• 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!

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

Re: SOTU Address:

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.:peace

Just goes to show that this country is filled with the very poorly informed which you show in almost every post.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

"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?
 
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.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Just goes to show that this country is filled with the very poorly informed which you show in almost every post.

That's all you got?Comon con, dig deeper, you can think of something that dubya, "your president",that you voted for two times did that was good.If not dubya think of shooter; maybe he did something besides shoot a doner in the face and help lie us into a war.:peace
 
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.

You are always going to buy leftwing rhetoric and ignore reality. Apparently nothing is going to change your mind including the facts. Bush budget was for 3.0 trillion dollars and wasn't approved by Congress, Obama added spending to it, didn't apply TARP repayment to the budget even though TARP was added to the budget as a supplement. The left relies on people like you to buy the lies and apparently you have no problem being made a fool of.

Prescription drug program was approved at less of a cost than the Democrat bill, where is your outrage. do some research for a change and stop making a fool of yourself.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Then why do you support Obama?

Because his leadership goals are the closest to my ideals than any other viable candidate.


He hasn't reduced spending, he has increased it, but the base is so high the precentage is less.

The president increased spending during the worst recession since the great depression only 0.4% compared to Bush;s increase in his last fiscal year - 17.9%


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?

Most of our remaining economic woes are due to the lingering effects of the recession and decades of the offshoring of American jobs that the president is trying to reverse.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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?

Even with all that was necessary to prevent another great Depression, the president still increased spending much less than have any other president going back to Eisenhower.

Most of us think that was one hell of an accomplishment! That is why we reelected the president!
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You made the point that increasing min wage would increase the amount of money in the economy, that's nonsense. You've merely taken it from one person and given it to another. That does not increase the amount of money in the economy any more than transferring a dollar from your right pocket to your left. If the money stays with the employer it does not disappear.

Those who tend to agree with minimum wage also tend to agree with the limited pie theory, that growth only comes by, as you say, transferring money from one pocket to another. The idea of having a win-win situation, for the employer and employee, doesn't seem to occur to them. It's got to be one-sided, and enforced by the government.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

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 :spin:, you're got nothing.

A political/ideology based on nothing. Wonderful.
 
You are always going to buy leftwing rhetoric and ignore reality. Apparently nothing is going to change your mind including the facts. Bush budget was for 3.0 trillion dollars and wasn't approved by Congress, Obama added spending to it, didn't apply TARP repayment to the budget even though TARP was added to the budget as a supplement. The left relies on people like you to buy the lies and apparently you have no problem being made a fool of.

Prescription drug program was approved at less of a cost than the Democrat bill, where is your outrage. do some research for a change and stop making a fool of yourself.


You're a hopeless ideologue. I'm supposed to accept the Right wing rhetoric as reality?? Why would I do that when it can't demonstrate itself as true..... When I've seen evidence of what the last Republican left us? You don't get it now, and probably never will. Reality will never conform to the ideololgy. Ever. Reality changes everyday, and an ideology that can't or won't change isn't ever going to work. You're an over-the-top cynical ideologue. I have no respect for your views, and that's based on your obnoxious comment about cheering the body count. That's all I need to know about you. Anybody that would suggest such a thing is a total jerk and so over the edge in his ideology that he's become a hopeless cynic that can't be reasoned with. In other words...your credibility, at least with me...is completely blown.:boom
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Because his leadership goals are the closest to my ideals than any other viable candidate.




The president increased spending during the worst recession since the great depression only 0.4% compared to Bush;s increase in his last fiscal year - 17.9%




Most of our remaining economic woes are due to the lingering effects of the recession and decades of the offshoring of American jobs that the president is trying to reverse.

This President has the worst economic record coming off a recession in modern history. He lacks leaderership skills as do his supporters. You really need to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome and accept the fact that Obama is a disaster, lacking the qualifications for the job, and someone who tells you what you want to hear. Always blaming someone else for his own failures. You have no idea what leadership is all about
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Even with all that was necessary to prevent another great Depression, the president still increased spending much less than have any other president going back to Eisenhower.

Most of us think that was one hell of an accomplishment! That is why we reelected the president!

That is your opinion, and what you want to believe. Obama did nothing to prevent a great depression other than flap is gums and have people like you feint. You really need to accept responsibility, this is the Obama economy and the Obama results which show complete failure. Most of you don't seem smart enough to do your own research and buy what you are told. One of these days you are going to be faced with reality and it isn't a pretty picture.
 
You're a hopeless ideologue. I'm supposed to accept the Right wing rhetoric as reality?? Why would I do that when it can't demonstrate itself as true..... When I've seen evidence of what the last Republican left us? You don't get it now, and probably never will. Reality will never conform to the ideololgy. Ever. Reality changes everyday, and an ideology that can't or won't change isn't ever going to work. You're an over-the-top cynical ideologue. I have no respect for your views, and that's based on your obnoxious comment about cheering the body count. That's all I need to know about you. Anybody that would suggest such a thing is a total jerk and so over the edge in his ideology that he's become a hopeless cynic that can't be reasoned with. In other words...your credibility, at least with me...is completely blown.:boom

Apparently that is what you want to see because you are too lazy to do any independent research using verifiable non partisan sites. Hard to deal with people like you who lack leadership skills or understanding. Placing blame on someone else will only get you so far until you are faced with reality.

I assure you that I am not going to lose any sleep over losing credibility with you. You however are going to wake up someday and wonder how liberalism made such a fool out of you, maybe that will happen when you get your first job.
 
Apparently that is what you want to see because you are too lazy to do any independent research using verifiable non partisan sites. Hard to deal with people like you who lack leadership skills or understanding. Placing blame on someone else will only get you so far until you are faced with reality.

I assure you that I am not going to lose any sleep over losing credibility with you. You however are going to wake up someday and wonder how liberalism made such a fool out of you, maybe that will happen when you get your first job.


There has been no worse recession than the one the president inherited since the Great Depression. Bank losses in this recession were much worse than in '29 that precipitated the Great Depression. Without the stimulus efforts we would have gone into another Great Depression rather than things getting better as they are now.

And just has we had to make corrections for the top down approach of the 20's, we are once again having to make corrections for the top down approach.
 
There has been no worse recession than the one the president inherited since the Great Depression. Bank losses in this recession were much worse than in '29 that precipitated the Great Depression. Without the stimulus efforts we would have gone into another Great Depression rather than things getting better as they are now.

And just has we had to make corrections for the top down approach of the 20's, we are once again having to make corrections for the top down approach.

Why was there no attempt made to break up the TBTF institutions rather than allowing them to consolidate?
 
There has been no worse recession than the one the president inherited since the Great Depression. Bank losses in this recession were much worse than in '29 that precipitated the Great Depression. Without the stimulus efforts we would have gone into another Great Depression rather than things getting better as they are now.

And just has we had to make corrections for the top down approach of the 20's, we are once again having to make corrections for the top down approach.

We have been through that and your opinion noted. How did this recession hurt you and your family? You give Obama a pass for what you blamed Bush for which makes you a hypocrite. You want badly to believe what you are told but the reality makes you look like a fool. You don't seem to understand leadership qualities and responsibility. Obama has been in office four years and is a failure as the results show. Stop buying the rhetoric and get the actual results.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

"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

This is so stupid. Bush's 2009 budget was then increased by Stimulus (you gonna lay that one on Bush ?), and by over $300B in TARP, left by Bush, not targeted to be spent, but still at Obama's discretion.

It is what makes your post so unbelievably uninformed. It is also why you can possbly deal with the actual numbers when we take 2009 out of the equation.

Obama is a frikkin disaster.
 
Why was there no attempt made to break up the TBTF institutions rather than allowing them to consolidate?

There was an attempt. "51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it."

One of the leading voices of dissent was Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. He warned that reversing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Republican-backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a mistake whose repercussions would be felt in the future.

“I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010,” Mr. Dorgan said 10 years ago. “We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”

Mr. Dorgan still feels the same way. “I thought reversing Glass-Steagall would set us up for dramatic failure and that is exactly what has happened,” the senator told DealBook on Thursday. “To fuse together the investment banking function with the F.D.I.C. banking function has proven to be a profound mistake.”

10 Years Later, Looking at Repeal of Glass-Steagall - NYTimes.com
 
Re: SOTU Address:

What I want to know from the Obama drones in here, is that if the Bush budget was so bad in 2009, how come we haven't had one since? Where's the budget?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

This is so stupid. Bush's 2009 budget was then increased by Stimulus (you gonna lay that one on Bush ?), and by over $300B in TARP, left by Bush, not targeted to be spent, but still at Obama's discretion.

It is what makes your post so unbelievably uninformed. It is also why you can possbly deal with the actual numbers when we take 2009 out of the equation.

Obama is a frikkin disaster.

This has been posted many times and yet Catawba along with other leftwing zealots refuse to acknowledge reality. Bush submitted a 3.0 trillion dollar budget that the Congress refused to pass so they operated on continuing resolutions until Obama signed the budget in March 2009 after adding the stimulus to it, he then recyled the TARP repayment refusing to reduce the deficit with the repayment, bailed out GM/Chrysler with taxpayer money, and authorized the Afghanistan surge. Somehow that was all blamed on Bush and the Obamabots continue to spout the rhetoric and pass on the lie.
 
:lamo....Right, it's not McCain at all. He's just speaking for the other guys. Despite the fact that McCain can't stand the guy for going against the war and McCains beloved "surge" which he points out. Or the fact that Hagel backed Obama against him in his run for president. McCain certainly doesn't feel that way but suggests it's the others?? And you believe this??



Which is exactly why I called McCain and the others, Identity Philosophers. The only value that matters to them is loyalty to the group. It's not that truth isn't a value. It's just one of many, and not the most important one. When it comes to truth or loyalty to the group, it's loyalty to the group that matters most. That means that the truth is always subjugated to the group's Identity and that identity is wrapped in their ideology. The ideology is always more important than the truth. ALWAYS!

Is it possible Republicans dont want Hagel in there as a political reason? Hagel has shown he doesnt have the same ideas about foreign policy as most republicans, so when he supports a policy republcans dont like all you will hear is Hagel this and that. The optics will mean lots of pushback for no gain and someone that appears to be tremendously incompetent to boot. The surge was the worst mistake since Vietnam? Apparently not since it worked and casualties actually went down. Thats hyperbolic, attention grabbing drama queen nonsense there. Hagel deserves to get some political slings and arrows from an outrageous comment like that.

The reast of your claptrap happens in both parties, party loyalty does tend to mean something in the pecking order and support you recieve from the party. Thats nothing new. Its also not limited to one side of the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom