Obama Budget Speech Lays an Egg!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
In recent months, I have wondered where the arrogant condescending class warrior Obama was at? It almost seemed as if he were morphing in to a black George W. Bush there for a while, with all the talk of American Exceptionalism saving the day in another unprovoked war in another Arab nation. Even last week, when he struck the deal with Republicans on this year's budget, he was sounding like Milton Freedman more than the Keynesian he is... I was worried someone may have snatched the president and replaced him with an imposter, this just hasn't been the Obama of old.... but today, The Obama returned! In all his pompous glory!

Before the speech, I thought this would be the opportunity for Obama to step up and lead on the issue of the budget, to give us some specific details on how he planned to tackle this most important issue of our time, and I listened with an open mind, hoping that he would inspire and lead for a change. What I heard was like a cold slap in the face with an 8-year old stale fish. It was the same old 2008 arrogant lecturing, and outright scolding us like children, telling us what we were going to have to accept from him and the Democrats, because he is President, and that's how he wants it. The same divisive and alienating tone we've come to know and love from Obama, as if he thinks this politicizing of the issue with a whitewashing of old campaign rhetoric, is going to appeal to someone! Who the hell was he talking to? Liberals? Is he in THAT much political trouble, that he doesn't have his drones on board anymore?

From his third sentence or so, he began to utter outright lies and distortions of truth, much like the pinheads who post here regularly, building a series of arguments based on the foundational lies, and culminating in... guess what? Tax increases on the RICH!! :whoa:

Wow... didn't see that one coming Barry!

Oh.... We must ALL share in the burden of these 'cuts' that are going to somehow magically end up at $4 trillion in 12 years... wonder where he might have picked that number up from? Hmmm... No real firm details on what all is going to be cut, but it was clear we ALL must share the burden, and especially the rich. Well, Mr. President, with all due respect, what about the 50% of America who doesn't pay ANY tax? Before we start raising the tax on those who create the jobs and prosperity, shouldn't we maybe consider sharing the burden with these people? I mean, if we ALL must share the burden?

This was pathetic Presidential leadership, and it's not Obama's first incident. Squandering an opportunity to lead a nation, in order to campaign for re-election, is a mistake Obama will soon regret. I predict he gets no bounce from this, more of a thud. It was a shameful display of partisan politics, at a time the country needed a leader. Obama blew the easy layup.
 
I think, for once, that everybody agrees with you, Dix. I'm surprised that Bfgrn hasn't tried to defend The Obama yet, but that seems to be the only reasonable explanation.
 
As usual, your thread is over-the-top bias, but I do agree on fleecing the rich. I have never really understood that aspect of taxation - "they can afford more." Obama referred to the rich as more fortunate, but in general, they just work really hard...
 
Is someone actually taking Obama serious on spending cuts?

Really

This is the guy who raped bush for spending like a drunken sailor, who then proceeded to spend like the Russian fleet at a half off Vodka sale.
 
Topspin said:
Is someone actually taking Obama serious on spending cuts?

Really

This is the guy who raped bush for spending like a drunken sailor, who then proceeded to spend like the Russian fleet at a half off Vodka sale.
Click to expand...

You get props for the Vodka references.
 
Here is the problem for fiscal conservatives.
Obama has pissed off the anti-war and anti-drug war leftist (I"m both).
But, he has smoozed the public into renaming welfare handouts - they are now stimulus. Wow, doesn't that swallow a lot better than free shit for the poor.
You now have the bottom 50% virtually not paying any taxes, and the only threat of taxes is on the ones supporting 90% of the welfare state. That coupled with a current crop of front runners on the right who couldn't get elected dog catcher means soon 60 to 70% won't pay taxes and unemployment benies may go to to 4 years in length.
 
Topspin said:
Here is the problem for fiscal conservatives.
Obama has pissed off the anti-war and anti-drug war leftist (I"m both).
But, he has smoozed the public into renaming welfare handouts - they are now stimulus. Wow, doesn't that swallow a lot better than free shit for the poor.
You now have the bottom 50% virtually not paying any taxes, and the only threat of taxes is on the ones supporting 90% of the welfare state. That coupled with a current crop of front runners on the right who couldn't get elected dog catcher means soon 60 to 70% won't pay taxes and unemployment benies may go to to 4 years in length.
Click to expand...

Republicans have to get some things in order, we currently have a contingent who are literally afraid of God, and fail to understand how belief in God plays an important role in our founding principles of government and conservatism in general. Granted, there is also a contingent who believe we should institute daily Bible study in the schools, but these two sides are going to have to somehow meet in the middle. That doesn't mean the religious righties have to forsake God, or that secular righties have to get baptized, it just means there has to be some understanding of both sides and tolerance/acceptance of each others viewpoints. Currently, I don't see that happening, the God Haters are firmly entrenched, but guys... the next Republican nominee for president is going to believe in God, you can count on that. So the secular libertarian types need to decide, can you live with a little God, or do you want 4 more years of Obama?

I observed the TEA Party results very closely in 2010, over 600 seats in statehouses, switched from mostly Democrat to TEA Party dominated, overnight. This is what has prompted things like what happened in Wisconsin, and there is much more to come. I laugh every time I read some optimistic wishful thinking fluff piece by some liberal, lamenting how he/she thinks the TEA Party is Pooped, the movement is dying down... Sorry, hate to burst your bubble, but most TEA Party supporters realized before 2010, it was going to take a couple of election cycles. They are still out there, strong as ever, waiting for the next election.
 
educated people who are conservative want to shoot the Jesus freaks for ass fucking the republican party without the common fucking coutesy of a reach around.
They Jesus freaks will be among the leading reasons for the right losing BIG yet again.
 
Dixie said:
Republicans have to get some things in order, we currently have a contingent who are literally afraid of God, and fail to understand how belief in God plays an important role in our founding principles of government and conservatism in general. Granted, there is also a contingent who believe we should institute daily Bible study in the schools, but these two sides are going to have to somehow meet in the middle. That doesn't mean the religious righties have to forsake God, or that secular righties have to get baptized, it just means there has to be some understanding of both sides and tolerance/acceptance of each others viewpoints. Currently, I don't see that happening, the God Haters are firmly entrenched, but guys... the next Republican nominee for president is going to believe in God, you can count on that. So the secular libertarian types need to decide, can you live with a little God, or do you want 4 more years of Obama?

I observed the TEA Party results very closely in 2010, over 600 seats in statehouses, switched from mostly Democrat to TEA Party dominated, overnight. This is what has prompted things like what happened in Wisconsin, and there is much more to come. I laugh every time I read some optimistic wishful thinking fluff piece by some liberal, lamenting how he/she thinks the TEA Party is Pooped, the movement is dying down... Sorry, hate to burst your bubble, but most TEA Party supporters realized before 2010, it was going to take a couple of election cycles. They are still out there, strong as ever, waiting for the next election.
Click to expand...

Whenever fiscal conservatives come into power, I always see the one silver lining as being that spending will finally be cut & we'll hopefully move toward getting our fiscal house in order. Other priorities that I value get left behind, but that's the one point I take some solace in.

This didn't happen when Bush won in 2000, or when the GOP took over Congress a few years later. In fact, we had one of the lead Republicans telling us that deficit spending didn't matter, and we had a Congress that passed one bloated bill after another, from Energy to Transportation.

When the TEA party had their big revolution this past November, I saw a reporter ask one of the new "revolutionaries" where they would cut. The guy didn't hesitate - the National Endowment for the Arts!

If the TEA party wants to be taken seriously, and live up to their name, they absolutely HAVE to address military spending, in a very significant way. It's assumed that they're going to address the other big pieces of the pie - SS & Medicare. But they can't treat the military like a 3rd rail, or they're done.
 
Onceler said:
Whenever fiscal conservatives come into power, I always see the one silver lining as being that spending will finally be cut & we'll hopefully move toward getting our fiscal house in order. Other priorities that I value get left behind, but that's the one point I take some solace in.

This didn't happen when Bush won in 2000, or when the GOP took over Congress a few years later. In fact, we had one of the lead Republicans telling us that deficit spending didn't matter, and we had a Congress that passed one bloated bill after another, from Energy to Transportation.

When the TEA party had their big revolution this past November, I saw a reporter ask one of the new "revolutionaries" where they would cut. The guy didn't hesitate - the National Endowment for the Arts!

If the TEA party wants to be taken seriously, and live up to their name, they absolutely HAVE to address military spending, in a very significant way. It's assumed that they're going to address the other big pieces of the pie - SS & Medicare. But they can't treat the military like a 3rd rail, or they're done.
Click to expand...

I think most of the TEA Partiers agree with you, the GOP hasn't lived up to core conservative principles of late, Bush was a 'compassionate conservative' and much of that is pretty much socialist-liberal-lite. It's like saying, okay, we'll have big government liberal entitlements, but we'll do it 'conservatively' and 'responsibly.' It doesn't work. Nevertheless, the massive overspending Bush did in his worst year as president, matches Obama's deficit for Jan and Feb of FY2010! Obama's running 3 year total is at $4 trillion over budget! Now he proposes a plan to pay down the debt by $4 trillion in 12 years? Why not just not go $4 trillion in debt to begin with? Just don't spend the money, then you don't have to pay it back!

Fact: The Obama Administration will borrow and spend more money than all other previous American presidential administrations COMBINED!
 
Dixie said:
I think most of the TEA Partiers agree with you, the GOP hasn't lived up to core conservative principles of late, Bush was a 'compassionate conservative' and much of that is pretty much socialist-liberal-lite. It's like saying, okay, we'll have big government liberal entitlements, but we'll do it 'conservatively' and 'responsibly.' It doesn't work. Nevertheless, the massive overspending Bush did in his worst year as president, matches Obama's deficit for Jan and Feb of FY2010! Obama's running 3 year total is at $4 trillion over budget! Now he proposes a plan to pay down the debt by $4 trillion in 12 years? Why not just not go $4 trillion in debt to begin with? Just don't spend the money, then you don't have to pay it back!

Fact: The Obama Administration will borrow and spend more money than all other previous American presidential administrations COMBINED!
Click to expand...

It's kind of disingenuous to compare the spending in Obama's first year with any of the Bush spending. That spending was specifically designed to re-energize a dying economy. Now, you can completely disagree with that economic philosophy, and I know that you do, but it IS a fairly popular belief in the field of economics. I would also argue that the spending we engaged in was successful in pulling us back from the brink, and likely paid for itself a few times over with the additional losses it prevented.

Like I said, I know you disagree with that; we could probably argue that one all day. But the salient point is that it's not apples to apples on spending. We're not talking about Obama bloating something like a routine Energy bill even further. We're talking about spending that was specifically designed for stimulus in a bad economic time...
 
Horseshit, Obama used the NY only recession to pass out billions in unemployment and welfare that was exponentially worse than any spending bush ever passed.
 
....The guy didn't hesitate - the National Endowment for the Arts!

....they absolutely HAVE to address military spending, in a very significant way.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing Onzies, we currently hand out grants to universities to study whether beer can be consumed more quickly through a funnel than the traditional shotgun method.... that is how insane our government has become with spending! We, the taxpayers, are subsidizing layer upon layer upon stinking layer, of government bureaucracy and redundancy, on such a ridiculous level, it is almost comedic, if it weren't so serious. Things like National Endowment for the Arts.... it's a wonderful idea, and something we should all support... and endowment for artists... but let's do stuff like that in the private sector! Our government doesn't need to fund art! We've got more serious problems, and this is something we can live without. It's just one of a million examples of things we can live without, which we are paying for daily... weekly... yearly... and the funding keeps increasing each year, because of Washington mathematics... You see, if the funding is scheduled to go up 10% and it only gets approved for 5%, that's a "cut" in Washington. This is how we ended up $13 trillion in the hole.

You have this hard on for cutting military spending, and granted, there are many wasteful and redundant military programs we are paying for... We are still paying for HELIUM STORAGE! Something like $200 million a year, we pay to maintain an underground helium storage facility... from back in the day when dirigibles were considered strategic in battle! Now, why the fuck are we still doing this? Because the facility employs workers, and is part of the military budget, and it's in some Senator's home state, and so it continues to be protected and funded year in and year out... because that's how things go in Washington. So yeah, there are a LOT of military things that need to go on the chopping block... but you have to also consider this... whenever we talk of cutting the military budget, it effects military towns across America, bases close... towns dry up... people lose jobs... economies tank... cities go under... all as a result of the base closing. The idea of cutting wasteful military spending is fine, but when we get to the point of downsizing the military significantly, it will mean a huge blow to the economy, and will ultimately effect many people.
 
Dixie said:
Here's the thing Onzies, we currently hand out grants to universities to study whether beer can be consumed more quickly through a funnel than the traditional shotgun method.... that is how insane our government has become with spending! We, the taxpayers, are subsidizing layer upon layer upon stinking layer, of government bureaucracy and redundancy, on such a ridiculous level, it is almost comedic, if it weren't so serious. Things like National Endowment for the Arts.... it's a wonderful idea, and something we should all support... and endowment for artists... but let's do stuff like that in the private sector! Our government doesn't need to fund art! We've got more serious problems, and this is something we can live without. It's just one of a million examples of things we can live without, which we are paying for daily... weekly... yearly... and the funding keeps increasing each year, because of Washington mathematics... You see, if the funding is scheduled to go up 10% and it only gets approved for 5%, that's a "cut" in Washington. This is how we ended up $13 trillion in the hole.

You have this hard on for cutting military spending, and granted, there are many wasteful and redundant military programs we are paying for... We are still paying for HELIUM STORAGE! Something like $200 million a year, we pay to maintain an underground helium storage facility... from back in the day when dirigibles were considered strategic in battle! Now, why the fuck are we still doing this? Because the facility employs workers, and is part of the military budget, and it's in some Senator's home state, and so it continues to be protected and funded year in and year out... because that's how things go in Washington. So yeah, there are a LOT of military things that need to go on the chopping block... but you have to also consider this... whenever we talk of cutting the military budget, it effects military towns across America, bases close... towns dry up... people lose jobs... economies tank... cities go under... all as a result of the base closing. The idea of cutting wasteful military spending is fine, but when we get to the point of downsizing the military significantly, it will mean a huge blow to the economy, and will ultimately effect many people.
Click to expand...

All you're suggesting is some sort of permanent stimulus program for people in our military. I can't accept that; I can't accept that we always have to have a bloated military budget just to keep people employed.

Military spending should be based on one thing: do we need this to defend the country, or not? You don't have to cut 1/3 at once. There are ways to cut and programs you can use to ease the transition for personnel who will be affected. We can't keep spending because we always spend and this is the way we do it and it's the only way some people have jobs.

You have to look at the pie. What is the big stuff in the pie? It ain't the NEA. You can't sharpen a pencil fine enough to put a line in any pie that wouldn't misrepresent the NEA spending. It's like that thread Winterborn started yesterday; if you're household is going under, you don't fix it by eating in one more time per week....
 
Onceler said:
All you're suggesting is some sort of permanent stimulus program for people in our military. I can't accept that; I can't accept that we always have to have a bloated military budget just to keep people employed.

Military spending should be based on one thing: do we need this to defend the country, or not? You don't have to cut 1/3 at once. There are ways to cut and programs you can use to ease the transition for personnel who will be affected. We can't keep spending because we always spend and this is the way we do it and it's the only way some people have jobs.

You have to look at the pie. What is the big stuff in the pie? It ain't the NEA. You can't sharpen a pencil fine enough to put a line in any pie that wouldn't misrepresent the NEA spending. It's like that thread Winterborn started yesterday; if you're household is going under, you don't fix it by eating in one more time per week....
Click to expand...


The more important question is , does eating in one more time per week, help or hurt the problem......a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step....
NO ONE thing will fix this spending problem.....but a thousand small fixes will put us one the right road to fixing the problem.....whether its one less fighter jet or defunding Planned Parenthood and the NEA....or shrinking government by 5 or 10 or 20%.....freezing pay for legislators, cutting perks, like free cars and insurance, etc....there are a million places to start....and Obama refuses to start anywhere except to tax more and more....
Its like pinheaded Republicans talking about doubling medicare costs on seniors and raising retirement age to 70.....they are as crazy as democrats...seems no one will use common sense on this problem.
 
bravo said:
The more important question is , does eating in one more time per week, help or hurt the problem......a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step....
NO ONE thing will fix this spending problem.....but a thousand small fixes will put us one the right road to fixing the problem.....whether its one less fighter jet or defunding Planned Parenthood and the NEA....or shrinking government by 5 or 10 or 20%.....freezing pay for legislators, cutting perks, like free cars and insurance, etc....there are a million places to start....and Obama refuses to start anywhere except to tax more and more....
Its like pinheaded Republicans talking about doubling medicare costs on seniors and raising retirement age to 70.....they are as crazy as democrats...seems no one will use common sense on this problem.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with cutting the NEA. But it's a stupid thing to bring up as "where you're going to cut," when your entire campaign has been about reducing our overhead in a meaningful, significant way.

There have to be compromises here, and there is plenty of room for them. If the GOP cuts the military significantly, Dems HAVE to entertain the idea of privatizing SS. And so on...
 
Onceler said:
I don't have an issue with cutting the NEA. But it's a stupid thing to bring up as "where you're going to cut," when your entire campaign has been about reducing our overhead in a meaningful, significant way.

There have to be compromises here, and there is plenty of room for them. If the GOP cuts the military significantly, Dems HAVE to entertain the idea of privatizing SS. And so on...
Click to expand...
Stick with the issue for a change.....the Military is THEE most important job of the government....the countrys protection at ALL costs....and SS does not have to privatized even in a small way, unless the recipients want to change it......SS is not the immediate problem, it is funded....
General spending is the problem....waste/fraud....perks, pensions, and pay can be better controlled and in some cases eliminated for MAJOR savings.....does either party talk about this ?....
Actually, only the dreaded "tea party" mentions the abuse in both the state and federal spending....it won't be fixed in one or two years, but we MUST START SOMEWHERE in a meaningful way, not a freakin' 38 billion dollar farce...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top