Obama proclaims "The buck stops here", but still blames all problems on George W Bush

[Palin Rider]

So, you don't deny that he is a narcissist?

Hey, I don't mind being explicit about it: of course he is. As all presidents have been.

As for the label being weak ... perhaps I should have said ... the "most narcissistic president that I've ever experienced"? Would that have been a stronger stance to take?

Yes, but (considering your age) it would be totally inaccurate.

I doubt that Obama would even be among the top 40% among the 44 presidents on a "narcissism" scale.

[SassyLady]

Hey, I don't mind being explicit about it: of course he is. As all presidents have been.

Yes, but (considering your age) it would be totally inaccurate.

Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.

I doubt that Obama would even be among the top 40% among the 44 presidents on a "narcissism" scale.

Can any of them top this? And this was just his first year:

SPEECHES, COMMENTS & REMARKS: 411
• Includes 52 addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals.
• He used a TelePrompTer at least 178 times. (Technically, it was 177 ? . On July 13, 2009, one of the teleprompter screens on the left side of his lectern fell to the ground and broke shortly after he began speaking. So he was left with half a TelePrompTer.)


NEWS CONFERENCES: 42
• Of which 5 were formal, solo White House Q&A sessions. Four were in prime time. His last one was July 22, 2009. (seen at left)
• Nearly all of the other press availabilities were joint appearances with foreign leaders at which as few as 1 question was taken by Mr. Obama.
• Predecessor George W. Bush did 21 news conferences his first year of which 4 were formal, solo White House sessions. Only 1 was in prime time.

INTERVIEWS: 158.
• This is a striking number of interviews and far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year. Ninety of the sessions were TV interviews. Eleven were radio. The rest were newspaper and magazine. The number reflects the White House media strategy that Mr. Obama can best respond to questions in an interview setting.



DOMESTIC TRAVEL: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities and towns in 30 states
• Most frequently visited state by Mr. Obama: New York* (excluding Maryland & Virginia, which border DC and to which visits are more local than out-of-town).
• President George W. Bush made appearances in 39 states during his 1st year.
• President Clinton visited 22 states in 1993, his first year.

FOREIGN TRAVEL: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice).
• Mr. Obama made more trips abroad in his first year than has any other U.S. President.
• Next most frequent foreign traveler during first year in office was President George H.W. Bush: 7 trips to 14 countries.


POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS: 28
• The events raised at least $27.25 million. (3 of the events Mr. Obama attended declined to disclose how much was raised.
• George W. Bush did 6 fundraisers his 1st year raising over $48 million.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...25-503544.html

[Palin Rider]

Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.
Can any of them top this?

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics.

[red states rule]

Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.



Can any of them top this? And this was just his first year:

The PR convoy took a direct hit with that post

[red states rule]

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics.

[SassyLady]

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics.

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics.

[red states rule]

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics.

Hope you packed a lunch

[Palin Rider]

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics.

Hm. Okay, cool, but I think that's the subject for a new thread. I'll put it in the History section and PM you when the OP is up.

[Modus Ponens]

Thomas Sowell nails it again.

Thomas Sowell is a slick liar. Let's take another look at his dog-and-pony show:

----------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...les/page/full/

Political Fables

by Thomas Sowell

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats

Of course Sowell conveniently neglects to mention the Republican dominance of the Legislature for 3/4 of Bush's presidency. That kills his credibility, right out the gate.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

This is mostly a coincidence (and the remainder of it, we shall see, is the responsibility of Republicans). The surplus was a result of Clinton-era tax rates (higher than in the Reagan-Bush years) plus the additional revenues generated by the dot-com boom. Clinton also acted early in his administration to restrain the growth of discretionary spending and to limit the growth of deficits. Indeed, success in these areas, as figures like Alan Greenspan have attested, set the stage for the boom of the latter half of the decade.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills.

Well, this claim is rubbish. Again he takes a hit to his credibility. Has Sowell never heard of the President's annual budget to Congress? Through it, the President's voice in crafting legislation is powerful, if indirect.

President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

You can count the number of bills that Bush vetoed on one hand. The grand total for his first 4 years in office? You know, when there was no Democrat-controlled house of Congress to be found? Zero.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama

Look at this! This is simply a flat-out lie. Sowell here is speaking of the national debt as a "situation created by" President Obama, when the simple plain fact of the matter is that it has been decades in the making - and by far the lion's share of it has been generated under REPUBLICAN rule!

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

Mmn-Hmm. That's right, Tom. And pray, just who were those "politicians"? You got it - Gingrich-era Republicans like Phil Gramm. It was in the second half of the Clinton administration that the Republicans took the crucial steps eliminating oversight and conflict-of-interest prohibitions, that resulted immediately - in 2002 and in 2008 - in a wave of Wall Street scandals.

I just love the bait-and-switch that the Cons pull on the Independents. When government is shown to be corrupt or dysfunctional, the Cons will if at all possible pin it on the Democrats: but if they're the one's who are the crooks - even when they're caught dead to rights! - then they turn and rail against "government." Throw in a few charges of class warfare, some Godgunsandgays politics, and the Independents, like sheep go straight back into the voting booth and vote for their corporate masters, again. Have to hand it to you Cons. It's a damn brilliant scam you've got running.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

The Democrats are complicit in the mess, it's true. But without the lifting of the prohibitions on risky lending practices in the first place, the banks would not have been issuing the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie ended up serving as surety for. The problem all goes back to Wall Street greed, and their bought and paid for conservative politicians.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

And who controlled the House when Bush made this courageous complaint? Looks like Tom has already forgotten the point the started with: that Congress is front-and-center when it comes to responsibility for this current mess.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

It'd be good for him to at least start taking his own advice.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

And what, exactly did the Republican-controlled Congress try to do - they had twelve years, remember! - about these two sacred cows?!

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

I love it! Here we are, back to "the politicians," again. But you really can't blame the Cons, when the Independents buy the lies hook, line and sinker.

Sowell is supposed to be smart man, but you see, to be a Con is to check your brain at the door and pick up your credentials as a professional hypocrite.

[red states rule]

Thomas Sowell is a slick liar. Let's take another look at his dog-and-pony show:



Of course Sowell conveniently neglects to mention the Republican dominance of the Legislature for 3/4 of Bush's presidency. That kills his credibility, right out the gate.



This is mostly a coincidence (and the remainder of it, we shall see, is the responsibility of Republicans). The surplus was a result of Clinton-era tax rates (higher than in the Reagan-Bush years) plus the additional revenues generated by the dot-com boom. Clinton also acted early in his administration to restrain the growth of discretionary spending and to limit the growth of deficits. Indeed, success in these areas, as figures like Alan Greenspan have attested, set the stage for the boom of the latter half of the decade.



Well, this claim is rubbish. Again he takes a hit to his credibility. Has Sowell never heard of the President's annual budget to Congress? Through it, the President's voice in crafting legislation is powerful, if indirect.



You can count the number of bills that Bush vetoed on one hand. The grand total for his first 4 years in office? You know, when there was no Democrat-controlled house of Congress to be found? Zero.



Look at this! This is simply a flat-out lie. Sowell here is speaking of the national debt as a "situation created by" President Obama, when the simple plain fact of the matter is that it has been decades in the making - and by far the lion's share of it has been generated under REPUBLICAN rule!



Mmn-Hmm. That's right, Tom. And pray, just who were those "politicians"? You got it - Gingrich-era Republicans like Phil Gramm. It was in the second half of the Clinton administration that the Republicans took the crucial steps eliminating oversight and conflict-of-interest prohibitions, that resulted immediately - in 2002 and in 2008 - in a wave of Wall Street scandals.

I just love the bait-and-switch that the Cons pull on the Independents. When government is shown to be corrupt or dysfunctional, the Cons will if at all possible pin it on the Democrats: but if they're the one's who are the crooks - even when they're caught dead to rights! - then they turn and rail against "government." Throw in a few charges of class warfare, some Godgunsandgays politics, and the Independents, like sheep go straight back into the voting booth and vote for their corporate masters, again. Have to hand it to you Cons. It's a damn brilliant scam you've got running.



The Democrats are complicit in the mess, it's true. But without the lifting of the prohibitions on risky lending practices in the first place, the banks would not have been issuing the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie ended up serving as surety for. The problem all goes back to Wall Street greed, and their bought and paid for conservative politicians.



And who controlled the House when Bush made this courageous complaint? Looks like Tom has already forgotten the point the started with: that Congress is front-and-center when it comes to responsibility for this current mess.



It'd be good for him to at least start taking his own advice.



And what, exactly did the Republican-controlled Congress try to do - they had twelve years, remember! - about these two sacred cows?!



I love it! Here we are, back to "the politicians," again. But you really can't blame the Cons, when the Independents buy the lies hook, line and sinker.

Sowell is supposed to be smart man, but you see, to be a Con is to check your brain at the door and pick up your credentials as a professional hypocrite.

So when you can't counter Dr Sowell you fall back on personal attacks. A sure sign a liberal is beaten in the debate

Obama and the Dems have flipped off the voetrs by ignoring what thye been saying for the last 2 years, and when it is clear Dems are going to suffer heavy losses Dems turn their anger on them

The Blame Bush excuse is no longer working 2 years into Obama's only term

Keep up the good work!