• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Hammers Congress: Do Your Job

I guess if you didn't watch Congress in action over those two years you may not think they were the party of no. They could aptly be called the filibuster party as well. Tell me that they didn't filibuster more than any other Congress in memory. I thought you had a United States going on there. It seems like you have the right and left or the Republicans and Democrats but you have zero unity in your Congress. They are a global joke and not just one side. One politician is pretty much like the next. They talk a different talk until they hit the doors then they all turn out the same. Look at the jokes that are running for President this time sorry they are Republicans but on either side they would be laughed out of politics just 30 or 40 years ago. Yes your Congress is a do nothing just say no Congress. Not one of them. They are an insult to intelligence. I do not defend either side. They are all a joke and the electorate that continues to put them in office are the biggest joke of all. Talk about a nation wallowing at the shallow end of the gene pool.

Congress does not exist to be unified.
The parties are not supposed to agree.

They have not filibustered more than any other Congress.
The "party of no" line is just an emotional talking point.
 
You overlooked a couple.

I was asked for those who had cut spending to reduce the debt. However, I notice that your chart conveniently ends in 2008?
 
Congress does not exist to be unified.
The parties are not supposed to agree.

They have not filibustered more than any other Congress.
The "party of no" line is just an emotional talking point.

and a poor one at that - the Republican party didn't have the ability to filibuster there for a while




anyway, so, apparently the President lambasted the one party who has actually put forth a budget for not being serious about this, and then he went off on another fundraising trip - he has now done 5 times as many fundraisers as George Bush had at this point in his Presidency, and golfed more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. But he's serious - real serious. Why, he's so serious that he was willing to let Boehner meet him on a golf course to talk about it!
 
Last edited:
Check Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 to see how the Constitution authorizes Cabinet departments. Final details are then left up to Congress and the President about what the actual departments will be.

For the Federal Reserve, look at the same clause that Alexander Hamilton used to defend the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and that is Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

What makes the Departments of Treasury, State, and Defense (previously War) constitutional?

If you believe the two departments you mentioned are unconstitutional, then all departments are unconstitutional. By that logic the United States has not followed the Constitution before even the Bill of Rights were added to it.

Correct - all departments are technically unconstitutional.
 
Congress does not exist to be unified.
The parties are not supposed to agree.

They have not filibustered more than any other Congress.
The "party of no" line is just an emotional talking point.


As is the constant equivocation argument by certain independents that claim both sides are just as bad, but goes out of their way to only bash Republicans. To your point, the sides are meant to disagree yet pundits and media like to float the notion that all America wants is everyone to get along. That always has been and continues to be BS.
 
QUOTE cpwill


I was asked for those who had cut spending to reduce the debt.

And you posted four dead President that you say “cut spending to reduce the debt “. My link showed two live Presidents who did it as well.


However, I notice that your chart conveniently ends in 2008?

SO…why the four dead Presidents? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg


You overlooked a couple.




:lol: @ that chart stopping at 2008. I guess the screen resolution wouldn't fit the next few years....
 
Then the House is breaking the law.

The debt ceiling is a limit on the amount the government may borrow. It is not a limit on paying debts or servicing the debt. You are arguing that congress is legally obligated to INCUR debt because the 14th says that debts must be honored. Your argument is stupid and without merit.

What is needed is for the Dems to face reality. The AARP has acknowledged that Social Security cannot continue as it is currently structured. Medicare is a bigger problem. The welfare state is going to destroy us if we do not make changes.

Obama is wasting time arguing for tax hikes he could not get from congress when his own party was in control of it. How does he expect to get them from the GOP? He does not. The American people do not wish to raise taxes. Obama KNOWS that he is not going to get a tax hike. He is hoping to use this opportunity to score political points and win over some idiots that have no grasp of the issues. He is the one playing a political game of chicken.

Continuing to increase our debt is not a good idea when the rest of the world is becoming more concerned about our ability to meet our debts. Our creditors are not idiots and they are well aware that our welfare programs are unsustainable and VERY difficult to change politically.
 
:lol: @ that chart stopping at 2008. I guess the screen resolution wouldn't fit the next few years....

What it shows me is that Obama inherited a ****ed up economy that he is trying to fix. Which is par for the course for any Dem President taking over after eight years of typical republican incompetence.

Kinda like a baseball team throwing in mop up pitchers to clean up a game that is pretty well lost. Doin the best you can, with what you got. In this case, what you got is, No-chin in the house” (“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”, a cryin drunk in the senate, pushin a poison a pill for granny and gramps proposed by Eddie Munster.

If the economy doesn’t tank they can kiss their jobs goodbye, if it tanks we can more than likely kiss our Democracy goodbye. My2C:2wave:
 
Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg


You overlooked a couple.

You apparently do not understand the graph. It does not indicate any reductions in the debt over the time period covered.
 
What it shows me is that Obama inherited a ****ed up economy that he is trying to fix.
How long before this excuse runs out?
I'll wait while you consult you talking points.
 
The debt ceiling is a limit on the amount the government may borrow. It is not a limit on paying debts or servicing the debt. You are arguing that congress is legally obligated to INCUR debt because the 14th says that debts must be honored. Your argument is stupid and without merit.

What is needed is for the Dems to face reality. The AARP has acknowledged that Social Security cannot continue as it is currently structured. Medicare is a bigger problem. The welfare state is going to destroy us if we do not make changes.

Obama is wasting time arguing for tax hikes he could not get from congress when his own party was in control of it. How does he expect to get them from the GOP? He does not. The American people do not wish to raise taxes. Obama KNOWS that he is not going to get a tax hike. He is hoping to use this opportunity to score political points and win over some idiots that have no grasp of the issues. He is the one playing a political game of chicken.

Continuing to increase our debt is not a good idea when the rest of the world is becoming more concerned about our ability to meet our debts. Our creditors are not idiots and they are well aware that our welfare programs are unsustainable and VERY difficult to change politically.

Great point, amazing how so many continue to buy the Obama Administration lies. Meeting the debt ceiling has no affect on revenue being collected in the form of taxes so we have tax revenue coming in that services the debt. The debt ceiling is all about more spending, not servicing the existing debt. It will require the govt. to cut spending in some other areas and that prevents liberals from buying votes.
 
What it shows me is that Obama inherited a ****ed up economy that he is trying to fix. Which is par for the course for any Dem President taking over after eight years of typical republican incompetence.

Kinda like a baseball team throwing in mop up pitchers to clean up a game that is pretty well lost. Doin the best you can, with what you got. In this case, what you got is, No-chin in the house” (“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”, a cryin drunk in the senate, pushin a poison a pill for granny and gramps proposed by Eddie Munster.

If the economy doesn’t tank they can kiss their jobs goodbye, if it tanks we can more than likely kiss our Democracy goodbye. My2C:2wave:




Again, 1012 billion 2008.... according to your map

Where are we today? oh yeah at 14464 billion today......



Ugly facts are ugly.



Your excuse making fails, miserably.
 
But it DOES require us to honor ALL debt that we have incurred. If Congress violates that provision, then the president has a good case to do it himself. Call it the Executive branch acting on a national emergency.
Failing to raise the debt ceiling does not in any way necessarily mean we cannot cover our debt service, as we bring in far more revenue than what we pay in interest.
Your argument is unsound.
 
Again, 1012 billion 2008.... according to your map

Where are we today? oh yeah at 14464 billion today......



Ugly facts are ugly.



Your excuse making fails, miserably.



What was it on inaugural day?
 
What was it on inaugural day?



Irrellevant, once the boat starts sinking, you don't put a bigger hole in the boat and blame the guy who put the smaller hole in the boat for sinking said boat when you could have instead plugged the hole..


Bush Tarrped up the economy, which was the wrong thing to do, hence the spike where he was lowering it according to your graph, Obama doubled down on it, and you are making excuses for your guy....


Putting up your argument with a straight face is quite the accomplishment. :thumbs: :lamo
 
What was it on inaugural day?

Debt and deficits are two different issues. Obama has had 4 trillion dollars in deficits in 2 1/2 years. His 2010 budget had a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, the 2011 deficit is projected at 1.6 trillion, and his 2009 stimulus, 350 billion TARP spending, and 100 billion dollar Afghanistan supplemental puts his deficits at 4 trillion dollars. None of that can be blamed on Bush yet liberals try.
 
Debt and deficits are two different issues. Obama has had 4 trillion dollars in deficits in 2 1/2 years. His 2010 budget had a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, the 2011 deficit is projected at 1.6 trillion, and his 2009 stimulus, 350 billion TARP spending, and 100 billion dollar Afghanistan supplemental puts his deficits at 4 trillion dollars. None of that can be blamed on Bush yet liberals try.

of course it can........any war supplementals belong to bush. additionally, non discretionary spending is just that, non discretionary. obama did not create it. also, bush created (at the time) record debt, which has to be serviced, and thus adds to the deficit. it's shameful for you to pretend OUR crisis belongs solely to obama.

what do you think of obama calling for a 5 year freeze on discretionary spending?
 
what do you think of obama calling for a 5 year freeze on discretionary spending?
Meaningless, given the amount of entitlement spending, and the growth of same.
FY2009, entitlement spending GREW $500B, which was 40% of total discretionary spending.
 
of course it can........any war supplementals belong to bush. additionally, non discretionary spending is just that, non discretionary. obama did not create it. also, bush created (at the time) record debt, which has to be serviced, and thus adds to the deficit. it's shameful for you to pretend OUR crisis belongs solely to obama.

what do you think of obama calling for a 5 year freeze on discretionary spending?

The June 2009 supplemental belongs to Bush? Did Bush authorize the Afghanistan surge from his home in Dallas? Discretionary spending is a yearly budget item and Obama could have cut it any time. Obama didn't have to pass a 800 billion stimulus or take over GM/Chrysler with TARP money. Calling for a five year freeze on spending at current levels is ridiculous
 
Facts never run out.

Facts confuse you, Discretionary spending is 40% of the budget and the current budget of 3.7 trillion equals 1.4 trillion of the budget. Freezing discretionary spending at that level serves no purpose and continues to deficit spend.
 
Back
Top Bottom