Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 05:24:22 AM
-
I caught sme of the crap on the radio and on the tv towards the end.
Sad, Pathetic, Embarrassing, Disconnected from Reality, a Hoax, Disjointed, Delusional, and one of the worst of my lifetime.
My folks called me up and said the same thing "more empty words with no meaning."
I did like the parties sitting with each other since we did not have the jumping up and down crap.
Even Team KP on Morning Schmoe realized it was a disjointed joke.
I really have a hard time believing any grown adult bought in to any of that bullshit. But then again - 52.3% of our fellow morons voted for this, so I guess nothing surprises any more.
As far as his "Sputnik Moment" - how about producing his long form BC for fucks sake? :P :P
-
Obama gives a speech we can’t take seriously
5:00 am January 26, 2011, by Kyle Wingfield
How do you take seriously a speech in which the president says we will spend more money on educating students, rebuilding our infrastructure and funding research for innovation in alternative energy sources — all while saying we’re not going to spend more money?
How do you take seriously a speech in which the only budgetary dollar figure the president gives is a made-up one — a reduction in spending (even as spending is frozen, remember) as compared only to hypothetical future budgets?
How do you take seriously a speech in which the president claims the mantle of fiscal restraint — while essentially bidding to make permanent the supposedly temporary, stimulus-inflated levels of spending we’ve seen the last two years?
How do you take seriously a speech in which the president says he will work more closely with Republicans — by making the same offers he has made, but not acted on, in previous speeches? (Examples: “If you have ideas about how to improve [the health-reform] law…I am eager to work with you,” and, “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits” [my emphasis, because he's admitting he didn't act on it when they proposed it before].)
How do you take seriously a speech in which the president acknowledges that his own fiscal-reform commission said “the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it” — and then essentially rules out cutting spending in entitlements?
Given all this, how do you take seriously those parts of the speech that did offer pleasant surprises — his calls to flatten and lower corporate income-tax rates, to simplify individual income taxes (note that he didn’t offer to simplify and then lower rates), to merge and consolidate duplicative federal agencies, and to veto any bill with earmarks?
Seriously — how?
The next two years are going to be even harder than I thought.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
-
in two years I'm hoping to hear Pres. Bachmann give her speech.
-
in two years I'm hoping to hear Pres. Bachmann give her speech.
Her rebuttable in 6 minutes was infinitely better than the Hoax & Change Obama gave.
I almost felt embarrassed for him it was so awful.
-
Her rebuttable in 6 minutes was infinitely better than the Hoax & Change Obama gave.
I almost felt embarrassed for him it was so awful.
[/youtube]
Way better indeed...
-
Et Tu, Andrea? Even Mitchell Mocks SOTU
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein
How can a Dem president tell that his SOTU was a for-real floperewski? When even Andrea Mitchell pans it. Yet that's precisely what NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent did on Morning Joe today.
What was particularly unkind about Andrea's cut was that she criticized both the form and the substance of the speech. After observing that Pres. Obama's oratory lacked "energy" and "passion," Mitchell opined that "it doesn't add up. The dollars and cents don't add up." Ouch.
Before Andrea's assessment, the rest of the panel, with the notable exception of Howard Dean who managed to defend the speech, took turns lampooning it, with Joe Scarborough contributing a particularly scathing basketball analogy.
View video after the jump.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
-
Et Tu, Andrea? Even Mitchell Mocks SOTU
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein
How can a Dem president tell that his SOTU was a for-real floperewski? When even Andrea Mitchell pans it. Yet that's precisely what NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent did on Morning Joe today.
What was particularly unkind about Andrea's cut was that she criticized both the form and the substance of the speech. After observing that Pres. Obama's oratory lacked "energy" and "passion," Mitchell opined that "it doesn't add up. The dollars and cents don't add up." Ouch.
Before Andrea's assessment, the rest of the panel, with the notable exception of Howard Dean who managed to defend the speech, took turns lampooning it, with Joe Scarborough contributing a particularly scathing basketball analogy.
View video after the jump.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Racist post reported.
-
Seems like I cant get out of my own way lately with that. ;D ;D
-
.FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger
FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending
.
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, On Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.
It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.
OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.
OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.
THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.
Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook
-
Im shocked ::)
get a fuckin life
-
Im shocked ::)
get a fuckin life
Ha ha - did you actually like that hodge podge of contradictions and cliche?
-
Frank Luntz's focus group, on Hannity, in Atlanta TORE THIS SPEECH to shreds. "Empty rhetoric", "no substance", "He said the same thing two years ago", etc.
When Luntz asked how many people, who voted for Obama, plan to vote for him again (no matter who the GOP fields as a challenger), only TWO people put their hands up. The rest either will wait to see who's left standing in the GOP or won't vote for him at all.
-
Frank Luntz's focus group, on Hannity, in Atlanta TORE THIS SPEECH to shreds. "Empty rhetoric", "no substance", "He said the same thing two years ago", etc.
When Luntz asked how many people, who voted for Obama, plan to vote for him again (no matter who the GOP fields as a challenger), only TWO people put their hands up. The rest either will wait to see who's left standing in the GOP or won't vote for him at all.
He might be right but using him as an example?
You do know that is what he is paid to say right? Othervise he would'nt be on Hannity
-
I have been watching these things for years, same crap over and over and over.
Just once - just freaking once, want someone to get up there, give a very good 10-15 straight up speech and leave. No promises of rainbows, ponys, and grand schemes, just plain cold truth and leave.
-
He might be right but using him as an example?
You do know that is what he is paid to say right? Othervise he would'nt be on Hannity
The focus group consisted of 29 people from Atlanta. I like when Luntz does these. The debate can get heated and the folks take the gloves off, turn off the PC stuff, and talk turkey.
One common theme I've seen is a lot of disgruntled folks who voted for Obama.
-
The State Of Confusion Address: The Bad, The Ugly, The WTF
www.absolutelynobama.com ^ | January 26, 2010 | Alan Levy
________________________ ________________________ _______________
Is it me or is the game passing Chairman Obama by ?
The 2011 State of Confusion Address proved one thing: Our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama is a shadow of his former self. We did not see the fiery, charismatic demogogue of the 2008 Popularity Contest. Last night, we saw a shell shocked man who knows the gig is up. It was almost sad to watch.
Obama looked like as if he were barefoot and standing on shards of broken glass. It was almost as if you could feel his discomfort. I don't know if Obama's still smarting from the "shellacking" he and the Democrat party took in the Midterm Massacre. I don't know if he appreciates being forced to pretend he's a centrist instead of the wild-eyed radical we saw on the campaign trail a mere three years ago. I can't read minds, but I know what I heard: a flat speech that wasn't going to inspire anyone to do anything but vote against Obama and the Democrat party in the 2012 elections. This, Dear Reader, is the "bad" part of the State of Confusion Address. It was bad indeed.
The "ugly" part of the evening came from the fact that Chairman Obama decided that the whole "civility" thing applied to those evil Conservatives only and decided it was time for some more class warfare and socialist rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133224933/transcript-obamas-state-of-union-address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Dear Leader, that's not promoting "America's success", that's promoting social justice, which at last check, is at very best socialism and at very worst communism. What is being suggested here is that wealth should be redistributed, and for the life of me, I can't name one American success story that ever began with the redistribution of wealth. "Civility" ? Into the nearest Memory Hole! It's time for the ugliness of class warfare, yet again.
The WTF moment of the State of Confusion Address was this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We'll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We'll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what's best for the economy, not politicians."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133224933/transcript-obamas-state-of-union-address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, paint me a shade of skeptical, but wasn't this what the Stimulus scam was for ? Didn't we just spend 786 billion dollars on the "crumbling infrastructure" ? Why, I seem to remember a certain inexperienced socialist saying this back in '09:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Already, more than 10,000 of these [infrastructure] projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead. "
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point you have to wonder: Does Chairman Obama even remember what he says anymore ? Do his sycophants? Do they even care anymore ? A true WTF statement for the ages indeed.
For the last two-plus years, I've been telling myself "Relax, it's going to get better."
Well, the Bad, The Ugly, and the WTF of last night's State of Confusion Address has proven that I've been lying to myself.
God help us all.
-
had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing. Terrible woman.
-
had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing. Terrible woman.
::) ::)
Oh yeah, because until MadoffCare, n one ever got treated and everyone was dying in the streets.
MadoffCare is far worse than doing nothing since itwill bankrupt the states and existing socialist welfare programs already on the brik of collapse.
www.usdebtclock.com
-
::) ::)
Oh yeah, because until MadoffCare, n one ever got treated and everyone was dying in the streets.
MadoffCare is far worse than doing nothing since itwill bankrupt the states and existing socialist welfare programs already on the brik of collapse.
www.usdebtclock.com
Never said the current plan was the best one. But for damn sure it's better than what we had. Health care for all is more important than dollars or debts.
-
Never said the current plan was the best one. But for damn sure it's better than what we had. Health care for all is more important than dollars or debts.
How old are you? Serious.
-
How old are you? Serious.
Old enough to care about the welfare of my fellow Americans. It seems you're still in the toddler selfish phase. Maybe one day you will grow up, but i'm betting not.
-
Old enough to care about the welfare of my fellow Americans. It seems you're still in the toddler selfish phase. Maybe one day you will grow up, but i'm betting not.
So why not food and water for all? How about homes for all?
Who is going to pay for that?
Oh yeah, lets model ourselves after Cuba - worked out great for them. ::) ::)
-
So why not food and water for all? How about homes for all?
Who is going to pay for that?
Oh yeah, lets model ourselves after Cuba - worked out great for them. ::) ::)
You just don't get it and never will.
-
had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing. Terrible woman.
The Republican Plan is not to do nothing. FOr the last time, offer a tax break/credit for those who purchase individual insurance. Tax employer provided plans. Put a cap on malpractice awards. Declare Health Insurance to be Interstate Commerce so that insurance companies can compete freely in other states. Get rid of needless mandates and coverage requirements, so that people have the choice to buy only catostrophic insurance. Reform medicare and medicaid so that people are given an annual health tax credit instead of a blank check on whatever procedure they get. The thing is that most of these problems are occuring on the state levels.
But, politically the burden shouldnt be on the Republicans to have a backup plan. First DO NO HARM. They were proven right about Obamacare. The burden should be on Democrats to defend this monstrosity that they own, and they arent doing a very good job of it.
-
You just don't get it and never will.
::) ::)
All of your bogus cmmunist ideas have been tried and failed everywhere they have ever been tried.
-
Never said the current plan was the best one. But for damn sure it's better than what we had. Health care for all is more important than dollars or debts.
You cannot be serious. There is no WAY the current plan is better than what we had.
-
You cannot be serious. There is no WAY the current plan is better than what we had.
People like to look at two or three little good things in the bill they like yet ignore the 2,000,000 terrible things in MadoffCare that should result in immediate repeal.
-
Obama Spending-Freeze Pledge Criticized as 'Deficit Preservation'
Fox News ^ | January 26, 2011
________________________ __________
President Obama's pledge to freeze some federal spending for five years was met with yawns Wednesday from a slew of fiscally minded Republicans who say that if the president is serious about tackling the national debt, he'll have to do a lot better than that.
Congressional Republicans want to see deep cuts in the budget, as demonstrated by a GOP proposal last week to slash $2.5 trillion over the next decade and a proposal Tuesday from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut $500 billion in one year.
Their calls to dismantle entire agencies and departments might not get much bipartisan support. But by comparison, the president's call to freeze domestic spending for five years, yielding a projected savings of $400 billion over a decade, looked too tame to many lawmakers.
"We're continuing to spend at a deficit level, so if we do that for the next five years, we'll continue to add to our debt," Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., told Fox News. "The reality of his speech last night is very difficult to imagine."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Great response from Rand Paul
http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2011/01/sen-rand-paul-state-of-the-union-response
-
Good summary.
From the Most Surprising to the Most Ridiculous Moment -- A Review of Obama's State of the Union Speech
By Kevin McCullough
Published January 25, 2011
FoxNews.com
Compared to his State of the Union speech a year ago, President Obama seemed almost humble, polite, somewhat bipartisan and he in stealth fashion switched some of his positions nearly 180 degrees. He should also be congratulated on not insulting the visiting members of the Supreme Court. But that's a pretty low bar all the way around when you consider it. And honestly, what else could he do?
What you saw was a presidential mea culpa, at least as strong of one as you will get from the current administration, and that wasn't all bad.
His best moment came early on: "What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow."
The devil will be in the details on most of what the president had to say tonight, but there is no denying the need for Americans to work together. What many may feel however is that we will need to work against the inclination to spend more
His most hypocritical: "Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today."
These were tax cuts he opposed up until the very final moment when it became clear he had no real choice but to pass, largely because of an informed electorate. But the truth was he had desired to eliminate those cuts since his days on the campaign trail.
His most sincere: "The world has changed."
As was evidenced in large measure by the weakened tone and voice of the chief executive.
His most patriotic: "What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny."
President Obama has struggled in past speeches with the ability to pronounce overtly patriotic rhetoric, but this line, one of the best of the speech genuinely summarizes the goals of the founders and would have resonated with the likes of past Presidents Reagan, Kennedy. Even Bush.
His most honest: "We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government."
At least he's now on the record. He realizes the deficit is voters' number one anxiety and he will bear great responsibility if he fails to act.
His most ridiculous: "This is our generation’s Sputnik moment."
This analogy was bad from the start. "Sputnik" was the failed first effort of the Soviets. Americans should not, and will not want a 'Sputnik moment'."
His most tired: "We’ll invest in... especially clean energy technology"
Will he relaunch a cap-and-trade pursuit? It appears as though these types of ideas were roundly defeated in November.
His most lame: "I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re (the oil companies) doing just fine on their own."
Bleh... this and his other "funny" moment later in the speech came off terribly weak.
His most surprising: "Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen."
This position isn't terribly different from former President George W. Bush's. The shift for Obama was to publicly support nuclear and coal.
His most pro-business: "Use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit."
To be honest this is the most aggressive posture President Obama has had towards small businesses in all of his public life. This type of mindset actually WILL help this stagnant economy.
His most dishonest: "We passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients."
His most honest: "We have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable."
His cheesiest: "Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact."
His least costly bone thrown to Republicans: "I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
His first promise he will likely break: "If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
In reality, unemployment continues to hover around 10%, and in the plans laid out in tonight's address nothing strongly addressed this issue. Reducing the burden of the new health care bill on new businesses, and reducing the impact of regulation on small businesses are two items that the president was allowed to escape scrutiny of tonight, but there is no doubt that they must be addressed.
We can do big things Mr. President. But for right now, because of the excesses of your first two years, and because of the refusal by the old Congresses to keep themselves in check...
For now...
At this time...
It is more important, to do the hard things!
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 265 stations. His newest hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" hits streets March 2011.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/25/surprising-ridiculous-moment-review-obamas-state-union-speech/
-
;D
-
Frank Luntz's focus group, on Hannity, in Atlanta TORE THIS SPEECH to shreds. "Empty rhetoric", "no substance", "He said the same thing two years ago", etc.
When Luntz asked how many people, who voted for Obama, plan to vote for him again (no matter who the GOP fields as a challenger), only TWO people put their hands up. The rest either will wait to see who's left standing in the GOP or won't vote for him at all.
hannity,somebody amits to watching him :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Blacken - did you have a wet dream last night?
-
why don't you just post when you wake up every morning i hate obama, that will save you 15 hours of computer time a day ;D
-
why don't you just post when you wake up every morning i hate obama, that will save you 15 hours of computer time a day ;D
Ha ha ha.
I Hate obama
I hate Obama
I Hate Obama
Actually, I have a friend on facebook whose name is "I hate waking up in the morning with obama as POTUS"
-
their you go, you feel beter now ;D
-
their you go, you feel beter now ;D
Not yet, when he comes out and admits he forged the COLB, was born in Kenya in the hut, and hands in the resignation letter, I will be happy.
-
Not yet, when he comes out and admits he forged the COLB, was born in Kenya in the hut, and hands in the resignation letter, I will be happy.
Racist post reported. Kenyans are the gatekeepers of the most advanced civilization in history. When primative white europeans were living in caves, the Kenyans built skyscrapers, backscratchers and the worlds first fully functional 24 hour Kentucky Fried Chicken. There are no "huts" in Kenya and there never were.
-
Racist post reported. Kenyans are the gatekeepers of the most advanced civilization in history. When primative white europeans were living in caves, the Kenyans built skyscrapers, backscratchers and the worlds first fully functional 24 hour Kentucky Fried Chicken. There are no "huts" in Kenya and there never were.
The funny part of this post is that Samson actually argues that. :-X
-
I caught sme of the crap on the radio and on the tv towards the end.
Sad, Pathetic, Embarrassing, Disconnected from Reality, a Hoax, Disjointed, Delusional, and one of the worst of my lifetime.
My folks called me up and said the same thing "more empty words with no meaning."
I did like the parties sitting with each other since we did not have the jumping up and down crap.
Even Team KP on Morning Schmoe realized it was a disjointed joke.
I really have a hard time believing any grown adult bought in to any of that bullshit. But then again - 52.3% of our fellow morons voted for this, so I guess nothing surprises any more.
As far as his "Sputnik Moment" - how about producing his long form BC for fucks sake? :P :P
;D
(http://www.bite.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/crying_baby.jpg)
;)
Polls: Public reaction to the State of the Union mostly positive
By Peyton Craighill
Two polls measured immediate reactions to President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found 84 percent of speech-watchers reacted positively to his message, 52 percent very positively. A CBS News poll found 91 percent of watchers approve of the proposals the president made.
These overwhelmingly positive reactions must be understood in the context of those who watched the speech. The CNN sample of speech-watchers was composed of 39 percent Democrats, 19 percent Republicans and 42 percent independents. The CBS poll had a similar profile; 44 percent Democrats, 25 percent Republicans and the 31 percent independents. Among all Americans in the last CBS/New York Times poll, 34 percent identified as Democrats, 27 percent Republican and 39 percent independent.
It's very common for speech watchers to lean toward the party of the president, a built in audience more favorably disposed to hear what he has to say. Mark Blumenthal summarizes the trend in partisan composition of speech-watchers from CNN and CBS here.
The lead theme of the night - a new effort toward bipartisanship - was reflected in the polls. CBS found 62 percent believe Democrats and Republicans will work together more this year. And CNN found 89 percent saying the decision of some Republicans and Democrats to sit together as a good idea. Another 61 percent believe that Obama's plans will succeed in increasing cooperation between the parties.
The main policy components of the speech were well received and results overall are uniformly positive for Obama. More than eight in 10 in the CBS poll approve of Obama's plans for dealing with the economy, the deficit and Afghanistan. Three-quarters of respondents are bullish that Obama's plans will create jobs and make the economy more globally competitive. There is less confidence that he will reduce government spending however, at just 56 percent.
In the CNN poll, 68 percent said they think Obama's plan will succeed in improving the economy and 61 percent said it will create or save millions of jobs. As in the CBS poll, there is slightly lower confidence he will succeed in reducing the deficit at 57 percent.
CNN also found 77 percent thinking Obama's policies will move the country in the right direction and 71 percent rated Obama's speech as just about right ideologically, with 23 percent calling it too liberal and 5 percent not liberal enough.
In order to turn around a poll of this nature quickly enough, each was designed as a re-interview of respondents who were initially interviewed earlier in January. The pre- and post-interview design allows for comparisons of answers before and after the speech. On all available measures, Obama got big bumps after the speech.
By Peyton Craighill | January 26, 2011
-
::) ::)
All of your bogus cmmunist ideas have been tried and failed everywhere they have ever been tried.
So if you wish health care for your fellow americans your a communist?
I guess Jesus and god are communists too then?
From an economic wievpoint free health care might not be a good idea but from a christian/humanitarian wiev it makes a lot of sence.
-
How many times do we need to destroy that bogus argument?
-
January 27, 2011
Obama's Empty Evasion
By Robert Samuelson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/27/obamas_empty_evasion.html
WASHINGTON -- It was a teachable moment -- and Barack Obama didn't teach. Unless public opinion changes, we won't end our budget deadlock. As is well-known, Americans want budget deficits curbed. In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 54 percent urge Congress and the president to "act quickly" and 57 percent prefer spending cuts to tax increases. But there's little support for cuts in Social Security (64 percent opposed), Medicare (56 percent) and Medicaid (47 percent), approaching half of federal spending. The State of the Union gave Obama the opportunity to confront the contradictions and educate Americans in the unpleasant realities of uncontrolled government. He declined.
What we got were empty platitudes. We won't be "buried under a mountain of debt," Obama declared. Heck, we're already buried. We will "win the future." Not by deluding ourselves, we won't. Americans think deficits are someone else's problem that can be cured by taxing the rich (say liberals) or ending wasteful spending (conservatives). Obama indulged these fantasies.
If deficits stemmed mainly from the recession, this wouldn't matter. They would shrink as the economy recovered; tax collections would rise and spending (on unemployment insurance, food stamps) would fall. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. In fiscal 2010, the deficit -- the gap between government spending and revenues -- was $1.3 trillion. Of that, about $725 billion was a "structural" deficit, says Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. That is, it would exist even if the economy were at full employment (5.75 percent by Zandi's estimate).
Even this arithmetic may be misleading. Falling interest rates -- reflecting the recession and Federal Reserve policy -- have lowered the government's interest payments despite ballooning debt. In 2010, federal interest costs were $197 billion, down from $253 billion in 2008. But as the economy strengthens, interest rates will rise, offsetting some of the recovery's beneficial effect on the deficit. By 2020, annual interest payments could approach $800 billion, projects the Congressional Budget Office.
We cannot have a useful debate on the role of government -- what it should do, for whom and at whose expense -- if Americans are highly misinformed. Obama should have dispelled some common budgetary myths. Consider three:
Myth: The problem is the deficit. The real issue isn't the deficit. It's the exploding spending on the elderly -- for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- which automatically expands the size of government. If we ended deficits with tax increases, we would simply exchange one problem (high deficits) for another (high taxes). Either would weaken the economy; and sharply higher taxes would represent an undesirable transfer to retirees from younger taxpayers.
Myth: Eliminating wasteful or ineffective programs will close deficits. The Republican Study Committee -- 176 House members -- recently proposed $2.5 trillion of cuts over a decade in non-defense, non-elderly programs. This plan would kill dozens of specific programs. Now, many of these programs should go; they're either unneeded or ineffective. Consider one candidate for elimination, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In an information-drenched society, it's hard to justify government subsidies for TV and radio.
But this budget category covers only a sixth of federal spending, and squeezing it harshly would penalize many vital government functions (research, transportation, the FBI). The Republicans' cuts are huge, about 35 percent. Even so, they would reduce projected deficits by at most a third. Over the next decade, those deficits could easily total between $7 trillion and $10 trillion.
Myth: The elderly have "earned" their Social Security and Medicare by their lifelong payroll taxes, which were put aside for their retirement. Not so. Both programs are pay-as-you-go. Today's taxes pay today's benefits; little is "saved." Even if all were saved, most retirees receive benefits that far exceed their payroll taxes. Consider a man who turned 65 in 2010 and earned an average wage ($43,100). Over his expected lifetime, he will receive an inflation-adjusted $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare benefits compared to taxes paid of $345,000, estimates an Urban Institute study.
It's a cliche, but true: There are no easy -- or popular -- solutions. Controlling the budget requires some combination of (a) reducing benefits for the elderly; (b) downsizing other programs, including defense; and (c) raising taxes. Not only did Obama avoid choices. He failed to frame the debate in a way that clarified what the choices are. So public opinion remains muddled, and politicians -- sensitive to public opinion -- remain stalemated.
Obama's expedient evasion is the opposite of presidential leadership. It maximizes short-term approval ratings while running long-term risks. A loss of investor confidence could trigger a chaotic flight from Treasury bonds and the dollar. One economist recently wrote in The Financial Times: "I hope it does not ultimately require a crisis to restore fiscal (balance), but I fear it will." That was Peter Orszag, Obama's first budget chief. Sobering.
Copyright 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
-
How many times do we need to destroy that bogus argument?
Is not about having the right argument
You are looking at the issue from 2 different sides
You are looking at it from a objective view including the economics, long term sustainability etc..
He is looking at it from the view point that we humans need to help each other and that the economy and so on comes second.
You cant argue right or wrong on this because it depends on your priorities
-
Is not about having the right argument
You are looking at the issue from 2 different sides
You are looking at it from a objective view including the economics, long term sustainability etc..
He is looking at it from the view point that we humans need to help each other and that the economy and so on comes second.
You cant argue right or wrong on this because it depends on your priorities
you=rock
-
you=rock
You= retarded
Him= fertilizer
-
You= retarded
Him= fertilizer
You= Get a job and move out of your moms basement
-
You= Get a job and move out of your moms basement
::) What a weak response.
-
You= retarded
Him= fertilizer
Because i dont agree with you? Nice
-
Because i dont agree with you? Nice
No. Because your encouraging stupidity. Disagreeing with me is fine. Patting the biggest loser/ moron on the back for emphasizing his lack of intelligence is not cool. We should be looking to help the less fortunate, not contribute to their celebration of ignorance.
-
No. Because your encouraging stupidity. Disagreeing with me is fine. Patting the biggest loser/ moron on the back for emphasizing his lack of intelligence is not cool. We should be looking to help the less fortunate, not contribute to their celebration of ignorance.
Thank god we have you George to tell us simple minded people how the world is put together ::)
-
No. Because your encouraging stupidity. Disagreeing with me is fine. Patting the biggest loser/ moron on the back for emphasizing his lack of intelligence is not cool. We should be looking to help the less fortunate, not contribute to their celebration of ignorance.
But his point is looking at 1 problem from 2 different vantage points.
Healthcare. I think it should be universal, because I hate to see people go sick for lack of funds.
Healthcare. Some think mainly in the contex of costs and go with the "every man for himself" route.
Why is that dumb.. maybe its different from what you think, but fuck, its just another way to look at it. Nothin to do with lack of ignorance
-
A lack of ignorance is commensurate with intelligence. There is nothing intelligent about "Whork 25".
-
A lack of ignorance is commensurate with intelligence. There is nothing intelligent about "Whork 25".
Would you agree with his assessment of the Healthcare issue as it pertains to the economy
-
But his point is looking at 1 problem from 2 different vantage points.
Healthcare. I think it should be universal, because I hate to see people go sick for lack of funds.
Healthcare. Some think mainly in the contex of costs and go with the "every man for himself" route.
Why is that dumb.. maybe its different from what you think, but fuck, its just another way to look at it. Nothin to do with lack of ignorance
Because under that crap theory and way of thinking, not only does the society become bankrupt and collapses financially, but it becomes unable to deliver or afford youraunted universal healthcare either. So you kill off both the economy and the ability to deliver heath care all in one scoop due to emotionally based economics which always has the same miserable outcome.
-
Would you agree with his assessment of the Healthcare issue as it pertains to the economy
No I don't. Everyone in this country has access to health care- including illegals. As far as actual health insurance goes we have medicare, for those with pre-existing conditions we have high risk pools and other safety nets. For everyone else, you can choose to buy insurance or not choose to buy insurance, its a personal decision that should involve as little government intervention as possible. Insurance is a business. Fire insurance, homeowner insurance, car insurance, etc.-- all carry some inherent risk. If you don't buy insurance and your business burns down, your screwed. If you buy insurance and your business never burns down, then you feel as if you wasted money. By that same token, either you will buy health insurance and not need it, or you won't buy the insurance and get sick. Nobody buys insurance when they need it-- that completely defeats the purpose. Its common sense. Now if the government was so concerned with covering those with pre-exisiting conditions, why not enact a program that ONLY covers pre-exisiting conditions and have it funded with some of the trillions wasted by this administration during the past two years?
Bankrupting the country and allowing the government to takeover 1/6th of the private sector because of 20 million uninsured people is a complete joke. The other 200+ million of us that like our health insurance coverage shouldn't be forced to suffer and future generations shouldn't be forced to carry the burden.
-
Alvin Felzenberg
Obama's State of the Union Was Tantamount to Plagiarism
By Alvin Felzenberg
Posted: January 26, 2011
________________________ ________________-
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obama’s second State of the Union address contained enough recycled ideas and lines lifted from speeches of others to make historians wince. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.
Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the president’s best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. After quoting Robert Kennedy early on, Obama tried to have his listeners believe that everything else he said that we might remember were his or his writers’ creations. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obama’s listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed “the rest of the story.” [Take the poll: Was Obama’s State of the Union speech a success?]
Early in his address, Obama said that he wanted the nation he leads to be a "light to the world." The last president who set such a mission for the nation he led, and in those exact words, was Woodrow Wilson.
Obama’s concept of the “American family” may well have had its origins in the first State of the State address New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered in 1983. Cuomo proclaimed the state of New York as a “family.” He also talked about multiple partnerships, both public and private.
In an address to the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s, Margaret Thatcher delivered what might go down as the most memorable line in Obama’s second State of the Union address. The British Prime Minister told her American audience that the United States was the “first nation to have been founded on an idea.” It took the president a few additional words to get this idea across.
Obama’s pointed mutterings about a second “Sputnik Moment” being upon us and his recollection of how American policymakers responded to the last one with increased expenditures on infrastructure, science, technology, and education were clearly intended to evoke the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His setting of specific deadlines and goals was vintage JFK, but for the absence of any sense of challenge to his audience, list of benefits the United States would derive from them, or any semblance of a shared adventure the American people were about to embark upon. [Read Robert Schlesinger: Obama Not the First to Use 'Sputnik Moment.']
There was a certain Back to the Future feel to the masterful tributes Obama paid those Ronald Reagan might have described as “ordinary heroes.” After all, it was Reagan who began the practice of inviting citizens who had done extraordinary things to sit beside the first lady in the House gallery as the president recited their achievements. It was also Reagan who reminded his listeners that the greatness of America emerged not from the hand of government, but through the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]
Obama received his most sustained applause when he said, "I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." Leaving aside the faulty grammar (people change places with people, not with nations), the poaching from John F. Kennedy's immortal inaugural address was obvious enough for the most historical of Obama's listeners to notice. ("I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.") That Obama could utter almost identical words days after paying tribute to Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of the delivery of that famous speech and not making reference to it suggests a self-absorption rare even among presidents. [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]
Most pointedly, the low point of Obama’s speech came when he brought back government re-organization from the ash heap of failed efforts of previous presidents who sought to save money without inflicting pain on a public that had grown accustomed to government largesse. This one, like all that talk about all those green energy jobs that lay before us, had fallen out of the presidential repertoire with retirement of Jimmy Carter. Obama might have had the decency to have Carter on hand to witness the moment. He will have another chance should he, when he delivers his budget, bring back that other Carter flop from yesteryear, “zero based budgeting.” [See a slide show of 10 worst presidents.]
Even Obama’s feigned attempt at humor had an antecedent in the remarks of a predecessor who spun better yarns than this president. Obama informed his listeners that salmon comes under the jurisdiction of one department when swimming in fresh water and under another when swimming in salt water. He rhetorically inquired what happened to the fish when “smoked.”
Somewhere in the White House library resides a published letter Franklin Roosevelt wrote to an adviser in which he complained that some bears were the property of the Interior Department, while others belonged the National Parks System. FDR, tongue in cheek, warned of a pending custody battle over cubs that emerged from illicit unions of bears crossing departmental jurisdictions. [Read A Brief History of the State of the Union Address.]
It would appear that the only president of note whose imprint was absent in Obama’s long awaited and much-anticipated speech was Obama. This was supposed to have been the moment when the nation found out whether he was at the core a Rooseveltian liberal of a Clintonian centrist. What it got was a cut and pasted version of great and not-so-great State of the Union and other addresses of the past.
Sometime last year, many suggested that Obama would have an easier time getting his message across if he was less dependent on his teleprompter. This may be the year his writers are advised to throw away their books of political quotations. Then we may finally find out what the president truly believes and what he hopes to achieve in the office he so ardently sought.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/alvin-felzenberg/2011/01/26/obamas-state-of-the-union-was-tantamount-to-plagiarism
________________________ ________________________ _
GAME
SET
MATCH
-
GAME
SET
MATCH
a 15-point drop on gallup would be game, set, match.
IMO, a columnist owning Obama doesn't really do much if he wins in 2012.
-
a 15-point drop on gallup would be game, set, match.
IMO, a columnist owning Obama doesn't really do much if he wins in 2012.
2012 will come down to a few things
Gas prices, UE, and another financial crisis or foreign policy WTF.
Granted to me every policy of Obama is a WTF, but the average moron voter will look at UE, Gas prices, or some other stupid shit before decidng who to vote for.
Look for me, I would vote for Babar the baby elephant before Obama, bt I know the average soccer mom or dope does notfollow things like I do.
So we will see, a lot can happen.
-
Look for me, I would vote for Babar the baby elephant before Obama
Actually, Babar the Elephant was born in a forest in France.
He's not eligible to be President of the USA.
-
Because under that crap theory and way of thinking, not only does the society become bankrupt and collapses financially, but it becomes unable to deliver or afford youraunted universal healthcare either. So you kill off both the economy and the ability to deliver heath care all in one scoop due to emotionally based economics which always has the same miserable outcome.
I see this too complicated for you to grasp.
-
Actually, Babar the Elephant was born in a forest in France.
He's not eligible to be President of the USA.
Why not? We have a foreign born POTUS now who can't prove he is a NBC.
-
I see this too complicated for you to grasp.
Oh really? Please enlighten me. We are already broke beyond repair and facing a currency and debt cllapse and youthink somehow the answer our problems is spending trillions more? Ha ha ha - show me any nation who was n such debt that came back to prosperity by burning more treasure and fortune on the non-producers of society?
I'll wait for he example since in te literally hundreds on histry books I have read, covering periods of ancient greece until now, it has never been done.
www.usdebtclock.com
-
Oh really? Please enlighten me. We are already broke beyond repair and facing a currency and debt cllapse and youthink somehow the answer our problems is spending trillions more? Ha ha ha - show me any nation who was n such debt that came back to prosperity by burning more treasure and fortune on the non-producers of society?
I'll wait for he example since in te literally hundreds on histry books I have read, covering periods of ancient greece until now, it has never been done.
www.usdebtclock.com
Im not about to go around and around with you because we are going around 2 different circles. This is a loaded issue that should have been prioritized differently. I think the budget for many things should be looked at. But I cant have this convo with you.
-
Im not about to go around and around with you because we are going around 2 different circles. This is a loaded issue that should have been prioritized differently. I think the budget for many things should be looked at. But I cant have this convo with you.
We already spend 1/6 of our econmy on health care, if that is not enough - how much should it be?
BTW - I'll wait for you to provide me an example of a nation already in massive hock who got out of it by spending a shit load more on people who dn't produce anything and are already an albatross on the system.
-
We already spend 1/6 of our econmy on health care, if that is not enough - how much should it be?
BTW - I'll wait for you to provide me an example of a nation already in massive hock who got out of it by spending a shit load more on people who dn't produce anything and are already an albatross on the system.
I think defense and war on drugs/defense/welfare shoud be hacked by a lot..
-
I think defense and war on drugs/defense/welfare shoud be hacked by a lot..
Fine, I agree with you, but I am not in favor of substituting one form of welfare for another.
-
Not to point out the obvious, but we spend more on entitlements such as social security and medicare than on national defense. Not sure if anyone was aware of that.
-
Not to point out the obvious, but we spend more on entitlements such as social security and medicare than on national defense. Not sure if anyone was aware of that.
Exactly - the entitlements are a far bigger problem than defense. The military can cut, no doubt, but as long medical inflation keeps soaring upward, I don't know how the entitlements won't keep soaring up too.
-
A Presidency to Nowhere
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Jan 27, 2011 | Daneil Henninger
* WONDER LAND * JANUARY 27, 2011
A Presidency to Nowhere
High-speed rail and solar shingles are not the answer to America's "Sputnik moment."
No president before Barack Obama has been so right and so wrong.
When in his State of the Union speech Mr. Obama said, "This is our generation's Sputnik moment," citing the emergence of global competition from the likes of China and India, he was right.
Minutes later he proposed to cover the country with high-speed rail and companies making solar shingles.
High-speed rail and solar shingles? If that's the president's idea of meeting our Sputnik moment, then Houston, we have a problem.
About halfway into the speech, I began to wonder: What is John Boehner thinking? Let's first welcome back the tradition of House Speakers who bring nothing but a poker face to the State of the Union. (The vice president re-tightening his tie in the middle of the speech was a minor Biden classic.)
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From President Obama, lots of talk, little leadership
By Ruth Marcus
Thursday, January 27, 2011;
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND
The state of the union is . . . leaderless.
Sounds harsh, but when it comes to digging America out from what President Obama calls its "mountain of debt," I'm becoming increasingly worried that this assessment is accurate.
The president talks the talk about fiscal responsibility. But the evidence suggests he's not willing to spend the political capital to translate that talk into action.
Judge Obama by his own standards. "We have to signal seriousness in this," he told The Post just before the inauguration, "by making sure that some of the hard decisions are made under my watch and not under somebody else's."
So what hard decisions has the president made? On the plus side of the ledger, he worked to ensure that the costly expansion of health coverage was coupled with potentially cost-saving measures to control Medicare spending. Emphasis on potentially.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, he proposed a five-year freeze on discretionary spending, two years longer than his previous offer.
But as the president himself recognized, this kind of nibbling around the edges of the budget is entirely inadequate.
"To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough," he said. "It won't." Except Obama then offered nothing else of substance about what else he envisioned - and would be willing to push for.
Some serious people with unquestioned bona fides on fiscal responsibility grasped at wispy tendrils of seriousness in the president's remarks. He mentioned Social Security! He talked about tax reform! I hope they are right but fear they are deluding themselves.
Examine the president's words, and you see nothing new or specific. It hardly constitutes bravery to call for a bipartisan Social Security fix that doesn't slash benefits. At that level of generality, who would disagree?
The health-care law - if implemented as planned - is merely a down payment on cost containment. But the president's only specific was to repeat his offer to join with Republicans on medical malpractice reform. This is attacking a mountain with a teaspoon.
Corporate tax reform is a great idea but not a solution to the fiscal problem. The president's opening bid was to fix the corporate tax code without adding to the deficit.
As to the individual income tax system, the president repeated his stale complaint that "we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans." No mention of the affordability of the tax cuts for everyone else.
In fact, when Obama discussed income taxes, he cited the need to "simplify the individual tax code" without daring to whisper that the real goal needs to be more revenue. "Members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them," Obama said. Joining up is not my definition of leadership.
Administration officials insist that proffering more in the State of the Union would have been self-defeating. Negotiating in public does not work, this argument goes. Do corporate tax reform first and the larger overhaul will come more easily.
This would be more convincing if the president's behind-the-scenes track record were more reassuring. Obama put little muscle behind the legislative effort to create a fiscal commission. Then, having established one by executive order, he did nothing to ensure its success, according to sources close to the process. The commission was tantalizingly close to getting the supermajority needed for congressional action - former Service Employees International Union president Andy Stern had promised to be the 14th vote, the sources said - but the administration did not lift a finger to help by lobbying other Democrats.
On Tuesday, the most Obama could manage to choke out about his own commission was that "I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress."
Into this disturbing vacuum of leadership come Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner and Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who have assembled a bipartisan group pushing for tax reform and other deficit reduction this year.
When I spoke with them after the speech, they emphasized two points: that nothing would be accomplished without presidential involvement, and that it would be a mistake to let things slide into the election year or, inevitably, beyond.
"Every one of these painful choices gets harder every day we don't do anything," Warner said.
Wise words. If only we had heard more of that from the president himself.
ruthmarcus@washpost.com
-
LMAO.. Ruth Marcus.. Shes Objective too huh.. and you like to qualify this as proof..lmao..
-
LMAO.. Ruth Marcus.. Shes Objective too huh.. and you like to qualify this as proof..lmao..
She voted for him and used to love him.
Again - you have to be a brain dead dolt to not see what is going on. Its like having Gilligan at the helm of the Titanic a mile out from impact.
-
She voted for him and used to love him.
Again - you have to be a brain dead dolt to not see what is going on. Its like having Gilligan at the helm of the Titanic a mile out from impact.
LMAO.. you just prooved my point Smart guy.
you are amazing.....fuckin awesome i tell you...
And tell me whats goin on that im brain dead to see oh senior flip flopper
-
Deaf on debt:
Returning to old liberal
ideas, President Obama
ignores the American
people
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 28th 2011, 4:00 AM
The November election sent a clear message to
Washington: less government, less debt, less
spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but
judging from his State of the Union address, he
doesn't believe a word of it.
The people say they want cuts? Sure they do - in the
abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them
out will be punished severely. On that, Obama
stakes his re-election.
No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech
that didn't even address the debt issue until 35
minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on
domestic discretionary spending that he himself
admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the
budget.
Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would
produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years.
That's an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit
for last year alone was more than 30 times as much.
And total federal spending was more than 85 times
that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a
government that just racked up $3 trillion in new
debt over the last two years is deeply unserious. It's
spillage, a rounding error.
As for entitlements, which are where the real money
is, Obama said practically nothing. He is happy to
discuss, but if Republicans dare take anything from
granny, he shall be Horatius at the bridge.
This entire pantomime about debt reduction came
after the first half of a speech devoted to, yes, new
spending. One almost has to admire Obama's
defiance. His 2009 stimulus and budget-busting
health care reform are precisely what stirred the
popular revolt that delivered his November
shellacking. And yet he's back for more.
It's as if Obama is daring the voters - and the
Republicans - to prove they really want smaller
government. He's manning the barricades for
Obamacare and he's here with yet another spending
- excuse me, investment - spree. To face down
those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink
yet more money into yet more road and bridge
repair, more federally subsidized teachers - with a
bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will
show the Chinese.
And of course, once again, there is the magic lure of
a green economy created by the brilliance of
Washington experts and politicians. This is to be
our "Sputnik moment," when the fear of the foreigner
spurs us to innovation and greatness of the kind
that yielded NASA and the moon landing.
Apart from the irony of this appeal being made by
the very President who has just killed NASA's
manned space program, there is the fact that for
three decades, since Jimmy Carter's synfuel fantasy,
Washington has poured billions of taxpayer dollars
down a rat hole in vain pursuit of economically
competitive renewable energy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/28/2011-01-28_deaf_on_debt_returning_to_old_liberal_ideas_president_obama_ignores_the_american.html
-
and a regular panelist on Fox News’s Special Report with Bret Baier.
-
What do you disagree with what he said.
-
What do you disagree with what he said.
I question the objectivity of the source
-
So, if you voted for Obama but then stopped supporting him after seeing the disaster and incompetent fool that he is makes you a partial individual.
The only way to be objective is to support Obama no matter how many mistakes he makes, nor how many lies he says. Got it.
-
3333, didn't you know?
Only CNN, MSNBC, and Jon Stewart are objective sources.
-
3333, didn't you know?
Only CNN, MSNBC, and Jon Stewart are objective sources.
Who said i listen to them.. dont play that game with me. .. I post stewart stuff simply because its funny..
-
She voted for him and used to love him.
i loved for him and still love him. that should cancel out that agrument. ;)
-
Why do you love him aside from your romantic fantasies in him?
-
Americans Don't Have 'Sputnik Moments'
Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2011 | Robert Morrison
Khrushchev had his Sputnik Moment. The Soviets had their Sputnik Moment. Communist sympathizers throughout the world had their Sputnik Moment. But despite President Obama’s comment during the State of the Union Address, Americans don’t have Sputnik Moments.
Instead, we Americans recognize “The Eagle has landed.” Those are the words of Astronaut Neil Armstrong as his lunar lander touched down on Tranquility Base on the Moon’s surface, July 19, 1969. With that landing, Americans put an end to the Sputnik Moment.
Eight months earlier, on Christmas Eve, 1968, the world heard Americans speaking from the far side of the Moon. Apollo 8 astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders read from the Book of Genesis as they became the first men to leave earth’s orbit: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” It was no toss-away line.
For Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev, losing the space race to the Americans must have been a bitter pill indeed. Sputnik was his greatest success as he searched desperately for a way to legitimize Communist rule. He had admitted to a secret session of the Communist Party Congress that his predecessor Josef Stalin killed “thousands.” But he only indicted Stalin for crimes against loyal Communists. He made no reference in his Secret Speech to the millions of Christians and Jews who perished in the Gulag.
Khrushchev chose Yuri Gagarin to be the first man in space because he was such an articulate young atheist. Asked at his first press conference what he had seen in space, Cosmonaut Gagarin grinned, and said: “Nyet boga!” No God.
Marxist historian Zheya Sveltilova summed up the real meaning of the Soviets’ Sputnik Moment: “When man has conquered the universe … people who now believe in God will reject him. … Man will be stronger than God.”
Thanks to John F. Kennedy, Americans won the race to the Moon. President Obama is not wrong to suggest that it was this effort that launched the Information Age we have inherited.
But it is spectacularly hypocritical for him to laud America’s space effort when he is the one who canceled our plans to return to the Moon. Astronaut Harrison Schmitt believes there is sufficient Helium 3 beneath the lunar surface to make nuclear fusion energy on earth abundant and cheap. It’s at least worth considering.
It is further misleading Americans to link going to the Moon with a federal takeover of education and energy. We won the Space Race without creating huge federal bureaucracies like the Departments of Education and Energy. NASA was created under the parsimonious Ike. Under Mr. Obama, if we want to go back into space, we’ll have to hitch a ride with Khrushchev’s successors in the Kremlin.
That Sputnik Moment phrase is especially inappropriate for someone who has sent spending into orbit, and whose returning space capsule would land in an ocean of red ink.
Conservatives’ claim that liberals in Congress spend like drunken sailors is, however, untrue. President Reagan pointed out: Sailors spend their own money.
I have one suggestion for a modest savings: Let’s fire the speechwriter who gave us that Sputnik Moment. True, it would only save $172,000 a year, but it’s a start. We’ve already been taxed enough for cash for clunkers. That phrase is truly a clunker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------