Obama- "We don't have a spending problem."

Posted in the Somerset Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of175
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

A fascinating, behind the scenes look at the real Obama position on spending cuts, the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and House Pres. john Boehner.
The big takeaway is that Barack Obama has no interest in cutting spending in any way, shape or form. Not surprising since he favors continiously expanding government.

"At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me,'We don't have a spending problem.' "

After all, there's no political price to pay for a President in his second 9and final) term. So, Katy Bar The Door on his radical, Marxist agenda.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
Ole Red

Huntsville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well why is he asking for the national debt to be raised over a trillion dollars again. Democrats love to tax and spend.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"We" don't? Coulda fooled me!

“Not afraid to stand alone.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 09

Flat Lick Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I'll agree with Boehner on one thing,he should have brought a Bill to the House floor like he said in hindsight after it was to late to do it. I've wondered why he didn't myself. He could have shifted blame to the Senate. I dont believe Boehner is a stupid man so I have to ask myself why?
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JumperJuice wrote:
"We" don't? Coulda fooled me!
JJ, that's why I keep saying there are not going to be any real spending cuts proposed or supported by Obama...and as a result, the Dems in Congress.
Obama doesn't believe we have a debt/spending problem and he just admitted that. So, if he doesn't believe in it, why would anyone expect him to propose or support cuts? That question is even harder to answer in the context of him entering his second term. We are about to see the "real" Obama and it won't be pretty.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

You make a good point, and I agree. That said, they better do something or their ass will be sent packing by the voters... as I said earlier.
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JumperJuice wrote:
You make a good point, and I agree. That said, they better do something or their ass will be sent packing by the voters... as I said earlier.
What voters are you talking about? The 50%+ of the US population now accepting some form of govt welfare? Face it, it ain't happenin! Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term...didn't happen. Now that he isn't running for re-election anymore, why would he suddenly have a change of heart?
We're headed for $1 trillion of new debt EVERY year.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
What voters are you talking about? The 50%+ of the US population now accepting some form of govt welfare? Face it, it ain't happenin! Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term...didn't happen. Now that he isn't running for re-election anymore, why would he suddenly have a change of heart?
We're headed for $1 trillion of new debt EVERY year.
You're becoming too focused on one Democrat Paul ....some of that 50% actually does want to work, they've just lost their jobs overseas. Don't go all Willard Romney. If they hurt the economy, they'll be voted out, and he'll finish out a lame duck. People felt the Republicans were stifling things, and they got booted. It's an idiotic vicious cycle. Rinse lather repeat. When is America going to wake up and shake up this duopoly? Will it be too late?

Level 4

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 9, 2013
 
JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>
Will it be too late?
Yes.

“We Are Family”

Level 8

Since: Aug 12

Here, There and Everywhere!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 10, 2013
 
'got that right!
Ronaald Reagan

Russell Springs, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You republican hypocrites, look at the millions and millions Hal Rogers has spent in Pulaski County.

“We Are Family”

Level 8

Since: Aug 12

Here, There and Everywhere!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 10, 2013
 
And just like the Pink Rabbit, He keeps on going and going and going and......
Clear Thinker 2oo

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 10, 2013
 
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
We're headed for $1 trillion of new debt EVERY year.
We're already there my friend. I'm pretty sure we went well over a trillion in 2012, and we'll approach 2 trillion in 2013. It sounds like we've blown past critical mass, we're passed the point of no return.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 10, 2013
 
wowed wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
That's what I fear....
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>
You're becoming too focused on one Democrat Paul ....some of that 50% actually does want to work, they've just lost their jobs overseas. Don't go all Willard Romney. If they hurt the economy, they'll be voted out, and he'll finish out a lame duck. People felt the Republicans were stifling things, and they got booted. It's an idiotic vicious cycle. Rinse lather repeat. When is America going to wake up and shake up this duopoly? Will it be too late?
I'm focused on Obama because he's the first Marxist/Socialist ever elected to the Presidency of the United States. He owns the White House and the Executive Orders power that comes with it. He has the Senate, lead by a willing idiot in Harry Reid. Meanwhile the Republicans have been overrun by a bunch of spineless middle of the road RINO's.
Leadership in neither party has any interest in addressing our spending addiction because that means cutting entitlements. The Democrats are so beholding to their far left-wing nutjob base that they will NEVER offer any cuts to those sacred cows. And the RINO's that lead the GOP are only interested in being liked and looking good on camera. There are a few Conservatives in Washington...but, only a very few.
Meanwhile, Obama slams us headlong toward becoming a Social Democracy, tramples on the Constitution and continues his assault on producers in this country.

You'll forgive if I find very little to take comfort in at this point in time.
God Save the Republic!

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm focused on Obama because he's the first Marxist/Socialist ever elected to the Presidency of the United States. He owns the White House and the Executive Orders power that comes with it. He has the Senate, lead by a willing idiot in Harry Reid. Meanwhile the Republicans have been overrun by a bunch of spineless middle of the road RINO's.
Leadership in neither party has any interest in addressing our spending addiction because that means cutting entitlements. The Democrats are so beholding to their far left-wing nutjob base that they will NEVER offer any cuts to those sacred cows. And the RINO's that lead the GOP are only interested in being liked and looking good on camera. There are a few Conservatives in Washington...but, only a very few.
Meanwhile, Obama slams us headlong toward becoming a Social Democracy, tramples on the Constitution and continues his assault on producers in this country.
You'll forgive if I find very little to take comfort in at this point in time.
God Save the Republic!
First, Obama has much of the same qualities as many presidents before him. Especially Bush Jr., Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, F. Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln, and Adams.

Second, he may be Marxist, but we've never had a socialist president, not even now. If a president is corporatist, which most every president in the 20th and 21st centuries have been, then they cannot be socialist. Even socialists abhor Obama; in fact, Stewart Alexander, 2012 Socialist presidential nominee vowed to repeal Obamacare. Socialist: I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Third, I just want to add, that Romney would NOT have been any better.
zipyourlip

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)— Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it:“I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.
Paul Revere

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, Obama has much of the same qualities as many presidents before him. Especially Bush Jr., Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, F. Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln, and Adams.
Second, he may be Marxist, but we've never had a socialist president, not even now. If a president is corporatist, which most every president in the 20th and 21st centuries have been, then they cannot be socialist. Even socialists abhor Obama; in fact, Stewart Alexander, 2012 Socialist presidential nominee vowed to repeal Obamacare. Socialist: I don't think this word means what you think it means.
Third, I just want to add, that Romney would NOT have been any better.
I have to disagree on many points you make sir.
Mainly because we have never had a President that so actively sought to circumvent the Constitution. When the White House has staff lawyers paid to find loopholes in the law so that the Pres. may force his radical agenda of social democracy upon the populace, we have a very real difference. Never before have we seen such a willful disdain for the Constitution as we are seeing under Obama. From completely ignoring the law regarding recess appointments to the Fast & Furious fiasco. This administration is fast tracking the "change" to a centralized power based society.
Yes, Bush began the wiretapping and drone attacks but, Obama has taken both to new levels AFTER campaigning against such policies.
As far as Romney is concerned, I honestly can't see him actively trying to shred the Constotution like Obama has/is. The guy (Mitt) had his faults but, you'll never convince me wouldn't have been infinitely better than a second term under Obama.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So, you think the forefathers wanted businesses to circumvent taxes, labor laws, fair pay, and reinvesting in OUR country by outsourcing, having offshore accounts, and having one phone "offices" in countries like Switzerland Paul? You know like guys such as Willard Romney and his cronies practice? Do you REALLY think that was what George Washington was fighting for when he and his men nearly died at Valley Forge?

Obama is a bum, but to act like the Republican candidate was any better for the common man is RIDICULOUS. Same pile of sh*t, different foot. Willard and people like him have sold us out for their singular gain, country / patriotism be damned. No better than Obama, regardless of what Sean Hannity tells you.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to disagree on many points you make sir.
Mainly because we have never had a President that so actively sought to circumvent the Constitution. When the White House has staff lawyers paid to find loopholes in the law so that the Pres. may force his radical agenda of social democracy upon the populace, we have a very real difference. Never before have we seen such a willful disdain for the Constitution as we are seeing under Obama. From completely ignoring the law regarding recess appointments to the Fast & Furious fiasco. This administration is fast tracking the "change" to a centralized power based society.
Yes, Bush began the wiretapping and drone attacks but, Obama has taken both to new levels AFTER campaigning against such policies.
As far as Romney is concerned, I honestly can't see him actively trying to shred the Constotution like Obama has/is. The guy (Mitt) had his faults but, you'll never convince me wouldn't have been infinitely better than a second term under Obama.
What? First of all, every president has circumvented the Constitution, even if only for a few things. Second, most presidents, including W. Bush and Obama has drastically done so. Third, measuring who is done it the most is like winning a trivial contest - it does not matter. Point is, we haven't had a good president, and BOTH major parties have bad presidents.

Also, every president in the latter half of the 20th century and all of the 21st century, have staff lawyers. LOL! Even Romney said he would consult with lawyers for his decisions.

If you think Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR are not as bad as Obama or W. Bush, then you should probably research history. Enough said on that one. lol! I'm sorry.

Also, Romney has PROVEN he was not better than Obama. Just look at his big-government record as governor, and his gun control, universal healthcare, and other anti-free market policies. lol! You're still stuck at the children's table playing party politics.

Facts are friends, not enemies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of175
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

84 Users are viewing the Somerset Forum right now

Search the Somerset Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 9 min ChromiuMan 128,507
Todd Wood gives enormous raises 2 hr interesting!!! 19
bird houses (Nov '11) 3 hr Jane 2
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 4 hr Dickens1 19,979
Lakea Pelow (Aug '08) 5 hr oldstuff 3
Which big name band would you like MMF to book ... 5 hr gladthelakeisback 18
Bruce W. Singleton Family Court Judge 5 hr My Vote 3
•••
•••
•••
Somerset Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Somerset Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Somerset People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Somerset News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Somerset
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••