Forum
44 days in...
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:18 AM, Wednesday March 4, 2009 EST
...and there is no sign that Mr. Obama is any different from the past democrats that sat in the oval office. The only exception is that he has 100% compliance within his party and a majority in congress that will pass anything Mr. Obama supports.
How hypocritical is it that Mr. Obama continues to remind the general public of the deficit he inherited, but then spends so recklessly that the possibility of having a balanced budget anytime within his term is utterly impossible. How hypocritical is it that the libs called the recent spending bill that was passed a "stimulus package". How does $20 billion dollars towards food stamps stimulate the economy? What jobs will be created by increasing food stamp allowances? This is only one example of many within that spending bill, but I'll try to avoid making this post unneccisarily long. One of you left wingers need to help me understand what our President is attempting to do. The view from the cheap seats here in right field makes the picture look exactly like I thought it would look before the election took place; the liberal democrats want a socialist republic in place of our cherished capitalistic society. Let's continue to drain the rich to pay for the poor. Let's continue to increase taxes on large corporations that have been laying off employees at an enormous pace. Let's increase benefits to the unemployed instead of finding ways to provide jobs for them. I'm ranting a bit, but one thing is clear. Barack Obama scares the living shit out of me. JP, UGB, anybody, please help me feel better about the job he's doing. And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating. They must have done the polling at a foreclosure seminar or a foodbank. |
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 2:01 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT LOL dude you didn't respond to any of my arguments other than the race one. Which by the way you are wrong.
The main tenant of my argument is that both sides are very polarized. Just because the house republicans (many elected solely for the purpose of stopping Obama) can be biased doesn't mean Obama is immune from being biased in his own way. The left throws racism around freely these days so I figured that I should also include some data showing how it's not just a few far right racists who are the problem. Statistically the minorities are showing they will vote for a minority with overwhelming majority. If you look at white males, the "racist" group in america, you see that they were split 50-50 on the first election for Obama. Do you really think that 50% of white males are racist and the other 50% could put it aside and listened to Obama's GREAT PLAN instead? That's another far left attempt at portraying the only answer to be the liberal one. I've given you plenty to actually respond too. Try dropping your insults and being a big boy yea? |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 2:19 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT I responded to your ridiculous implication that the KKK had anything at all to do with the modern democratic party - or should factor into people's perceptions of it. You replied with "lol bro I said a fact it can't be wrong." Sorry you're avoiding my response - it's not really a hard jump into critical thinking.
I also responded to you claiming inactivity on Obama's part, but if you need more: I could go ahead and list everything he's done in 4 years - including things supported by Republicans, but my main point was there was a lot of stalling in congress on the side of the GOP (in both the house and senate). You specifically said Romney would work across the aisle and Obama hasn't. I don't think either part of that is true. Where in the hell did I say white males who vote for Republicans are racist? Do I think those who are Southern good ol boys support Republicans - at least compared to Democrats - obviously. Now go ahead and actually respond to the context of your KKK comment making it beyond irrelevant - or how about my question about your liberties? |
|
timewarner420 wrote
at 2:39 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT Thraxle:
I think the main difference between the 2008 and 2009 budget deficit was that Obama also put the two wars back on the books. If you noticed the deficit didn't really change in 2003, that's because Bush and co. kept it off the books (I'm sure you remember liberals bitching about that, surprisingly I never saw Fox mention it). The deficit did not account for the ME war spending until Obama took office, one of the reasons the deficit did not explain the marked increase in public debt under Bush. Yes 2009's budget was shared by Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama but the stimulus (essentially a tax cut) makes up just 7% of the current deficit. If you'd like a thorough markup of where the deficit has come from you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1 There was a 2 trillion dollar swing in the budget from Clinton's last year to Bush's last year. And yeah you're right all of Bush's TARP and such programs that were not paid back severely increased the deficit. But Obama passed a 'pay as you go' mandate after taking office requiring that any new programs' costs are paid for by the programs (hence our watered down deficit neutral Bob Dole/Romney healthcare plan). Seeing as how you claimed Obama increased the deficit do you now agree Obama has only decreased the deficit since taking office? |
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 2:47 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT jpc4p you haven't responded. You have just cried and thrown mud like always.
Btw do you want to defend the destruction of our 4th amendment or are you not paying attention? |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 2:51 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT lol if that wasn't a response, I guess we're done here.
|
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 2:54 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT You said was, "I could respond like this and like that but ima just talk in circles like always and then say that it's your fault."
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 3:00 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT I clearly responded to the points you asked in your previous post. Sorry you're ignoring it.
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 3:02 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT You've also avoided responding to the one question I asked of you - as well as failing to respond to any of my points.
How ironic! |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 3:04 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT "kept it off the books"
It was still accounted spending towards the deficit, it simply wasn't in the "budget". It was discretionary spending. For you to say it was off the books is ridiculous. Do you even research what you post? |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 3:05 PM, Thursday October 18, 2012 EDT The Democrats held a super majority in the Senate for a total of 24 days, stop saying it was 2 years.
Also fuck every single person in the House of Representatives, pretty sure they all should be brought up on charges of treason. |