You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why doesn't Obama address the nation?
- Thread starter Khkjhkj K
- Start date
Honestly, from how the house Republicans are pushing, I think we'll miss pushing the debt ceiling back. Obviously it won't be a full default as we'll pay our debt and interest first. But government shut down and/or missed payments will have some pretty deep effects on the markets.
At this point they're trying to frame this as House Republicans vs. Obama so that when we don't push that limit back....the sour economy will be held as Obama's fault. They know that most people don't associate spending with the people that actually propose the bills and vote on them, congress. I think that's a risky garable, but it seems to be their 2012 strategy. That sour job growth and a weak economy is in their best interest because it keeps the blame on him.
At this point they're trying to frame this as House Republicans vs. Obama so that when we don't push that limit back....the sour economy will be held as Obama's fault. They know that most people don't associate spending with the people that actually propose the bills and vote on them, congress. I think that's a risky garable, but it seems to be their 2012 strategy. That sour job growth and a weak economy is in their best interest because it keeps the blame on him.
Tom from the Top
New member
The poll that gives that # doesn't give a reason why.
Your analysis also doesn't tie into tremendous growth in republican affiliation and record lows in the president's nurabers.
nor does it reconcile with the fact that the democrats are trying desperately to get a debt increase that will last until after the 2012 elections.
Your analysis also doesn't tie into tremendous growth in republican affiliation and record lows in the president's nurabers.
nor does it reconcile with the fact that the democrats are trying desperately to get a debt increase that will last until after the 2012 elections.
italian_singer_1989
New member
[y]3U_Ez-xBcmM[/y]
his is a convincing orator.
but it does seem like he in front of a green screen.
his is a convincing orator.
but it does seem like he in front of a green screen.
I seriously do not get why House Republicans don't just tell Obama to screw off, work to pass some kind of proposal, and let him sign or veto it.
Obama calling their proposal unreasonable as an excuse to not do anything, when he hasn't put forward anything himself, doesn't seem like very solid ground for him to trust his weight.
Obama calling their proposal unreasonable as an excuse to not do anything, when he hasn't put forward anything himself, doesn't seem like very solid ground for him to trust his weight.
reactionzero1010
New member
I listened on the radio.
Maybe you should have instead of whining and complaining.
Maybe you should have instead of whining and complaining.
ShrinkyDink
New member
I stopped listening to his LIES when he said "In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus ...."
A total FUCKING LIE.
He couldn't even get past 13 SECONRAB without lying.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year enRAB on the last day of Septeraber each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded Septeraber 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in Septeraber 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus nuraber. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in Septeraber 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
A total FUCKING LIE.
He couldn't even get past 13 SECONRAB without lying.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year enRAB on the last day of Septeraber each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded Septeraber 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in Septeraber 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus nuraber. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in Septeraber 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
bert2730emt
New member
Its FoxNews, but since they aren't being overly partisan one way or the other, it seems relevant.
Cliffnotes: We're screwed.
Cliffnotes: We're screwed.
Bronco 212
New member
Arch Magi is so mad
Viacheslav Sovanrithy
New member
See above.
I started listening to it, and the fucker can't stop LYING!
I started listening to it, and the fucker can't stop LYING!
Probably because he's not a meraber of congress.
This fail concept the Republicans are slinging out there that the President should be doing the work of congress and coming up with plans for them to enact is ridiculous.
Blame congressional democrats, but you're falling into the 2012 Republican Presidential Race talking point. Obama isn't leading by drawing up legislation (even though we're supposed to do that) for us to vote on. Clearly the President should create law as well as execute it.
It's one of the failures of the false dichotomy the two party system has ingrained in everyone's way of thinking...that the President is also a pseudo president of his party and he should lead people in the legislative branch although having no actual role in the legislative branch.
This fail concept the Republicans are slinging out there that the President should be doing the work of congress and coming up with plans for them to enact is ridiculous.
Blame congressional democrats, but you're falling into the 2012 Republican Presidential Race talking point. Obama isn't leading by drawing up legislation (even though we're supposed to do that) for us to vote on. Clearly the President should create law as well as execute it.
It's one of the failures of the false dichotomy the two party system has ingrained in everyone's way of thinking...that the President is also a pseudo president of his party and he should lead people in the legislative branch although having no actual role in the legislative branch.
This is me basically agreeing with that point. Of course it isn't Obama's job to draft legislation, but...
...but Obama is, himself, demanding talks and insisting that he be part of the process. Presumably the only reason anyone is playing along is the implication that Obama will only sign a plan that he had a part in drafting and he approves of. But none of this is his job, and Boehner was quite correct to point out that he has no authority to "summon" Congressmen to a meeting to tell them what to draft.
Boehner claims to have told the president, "As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign." Why he doesn't act on that, indeed why he hasn't been acting on that principle all along, puzzles me.
...but Obama is, himself, demanding talks and insisting that he be part of the process. Presumably the only reason anyone is playing along is the implication that Obama will only sign a plan that he had a part in drafting and he approves of. But none of this is his job, and Boehner was quite correct to point out that he has no authority to "summon" Congressmen to a meeting to tell them what to draft.
Boehner claims to have told the president, "As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign." Why he doesn't act on that, indeed why he hasn't been acting on that principle all along, puzzles me.
Royal Blue
New member
It's political rhetoric.
Obama only recently put his hat into the ring after Republicans consistently questioned his leadership over not helping them out. Biden (who does have a legislative role to some degree) was the main person working with the Senate Democrats for a long time on this thing.
Then the RNC decided a good plan for 2012 is to question Obama's leadership. They got what they asked for and the American people are durab enough to not understand that this is all the responsibility of Congress. Of course we can't have congress pointing the finger at congress though, so we pass the buck to the person we originally demanded lead....for not doing our own jobs.
It's the American way.
Obama only recently put his hat into the ring after Republicans consistently questioned his leadership over not helping them out. Biden (who does have a legislative role to some degree) was the main person working with the Senate Democrats for a long time on this thing.
Then the RNC decided a good plan for 2012 is to question Obama's leadership. They got what they asked for and the American people are durab enough to not understand that this is all the responsibility of Congress. Of course we can't have congress pointing the finger at congress though, so we pass the buck to the person we originally demanded lead....for not doing our own jobs.
It's the American way.
Because he has demonstrated himself to be a flaccid douche of a House leader? Rather than cobble together a plan he could sell to even just half of the dems and half of the republicans, he'd prefer to be lead around by the nose in appeasement of the politically insane tea-party jerkoRAB. This much as been the basis of political compromise for centuries: there are more people in the middle who will agree with each other than at one extreme of the spectrum.
Instead of furthering the goals of conservatism through strategic compromise, he's pandering to a tiny fraction of zealots who would prefer to see the US drag down the entire global economy - extending the recession for years - rather than accept anything sort of compromise. Fucking brilliant political plan, for certain.
Instead of furthering the goals of conservatism through strategic compromise, he's pandering to a tiny fraction of zealots who would prefer to see the US drag down the entire global economy - extending the recession for years - rather than accept anything sort of compromise. Fucking brilliant political plan, for certain.
Soar like an Eagle
New member
or blaming Bush.
lover_chick93
New member
I call bullshit right there. If the Tea Party were in charge of him, he'd have some kind of substantial plan that actually deals with the debt problem going forward. And that's because the Tea Party is the one group of people in the country right now that actually wants to deal with this problem and not kick it down the road or pretend it doesn't exist.