Unpatriotic is as unpatriotic does? (Congress, Obama, military, politicians)
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.
Curious as to people's thoughts on holding politicians to their words/standards, in an instance such as this.
When running for POTUS, Senator Obama said that putting America in the amount of debt that President Bush did was "Unpatriotic". Now that President Obama's time in office is coming to an end, should he be held to his own standard? As he will have put America into more debt than any other President in history and possibly more than all of them combined, should President Obama be considered the most "Unpatriotic" POTUS of them all?
If not, what is your reasoning for holding President Bush to Senator Obama's standard, but not holding President Obama to his own standard?
01-28-2016, 08:39 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Context matters.
When he took office we were confronting the very real possibility that we would wake up and not have a functioning economy anymore. Given that, it's pretty impressive that he's slashed the federal deficit by about two thirds.
Yes, the debt has climbed, but it has done so for completely understandable reasons. Running up the debt to avoid outright economic collapse is rather different from running up the debt so that you can enrich private contractors and play nation builder.
When he took office we were confronting the very real possibility that we would wake up and not have a functioning economy anymore. Given that, it's pretty impressive that he's slashed the federal deficit by about two thirds.
Yes, the debt has climbed, but it has done so for completely understandable reasons. Running up the debt to avoid outright economic collapse is rather different from running up the debt so that you can enrich private contractors and play nation builder.
HE slashed the federal deficit by two thirds? I guess he did this all by himself. Thinking back, I'm pretty certain that any budgets submitted by him did not get approved! In fact, I seem to remember that some of them couldn't even garner a single vote from his own party. Hmmm.
By the way, many of those private contractors continued to receive payment under the Obama administration.
In my opinion and experience, it can be very difficult if not impossible to pin politicians down, regardless of party. Personally, I think they should clearly define their goals, develop a plan to reach them, and track the results. Modify the plan as necessary to achieve said results. That will NEVER happen because none of them want the average voter to be aware of their shortcomings. If they don't meet the agreed upon goal they should be fired or they should resign. Think about how many times we are told this "progam" is going to achieve "X". More often than not the desired results are not achieved yet the voting public fails to hold them accountable.
Curious as to people's thoughts on holding politicians to their words/standards, in an instance such as this.
When running for POTUS, Senator Obama said that putting America in the amount of debt that President Bush did was "Unpatriotic". Now that President Obama's time in office is coming to an end, should he be held to his own standard? As he will have put America into more debt than any other President in history and possibly more than all of them combined, should President Obama be considered the most "Unpatriotic" POTUS of them all?
If not, what is your reasoning for holding President Bush to Senator Obama's standard, but not holding President Obama to his own standard?
One question to see if you have a grasp on spending:
Which branch of government "controls the purse strings?"
We are so very fortunate that we have 15+/- people running for their party's nomination and each of them has promised to wave their magic wand to make it all better.
Curious as to people's thoughts on holding politicians to their words/standards, in an instance such as this.
When running for POTUS, Senator Obama said that putting America in the amount of debt that President Bush did was "Unpatriotic". Now that President Obama's time in office is coming to an end, should he be held to his own standard? As he will have put America into more debt than any other President in history and possibly more than all of them combined, should President Obama be considered the most "Unpatriotic" POTUS of them all?
If not, what is your reasoning for holding President Bush to Senator Obama's standard, but not holding President Obama to his own standard?
I think in order to have an honest, accurate answer to this question you need to look at what the deficit increases were composed of in the first place, and WHY they occured -- not just whose administration they are accounted under.
That level of nuance is far too much to ask for a partisan board like this one.
The biggest underlying problems with over-spending and running up the federal debt:
Social programs that we can't actually afford - 60% of the 2015 federal budget.
A massive military that we can't actually afford - 16% of the 2015 federal budget.
Interest on the debt - 6.3% of the 2015 federal budget.
Total: About 82% of our total federal spendings right there. Addressing these three things is the only way you're ever going to balance the budget and get our finances under control. Everything else is just chopping at tiny little twigs on the tree. Any president or congressman should be rated on how he or she did to cut spending on those two things.
Other issues:
Members of Congress sneaking riders into completely unrelated bills so they can "bring home the bacon" for the folks back home. All of them do it.
While these are a drop in the bucket compared to social programs and military spending, we can and must do better. A federal government that spends money like water on stupid stuff like that isn't likely to ever balance a budget.
We are so very fortunate that we have 15+/- people running for their party's nomination and each of them has promised to wave their magic wand to make it all better.
Congress, not POTUS, controls the purse strings.
They need to stop with the pork barrel spending, then Congress might be able to reach a little farther. It's really hard for people in Idaho to support people in Florida building a $3.4 million to build a turtle bridge.
They need to stop with the pork barrel spending, then Congress might be able to reach a little farther. It's really hard for people in Idaho to support people in Florida building a $3.4 million to build a turtle bridge.
People in Florida would feel the same about 6.4 million for that Bavarian Ski lodge in Kellogg...
Wall Street, not Congress controls the economy because they own more then half the Congress critters and rent the rest. We have a huge deficit because the investors are more interested in protecting their wealth in Federal debt than risking it in the real world.
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.
