State of the Union, Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record (2 VIDEOS).... 1/26. Added ques about Indiana Right-to-Work law

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:17 AM GMT


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:39 AM GMT
    Yes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:42 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....


    Ryan's budget was a non-starter. Try again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:55 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....


    Ryan's budget was a non-starter. Try again.

    It was a starting point. The Democrats provided NOTHING, except for the Obama budget that completely ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission and was voted down with how many votes in favor? Zero. Total failure.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 25, 2012 6:21 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    They were put in place to stop Obama. Plain and simple.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 25, 2012 6:21 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....


    Ryan's budget was a non-starter. Try again.

    At least he presented one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    JP85257 said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....


    Ryan's budget was a non-starter. Try again.

    At least he presented one.

    Agree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 4:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidYes. The Republicans haven't allowed any progress to be made in the past year. An unprecedented combination of obstructionism and laziness on their part.

    And everyone knows it.

    Silly boy again. Senate no budget proposal in 1000 days. Ryan proposed a budget. Goes on and on.....


    It's sort of bizarre how some leftists make excuses for this fact. It has been 1000 days - you'd think that if Democrats really believed that there were a more viable budget they'd well... propose one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

    Bet you can't guess by looking at that which year the Democrats gained control of the Senate and the Republicans became the minority.

    The fact of the matter is that Democrats can barely name a post-office anymore without Republicans filibustering and blocking it in the Senate.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Jan 25, 2012 5:24 PM GMT
    I loved the "State of Obama Re-election" speech last night. I thought Mitch Daniels was more presidential in his rebuttle than Obama.

    Obama did not site any vision for the countries future. He hates and apologizes for this country and belittles its own people. He hates free enterprise and believes in government creating jobs and controlling our lives. He did not list one accomplishment he was proud of in the last 3 years because everything he has done is ruining this country or has failed. He talks about creating jobs yet kills the oil pipeline (tens of thousands of middle class jobs) which his own party favors. He talks about dividing this nation into class warfare. False promises to end the spending and debt. All it was was empty promises from an empty suit.

    It should be a clear choice for everyone that he done not deserve 4 more years.



    On a side note, I did like his bit on education where he said teachers should be rewarded on merit and performance and schools should be more free to make choices on learning and education and all the dems applauded.....haha, in my state of Wisconsin, Gov.Scott Walker, has done that....gave the schools the tools to make choices, get rid of bad teachers, fix budgets and solved our states 3 billion dollar debt. His thanks for his reforms?... all the national public unions and dems want to recall him for doing just what Obama has called for other states to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
    Pretty speech. Which is unfortunate. The better the speech, the more disappointed I am as nothing happens. I rather him stumble over his words, drool, blather incoherently, vomit on the podium, and then lead the country to great success than the other way around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 6:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500Ah, another young supporter of the Democrats, blissfully unaware that the current crop of Democrats in Washington DC have mortgaged his future.


    Mortgaged my future? Let's talk about the Republicans that mortgaged my future in order to create an unfunded Medicare part D drug benefit to buy votes from seniors. Let's talk about Republicans that started pre-emptive wars while at the same time CUTTING taxes thereby drastically increasing the deficit my generation will have to manage. Let's talk about the Republicans (post Nixon) refusing to invest in newer technologies and research for clean, renewable energies forcing my generation to live with rising energy costs. Let's talk about the Republicans in Congress demanding that Millionaires get a tax cut and paying for it by raising the interest rates on my student loans.

    The Democratic party is in no way perfect. I'm perfectly willing to criticize them when they are wrong but to completely ignore the fact that the Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster is the epitome of partisan blindness.

    I'm not the one that starts threads based entirely on one-sided partisan rhetoric. That would be you and the OP.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Jan 25, 2012 6:10 PM GMT
    lets talk about democrats who have mortgaged my future with failed stimulus, with no way to fund Obama care, with Obama racking up trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in debt YOU and ME will never be able to pay for. its not all one sided if you look at it from the other side. Problem is we cant meet in the middle and find a solution so your side will fight and our side will fight untill we both die.

    Then you know what happens?? no one wins
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Jan 25, 2012 6:36 PM GMT
    isrred said
    southbeach1500Ah, another young supporter of the Democrats, blissfully unaware that the current crop of Democrats in Washington DC have mortgaged his future.


    Mortgaged my future? Let's talk about the Republicans that mortgaged my future in order to create an unfunded Medicare part D drug benefit to buy votes from seniors. Let's talk about Republicans that started pre-emptive wars while at the same time CUTTING taxes thereby drastically increasing the deficit my generation will have to manage. Let's talk about the Republicans (post Nixon) refusing to invest in newer technologies and research for clean, renewable energies forcing my generation to live with rising energy costs. Let's talk about the Republicans in Congress demanding that Millionaires get a tax cut and paying for it by raising the interest rates on my student loans.

    The Democratic party is in no way perfect. I'm perfectly willing to criticize them when they are wrong but to completely ignore the fact that the Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster is the epitome of partisan blindness.

    I'm not the one that starts threads based entirely on one-sided partisan rhetoric. That would be you and the OP.


    Don't worry, whenever he's outclassed by younger members, he tosses their age at them as an insult.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:04 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidHow much debt will have been added during the 4 years of the Obama administration?



    How much if that is NEW debt? ie debt that is happening BECAUSE of new Democratic spending and not because of rising costs in programs that existed long before Obama took office, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc?

    Yes, our debt is increasing rapidly. Blaming it entirely on the current occupant of the oval office is absurd.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Jan 25, 2012 7:05 PM GMT
    isrred said
    southbeach1500 saidHow much debt will have been added during the 4 years of the Obama administration?



    How much if that is NEW debt? ie debt that is happening BECAUSE of new Democratic spending and not because of rising costs in programs that existed long before Obama took office, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc?

    Yes, our debt is increasing rapidly. Blaming it entirely on the current occupant of the oval office is absurd.


    Don't forget the cost of continuing wars that weren't started by him. We all know that wars can't just be stopped overnight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
    isrred said
    southbeach1500 saidHow much debt will have been added during the 4 years of the Obama administration?



    How much if that is NEW debt? ie debt that is happening BECAUSE of new Democratic spending and not because of rising costs in programs that existed long before Obama took office, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc?

    Yes, our debt is increasing rapidly. Blaming it entirely on the current occupant of the oval office is absurd.


    Let's look at the new debt which rose more rapidly under Obama.

    As a percentage of GDP (aka national income), no President in modern times has increased the debt more than under the Obama Administration.

    Each Administrations either chooses to change or extend policies of previous administrations so to suggest that responsibility can be deflected in part or in whole as a result of the "Bush tax cuts" is not only inaccurate but an outright lie. More accurately it would be called the Obama Administration's extension of the Bush tax cuts.

    Spending has increased dramatically under the Obama Adminstration and things are anticipated to get so much worse. Here are the projections as compiled by Heritage based on the White House's own damning numbers:

    wm3121_chart1_600.ashx?w=600&h=419&as=1

    wm3121_chart2.ashx?w=400&h=571&as=1

    So please - attempt to claim all you want that it's not this Administration that has mortgaged the future of the US but under this Administration the projected level of debt is expected to multiply even under this Administration's own numbers. It's bears no resemblance to reality this idea that some of you claim to be fiscal conservatives and yet support this Administration's policies.

    Again, as a reminder - projected and actual deficits as of 2009 - and these numbers have deteriorated since then - that's the scary part of it:

    wapoobamabudget1.jpg
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Jan 25, 2012 7:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    isrred said
    southbeach1500 saidHow much debt will have been added during the 4 years of the Obama administration?



    How much if that is NEW debt? ie debt that is happening BECAUSE of new Democratic spending and not because of rising costs in programs that existed long before Obama took office, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc?

    Yes, our debt is increasing rapidly. Blaming it entirely on the current occupant of the oval office is absurd.


    Well, now that the chart has been posted, you can refer to it to come up with the number. My guess is that you had no idea how much debt the Obama administration will have added during its 4 years. Is my guess correct?


    No No, they will say its all bush's fault and blame it on the wars!!icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    jock_1 said
    southbeach1500 said
    isrred said
    southbeach1500 saidHow much debt will have been added during the 4 years of the Obama administration?



    How much if that is NEW debt? ie debt that is happening BECAUSE of new Democratic spending and not because of rising costs in programs that existed long before Obama took office, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc?

    Yes, our debt is increasing rapidly. Blaming it entirely on the current occupant of the oval office is absurd.


    Well, now that the chart has been posted, you can refer to it to come up with the number. My guess is that you had no idea how much debt the Obama administration will have added during its 4 years. Is my guess correct?


    No No, they will say its all bush's fault and blame it on the wars!!icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. We'll say that you can't trust the anti-gay Heritage Foundation on the color of the sky, let alone numbers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

    So lets see:
    -Bush Tax cuts: not Obama
    -Wars: not Obama
    -Economic downturn: not Obama
    -TARP: not Obama
    -Recovery measures: Obama


    Add to that the fact that the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the greatest contributors to the rising spending. These programs existed before Obama and Obama didn't cause the rise in costs of these programs.

    The debt, and its rising faster than ever before, is a problem but your insistence that Obama is causing this rapid rise is blind partisanship.

    Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have significant ownership of our current financial situation. Blaming Obama over any other president is just blind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    Rule 1: When you don't like the numbers, blame it on being out of context.

    Rule 2: When the context is shown, blame it on the messenger.

    Rule 3: If you can't blame it on the messenger, mention some other organization and make a derogatory comment, even if they are not involved with the current discussion.

    Rule 4: If you can't think of anything that makes sense, respond anyway. Most people consider the response, not its context.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:37 PM GMT
    isrred saidTAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

    So lets see:
    -Bush Tax cuts: not Obama
    -Wars: not Obama
    -Economic downturn: not Obama
    -TARP: not Obama
    -Recovery measures: Obama


    Add to that the fact that the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the greatest contributors to the rising spending. These programs existed before Obama and Obama didn't cause the rise in costs of these programs.

    The debt, and its rising faster than ever before, is a problem but your insistence that Obama is causing this rapid rise is blind partisanship.

    Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have significant ownership of our current financial situation. Blaming Obama over any other president is just blind.


    Thanks for providing the often quoted but equally often discredited graph by the CBPP. As you'll see the deficits rose dramatically after 2008 - so your argument doesn't pass the cursory smell test. It is absolutely a direct result of the Obama Administration that has seen the rise of the deficit rise so quickly and steeply - and the massive additional entitlements and stimulus spendings have made things worse. These are direct policy decisions of this Administration. You are absolutely wrong to suggest that it is "blind partisanship" to make this fact plain - in fact to deny it is the very "blind partisanship" that you imply you are innocent of.

    Here's a far less partisan source:

    http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/
    Politifact on the statement ""As a percentage of our gross domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6 percent. This figure is low by all historical standards."

    Forbes said the U.S. defense budget stands at 3.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, a figure that’s "low by all historical standards."

    Forbes’ statement stems from a base budget for defense that omits spending for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When those costs are factored in, defense spending comes to about 5 percent of GDP. Even at that higher level, spending is low compared to the post World War II era.

    So Forbes is right that the U.S. defense budget is at a relatively low mark when it’s measured by the country’s economic outlook. But by other measures -- such as using inflation-adjusted dollars and comparing U.S. expenditures to the rest of the world -- America’s defense spending is high.

    We rate the claim Mostly True."


    Despite trying to bend over itself to make the argument somewhat false - ie using absolute rather than relative numbers (when absolute numbers make no sense whatsoever) - Politifact makes it very clear that even AFTER supplemental spending, these deficits are not the result of the Wars. What's worse is that you deny this Administration has any responsibility for extending programs or tax cuts (the fact that they were short term in nature were for this very reason such that future politicians would be forced to adopt or deny policy extensions).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    isrred saidTAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

    So lets see:
    -Bush Tax cuts: not Obama
    -Wars: not Obama
    -Economic downturn: not Obama
    -TARP: not Obama
    -Recovery measures: Obama


    Add to that the fact that the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the greatest contributors to the rising spending. These programs existed before Obama and Obama didn't cause the rise in costs of these programs.

    The debt, and its rising faster than ever before, is a problem but your insistence that Obama is causing this rapid rise is blind partisanship.

    Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have significant ownership of our current financial situation. Blaming Obama over any other president is just blind.


    Thanks for providing the often quoted but equally often discredited graph by the CBPP. As you'll see the deficits rose dramatically after 2008 - so your argument doesn't pass the cursory smell test. It is absolutely a direct result of the Obama Administration that has seen the rise of the deficit rise so quickly and steeply - and the massive additional entitlements and stimulus spendings have made things worse. These are direct policy decisions of this Administration. You are absolutely wrong to suggest that it is "blind partisanship" to make this fact plain - in fact to deny it is the very "blind partisanship" that you imply you are innocent of.

    Here's a far less partisan source:

    http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/
    Politifact on the statement ""As a percentage of our gross domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6 percent. This figure is low by all historical standards."

    Forbes said the U.S. defense budget stands at 3.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, a figure that’s "low by all historical standards."

    Forbes’ statement stems from a base budget for defense that omits spending for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When those costs are factored in, defense spending comes to about 5 percent of GDP. Even at that higher level, spending is low compared to the post World War II era.

    So Forbes is right that the U.S. defense budget is at a relatively low mark when it’s measured by the country’s economic outlook. But by other measures -- such as using inflation-adjusted dollars and comparing U.S. expenditures to the rest of the world -- America’s defense spending is high.

    We rate the claim Mostly True."


    Despite trying to bend over itself to make the argument somewhat false - ie using absolute rather than relative numbers (when absolute numbers make no sense whatsoever) - Politifact makes it very clear that even AFTER supplemental spending, these deficits are not the result of the Wars. What's worse is that you deny this Administration has any responsibility for extending programs or tax cuts (the fact that they were short term in nature were for this very reason such that future politicians would be forced to adopt or deny policy extensions).


    "Discredited" by the Heritage Foundation no doubt. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 9:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said"Discredited" by the Heritage Foundation no doubt. icon_lol.gif


    Er no, my trite and smallminded Christian - just by their own sloppy numbers. Their claim is that the deficits are the result of the following - which to hold, Obama must not have had no control over any of these numbers - but here's the problem:

    (1) Bush-Era Tax Cuts. Extended and approved by the Obama Administration at the end of 2010. Directly in the control of the Administration. But even if it weren't, there's the minor prickly problem that spending is significantly higher than historical as a percentage of GDP - while revenues are slightly below average - highlighting that this is a spending problem not a revenues problem:

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/01/wm3121_chart1_600.ashx?w=600&h=419&as=1

    (2) Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Including war spending and other defense spending, is at historical lows relative to GDP. Let's bear in mind that the debt as a percentage of GDP is the greatest under the Obama Administration than any modern President. Including supplementary war spending, this amounts to 5% - which at the low end historically of all Defense Spending as per earlier references (which was also reluctantly confirmed by Politifact).

    (3) Economic Downturn - with one of the slowest on record. It hasn't helped that this Administration's policies are directly responsible the destruction of jobs including EPA tightening of energy regulations, the increased administration and costs of the Healthcare Reform Act, the anticipated increased interest costs as a result of the massive deficits creating a "negative stimulus", cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline in deference to Obama's environmental lobby and financial supporter Warren Buffet.

    (4) TARP, Fannie and Freddie. The Obama Administration team was integral to how these funds were spent and applied though the act was passed under the Bush Administration in 2010. It is as well the Obama Administration that chose to nationalize Fannie and Freddie while not fixing them at all given the market share they still control - and therefore directly benefit based on subsidized interest rates and ultimately perpetuating unintended consequences in the market (making the fall of the real estate slow and painful).

    But then again, look at the numerous assumptions they had to make even to come up with these numbers. Again, if you bother to read their numbers, they allocated all costs to these issues that they deemed to be unpopular as causes despite the fact that the deficit is just the additional cost of programs without citing any of the other costs like entitlements - as you stated. So which is the problem Christian? Entitlement spending growth or did you say you believed the CBPP given you yourself have posted this controversial if not outright discredited chart in the past?