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

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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

Because they already have, and CAD and PJ aren't listening.

Let me know when the Pubs decide to run a fiscal conservative again... if ever.

This thread isnt about the fiscal position of Republicans. Perhaps you misread the OP? fine. Go read it again.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

And just wtf does that matter? I think the sad joke here is nobody can question Obama's proposals because Bush was spending like a sailor. I think questioning Obama is even more important given the latest example of what a president can do with a rubberstamp congress like the one Obama will have if he wins.

It's not the questioning that bothers anyone, Gen. It's the hypocrites who are asking the questions.

Hell, the questions have been addressed even. And as I already pointed out, it's the fact that Obama will work to balance the budget that bothers these self-professed conservatives the most. God forbid they actually have to pay for the big government they demand! :roll:

God forbid they actually stay on topic. Unlike you.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

Then you weren't paying attention. Plus as Genx87 stated, what does GWB have to do with Obama's spending promises? ....besides nothing?

I don't take financial advice from someone in bankruptcy.

Likewise, I don't accept advice on government fiscal policy from Republicans.

For the exact same reason.

How about you start a thread about it then, and comment on the OP at hand?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: piasabird
Why should tax payers pay for research when their jobs can be sent overseas at a moments notice and they have no recourse under the law. People still get fired or layed off with no advance notice and no consideration for them as human beings, and some asshole wants to tax you right and left. These tax and spend people can go to hell!!!

...

So just borrow and spend then and screw your children with no consideration for them as human beings?

You realize that GW Bush has increased federal spending by 40% since taking office, right? That's a faster pace than any President in history, R or D, except for during WWII. And GW Bush has ran up debt and deficit faster even than FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression, when 25% of the workforce was unemployed and not paying any taxes!

And when you're spending like mad, and borrowing to pay for it, then your actual tax burden is increased due to the interest on the debt. Think of it as if you stopped working, increased your spending habits, and put it all on credit cards. Would that be a fiscally/financially wise thing for your family to do? Don't you think that such a lifestyle would eventually catch up with you?
Well, that's how your party is running our country. And worse still, our national 'credit cards' (the debt) is held in large part by foreign countries, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. As such, they have significant influence in our government now, practically dictating policy in many cases.
You see the prices at the pump, and at the grocery store? You see what's happening in the housing markets? That's your lifestyle catching up with all of us.

WTF is wrong with your reading skills? Are you really that stupid? Go read the OP again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:laugh:

Think they figured it out yet blackangst1?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: RichardE
You ignore the oversight he wants to put into place to ensure the money is spent properly. He has touched upon this a few times when it was brought up, how you have to efficiently spend, you cannot throw money at a problem that it will not help to hope it goes away, and money you do spend needs to be accounted for. You are too use to republicans sending blank checks to everyone saying just charge it to understand that efficient spending will mean less money being spent in the end.

Install a bureaucrat to oversee the bureaucrats who spend the money...wow genius.

You realize that pretty much every business in the entire world does exactly that, right? What do you think internal audits are?

 

[blackangst1]

I doubt it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

Then you weren't paying attention. Plus as Genx87 stated, what does GWB have to do with Obama's spending promises? ....besides nothing?

I don't take financial advice from someone in bankruptcy.

Likewise, I don't accept advice on government fiscal policy from Republicans.

For the exact same reason.

How about you start a thread about it then, and comment on the OP at hand?

Probably because it is impossible to view this thread as anything but a smear attempt considering who the OP is. The electoral preferences of those people attacking Obama for spending proposals is directly relevant to the discussion at hand because those very same people didn't seem to mind that much when the person spending all this money had an (R) next to their name.

I think it's totally reasonable to remind people of that.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: RichardE
You ignore the oversight he wants to put into place to ensure the money is spent properly. He has touched upon this a few times when it was brought up, how you have to efficiently spend, you cannot throw money at a problem that it will not help to hope it goes away, and money you do spend needs to be accounted for. You are too use to republicans sending blank checks to everyone saying just charge it to understand that efficient spending will mean less money being spent in the end.

Install a bureaucrat to oversee the bureaucrats who spend the money...wow genius.

You realize that pretty much every business in the entire world does exactly that, right? What do you think internal audits are?

What is the GAO for?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

Then you weren't paying attention. Plus as Genx87 stated, what does GWB have to do with Obama's spending promises? ....besides nothing?

I don't take financial advice from someone in bankruptcy.

Likewise, I don't accept advice on government fiscal policy from Republicans.

For the exact same reason.

How about you start a thread about it then, and comment on the OP at hand?

Probably because it is impossible to view this thread as anything but a smear attempt considering who the OP is. The electoral preferences of those people attacking Obama for spending proposals is directly relevant to the discussion at hand because those very same people didn't seem to mind that much when the person spending all this money had an (R) next to their name.

I think it's totally reasonable to remind people of that.

So basically you attack the person who presented the information about Obama's spending promises instead of the spending promises themselves? Sounds like a bit of desperation and/or duhversion.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

And just wtf does that matter? I think the sad joke here is nobody can question Obama's proposals because Bush was spending like a sailor. I think questioning Obama is even more important given the latest example of what a president can do with a rubberstamp congress like the one Obama will have if he wins.

It's not the questioning that bothers anyone, Gen. It's the hypocrites who are asking the questions.

Hell, the questions have been addressed even. And as I already pointed out, it's the fact that Obama will work to balance the budget that bothers these self-professed conservatives the most. God forbid they actually have to pay for the big government they demand! :roll:

Well lets be honest. Everybody is an effing hypocrite at some point. Once we move past that I think we can actually talk about this topic which is actually a real topic vs some of the stuff that has been brought up recently.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Probably because it is impossible to view this thread as anything but a smear attempt considering who the OP is. The electoral preferences of those people attacking Obama for spending proposals is directly relevant to the discussion at hand because those very same people didn't seem to mind that much when the person spending all this money had an (R) next to their name.

I think it's totally reasonable to remind people of that.

So basically you attack the person who presented the information about Obama's spending promises instead of the spending promises themselves? Sounds like a bit of desperation and/or duhversion.

No, that would be an idiotic interpretation of what I wrote. If someone like Pro-Jo is posting a thread such as this, especially after (presumably) voting twice for someone who was far worse in specifically the area he is now decrying, it is likely that his posting is not motivated by actual concern for the act so much as it is in the advancement of his partisan agenda. Because of this, it is very likely he is omitting inconvenient information, etc.

You can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who is not interested in it. Of course then again here I am responding to you, so I guess I'm not practicing what I preach.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

Then you weren't paying attention. Plus as Genx87 stated, what does GWB have to do with Obama's spending promises? ....besides nothing?

I don't take financial advice from someone in bankruptcy.

Likewise, I don't accept advice on government fiscal policy from Republicans.

For the exact same reason.

How about you start a thread about it then, and comment on the OP at hand?

Probably because it is impossible to view this thread as anything but a smear attempt considering who the OP is. The electoral preferences of those people attacking Obama for spending proposals is directly relevant to the discussion at hand because those very same people didn't seem to mind that much when the person spending all this money had an (R) next to their name.

I think it's totally reasonable to remind people of that.

and that is different than the many smears against the GOP why exactly? Did this turn into a DNC board recently?

Right. Didnt think so. And it wasnt a smear. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It was a speculation about Obama's spending.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: RichardE
You ignore the oversight he wants to put into place to ensure the money is spent properly. He has touched upon this a few times when it was brought up, how you have to efficiently spend, you cannot throw money at a problem that it will not help to hope it goes away, and money you do spend needs to be accounted for. You are too use to republicans sending blank checks to everyone saying just charge it to understand that efficient spending will mean less money being spent in the end.

Install a bureaucrat to oversee the bureaucrats who spend the money...wow genius.

You realize that pretty much every business in the entire world does exactly that, right? What do you think internal audits are?

What is the GAO for?

Haha nice. First of all they are bureaucrats who oversee bureaucrats spending money. Are you now supportive of this or not?

Secondly, they are an arm of Congress that audits the federal government. Just because there is a body already dedicated to this in no way means it could not be done better or more efficiently. This is so obvious it should not even need to be said.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and that is different than the many smears against the GOP why exactly? Did this turn into a DNC board recently?

Right. Didnt think so. And it wasnt a smear. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It was a speculation about Obama's spending.

Why would it make any difference if it were the same as smears against the GOP? Does that make it any better? Again, my point was that the OP simply cannot be trusted to present an honest argument in this case, specifically considering his history. Nothing wrong with telling people about that.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and that is different than the many smears against the GOP why exactly? Did this turn into a DNC board recently?

Right. Didnt think so. And it wasnt a smear. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It was a speculation about Obama's spending.

Why would it make any difference if it were the same as smears against the GOP? Does that make it any better? Again, my point was that the OP simply cannot be trusted to present an honest argument in this case, specifically considering his history. Nothing wrong with telling people about that.

And again, you cannot be trusted to actually make an intelligent comment about the OP.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and that is different than the many smears against the GOP why exactly? Did this turn into a DNC board recently?

Right. Didnt think so. And it wasnt a smear. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It was a speculation about Obama's spending.

Why would it make any difference if it were the same as smears against the GOP? Does that make it any better? Again, my point was that the OP simply cannot be trusted to present an honest argument in this case, specifically considering his history. Nothing wrong with telling people about that.

And again, you cannot be trusted to actually make an intelligent comment about the OP.

You are attacking me for responding to something you wrote. This is very confusing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

and that is different than the many smears against the GOP why exactly? Did this turn into a DNC board recently?

Right. Didnt think so. And it wasnt a smear. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It was a speculation about Obama's spending.

Why would it make any difference if it were the same as smears against the GOP? Does that make it any better? Again, my point was that the OP simply cannot be trusted to present an honest argument in this case, specifically considering his history. Nothing wrong with telling people about that.

And again, you cannot be trusted to actually make an intelligent comment about the OP.

You are attacking me for responding to something you wrote. This is very confusing.

Youre usually very straightforward and intelligent in your replies. This time Im not sure why you cant follow along. But OK.

 

[DealMonkey]

Go figure, I actually post Obama's stated fiscal policies and address the OP over an entire page of posts ago and BlackAngus and Cad ignore it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
This whole thread is a sad commentary on the Republican Party.

Except this thread is about Obama and his outrageous spending promises...

And someone like you complains about it. It's a sad joke. I don't remember you starting a single thread on Bush's spending in the past 8 years.

And just wtf does that matter? I think the sad joke here is nobody can question Obama's proposals because Bush was spending like a sailor. I think questioning Obama is even more important given the latest example of what a president can do with a rubberstamp congress like the one Obama will have if he wins.

Bush wasn't the only one. Republican Presidents have a habit of skyrocketing the deficit and we don't here a peep from fellow Republicans until a Democrat comes to power. Pathetic.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here, let me make it extremely easy for you:

Barack Obama's Plan

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Conveniently, PJ seemed to ignore the above page.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?
Topic Summary: Centrist or Tax and Spend Liberal?

Your Traitor In Chief has squandered trillions on his war of lies, where do you suggest your "Tax and Spend Liberal" going to get the money to invest in anything on your list?

Obviously, George W. Bush is no kind of "liberal," and AFIC, he's no kind of "conservative," either. He's just a spend and spend TURD with no ethics, no morals, no conscience and no sense of humanity, and McSame says that, if elected, he would be more of the same.

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

Bush bash-check.

Republican nominee bash-check.

As if they weren't true and relevant.

Failure to address the OP-check.

The OP's Topic Summary includes the pejorative label, "Tax and Spend Liberal," makes my entire post on topic and responsive.

1. My first paragraph raises the legitimate question of where any "Tax and Spend Liberal" would find the money to "spend" or income or other revenue source to tax because your Tax and Spend Traitor In Chief has already squandered us into trillions of dollard of debt our great great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

2. My second paragraph correctly points out that he is definitely not a "liberal," but he has definitely outspent and out squandered U.S. taxpayers' money on his war of lies and in supporting his war profiteering friends, and McSame is promising to continue the same ridiculous march toward national bankruptcy with the same immoral war and the same disaterous fiscal policies.

I don't see you refuting any of that. Maybe it's because reality means you can't get there from here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Go figure, I actually post Obama's stated fiscal policies and address the OP over an entire page of posts ago and BlackAngus and Cad ignore it.

And where did I say anything about the mack of such information in this thread? I read it...I commented on the blatent disregard of the OP and the (yet another) Bush bashing thread. Sure he deserves some of it, but stay on fucking topic. Bush isnt it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?
Topic Summary: Centrist or Tax and Spend Liberal?

Your Traitor In Chief has squandered trillions on his war of lies, where do you suggest your "Tax and Spend Liberal" going to get the money to invest in anything on your list?

Obviously, George W. Bush is no kind of "liberal," and AFIC, he's no kind of "conservative," either. He's just a spend and spend TURD with no ethics, no morals, no conscience and no sense of humanity, and McSame says that, if elected, he would be more of the same.

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

Bush bash-check.

Republican nominee bash-check.

As if they weren't true and relevant.

Failure to address the OP-check.

The OP's Topic Summary includes the pejorative label, "Tax and Spend Liberal," makes my entire post on topic and responsive.

1. My first paragraph raises the legitimate question of where any "Tax and Spend Liberal" would find the money to "spend" or income or other revenue source to tax because your Tax and Spend Traitor In Chief has already squandered us into trillions of dollard of debt our great great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

2. My second paragraph correctly points out that he is definitely not a "liberal," but he has definitely outspent and out squandered U.S. taxpayers' money on his war of lies and in supporting his war profiteering friends, and McSame is promising to continue the same ridiculous march toward national bankruptcy with the same immoral war and the same disaterous fiscal policies.

I don't see you refuting any of that. Maybe it's because reality means you can't get there from here.

you wanna put a $100 pay pal bet on this wise ass? I will agree to provide a link where I have lambasted Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility if you agree to paypal me $100 if I do.

Game on? Or fucking trolling again? youre as bad as Dave.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh:

Think they figured it out yet blackangst1?

Have you figured out yet that there isn't a viable 3rd party in the US and that, between the only 2 choices we have, your party is the least fiscally conservative?

Or are you just going to keep blindly asserting (and worse yet, believing) the opposite?

It's kind of like being lectured on morality by a child rapist. :roll: