Obama Credit for Something He Didn't Do!



soonercruiser
10/26/2011, 02:06 PM
So.....another AP story, with misplaced facts!

Hitting the news banks today, and an article in the daily Oklahoman about ...

THE LAST BIG NUCLEAR BOMB IS SCRAPPED!


US's biggest nuclear bomb dismantled in Texas
Published: October 25, 2011
AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — The last of the nation's biggest nuclear bombs, a Cold War relic 600 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dismantled Tuesday in what one energy official called a milestone in President Barack Obama's mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman called the disassembly "a milestone accomplishment." The completion of the dismantling program is a year ahead of schedule, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and aligns with Obama's goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

The B53's disassembly ends the era of big megaton bombs, said Hans Kristensen, a spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists. The biggest nuclear bomb in the nation's arsenal now is the 1.2-megaton B83, he said. The B53 was 9 megatons.
The 1.5-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II killed as many as 140,000 people.
The B53s' size helped compensate for their lack of accuracy, Kristensen said. Today's bombs are smaller but more precise, reducing the amount of collateral damage, he said.
Kristensen said the Obama administration shouldn't boast too much about dismantling the B53 when its arsenal of active nuclear warheads has been reduced by only 10 in the past seven months and Russia's arsenal has grown by 29. The two nations signed a treaty in December to reduce their arsenals.

http://newsok.com/article/feed/310414


The facts are (I have a friend in the "business"..)...
The decommissioning of our Cold War nuclear arsenal have been in the work over the last several presidencies! Not just Obama's!
The problem with some of these larger old nuclear relics is, that those technicians who made them are no longer around.
True to the bureaucracy that we now have, it took several presidencies, to formulate, regulate, and approved the manuals to disassemble them.
Not just because Obama invented the nuclear screw driver to disassemble it!

dwarthog
10/26/2011, 03:27 PM
Yeah, but can the Rooski's see the Big Board?

That's the really important piece of info!

Midtowner
10/26/2011, 03:29 PM
A bit sensitive there? Does Obama have a goal of reducing nukes? If so, I really don't get what you're all hot and bothered about.

That said, while you're being so generous with not attributing things which happen during a presidency to the president because really, he's done nothing to affect it either way, how 'bout that economy?

XingTheRubicon
10/26/2011, 06:45 PM
good, so you finally agree the economy sucks

OhU1
10/26/2011, 07:15 PM
Can't give a black man credit, can ya?

SoonerBorn68
10/26/2011, 08:03 PM
A lot of banks don't. ;)

cleller
10/26/2011, 08:33 PM
I read that story, and all I could think about is how they chose Amarillo to store the most dangerous thing ever created.

Not something to put in you tourism packet.

soonercruiser
10/26/2011, 09:44 PM
Can't give a black man credit, can ya?

The only real thing I can credit Obama for is.....coming to his senses, listening (somewhat) to the generals, and not pulling out of Iraq immediately, like he thought he could do in the election campaign.
Glad to see he is meeting Booosh's deadline......and trying to take credit for that too!
:encouragement:

Trophy Husband
10/27/2011, 10:53 AM
A bit sensitive there? Does Obama have a goal of reducing nukes? If so, I really don't get what you're all hot and bothered about.

That said, while you're being so generous with not attributing things which happen during a presidency to the president because really, he's done nothing to affect it either way, how 'bout that economy?

He didn't say that at all, he said Obama is getting credit for something he didn't do. We are all more than willing to give him the credit he so justly deserves for wrecking our economy.

Trophy Husband
10/27/2011, 10:59 AM
The only real thing I can credit Obama for is.....coming to his senses, listening (somewhat) to the generals, and not pulling out of Iraq immediately, like he thought he could do in the election campaign.
Glad to see he is meeting Booosh's deadline......and trying to take credit for that too!
:encouragement:

The Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge anything he's done that has had a negative effect on this country. It's all Bush's fault. Oh but when something good happens, it's "look what Obama has done".

Kind of like when a fan base supports a losing coach. When he wins a game it's because he's a good coach, when he loses a game it's "he's not the one playing the game, missing blocks, dropping passes etc".

When Obama implements a policy that fails (pretty much everyone) it's "it's not his fault he inherited this economy from Bush", if something positive comes from one his policies it's "see what a great president he is".

JohnnyMack
10/27/2011, 01:28 PM
The Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge anything he's done that has had a negative effect on this country. It's all Bush's fault. Oh but when something good happens, it's "look what Obama has done".

Kind of like when a fan base supports a losing coach. When he wins a game it's because he's a good coach, when he loses a game it's "he's not the one playing the game, missing blocks, dropping passes etc".

When Obama implements a policy that fails (pretty much everyone) it's "it's not his fault he inherited this economy from Bush", if something positive comes from one his policies it's "see what a great president he is".

Doesn't it go both ways?

Midtowner
10/27/2011, 01:54 PM
The Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge anything he's done that has had a negative effect on this country. It's all Bush's fault. Oh but when something good happens, it's "look what Obama has done".

Is some of it Bush's fault? Clinton's fault? Congress' fault? Sure. As far as Obama's fault and what he has done to "wreck the economy," I often hear he's imposed draconian regulations. When asked which regulations are draconian and unnecessary and ill-founded? I hear silence. Is it Obamacare? I haven't seen a single unbiased source attribute any economic shrinkage to the Affordable Health Care Act. Is it because there's an element of Congress which absolutely will not compromise on anything? I think that's a big part of it. We saw that with the debt ceiling negotiations--even when the Democrats were ready to concede everything the Republicans wanted, they still wanted more and were willing to risk the credit of the country to make their point.

So tell me, other than stating that the economy is Obama's fault, what specifically has he done or not done?


When Obama implements a policy that fails (pretty much everyone) it's "it's not his fault he inherited this economy from Bush", if something positive comes from one his policies it's "see what a great president he is".

Obama didn't sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither did Bush. Bush, however, was President before the crash. Hindsight being 20/20, I doubt there was much he could have done following the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Blame Clinton if anyone or the Republican bank-controlled Congress which supported such a measure. Glass Steagall was a product of the Depression and was recognized as part of the solution. You know the old saying, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

pphilfran
10/27/2011, 02:00 PM
And here is Midtowner f'n things up with logical thinking...

diverdog
10/27/2011, 04:03 PM
Is some of it Bush's fault? Clinton's fault? Congress' fault? Sure. As far as Obama's fault and what he has done to "wreck the economy," I often hear he's imposed draconian regulations. When asked which regulations are draconian and unnecessary and ill-founded? I hear silence. Is it Obamacare? I haven't seen a single unbiased source attribute any economic shrinkage to the Affordable Health Care Act. Is it because there's an element of Congress which absolutely will not compromise on anything? I think that's a big part of it. We saw that with the debt ceiling negotiations--even when the Democrats were ready to concede everything the Republicans wanted, they still wanted more and were willing to risk the credit of the country to make their point.

So tell me, other than stating that the economy is Obama's fault, what specifically has he done or not done?



Obama didn't sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither did Bush. Bush, however, was President before the crash. Hindsight being 20/20, I doubt there was much he could have done following the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Blame Clinton if anyone or the Republican bank-controlled Congress which supported such a measure. Glass Steagall was a product of the Depression and was recognized as part of the solution. You know the old saying, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

One of the big issues with Bush is that he defunded the regulators and put the fear of god in them if they actually regulated the industries that needed to be regulated.

CrimsonCream
10/27/2011, 04:26 PM
The Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge anything he's done that has had a negative effect on this country. It's all Bush's fault. Oh but when something good happens, it's "look what Obama has done".

You are absolutely correct. Something I've been saying the last two years.

Anything positive is always "I." Anything negative is always somebody else's fault or circumstance or event. The Japanese earthquake was laughable but the blame on ATM machines for the economy is the centerpiece of the turd's incompetence.

Midtowner
10/27/2011, 04:46 PM
And there you go again CC. Did you even read what the President said regarding ATMs? If you did, I have to really question your reading comprehension/critical thinking skills because he was talking about automation and increased productivity costing us jobs.


There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

Increased productivity leading to unemployment is econ 101 stuff.

dwarthog
10/27/2011, 05:22 PM
Is some of it Bush's fault? Clinton's fault? Congress' fault? Sure. As far as Obama's fault and what he has done to "wreck the economy," I often hear he's imposed draconian regulations. When asked which regulations are draconian and unnecessary and ill-founded? I hear silence. Is it Obamacare? I haven't seen a single unbiased source attribute any economic shrinkage to the Affordable Health Care Act. Is it because there's an element of Congress which absolutely will not compromise on anything? I think that's a big part of it. We saw that with the debt ceiling negotiations--even when the Democrats were ready to concede everything the Republicans wanted, they still wanted more and were willing to risk the credit of the country to make their point.

So tell me, other than stating that the economy is Obama's fault, what specifically has he done or not done?



Obama didn't sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither did Bush. Bush, however, was President before the crash. Hindsight being 20/20, I doubt there was much he could have done following the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Blame Clinton if anyone or the Republican bank-controlled Congress which supported such a measure. Glass Steagall was a product of the Depression and was recognized as part of the solution. You know the old saying, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."




NLRB prohibiting Boeing from creating new jobs in South Carolina.

EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

http://science.house.gov/press-release/witnesses-denounce-epa-cross-state-air-pollution-rule




The CSAPR, which the EPA released earlier this summer, requires Texas and 27 other states’ power generators to make dramatic reductions in emissions beginning January 1, 2012. On Monday, Texas-based power company, Luminant, announced plans to lay off over 500 employees in preparation to meet the Rule’s unrealistic compliance deadline. Moreover, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has found that the rule could result in rotating power outages, and further studies indicate it could contribute to double-digit increases in electricity prices and the loss of countless jobs.


Representing a rural electric cooperative that will be negatively impacted by the Rule, Mr. Wayne E. Penrod, Executive Manager of Environmental Policy at the Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, told Members of the Committee that the compliance schedule is unrealistic. “EPA has suggested that utilities can comply with the rule by installing new control technology, by relying more on natural gas, by allowance trading, by fuel switching to natural gas and low-sulfur coal, and by purchasing electricity from others,” Penrod said. “Yet none of these options is truly available given the extremely short compliance schedule.”


Regarding Obama's regulatory impacts. By no means a comprehensive list.


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/red-tape-rising-a-2011-mid-year-report



Unprecedented Growth in Red Tape in the Obama Era

The new regulations continue a multiyear trend of heavier burdens placed on the U.S. economy and the American people. This trend did not begin with the presidency of Barack Obama; the Administration of George W. Bush, for example, generated more than $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs.[7]

However, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration. During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.

The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher, for several reasons. First, the reported totals do not include “non-major” rules, i.e., those deemed unlikely to cost $100 million or more annually. Moreover, as agencies estimate the impacts of their own rules, costs are routinely minimized. Nor do agencies always analyze the costs of proposed rules. Twelve of the 75 major regulations adopted by the Obama Administration through the end of March 2011 did not include quantified costs.

The regulations imposed include fuel economy and emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, with an annual cost of $10.8 billion; energy conservation standards for lightbulbs, with an annual cost of $700 million; constraints on “short sales” of securities, at $1.2 billion; and a slew of other costly regulations related to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute and Obamacare health regulations.

No other President has burdened businesses and individuals with a higher number and larger cost of regulations in a comparable time period. President Bush was in his third year before new costs hit $4 billion. President Obama achieved the same in 12 months.
More Regulators, Bigger Budgets

In addition to the costs imposed on the private sector, regulations swell the government workforce and fatten the federal budget. According to a report by the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy and The George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, regulatory staff at federal agencies (full-time equivalents) increased about 3 percent between 2009 and 2010, from 262,241 to 271,235, and is estimated to rise another 4 percent—to 281,832—in 2011. Federal outlays for developing and enforcing regulations are also expected to grow by 4 percent this year, from $46.9 billion in 2010 (in constant 2005 dollars) to $48.9 billion.[8]

More Costly Regulations Looming. The torrent of new regulation will not end any time soon. The regulatory pipeline is chock full of proposed rules. The spring 2011 Unified Agenda (also known as the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda) lists 2,785 rules (proposed and final) in the pipeline. Of those, 144 were classified as “economically significant.” With each of the 144 pending major rules expected to cost at least $100 million annually, they represent at least $14 billion in new burdens each year.

This is an increase of 15.2 percent in the number of economically significant rules in the agenda between spring 2010 and spring 2011. Moreover, in the past decade, the number of such rules has increased a whopping 102 percent, rising from 71 to 144 since 2001.[9]

Midtowner
10/27/2011, 08:01 PM
Heritage ain't exactly an unbiased source.

And sudden growth in regulatory costs was because Bush hamstrung regulatory orgs to keep them from protecting the public. As far as regulations on coal plants go, great! Coal is the energy source of the past. We can move on to cleaner natural gas and renewables. Let China kill their own citizens with poisonous emissions.

dwarthog
10/28/2011, 08:14 AM
Heritage ain't exactly an unbiased source.

And sudden growth in regulatory costs was because Bush hamstrung regulatory orgs to keep them from protecting the public. As far as regulations on coal plants go, great! Coal is the energy source of the past. We can move on to cleaner natural gas and renewables. Let China kill their own citizens with poisonous emissions.

So you overlooked the part about them blasting Bush for his HUGE increases in costs associated with increased regulations.

I would seem you really don't care much beyond the demagoguery.

soonercruiser
10/31/2011, 10:11 PM
Is some of it Bush's fault? Clinton's fault? Congress' fault? Sure. As far as Obama's fault and what he has done to "wreck the economy," I often hear he's imposed draconian regulations. When asked which regulations are draconian and unnecessary and ill-founded? I hear silence. Is it Obamacare? I haven't seen a single unbiased source attribute any economic shrinkage to the Affordable Health Care Act. Is it because there's an element of Congress which absolutely will not compromise on anything? I think that's a big part of it. We saw that with the debt ceiling negotiations--even when the Democrats were ready to concede everything the Republicans wanted, they still wanted more and were willing to risk the credit of the country to make their point.

So tell me, other than stating that the economy is Obama's fault, what specifically has he done or not done?

Obama didn't sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither did Bush. Bush, however, was President before the crash. Hindsight being 20/20, I doubt there was much he could have done following the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Blame Clinton if anyone or the Republican bank-controlled Congress which supported such a measure. Glass Steagall was a product of the Depression and was recognized as part of the solution. You know the old saying, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

You haven't seen anything, because you only frequent LW media, Midtownert!
I have seen numerous business men, CEO, etc. on TV and heard them on radio talking about how they are not hiring, or that they are reducing the work force because of the Healthcare Bill cost to the employer.
He11! Even the administration itself is saying one of the key components isn't feasible! You see that in the LW media last week???
And, now we're just wait for the SCOTUS ruling!
:distant: