Page 98 of 147 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100108 ... LastLast
Results 971 to 980 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #971
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Really? He got some money back yet still had well over trillion dollar defiicts? My, my a real big spender

    "Your" President implemented the Status of Forces agreement, look it up

    "Your" President took victory and turned it into defeat.

    "Your" President is an economic and fiscal disaster, a real social justice President who has no problem trying to redistribute wealth.

    People like you have no problem spending someone elses money
    Yet, “My “President managed to get to get almost 52% of the popular vote, 332 electoral votes. The weather vane got; what? I believe it was 206 electoral votes. PROCEED CONSERVITIVE.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  2. #972
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Would be happy to when you show me what Obama has cut? Itemize it and apparently 3.6 trillion budgets are less than the 3.1 trillion Bush budgets. Cuts in growth aren't cuts in spending
    I prefer a president that increases spending less than all the others including Reagan. But that's just me and the majority of the country............
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #973
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I prefer a president that increases spending less than all the others including Reagan. But that's just me and the majority of the country............
    Go back and look at the numbers that I posted. A reality slam is good sometimes

  4. #974
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    And arbitrarily agree to the policies that have gotten us to a 16 trillion dollar debt, Trillion dollar defecits and a shrinking economy ?

    That doesn't sound " objective" to me.

    But Iv'e noticed a trend with some of these "objective" posters.

    They've come in with names like "truth finder", "Mr Objective", " Dr Fact" or " Moderate Man" and make some of the most hack worthy partisan nonsensical post to date.

    Like the libs who set up the " politifact" and "Z~Facts" websites and just basically push the progressive twisted partisan rhetoric rather than.the truth....or the facts.

    Connection or not the endresult is in order to get your word out your using underhanded and lowlife tactics in the attempt to fool low information voters.

    Its why their ideology will eventually colllapse under the weight of its own corrupt methodology. That your110 % effort is still essentially based on a lie is indication enough that your in desperation mode.
    Interesting...

    In all of your banter, not once did you identify the lie told nor illustrate where the desperation is articulated or warranted. If all you have is political/idealogical , you're got nothing.

  5. #975
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You know they won't. But they'll be screaming about after it's shown. I read the book. It was a great read. Everything I knew but couldn't prove, was done in the book. And this goes beyond the book.
    She keeps the ducks lined up.Even conservative would be able to understand her if he somehow could manage to pull his thumbs outa his ears.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  6. #976
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    Yet, “My “President managed to get to get almost 52% of the popular vote, 332 electoral votes. The weather vane got; what? I believe it was 206 electoral votes. PROCEED CONSERVITIVE.
    Just goes to show that this country is filled with the very poorly informed which you show in almost every post.

  7. #977
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Go back and look at the numbers that I posted. A reality slam is good sometimes
    "One simple fact Republicans understand, but many in the population do not, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a previous administration’s budget approved by Congress. Republicans began their lying by counting 2009′s fiscal year budget as the President’s even though it began four months before he moved into the White House, and included spending increases of hundreds of billions of dollars in response to Bush-Republicans’ economic and financial catastrophe. In the 2009 fiscal year budget, the last of George W. Bush’s presidency, federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion, and the first budget attributable to President Obama (fiscal 2010), spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the final budget of the President’s first term, spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and extended out means that over the President’s first four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. Obviously, there has been no huge increase in spending under President Obama, and yet Republicans claim he has been on a spending binge that is the sole cause of the nation’s economic woes."

    Obama's Record Destroys the Republicans' Big Spending Democrat Propaganda
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #978
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I prefer a president that increases spending less than all the others including Reagan. But that's just me and the majority of the country............
    Then why do you support Obama? He hasn't reduced spending, he has increased it, but the base is so high the precentage is less. Still trillion dollar deficits due to poor economic policies that have 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 3 million less employed today than when the recession started, millions dropping out of the labor force and spending 500-700 billion more than the last Bush budget. Debt service is the fourth largest budget item under this President and what do the American people get for that?

  9. #979
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "One simple fact Republicans understand, but many in the population do not, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a previous administration’s budget approved by Congress. Republicans began their lying by counting 2009′s fiscal year budget as the President’s even though it began four months before he moved into the White House, and included spending increases of hundreds of billions of dollars in response to Bush-Republicans’ economic and financial catastrophe. In the 2009 fiscal year budget, the last of George W. Bush’s presidency, federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion, and the first budget attributable to President Obama (fiscal 2010), spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the final budget of the President’s first term, spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and extended out means that over the President’s first four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. Obviously, there has been no huge increase in spending under President Obama, and yet Republicans claim he has been on a spending binge that is the sole cause of the nation’s economic woes."

    Obama's Record Destroys the Republicans' Big Spending Democrat Propaganda
    Please explain to us all how Bush is responsible for the Stimulus, for spending all the TARP money, for not applying TARP repayment to the budget, for the take over of GM/Chrysler, and for the Afghanistan supplementals. Explain to me why Obama signed the Bush budget in March of 2009? You buy what you are told and refuse to do research apparently having no problem being made a fool of. Keep buying the Obama lies

    By the way, research how much the Budget Bush proposed to the Democrat controlled Congress and in addition tell me what Obama did with TARP repayment?

  10. #980
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Then you shouldn't have any problem showing the amount that Bush hid from the deficits during the time the money was spent. Itemize it.
    I'm not going to itemize it here on this forum. Every bit of it is itemized on the government websites that illustrate that. It amounts to $4 Trillion. It's already a known fact that it was off the books and Obama put it back on. It's also known that it drastically underestimated the size of the deficit. If you like you can examine this site. Bush Deficits Blamed on Obama: Deficit & GDP Data

    The Republican-created economic downturn and spend & borrow policies drastically increased deficits. The major list: unpaid-for Bush tax cuts ($1.8T), illegal invasions & occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq (>> $1T ... there are estimates of $5T by the time they're ended; see 9/11 and the $5 Trillion Aftermath), Medicare Part D with no-competition prescription drug industry gifts (~$1T), the TARP bank bailout ($700B), and the economic downturn explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years. And interest on this debt is the gift that keeps on giving.

    Republican Deficit Hypocrisy [excerpt]
    Bruce Bartlett, 11.20.09, Forbes
    Remember the Medicare drug benefit?

    ... What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

    Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

    Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)

    Otter and Istook are no longer in Congress, but Franks still is, so I checked to see what he has been saying about the health legislation now being debated. Like all Republicans, he has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.

    Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

    Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)

    Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. ...

    If this isn't criminal behavior, it should be. Note: As it was finally passed the CBO Confirms: The Health Care Law Reduces the Deficit. Also see Budget office: Obama's health law reduces deficit at Bloomberg Business Week. AHA does not increase deficits as Republicans maintain.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •