Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?

[Rio Rebel]

Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's impossible to talk to Obama supporters. It's all "Hope" and "Change" but when you ask about policy specifics, you are either labeled a cynic or a racist, or they go on a Bush bashing rant. Yeah, Bush sucks, I get it, I voted against the guy twice. But that doesn't mean we can't have a serious discussion of Obama's policies, or lack thereof. What I see is a complete willingness to demagogue, and total reluctance to actually fight for anything. He is in the Senate, he should be proposing laws that reflect his views, and if he really believes in all these things, where is his track record of fighting for them? Hillary at least put herself on the line and fought for universal healthcare, and she wasn't even an elected official then. Obama is in actual elected position to propose (if not pass) his policy agenda, and he is instead simply reverting to pattern and being "present."

of course all you see is a "complete willingness to demagogue"

its what you want to see.

Dude you have been on this broken record rampage for a while now...we get it.

we get it!

You obviously don't. I don't think Obama supporters get it. You can't win in November without the Clinton supporters.

I get it plenty. You do understand that HRC lost right?

there is no room for sourgrapes come november. So start supporting BHO already for cryin out loud.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

Iraq put us 9 Trillion in debt?
Are you completely clueless? Iraq contributed to debt, but most of it was created by Reagan, Bush I, and policies unrelated to Iraq by Bush II.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Excuse me, I should have said that Iraq is the single biggest factor toward putting us 9 trillion in debt. Obviously, it didn't account for the entire 4-5 trillion that this administration has added to our debt since Bush took office.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's impossible to talk to Obama supporters. It's all "Hope" and "Change" but when you ask about policy specifics, you are either labeled a cynic or a racist, or they go on a Bush bashing rant. Yeah, Bush sucks, I get it, I voted against the guy twice. But that doesn't mean we can't have a serious discussion of Obama's policies, or lack thereof. What I see is a complete willingness to demagogue, and total reluctance to actually fight for anything. He is in the Senate, he should be proposing laws that reflect his views, and if he really believes in all these things, where is his track record of fighting for them? Hillary at least put herself on the line and fought for universal healthcare, and she wasn't even an elected official then. Obama is in actual elected position to propose (if not pass) his policy agenda, and he is instead simply reverting to pattern and being "present."

of course all you see is a "complete willingness to demagogue"

its what you want to see.

Dude you have been on this broken record rampage for a while now...we get it.

we get it!

You obviously don't. I don't think Obama supporters get it. You can't win in November without the Clinton supporters.

I get it plenty. You do understand that HRC lost right?

there is no room for sourgrapes come november. So start supporting BHO already for cryin out loud.

That's where you don't get it. You don't get Clinton vote, and the fact that Obama has to earn it, and he hasn't. What you don't get is if what Obama is doing now was enough to earn it, he would have had it already. Personality and Inspiration voters are already voting for him.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Excuse me, I should have said that Iraq is the single biggest factor toward putting us 9 trillion in debt. Obviously, it didn't account for the entire 4-5 trillion that this administration has added to our debt since Bush took office.

No it was not the single biggest factor, not even close. Please read up on history.
Most of that debt is principal and interest on debt accumulated by Reaganites and Bushites, with extra kickers mainly from Bush II tax cuts. Democrat congress and Clinton set it on proper course with budget reconciliation act, and then Republicans and Clinton kept the setup in place courtesy of gridlock. But Iraq, while a waste of money that I opposed is not the biggest factor in our deficit spending. If it wasn't for Iraq, Bush would still have ran a huge deficit and added to our debt.
If anything, Iraq probably reduced our long term deficit by getting Republicans thrown out of Congress so they couldn't renew the Bush tax cuts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

Because they can't

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's impossible to talk to Obama supporters. It's all "Hope" and "Change" but when you ask about policy specifics, you are either labeled a cynic or a racist, or they go on a Bush bashing rant. Yeah, Bush sucks, I get it, I voted against the guy twice. But that doesn't mean we can't have a serious discussion of Obama's policies, or lack thereof. What I see is a complete willingness to demagogue, and total reluctance to actually fight for anything. He is in the Senate, he should be proposing laws that reflect his views, and if he really believes in all these things, where is his track record of fighting for them? Hillary at least put herself on the line and fought for universal healthcare, and she wasn't even an elected official then. Obama is in actual elected position to propose (if not pass) his policy agenda, and he is instead simply reverting to pattern and being "present."

of course all you see is a "complete willingness to demagogue"

its what you want to see.

Dude you have been on this broken record rampage for a while now...we get it.

we get it!

You obviously don't. I don't think Obama supporters get it. You can't win in November without the Clinton supporters.

I get it plenty. You do understand that HRC lost right?

there is no room for sourgrapes come november. So start supporting BHO already for cryin out loud.

That's where you don't get it. You don't get Clinton vote, and the fact that Obama has to earn it, and he hasn't. What you don't get is if what Obama is doing now was enough to earn it, he would have had it already. Personality and Inspiration voters are already voting for him.

what you dont get is even HRC will vote for Obama.

what you dont get is people like those in WV are voting McCain because of Obama's middle name. McCain will not have earned those votes.

What you don't get is the next President will choose 2 maybe 3 supreme court justices.

Dislike BHO all you want...but hasn't the last 7-8 years taught you enough about how the Rs get their votes? The Ds shoot themselves in the foot because of the crap like you and other HRC supporters pull. The Ds will never be the lockstep party...but they should at least understand why it is so damn effective sometimes.

fight BHO on principle all you want...but all that does is give the Rs more voters at the poll. It is something that people like Profjohn are banking on this election.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

why does it matter when McCains spending plans are BIGGER??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

why does it matter when McCains spending plans are BIGGER??

Then why not start a thread on his proposals like was done with obama?


oh wait... that'd mean obamabots wouldn't be able to duhvert the topic in this thread...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's impossible to talk to Obama supporters. It's all "Hope" and "Change" but when you ask about policy specifics, you are either labeled a cynic or a racist, or they go on a Bush bashing rant. Yeah, Bush sucks, I get it, I voted against the guy twice. But that doesn't mean we can't have a serious discussion of Obama's policies, or lack thereof. What I see is a complete willingness to demagogue, and total reluctance to actually fight for anything. He is in the Senate, he should be proposing laws that reflect his views, and if he really believes in all these things, where is his track record of fighting for them? Hillary at least put herself on the line and fought for universal healthcare, and she wasn't even an elected official then. Obama is in actual elected position to propose (if not pass) his policy agenda, and he is instead simply reverting to pattern and being "present."

of course all you see is a "complete willingness to demagogue"

its what you want to see.

Dude you have been on this broken record rampage for a while now...we get it.

we get it!

You obviously don't. I don't think Obama supporters get it. You can't win in November without the Clinton supporters.

I get it plenty. You do understand that HRC lost right?

there is no room for sourgrapes come november. So start supporting BHO already for cryin out loud.

That's where you don't get it. You don't get Clinton vote, and the fact that Obama has to earn it, and he hasn't. What you don't get is if what Obama is doing now was enough to earn it, he would have had it already. Personality and Inspiration voters are already voting for him.

what you dont get is even HRC will vote for Obama.

what you dont get is people like those in WV are voting McCain because of Obama's middle name. McCain will not have earned those votes.

What you don't get is the next President will choose 2 maybe 3 supreme court justices.

Dislike BHO all you want...but hasn't the last 7-8 years taught you enough about how the Rs get their votes? The Ds shoot themselves in the foot because of the crap like you and other HRC supporters pull. The Ds will never be the lockstep party...but they should at least understand why it is so damn effective sometimes.

fight BHO on principle all you want...but all that does is give the Rs more voters at the poll. It is something that people like Profjohn are banking on this election.

If Obama chooses to be an empty suit / blank slate on the issues, I'll pick the gridlock of McCain + Democrat Congress over writing a blank check to BHO.
If Obama wants me to trust him with a rubber stamp Democrat Congress, he will have to be very specific and detailed on policies and how he intends to implement them. I don't really care how Clinton votes. I know she has to support Obama but hope for him to lose if she wants to run in 2012, so how she votes is her business.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

why does it matter when McCains spending plans are BIGGER??

McCain's spending plans won't have a rubber stamp Democrat Congress like Obama's plans would. That's why it matters.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Having trouble spelling "Obamabots"? LOL.

Seriously, why is it off subject or diversion to talk about republican deficits in this thread? We have two choices - Obama and McCain. McCain has clearly indicated that we will continue in Iraq under his presidency, and Iraq is what caused Bush to put us 9 trillion in debt. So isn't it relevant to bring this up when someone wants to talk about spending?

Fiscally, I like Ron Paul. If he were in it, I'd be weighing my support of his fiscal policy against the inspiration of Obama. But Ron Paul is not running on the republican ticket (nor is any other fiscal conservative). So you have to choose, and it is relevant to look at the other choice if you're going to criticize Obama.

When the thread is specifically about obamarama then yes, trying to divert to "but Bush" or "but McCain" is a diversion. Why can't his cheerleaders address the specifics of his massive spending plans?

why does it matter when McCains spending plans are BIGGER??

Then why not start a thread on his proposals like was done with obama?


oh wait... that'd mean obamabots wouldn't be able to duhvert the topic in this thread...

whether its a McCain thread or a BHO thread it doesnt matter we'd still be having the same stupid conversation.

so stop diverting the thread already.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: senseamp
McCain's spending plans won't have a rubber stamp Democrat Congress like Obama's plans would. That's why it matters.

you and I will have to agree to disagree on whats most important for the upcoming Presidency.

Rather than focus on government spending that is for sure to be costly no matter who is POTUS I choose to instead focus on the SCOTUS. And I choose to place my faith in a Dem Pres and a Dem congress to swear in Judges that will keep the status quo and balance for SCOTUS rather than run the risk of having an R load the court and tip the balance to the more "activist" conservative side.

in short I am more concerned about the SCOTUS then I am spending over the next Presidential term.

which is why I want BHO picking Justices, and a dem congress swearing them in with a R minority sitting with thier thumb up their arses.

ok I'm done hijacking.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I'll admit that I was making an assumption, but if you keep challenging it as clueless I'd say you need to provide some facts.

I assumed that since the Iraq war has been estimated to cost over 1 trillion, that it made up the largest single factor of the 4-4.5 trillion dollar increase in debt in the Bush administration. I don't know that for a fact, but please provide your SUPPORTED basis for scoffing at this assertion.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I'll admit that I was making an assumption, but if you keep challenging it as clueless I'd say you need to provide some facts.

I assumed that since the Iraq war has been estimated to cost over 1 trillion, that it made up the largest single factor of the 4-4.5 trillion dollar increase in debt in the Bush administration. I don't know that for a fact, but please provide your SUPPORTED basis for scoffing at this assertion.

That's not how it works, you don't get to pull a claim out of your @ss and have it stand until someone disproves it. Also, that 1 trillion (which includes interest that hasn't accrued yet) is only 20% of the Deficit, with the Bush tax cuts being a much larger contributing factor.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I'll admit that I was making an assumption, but if you keep challenging it as clueless I'd say you need to provide some facts.

I assumed that since the Iraq war has been estimated to cost over 1 trillion, that it made up the largest single factor of the 4-4.5 trillion dollar increase in debt in the Bush administration. I don't know that for a fact, but please provide your SUPPORTED basis for scoffing at this assertion.

The $1 trillion is a guess based on the entire cost of the war, including spending we have not even done yet.

As of today we are looking at $600-700 billion perhaps, not a small amount, but not a trillion.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I've completely explained my assumption and how I arrived there. In three posts, you have yet to support your claim, relying instead on attacks like "clueless" and "pull a claim out of your ass".

I may very well be wrong, but that's the difference between us. I'm not just spouting shit, trying to look good. I admit the basis of my argument. What is the basis of yours?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I've completely explained my assumption and how I arrived there. In three posts, you have yet to support your claim, relying instead on attacks like "clueless" and "pull a claim out of your ass".

I may very well be wrong, but that's the difference between us. I'm not just spouting shit, trying to look good. I admit the basis of my argument. What is the basis of yours?

Here you go, it took me 5 minute google search.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83x...GTRRA_and_Deficits.pdf

 

[Rio Rebel]

I assume this is the key statement:

On the same basis, the agency
estimates the total budgetary costs, including interest, for 2008 through 2011 to be
$233 billion, $245 billion, $269 billion, and $215 billion, respectively.

If that is accurate, it would seem to be higher than the cost of the Iraq war, and I would seem to be mistaken. This would make it even more urgent to both cut spending AND get out of Iraq. Very few people seem to favor both.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari
DISTRACT! DISTRACT!.

so what isn't a distraction if we're adding fiscal plans to the list of things we're not supposed to talk about?

we should have a stickied thread for acceptable topics of discussion for BHO.

It must've been a deep slumber considering Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility. They were asleep during the Reagan and Bush years, awoke during the Clinton years, fell back into a deep slumber in the Bush II years, and, color me surprised, have awoken again. I'm shocked.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari
DISTRACT! DISTRACT!.

so what isn't a distraction if we're adding fiscal plans to the list of things we're not supposed to talk about?

we should have a stickied thread for acceptable topics of discussion for BHO.

It must've been a deep slumber considering Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility. They were asleep during the Reagan and Bush years, awoke during the Clinton years, fell back into a deep slumber in the Bush II years, and, color me surprised, have awoken again. I'm shocked.

speaking of distractions...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I assume this is the key statement:

On the same basis, the agency
estimates the total budgetary costs, including interest, for 2008 through 2011 to be
$233 billion, $245 billion, $269 billion, and $215 billion, respectively.

If that is accurate, it would seem to be higher than the cost of the Iraq war, and I would seem to be mistaken. This would make it even more urgent to both cut spending AND get out of Iraq. Very few people seem to favor both.

I don't think Obama favors cutting spending. Iraq is a mess, we should never have started it, I was against it from the very beginning, I think as bad as he was, Saddam was actually pretty close to a best case scenario as far as US interests. But now that we've removed Saddam, simply leaving is not going to turn back clock. We need to find some sort of new equilibrium that is acceptable to us, so I don't think Obama should unconditionally say that we are leaving, consequences be damned, because he's going to paint himself into a corner. I think McCain's political position gives him more flexibility to do what may need to be done. It's a disaster, but it's a Bush disaster, McCain is just trying to fix it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari
DISTRACT! DISTRACT!.

so what isn't a distraction if we're adding fiscal plans to the list of things we're not supposed to talk about?

we should have a stickied thread for acceptable topics of discussion for BHO.

It must've been a deep slumber considering Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility. They were asleep during the Reagan and Bush years, awoke during the Clinton years, fell back into a deep slumber in the Bush II years, and, color me surprised, have awoken again. I'm shocked.

speaking of distractions...

perhaps hypocrisy is more fitting?