Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
President Obama faces 'cliff fatigue'; You can only cry wolf so many times before being ignored
Topic Started: Feb 26 2013, 04:02 AM (736 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 27 2013, 01:21 AM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2013, 11:00 PM
Banandangees
Feb 26 2013, 10:51 PM
Brewster
Feb 26 2013, 10:38 PM
Quote:
 
Everything is the Republicans fault. Do you not listen to his words? It's what he's done since he's been president and his followers chime in almost verbatim.... like robotic pons. He has divided this country almost beyond repair.

I agree. Everything is the Republican's fault. Including the dividing of the country.

Of course, that's what Obama would say. And, as a loyal follower, that would put you in the "robotic pon" category.

Why are you asking HIM to propose a budget? According to your Constitution, while the Pres. may propose one, spending is the House's responsibility. And what's the point in proposing something you know is going to get shot down anyway? Where's Boehner? He's blaming everbody else - Obama, Reid, anybody but himself.

He won't even discuss a congressional proposed budget. He offers nothing. The House wants to cut spending as an expression of "their responsibility," and Obama won't have it. You need to listen more closely to Obama's recent state by state traveling "campaign" speeches, it's all blame, blame, blame. He is the President...... not much leading going on... mostly inspirational talk for the "robotic pons" to wallow in.
Why not do a little checking, Ban, instead of repeating that garbage you hear on Faux News.

Here's a little something for you to chew on.

“President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years. As part of the 2011 debt agreement the President cut $1,028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. Together with another $676 billion in discretionary savings through annual appropriations bills and interest savings, this will reduce spending by over $2 trillion. As a result, annual discretionary spending is projected to fall to its lowest levels on record, measured as a share of the economy.”


Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.


“his analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”

Here

OK, but we are still spending a $trillion more than we have revenue for. I always applaud when hearing of cuts in spending, but the cuts need to go far deeper if we are to balance our budget. Instead, what I hear and read is that Obama wants to increase spending on his pet projects. Then fine, cut spending in other areas to make up for it.
I think we will have to face up to the fact that SS, Medicare, Medicaid and defense are the main reason for the deficit. Discretionary spending, which accounts for everything else the government spends on, is less than 1/3 of the total budget. In order to balance the budget, it appears that we would need to eliminate all discretionary spending or take on the main programs listed above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"“President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years."

What good is it to cut $1 trillion in cuts over ten years when we have over spent our federal budget $1 trillion for each year over the last four years? That's like MR and Brew cutting their food bill by $1000 each year but increasing their other descretionary spending by $10,000 a year and thinking they've made a sensible fiscal improvement.
Edited by Banandangees, Feb 27 2013, 02:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Feb 27 2013, 02:24 AM
"“President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years."

What good is it to cut $1 trillion in cuts over ten years when we have over spent our federal budget $1 trillion for each year over the last four years? That's like MR and Brew cutting their food bill by $1000 each year but increasing their other descretionary spending by $10,000 a year and thinking they've made a sensible fiscal improvement.
The cuts will have to come from discretionary spending unless either the dems or reps put forth a plan to cut the increase in SS, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. Neither side has the balls to say what cuts, to which programs and by how much because they are afraid of losing the next election. You can't put it on Obama. He doesn't allocate the money. Blame congress. All the president can do is sign a bill or not. He has not had a bill sent to him that he could sign.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
But he has been the "leader" over the last four years. He gets the credit that same as Bush got the credit during his terms. What we are talking about (or should be) is not which politician(s) get credit for over spending but how do we get our fiscal balance in order... and that may have to include better tax management, and more cuts than just "discretionary" spending in a way that sensible bipartisanism effort can, through sit down negotiation, lead to a sensible fiscal plan and that may mean putting on delay what ever vision president Obama has for our nation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Feb 27 2013, 02:50 AM
But he has been the "leader" over the last four years. He gets the credit that same as Bush got the credit during his terms. What we are talking about (or should be) is not which politician(s) get credit for over spending but how do we get our fiscal balance in order... and that may have to include better tax management, and more cuts than just "discretionary" spending in a way that sensible bipartisanism effort can, through sit down negotiation, lead to a sensible fiscal plan and that may mean putting on delay what ever vision president Obama has for our nation.
You demonstrate the problem we are facing, Ban. You want to play the blame game, put it all on Obama rather than the people who are actually responsible for running up the deficit and debt. Did you read the part where it said Obama has increased the deficit less than any president since Eisenhower? He has not been a spending president in the same vein as most previous presidents. If nothing else, inflation will increase the deficit unless cuts are made and taxes increased. You guys on the right only want to put the burden on the poor and middle class instead of recognizing reality and getting the money from those who have it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Friday the cuts begin, there will be ways to move money around and forego some affects for a month or so. Most Americans won't notice any change as those related to supply and defense will be most affected. The president could come up with a proposal to move around the cuts, but he's still politicking any looking for new taxes, something that does not appear on the table.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I cannot imagine Obama and the Dems moving without at least the removal of some loopholes.

I guess the sequester it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
It's good strategy, go over the cliff. And, then blame any pain on the Republicans. People will throw the Tea Party bums out in 2014, And, then Obama can have the support to do what is necessary to fix our problems. The party will be over for the 1%, time for them to pay for their sins.
Edited by tomdrobin, Feb 27 2013, 11:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis