Obama Dssed By Cambodia PM

Originally posted by no1marauder
The policies of those Republican Presidents are still in place unfortunately. Their deficits contribute to high interest payments. Their tax cuts have reduced the share of tax revenue as share of GNP to 1950 levels. Their foreign policy makes it so the US has to spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

Obama can be fa ...[text shortened]... a for the consequences of acquiescing to the continuation of policies they fervently believe in.

Accepting your argument, although it is without merit, Obama's policies are also likely to remain for generations, and his deficit spending is exponentially worse than any of the three GOP Presidents you find fault with.

Yes, W's adding prescription drugs to Medicare already going broke was pure stupidity. But it pales to the idiocy of introducing Obama care to a private sector in serious difficulty already.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please point me to any period in US history where 14 million jobs were created in two years.

You really are delusional. Even Mitt didn't claim he could do such a thing.

EDIT: I'll bite though. Please give me your economic program that can create 14 million jobs in two years.

Seventeen million jobs were created during the first years of World War II. It has happened. I'll look for the postwar numbers, but that was also a boom time.

King for a day? I'd open federal lands and US coastal waters to drilling. I'd develop the smart grid. I'd convert the nation's trucking fleet to natural gas. I'd replace our commercial nuclear fleet with new nuclear plants. I'd use a weak dollar to our advantage and retool American manufacturing for export. Here's a big one: I'd bury our power lines. I'd rebuild old bridges, and rework old roads to build them to last. I'd provide tax credits for attending trade schools, to make more ironworkers, steel workers, electricians, plumbers, and welders. I'd greenfield blighted sections of cities. I'd provide tax credits to companies that repatriate jobs. I'd return the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to wartime strength levels. I'd replace the Los Angeles- and Ohio-class submarine fleets. Oh - and I'd repeal Obamacare, which is idiocy distilled to its purest form.

Now, I've answered one of your questions. Do me the courtesy of answering one of mine. Why are Democrats so willing to subject the nation to a destructive fiscal cliff over an amount of money that runs the government for six days?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
C'mon sasquatch. Quit being so - what's the word?

Wilfully disingenuous?

Flagrantly self-deluded?

Originally posted by sasquatch672

Seventeen million jobs were created during the first years of World War II.

Well, OK, but how are you going to match that? Start World War III?

I'd use a weak dollar to our advantage and retool American manufacturing for export.

Sounds like a long-term process. The dollar will probably have strengthened again by the time you finish!

Here's a big one: I'd bury our power lines.

Where's the money going to come from? And what's the justification for burying them? An aesthetic one? But you're drilling up all the pretty hills! Might as well have pylons on them too...

I'd return the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to wartime strength levels.

What, when there isn't a war? - or at least, when the wars going on are brushfire skirmishes compared to the catastrophe of World War II? And who's going to pay for this enormously expensive policy?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Seventeen million jobs were created during the first years of World War II. It has happened. I'll look for the postwar numbers, but that was also a boom time.

King for a day? I'd open federal lands and US coastal waters to drilling. I'd develop the smart grid. I'd convert the nation's trucking fleet to natural gas. I'd replace our commercial nuc ...[text shortened]... ive fiscal cliff over an amount of money that runs the government for six days?

You're spending an awful lot of government $$ there. Are you willing to impose huge tax hikes to pay for them?

Originally posted by sh76
You're spending an awful lot of government $$ there. Are you willing to impose huge tax hikes to pay for them?

Aha. Here's the beauty part. True reform of Medicare and Social Security: means testing, raising the eligibility age, and yes, the elimination of heroic measures to save 87-year-olds, among a few other changes - more than pays for all that.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Aha. Here's the beauty part. True reform of Medicare and Social Security: means testing, raising the eligibility age, and yes, the elimination of heroic measures to save 87-year-olds, among a few other changes - more than pays for all that.

Well, I suppose if the people want their tax money spent on huge armies to fight an obsolete kind of war, then they'll vote for you. And if they'd rather it was spent on health care for the elderly and the poor, welfare payments, etc, they won't.

Isn't democracy a wonderful thing?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Aha. Here's the beauty part. True reform of Medicare and Social Security: means testing, raising the eligibility age, and yes, the elimination of heroic measures to save 87-year-olds, among a few other changes - more than pays for all that.

Baloney. You'd have to abolish both to pay for all the crap you want.

The standard right wing "magic" of getting something for nothing. GW Bush all over again.

Why not cut tax rates while you're at it and watch all that massive amount of extra revenue roll in because of the booming economy?

Originally posted by normbenign
Accepting your argument, although it is without merit, Obama's policies are also likely to remain for generations, and his deficit spending is exponentially worse than any of the three GOP Presidents you find fault with.

Yes, W's adding prescription drugs to Medicare already going broke was pure stupidity. But it pales to the idiocy of introducing Obama care to a private sector in serious difficulty already.

Health care reform was obviously necessary. In the end, better health care access will save the government money.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Well, I suppose if the people want their tax money spent on huge armies to fight an obsolete kind of war, then they'll vote for you. And if they'd rather it was spent on health care for the elderly and the poor, welfare payments, etc, they won't.

Isn't democracy a wonderful thing?

Sas has managed to align himself against the wishes of the American people in almost every particular:

The Voters' Priorities

Their first priority is to create jobs and get the economy going. Many mistakenly believe that large deficits cost jobs. But when we asked them to chose between work to “grow the economy” and a plan to “reduce the deficit,” they chose growing the economy by more than two to one, 62-30, a margin of 31 percentage points. Fifty-five percent said they felt strongly on the first.
Second, voters disagree strongly with the priorities of the elite consensus congealing around the president’s deficit commission co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, and his own discussions of a grand bargain with House Speaker John Boehner. Those discussions suggest a deal that trades cuts in Medicare and Social Security for tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and corporations while gaining revenue by closing loopholes – a sort of Romney-lite tax reform.
When it comes to a deficit reduction plan, Americans have clear ideas.
They want tax rates to be raised on the wealthy. 68 percent find a plan that did not raises taxes on the rich “unacceptable.” 70 percent support a plan that raises taxes on the top 2 percent while keeping the taxes of others at the same level. 63 percent would find a plan that continued to tax investors’ income at lower rates than worker’s wages unacceptable. 75 percent would support a plan to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires. 67 percent finds a plan that lowers tax rates on corporations or the rich unacceptable.
They do not want Social Security benefits cut over time. By 62 to 31, they would find a plan that did that unacceptable.
They do not want Medicare payments cut or capped: 79 percent, nearly four out of five, find capping Medicare payments forcing seniors to pay more unacceptable.
By 50 percent to 41 percent, they favor a deficit reduction plan that starts with closing loopholes and raising tax rates at the top, and excludes cuts to Medicare and Social Security over one that closes loopholes but “gets entitlement spending under control, including reducing the growth of Medicare and Social Security.”
The public is very skeptical of the $1.5 trillion in across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending over the next 10 years that Congress has already passed Most Americans do not share the scorn of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan for poverty programs providing a “hammock” for the lazy.
Seventy-five percent – three-fourths of the country – find a plan unacceptable if it requires deep cuts in domestic programs without protecting programs for infants, poor children, schools and college aid.
Moreover they embrace the president’s argument that we should reduce the deficit and invest in areas vital to the economy at the same time. By 70 percent-27 percent, they support a plan to cut “wasteful spending and abolish special interest tax breaks and subsidies so that we can invest in infrastructure and technology and make sure we support education, Medicare and Social Security which are key to the middle class, over a statement that we have to cut spending seriously and that will require across the board reductions in the size of government…including education, Medicare and Social Security.

http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2012114508/cafdemocracy-corps-election-poll-2012



It's no wonder he's so mad at them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sas has managed to align himself against the wishes of the American people in almost every particular:

The Voters' Priorities

Their first priority is to create jobs and get the economy going. Many mistakenly believe that large deficits cost jobs. But when we asked them to chose between work to “grow the economy” and a plan to “reduce th ...[text shortened]... emocracy-corps-election-poll-2012



It's no wonder he's so mad at them.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic".

--Ben Franklin

Originally posted by sasquatch672
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic".

--Ben Franklin

Another bogus quote falsely claimed to have been uttered by several different Founders:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/sorry-conservatives-de-tocqueville-did-not-call-2012-election/58839/