Author Topic: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?  (Read 3290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59462
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2013, 01:50:08 PM »
Democrats were swept into control of Congress in 2006 on promises of War Extraction

Success - While I wish it could have happen quicker, what did you want them to do... drop their guns and walk off the battlefield? (actually the United States is engaged in more military action in more countries than we were back then and the U.S. is sending troops back to Iraq, in addition the U.S. is backing millions to support the State Departments "army" still in Iraq)

Getting Big Oil/Energy Policy

Success-Not only encouraging increases in oil and gas production, but also increased invest in alternate energy. (Neither party can claim success on the former, and the latter . . . when the gov't has invested it has resulted in signifcant losses in taxpayer money too many times to mention at this juncture)

Deficit Reduction and Debt Reduction.

I'm a little confused on this one, but I don't vividly recall this being the party's national platform for the 2006 elections. Rather I believe it had to deal with more of the above two as well as getting us out of the crap storm that W had caused.  Then you need to improve your memory, in fact the so called "crap storm" has only worsened with Democratic control of Congress for the last 2 years of Bush, and the first 2 years of Obama, we're now going on 5 years WITHOUT a Federal Budget

Offline camKSU

  • SLTH
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 346
  • That's just like, your opinion, man
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 02:32:30 PM »

Democrats were swept into control of Congress in 2006 on promises of War Extraction

Success - While I wish it could have happen quicker, what did you want them to do... drop their guns and walk off the battlefield? (actually the United States is engaged in more military action in more countries than we were back then and the U.S. is sending troops back to Iraq, in addition the U.S. is backing millions to support the State Departments "army" still in Iraq) The troops we are sending to iraq is dwarfed by what was there. And while you are correct, we are involved in more conflicts, at least it is not the archaic, troops on the ground, invasion style but rather special forces/drone. All that said, this IS an area that the democrats and President Obama have not fulfilled their promise, however, if the republicans had their way we would invade iran, syria, russia, and still be fully deployed in iraq. (Not to mention my disappointment on the lack of any movement in closing Guantanamo)

Getting Big Oil/Energy Policy

Success-Not only encouraging increases in oil and gas production, but also increased invest in alternate energy. (Neither party can claim success on the former, and the latter . . . when the gov't has invested it has resulted in signifcant losses in taxpayer money too many times to mention at this juncture)I would beg to differ that the increases in alternative energy have been in vain due to limited failures. Solyndra's talking point on the right is grossly exaggerated and is just that, a talking point. Furthermore, it can be contended that our energy independence over the last decade is never more stable than now.

Deficit Reduction and Debt Reduction.

I'm a little confused on this one, but I don't vividly recall this being the party's national platform for the 2006 elections. Rather I believe it had to deal with more of the above two as well as getting us out of the crap storm that W had caused. (Then you need to improve your memory, in fact the so called "crap storm" has only worsened with Democratic control of Congress for the last 2 years of Bush, and the first 2 years of Obama, we're now going on 5 years WITHOUT a Federal Budget) Again, you are forgetting what the economic climate was when President Obama took office. Losing 800,000 jobs a month, an auto crisis, financial crisis, a housing crisis, two wars, and a obstructionist opposing party unwilling to compromise and determined to not let President Obama enact any real legislation that could make things better that he could take credit for.
untuck manhattan

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59462
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2013, 04:06:20 PM »
Point one:  The "What were we going to do, just up and leave" point is a Strawman of the highest order . . . again in 2006 Democrats swept into office with claiming a mandate of war extraction and they promptly didn't meet a war spending bill they didn't pass, and their support of actual war expansion speaks for itself.

Point two:  The market is driven a move towards POSSIBLE energy stability and independence, not the government.   Albeit the military moves of the government over the last 10 years have a lot more to do with control of natural resources around the world, than they do fighting "terra", and the current administration is living proof of that . . . but that's another story for another time.

Point Three:  Again, we're talking Democratic control of Congress starting in 2006 , aka the days when we actually had Federal Budgets and every year you could specifically quantify the actual budget deficit.   Democrats were swept into Congress to supposedly end the crazy Bush budget deficits and slow or reverse the increase in the National debt . . . even with the economy in mind from 2 years later, they did the exact oppossite of what they said they would do.


Offline camKSU

  • SLTH
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 346
  • That's just like, your opinion, man
    • View Profile
But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2013, 10:23:20 PM »
Dax... You calling someone out on strawmen is a little pot meet kettle. While i have listed multiple areas i disagree with the president on, i know he is the lesser of two evils. The fervor you have seems to only be directed one way and not once have I heard you point out the complete hypocrisy and utter lunacy from the repubs. Try it, it might give your worn out drum beating a new tune.
untuck manhattan

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59462
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2013, 10:38:29 AM »
Dax... You calling someone out on strawmen is a little pot meet kettle. While i have listed multiple areas i disagree with the president on, i know he is the lesser of two evils. The fervor you have seems to only be directed one way and not once have I heard you point out the complete hypocrisy and utter lunacy from the repubs. Try it, it might give your worn out drum beating a new tune.

It's no more or less of a fervor that you have in trying to apologize for the failure of Hope and Change.



Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2013, 09:26:04 PM »
i know he is the lesser of two evils.

this is the largest problem with American politics right now. As long as we continue to elect "evils" than we deserve what we get. And crap aint getting better whether you have a D or and R next to your name

Offline EMAWmeister

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 8957
  • Livin' it up
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but... I thought Obama was a spending whore?
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2013, 03:16:50 AM »
pretty sure this thread is just solidifying clinton as gpotusoat.

 :love:

The greatest thing about the Clinton years was his lack of power. The Congress set the agenda, and he signed the bills/budgets. W had too much power, as did Obama for 2 years.

Until he conveniently needed an air strike on foreign nations to take the focus off of a certain white house scandal.