Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the next best time is right now.
I wish Obama had focused more on aspects of the economy that effect working class folks as well, but Obama's addressing of deficits is a step in the right direction, even if late to the game. Did the previous administration go to any substantive lengths to address the deficit? Did the administration before that, or before that?
Ronald Reagan thought that if we lowered taxes, it would restrict government from spending, but sadly, while noble in intent, it had the effect of setting in motion a precedence of borrow and spend that has continued with every President since.
So while in this climate, I know how easy it is to target Obama on this, but I'd believe people were actually sincere if they held this view in the past as much as they hold it today, which sadly, isn't the case for most.
If Obama had been sincere about the federal deficit and containing it he would have frozen government spending immediately after taking office rather than giving his Democrat controlled Congress until 2011 to spend as fast as they could!
If Obama had been sincere about the federal deficit and containing it he would have frozen government spending immediately after taking office rather than giving his Democrat controlled Congress until 2011 to spend as fast as they could!
As President, I suspect one would have to weigh a great many issues and prioritize which needed dealing with first. Does this mean he is not sincere now or only that he isn't sincere in general for failing to address this issue sooner?
I mean this reminds of two kids in the back seat of a car riding with their parents fighting over a piece of candy, "Mom, he started it", "No, I didn't mom, he pinched me first", etc...
Ok, lets assume Obama is doing this for purely political points and nothing else, is it not a good thing regardless of the reasoning?
I'm not defending Obama as much as pointing out that people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. In order to make an attack point, the ultimate point of this thread is to remove focus on the action of reducing deficit, which I think we all would agree is a good thing, and instead focus on just shooting Obama down as though there isn't 48907254028976 other things to be critical of.
I guess have at it if this is what floats folks boats.
If all of us that have been unemployed and on government assistance for an excruciating amount of time want to continue this way, then Obama is the ticket. That's definitely NOT the ticket I want.
Too bad he didn't put the money where his mouth was. Saving the economy, my foot.
Unfortunately, I think he is far to one-sided and conceited to consider this an option.
Here's the link...
Obama likely to focus on deficit in next 2 years - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_how_will_he_govern - broken link)
This is the nice way of saying taxes are going up. After watching them blow trillions, I'm sure most of us will have a VERY hard time accepting the bill those Washington bastards are gonna try to pass off on us.
I foresee a large increase in demand for companies that sell posterboard, bricks, gas masks, bottles, glass windows and windshields and gravesites.
If all of us that have been unemployed and on government assistance for an excruciating amount of time want to continue this way, then Obama is the ticket. That's definitely NOT the ticket I want.
Too bad he didn't put the money where his mouth was. Saving the economy, my foot.
Unfortunately, I think he is far to one-sided and conceited to consider this an option.
Here's the link...
Obama likely to focus on deficit in next 2 years - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_how_will_he_govern - broken link)
Well since you weren't paying attention it's what he said he'd do all along. You act as if his spending was on a shopping spree at the mall. Most economists believe the stimulus was needed and did work. In fact many think we should have spent more money, and while I didn't like any of the options probably believe that was true.
The difference between a guy like me, and somebody such as yourself is that I won't take an emergency situation to use as a means to beat up on somebody. While you and your gang ignore reality in order to do so. Of course you'll never publically explore where we would have been if Obama hadn't spent a dime on keeping our country from going down the toilet. Just like all the GOP losers who called him a reckless spender, were often first in line to cash the check in front of their constituents.
We all understood why Obama spent, he didn't have a choice, just like Bush didn't have one. You may deny reality all you'd like but deficit spending to stop us from going into a deflation sure as hell beats actually going into a depression. Obama made it clear from the start (again, since you don't read or pay attention) that they would address this deficit after they worked on the economy.
The disingenuous nature of your argument only shows how full of partisan hate you people are. Not a PEEP from you either when Bush enacted TARP, or sent you all checks to go shopping. Why? Because he was who you voted for and that was fine. Did you complain while Bush cut taxes and waged two wars? Doubling the debt adding a trillion to the deficit? Of course not, you cheered the war on and questioned people's patriotism if they were against it. You people should really get a grip, you seem to have no principles you truly stand for or understand. Try having some integrity for chrissake, pick a principle and stand behind it, rather than doing what your leaders tell you to do.
Well since you weren't paying attention it's what he said he'd do all along. You act as if his spending was on a shopping spree at the mall. Most economists believe the stimulus was needed and did work. In fact many think we should have spent more money, and while I didn't like any of the options probably believe that was true.
The difference between a guy like me, and somebody such as yourself is that I won't take an emergency situation to use as a means to beat up on somebody. While you and your gang ignore reality in order to do so. Of course you'll never publically explore where we would have been if Obama hadn't spent a dime on keeping our country from going down the toilet. Just like all the GOP losers who called him a reckless spender, were often first in line to cash the check in front of their constituents.
We all understood why Obama spent, he didn't have a choice, just like Bush didn't have one. You may deny reality all you'd like but deficit spending to stop us from going into a deflation sure as hell beats actually going into a depression. Obama made it clear from the start (again, since you don't read or pay attention) that they would address this deficit after they worked on the economy.
The disingenuous nature of your argument only shows how full of partisan hate you people are. Not a PEEP from you either when Bush enacted TARP, or sent you all checks to go shopping. Why? Because he was who you voted for and that was fine. Did you complain while Bush cut taxes and waged two wars? Doubling the debt adding a trillion to the deficit? Of course not, you cheered the war on and questioned people's patriotism if they were against it. You people should really get a grip, you seem to have no principles you truly stand for or understand. Try having some integrity for chrissake, pick a principle and stand behind it, rather than doing what your leaders tell you to do.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,772,368 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroombeanie
Day late and a dollar short, buddy.
If all of us that have been unemployed and on government assistance for an excruciating amount of time want to continue this way, then Obama is the ticket. That's definitely NOT the ticket I want.
Too bad he didn't put the money where his mouth was. Saving the economy, my foot.
Unfortunately, I think he is far to one-sided and conceited to consider this an option.
Here's the link...
Obama likely to focus on deficit in next 2 years - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_how_will_he_govern - broken link)
What he should do is tell the Republicans "OK if you want to cut spending, we will". Then he should start VETOING things like the huge farm bill which largely goes to Republican states and big defense contracts which largely benefit red states. Then we will see how serious the Republicans are before we move on to programs like school lunches, Schip and Social Security.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,772,368 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK
Well since you weren't paying attention it's what he said he'd do all along. You act as if his spending was on a shopping spree at the mall. Most economists believe the stimulus was needed and did work. In fact many think we should have spent more money, and while I didn't like any of the options probably believe that was true.
The difference between a guy like me, and somebody such as yourself is that I won't take an emergency situation to use as a means to beat up on somebody. While you and your gang ignore reality in order to do so. Of course you'll never publically explore where we would have been if Obama hadn't spent a dime on keeping our country from going down the toilet. Just like all the GOP losers who called him a reckless spender, were often first in line to cash the check in front of their constituents.
We all understood why Obama spent, he didn't have a choice, just like Bush didn't have one. You may deny reality all you'd like but deficit spending to stop us from going into a deflation sure as hell beats actually going into a depression. Obama made it clear from the start (again, since you don't read or pay attention) that they would address this deficit after they worked on the economy.
The disingenuous nature of your argument only shows how full of partisan hate you people are. Not a PEEP from you either when Bush enacted TARP, or sent you all checks to go shopping. Why? Because he was who you voted for and that was fine. Did you complain while Bush cut taxes and waged two wars? Doubling the debt adding a trillion to the deficit? Of course not, you cheered the war on and questioned people's patriotism if they were against it. You people should really get a grip, you seem to have no principles you truly stand for or understand. Try having some integrity for chrissake, pick a principle and stand behind it, rather than doing what your leaders tell you to do.
Anyone find the timing of this just a little suspicions, 7 days before an election, where Democrats are supposed to get pounded? I bet its more likely Republicans will focus on the deficits and Obama will be forced to play along...
Divided govt = less spending, as neither side can pass any new spending initiatives. Obama knows that will happen regardless of his wishes, so he has to make a pretense of being out in front on the issue. Clinton and Reagan had the political skills to work with the opposition on some issues; Obama so far has zero experience dealing with reality outside of the liberal bubble he has spent his whole life in.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
We all understood why Obama spent, he didn't have a choice....
You bet. He just had to spend billions of dollars overpaying for used cars, then crushing them. That really improved things a lot. Just like the homebuyers lottery credit, it provided a short term boost that led to a collapse after the program ended--and billions more on the deficit, to boot.
Wait a minute, I don't understand how wasting money we don't have is a valid economic policy. Somewhere close to 60% of us are having trouble comprehending the agenda--and we will vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saving the economy, my foot.
