Quantcast
U.S. & World

Obama rejects GOP stopgap proposal, says no more budget extensions

Rep. Paul Ryan unveils Republican budget with $6.2 trillion in cuts

Comments

Return To Article
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 6, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Re: Gentile | 6:35 a.m. April 6, 2011

    Is there some magical maximum amount of debt we can afford to pay interest on?

    What happens when we inevitably exceed that maximum limit?

    Michael Jackson is the one who taught us if you spend more than you bring in sooner or later it will catch up with you.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 6, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    The Drudge Report just came out with findings that TARP and all this "stimulus" money has been given to foreign banks and to unions, unions that fund democratic campaigns that keep democrats in office to keep funding the unions that...and we just passively look away, pretending to believe that this money is being used for the people of this nation. Obama is redistributing the wealth, but not to poor Americans. Such corruption must end, and it's up to we the people to end it.

  • Gentile brookings, SD
    April 6, 2011 6:35 a.m.

    I know that it is a sign of great maturity to threaten to shut down the greatest nation on the face of the earth. It reeks of maturity. How about moving on, planning, negotiating, thinking, ahem, thinking, and then acting? To just kick, slug, bite, chew, and spit because you are not liking certain programs is a sign of maturity? Leadership?

    Please.

    Thank goodness there is the senate and the President of the United States.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    April 6, 2011 5:47 a.m.

    We are not so much trying to cut spending as to cut a thin slice off of our mountain of borrowing. A very thin slice.

  • jorge Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 5, 2011 11:45 p.m.

    Let's keep it civil.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 5, 2011 10:13 p.m.

    @ Peter. I guess i should explain what I mean better. I will use the 800 billion dollar stimulus for example. Instead of borrowing the money and spending into into the economy the government could simply create the money and spend into the economy. What are the differences and what is the outcome.

    Obviously when someone borrows money they have to pay it back with interest. So what was the net effect of the stimulus on the economy. It was zero or negative. It created jobs but since money has to be sucked out of the economy to pay it back, it only causes temporary gains. 800 billion minus 800 billion plus interest equals a shortage of money in the economy.

    Well duh right? What if the government just printed the money and spent into the economy? Would it cause inflation? No. If there are 12 million people out of work there is too little money chasing goods and services. If the government just created the money and spent it into the economy the net effect would be 800 billion circling in the economy interest and debt free. No taxes would be needed to pay for it.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 5, 2011 10:11 p.m.

    The Republican Congressional majority failed to pass a finished budget in three years: 1998, 2004 and 2006.

    The Senate and the House are supposed to pass resolutions in the spring that outline the framework for future bills that address spending, taxation and other fiscal policy items. This budget represents a plan for allocating revenues and expenditures for the coming fiscal year, as well as for the next four fiscal years in more general terms. Each chamber is supposed to pass a version of the resolution, and if the two versions differ, then the chambers jointly hammer out a compromise and pass it.

    The budget process is distinct from the series of appropriations, or spending, bills that actually allocate money for specific purposes. Unlike the appropriations bills, the budget resolution doesn't carry the force of law. The budget resolution is not signed by the president. If a budget resolution does not pass, it increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and winter and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the Senate.
    (Politifact)

  • katoboy West Jordan, UT
    April 5, 2011 9:46 p.m.

    Gallup put the congressional job approval rating at 18% last week. I wonder what it is this week?

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 5, 2011 9:32 p.m.

    Unfortunately, just printing money without anything to back it up creates hyperinflation, something Hitler intended to do with counterfeit currencies by flooding various national markets. Fortunately, his evil crusade toppled before he could complete the task.
    In my mind, only a fool would look to the cause of a dilemma for the solution to the dilemma, i.e. the Feds and the mess they've created over the years. And we just keep drinking their kool-aid.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 5, 2011 9:09 p.m.

    Has anybody seriously wondered why a government that can print its money has to ever go into debt? When the government borrows a billion dollars it has to be payed back with interest. What happens when the government needs a billion dollars again. It borrows it.

    Hows does it benefit the economy if the government spends a billion dollars and then has to suck that money right out of the economy with interest to pay it back?

    A better solution would be to create the money, spend the money into the economy and let the money move through the economy to create jobs and wealth. No taxes and no recessions. What a noble idea.

  • WinSum Rexburg, ID
    April 5, 2011 8:48 p.m.

    Mr. Obama: Where were you all last year when, with a Democratic Congress, both houses, you didn't even provide enough leadership to pass a budget at all. "Wolf, wolf, wolf....oh my gosh, the sky is falling....Wolf, wolf, wolf.

  • working class Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 8:09 p.m.

    Those of you who are 55+ in age, don't be fooled into thinking Ryan is going to hold you harmless. This is divide and conquer. He's trashed the under 55 crowd, their elders will be next. This is nothing more than top down rationing of health care, i.e. top down death panels if you will.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    April 5, 2011 7:56 p.m.

    I'm sure Rep. Ryan is a great person who has great intentions; however I must know, does anyone out there know his opinion on the cost of war and whether he supports us being in two and a half wars? Or what his general opinion of war is? He deserves a gold medal for his concern on budgets, but does he know it is the 21st century?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    Obama hasn't looked better. Republican Governors in swing states are riling up the democratic base and making independents disillusioned. Republican presidential candidates will have to bow down to the tea party extremists and have to move so far right that they'll be completely unelectable (see: Angle, Miller, O'Donnell). Obama has moved so far on this budget thing that democrats are willing to cut as much as Boehner originally asked for. If there's a shutdown, it'll be the Republicans fault and they'll look bad to everyone except the tea party.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    April 5, 2011 7:23 p.m.

    There is an election comming, so the House can shut the Dems down cold. This is payback for the way he forced the medicare bill. If Obama looks bad it will be a tough election for him.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 7:01 p.m.

    "Finally, Mr. Ryan is talking common sense, responsible spending, without yanking the carpet out from under the elderly and needy"

    How is completely eliminating medicare (hint: those subsidies are way less than private insurance for old people would cost, otherwise he wouldn't have deficit reductions) and severely reducing medicaid so that he can give tax cuts for the rich NOT that?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 6:57 p.m.

    This is entirely the republicans fault. Democrats have compromised all the way to what Boehner was originally asking for. But now he wants to shift the goalposts because of tea-party pressure. Well tough... obama has that card to play ("we offered exactly what they asked for") so go ahead and shut down the gov't. It'll be all the republicans fault for refusing to compromise (when compromising is "getting what you originally asked for") and maybe then we can retake the house.

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 5, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    Who is president? Pagan loves to bring up Bush. Bush has been out of the White House for 2 years. Do you deny that the US is in fiscal trouble? We are dependent upon foreign investors to keep us solvent. Is this a position of strength.

    Yes, Bush and every president for the past 30 years have operated this way. So shall we keep on the current course? Economists will tell you that when a nation's debt value reaches 80% of their GDP, that nation will collapse. Where are we now? The US is at approximately 68%. We are just 12% from collapse? Have you looked ahead at our unfunded mandates? Do you understand that if our current government spending continues, without change, that our government could collapse?

    Pagan, grow up. Stop whining about "Bush spent this" or "Bush did that". What are WE, as a nation, doing NOW? What needs to be done?

    Economists categorically state that our government must reduce their spending levels. This is what Republicans are attempting to do. Meanwhile, Dems are the party of "No". No solutions, no change, no leadership.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 5, 2011 6:49 p.m.

    I'm glad that Obama isn't running my home budget. Finally, Mr. Ryan is talking common sense, responsible spending, without yanking the carpet out from under the elderly and needy, despite copious waste in both programs. Again, get rid of Federal interference with programs that should be run at a State level. The Feds waste so much of our tax dollars!!

  • Beam Me Up Scotty Layton, UT
    April 5, 2011 6:02 p.m.

    Obama said, "We are now at the point where there is no excuse to extend this further." What a JOKE! And where was the budget for last year? The whole lot of them should be sent home for dereliction of duty in the 2012 elections.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    April 5, 2011 5:48 p.m.

    "we cannot have our agencies making plans on a two week budget." This comming from a congress and a "dude" that didn't even have a budget last year. Spend, spend, spend,...weeeeeee!

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 5, 2011 5:04 p.m.

    Re: CHS 85 | 3:30 p.m. April 5, 2011

    When a person can't dispute the facts their only option is to change the subject. I'm a little confused however about what t-shirts handed out at a Sarah Palin rally have to do with our massive national debt. I suppose, in theory, that sooner or later the debt will get so large we won't be able to pay the interest.

    Too bad we don't have a surplus that would grow us some interest income.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    April 5, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    Tax religion
    Tax marriage
    Tax children

    Poof. No more deficit.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 5, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 3:44 p.m." lets look at things in terms of who actually controlls congress. Typically the largest increases in debt occur when Democrats control both houses of Congress.

    From 1981 to 1987 control was split and debt went up by 17.9%GDP
    From 1987 to 1995 Democrats controlled congress, and the debt rose by 17% GDP
    From 1995 to 2001 Republicans controlled congress and the debt decreased by 10.6% GDP.
    2001 to 2003 it was split and the debt increased by 5.2% GDP
    From 2003 to 2007 Republicans controlled congress and the debt increased by 2.8% GDP.
    From 2007 to 2011, Democrats controlled congress, and the debt increased by 29.9% GDP.

    Mixed control caused 23.1% increase
    Republican control caused a 5.4% decrease
    Democrat control caused a 46% increase

    It appears that when Democrats control the purse strings, debt soars. Split congresses go with Democrats, and Republicans either have small increases or decrease the debt compared to GDP.

    However, you should remember that the debt has always increased since 1969. The only decreases in debt as a %GDP are due to GDP growing faster than debt.

  • George Bronx, NY
    April 5, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    hold on, it was just a short few days ago I remember conservatives going on and on about not being afraid of a government shut down...now that Obama has called your bluff your upset?

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 5, 2011 3:48 p.m.

    I'm a Republican, and Obama was right when he rejects GOP stopgap proposal, says no more budget extensions.



    Good afternoon,

    If you're like me, you've got taxes on the brain this time of year, so I wanted to remind you of two things.

    First, don't forget the tax filing deadline this year is April 18, not April 15.

    Second, when you are filing your taxes this year, you will benefit from $160 billion of tax relief for middle-class families that President Obama secured this past December -- in addition to extending unemployment insurance, the 2001 and 2003 middle-class tax cuts and other key provisions. If you are one of the nearly 160 million Americans benefitting from the payroll tax cut, which was in the same package of middle-class tax relief, you are already seeing the additional savings in your paycheck.

    We have put together a new tax cut calculator on WhiteHouse.gov that will show you exactly what these tax cuts mean for you and your family. We've also included a link to Recovery Act tax cuts you may be eligible to claim on your 2010 taxes as you file this month.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    One last post about debt...

    National debt as a percentage of GDP is the accepted method of comparison.

    Reagan: Increased --> 34% to 52%
    Bush I: Increased --> 52% to 65%
    Clinton: Decreased --> 65% to 56%
    Bush II: Increased --> 56% to 82%
    Obama: Increased --> 82% to 97%

    Just the facts. Those numbers are published by the treasury dept.

    Net republican increases: 57%
    Net democratic increases: 6%

    Good day.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    'Hopefully you realize many of us were against Bush's spending too.' - unaffiliated_person | 3:10 p.m.

    It's hard to take that seriously when Bush was elected...

    twice.

    lost in DC | 3:14 p.m.,

    In case you didn't know Rifleman LOVES your graph. And yet, you go, per month, failing to acknowledge that the presidental office goes in 4yr incriments.

    Obama has only served 2 years.

    Pouncing on debt a bit early, aren't we?

    Also, you cite the amount Obama has added to the debt in a 'bad' light...

    but fail to criticize his Republican predecessor for doing the exact, same, thing.

    Ignoring that Republicans have failed in their 'Promise to America' to cut $100 billion from the budget...

    how can one claim Republicans 'work for the little guy', when faced with 139 Filibusters in '07-08?

    To DOUBLE the national debt as Bush did, Obama would have to add $10 trillion dollars to the debt.

    To TRIPLE the debt as Ronald Regan did, Obama would have to add $20 trillion to the national debt.

    The bar for national debt has been set a bit too high, wouldn't you agree?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 5, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 2:53 p.m." you forget that while there was no fanfare for Bush's $4 Trillion deficit over 8 years, there has been cheering for Obama's $3.1 Trillion deficit in 2 years. You are one of the cheerleaders.

    If Bush's debt was so bad, why is Obama's massive debt good. Either debt is good or it is bad. Liberals say that military spending is what brought us out of WWII, yet now military spending is bad. Which way is it, is military spending good or is it bad for the economy?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:38 p.m.

    "I know how to fix our money problems. Keep spending lots of money"

    barack hussein obama

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:30 p.m.

    @boris

    Don't forget the t-shirts handed out at a Palin rally that simply said PALIN then under it simply stated Guns.Babies.Jesus.

    DMN Moderators - that is a fact, not inflammatory.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    Why doesn't BO DEMAND a daily meeting with Reid? Why just Boehner? The house has already passed a budget bill, it's clown prince harry's senate controlled by the deNOcrats that hasn't acted.

    Pagan,
    you ever get tired of posting your comments about bush's debt just to have me - again - show how much worse BO's debt is?

    Time it took Bush to accumulate $4 trillion in debt - 96 months.
    Time it took BO to accumulate $4 trillion in debt - 26 months.
    Average Bush deficit - $545B
    Average Bush deficit with Republican congress - $470B
    Average Bush deficit with Democrat congress - $767B
    Average BO deficit - $1.9 trillion OVER 3X as high as Bush!

  • unaffiliated_person Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 5, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    Pagan,
    Hopefully you realize many of us were against Bush's spending too. Pointing out Bush's mistakes does no good...many of us were screaming for the spending to stop then too. Yes, the GOP is doing what we want...only because they are in the minority and was the only chance they had of winning any elections (using the spending cut platform). If they were in total control, they would be just as bad. This is why making sure the parties are split across the branches is a good thing.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 2:53 p.m.

    'We need to cut TRILLIONS...' - Anti Government | 2:32 p.m.

    *'Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller - CBSNews - 03/04/10

    Line:
    'With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.'


    I agree.

    And the calls for that, should have been done sooner, than 25 months ago.

    *'Audit: US can't account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds' - By Tarek El-tablawy - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/27/10

    Line:
    'The funds are separate from the $53 billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.'

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    April 5, 2011 2:32 p.m.

    A government shutdown?

    We can all dream can't we?

    As you can see Reid and Biden lied saying a deal was imminent. That was nothing more than a lie to put pressure on republicans to make them cave in to the Democrats continued ridiculous spending.

    This amount of money being discussed is the equivalent to a box of cereal in your next months groceries...yet Democrats act like these cuts are actually difficult to make.

    We need to cut TRILLIONS and yet the democrats act like 33 billion is serious.

    Use your brain people. We are on the road to bankruptcy with our currency devaluing on a daily basis. Meanwhile Democrats think current spending our cutting the eqivalent of a box of cereal is "too much".

    Seriously, do you need any more evidence that there plan for the USA is financial ruin? They want economic chaos because then the government "has to" implement all kinds of "controls" and if you know history exactly none of them benefit you.

    Get rid of every Democrat of Republican who does not support fiscal responsibility. Stop playing their petty political games and get rid of any that won't to what it takes.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    April 5, 2011 2:07 p.m.

    Boehner asnswers to the t-party. He can't be seen to comprimise with the evil O, Palosi and Reed can he? To me-partiers that's like negotiating with terrorists. R's are just so patriotic these days.

    Go ahead, shut the government dowm. Shut off SS and MC payments first. We'll see the t-party crying for thier checks.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 5, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    @Rifleman: Well, let's just wait and see if they do or don't, if the government does shut down, which I doubt it will. If it does, that's the best thing that can happen, because then they will actually start to negotiate with each other.

    And, yes, the democrats do want a balanced budget, just not necessarily the way the republicans want to get there. And the opposite is most likely true, which is why they are at a stalemate!

  • unaffiliated_person Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 5, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    I am amazed at all the artisans on this board. Do you all really believe the GOP is the answer? The same group that gave us massive government expansion, wars, Patriot Act, and huge deficits? Obama is no good either...larger deficits, the healthcare bill being passed without thought, etc. The liberal left and conservative right are so busy complaining about each other, nothing can be done anymore. I wish there were more moderates in Congress, but it seems the extremists have hijacked both parties. Now, we have massive government stalemate leading to a Russian/Argentinian-style currency collapse because the right is too busy blaming Obama and the left too busy blaming Bush. It seems almost like a couple arguing while the boat they are in is about to go over Niagara Falls...

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 5, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Speaker Boehner is chaging the rules in the middle of the negotiations. According to reports, in their meeting this morning the Speaker told the President and Harry Reid that he would not agree to any budget that would not garner 218 Republican votes. He's not interested in getting the necessary votes (218) unless they can all be Republicans. Bipartisanship is out the window in his mind. There is a budget plan that will pass the House that is acceptable to the Senate as well but it would require votes from both sides of the aisle in the House and would likely NOT garner the full 218 votes needed from the Republican side. But Speaker Boehner and his colleagues in the House aren't interested in being responsible, they're just playing games with all our lives.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    'When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture (filibuster) filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994.
    When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.'
    'The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo - 01/27/10

    *'How the House GOP promise to cut $100b became $32b' - By Luke Russert - NBC - 02/03/11

    *'Memories of 1995 haunt GOP as shutdown talk grows' - By Charles Babington - AP - Published by DSNews - 02/20/11
    'WASHINGTON Few memories haunt Republicans more deeply than the 1995-96 partial shutdown of the federal government, which helped President Bill Clinton reverse his falling fortunes and recast House Republicans as stubborn partisans, not savvy insurgents.'

  • boris Provo, UT
    April 5, 2011 12:38 p.m.

    "Which is why passing these massive bills are too complicated for them"

    Is writing a sentence too complicated for you? Irony?

    Don't whine about bumper sticker language when the first you cite will certainly be used by the right and the second (drill baby drill) was taken hook line and sinker. Palin (like her or not now) was adored by most of the right during the last campaign and her popularity is all bumper sticker talk with no substance.

    There is great potential for debate about politics, policy, and other matters but the conversation usually goes towards the stereotypical, shameful, and useless language typified in your last sentence.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 5, 2011 12:26 p.m.

    Re: xscribe

    Now why would the Republicans be in a position to blame the democrats on the govt. shutdown? Don't the Democrats want a balanced budget?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 5, 2011 12:26 p.m.

    Wow, the Obama haters are out in force. Boehner cannot control his own delegation and the GOP cannot govern. If the tea party crowd gets its way, America will have serious buyer's remorse. Imagine a party, the Republicans, who deliberately demand a cut in revenue, then complain about the consequences. On top of that, they call for cuts, but give tax breaks to the rich, bailouts for the banks and corporations, and protect spending on special interest projects. They don't represent the middle class, the 97% of us who don't make $250,000 or more. The fox is in the hen house, and the hens are clucking with approval. Astounding!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 5, 2011 12:17 p.m.

    @Liberal Ted: Boy, I hope you can back up that comment about Obama calling the American people terrorists, and do so in context and not out of context. Point us all to where we can find that quote in context!

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    Good thing obama is more worried about getting elected than he is being a leader. I wonder how many more wars he'll commit us to before his term is up. And I really hope it is going to be up.

    There are definately better candidates out there.

    The problem with the left, is that they only understand bumper sticker language. Which is why passing these massive bills are too complicated for them.

    The best way to talk to a left winger, is by a couple of words on the bumper sticker.

    For example "2012 Not Soon Enough" They will understand it, as an attempt to oust their annointed one. "Drill baby Drill" they immediately think of climate change and evil oil spills and big business. "Hope" they assosciate with the annointed one. "Change" again the annointed one. "Yes we can" their first thought is food stamps, stealing from others that work, and sitting on their lazy butts watching cable that we pay for.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    The democrats have become the party of no!

    Where is their solution? So far they've offered to borrow more money and run up our debt. They have no solution.

    Finally the republicans come up with a plan to actually cut the debt, and the part of no (democrats) turn it down.

    Maybe if obama took time and listened to the American people in the first place, instead of calling them terrorists, then maybe, just maybe....

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 5, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    Part II

    The United States will hit the legal limit on its ability to borrow no later than May 16, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said ramping up pressure on Congress to act to avoid a debt default. The longer Congress fails to act, the more we risk that investors here and around the world will lose confidence in our ability to meet our commitments and our obligations, Geithner said in a letter to congressional leaders. "Default by the United States is unthinkable." Previously, the Treasury had forecast that the $14.3 trillion statutory debt limit would be reached between April 15 and May 31. As of Friday, Treasury borrowing stood just $95 billion from the ceiling. The debt-limit showdown comes as Congress struggles to complete a spending package that would keep the government operating beyond Friday. As the government nears the debt ceiling, the Treasury has authority to take certain extraordinary measures to postpone the date the United States would default on its obligations. However, those actions would be exhausted after about eight weeks and there would be no headroom to borrow after July 8, Geithner said.


    I tell it like it is, because no one else will.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 5, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    The republicans are going to blame the democrats on the govt. shutdown. Shut it down. Better hope the economy is not doing well, or it's 5 years and 9 months to go. Better than the alternatives, who believe that change is bad, let's "stay the course." Anyone remember that line? Guess what? Times have changed, and we have a president trying to get us ahead of the game for the future, but we have a bunch of old, rich reps who do not want change.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    April 5, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    o is going to blame republicans on the govt. shutdown. shut er down! o has no plans of his own, always tells everyone else to come up with something. he'll be busy now continuing his campaign run of the last two years. o has got to go. only 1 year and 9 months left for the community organizer to return to chicago. can't come soon enough.