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

Johnny Centrist · Jan 23, 2011

MaggieD said:
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?

Everything you just said was completely irrelevant to my post. Thesis of my post: The policies of GWB are completely relevant in today's political discussion because they still are in place.

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

randel said:
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

Well, you sure told me, never mind that my response was actually responsive to the thread. You ought to try that sometime. Who said it was ok when Bush did it, and what exactly is it? Not sure what purpose it serves to attack Bush two years after he left office if not to divert from the Obama record. I know that neither you or any other liberal likes actual results but instead prefer to feel in addressing actual points made. How about clarifiying for us all how bashing Bush today corrects the problems "your" President is creating? Didn't you hire him to correct all those Bush errors? Think that pushing for new spending on top of the 3.5 trillion added to the debt in just two years is cleaning up the "Bush mess?" Think spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus program that was designed for infrastructure and shovel ready jobs only to now come back and tell us there are no such thing as shovel ready jobs and we need more infrastructure spending is cleaning up "the Bush mess?"

I anxiously await what will once again prove to be a non response from you.

MaggieD · Jan 23, 2011

Johnny Centrist said:
Everything you just said was completely irrelevant to my post. Thesis of my post: The policies of GWB are completely relevant in today's political discussion because they still are in place.

Only one problem. They are now the policies of President Obama.

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

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.

So tell us what exactly do you want to happen now with regard to what Bush did? Did you ever take a civics class? Bush didn't do any of those things without Congressional support, a Congress that was under Democrat control from 2007 to 2011 yet Bush is to blame? Obama was hired to clean up "the Bush mess" and as you pointed out he kept many of the Bush policies that you believe were a disaster then added to them.

ptif219 · Jan 23, 2011

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.

All of that is still in place because of Obama

randel · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Well, you sure told me, never mind that my response was actually responsive to the thread. You ought to try that sometime. Who said it was ok when Bush did it, and what exactly is it? Not sure what purpose it serves to attack Bush two years after he left office if not to divert from the Obama record. I know that neither you or any other liberal likes actual results but instead prefer to feel in addressing actual points made. How about clarifiying for us all how bashing Bush today corrects the problems "your" President is creating? Didn't you hire him to correct all those Bush errors? Think that pushing for new spending on top of the 3.5 trillion added to the debt in just two years is cleaning up the "Bush mess?" Think spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus program that was designed for infrastructure and shovel ready jobs only to now come back and tell us there are no such thing as shovel ready jobs and we need more infrastructure spending is cleaning up "the Bush mess?"

I anxiously await what will once again prove to be a non response from you.

thank you so much for proving my point, by the way, i bet the under...in less than two posts you are trying to spin/create a strawman to avoid the question put to you, that question, again, for the record, why is it ok when repubs/conservatives/bush do something, say, add to the deficit/debt, and the end of the world when a dem/liberal/obama does it...you refuse to explain your hypocrasy, why is that? just for the record, i don't expect you to actually address the question put before you, so i will not be shocked, nor should anyone else be, when you create another strawman and try to divert the conversation to something that is more of your liking..

Johnny Centrist · Jan 23, 2011

MaggieD said:
Only one problem. They are now the policies of President Obama.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat. Being upfront and honest about the big government, big spending, unconstitutional policies of GWB shows exactly what the neo-Republican party is all about and hopefully enlightens people to vote for independents, classical liberals like Ron Paul and moderate Democrats like Clinton was. Pretending that GWB was a small government, fiscally conservative classical Republican will do nothing but insure others like him will get votes in future elections on the false premise that they are voting for a conservative.

ptif219 · Jan 23, 2011

Johnny Centrist said:
Everything you just said was completely irrelevant to my post. Thesis of my post: The policies of GWB are completely relevant in today's political discussion because they still are in place.

Only because Obama wants them. Obama pushed for the tax cuts to be extended. Obama has done little he said he would about the wars or Gitmo. All that you stated is there because Obama wants it there. Stop blaming Bush for Obama's work to keep policies in place.

MaggieD · Jan 23, 2011

Johnny Centrist said:
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat. Being upfront and honest about the big government, big spending, unconstitutional policies of GWB shows exactly what the neo-Republican party is all about and hopefully enlightens people to vote for independents, classical liberals like Ron Paul and moderate Democrats like Clinton was. Pretending that GWB was a small government, fiscally conservative classical Republican will do nothing but insure others like him will get votes in future elections on the false premise that they are voting for a conservative.

I can find plenty here to agree with you on, Johnny. I'm sure surprised, though, that you refer to Ron Paul as a liberal...

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

randel said:
thank you so much for proving my point, by the way, i bet the under...in less than two posts you are trying to spin/create a strawman to avoid the question put to you, that question, again, for the record, why is it ok when repubs/conservatives/bush do something, say, add to the deficit/debt, and the end of the world when a dem/liberal/obama does it...you refuse to explain your hypocrasy, why is that? just for the record, i don't expect you to actually address the question put before you, so i will not be shocked, nor should anyone else be, when you create another strawman and try to divert the conversation to something that is more of your liking..

Why? because it serves no purpose now two years later as nothing can be done to change the past. You and I have a different opinion of what happened in the past and unfortunately for you I have the data and facdts on my side. Apparently you don't see the hyprocisy of blaming Bush for all the problems then keeping most of his policies and adding more to them.

You have made the claim that I gave Bush a pass for the deficits and debt. I reject that and correctly pointed out that Bush didn't create the debt alone and had a lot of help, over two trillion in 2007-2008 with a Democrat Congress. My question is why do you ignore the Congressional assistance in creating that debt? When Bush left office the debt was 10.6 trillion and it is 14 trillion today. You don't have a problem with that? Wasn't Obama part of that Congress that approved Bush spending? Please name for me the spending that Bush did that wasn't supported by Obama?

Randel, I bow to your superior intelligence but you really need to come down to my level and be more specific in asking your questions. I thought I had answered your direct questions but apparently not, my apology. You will just have to dumb them down for my benefit.

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

Johnny Centrist said:
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat. Being upfront and honest about the big government, big spending, unconstitutional policies of GWB shows exactly what the neo-Republican party is all about and hopefully enlightens people to vote for independents, classical liberals like Ron Paul and moderate Democrats like Clinton was. Pretending that GWB was a small government, fiscally conservative classical Republican will do nothing but insure others like him will get votes in future elections on the false premise that they are voting for a conservative.

Johnny, I assume you didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 and based upon your comments about fiscal responsibility, I doubt that you voted for Gore or Kerry so who did you vote for? I have no problem with a protest vote however there comes a time when that protest vote gives us a less than desireable candidate. Can you image a Gore or Kerry Presidency because of third party support talkng votes away from a Republican? Think!

Johnny Centrist · Jan 23, 2011

MaggieD said:
I can find plenty here to agree with you on, Johnny. I'm sure surprised, though, that you refer to Ron Paul as a liberal...

Classic liberal. The old form of liberalism. Our founding fathers were liberals. The were heavily influenced by the ideas of John Locke who is called the "Father of liberalism". The idea that men had a say in their government, liberties and individual rights, was definitely liberal, hence another form of the word "liberate". The conservatives back then were the loyalist, who wanted to "conserve" society the way it was and stay loyal to the British crown. Why free market economics is called "conservative" these days is beyond me. Very far left Democratic economic policies are borderline socialism yet they are called "liberal" economic policies. How does "liberate" and "socialism" go together?

Ron Paul has the most "conservative" voting record of any politician since 1937 and the Republican voters shun him and instead vote for big government Republicans simply because he against preemptive wars.

randel · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Why? because it serves no purpose now two years later as nothing can be done to change the past. You and I have a different opinion of what happened in the past and unfortunately for you I have the data and facdts on my side. Apparently you don't see the hyprocisy of blaming Bush for all the problems then keeping most of his policies and adding more to them.

You have made the claim that I gave Bush a pass for the deficits and debt. I reject that and correctly pointed out that Bush didn't create the debt alone and had a lot of help, over two trillion in 2007-2008 with a Democrat Congress. My question is why do you ignore the Congressional assistance in creating that debt? When Bush left office the debt was 10.6 trillion and it is 14 trillion today. You don't have a problem with that? Wasn't Obama part of that Congress that approved Bush spending? Please name for me the spending that Bush did that wasn't supported by Obama?

Randel, I bow to your superior intelligence but you really need to come down to my level and be more specific in asking your questions. I thought I had answered your direct questions but apparently not, my apology. You will just have to dumb them down for my benefit.

there is no need to dumb the questions down, i think your bright enough to answer them, the thing is, you have to choose to answer them, and not divert and spin. i voted for bush, twice....i voted for obama...i think we both agree that the budget and debt/deficit is something that we definitely need to get under control. my thing is, i find it a bit hypocritical to sit and beyatch about one sides spending, claiming it is on 'steroids', and yet then to claim that all the spending on the republican side is 'necessary', 'served a purpose', was needed. both have ran the debt/deficit up. conservatives can't honestly claim that their 'deficit spending' is better than liberal 'deficit spending'....it is what it is, spending money we don't have.

cpwill · Jan 23, 2011

rathi said:
Infrastructure, research and education are investments. We are able to sustain our current lifestyle because people who came before us spent resources in those areas we use today. That said, we are running a hideous deficit as is. Ideally, we would cut the huge amount of bloat that we feed off today in return for putting money into the future. Realistically, we can choose between raising the deficit or sacrificing the long term. Politics is a devil's bargain.

the more the federal government "invests" in education, the worse our education system gets. if we are going to "invest" in education at all it needs to be in the form of block grants; but our Centralizer-in-Chief will never do that.

not having our children come into the world with the equivalent of a mortgage already hanging over their heads is an investment, too. the debt is probably the #1 threat to America's long-term future right now.

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

randel said:
there is no need to dumb the questions down, i think your bright enough to answer them, the thing is, you have to choose to answer them, and not divert and spin. i voted for bush, twice....i voted for obama...i think we both agree that the budget and debt/deficit is something that we definitely need to get under control. my thing is, i find it a bit hypocritical to sit and beyatch about one sides spending, claiming it is on 'steroids', and yet then to claim that all the spending on the republican side is 'necessary', 'served a purpose', was needed. both have ran the debt/deficit up. conservatives can't honestly claim that their 'deficit spending' is better than liberal 'deficit spending'....it is what it is, spending money we don't have.

Interesting post, please show me where I ever said that "all the spending on the Republican side is necessary, served a purpose, and was needed?" What would you call it when the last Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars and the first Obama budget was 3.6 trillion if not putting Bush spending on steroids?

Here are the facts

Reagan Debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years
Clinton debt 1.3 trillion in 8 years
GW Bush debt 4.9 trillion in 8 years
Obama debt 3.5 trillion in 2 years.

Blaming Bush for the Obama spending is partisan and wrong yet many here continue to do that. Deficit spending is deficit spending. Most of that deficit spending comes from entitlements, not discretionary spending. Many here blame the wars or everything else other than the real problem and that is liberal social engineering that takes on personal responsibility issues with the sole purpose of buying votes. It isn't the Government's role to protect people for poor personal choices yet have you ever heard Obama talk about taking personal responsibility for anything?

Jetboogieman · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Interesting post, please show me where I ever said that "all the spending on the Republican side is necessary, served a purpose, and was needed?" What would you call it when the last Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars and the first Obama budget was 3.6 trillion if not putting Bush spending on steroids?

Here are the facts

Reagan Debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years
Clinton debt 1.3 trillion in 8 years
GW Bush debt 4.9 trillion in 8 years
Obama debt 3.5 trillion in 2 years.

Blaming Bush for the Obama spending is partisan and wrong yet many here continue to do that. Deficit spending is deficit spending. Most of that deficit spending comes from entitlements, not discretionary spending. Many here blame the wars or everything else other than the real problem and that is liberal social engineering that takes on personal responsibility issues with the sole purpose of buying votes. It isn't the Government's role to protect people for poor personal choices yet have you ever heard Obama talk about taking personal responsibility for anything?

Yep, you're not partisan at all...

randel · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
Interesting post, please show me where I ever said that "all the spending on the Republican side is necessary, served a purpose, and was needed?" What would you call it when the last Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars and the first Obama budget was 3.6 trillion if not putting Bush spending on steroids?

Here are the facts

Reagan Debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years
Clinton debt 1.3 trillion in 8 years
GW Bush debt 4.9 trillion in 8 years
Obama debt 3.5 trillion in 2 years.

Blaming Bush for the Obama spending is partisan and wrong yet many here continue to do that. Deficit spending is deficit spending. Most of that deficit spending comes from entitlements, not discretionary spending. Many here blame the wars or everything else other than the real problem and that is liberal social engineering that takes on personal responsibility issues with the sole purpose of buying votes. It isn't the Government's role to protect people for poor personal choices yet have you ever heard Obama talk about taking personal responsibility for anything?

'deficit spending is deficit spending'....on that, we agree, and it doesnt matter who does it. my point is, you seem to 'defend' republican/bush era deficit spending by using a child's argument 'well, he(obama) did it toooo!!!, and he spend more!!' as if it justifies spending done in the bush era...again, deficit spending is deficit spending, regardless of who does it. both sides are guilty, both sides are responsible...to sit silent while it is 'your side' is hypocritical.

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
Yep, you're not partisan at all...

Who said I wasn't partisan, I am a conservative and proud of it. What does posting actual data and facts have to do with being partisan. Facts aren't partisan, they are accurate assessment of what happened. I don't expect a Canadian to understand the U.S. budget but go to the following site and get educated on where the spending lies and what part of that spending is entitlement which is social engineering

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

randel said:
'deficit spending is deficit spending'....on that, we agree, and it doesnt matter who does it. my point is, you seem to 'defend' republican/bush era deficit spending by using a child's argument 'well, he(obama) did it toooo!!!, and he spend more!!' as if it justifies spending done in the bush era...again, deficit spending is deficit spending, regardless of who does it. both sides are guilty, both sides are responsible...to sit silent while it is 'your side' is hypocritical.

What I accurately pointed out is that no President creates debt alone as all spending has to be approved by Congress. Further my point is that I have stated that Bush and Congress spent too much but Obama and Congress are spending more, in the first two years 600 billion more. Why don't you tell me who "my side" is? Given the choice I have the Republican side is at least closer to being "my side" because it is the only side that promotes private industry and really doesn't care how much money you or someone else makes. There is only "one side" that seems to worry more about how much someone else pays in taxes vs. how those tax dollars are spent.

Too much money was spent during the Bush years although Bush did at least try to address entitlement spending but was rejected by Congress, both RINO's and Democrats. So who is sitting silent? What can we do about the Bush spending now?

Johnny Centrist · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
What I accurately pointed out is that no President creates debt alone as all spending has to be approved by Congress. Further my point is that I have stated that Bush and Congress spent too much but Obama and Congress are spending more, in the first two years 600 billion more. Why don't you tell me who "my side" is? Given the choice I have the Republican side is at least closer to being "my side" because it is the only side that promotes private industry and really doesn't care how much money you or someone else makes. There is only "one side" that seems to worry more about how much someone else pays in taxes vs. how those tax dollars are spent.

Too much money was spent during the Bush years although Bush did at least try to address entitlement spending but was rejected by Congress, both RINO's and Democrats. So who is sitting silent? What can we do about the Bush spending now?

That's probably the most bipartisan post you've ever written on this forum. :applaud

randel · Jan 23, 2011

Conservative said:
What I accurately pointed out is that no President creates debt alone as all spending has to be approved by Congress. Further my point is that I have stated that Bush and Congress spent too much but Obama and Congress are spending more, in the first two years 600 billion more. Why don't you tell me who "my side" is? Given the choice I have the Republican side is at least closer to being "my side" because it is the only side that promotes private industry and really doesn't care how much money you or someone else makes. There is only "one side" that seems to worry more about how much someone else pays in taxes vs. how those tax dollars are spent.

Too much money was spent during the Bush years although Bush did at least try to address entitlement spending but was rejected by Congress, both RINO's and Democrats. So who is sitting silent? What can we do about the Bush spending now?

any talks of cutting anything, will have to be with the understanding that EVERYTHING will have to face the sharp edge of the axe...not just the so called 'entitlement' programs...i've explained this before, nothing can be a 'sacred cow'...

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

Johnny Centrist said:
That's probably the most bipartisan post you've ever written on this forum. :applaud

Now with a comment like that you are going to destroy my reputation, LOL, thanks

Conservative · Jan 23, 2011

randel said:
any talks of cutting anything, will have to be with the understanding that EVERYTHING will have to face the sharp edge of the axe...not just the so called 'entitlement' programs...i've explained this before, nothing can be a 'sacred cow'...

There is plenty of room to cut the budget as soon as the people realize that much of the Federal spending is on programs that are already in the states. the role of the Federal govt. really is to defend this country but the Federal Govt. has taken on the social responsibility role and that is a mistake.

hazlnut · Jan 23, 2011

MrVicchio said:
I guess he hasn't gotten the memo people are sick of the spending.

So, you're against Made In America? Supporting American companies?

Renae · Jan 23, 2011

hazlnut said:
So, you're against Made In America? Supporting American companies?

Yep, you got it, I'm against those things! :roll:

Seriously, do you just post whatever bumper sticker comes into your mind or do you actually "think" about the words you type?

I'm against spending money WE DO NOT HAVE on things we cannot afford. Obama is going to try and play the "We have to spend money on these critical issues" all the while ignoring that much of his agenda is the reason we're so much further in debt.

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

Somewhere in Babylon