Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• Writerbuckeye

  

  jmog;880836 wrote:Man I hate when idiots (on both sides of the aisle) attribute debt and spending to the President. Budgets are passed by CONGRESS, the President can only suggest and then approve/veto a budget he CAN NOT PASS A BUDGET.
  
  With that said, this graph says it all.
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg
  
  If the Ds control both the house and the senate the debt as a % of GDP goes up, if the Rs control both houses the debt as a % of GDP goes down. It really shoots up with the Ds control the Presidency too...imagine that.
  
  Please try to refute this and I will advise you retake a civics/government course and see who passes laws and budgets and who is the executive branch leader.

  Why are Democrats so defensive about increasing debt, and why do they run away from who they are? Your party's mode of operating has almost always been tax and spend. Your party platforms almost always call for more entitlement programs and, if necessary, the taxes to pay for them. At some point, all that spending is going to bite back as it's now doing.
• jhay78

  

  jmog;880836 wrote:Man I hate when idiots (on both sides of the aisle) attribute debt and spending to the President. Budgets are passed by CONGRESS, the President can only suggest and then approve/veto a budget he CAN NOT PASS A BUDGET.
  
  With that said, this graph says it all.
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg
  
  If the Ds control both the house and the senate the debt as a % of GDP goes up, if the Rs control both houses the debt as a % of GDP goes down. It really shoots up with the Ds control the Presidency too...imagine that.
  
  Please try to refute this and I will advise you retake a civics/government course and see who passes laws and budgets and who is the executive branch leader.

  Even if debt and spending were directly controlled by the Executive, the inconvenient truth is that since 1980, Republican presidents have served 20 years; Democrats about 10.5. So Republican administrations have been in the White House 2 times the amount of time that Democrats have, yet they have added to the national debt by only 1.5 times the amount that Democrats have. I'm not the sharpest math guy around, but I think that means that spending is a bit higher during a Democratic administration.
• Footwedge

  jmog;880836 wrote:Man I hate when idiots (on both sides of the aisle) attribute debt and spending to the President. Budgets are passed by CONGRESS, the President can only suggest and then approve/veto a budget he CAN NOT PASS A BUDGET.
  
  With that said, this graph says it all.
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg
  
  If the Ds control both the house and the senate the debt as a % of GDP goes up, if the Rs control both houses the debt as a % of GDP goes down. It really shoots up with the Ds control the Presidency too...imagine that.
  
  Please try to refute this and I will advise you retake a civics/government course and see who passes laws and budgets and who is the executive branch leader.

  I have refuted your argument on this subject too many times to count. It is you that is sorely lacking civics knowledge in who sets the annual budget....it ain't the Congress. Throughout the past 100 years or so, the Congress has never bucked a presidential budget. Back to your civic lesson....in order to overide the president's annual budget, Congress knows that it would take a veto overide to force the budget to change....something that has never been done...as it relates to the budget.
  
  Class dismissed.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;881260 wrote:it ain't the Congress.

  Then you contradict yourself with your following statement.
  

  Footwedge;881260 wrote:Throughout the past 100 years or so, the Congress has never bucked a presidential budget.

  Congress has been equally complicit in this boondoggle. Many of those congress's were controlled by the democrat party.
  

  Footwedge;881260 wrote:in order to override the president's annual budget, Congress knows that it would take a veto overide to force the budget to change....something that has never been done...as it relates to the budget.

  Which democrat controlled congress has forced a president to veto a budget congress thought was too liberal on spending? You answered this yourself. Name the democrat president that has broken out the veto pen to reign in congressional spending? Again you answered this as well.
  
  I am not here to defend the republicans. There is a reason I stopped giving my hard earned dollars to them many moons ago. But there is a faction within American politics that seeks to return our nation to what our founders intended. Limited central government as defined by the constitution. The rest to the states. There is no place for this ideology in the democrat party. Its anathema to them. So this faction resides mostly in the republican party. I am part of that faction. I seek to throw off the "republican establishment" that has put a black eye on the party. Its the same reason why your hero Ron Paul associates himself with the republican party.
• fish82

  

  Footwedge;881260 wrote:I have refuted your argument on this subject too many times to count. It is you that is sorely lacking civics knowledge in who sets the annual budget....it ain't the Congress. Throughout the past 100 years or so, the Congress has never bucked a presidential budget. Back to your civic lesson....in order to overide the president's annual budget, Congress knows that it would take a veto overide to force the budget to change....something that has never been done...as it relates to the budget.
  
  Class dismissed.

  Dude, it's difficult to put into words how badly you just face-planted with this post...by no means your best work.
• jmog

  Footwedge;881260 wrote:I have refuted your argument on this subject too many times to count. It is you that is sorely lacking civics knowledge in who sets the annual budget....it ain't the Congress. Throughout the past 100 years or so, the Congress has never bucked a presidential budget. Back to your civic lesson....in order to overide the president's annual budget, Congress knows that it would take a veto overide to force the budget to change....something that has never been done...as it relates to the budget.
  
  Class dismissed.

  You cant be serious. Presidents put together a proposal and congress either votes on it or makes their own proposal to vote on. After their vote obviously the President can veto but then congress can override with the super majority vote (2/3).
  
  So please take your bs back to a class and ask the teacher how a law or budget is passed. I know it has been so long since a democratic congress has actually passed a budget but that shouldn't mean you left wingers should forget how one is actually passed.
• believer

  

  majorspark;881284 wrote:TI am not here to defend the republicans. There is a reason I stopped giving my hard earned dollars to them many moons ago. But there is a faction within American politics that seeks to return our nation to what our founders intended. Limited central government as defined by the constitution. The rest to the states. There is no place for this ideology in the democrat party. Its anathema to them. So this faction resides mostly in the republican party. I am part of that faction. I seek to throw off the "republican establishment" that has put a black eye on the party. Its the same reason why your hero Ron Paul associates himself with the republican party.

  Well said. The Republican establishment has shown time and again that although it talks a good game about the virtues of conservative constitutionalism, in the end they always bow to the pressures of the MSM and behave like Democrats to keep the liberal monkey off their backs.
  
  I firmly believe we are in the midst of Civil War II.
  
  The first war was about states rights with a slavery attachment and was fought with guns and cannons. The second war - sparked by the results of the first war - is about the abuses of large centralized federal government with an economic sanity attachment and is being fought with high-speed communications technology.
  
  Civil War II may not be as bloody (thank God), but it is certainly as important as the first.
• gut

  believer;881434 wrote: I firmly believe we are in the midst of Civil War II.

  That's a bit extreme. The US is advancing toward more liberalism and progressiveness as is most of the free world, albeit a little slower because of deep-rooted core beliefs in capitalism and the self-made "American Dream". I think empathy and compasson are natural human traits, and as cultures/civilizations advance there's simply less tolerance for a "haves" and "have-nots" culture.
  
  Put another way, if there were unlimited resources and a way to tap that, everyone would have everything. So there's always going to be that natural push toward more equality. Unfortunately, these debates and, indeed, even our elected politicians tend to be driven by stupidity and extreme views.
  
  I'm increasingly of the view that rather than collect taxes and try to redistribute wealth, the tax code needs to be engineered in such a way as to incentivize wealth redistribution and eliminating the middle man (the govt, in this case). We really should look at much, much lower taxes on production and investment and instead tax wealth and consumption.
  
  With the massive size of governments and entitlement programs in the US and elsewhere, govt has become a culture of power and cronyism. Take away the huge checkbook and maybe you get more of the right people with a genuine passion for governing, as opposed to people seduced by the power. And that is arguably the biggest reason to favor more state/local govt over the feds. The federal govt just wields too much power and the systemic destruction of wealth should be motivation enough to tolerate inefficiencies and perhaps some inconsistencies with more power in the hands of state/local govts.
• believer

  

  gut;882060 wrote:With the massive size of governments and entitlement programs in the US and elsewhere, govt has become a culture of power and cronyism. Take away the huge checkbook and maybe you get more of the right people with a genuine passion for governing, as opposed to people seduced by the power. And that is arguably the biggest reason to favor more state/local govt over the feds. The federal govt just wields too much power and the systemic destruction of wealth should be motivation enough to tolerate inefficiencies and perhaps some inconsistencies with more power in the hands of state/local govts.

  Basically we agree but I'm still convinced we are in the midst of a bloodless cultural civil war. I don't think that's extreme. It's just the best way to describe the political ideological battle that's been raging for the past 30 years.
  
  Socialist politics coupled with Keynesian economics has reigned supreme for nearly a century. It's been a failure around the globe.
  
  Americans, as usual, have been slow to react to it (IE: The "Sleeping Giant" analogy) but we are indeed gradually waking-up to the insanity.
  
  While your opinion of how taxation should be conducted may have some validity, keep in mind that there always has and always will be have's and have not's.
  
  Like it or not the struggle to create and retain wealth brings out the best (and the worst) in the human condition. Entitlement mentality is a drain on resources and stifles creativity & productivity.
  
  While it may seem "civilized" to share the wealth, the fact is we all do not contribute equally to the cause.
• tk421

  

  I can't think of a more utterly boring society than one where everyone receives the same as everyone else, regardless of ability. What is the point of living in such a "shared wealth" society? If no matter how hard you try, you'll never get anymore than anyone else what's the point in trying at all?
• Footwedge

  tk421;882625 wrote:I can't think of a more utterly boring society than one where everyone receives the same as everyone else, regardless of ability. What is the point of living in such a "shared wealth" society? If no matter how hard you try, you'll never get anymore than anyone else what's the point in trying at all?

  Who's promoting that?
• Footwedge

  fish82;881331 wrote:Dude, it's difficult to put into words how badly you just face-planted with this post...by no means your best work.

  Really? Care to share my mistake? Do a little research on the subject. Congresses have not challenged a presidential budget forever and a day. What the president budgets...the president gets. There has NEVER been an overidden veto by a Congress.
• Footwedge

  majorspark;881284 wrote:Then you contradict yourself with your following statement.

  No I didn't
• Footwedge

  majorspark;881284 wrote:. Its the same reason why your hero Ron Paul associates himself with the republican party.

  Ron associates himself with the Republican Party because he is a staunch paleo-conservative.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  This Thursday is the most important day of his tenure. Not only is it the start of the NFL season which ensures a big audience, but with his approval rating at an all time low and Americans disgusted with the labor/debt situation he needs to make the speech of a lifetime. There needs to be more substance than just extending UE benefits and continuing FICA reductions. There needs to be a REAL plan.
• believer

  

  I feel for the Bammer. He's getting thinner and grayer. I'd rather he stay away from the teleprompter, head to the Spanish coast for a well-deserved vacation, and take the homies out for a few rounds of golf.
• fish82

  

  Footwedge;882785 wrote:Really? Care to share my mistake? Do a little research on the subject. Congresses have not challenged a presidential budget forever and a day. What the president budgets...the president gets. There has NEVER been an overidden veto by a Congress.

  Where to start?
  
  1. The president presents a budget request/framework to the W&M committee. It's by no means binding.
  
  2. You have it completely backwards. The fact is that it's been "forever and a day" since a presidential budget framework has emerged from the W&M committee in anything close to it's proposed form. I'm sure you recall Jim Wright declaring HW's budget "dead on arrival" circa 1992 or so? I think you'd admit that's been within the last 100 years.
  
  3. The congress then passes the final budget with a simple majority vote (Not the 2/3 you state) and it goes to the POTUS for signature. The only time 2/3 would come into play is if the POTUS vetoes the budget resolution. That rarely happens, if ever.
  
  I'm not sure what civics class you attended, but you should probably ask for a refund.
• Footwedge

  fish82;882838 wrote:Where to start?
  
  1. The president presents a budget request/framework to the W&M committee. It's by no means binding.
  
  2. You have it completely backwards. The fact is that it's been "forever and a day" since a presidential budget framework has emerged from the W&M committee in anything close to it's proposed form. I'm sure you recall Jim Wright declaring HW's budget "dead on arrival" circa 1992 or so? I think you'd admit that's been within the last 100 years.
  
  3. The congress then passes the final budget with a simple majority vote (Not the 2/3 you state) and it goes to the POTUS for signature. The only time 2/3 would come into play is if the POTUS vetoes the budget resolution. That rarely happens, if ever.
  
  I'm not sure what civics class you attended, but you should probably ask for a refund.

  Bold print....is all I've been saying.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;882806 wrote:This Thursday is the most important day of his tenure. Not only is it the start of the NFL season which ensures a big audience, but with his approval rating at an all time low and Americans disgusted with the labor/debt situation he needs to make the speech of a lifetime. There needs to be more substance than just extending UE benefits and continuing FICA reductions. There needs to be a REAL plan.

  He's been talking and talking and talking and talking about jobs and the economy since day 1 of his reign. "Laser focus" he said time after time. He promised an economic plan after his 2010 August vacation and we're still waiting for the details on that.
  
  I'm tired of the talking, the teleprompters, the class warfare, the speeches, the phony black bus tour in Iowa, yadda yadda. As Jim Demint stated: provide a detailed plan (something the CBO can score this time unlike his last "budget" speech) and lay out how it will provide private sector jobs/create growth. Until then, be quiet and go on vacation for about 14 more months as Believer suggests. The time for speeches and talking was over years ago, but here we are again waiting with baited breath to hear of his wisdom in creating jobs; something he's never ever done in his lifetime.
• jmog

  Footwedge;882887 wrote:Bold print....is all I've been saying.

  The part where you are COMPLETELY wrong is that quite a few times the President's request has been changed or completely altered by the W&M committee many times. Heck, look at Obama's las joke of a budget request, it was DOA, just like HW's in 1992.
  
  You are so wrong it is not even funny. Go back to high school and take a government class. Just because the Ds haven't passed a budget in years doesn't mean we should all forget the process of how it gets done.
• Footwedge

  jmog;882955 wrote:The part where you are COMPLETELY wrong is that quite a few times the President's request has been changed or completely altered by the W&M committee many times. Heck, look at Obama's las joke of a budget request, it was DOA, just like HW's in 1992.
  
  You are so wrong it is not even funny. Go back to high school and take a government class. Just because the Ds haven't passed a budget in years doesn't mean we should all forget the process of how it gets done.

  It has never been "completely altered". Clown. And again...for the last time...the president has the veto power over anything the Congress throws at him. Show me one lousy stinkin time when a president....any president has vetoed a budget. The reason for that is....the Congress keeps close to what the president, any president, has presented.
  
  Now you and the others will grab onto anything...and I mean anything in order to somehow absolve your beloved Republicans from being irresponsible fiscally. Some here have admitted that the GOP is as bad, if not worse than their Dem counterparts. The scoreboard does not lie.
  
  Do you want me to google and post the budgets submitted by party? Is that what you want? Careful in what you ask for.
  
  And coming from you...of all people...who made the absolute stunning and ludicrous claim....that Obama spent more in his short tenure than all of the other presidents combined. SMH!
• Footwedge

  One last frickin time.....from wikipedia...
  
  The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.
  After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
  
  
  For all you clowns out there....show me one time....just one time...whereby the president has had his veto overrridden by Congress...when it comes to a budget.
• jmog

  Footwedge;883014 wrote:It has never been "completely altered". Clown. And again...for the last time...the president has the veto power over anything the Congress throws at him. Show me one lousy stinkin time when a president....any president has vetoed a budget. The reason for that is....the Congress keeps close to what the president, any president, has presented.
  
  Now you and the others will grab onto anything...and I mean anything in order to somehow absolve your beloved Republicans from being irresponsible fiscally. Some here have admitted that the GOP is as bad, if not worse than their Dem counterparts. The scoreboard does not lie.
  
  Do you want me to google and post the budgets submitted by party? Is that what you want? Careful in what you ask for.
  
  And coming from you...of all people...who made the absolute stunning and ludicrous claim....that Obama spent more in his short tenure than all of the other presidents combined. SMH!

  You have now lost all credibility because I have NEVER said such a thing. I know exactly who on this board did say that but I let you search for their post while you go looking to quote me saying sucj a thing.
  
  If you cant find me saying it and quote me then go back to the drawing board with your bs.
  
  Fact: Establishment republicans are just as bad as dems when it comes to spending. They just do it in different areas.
  
  Fact: The congress controls the budget.
  
  Fact: Republican controlled congresses have done a better job at controlling the debt than democratic. The chart I posted earlier does not lie.
  
  Fact: Your spin doesn't change the facts.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;882904 wrote:The time for speeches and talking was over years ago, but here we are again waiting with baited breath to hear of his wisdom in creating jobs; something he's never ever done in his lifetime.

  Now, now....to be fair he did create jobs for these brilliant people:
  
  
• Bigdogg

  QuakerOats;877707 wrote:For those of us in the real world, trying to survive in business, dodge mountains of costly regulations, determine the future cost of massive new anti-business regulations involving EPA, NLRB, obamaKare, banking, and predict the costs of pending and ruinous tax increases, it is not a question of whether this regime is just radically liberal, it is becoming more about whether they are just socialists, or instead marxists or worse.
  
  The reality we have to deal with is not unique to our business; it is nationwide and I hear about it every day. No one is going to invest one dime more than they have to right now because they have no idea what their future costs are going to be, whether it is the cost of an employee, the cost of forced unionization, the cost of massive new regulations, the cost of bank 'reform', the cost of EPA insanity, or the cost 2013's massive tax increases. The economy is not moving and tens of millions are still out of work precisely because of these factors and the arrogant AND RADICAL tones emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.
  
  For anyone to even attempt to refute these facts is astounding.

  Oats,
  My healthcare costs have increased an average of 10% a year with decreasing benefits and higher deductibles. This is not sustainable and SOMETHING HAD to be done. Wall-Mart is the largest employer in the world and most of their employees are on Medicaid.