• 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 to Push for New Spending as GOP Demands Deep Budget Cuts

Barbbtx said:
Maybe if the big government would get out of the way of the states, they could take of those things themselves. Instead, the states send them money and they decide who gets it and how much and for what.
Click to expand...

Not really, no, that's not what happens.
 
Deuce said:
Not really, no, that's not what happens.
Click to expand...

That isn't what happens? Where does the Federal Govt. get their money if not from the people living in the states? Why does that money have to be sent to the Federal Govt. so they can spend it on programs already being done in the states? Here are the items funded by the Federal Income Taxes. How many of those items can be handled by the states or already are in the state budgets? Why the duplications?

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

Pull out SS and Medicare because they are funded by Payroll taxes.
 
ptif219 said:
Also far bigger so the cost will be huge.
Click to expand...

That argument doesn't make any sense. We are richer because we are far bigger. We have a much larger economy than the little European countries so we have a much bigger GDP. Americans also make more money per capita than Europeans. The whole "we can't afford it" argument is completely bogus.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
That argument doesn't make any sense. We are richer because we are far bigger. We have a much larger economy than the little European countries so we have a much bigger GDP. Americans also make more money per capita than Europeans. The whole "we can't afford it" argument is completely bogus.
Click to expand...

Who are "we" and why is it the Government's role to provide for the "richest" people on the face of the earth? It boils down to what is a personal responsibility vs. a govt. responsibility. I have seen nothing that justifies Obamacare or the massive expansion of govt. to handle state and local issues.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
That argument doesn't make any sense. We are richer because we are far bigger. We have a much larger economy than the little European countries so we have a much bigger GDP. Americans also make more money per capita than Europeans. The whole "we can't afford it" argument is completely bogus.
Click to expand...

We have close to 20% unemployment so spending will do nothing but bankrupt the country
 
Conservative said:
Who are "we" and why is it the Government's role to provide for the "richest" people on the face of the earth? It boils down to what is a personal responsibility vs. a govt. responsibility. I have seen nothing that justifies Obamacare or the massive expansion of govt. to handle state and local issues.
Click to expand...

That's not even the argument. I'm not arguing for socialized health care, I'm just arguing against the point that American can't afford it. That point is incredibly invalid.
 
ptif219 said:
We have close to 20% unemployment so spending will do nothing but bankrupt the country
Click to expand...

True, that's why it would take a redistribution of spending. Slash government programs in half like the unsuccessful war on drugs and the inadequate and grossly expensive Department of Homeland Security. Slash 2/3 of welfare programs. Slash military spending in half by taking all of the bases out of places like Bulgaria, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, the UK. We have the money, we're just spending it in stupid places.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
True, that's why it would take a redistribution of spending. Slash government programs in half like the unsuccessful war on drugs and the inadequate and grossly expensive Department of Homeland Security. Slash 2/3 of welfare programs. Slash military spending in half by taking all of the bases out of places like Bulgaria, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, the UK. We have the money, we're just spending it in stupid places.
Click to expand...

Obama with his socialist agenda will not let that happen
 
Johnny Centrist said:
That's not even the argument. I'm not arguing for socialized health care, I'm just arguing against the point that American can't afford it. That point is incredibly invalid.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what Americans can afford and what the govt. thinks Americans need and thus has to be funded by the Federal taxpayers. there really is a lack of understanding about the taxes we pay and the actual role of the Federal Govt. I have no problem helping people truly in need but let's have an honest debate on who those people are and how many really need taxpayer help on any issue.
 
ptif219 said:
Obama with his socialist agenda will not let that happen
Click to expand...

Neither would Bush. The idea that Republicans are small government is dated.

"Ryan Sager reports that at last week's 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, on the issue of federal spending many were pushing for a return to Reagan policies versus those of this President Bush. Rep. Mike Spence told the audience:

'Whether it's called 'compassionate conservatism' or 'big government Republicanism,' after years of record increases in federal spending, more government is now the accepted Republican philosophy in Washington.'"

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits by John McIntyre
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Neither would Bush. The idea that Republicans are small government is dated.

"Ryan Sager reports that at last week's 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, on the issue of federal spending many were pushing for a return to Reagan policies versus those of this President Bush. Rep. Mike Spence told the audience:

'Whether it's called 'compassionate conservatism' or 'big government Republicanism,' after years of record increases in federal spending, more government is now the accepted Republican philosophy in Washington.'"

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits by John McIntyre
Click to expand...

Love your signature like which of course was taken out of context. Fact remains given the choice I had between Bush vs Gore, Bush vs. Kerry Bush was my choice and I chose wisely. Don't let that fact get in the way of trying to give me a cheap shot.
 
Conservative said:
Love your signature like which of course was taken out of context. Fact remains given the choice I had between Bush vs Gore, Bush vs. Kerry Bush was my choice and I chose wisely. Don't let that fact get in the way of trying to give me a cheap shot.
Click to expand...

After the destruction that man brought to our country by increasing spending, regulations, and the size of government, anyone who still stands by that vote is unpatriotic and not a true conservative in my opinion.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
After the destruction that man brought to our country by increasing spending, regulations, and the size of government, anyone who still stands by that vote is unpatriotic and not a true conservative in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thing about conservative is. He'll continue to say well "Obama put Bush's spending on steroids".

Because spending is really really important to him. Really important. so is the debt and the deficit. And the constitution.

He feels very strongly about those things.

So much so, he basically gives Bush a pass on the patriot act (unconstitutional) but that's ok because democrats voted for it too... which makes it ok... which is odd if you think about it.

He gives Bush a pass on deficit spending and adding to the debt because Obamas worse.

So much so, that he feels so strongly about these subjects. That he has a president that added to teh debt, did things that were unconstitutional, increased the deficit and started 2 wars as his avatar picture.

Go ****ing figures.

But its ok. Because Obamas worse. Yeeeeeeeeep...
 
Johnny Centrist said:
After the destruction that man brought to our country by increasing spending, regulations, and the size of government, anyone who still stands by that vote is unpatriotic and not a true conservative in my opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL, unlike you I look at the total results not selective results but don't let logic and common sense get in the way of your personal biases. A vote for anyone other than Bush in 2000 and 2004 would have put Gore or Kerry in the WH. That is reality, sorry.

There is much that Bush did that I didn't like but none of it destroyed the country. A lot of misinformation about what he did gave us Barack Obama. You show that lack of knowledge with most posts. There are two things and two things only that really affect this country, first is national security and Bush put our security first. Second is a pro growth economic policy and Bush did that with his across the board tax cuts and incentives to the private sector to grow and create jobs. Without a strong military nothing else matters, and without a strong private sector economic this country would be another European disaster.

Bush tried to reform entitlements but was thwarted by the Democrats in the Senate. It would help you a lot more if you did more and better research on exactly what results Bush actually generated instead of buying media rhetoric.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Thing about conservative is. He'll continue to say well "Obama put Bush's spending on steroids".

Because spending is really really important to him. Really important. so is the debt and the deficit. And the constitution.

He feels very strongly about those things.

So much so, he basically gives Bush a pass on the patriot act (unconstitutional) but that's ok because democrats voted for it too... which makes it ok... which is odd if you think about it.

He gives Bush a pass on deficit spending and adding to the debt because Obamas worse.

So much so, that he feels so strongly about these subjects. That he has a president that added to teh debt, did things that were unconstitutional, increased the deficit and started 2 wars as his avatar picture.

Go ****ing figures.

But its ok. Because Obamas worse. Yeeeeeeeeep...
Click to expand...

Do you realize that in every post you divert to Bush and ignore what is going on right now? Bush isn't in office and as pointed out Bush beat the alternative of either Gore or Kerry. You further ignore basic U.S. civics which isn't surprising. Bush couldn't spend a dime without Congressional approval and in 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 that was a Democrat controlled Congress. I find it interesting how dumb Bush was yet he was able to convince the elite Democrats to support all that spending.

Interesting how you have to divert to Bush because you have no interest in discussing Obama performance. There is nothing that can be done about what you perceive Bush did, but there is plenty that can be done about what Obama is doing. That dreaded Patriot Act was not only reauthorized by Obama but expanded. Obama kept the Bush Secretary of Defense and expanded the military role in Afghanistan while spending more money on defense that Bush ever spent.

The Obama record is there for all to see but instead of challenging Obama to change his direction and agenda it is more feasible for you to attack Bush who is out of office thus nothing can be done. That is a typical liberal tactic.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize that in every post you divert to Bush and ignore what is going on right now? Bush isn't in office and as pointed out Bush beat the alternative of either Gore or Kerry. You further ignore basic U.S. civics which isn't surprising. Bush couldn't spend a dime without Congressional approval and in 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 that was a Democrat controlled Congress. I find it interesting how dumb Bush was yet he was able to convince the elite Democrats to support all that spending.

Interesting how you have to divert to Bush because you have no interest in discussing Obama performance. There is nothing that can be done about what you perceive Bush did, but there is plenty that can be done about what Obama is doing. That dreaded Patriot Act was not only reauthorized by Obama but expanded. Obama kept the Bush Secretary of Defense and expanded the military role in Afghanistan while spending more money on defense that Bush ever spent.

The Obama record is there for all to see but instead of challenging Obama to change his direction and agenda it is more feasible for you to attack Bush who is out of office thus nothing can be done. That is a typical liberal tactic.
Click to expand...
dont get pissy because he explained your thinking perfectly. the man has you figured out to a tee.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize that in every post you divert to Bush and ignore what is going on right now? Bush isn't in office and as pointed out Bush beat the alternative of either Gore or Kerry. You further ignore basic U.S. civics which isn't surprising. Bush couldn't spend a dime without Congressional approval and in 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 that was a Democrat controlled Congress. I find it interesting how dumb Bush was yet he was able to convince the elite Democrats to support all that spending.

Interesting how you have to divert to Bush because you have no interest in discussing Obama performance. There is nothing that can be done about what you perceive Bush did, but there is plenty that can be done about what Obama is doing. That dreaded Patriot Act was not only reauthorized by Obama but expanded. Obama kept the Bush Secretary of Defense and expanded the military role in Afghanistan while spending more money on defense that Bush ever spent.

The Obama record is there for all to see but instead of challenging Obama to change his direction and agenda it is more feasible for you to attack Bush who is out of office thus nothing can be done. That is a typical liberal tactic.
Click to expand...

But you see... you can't actually address my post at all.

I wasn't commenting on Obamas performance, and I wasn't trying to defend him.

I'm just pointing out your hypocracy.

Because that is what you are.

You have an agenda, and that agenda is bashing liberals 24/7.

If you're so right. Why bother coming on here as much as you do. Surely your smug American conservative superhuman brain is above such things :coffeepap I mean after all, you are very successful IRL? you continually refer to that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
But you see... you can't actually address my post at all.

I wasn't commenting on Obamas performance, and I wasn't trying to defend him.

I'm just pointing out your hypocracy.

Because that is what you are.

You have an agenda, and that agenda is bashing liberals 24/7.

If you're so right. Why bother coming on here as much as you do. Surely your smug American conservative superhuman brain is above such things :coffeepap I mean after all, you are very successful IRL? you continually refer to that.
Click to expand...
there are a couple on here who claim to be real successful irl, but i have some serious doubts....
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Neither would Bush. The idea that Republicans are small government is dated.

"Ryan Sager reports that at last week's 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, on the issue of federal spending many were pushing for a return to Reagan policies versus those of this President Bush. Rep. Mike Spence told the audience:

'Whether it's called 'compassionate conservatism' or 'big government Republicanism,' after years of record increases in federal spending, more government is now the accepted Republican philosophy in Washington.'"

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits by John McIntyre
Click to expand...

That is why I now vote constitution party when ever possible
 
Jetboogieman said:
Thing about conservative is. He'll continue to say well "Obama put Bush's spending on steroids".

Because spending is really really important to him. Really important. so is the debt and the deficit. And the constitution.

He feels very strongly about those things.

So much so, he basically gives Bush a pass on the patriot act (unconstitutional) but that's ok because democrats voted for it too... which makes it ok... which is odd if you think about it.

He gives Bush a pass on deficit spending and adding to the debt because Obamas worse.

So much so, that he feels so strongly about these subjects. That he has a president that added to teh debt, did things that were unconstitutional, increased the deficit and started 2 wars as his avatar picture.

Go ****ing figures.

But its ok. Because Obamas worse. Yeeeeeeeeep...
Click to expand...

Unlike Obama and the liberals who still will not take responsibility and still blame Bush for everything 2 years later
 
randel said:
dont get pissy because he explained your thinking perfectly. the man has you figured out to a tee.
Click to expand...

LOL, well good afternoon, Randel, sleep in late today? How about telling me the ramifications of GM/Chrysler "failing" and falling into bankruptcy? How do you look in a cheerleader outfit? Care to address what purpose bashing Bush does today, two years after he has left office? IMO all that does is divert from the failure "your" President is and the disastrous results he has generated.
 
Jetboogieman said:
But you see... you can't actually address my post at all.

I wasn't commenting on Obamas performance, and I wasn't trying to defend him.

I'm just pointing out your hypocracy.

Because that is what you are.

You have an agenda, and that agenda is bashing liberals 24/7.

If you're so right. Why bother coming on here as much as you do. Surely your smug American conservative superhuman brain is above such things :coffeepap I mean after all, you are very successful IRL? you continually refer to that.
Click to expand...

What you failed to respond to was the thread topic as you did what you said you had no interest in doing, diverting to Bush. What purpose does it serve today to attack and continue to blame someone who has been out of office for over 2 years? Didn't this country hire Obama to "clean up" that Bush mess? Based upon the results looks like the majority in this country understand that he has failed. My bet is you will eventually get to that conclusion as well.

I find it interesting that you think you know what my agenda is. You are wrong but go ahead and continue to believe that. It doesn't do any good to attack someone who has been out of office for two years while ignoring the guy in that office today who is generating worse results.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, well good afternoon, Randel, sleep in late today? How about telling me the ramifications of GM/Chrysler "failing" and falling into bankruptcy? How do you look in a cheerleader outfit? Care to address what purpose bashing Bush does today, two years after he has left office? IMO all that does is divert from the failure "your" President is and the disastrous results he has generated.
Click to expand...
the idea of you wanting to see me in a cheerleaders outfit i tend to find a bit disturbing...please keep your sexual proclivities to yourself thanks.....jet wasnt commenting on or defending obama's performance, he called you for your hypocracy, and in true form, you try to divert away from that conversation and start a strawman argument about the 'performance' of bush/obama and try to accuse everyone of 'bush bashing'....to a tee jet nailed you, to a tee...explain your hypocracy....why is it ok when bush/conservative/republican does it, and the end of the world when a dem/liberal/obama does it, and lets see if you can avoid the terms 'steroids' or 'bls' ect......or results......think you can do that? i have my doubts, in fact, i bet you try to divert and spin your way out of answering in less than two responses.....anyone wanna take that bet? the over/under is two
 
Conservative said:
Care to address what purpose bashing Bush does today, two years after he has left office?
Click to expand...

Are you serious are you joking? You do realize that what a president does in office has a lingering effect on the country right? We are still involved in two wars Bush started, the tax cuts are still in place, No Child Left Behind is still in place, the Patriot Act is still in place. Evaluating the policies of GWB is completely relevant to American politics today, almost more so than any other topic except what is Obama going to do to fix this country in the next two years.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Are you serious are you joking? You do realize that what a president does in office has a lingering effect on the country right? We are still involved in two wars Bush started, the tax cuts are still in place, No Child Left Behind is still in place, the Patriot Act is still in place. Evaluating the policies of GWB is completely relevant to American politics today, almost more so than any other topic except what is Obama going to do to fix this country in the next two years.
Click to expand...

We are still involved in two wars that began under Bush because Obama wants us to be in them. The tax cuts are still in place because Congress wants the tax cuts to be in place. The Patriot Act...No Child Left Behind...are in place because Obama and Congress want them to be in place.

Or are you forgetting that Congress is trying to repeal Obamacare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom