Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Naruto Uzumaki » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:34 am

I mean why not 100 billion why not just one trillion. I mean my nephew's children will still be paying the government.And why does he take so many vacations?
I am the captor of sakura to keep her away from sasuke. And maybe tickle her a bit :)

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:28 am

Once you are old enough to be living on your own I'll ask you if you prefer living on $10,000 a year or $300,000; that's as much relative differnce as the amounts you cite. Maybe then you'll see the difference. $100 billion sopunds like a lot until you try to govern over 300 million people with it. Then it doesn't sound like very much at all!
As for vacations, my own boss takes 3 or 4 vacations a year for stress, and he owns just one moderate sized restaurant! Do you have any idea how stressful it is to be the President of the United States? And for Obama a the stress is probably worse than for most previous presidents because (1) he's black and (despite what everyone says) he's having to put up with a lot of racist bullshit (2) the GD Republicans are more conservative than anytime in history and are opposing him at every turn (3) his own party is divided and composed of half-wits, fools, and plain crooks, (4) he inherited George Bush's mess and no one short of God Almighty coiuld straighten that crap without far more support than Obama is getting and (5) he smokes like a GD chimney, which only makes handling stress on his own harder!
You still attend school right? Which means you still get over two months of vacation in the summer alone; how would you feel if they wanted to reduce that to two lousy weeksin July?
You wouldn't like that, I bet. So please don't begrudge Obama his vacation time; the poor bastard needs it!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:01 pm

naruto uzumaki wrote:I mean why not 100 billion why not just one trillion. I mean my nephew's children will still be paying the government.And why does he take so many vacations?



I must have missed something massive. For what does Obama supposedly need 3 trillion dollars?

When criticizing Obama's occasional weekend jaunts..... consider the MONTHS spent by King George II at his "ranch" in Texas clearing brush as he drove this country into the ground. It will take numerous terms to repair THAT damage. Bush's trillion dollar wars are what got us into this mess in the first place. This, we must not forget.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:37 pm

Is it actually possible for someone to criticize Obama without someone playing the "well, Bush was worse" card? Why does everything have to be Bush vs. Obama?

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:05 pm

Kyle wrote:Is it actually possible for someone to criticize Obama without someone playing the "well, Bush was worse" card? Why does everything have to be Bush vs. Obama?



I did fall into that trap. I also foolishly took the bait. I have no problem with people criticizing Obama- I'm disappointed in his presidency in a number of ways- but I'm tired of ridiculous accusations based on wild falsehoods. For example, the three trillion dollars mentioned above, the "birther" nonsense, and the accusations that he's a muslim. I enjoy intelligent debate... not baiting.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:13 pm

Well, Bush WAS worse! And if he were still president the economy would probably have deteriorated even more than it already has. Not that Obama is going to be known as the second FDR if he doesn't hurry up and grow a pair and take some frigging action soon! Whereas (IMHO at least) Bush led us in the wrong direction, Obama (typically for a Democrat) is leading us nowhere at all! Hope and change my heinie! Gahd!
As for the $3 trillion, I am unsure whether Naruto is referring to the cost of the Iraq war, the cost of the stimulus, or the yearly budget for the US (each of which is estimated to be roughly in this range), though I was assuming the secoind or third.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby haloguy » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:24 pm

Consider this, we are taking care of 300,000,000 people in this country. We have many government offices, hundreds of thousands of public servants to be paid, we are fighting a war, and we are in a recession! We need that money, and for all that I know, he is a human, and has only had 2 major (major meaning only 10 DAYS!) vacations, and a few weekend trips, he is a human after all. a hundred billion would barely be able to keep our own SCHOOLS afloat!

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:29 pm

That's part of the problem, the government is too far-reaching to begin with, which is why it takes an ungodly amount of money to pay for it.

I obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the news. Usually I know what's being discussed on this forum, but I have no idea about the $3 trillion. So while I can't comment directly on it at risk of saying something ignorant, I do have a general idea about government spending. We're already in enormous debt. China could pretty much own this country right now if they want. We're going to eventually have to make cuts. People can't afford taxes anymore. If Obama keeps putting more and more onto the government we will never recover. It's already going to be a longshot. Yes Bush was bad about this, and Obama is making it even worse. It's not like any of this has helped the economy out. The economy here is as bad as I've ever seen it in my life. It just keeps getting worse and worse. Granted, some of this has to do with local decisions, but the national economy hasn't helped at all either.

So now that I've said all that, I can say, there better be a damn good reason for Obama to want $3,000,000,000,000, because I'd hate to think it's going to be more added to the debt that does absolutely nothing to help us out. The government can spend its way out of a recession. It happened in World War II. But blindly throwing money around does nothing but make things worse.

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:18 pm

Perhaps Naruto could be a buit more specific as to what he was talking about, since he started this discussion. I am a bit vague as to what he is referring to myself, now that Kyle mentions it (and as I mentioned in my previous post here). Care to elaborate, Naruto?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:11 pm

I really hope he wasn't referring to the federal budget, as the current occupant of the oval office has little influence over the bottom line. It is what it is. The pentagon accounts for an ungodly percentage of that, in addition to entitlement programs like social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare. Any dramatic changes/reductions would take a fundamental and dramatic shift in the way we look at government and its function in our society. Cutting these programs cold turkey would leave the country in a shambles. Central Park would once again be host to "Hoovervilles" and many of us would be waiting in bread lines.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jack Roper » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:04 pm

After Barack Obama was elected the satire magazine, The Onion, ran a headline reading: “Black Man Given Worse Job in the World.” Now, it appears that many Americans have forgotten just how bad the country was in 2008. Let me count the ways:

1. Under George Bush federal spending rose from 18.5 % of GDP to 21%, and a Clinton $125.3 billion surplus sank to a $364.4 billion Bush deficit (not even counting the two major wars Bush started). Median incomes shrank. Under Clinton 23.1 million jobs were created, under Bush just three million created in eight years (most of which have been made up under Obama due to the stimulus).

2. Bush began a justified war in Afghanistan following the 9-11-01 attacks (after neglecting a CIA briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”). Then he attacked Iraq, which had no relation to 9-11 and split numerous allies from us, and caused the Afghan war to be neglected for years, leading to the current perilous state where the Taliban and al Queda are about to gain control once again. Estimate costs for these two wars: between $1.3 and $1.8 trillion since 2001.

3. Finally, Bush overlooked years of financial speculation, failed to regulate credit default swaps, subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, etc., most purveyors of which contributed heavily to his two elections. This ended in 2008 with the worst Recession in 75 years—almost a Depression—only stopped by a drastic bailout of banks and AIG to prevent a complete financial meltdown, followed by incredible unemployment.

Now the national Republican Party, allied with the Tea Party movement, wants to return to the good old days under Bush. If your memory is that short then you will get exactly what you deserve—more years of ruinous Republican rule. America’s collective amnesia can’t be that bad.

Truly bondage to a Republican agenda!

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Naruto Uzumaki » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:03 am

I was referring to the cost of stimulus,but even though he was a republican but don't you think MCcain would do better dealing with the war since he was in a war himself?
I am the captor of sakura to keep her away from sasuke. And maybe tickle her a bit :)

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:04 am

IMHO at least, no. Even if he wanted to pull out, he wouldn't be able to deal with it better than Obama has. No one could, because of the quagmire of special interests, public interests, the idiots that run our government, and the importance of 'saving face' (which is pretty ironic when you think about it). With so many people saying that Al Quida or the Taliban or whatever will take over the mess we left behind, we're stuck in quicksand. Besides, he supported the war in Iraq and would have kept us strongly in the fight. In his own words: "I would much rather lose a campaign than a war."
Even so, I might have preferred to vote for him rather than Obama but for one critical mistake he made: Sarah Palin. However Moderate McCain may be, Palin is as conservative as George Bush Jr and the idea of HER becoming only a heart attack away from becoming President (a sizable chance considering McCain's age and the stress of being the President) should disturb anyone who isn't a staunch conservative.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:08 am

Obama has been president nearly 2 years now. It's time to stop falling back on the how-bad-things-were-when-Bush-was-president argument. That's a cop-out. Obama hasn't exactly made things much better, if any. I can't speak for everyone else but things are definitely worse here than when Bush was president. It's not even close.

Obama didn't inherit a good situation. Many presidents don't. They and their supporters also didn't all keep whining about the previous guy for the entire damn term in office instead of actually doing something. Obama came in making huge promises which any sane person could tell were going to collapse on him eventually to at least some extent. It doesn't really fit this topic of conversation but I think a perfect picture of Obama's presidency is the whole Gitmo situation. The detention center was supposed to be shut down 9 months ago. Not one thing has truly happened to bring us anywhere near shutting it down.

I give Obama the benefit of the doubt to some extent, he has what is perhaps the worst Congress in the history of the country he has to work with. Even in this day and age of the imperial presidency Congress still ultimately has more control than the president does, so I put more blame on them.

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:32 am

With the current Congress in session, I don't think anyone you can think of could have done any better than Obama has done. Not that he is entirely blameless; he is as much too thoughtful as Bush was not thoughtful enough and can't seem to make up his mind what he wants done. But I doubt McCain could have done any better under the same circumstances... except the Republicans probably wouldn't have opposed him as much (but the Democrats would have opposed him more).
Historically, incompetents in power (i am referring to Congress here, not just Obama) never change; it generally takes an utter disaster and a change in government before things get better. I am afraid we are in for a bad time of it if the people don't start showing more thought in to who they vote for to run things - like *that's* gonna happen!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:12 pm

naruto uzumaki wrote:I was referring to the cost of stimulus,but even though he was a republican but don't you think MCcain would do better dealing with the war since he was in a war himself?



The cost of the stimulus is somewhere in the ballpark of 820 billion..... not a paltry sum, but nowhere near 3 trillion dollars. Stop watching Glenn Beck.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:22 pm

Kyle wrote:Obama has been president nearly 2 years now. It's time to stop falling back on the how-bad-things-were-when-Bush-was-president argument. That's a cop-out. Obama hasn't exactly made things much better, if any. I can't speak for everyone else but things are definitely worse here than when Bush was president. It's not even close.

Obama didn't inherit a good situation. Many presidents don't. They and their supporters also didn't all keep whining about the previous guy for the entire damn term in office instead of actually doing something. Obama came in making huge promises which any sane person could tell were going to collapse on him eventually to at least some extent. It doesn't really fit this topic of conversation but I think a perfect picture of Obama's presidency is the whole Gitmo situation. The detention center was supposed to be shut down 9 months ago. Not one thing has truly happened to bring us anywhere near shutting it down.

I give Obama the benefit of the doubt to some extent, he has what is perhaps the worst Congress in the history of the country he has to work with. Even in this day and age of the imperial presidency Congress still ultimately has more control than the president does, so I put more blame on them.



The party of NO and their endless obstructionism has made it impossible to get much of anything done. Obama barely got his healthcare bill passed by the skin of his teeth. You can only accomplish so much by executive order. Compromises between the two parties only results in legislation that is so watered down that bills just wind up reinforcing the current, unworkable status quo. We're at a complete deadlock unless one party can maintain a supermajority in congress- a very unlikely and fleeting circumstance. Continuing on this path, regardless of the party in power at the time, is going to be the death of this country. At least we've got a front row seat to the mayhem.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jack Roper » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:30 pm

My understanding is that on January 3, 2011 the Congress has a one-time opportunity to change it's rules--specifically regarding the 60 vote filibuster rule (whwich is nowhere in the Constitution). Let's see if that band of cowards have the guts to change that rule so that a simple majority--whether it be Republican or Democratic--can pass legislation, like they used to do before all this hyper partisanship began in the 1990's.

Re: the stimulus package--you folks do know that 1/3 of it was for tax cuts, don't you?

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Chase Ricks » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:16 pm

Guess I need to repost an old essay of mine up here again.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:19 pm

The Democrats could have easily broken filibusters for months and still couldn't get anything done. That's not to say the Republican party isn't full of morons but the Democrats had plenty of chances to pass stuff and didn't do it.

The "party of no," Glenn Beck, Bush was worse...we're doing very well in fitting the usual off-topic lefty references into this discussion. All we need are Rush Limbaugh and "teabagger" references for a perfect score.

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Chase Ricks » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:23 pm

Okay folks. I see that some new members need to have memories refreshed about Bush. And Obama definately does not need that much money!

Will repost a certain essay in Jump in the Fire.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:36 pm

Kyle wrote:The Democrats could have easily broken filibusters for months and still couldn't get anything done. That's not to say the Republican party isn't full of morons but the Democrats had plenty of chances to pass stuff and didn't do it.

The "party of no," Glenn Beck, Bush was worse...we're doing very well in fitting the usual off-topic lefty references into this discussion. All we need are Rush Limbaugh and "teabagger" references for a perfect score.


Are you one of those far-right people who consider ANY 'lefty' reference as off-topic? Please don't be so offensive. I don't diss YOUR views however much I disagree with them. Kindly don't diss MINE either.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:16 pm

Kyle wrote:The Democrats could have easily broken filibusters for months and still couldn't get anything done. That's not to say the Republican party isn't full of morons but the Democrats had plenty of chances to pass stuff and didn't do it.

The "party of no," Glenn Beck, Bush was worse...we're doing very well in fitting the usual off-topic lefty references into this discussion. All we need are Rush Limbaugh and "teabagger" references for a perfect score.



I fail to see why these comments were off topic. The original post contained outlandish accusations about our current president trying to reverse the disastrous effects of the previous administration. Hypocracy needs to be uncovered, and I'm willing to do it in any venue necessary.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:35 pm

Glenn Beck and George Bush have nothing to do with this conversation. The party of no...okay, I guess so, as you did make a valid point there, but it was unnecessary.

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Kyle » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:41 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:
Kyle wrote:The Democrats could have easily broken filibusters for months and still couldn't get anything done. That's not to say the Republican party isn't full of morons but the Democrats had plenty of chances to pass stuff and didn't do it.

The "party of no," Glenn Beck, Bush was worse...we're doing very well in fitting the usual off-topic lefty references into this discussion. All we need are Rush Limbaugh and "teabagger" references for a perfect score.


Are you one of those far-right people who consider ANY 'lefty' reference as off-topic? Please don't be so offensive. I don't diss YOUR views however much I disagree with them. Kindly don't diss MINE either.


Read what I wrote to Snobound above. I'm more of a libertarian than anything. I don't like off-topic points from the right-wing either. I just don't see it much on here. When we have the "birthers" show up I'm calling them out too. I'm sick and tired of political debate in general devolving into stupidity like this. You can see it all over the Internet. If Fox News has nothing to do with the conversation, by God, they don't need to be brought up. Somebody mentioned Sarah Palin above, which is a common lefty insulting point too. I didn't bring that up because it was actually a point about her, not just a pointless insult.

I don't know who said what so I'm not calling anyone out by name here. I just know what I saw above. If it offends you I'm calling out people for pointless, stupid arguments, that's your problem, not mine. There's at least one whole thread on George Bush on here. If you want to debate him, go there. This is about Obama and his 3 trillion dollars. Glenn Beck was a stupid point to bring up. If something to be said about Bush really adds to the conversation, I'm all for it. Just saying "well, Bush was worse" is childish, and if I'm in the mood for it, I'm going to call it out. Apparently I was in the mood to do that yesterday.

I'm not insulting anyone's views. I'm just tired of stupid pointless comments that are made. It's not just here, it's everywhere. So I'm probably going a little hard after people on this. We all go off-topic sometimes. I do it too. But you can't go 5 posts on a political topic involving American politics without something like this coming up. You can see it coming a mile away too. I could have told you from the first post on here eventually someone was going to bring up Fox News, for instance, when it had nothing to do with the conversation. It wasn't quite Fox, but Glenn Beck was brought up.

Let me put it this way. If I told someone "quit watching MSNBC" or "quit reading the New York Times" somebody would call me out for that. And they'd be right to do it. That's essentially what happened above, and essentially what happens all over the place, except it was a right-wing media outlet that was brought up. It's a pointless thing to say and adds nothing to the debate.
Last edited by Kyle on Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Chase Ricks » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:44 pm

Kyle wrote:
Jason Toddman wrote:
Kyle wrote:The Democrats could have easily broken filibusters for months and still couldn't get anything done. That's not to say the Republican party isn't full of morons but the Democrats had plenty of chances to pass stuff and didn't do it.

The "party of no," Glenn Beck, Bush was worse...we're doing very well in fitting the usual off-topic lefty references into this discussion. All we need are Rush Limbaugh and "teabagger" references for a perfect score.


Are you one of those far-right people who consider ANY 'lefty' reference as off-topic? Please don't be so offensive. I don't diss YOUR views however much I disagree with them. Kindly don't diss MINE either.


Read what I wrote to Snobound above. I'm more of a libertarian than anything. I don't like off-topic points from the right-wing either. I just don't see it much on here. When we have the "birthers" show up I'm calling them out too. I'm sick and tired of political debate in general devolving into stupidity like this. You can see it all over the Internet. If Fox News has nothing to do with the conversation, by God, they don't need to be brought up. Somebody mentioned Sarah Palin above, which is a common lefty insulting point too. I didn't bring that up because it was actually a point about her, not just a pointless insult.

I don't know who said what so I'm not calling anyone out by name here. I just know what I saw above. If it offends you I'm calling out people for pointless, stupid arguments, that's your problem, not mine. There's at least one whole thread on George Bush on here. If you want to debate him, go there. This is about Obama and his 3 trillion dollars. Glenn Beck was a stupid point to bring up. If something to be said about Bush really adds to the conversation, I'm all for it. Just saying "well, Bush was worse" is childish, and if I'm in the mood for it, I'm going to call it out. Apparently I was in the mood to do that yesterday.


Um I invite all but Jason to argue in my thread about George Bush. Nothing personal Jason, but our debates usually end too dully.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:56 pm

Our debates end up too dully? Maybe because you rarely have anything worthwhile to say, not because I cannot debate. But suit yourself. Between you and Mr. know-it-all Kyle, I don't seem free to speak my piece anyway so why should I bother?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Chase Ricks » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:57 pm

To each their own. I am sorry I seem to be a bad debater when unable to provide physical evidence Jason.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby snobound » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:52 pm

Kyle wrote:Glenn Beck and George Bush have nothing to do with this conversation. The party of no...okay, I guess so, as you did make a valid point there, but it was unnecessary.


I believe your reference to "pointless, stupid comments" is aimed at me. If so, this is offensive, and uncalled for in intelligent debate.

I only mention Beck because he his one of those primarily responsible for stoking the flames of hyper-partisanship that is infecting our country. Yes, I do concede that we have equally detestable individuals on the left (Pelosi, for example), but young folks like Naruto wind up accepting what these talking heads say verbatim, with little to no bias filter. This is dangerous- on either side of the political spectrum.

And I'll say this one more time.... the stimulus did not cost three trillion anythings. If the massive bank/corporate bail-outs are being included in this figure, then ....... well, we all know who deserves the credit for that.
Last edited by snobound on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

Re: Does Obama really need 3 trillion dollars?

Postby Chase Ricks » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:55 pm

I was once that way too snobound. However I am wise in the ways of politics now and I research all candidates before voting in national and state elections.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image