• 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 tells Congress to watch its spending?

So you don't want congress to watch it's spending? Or are you just starting another partisan hack thread to whine a bit more about President Obama?
 
Redress said:
So you don't want congress to watch it's spending? Or are you just starting another partisan hack thread to whine a bit more about President Obama?
Click to expand...

I think the point he is making is that Obama is full of hot air, Just like Bush was. Bush was saying the same crap while he was in office, while spending like a drunken sailor. At that time Democrats were all over him. I believe they also have an obligation to hold Obama responsible too. Whether a president has a D or an R by his name should not matter. Bush is no longer in office, so I expect people to hold Obama to the same standard they held Bush to.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
UPDATE 1-Obama seeks fiscal responsibility mantle | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

You have got to be kidding. The man spends a trillion dollars, then he has the outright nerve to warn Congress to watch its spending?

This is like some B horror movie. Are their really people left who take this knucklehead seriously?
Click to expand...

...<snicker>.......um....Mr.President....<snicker>.....<snort>......Mr. President i would...<snicker>....I would like to introduce you to Mr.Kettle......:rofl
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
I think the point he is making is that Obama is full of hot air, Just like Bush was. Bush was saying the same crap while he was in office, while spending like a drunken sailor. At that time Democrats were all over him. I believe they also have an obligation to hold Obama responsible too. Whether a president has a D or an R by his name should not matter. Bush is no longer in office, so I expect people to hold Obama to the same standard they held Bush to.
Click to expand...

The spending Obama has done he felt was needed to get the economy fixed(note: I am not saying it was, only that he believed it). Now that that is done, spending does have to be controlled, and reduced soon. If it turns out that the spending Obama has done helps the economy, and he does control and reduce spending, then all this could be a positive. At this point in time, no one knows for sure, and it's all guesswork.

If President Obama had done nothing for the economy when he came into office, most of the same people bitching about what he did would be bitching he had not spent a trillion dollars fixing the economy. Twenty threads a day bitching about the same trivial crap gets old.
 
Obama contends that much of the budget deficit was inherited from the Bush administration, which presided over a shift from record surpluses to huge increases in the deficit fueled by the financial crisis and spending for the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

There were no surpluses in any of the administrations immediately preceding Boy Bushy, so clearly this article is totally flawed.

"The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole," Obama said. "Digging our way out will take time and patience and tough choices."
Click to expand...

Well, February 2009 is in the "past" so I guess it can't be said The Messiah is telling a whopper here. Not even an angry one.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The spending Obama has done he felt was needed to get the economy fixed(note: I am not saying it was, only that he believed it). Now that that is done, spending does have to be controlled, and reduced soon. If it turns out that the spending Obama has done helps the economy, and he does control and reduce spending, then all this could be a positive. At this point in time, no one knows for sure, and it's all guesswork.

If President Obama had done nothing for the economy when he came into office, most of the same people bitching about what he did would be bitching he had not spent a trillion dollars fixing the economy. Twenty threads a day bitching about the same trivial crap gets old.
Click to expand...

Problem is, he's merely posturing just before he asks for another trillion for nationalized healthcare. That is what is truly getting old.
 
Pay as you go.

What a wonderful idear.

Let's see....The Messiah wants to waste 1.8 trillion dollars this year on a fake stimulus and other nonsense. So he has to raise taxes this year by 1.8 trillion dollars.

That's what The Messiah means, ain't it?

Who's he gonna rob...er tax, to get the moolah?
 
Obama is like a Vampire... whittling his own stake.
 
Jerry said:
...<snicker>.......um....Mr.President....<snicker>.....<snort>......Mr. President i would...<snicker>....I would like to introduce you to Mr.Kettle......:rofl
Click to expand...

That is way to funny Jerry :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:
 
Erod said:
Problem is, he's merely posturing just before he asks for another trillion for nationalized healthcare. That is what is truly getting old.
Click to expand...

You have some proof he is going to do this, or is it another wild claim?
 
Redress said:
The spending Obama has done he felt was needed to get the economy fixed(note: I am not saying it was, only that he believed it). Now that that is done, spending does have to be controlled, and reduced soon. If it turns out that the spending Obama has done helps the economy, and he does control and reduce spending, then all this could be a positive. At this point in time, no one knows for sure, and it's all guesswork.

If President Obama had done nothing for the economy when he came into office, most of the same people bitching about what he did would be bitching he had not spent a trillion dollars fixing the economy. Twenty threads a day bitching about the same trivial crap gets old.
Click to expand...

Let me fix your first sentence for you.

The spending Bush has done he felt was needed to get the economy fixed(note: I am not saying it was, only that he believed it).

It was still spending like a drunken sailor. I was all over the Bush supporters for making excuses. Now I am all over you. :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
The spending Obama has done he felt was needed to get the economy fixed(note: I am not saying it was, only that he believed it). Now that that is done, spending does have to be controlled, and reduced soon. If it turns out that the spending Obama has done helps the economy, and he does control and reduce spending, then all this could be a positive. At this point in time, no one knows for sure, and it's all guesswork.
Click to expand...
Can you name a politician who didn't consider his spending plans "needed"?

Dear Leader telling Congress to watch its spending makes about as much sense as the town drunk giving a temperance lecture at Sunday meeting.
 
celticlord said:
Can you name a politician who didn't consider his spending plans "needed"?

Dear Leader telling Congress to watch its spending makes about as much sense as the town drunk giving a temperance lecture at Sunday meeting.
Click to expand...

The difference would be the level of need. There is a strong belief among some that if Obama had not acted, the economy would have gotten much, much worse, and any recovery would have been much further off. That is something more than Joe Senator wanting a bridge or museum.
 
Redress said:
The difference would be the level of need. There is a strong belief among some that if Obama had not acted, the economy would have gotten much, much worse, and any recovery would have been much further off. That is something more than Joe Senator wanting a bridge or museum.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure Joe Senator could tell you at length about the jobs that bridge will bring, or the educational benefits to the children in his state from that museum. Hell, give Joe Senator a warm-up lap and he'll be arguing that the bridge is what will save his state from economic ruin. Depending on whether or not he's had his morning coffee, he might even believe that himself.

You're rationalizing, and not very well. My girlfriend's daughter has better excuses.
 
celticlord said:
Oh, I'm sure Joe Senator could tell you at length about the jobs that bridge will bring, or the educational benefits to the children in his state from that museum. Hell, give Joe Senator a warm-up lap and he'll be arguing that the bridge is what will save his state from economic ruin. Depending on whether or not he's had his morning coffee, he might even believe that himself.

You're rationalizing, and not very well. My girlfriend's daughter has better excuses.
Click to expand...

You are biased. I could offer proof that Obama did the perfect job, and you would call me wrong.
 
Redress said:
The difference would be the level of need. There is a strong belief among some that if Obama had not acted, the economy would have gotten much, much worse, and any recovery would have been much further off. That is something more than Joe Senator wanting a bridge or museum.
Click to expand...

So what did the spending actually do aside from paying off campaign supporters like the leaders of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and the UAW? Keep in mind, he still has much of that money in the kitty, waiting for more pet projects like healthcare, green projects, and future campaign supporters.

He hasn't created job 1 yet. He hasn't helped a single person facing foreclosure. He gave a ton of money to GM, then watched it fold anyway (who got that money?) Chrysler's about to become Fiat. Hummer's now a Chinese automobile. Unemployment is rising faster than a Katrina flood. Lendors aren't lending.

Obama has made a bad problem much, much worse, and he ain't done making it worse yet. I think he actually wants it that way because he sees the U.S. as too powerful.

He loves to say "We're 5 percent of the planet, and we use 25 percent of the world's resources." So what exactly does he have in mind for us? What lifestyle has he decided we should be allowed to live?

Meanwhile, he and Missy are dancing around the Middle East and Europe apologizing for everything the United States has done for 200+ years.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
You are biased. I could offer proof that Obama did the perfect job, and you would call me wrong.
Click to expand...
Of course, and I would naturally be correct when I did.:2razz:

However, at least then you would not be rationalizing, but debating.
 
celticlord said:
Of course, and I would naturally be correct when I did.:2razz:

However, at least then you would not be rationalizing, but debating.
Click to expand...

I did debate. I explained his rationale. I explained the difference. It's not my fault you cannot see past your biases. If you seriously cannot see the difference in the level of need between a bridge, and an economic meltdown, you are blinding yourself.
 
Redress said:
I did debate. I explained his rationale. I explained the difference. It's not my fault you cannot see past your biases. If you seriously cannot see the difference in the level of need between a bridge, and an economic meltdown, you are blinding yourself.
Click to expand...
The only difference is which side of the bridge you're standing on.

Keep in mind, that Dear Leader's "stimulus" money has not even been spent, and yet he already claims recovery.

So where's the meltdown? I seem to have missed it.
 
celticlord said:
The only difference is which side of the bridge you're standing on.

Keep in mind, that Dear Leader's "stimulus" money has not even been spent, and yet he already claims recovery.

So where's the meltdown? I seem to have missed it.
Click to expand...

You are exaggerating. He has not to my knowledge claimed that his stimulus has effected a recovery. Some of his people have said that they think the economy is improving, which I personally am less than confident of.

Come to Michigan, you can't miss it here.
 
Redress said:
You are exaggerating. He has not to my knowledge claimed that his stimulus has effected a recovery. Some of his people have said that they think the economy is improving, which I personally am less than confident of.
Click to expand...
Back to rationalizing I see.

Really doesn't matter if he did or did not credit his non-stimulus spending spree. He was the one who said the economy would not recover without it. Now the economy is "recovering" (according to him) despite little stimulus money being spent.

Redress said:
Come to Michigan, you can't miss it here.
Click to expand...
See what happens when you don't build a bridge?
 
Redress said:
So you don't want congress to watch it's spending? Or are you just starting another partisan hack thread to whine a bit more about President Obama?
Click to expand...
Seems to me he's pointing out the irony of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom