Put your reaction to the State of the Union address here
AP Photo
“The state of our union is strong.”
So what do you think about President Obama’s speech?
Good?
Bad?
Effective? Or not?
February 12, 2013 - 9:18 PM
February 12, 2013 - 9:18 PM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
200 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Worst president in US history.
”If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” Use that Bully Pulpit!!
What insightful analysis there, Jim. Sheet getting too tight?
jim, is your last name crow?
$2.5 trillion in deficit reduction already accomplished? ? ? ACA already reducing the cost of healthcare? ? ? Increase the minimum wage with a COLA chaser when small business is already reeling? ? ? It wasn’t a SOTU
speech. . .it was a comedy act. LOL
Have y’alls energy costs gone down at home or at the gas pump? Mine sure haven’t. Didn’t get that one.
Why don’t we raise the minimum wage to $50 per hour, then we can all be rich. Right?
$2.5 trillion in deficit reduction already accomplished? ? ? ACA already reducing the cost of healthcare? ? ? Increase the minimum wage with a COLA chaser when small business is already reeling? ? ? It wasn’t a SOTU
speech. . .it was a comedy act. LOL
Leon, obama has learned he can say anything. No matter how ridiculous, the MSM will never call him on it. With a media in the tank and his cheating team in place, why should he care about stuff like the truth?
No mention of North America becoming energy independent, which will actually pull this country out of the recession. Instead we get more junk clean energy policies that will cost us 10 times as much. No mention of nuclear energy that can and does serve our baseline load on the power grid, instead we get unreliable wind energy. I can’t complain too much though, America did vote for president Obama so all I can say is “brother you asked for it.”
By the way @warren I thought your comment was rather mid-witty. Great job.
Same tired speech, different day, wants to keep spending to gain prosperity?? More government??He’s obsessed with tax increases.
Energy costs statement laughable.
Minimum wage increase in a poor economy will not happen.
The bully pulpit was lost in the 2010 midterms.
Reaching across the aisle not in his agenda.
Proven again tonight he’s the most least qualified person in any room he walks into.
The Fact Checks will be up tomorrow, and we will see the results. I predict a bad morning for the party of “No”. And Jim, we’ve already had the worst President in U.S. history. He’s the one that put it in this mess. Hint “Mission Accomplished”.
If your ideas were so much better, that would have been Romney so maybe America is just not that in to you. Buy a clue.
And….. I could have written the right-wing comments before Obama uttered a word.
If your ideas were so much better, that would have been Romney so maybe America is just not that in to you. Buy a clue.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 12, 2013 @ 11:05 pm
Again Sandi, when you add “buy a clue” to the end of your statement, you lose all credibility in terms of discussion. Clean it up!
At least Boehner didn’t cry, and Rubio should have had his water bottle a little closer. Guess your mouth gets dry when you’re lying through your teeth. If Republicans think this clown is the answer to years of anti-Hispanic legislation they’re crazier than a @#$thouse rat.
Did anyone hear Rand Paul’s speech? I lost satellite reception during Rubio’s speech. Must have been a conspiracy.
Good common sense proposals. GOP seemed more obstructionist than ever. Boehner not standing out of respect for 102 year old voter will not be forgotten. Rubio was laughable and competely contradicted himself. Jindhal was a pro compared to Rubio. Would love to see Hillary/ anyone take on Rubio/Ayotte in 2016.
Proven again tonight he’s the most least qualified person in any room he walks into.
Comment by Mike 3 — February 12, 2013 @ 10:59 pm
With the possible exception of the teacher’s lounge at an Ivy League school.
“The most least qualified”, mike3? You work up a sweat coming up with that morsel of genius?
He’s the smartest person in the room. Not that that’s the most important thing, but it’s not nothing.
Meh, same old same old.
“Let me repeat: nothing that I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime”.
Isn’t that what he said about Obamacare? He was only off by $1.76 trillion over a decade. No accountability.
There is nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions on this blog. Those strong expressions should be directed towards statements, arguments, actions and ideas — not persons. That’s how you do it civilly.
It it fine to call a stupid argument “stupid.”
It’s not bigger government we need…” Says the guy who over the last fours years has increased it by 30 percent.
Not a big fan of these comments that pop up an hour after the fact. Just sayin’.
11.Did anyone hear Rand Paul’s speech? I lost satellite reception during Rubio’s speech. Must have been a conspiracy.
Comment by Ron May — February 12, 2013 @ 11:19 pm
Rubio’s speech was pure amateur hour. He spent most of it personally attacking Obama and his wavery voice and clearly nervous demeanor were clear indicators that he had no grasp on his facts or the subject.
also watched Aynrand Paul’s speech. He didn’t spout off on his usual radical ideas tonight and his speech was much better written and professionally delivered. But still his message was the same one that he has always delivered, that the only solution to the financial problems is to cur everything in sight and the market will take care of us.
Aww Another Chuck. The only way you got a sniff at a teachers lounge at an Ivy League school is if you were filling a coffee maker.
Well thought out speech. On energy he reminded us that we have double MPG and are producing more home grown energy than anytime in the past 20 years and importing less. I Saw one tired GOP hack bring up the fact that gas was 1.80 when Obama was elected. What a joke, they fail to mention every time that the economy was trashed by the Bush regime and Gas prices collapsed. The GOP thinks the American people are stupid. Somebody needs to remind them not everyone watches faux news. Fewer every day in fact.
The War in Afghanistan will be over this time next year. Amen.
Concentrate some education spending on Kindergarten so kids have a good foundation to move forward later in life. 1 dollar spent on this would return 7 dollars later. Good idea.
Going to pick 3 tech centers in depressed areas to jump start technology and jobs. I hope southwest Va in on the list.
Gun Control-Deserves a vote… Deserves a vote… Deserves a vote. Most powerful moment in President Obama’s speech.
Bi partisan commission on how to make voting easier. hi-lighted the 102 year old lady that had to wait 6 hours to vote and the fact that in suburban districts you might have 6 machines in a rural district while the city folks have long lines waiting to vote on 2 machines. Voter suppression must stop.
Tons of good ideas by a brilliant President Obama.
Boehner looked like he really needed a drink. Marco Rubio proved he REALLY needed a drink with his amateurish Jump for what looked like a tiny tiny water bottle during his rebuttal to the president. Rubio acknowledged how much government has helped his family, yet wants to dismantle every thing he benefited from. Same old tired GOPT message. Somebody needs to tell them they got Thumped real good in November.
Frankly, Rand Paul did not rate my valuable time. Don’t know or care want he had to say. Any bets on Rand being named for Ayn Rand?
Obama was right to call for a $9 per hour minimum wage. That is way, way, way overdue. It has not kept pace with inflation, which is unconscionable.
Poor Rubio. He’s outta his league!
I don’t believe “Superstorm Sandy” was a “freak coincidence”. I believe it was a category 1 hurricane. One of very many over the last 400 years since we’ve live here. I guess I’m just not that self-absorbed. History will judge that one as a very embarrassing statement.
The Jindal curse lives.
Rubio, between voting no on the Defense of Violence against Womens act (which passed)
Added to his poor high school debating skills, Excessive sweat and dehydration, his run for the white house is over.
It would be interesting to get a written translation of Rubio’s rebuttal speech he gave in Spanish. A sawbuck says it’s not the same one the Anglos heard.
Dan:
“There is nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions on this blog. Those strong expressions should be directed towards statements, arguments, actions and ideas — not persons. That’s how you do it civilly.
It it fine to call a stupid argument “stupid.””
In other words, the opposite of this:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2013/02/tuedays-column-introducing-a-new-virginia-currency/#comment-283491
Eddie, Obama has presided over the slowest growth of government spending of any president in my lifetime, in raw dollars terms, and the second-slowest growth adjusted for inflation.
Moreover, since Obama took office, overall public sector jobs in the U.S. have declined 3 percent. Federal government jobs have negligibly increased — nowhere even close to 30 percent.
much a-do- about nothing…..the country for the foreseeable future will remain in a recession, unemployment will remain around 8% with about 25-30 million americans unemployeed, underemployeed or just stopped looking for work all together…………foreign policy will continue to be non-existent…for the foreseeable future…..energy prices will continue to fluxuate …up down…peeks and valleys…for the foreseeable future….Same old same old…D?R’s continue to picker like little children and the country continues to move on with no one at the helm….
Obama was right to call for a $9 per hour minimum wage. That is way, way, way overdue. It has not kept pace with inflation, which is unconscionable.
Great idea. Let’s lose even more jobs.
There is nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions on this blog. Those strong expressions should be directed towards statements, arguments, actions and ideas — not persons. That’s how you do it civilly.
Dan has called me a hooker on two occasions. Just thought I’d throw that in.
Dan’s right: There has been no spending surge under Obama.
On the day Obama was inaugurated, before he had gotten a single program passed by Congress, the deficit was projected at $1.4 trillion. This year’s deficit will be under $1 trillion.
Amount of credit Obama will get from that on the right: 0.
One day conservatives will realize they need to confront reality. But not today.
Everyone’s talking about Rubio’s “Big Gulp,” but I was struck even before that by the flop sweat. How often did he brush sweat off his face? Oh, and the dry, smacking lips. Guy definitely wasn’t ready for prime time. He made Jindal’s Kenneth the Page routine from 2009 look inspired.
But beyond the, um, style of the response, it was the substance that stood out, by its absence.
Rubio didn’t respond to the speech Obama gave; he responded to the speech given by the caricature the GOP has painted of Obama, which bears no resemblance to reality.
Again, one day conservatives will realize they need to confront reality. One day.
When you get all riled up about how much money the federal government is spending read the article below and get a sense of who’s not paying their fair share like you and me. If you are one of those who believes we need to increase the eligibility age for Medicare and use the chained CPI to determine Social Security benefits for those who are already retired, read the article below and get a sense of who’s not paying their fair share. If you are one of those who believe we need to follow the lead of Mitt Romney and folks like him to solve the problems our nation faces, read the article below and see who’s not paying their fair share like you and me.
http://americablog.com/2013/02/citigroup-taxes-jack-lew.html
Another Chuck, I can only clear up part of your misunderstanding. I come here because I love Dan’s columns, enjoy his thread topics, photos, and the friends I have here. I also thoroughly enjoy destroying the lies and distortions so often parroted by the right. I have no interest, none, in gaining any “credibility in terms of discussion” with right wingers. If such a thing were humanly possible, the return would not be worth having. I will not pretend a respect for what I do not respect. I do not believe you have the credibility to warrant any such effort at all in fact.
Oh Ron May, “there you go again” injecting all that rational thought and reasoning into a perfectly good right wing snit. God love you for wasting your time in barren soil.
Sandi,
Saunders…you haven`t destroyed anything, other than your `credibility` as a human…You argue in the face of mathemetics, you somehow are able to spend more than you bring in and the remainder of your drivel is nothing more than what `they` tell you to say. You are nothing more than a slave. And, you continue to vote as such. They saw you coming.
Socialism has NEVER worked anywhere in the world…EVER. Prove me wrong.
“Dan has called me a hooker on two occasions. Just thought I’d throw that in.”
It’s impossible to even catalog everything suzie has called individual posters, not to mention what she’s called their children. Just thought I’d throw that in.
My electricity cost at the house has actually recently gone from ~$140/month to ~$170/month.
Thats what I thought.
So glad you cleared that up applewood, we were certainly all wondering. Where is that purely free market, gold standard utopia the right wing so cherishes located?
And by “Socialism” do you mean in reality or in the right wing fantasies? Because you all call most of the UK “Socialists” and generally Canada too because they have universal health care. It is often hard to know what you people mean by “Socialism”. Is Sweden a socialist nation in your opinion? France? England?
Yow, awood, there are a number of nations that right wingers call socialist that have worked quite well.
“Dan has called me a hooker on two occasions.”
I’ve checked the archives for posts by me in which I’ve called Suzie “a hooker.” Can’t find any. (She called Bill Clinton’s mother a hooker though).
As all this happens the cabin Chris Dorner is in is burned to the ground by LAPD. I’m not a fan of him but he deserved due process.
#48…doesn`t matter what someone or a group of people call them, never has a socialist system ever` worked`(defined as being prosperous and providing the best for its citizens, not subjects). Never giving up, bouncing back when you are down, not being afraid of failure is what drives real people…not waiting on someone else to provide for you. I guess thats too hard for some of you to understand.
Aloysius,
Dorner killed innocent people and for all we know, shot himself to death inside a cabin when he was trapped. You won’t get any sympathy for him from me.
“doesn`t matter what someone or a group of people call them,”
That made no sense. Typical.
#50…As did the people he MURDERED and their families.He was another misguided, left-wing radical progressive who couldn`t handle the truth. I sure hope the rest of the left don`t become gun lovers.
#49 And let’s not even get into what she’s called Michelle Obama.
I’m not sympathetic to Dorner, but I don’t have much for the LAPD either. Interesting to see the wheels get set in motion pretty quickly when it’s they that are being threatened…I doubt they’d cough up $1 million if Dorner had regular civilian folk on his list.
Well, Dan…we can finally agree on something. You`ll have to excuse me now…I seemed to have misplaced my teeth.
No applewood, what is too hard for us to understand is what any Socialist nation, real or right wing imagined, has to do with us. America is not a “Socialist” or a Socialist nation. Never has been, never will be. Your confusion is just that, yours.
You’re kidding, Alyosius. The guy vowed to kill more people and in fact did kill one right before holing up in the cabin. The cops tossed in smoke devices that MIGHT have set the cabin on fire, but at that point Dorner still has the choice to come out with his hands up. He was absolutely determined to die one way or another. He was never going to allow himself to be taken alive.
In listening to the tape last night on the news, Dorner shot himself. Due process was his choice to have.
Got sidetracked…Obama..the State of the Union is Strong ? The boy is delusional. truly delusional. Oh, he and Nancy Pelosi both said that Washington `Doesn`t have a spending problem`…these people are living in another world…truly `out of touch`.
Maybe if you would stop whining applewood, your slams might have more impact. You sound like a sore loser which indicates I do as I said, enjoy destroying the lies and distortions so often parroted by the right. You are a total right wing parrot and have the nerve to call anyone else a “slave”? That is too funny.
Politics really have nothing to do with the Dorner case. He was an insane gunner. This country would be much better off if all of those folks didn’t have guns. There’s legislation underway to try to prevent folks like that from owning and getting guns. Obama is for it. The NRA is against it, because their principal clients — the firearms manufacturers — make lots of money feeding the delusions of people like Dorner. They also make lots of money off the illegal gun trade, because every illegal gun starts off as legal.
Throwing our hands in the air and crying “there’s nothing we can do” is wrongheaded, silly, and it’s guaranteed to cost more innocent lives.
Can anyone name another president who has ever struck a deal to cut trillions in future spending? No. Obama’s the only one, ever. The RWers complaint is that he hasn’t cut it enough. And because he has (to a degree) thwarted the plans of a distinct and misguided minority who consider themselves all-wise, they call him “the biggest-spending president in history” and the “most partisan president in history.” There’s little to back that up though — that stuff is just sticks-and-stones from sore losers.
He’s the biggest budget-cutting president in history!
yeah Dan…. I’m sure the legislation proposed would’ve kept Dorner from getting the guns he had…. the man was crazy, and nothing would’ve prevented him from doing what he did….I am glad the whole ordeal is over, but its very sad how much damage he did before it ended….
Up until a week ago, Dorner was an officer in the naval reserve. There’s nothing in his past that would have prevented him from buying these guns. The answer is to make weapons of that grade unavailable to the general public.
Rubio didn’t respond to the speech Obama gave; he responded to the speech given by the caricature the GOP has painted of Obama, which bears no resemblance to reality.
All obama talked about was how he was going to tax and spend. Rubio’s response was right on.
He’s the biggest budget-cutting president in history!
Yet the deficit keeps going up. Wonder how that happens.
Polls after the speech show that the RWers are down to 22%. 78% approve of Obama’s speach and policies. However, more than 50% think the GOP will continue to stop any progress in Congress. Rubio and Paul continue to express the RW stance which will mean we will continue to have one emergency after another at the hands of the GOP.
It would seem that after their beating, the GOP would give Obama what he wants and if it fails, they would have all the input they need to bury the Democrats. They must be more afraid he will succeed in a grand way that will forever kill their RW agenda.
He’s the biggest budget-cutting president in history!
Yet the deficit keeps going up. Wonder how that happens.
Comment by Suzie — February 13, 2013 @ 11:15 am
Suzie, the Obama worshippers on this blog love to cite this premise. They use the MEANINGLESS % of GDP statistic to support their argument. To be able to do this because they MUST ignore that HIS policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP)as well as spending control. Neither of these factors of the equation stand alone!!!NET RESULT: $6+ trillion in debt in his 4 years in office.
Dan is capable or reason, an intelligent point-of-view and debate. Why he chooses to continue this very misleading statistic is a mystery to me? On the other hand, Obama could sacrafice a goat in the Oval Office and Sandi and Kristen would cheer loudly about how the goat “had it coming” to him and how Barack’s brave actions taking on the beast will help the economy. Art Hill would state, “Cool, I love a good goat stew.”
Richard,
The facts checkers find Obama lacking: http://news.msn.com/politics/fact-check-overreaching-in-state-of-the-union-speech
So do the polls: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160388/weekly-economic-confidence-falls-five-year-high.aspx
It appears now that certain posters who don’t fully embrace the conservatives misleading meme about Obama are now being called “Obama worshippers.” That’s very interesting, for reasons that may be more apparent later!
“Richard,
The facts checkers find Obama lacking: http://news.msn.com/politics/fact-check-overreaching-in-state-of-the-union-speech.”
–BobH
OMG! The president spun some stuff in his favor in a speech! You know what he DIDN’T do? He didn’t repeat outright lies suggesting Iraq has a nuclear weapons program.
On the other hand, I’d note that BobH refrained from any more references to the rape scene in “Deliverance.” Maybe he’s softening up!
They should have made a law in California that Dormer MUST not take his own life and stood trial for his crimes! Then he would have had to follow it and he would be in custody now! Oh why I why did they not make that law for Dormer to follow!???
AnotherChuck, I’m sure many, many things are mysteries to you.
OK so now PP is fantasizing a law that California DIDN’T enact and then criticizing them for it. And this is someone who likes to think they live in the real world?
It appears now that certain posters who don’t fully embrace the conservatives misleading meme about Obama are now being called “Obama worshippers.” That’s very interesting, for reasons that may be more apparent later!
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 11:49 am
Dan, DIRECT QUESTION! Why are you ignoring Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP) which is 50% of the government debt equation?
“Obama worshippers.”-Dan,when you agree in lock-step or defend him in every differing opion, I’m not sure what else to call it. Perhaps you would like to review how many times I have critized Bush and the GOP on fiscal issues on your blog. They are numerous. Now, check how many times you have faulted Obama on your blog(Since 11/12)? If “worship” is too strong of a word, I will look for an alternative word or phrase.
“The boy is delusional.” Nice.
““Obama worshippers.”-Dan,when you agree in lock-step or defend him in every differing opion, I’m not sure what else to call it. Perhaps you would like to review how many times I have critized Bush and the GOP on fiscal issues on your blog. They are numerous. Now, check how many times you have faulted Obama on your blog(Since 11/12)? If “worship” is too strong of a word, I will look for an alternative word or phrase.”
–AC
I hear you. It’s OK for you to call posters names. But if any other person here takes issue with your arguments or the so-called facts you cite to support them, and expresses strongly worded opinions about those arguments, then you believe that’s unfair and uncivil.
From the CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing (via email) and a very astute observation, IMHO:
**
THE $9 QUESTION: No single proposal Obama rolled out last night signaled his newly assertive approach more plainly than his surprise call to raise the federally guaranteed minimum wage, which has been $7.25 an hour for almost four years, to $9 within two years — with automatic cost of living adjustments after that. (If current inflation predictions prove true, doing so would pull a family living on such income above the poverty level starting in 2015, and would create more buying power for an hour of work than at any time since the early 1980s.) The president is betting that enough of the business community will buy his economic rationale (higher wages means more consumer spending), and that enough lawmakers buy his political rationale (keeping the poor’s incomes down is a class warfare move) that he and his organized labor allies will be able to quickly brush aside expected opposition from most of the corporate community and get the wage raised with the votes of a decent number of Republicans.
**
No. PP only lives in Dan Casey’s blog. Not in the real world
Here is your sign: The point is people like Dorner don’t follow laws! California does have stricter gun laws than almost all other states. Yet somehow this tragedy happened. That is reality! It is a horrible situation. One that I hope no one on this blog ever has to go through…in the real world.
I hear you. It’s OK for you to call posters names. But if any other person here takes issue with your arguments or the so-called facts you cite to support them, and expresses strongly worded opinions about those arguments, then you believe that’s unfair and uncivil.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 12:54 pm
So it OK to “call posters names?” I was under the immpresion we were supposed to follow the new and improved civility clause. My bad! I don’t believe “Obama worshipper” is as offensive as acting like a “HS cheerleader lifting her skirt, ignorant or liar,” but I guess insults are weighed by the insultee and not the insulter. PS. As moderator, aren’t you supposed to be the adult in the room?
More importantly, and this is my 2nd request:
Dan, DIRECT QUESTION! Why are you ignoring Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP) which is 50% of the government debt equation?
Comment by Another Chuck — February 13, 2013 @ 12:00 pm
Dorner killed innocent people and for all we know, shot himself to death inside a cabin when he was trapped. You won’t get any sympathy for him from me.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 10:07 am
Dan,
Do you have any links that reference his conviction? I don’t have any sympathy for him, either, but I do believe he has a Constitutional right to due process. It also doesn’t help that the police around there supported the points Dorner was trying to make. They pretty much suspended the Fourth Amendment if you were black and male, they attempted to murder some old ladies…
I’m not sympathetic to Dorner, but I don’t have much for the LAPD either. Interesting to see the wheels get set in motion pretty quickly when it’s they that are being threatened…I doubt they’d cough up $1 million if Dorner had regular civilian folk on his list.
Comment by Kristen — February 13, 2013 @ 10:11 am
Wow… the other day I found something that Sandi and I agree on completely. Today, Kristen, it is you. I agree with you here.
There would be no million dollar bounty if he threatened you or I. They also wouldn’t go out of their way to find him, either, much less to the point that they started ignoring other emergency calls. Nor would they suspend the Fourth Amendment and stop and question every black male of a similar build. Nor would the attempt to murder some innocent people because they drove a pickup truck.
Amen sister.
gdad,
According to police radio traffic, the police used what they refer to as “burners” to set the house on fire.
“Dan,
Do you have any links that reference his conviction? I don’t have any sympathy for him, either, but I do believe he has a Constitutional right to due process.”
Jack, the guy is dead. He has no constitutional rights.
Dan,
You indicated that he killed innocent people. My understand is that he was a suspect. I was wondering where you got your information showing that he had been convicted of killing anyone.
Bob H – good to hear from you. Guess CNN was wrong with their poll. Those guys.
Another Chuck = most of us in Roanoke ar epretty moderate and Obama’s policies agree with that. So we have little to complain about. The far left as you may have seen recently often think Obama’s policies are too far right, i. e. gun control, war in Afghanistan, policy on Iran, economic policies, bank regulations, taxes. Come to think of it, these are pretty much the same issues you don’t like about Obama. You guys on the fringes just aren’t happy with a President that represents the middle.
Obama could just ask…
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/13/business/abe-asks-business-leaders-to-raise-wages-to-help-beat-chronic-deflation/#.URvqdaWr_U4
“You indicated that he killed innocent people. ”
Well, Jack, he himself said in his “manifesto” that he killed some of the people. He was witnessed shooting others. No, he wasn’t officially convicted, but he made it abundantly clear by his actions that he wasn’t going to make it to court.
“According to police radio traffic, the police used what they refer to as “burners” to set the house on fire.”
All I know is I read smoke devices. Still, all the guy has to do is come out with hands raised. Might some cop shoot him when he does that? Yes, maybe so. Will he burn to death or be shot to death if he keeps shooting at the cops. Absolutely.
Exactly why are you defending this POS, Jack?
“Cool, I love a good goat stew.”
I’d rather have a steaming bowl of goats head soup.
Jack, I find it sort of odd that his body was charred to a crisp, but his drivers license is still nice and legible? The entire story stinks. I don’t endorse random revenge killings,but the response of the LAPD was beyond bizarre and lends credence to his story that they have something to hide. And chasing the press away and establishing a “no fly” zone over the scene isn’t reassuring.
Rather interesting analysis: http://tinyurl.com/b8c5lfj
**
State of the Union: Four worrisome issues for 2014 Democrats
By JAMES HOHMANN | 2/12/13 10:36 PM EST
SNIP
Six Senate Democrats face reelection next year in states that Mitt Romney carried last November: Alaska’s Mark Begich, Arkansas’s Mark Pryor, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Montana’s Max Baucus, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and South Dakota’s Tim Johnson.
Obama’s name will not be on the ballot in 2014, but it’s a good bet that the GOP will try to link each of these incumbents to the sitting president. And they will face an even more conservative electorate in the lower-turnout midterms than Obama did in 2012.
SNIP
**
I’m not defending him, gdad, I just don’t think that just because the cops decide a guy has to die, he has to die. They have audio of cops screaming “Burn the mfer” and “Burn him out” – doesn’t sound like he started the fire, or that they didn’t intend to start the fire.
They put $1 million on his head…clearly they were invested in making sure he didn’t talk again. If you look at the FBI 10 Most Wanted…one guy has a million on him. The rest $100K. What the heck was so special abotu this guy that he rated $1 million on day 3? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and this doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy to me. It seems pretty open.
Up apparently means down to some people. The deficit continues to go down. In fact, it’s going down at the highest rate in more than half a century. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit when he took office in 2009. It will be less than a trillion this year.
Pesky reality getting in the way of GOP talking points again.
3rd attempt to get your response Dan. Perhaps Rad can help you:
More importantly, and this is my 2nd request:
Dan, DIRECT QUESTION! Why are you ignoring Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP) which is 50% of the government debt equation?
Comment by Another Chuck — February 13, 2013 @ 12:00 pm
Comment by Another Chuck — February 13, 2013 @ 1:10 pm
Pretty sure he’s ignoring you, OtherChuck.
I imagine Dan hasn’t answered your question because it makes no sense. Did you leave a word out or something?
Nice to see you admit that Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy, though.
Rad, what part of my post does not make sense. Please answer without gamesmanship or math that ignores the facts that we are $6 trillon more in debt since Obama took office and his policies are responsible for GDP expansion too.
Suzie, the Obama worshippers on this blog love to cite this premise. They use the MEANINGLESS % of GDP statistic to support their argument. To be able to do this because they MUST ignore that HIS policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP)as well as spending control. Neither of these factors of the equation stand alone!!!NET RESULT: $6+ trillion in debt in his 4 years in office.
Up apparently means down to some people. The deficit continues to go down. In fact, it’s going down at the highest rate in more than half a century. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit when he took office in 2009. It will be less than a trillion this year.
Pesky reality getting in the way of GOP talking points again.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — February 13, 2013 @ 3:36 pm
Not so fast Radmacher. . .try this one from your own source. . .worst economic record in 60 years owned by Obama!
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/021213-644194-obama-growth-record-is-worst-in-60-years.htm
Not so fast Radmacher. . .try this one from your own source. . .worst economic record in 60 years owned by Obama!
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/021213-644194-obama-growth-record-is-worst-in-60-years.htm
Comment by Leon — February 13, 2013 @ 4:07 pm
Leon, Dan and Rad must have been called into high level meetings….I have asked multiple times today how the deficit and spending is going down but Obama has amassed $6 trillion in debt in 4 years. Bush’s 8 year debt total was $4.9 trillion (which is horrible), but nothing like this guy. The percentage of GDP argument is bogus…Obama is responsible for the LACK OF (RAD)the economy(GDP) expanding, also. Perhaps they will reply when they free up, otherwise, I must assume they don’t have a legitimate answer to my question.
“Why are you ignoring Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP) which is 50% of the government debt equation?”
AC, Dan R is right. This question is indeed missing at least a word AND — I think — and a comma (and is badly written), and as a result makes very little sense.
Ok, gdad….I’ll give you a shot at answering my question. Here is my original post:
Suzie, the Obama worshippers on this blog love to cite this premise. They use the MEANINGLESS % of GDP statistic to support their argument. To be able to do this because they MUST ignore that HIS policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP)as well as spending control. Neither of these factors of the equation stand alone!!!NET RESULT: $6+ trillion in debt in his 4 years in office.
You’ve seen my question and I believe you understand what I am asking, even if the question is not worded eloquently.
Pretty sure he’s ignoring you, OtherChuck.
Comment by Kristen — February 13, 2013 @ 3:43 pm
Kristen, we are in agreement on this one
The keystone pipeline was not mentioned last night.This should create equal angst for either supporters or dissenters.If you are happy with the current gas prices, work through the math on your own, check the cost of gas eight years ago, and decide accordingly whether you support it or not.
Easy answer, support the pipeline.
The Keystone pipeline isn’t going to lower the price of gas.
One last time, AChuck. The president does not spend money, Congress does, specifically the Republican-led House of Representatives. And where are they spending all this money, you ask? Funding two unnecessary wars and Medicare Part D, all begun under W. You have been shown non-partisan facts which prove that on Mr. Obama’s watch Republican spending has actually been lower than any president in recent memory yet you continue to incessantly parrot these Fox talking points as if you are some kind of financial genius and expecting the rest of us to waste our time rebutting them. In the words of your hero, George H.W., nah gah happ enn! Face it, as a troll, you’re a bust. Now go play on the freeway.
108.The Keystone pipeline isn’t going to lower the price of gas.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 7:35 pm
Neither will tilting windmills or building solar panels. Drill baby drill! Flash report. . .new field discovered in Australia. . .more reserves than Saudi Arabia! Obama is really going to have a tough time keeping the price of oil up where he likes it. . .high enough to hurt our
economy. Two more days. . .interesting that three conservative SC judges
did not attend Obama’s comedy act. . .deficit reduced by 2.5 trillion! lOL
Another Chuck, interaction with Dan is at HIS discretion, not yours. If he wants to answer your goofy question he will, if he doesn’t you’ll live.
Why don’t you tell us what Obama policies are not responsible for the expansion of the economy (GDP), and what is the other 50% of the government debt equation?
Do you, like most right wingers, just gloss over the economic crash unlike anything since the Great Depression that nearly crippled this nation?
He’s the biggest budget-cutting president in history!
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 10:28 am
He can’t even spell budget; must less get one in place. He doesn’t want
a budget in place. Worst economy in 60 years. . .Dan you’ve never seen
a worse economy.
Are there really people who still think oil prices are a function of supply and demand? They’re not. Are there still people who think the oil pumped in the US will be refined and processed to be sold to the end consumer exclusively in the US? It won’t. We could build 100 pipelines and turn what we have left of our untouched land into La Brea tar pits. It wouldn’t impact price.
Sorry, Chuck, I still don’t understand the question. Are you trying to suggest that Obama increased GDP only by spending more money? You do know that spending has flattened and actually decreased since Obama’s first year, don’t you?
By the way, you also know that the deficit has gone down both as a share of the economy and in real dollars, don’t you?
“He can’t even spell budget; must less get one in place. ”
Can he spell “much”?
AC, I have an MBA, I can help. But first, I really think you should use this handy link to brush up on your communication skills;
http://www.pimsleur.com/Learn-English-for-Cantonese-Chinese-Speakers
Hope this helps. Do not hesitate to reach out if I may be of further assistance.
Dan,
Keep in mind you are dealing with a crowd that believes Obama has never sent a budget to Congress. Who, when shown irrefutably that he has, shrug it off with: “Yeah, he didn’t SEND CONGRESS A BUDGET THEY WOULD APPROVE!” They don’t seem to understand that the process is for the president to propose a budget and for Congress to change that budget in the way Congress seems fit. They don’t hold Congress responsible at all for the failure to pass a budget — they hold the president responsible, even though the U.S. Constitution prohibits him from passing a budget. That is an inconvenient fact they shrug off, as “another problem with libs.”
They are not interested in serious debate or discussion. They are interested only in throwing Fox News fact-bombs, devoid of context, thought and reason. Many of them hate Obama because he’s black. Many of them hate Obama for other reasons. Many of them truly don’t know why they hate Obama — they’ve been manipulated into feeling that way, because their powers of critical analysis are pretty darn weak.
Obtaining more oil in the USA makes us more fuel efficient.Maybe the Presidents suggestion in a 2008 Berea Ohio town hall meeting for inflating the tires on our cars is better than drilling.Comical.
Typically spoken by our President who has never walked the walk in the
private sector yet is the presumed omnipotent sage regarding the subject
of energy consumption and how to make it more affordable.
An example of it working here, South Dakota.And high paying jobs.
The prices at the pump is where the “rubber” really meets the road.
To 116, congrats on disclosing to us all your acacdemic background. If having an MBA or even a college education is a preequisite to be a guest on this blog, I hear the crickets chirping, dude.
Mike3,
You understand that this is Canadian oil the pipeline is principally being built for, right? Obama has already ordered the southern section of it to be built. That’s the one that’s most beneficial to American companies.
And you understand that most of the Canadian oil (which is the heaviest and hardest to refine and diluted with bitumen) will be going to ships in the gulf of Mexico and exported, right?
And you understand that Transcanada has said that if the pipeline isn’t built, the oil sands will be exported via tanker, right? In other words, it’s going to hit the market either way.
You understand all this, right?
You betcha Dan, if I can’t read it or understand it, I will have someone read it to me. Let’s bring it and the many other fossil fuel opps within our hemisphere. My tire gauge has broken and what the heck, it’s just a guess these days.
“Obtaining oil in the US” makes us more polluted. From an access to petroleum standpoint, nothing changes.
The oil market is a fungible pool. The oil from wells here is indistinguishable from oil from Venezuela or Yemen. There is no difference.
hay dano at 9:43 pm,
How many senate democrat votes did any of obama’s proposed budgets get in:
2009?
2010?
2011?
2012?
Hey, I know! Maybe BOTH of you dans’ could respond. Again, to make it easy, please provide just the democrat senate votes in favor of obama’s proposed budgets …by year’s he has been in office.
Thank you.
“Suzie, the Obama worshippers on this blog love to cite this premise.”
Sorry, AC, I’ve never cited that “premise.”
Mike3,
Oil from the Dakotas can be shipped via an existing pipeline to existing refineries in the upper midwest for refining. The Keystone Pipeline would be built to ship Canadian oil to Asia primarily. That oil will not assist in making the U.S. less dependent on oil from the Middle East or from Venezuela. I agree that known oil and natural gas deposits in the U.S., when they can be harvested in environmentally sound ways, should be harvested and refined for use in the U.S.
What I have read suggests we have 30 to 50 years worth of such products. To me, what that says is that we have a window of opportunity to develop other sources of energy to power our economy. It also means we have that same window of opportunity to develop more efficient ways to transport goods & people around our nation. Some of those products we try to develop will not work or not work as well as we think. Nonetheless, we have to experiment. Some of those experiments will fail. More will work. Thus the world my sons, their children & grandchildren live in will be very different from mine.
I had the privilege (I think i’ve mentioned this before) of watching the moon landing on TV with my mother & grandmother. My grandmother literally lived from the days of horses & buggies to men landing on the moon. I doubt she ever considered that she would see men land on the moon. But she did. My point is that, for the most part, private capital invested in improvements in transportation, but ultimately our government invested in the space program and associated research projects in order to produce some really powerful scientific & technological advances. My mother studied computer science from the early 1950s and was still studying when she died in 2001. She literally saw computer science advance from the days of computers filling floors of buildings to fitting on your desktop or on your lap. Much of that research was the result of individual initiative but also from government funded research.
I mention these last two stories to make my point that while we seem to be finding new sources of oil, natural gas, etc., those sources are not unlimited. While we enjoy these temporary sources of energy, we need to be making progress toward the day when those great resources will be depleted.
That’s just a few of my thoughts on the matter.
hey dano,
i agree with you that the oil from the delayed pipeline will get to market regardless of what obama does. although, it would be an economic travesty for the U.S. un-employed workers for it not to reach our refineries near the Gulf, and instead went to the west coast and on to china from there. but then, sheesh, obama doesn’t care about the jobs.
and, thank goodness for the dastardly fracking process by which obama is hijacking the good news that gas and oil production is rising to heretofor unseen levels in our counrty…despite obama! because the majority of the oil and gas leases where fracking is occuring involve private land.
good ol’ oil-field entrepreneurial ingenuity finds it’s way around the pansy-green-lib-democrats, then starts hitting gusher after gusher after gusher, and, wait for it, …wait for it, and…obama jumps out in front and says he’s leading the charge for more oil and gas gushers!
I’m serious! I can’t make this stuff up!
What a flaming farce this president is…and a lib-hypocrite to boot.
My original question originated from Dan’s earlier post:
He’s the biggest budget-cutting president in history!
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 10:28 am
Wow, still no answers, even from Steve C with the MBA. You think a man with an MBA could explain a simple budget question. Here we go again in a slightly different format:
1. The US debt has increased close to $6 trillion since Obama took office.
2. The Obama administration has responsibility for the bottom line (Same standards you hold Bush too.)
3. It is hard to blame Congress for this debt when the Senate is controlled by Democrats and they get the first shot at passing a budget. Obama’s budget proposals have received 0 votes in the Senate. The House has passed budgets, only to be ignored by the Senate (Art)
4. Spending, as expressed as a % of GDP, is a meaningless statistic. Why? Beacause Obama’s policies are responsible for the expansion of the economy too…which is the worse it has been in 60 years! A grace period was deserved for the first year or 2. He owns it all now,despite your desires.
Now,I will invite Steve C, Kristen, Sandi and Art to answer the question that Dan, Rad and gdad have not been able to answer.
How is Obama the biggest budget-cutting President in history?
Ron May, good insight and thanks for sharing. Currently,Electric car sales aka volts are failing misreably and too expensive. Until an alternate affordable fuel or substance other than gas is manufactured that consumers can afford and powers our transportation systems, gas and oils are the answer. Short term? Long term? I am not a geophysicist.
Following up on your entrepenurial spirit, perhaps someone is already working on transportation prototypes that can run on, ie, water or other reusable energies.Who knows. I for one have no problem losing our gas dependency as long as the alternative is affordable and practible with us, the ultimate consumers making the choices,either way, while maintaining our quality of life.
hay dano at 9:43 pm,
How many senate democrat votes did any of obama’s proposed budgets get in:
2009?
2010?
2011?
2012?
Hey, I know! Maybe BOTH of you dans’ could respond. Again, to make it easy, please provide just the democrat senate votes in favor of obama’s proposed budgets …by year’s he has been in office.
Thank you.
Frank is devastatingly good at this. LOL.
“Frank is devastatingly good at this. LOL.”
Only to the puppeteer.
Many of them truly don’t know why they hate Obama — they’ve been manipulated into feeling that way, because their powers of critical analysis are pretty darn weak.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 13, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
As for me. . .I dislike Obama because of the policies he had adopted which go against the US Constitution and damage our economy, culture and
country. That he consistently lies, practices corrupt cronyism and plays class warfare do not sit well with me either. Fast & Furious, Delphi, Green Energy and Gone Money, Benghazi, Eligibility, Bypass of Congress,
slight of Supreme Court, Recess Appointments and Fiscal unrestraint demonstrate the corruption and anti-American agenda of this untransparent
administration.
Hey mike3.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/03/autos/chevrolet-volt-sales/index.html
“Chevy Volt sales are cranking up. General Motors sold three times as many Chevrolet Volts in 2012 as it did in 2011, which was the car’s first full year on the market.”
Sometimes it’s too easy.
Yes, I will have to agree, that Frank and Suzie are “devastating” but “good” is not the word that goes with it. You both do for the right wing what Suzie does for the Catholic Church and for that we do all need to be grateful. People would think we were making this stuff up without you.
The pitiful excuses for debate that you offer show only your desperation. The way you ignore the dysfunction of the 435 members of Congress (well you ignore the dysfunction of the GOTP in Congress at any rate), and concentrate on the one man in the White House shows a lack of vision many in this nation had hoped was cleared. The last vestiges of the low information, easy misled and lacking integrity relics, sadly remain in you. Be proud.
hiya Sandi,
Hey, you’re a good, prolific researcher, I bet it wouldn’t take you seven minutes to find out how many Senate democrats voted in favor of approving any obama-proposed budget.
Are you up to the very small challenge, Sandi?
Hey Sandi,
The 435 members of the House, under Republican leadership, have done their job and passed budgets, and fulfilled their duties.
What about the libs in the Senate?
Another Chuck, you presume we should respect your “questions” because you have offered such sterling information and discussion?
1. Unless we close the deficit in our budgets and pay down the US debt it continues to increase regardless of who is in office. If you have evidence of Bush trying to slow spending, end the deficit, or even accounting for all of his spending, or your complaints about it prior to Obama’s inauguration, then offer that and we will concede this is real concern and not Obama hate.
2. If you had held Bush to the same standards, then you might have an argument for the responsibility for the debt and deficit being on the Obama administration. You (collective, not you personally. We don’t know who you are or what you did or said prior to showing up here as “Another Chuck” an anonymous blogger), did not hold Bush responsible for the bottom line or any other that I recall. Not 9/11, not the fake economy, not the lies about Iraq, not the financial crash.
3. If one understands how this nation operates, it is not at all hard to blame Congress for this debt or the lack of solutions. It is their job to manage spending and not a dime can be spent or cut unless they authorize it. I get it that you do not understand that so much of the budget is not even controllable as it is debt incurred previously but that is your ignorance of how the system works and what is in the debt/Budget, not our problem.
You also prove your ignorance about what “control” of the Senate or the House means. Other than obstruction and dysfunction, it means that problems do not get solved and while it is admirable that you want the Senate to fight over something the House is not going to budge on, they just might not like to waste their time and effort that way. Which, just as when they did it to other Presidents, means things do not get done.
The games and infighting you speak of as a budget process have been a joke and that joke has been from both sides of the aisle as neither is big on compromise or giving in. In the final analysis, Obama can neither make them do anything nor stop them from doing anything. THEY can override a veto, he cannot.
4. “Spending, as expressed as a % of GDP, is a meaningless statistic.” Only when it is not a statistic that you like. Just like the predictions of the CBO, the ideas of economists and the budget analysis of experts in the field. You discard the information that does not suit your paradigm of blame and use what does. How petty and convenient.
Clearly the right wingers in this blog and nation refuse to understand the nature and effects of the Bush economic collapse and seek only to blame “Obama’s policies”, unnamed of course except for “Obamacare” and claim they “are responsible for the expansion of the economy” which by the way, is never a bad thing. Considering how far down we were, we are lucky to still be standing, and lucky to be making progress too.
There was never a moment of “grace period” and for you to pretend there was is disgusting. Obama owned it all from November 2008 as far as you people are concerned. Which might make you happy but it shows your lack of knowledge, understanding and integrity. Nothing more.
What you folks fail to understand is that we tried it your way. Bush gave tax cuts and it did NOT stimulate the economy or create jobs. If Obama suspended taxes and stopped spending today, it would not stimulate the economy or create jobs. It would create a worse version of what we have, lies, gridlock, intransigence and failure.
The liars can go on and pretend it is all on Obama and the Dems, but that dog did not hunt in 2008. it did not hunt in 2012 and it will not hunt in 2016. Oh, and it is increasingly looking like it will not hunt in 2014, so “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”
Sandi, incredible!!! Still blaming Bush for everything and making excuses. I will give you credit for attempting to answer my question though.
Do you approve of everything Obama has done as President? How about Gitmo still being open? How about the escalation of drone strikes ….many liberals we so critical regarding Bush using drones? How about the Benghazi situation and the White House perpetuating the “Muslim movie” story for 14 days?
Your hypocracy is in the fact that you hold Bush 100% responsible for everything that happened on his watch, yet, you will not hold Obama accountable under the same standards. You can’t have it both ways.
Sandi, I do hold Bush to the same standards. I have made numerous comments on this blog being very critical of Bush’s fiscal policies.
“You can’t have it both ways.”
If you think that, you haven’t been around here for very long.
What a night for television on Tuesday! The nation got to watch live as one crazed man, hell-bent by bitterness and a warped ideology, made his defiant stand only to go down in flames! And only an hour earlier, we all got to witness the fitting end for cop-killer Chris Dorner.
No Another Chuck, you do not “hold Bush to the same standards”, none of you do. Did you see Leon’s list? Bush did all of that and more. I see that it is clear that you all simply do not understand how the government, budgets or debt reduction works and that clears up a lot of what you all post. Very, very few things stop and start over when a new President comes in and certainly the economic crash and spending from 2000-2008 did not.
If you can comprehend anything you read, you would see that I quite clearly blame Congress. The Bush administration did little to help and neither has the Obama administration, but 535 to 1 is pretty damn good odds and they STILL cannot get the nation’s business done. Not for well over a decade. That is, as I said, on both sides of the aisle.
Hell no, I do not approve of everything Obama has done. My hypocrisy pales in comparison to the right wingers on every score. I have never been dumb enough to hold any president “100% responsible for everything that happened on his watch”. Not Carter, not Reagan, not Clinton, and not either Bush. I do not blast Obama because you all do more than enough of it for any hater. And you do it in such vicious, dishonest and insulting ways that even some conservatives cannot join you. I do not seek your respect or friendship so why would I join you in bashing the President?
I can have it as many ways as you all can and I KNOW what was being said to me when I complained about Bush from 2000-2008!
@Frank #123: An Obama budget, despite what you hear on Fox, has never been put to a vote on the floor of the Senate.
When you figure out the truth of that, get back to me.
@Another Chuck: You still haven’t asked your question in a way that makes any sense.
If the economy is bad, then federal spending as a share of the economy will go up (as it did in 2008 and 2009). Smaller economy/more government spending=higher federal spending as share of the economy.
If the economy is good, even if federal spending goes up, it will decrease as a share of the economy.
What you seem unable or willing to address is this: Federal spending, both in real dollars and as a share of the economy, has gone down, not up, since Obama’s first year in office. The economy has improved, but that’s been despite a decrease in government spending (pretty significant decrease at the state and local levels) not because of it.
These are empirical facts, AC.
So, again, if you want to rephrase your question in a way that both makes sense and reflects reality, I’d be happy to take a shot at answering it.
@Paddy #140: O come on, Paddy. The speech was bad, for sure, and poorly delivered. And completely without substance. And, yeah, his ideology is pretty warped, and he went down in flames. But I wouldn’t call Rubio a crazed man.
Wow, looks like I see some Libs are being taken to the woodshed!
The best thing about the speech the other night was..
“I will not spend another dime towards the deficit” ~ Obama
THEN:
“Lets give more towards education”
“Lets build technology hubs around the country”
“Lets build more bridges and fix broken ones”
Funny stuff.
@Frank #123: An Obama budget, despite what you hear on Fox, has never been put to a vote on the floor of the Senate.
When you figure out the truth of that, get back to me.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — February 14, 2013 @ 11:34 am
Dan Rad, that is a correct, yet a misleading statement (as usual.) The 97-0 vote was for a motion for the Senate to take it up. The reason they didn’t take it up was because Obama’s budget proposal was so unrealistic that even the Democratic leadership couldn’t hold their nose and bring to the floor. I trust that your statement was not meant to be a pro-Obama post, because it sure wasn’t.
A few facts for the clueless:
As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending REDUCTIONS of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was “all spending cuts.” http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#
And now, with this latest offer, Obama is proposing YET MORE SPENDING REDUCTIONS to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Add it up and it’s more than $2 trillion IN SPENDING CUTS Obama has either signed into law or is endorsing now. That’s obviously greater than the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue he’s seeking. (And that doesn’t even take into account automatic cuts from the 2011 budget sequester, which Obama has proposed to defer, or savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) So, yes, Obama’s proposal is unbalanced—but not in the way Republicans seem to think. http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#
[caps above for emphasis]
11/29/2012 – John Boehner: ““Based on where we stand today, I would say two things. First, despite the claims that the president supports a balanced approach, the Democrats have yet to get serious about real spending cuts. And secondly, no substantive progress has been made in the talks between the White House and the House over the last two weeks.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/forever-moving-the-goal-posts-on-spending-cuts/2012/11/29/e9485c74-3a4d-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html
So as usual, the republicans are speaking out of both sides of their mouths with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
President Obama’s proposals are in fact what republicans have been carping about [spending cuts] – it’s a $4 trillion debt-reduction plan, mostly from spending cuts. In addition to his already laid out spending plan, the President then offered hundreds of billions of additional cuts – so why isn’t this the kind of deal republicans continually whine they want?
Because republicans are still working on their initial goal of calculated, intentional, and purposeful obstructionism against any of the President’s proposals – anything but governance.
@Another Chuck: You still haven’t asked your question in a way that makes any sense.
If the economy is bad, then federal spending as a share of the economy will go up (as it did in 2008 and 2009). Smaller economy/more government spending=higher federal spending as share of the economy.
If the economy is good, even if federal spending goes up, it will decrease as a share of the economy.
What you seem unable or willing to address is this: Federal spending, both in real dollars and as a share of the economy, has gone down, not up, since Obama’s first year in office. The economy has improved, but that’s been despite a decrease in government spending (pretty significant decrease at the state and local levels) not because of it.
These are empirical facts, AC.
So, again, if you want to rephrase your question in a way that both makes sense and reflects reality, I’d be happy to take a shot at answering it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — February 14, 2013 @ 11:39 am
Dan Rad, my question was just fine. As I’ve stated everytime I have posted it, spending as a percentage of GDP is a bogus statistic because it ignores the fact that OBAMA’S POLICIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE ECONOMY(GDP), ALSO.
In spite of your clever (not so) ratio ploy, you cannot explain away the FACT that Obama has been responsible for adding almost $6 trillion to our national debt. Game over. I will choose to beat my head against another rock another day.
You know what would really be cool, if one of you liberals would just say, “AC, so far you are correct on the budget and debt under Obama. But, I (you) believe in his long-term approach and policy direction. We will have to see how it works out.” Would that be so hard? Both of these are correct….Obama has presided over the largest accumulation of debt in 4 years. But, we will have to wait and see how his policies work out going forward.
“The speech was bad, for sure, and poorly delivered. And completely without substance. And, yeah, his ideology is pretty warped, and he went down in flames. But I wouldn’t call Rubio a crazed man.”
–Dan Radmacher
Sweaty-browed, perhaps. Dry-lipped, maybe. Thirsty, for sure. But definitely not crazed.
I sure wish Sen. Rubio would invite me for a dip in the pool behind that $675,000 house he owns “in the same working class neighborhood” he grew up in!
I reckon that makes South Roanoke and Hunting Hills “working class” neighborhoods! Who’d a thunk?
Dan@117,
I understand you are a dogmatic liberal ideologue. I understand you are a partisan blog moderator. I understand you believe Obama is the almighty and the Republicans want old people dead, dirty air and water and poor people to suffer. I understand you think government is the solution to everything. Let me tell you one thing though, many people do not like Obama because of his politics. You sound like Sandi when you throw out the race card. Have more respect for yourself as a moderator and in the future try not to lower yourself to that level. Especially since you see yourself as the purveyor of truth!
A serious debate and discussion is needed to solve any debate but hypocrisy and shrill will not work. Both parties are at opposite sides of the spectrum and dont expect either to give on principles at any time. Let me ask you this? What do you think would happen if the country divided into 2 separate sides…almost like a divorce? We have Republicans on one side and Liberals on the other side. You can even choose if you want the Atlantic or Pacific side. What side do you think would prosper and why?
As far as the SOTU goes, expect Obama to be Campaigner in Chief for the next year and a half until the midterms. The campaign goes on and has really never stopped. He will sling mud everywhere and see where it sticks. The media will eat it up and spit it out to the “voters” as the value of our country goes down with society.
“Dan@117,
I understand you are a dogmatic liberal ideologue. . .I understand you believe Obama is the almighty and the Republicans want old people dead, dirty air and water and poor people to suffer. I understand you think government is the solution to everything. Let me tell you one thing though, many people do not like Obama because of his politics.”
–PP (not pistol pete)
PP,
I’m none of the things above. In other words, you understand little.
@AC #17: “The 97-0 vote was for a motion for the Senate to take it up. The reason they didn’t take it up was because Obama’s budget proposal was so unrealistic that even the Democratic leadership couldn’t hold their nose and bring to the floor. ”
Wrong again, Chuck. Democrats didn’t vote for it because it was introduced by Republicans and did not truly represent Obama’s budget proposal.
@AC: “In spite of your clever (not so) ratio ploy, you cannot explain away the FACT that Obama has been responsible for adding almost $6 trillion to our national debt. Game over. I will choose to beat my head against another rock another day.”
I think you’ve been pounding your head against too many rocks. It appears to be interfering with your reading comprehension.
However you look at it, federal spending has gone down since Obama’s first year. And we would have added trillions of dollars to the debt during this period no matter who was president. That’s what happens during a severe economic downturn. Deficit spending goes up automatically because there are more demands on the government – unemployment, early retirement, food stamps, Medicaid – and less revenue because of the economic contraction.
Revenue isn’t yet back where it should be, but federal spending, after skyrocketing during Bush’s two terms, is leveling out and, yes, decreasing. Again, empirical fact, based on real dollars, not ratios to GDP.
Understand yet?
PP, You whine, insult, denigrate as if you are on some higher ground and then claim “A serious debate and discussion is needed…hypocrisy and shrill will not work”. Wow, that cognitive dissonance is a real good look on you.
Dan Rad, basically your argument is that the current economic conditions are Bush’s fault. Fair enough, you did answer the question.
PP – things have been going downhill since the 80s… back when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Then a few years ago, our government was not smart enough to stay out of there.
Comment by Another Chuck — February 14, 2013 @ 11:47 am
“Dan Rad, that is a correct, yet a misleading statement (as usual.) The 97-0 vote was for a motion for the Senate to take it up. The reason they didn’t take it up was because Obama’s budget proposal was so unrealistic that even the Democratic leadership couldn’t hold their nose and bring to the floor. I trust that your statement was not meant to be a pro-Obama post, because it sure wasn’t.”
The reason the senate did not take it up was because the House’s bill was so odious. What the House passed was never going to get any Democratic votes, and the House Republicans knew that when they passed it.
Sandi,
I am your enantiomer.
Dan,
You project it on your blog. Maybe my expectations are too high of the moderator. No concern to my hypothetical national divorce and the outcome? Again I am interested in what you have to say…even if we disagree the majority of the time.
Question: Has Obama been accountable for anything that has happened negative since Jan 2009? Whenever something happens the shouts of who to blame start…”Bush!” “Do Nothing Congress!” “Tea Party!” This POTUS campaigns non stop and is not help accountable for any actions by the media! The newest is the drone vs waterboard comparison and how the media has handled it. Double standard anyone?
dan r at 12:40 pm,
According to the links you provided, obama’s spending has stayed far above the levels we were under during Bush’s entire eight years. Don’t misunderstand, Bush spent like a liberal, and should be recognized as such.
However, according to your link, obama has taken the worst Bush had to offer, and ratcheted it up another several notches…and as obama reminds us every chance he gets, …he’s just getting started with spending.
hey dan r at 11:34 am,
Sheesh, dan r, why has Sentate leader reid refused to allow a budget get to a vote in the Senate?
How many years has it been since the lib-controlled Senate took a vote on a budget?
After all, the libs DO control the Senate, don’t they?
What is harry reid afraid of?
sandi at post at 9:00 am,
Two things regarding your false statements concerning Bush:
1. Please prove your statement that Bush “lied” about Iraq. Being wrong about WMDs is not the same as “lying”.
2. Please prove your statement that “Bush is responsible” for the financial crash. As you research this falsehood, you might check up on the relationship between bill clinton, robert rubin, Glass-Stegall, Citigroup, Sandy Weill, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, during the years 1998-2000.
Frank, everyone who cares to know, has long ago admitted that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell and their subordinates Rumsfeld/Feith/Wolfowitz/Libby ALL used cherry picked intel (kinda like you do “facts”) that ONLY proved their point and left out or did not mention the massive intel that did not prove their point and in fact disproved it. I call that lying Frank, and so do a lot of other people. “Mushroom Cloud”, “Yellow Cake”, and “WMD’s were ALL fabrications. Look it up your damn self!
Bush was in office from 2000-2008, he had plenty of time to notice and be informed of the financial shenanigans that Gramm-Leach-Bliley unleashed and he did nothing, nothing! The efforts you all scream he “tried to fix” Fannie and Freddie is just not true either, that mess was over their accounting, losses and bonuses, not over their mortgage practices which Bush himself encouraged. You can look all that up for yourself too. I have offered link, after link after link, proving my case. Both from the progressive side and from the conservative side. You have offered your anonymous half baked opinion.
That you refuse to believe something does NOT make it untrue Frank.
“1. Please prove your statement that Bush “lied” about Iraq. Being wrong about WMDs is not the same as “lying”.”
–Frank
This is what Bush said in his 2003 SOTU address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
That was false, Frank. The British government had “learned” no such thing. Someone had tried to palm such false information off on them, but the Brits didn’t believe it. No other intelligence operation in the world (including our CIA and our state department) believed it, either. But whoever wrote that in the speech was scared to go there, because he/she knew it would be too easy to disprove if framed as American intel. The problem there was, it directly contradicted our own National Intelligence Estimate from 2002.
What we got instead was a quite carefully phrased statement that deliberately ignored the enormous suspicions surrounding the intel. As such, it was a lie.
At the least, Bush REPEATED a lie, which had been personally and painstakingly crafted by Dick Cheney. In retrospect (after Joe Wilson called their bluff, and after the Bush Administration retaliated against his wife’s job) EVEN BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS later conceded should never have been in that speech.
But let’s step away from the minutiae surrounding the 16 words for just a minute to consider it from a different perspective:
The Catholic Church, in a secret ceremony, canonized Al Capone. He is a saint now.
I’d bet that’s the first you heard of that, Frank. Did you “learn” it? Congrats! Now you can go around repeating it.
What? You would never do that? Why? Because it seems obviously and ridiculously false? Right.
Bush repeated obviously and ridiculously false information that was enormously consequential in his SOTU. It was a lie, and it was a basis under which we later started a war that killed thousands of American troops, maimed tens of thousands, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. All of it was needless.
President Obama’s speech was excellent – especially when he pointed out the elderly lady (103) that stood in line to VOTE. The other side of the coin is did she waste her valuable time because as soon as the representatives the American people vote for get to their office in Washington, D.C. they are completely under the control of LaPierre (NRA) and Limbaugh (radio talk show). These two with millions of dollars control the American Political System. They literally hold the Congress and the Senate hostage! Does any one think this is the way of democracy????? This is one example where the FIRST AMENDMENT is used as a tool against DEMOCRACY. Another example was Ted Nugent in the audience the night of the speech. He has made threatening remarks against President Obama – why was in allowed in the building?
After all, the libs DO control the Senate, don’t they?
What is harry reid afraid of?
Comment by Frank — February 14, 2013 @ 3:05 pm
Of COURSE they do Frank. That was made perfectly clear this afternoon
when the Senate blocked a vote on confirming Chuck Hagel as Secdef because they could only get 58% of the votes in favor of stopping the filibuster. You have heard of the filibuster Frank? That’s the tactic the Senate republicans have used more in the last three years than it had been used in the past 60 years all added together to block every proposal
coming from the Obama Presidency.
hey sandi and dan,
Re: “Bush lied about iraq.”
It appears that no one really knows what happened regarding the wmd. The only folks who state unequivically that Bush lied are libs and others who had a belated interest in setting the record straight according to their own view. What I know is that Colin Powell supports Bush’s action to this day, and said so during a televised interview several weeks ago. Based on the scope of folks who said saddam had wmds, and the fact of iraq’s nose-thumbing to the UN and US, and the danger such weapons would have in terrorists hands, led to Bush’s decision. The lib-bush-bashers have had had ten years to further develop their theories, and they have the same thing they had 10 years ago….ideological partisan b.s.
Re: “Bush is responsible for the financial crisis.”
Clinton deregulated the banks. Barney refused to do anything about fannie and freddie. The crap did hit the fan at the end of Bush’s eight years.
And, I agree with Dan Casey’s assessment of responsibility for the financial mess when Dan said, “The worst thing Clinton did was sign the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealing Glass-Steagall, which kept main street banking and investment banking seperate. And, Frank’s correct that Rubin sold it to Clinton. A LOT of bad stuff that later happened would not have happened had that not been repealed.”
cry me a river, wayne.
maybe obama should have tapped someone other than a Jewish state-despising, “don’t sanction iran” advocating nominee….ya think? hmmm, I wonder if he ever gave that some thought? nah.
Frank,
Federal spending tends to increase every year because of inflation, population growth, economic growth and the fact that more baby boomers are retiring and going onto Medicare and Social Security. But look at the rate of growth during Bush’s years, then compare that to what’s happened since Obama’s first year. It’s like comparing the trajectory of a rocket (Bush) to a glider (Obama).
Keep shoveling on the WMDs, Frank!
168.cry me a river, wayne.
maybe obama should have tapped someone other than a Jewish state-despising, “don’t sanction iran” advocating nominee….ya think? hmmm, I wonder if he ever gave that some thought? nah.
Comment by Frank — February 14, 2013 @ 8:20 pm
That’s three lies tonight at least. There is no evidence that Hagel despises Jews or Israel. Questioning the wisdom of some of our policies to0ward Israel does not constitute despising it and Hagel has largely supported our efforts to defend Israel. He questioned how effective the Iran sanctions would be, but he still voted for them. And as long as there is a 60 vote threshold for passing anything meaningful in the Senate, liberals clearly do not control it. Your bushwa comments aside,
nothing you have said is connected to reality.You tried to make a joke earlier and failed. It was a waste of effort because virtually everything you post is already a joke.
Frank, you will need to provide a link for the assertion that “Colin Powell supports Bush’s action to this day“. I do not believe you. Powell did not stand up to them, but he did know at some point and even he calls his UN speech “infamous”.
“By then, the President did not think war could be avoided,” Powell writes. “He had crossed the line in his own mind, even though the NSC [National Security Council] had never met — and never would meet — to discuss the decision.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/09/colin-powell-to-war-in-iraq-was-never-debated/
Clinton had no choice but to sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley. His veto would have been an automatic override. Should he have done it anyway? Hell yes, but do not pretend he was the one who did it. Phil Gramm and his wife were not to be stopped, certainly not by a GOP Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg We were warned.
Hagel will be confirmed and this obstructionist GOTP will go down in history flamed as they richly deserve.
“maybe obama should have tapped someone other than a Jewish state-despising, “don’t sanction iran” advocating nominee”
Yep, Frank, that’s what idiots who think we should all lick Israel’s boots say. Talking about bowing to a foreign country.
From Indiana University; What is a Troll? Remind you of anyone?
dan r,
so you refuse to view “your” charts for what they clearly say. ok.
hey dan r,
where’s the information concerning how many democrats voted for any of obama’s proposed budgets, for all four years he has submitted proposed budgets to congress?
perhaps the bigger question is, why hasn’t the Senate had a vote on a budget since obama became president?
@132 Kristen,thanks for posting me links on the topic of Volt Car sales.So glad this was easy for you to do. As I stated to Ron May, I am not opposed to alternate forms of transportation when they become less cost prohibitive on the car market for choices we have as consumers.Once demand exceeds supply, prices will lower and you may see more electric cars on the market. GM to date is disappointed in the sales and any growth you so kindly shared is simply due to a low sales base the past several years.I may even purchase won someday when I see that the rewards outweigh the risks for my overall driving satisfaction and cost savings benefits.
You can quit posting me links on the subject, I had already researched it on my own dime.
sandi,
here’s the link which takes you to part 2 of the Powell Interview with Bill O”Reilly, during which Powell supports the WMD information he had, Cheney had, Bush had, Congress had. The relevant part comes in around the 4:45 minute mark.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2127726278001/colin-powell-enters-no-spin-zone-pt-2
Mike 3,
Prices of electric cars will drop when demand exceeds supply? Is that conservative economics?
I’ve never heard that one before, LOL.
Perhaps this explains some conservatives’ whacked out views on government spending and debt.
sandi,
here’s the link which takes you to part 2 of the Powell Interview with Bill O”Reilly, during which Powell supports the WMD information he had, Cheney had, Bush had, Congress had. The relevant part comes in around the 4:45 minute mark.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2127726278001/colin-powell-enters-no-spin-zone-pt-2
Comment by Frank — February 14, 2013 @ 10:43 pm
Thanks for posting this Frank. It is a great reminder of what was going on at the time. Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own citizens multiple times prior to the war. Who would have thought he didn’t have WMD’s?
The guilt that Powell feels over Iraq is obviously fading with time. From the New York Times, 2005:
“WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 – The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was “painful” for him personally and would be a permanent “blot” on his record.
“I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world,” Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation “will always be a part of my record.”
Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: “It was painful. It’s painful now.” Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, “Terrible.” He added that it was “devastating” to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.”
In other words, he WASN’T supporting the WMD information he had back when it was a lot fresher in his mind. Why didn’t the intelligence agents spill the beans? Because Cheney told them to shut up!
But I liked the part in the interview where BillO calls Obama a “big spender” and Colin Powell corrected him, noted that only Congress can appropriate (that means spend, in Washington jargon).
He’s right about that!
Dan,sorry you are economically challenged.In lieu of electric cars which obviously is a touchy subject with you and Kristen, Let’s go with Flat Sreen TV’s. Do you Remember the retail prices for 43 inch models 5 years ago??They are significantly less for the same models now.Why? More manufacturers entered the market,the segment became more price competitve and affordable,thus more people have them them now.More consumers purchased them!Bought Them! Own them!Have them in their owns!
This is not a “scheme” just basic sales, marketing, and distribution channels working at their best for all.
Powell can revise his opinions as he likes, but in his own book he directly contradicts what Bush said in his memoirs that “his decision to go to war came after a long and deliberative process”. There was no “deliberative process”, there were lies from one source (Curveball) and no one was told that truth either even though some knew it was one source they were going to war on.
George Tenant said the same thing, “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” he wrote. Nor “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.”
You are choosing to dis-remember the Downing Street Memos perhaps? They “documented the conclusions of British officials after high-level talks in Washington in July 2002 that “[m]ilitary action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
What about this analysis from the National Security Archives “In contrast to an extensive record of planning for actual military operations, there is no record that President George W. Bush ever made a considered decision for war. All of the numerous White House and Pentagon meetings concerned moving the project forward, not whether a march into conflict was a proper course for the United States and its allies. Deliberations were instrumental to furthering the war project, not considerations of the basic course.”
Why Powell wants to backtrack is understandable, no one wants blood on their hands. It is there, all the same and no amount of Obama support will remove it.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/09/colin-powell-to-war-in-iraq-was-never-debated/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/colin-powell-book_n_1503592.html
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=showcase.view&showcaseid=00136
Mike3,
Thank you for teaching us a new lesson in conservative economics: when more manufacturers enter a market, demand exceeds supply and consumer prices fall.
Silly me, I had though that originally, you might have twisted up a few words, which is why I asked.
It honestly helps explain A LOT of the comments that appear here.
You learn something new every day on Dan Casey’s Blog!
Frank, you have GOT to be kidding us? NOTHING Powell said in that interview, nauseating as it was, showed Powell saying “Colin Powell supports Bush’s action to this day” and IMO he did NOT say so in that interview.
Here is a transcript if anyone wants to verify what Powell said without having to listen to O’Reilly.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/01/30/unedited-colin-powell-enters-no-spin-zone?page=3
Sandi,
Apparently there are people who believe Colin Powell’s 19-second statement on BillO late last year truly rewrites all those facts and all that history.
But please, pay no attention to the Powell who is lecturing BillO on racist code, who schools BillO on who spends money in our government, and the who bridles and rebuts BillO’s silly characterization of “the 47 percent” by noting that his parents were among them.
It’s interesting but not too surprising that a self-styled conservative would offer up this partial interview as proof of anything.
mike3, you stated that volt sales were “failing miserably”. Being up 300% is not “failing miserably”. Just because it’s too expensive for you right now doesn’t necessarily mean they’re too expensive.
You tried to prove your “more demand lowers prices” theory with an example in which more supply lowered prices.
hi Sandi…and hi to you as well, dano.
Sandi,
Here is what Powell said in response to O’Reilly’s question about WMDs:
“I presented the information that we all had from the intelligence community. And, when I went to the UN, it was the assurance of the CIA that the information I had was correct. Mr. Cheny used that same information. The President did. All of our commanders thought it was correct. And we were all saying so. The Congress voted on the basis of that information.”
Powell’s UN speech was on 2/5/2003….just eight days following Bush’s SOTU speech.
I know, I know, I know…you’re as lib as they come, and you just can’t process that information. I get it. It’s ok.
Dano,
Can’t you stay on topic? The issue which you, sandi, and i were conversing about was WMDs….not the other components of the Powell interview.
And, the Colin Powell interview with O’Reilly took place late last month, dano….NOT “late last year”. Please try to get your facts right. If you can’t do that, your argument falls completely apart, just like a house of cards.
Seeing that you actually timed the meaningful portion of the Powell interview, and noted that it took “19 seconds” is hilarious! And, if those 19 seconds of the interview were NOT meaningful, you wouldn’ have sat there with your stop watch, now would you?
To your point, think back to the Bill Clinton – Monica Lewinsky affair, and how many “Bill Clinton” interviews, articles, under-oath court documents, etc. we had on the topic, along with the televised statement where he said those oh so famous lying words, “I did NOT have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky”.
It didn’t take 19 seconds to cause THAT house of cards to come crumbling down, did it, dano? Nope, all it took was a blue dress.
What else ya got?
To your point, think back to the Bill Clinton – Monica Lewinsky affair, and how many “Bill Clinton” interviews, articles, under-oath court documents, etc. we had on the topic, along with the televised statement where he said those oh so famous lying words, “I did NOT have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky”.
It didn’t take 19 seconds to cause THAT house of cards to come crumbling down, did it, dano? Nope, all it took was a blue dress.
What else ya got?
Comment by Frank — February 15, 2013 @ 10:31 am
To heyfrank, every discussion and every thread traces back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and a stained blue dress.All of U.S.
history and all domesticand foreign policy Talk about a fixation!
gee, heck, wayne,
not everything leads back to a lying president who cheats on his wife while “at work” near the oval office, and who is idolized by virtually all you libs and the lib press.
but to your point, hypocrisy leads there pretty quickly, doesn’t it?
Frank, unlike you, I can “process that information” just fine. He talks about the “evidence” and why he presented it. He does not say nor does he imply that he “supports Bush’s action to this day”. You made that up Frank. You processed what he said to mean what you wanted. I know this because of what I have already posted that came from his own book and his own words over the years. POWELL called his UN Speech “painful” and a “blot” on his record. POWELL contradicted Bush and claims there was never any “deliberations” over going to war.
Frank, I realize part of being a right winger is that the blinders are so tight you do not feel the fall, but you need to let it go, you lost this one.
“Frank, I realize part of being a right winger is that the blinders are so tight you do not feel the fall, but you need to let it go, you lost this one.”
–Sandi Saunders
Sandi,
The problem is, it’s difficult for many RWers to distinguish facts from things that aren’t fact at all. Once they believe something, they believe it’s a fact whether it is or not. The examples abound on this blog.
Yes Dan, they do, as do the irrefutable number of posts that prove those blinders are tighter than any fact can penetrate.
For an example of how RWers play the “game of facts” with few or none of them, consider the debate here on this blog about who’s fault it is that this country hasn’t had a budget in 4 years.
Again, the asserted “facts” are shifting as the RWers are challenged on them.
At first, they argued: “Obama has not proposed a budget in FOUR YEARS! In FOUR YEARS!”
Then when it was pointed out this was untrue, they looked it up, muttered to themselves, “Oh sh–, got that one wrong!” then shrugged and said, “Well, he hasn’t proposed a budget THAT CAN PASS CONGRESS, SO THERE!”
I don’t mean to hurt any tender feelings, but that statement is completely meaningless, because whether a budget can pass Congress is entirely up to Congress, not the president. A federal budget is in no way a take-it-or-leave it proposition. Congress actually has the power to rewrite the whole budget to its liking, and then give it to the president to sign or veto.
Once those facts slapped them in the face, the RWers tried again:
“Yeah, but NOT ONE Democrat voted for Obama’s budget! NOT ONE!” they cried.
That was technically true, but it was completely deceptive at the same time. Nobody voted on Obama’s budget because it never got introduced. Why? Politics.
What’s actually been happening is Congress (and goes both for Republicans and Democrats) don’t want to pass a budget. Because that would force them to cast a vote on deficit spending, tax increases, and other politically charged matters. The House is up for re-election every 2 years and so is one-third of the Senate. Budget votes can easily hurt vulnerable members. Neither side has an overwhelming majority. A shift of a handful of seats in either chamber can alter who has the majority.
So they ignore it, except for gimmicks like the Ryan budget that passed the House, which Boehner only allowed a vote on because he knew it didn’t have a snowball’s chances of passing in the Senate. But even that cost him politically in the 2012 election, because the GOP lost seats and its majority is smaller now that it was before.
None of this matters to the budget-harpers, though. No matter what, nobody’s ever going to get them off the dime that the principal fault is Obama’s.
“Frank, I realize part of being a right winger is that the blinders are so tight you do not feel the fall, but you need to let it go, you lost this one.”
–Sandi Saunders
Sandi I think it also has something to do with the tightness cutting off the oxygen to their brains…causes cognitive problems.
Hi Dano,
Are you saying that there has not been a vote on any obama-proposed budget? If there has, please go ahead and tell us how many democrats voting for it.
Ok, Dan, I’ll spare you the indignity of having to say, “why Frank, you already KNOW that no democrat has been so politically stupid as to vote for an obama-proposed budget…not even one”!
Ok, I’ll say it for you.
Not one dem has voted for a budget proposed by obama.
Frank has yet another dead horse.
Frank nails it! The reason the right wing thinks that nothing is wrong with them is that they truly and literally do not understand how the government, budgets, spending, cuts, elections, legislation or much else works.