Obama Q&A with House Republicans

[Ugmo]

This is pretty interesting - I'm watching it right now, so I can't comment on the whole thing, but it's good to see Obama addressing the opposition in a non-hostile, respectful environment.

By the way, the 15:00 mark is interesting for everyone who's been complaining about Obama's spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0

[Ugmo]

58:00 mark - the deficit was already 1.3 trillion when Obama took office.

[Ugmo]

The good ol' days. Congress controls the purse strings. Interesting that when democrats took over Congress in 2007 the economy went to shit. Interesting that during Clintons presidency the economy was doing so well..with a Republican Congress. Coincidence I'm sure.

You cannot be serious! The economy went to shit (around the world, by the way) because of the housing bubble bursting and the irresponsible lending by the banks. This is basic shit dude! Unbelievable.

[Ugmo]

By the way, did you enjoy watching him destroy the Republican talking points without a teleprompter?

[Thebottomline]

The good ol' days. Congress controls the purse strings. Interesting that when democrats took over Congress in 2007 the economy went to shit. Interesting that during Clintons presidency the economy was doing so well..with a Republican Congress. Coincidence I'm sure.

What Obama also does not mention that George W. Bush also inherited an ailing economy. Right after Bush was elected in 2000 the economy went to shit. People forget about that. Obama also misleads when he states that we had a 200 billion dollar surplus, we had a PROJECTED surplus not a surplus.

Obama keeps saying that he walked in and there was this mess. BULLSHIT, that lying fucker knew it was there because he used as his campaign tirade. He knew about the two wars, he knew that right before the November of 2008 elections that the economy went to shit, if he couldnt handle than he should have bailed.

The independents that voted for him will not vote for him again in 2012 and he only won because of the independent voters. The ratio is pretty much even when it comes to democrat voters and republican voters. It's safe to say that over 2/3 of this nation is tired of his meaningless words. He's trying to put on a bi-partisain act and thats all it is, is an act! He wants to put on a front to make it look like he's reaching out to the Republicans but its just all bullshit.

[Thebottomline]

By the way, did you enjoy watching him destroy the Republican talking points without a teleprompter?

wow! You seriously think that ugmo? WOW!

[Ugmo]

What Obama also does not mention that George W. Bush also inherited an ailing economy. Right after Bush was elected in 2000 the economy went to shit. People forget about that. Obama also misleads when he states that we had a 200 billion dollar surplus, we had a PROJECTED surplus not a surplus.

Obama keeps saying that he walked in and there was this mess. BULLSHIT, that lying fucker knew it was there because he used as his campaign tirade. He knew about the two wars, he knew that right before the November of 2008 elections that the economy went to shit, if he couldnt handle than he should have bailed.

The independents that voted for him will not vote for him again in 2012 and he only won because of the independent voters. The ratio is pretty much even when it comes to democrat voters and republican voters. It's safe to say that over 2/3 of this nation is tired of his meaningless words. He's trying to put on a bi-partisain act and thats all it is, is an act! He wants to put on a front to make it look like he's reaching out to the Republicans but its just all bullshit.

- Right, but Bush's "mess" wasn't even close to the worldwide economic meltdown Obama faced. And Bush was dealt a shitty hand with 9/11, but at the same time he made things worse with Iraq.

- Hold on now... he never said there was a mess there that he hadn't expected. From what I recall of this Q&A, he said a) $1.3 trillion of the deficit was there before he even took office and b) after the election things took a shit faster than anybody expected. But he definitely did not say that he was taken by surprise by the economic meltdown, so that's kind of a strawman you're using there.

- Waaaaay too early to make that prediction. One year into his presidency and you're already sure of how independents are going to vote in three years' time? That depends on so many things, not least of which 1) how the rest of his first term goes from here on and 2) who his opponent is in 2012. And specifically, if the economy is fairing well for a year or so leading up to the election, he'll be fine. GWB proved that even a disastrous first term is no obstacle to winning reelection, because he did pretty much everything wrong and still won because the Democrats nominated a candidate people found dull. The Republicans could nominate Palin in 2012 (she is popular enough with the base to have a very strong lobby) and Obama will win by an even greater margin than against McCain.

[Ugmo]

By the way, did you enjoy watching him destroy the Republican talking points without a teleprompter?

wow! You seriously think that ugmo? WOW!

Yep. Fox News was so dismayed by what was unraveling that they cut away early. And the GOP regretted afterwards that they'd allowed cameras to capture Obama schooling them:

http://twitter.com/RussertXM_NBC/status/8380253627

White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that" was a "mistake."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 ... 42331.html

[JakeYonkel]

Thought this was a funny pic.

[Ugmo]

The good ol' days. Congress controls the purse strings. Interesting that when democrats took over Congress in 2007 the economy went to shit. Interesting that during Clintons presidency the economy was doing so well..with a Republican Congress. Coincidence I'm sure.

Look what I just found (completely coincidentally, by the way):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business ... change.asp

Tee hee!

[MetalAlive]

It's easy to say 'my guy' is doing great but it is a lot harder to point out what 'my guy' is doing wrong. Try it sometime.

Furthermore, political fanbois forget that both parties work for us and they are not getting the job done. It is clear to me that the Federal gov't is slowly ceasing to function as intended.

[Ugmo]

It's easy to say 'my guy' is doing great but it is a lot harder to point out what 'my guy' is doing wrong. Try it sometime.

Furthermore, political fanbois forget that both parties work for us and they are not getting the job done. It is clear to me that the Federal gov't is slowly ceasing to function as intended.

Is this aimed at me? I'm not a "political fanboi". I want these fuckers to get shit done, and what is very clearly happening right now is that one party is trying to get shit done and the other party is trying to keep it from getting shit done so that it has a better chance of winning Congressional seats in November.

The criticism of Obama right now is basically that he's not effective in preventing the Republicans from obstructing absolutely everything. And that's true, but why are people willing to criticize Obama for being ineffective but not the Republicans for blocking everything? "Both parties work for us" - yeah, well then direct your anger at the party that isn't working for you right now, because the other is actually trying to.

[MetalAlive]

Ugmo, it is not aimed at you but I will say that Obama had a super-majority in congress and could not get anything done.

A super-majority basically means that one party (the Democrats in this case) had an overwhelming majority in both houses.

Any party that has a super-majority in congress that cannot get anything done and appears to be locking out any debate from the opposition is destined to be defeated in mid-term elections.

Don't blame the other side if your super-majority can't get anything done: they don't need the votes of the other side.

[JakeYonkel]

I see you just registered here.

This point has been made several times and Ugmo has argued it several times. Maybe he'll save his typing and point you to another thread of the same argument.

[MetalAlive]

I see you just registered here.

This point has been made several times and Ugmo has argued it several times. Maybe he'll save his typing and point you to another thread of the same argument.

Point taken.

[VinnieKulick]

58:00 mark - the deficit was already 1.3 trillion when Obama took office.

And the Dems vote to RAISE the debt ceiling by MORE than that.

If tax rates had remain unchanged, the housing bubble would have generated a substantial amount of tax revenue and would have reduced the federal debt. Instead, the tax cuts created a huge budget deficit.

You're playing the "if game"? Bottom line is, he KNEW it isn't true, but said it anyway. But, spin away.

Bush racked up an enormous amount of debt. Between 2002 and 2007, the federal debt should have been reduced due to the housing boom.
2001 Gross Public Debt 5,807.5 57.74% of GDP
2002 Gross Public Debt 6,228.2 59.90% of GDP
2007 Gross Public Debt 9,007.7 65.67% of GDP -- debt should have gone down from 02 - 07 due to housing boom
2009 Gross Public Debt 12,867.5 90.36 of GDP

How was the housing boom supposed to help pay off federal debt?

They actually got a lot done. They passed a stimulus bill that was very effective in containing unemployment.

If by very effective you mean it raised by 25%, then yeah, it did a world of good.
8% to 10% isn't really containing anything.

If you bother to look at the numbers instead of simply whining, tax cuts and spending that are 1.8% of GDP reduced unemployment by 1%. It takes 3% of GDP growth to reduce unemployment by 1%. Population and productivity both increase 1% each year so GDP has to increase 3% to create enough jobs to reduce unemployment by 1%. So tax cuts and spending that are 1.8% of GDP added 3% to GDP. That's an effective stimulus program. That's a multiplier of 1.6%. The expected multiplier was 1.25%.

Government spending, in and of itself does not CREATE jobs.
And, are you saying that tax CUTS helped unemployment? Because in every other discussion you say that tax cuts are evil. Which is it?

They also kept GM and Chrysler from going into liquidation. The quick reorganization was a significant accomplishment.

So it's real easy to be ignorant and proclaim that nothing has been done but quite a bit has been accomplished.

Oh, you mean they bought stock with federal funds in two failing businesses and both still post net losses. Yeah, that's a significant accomplishment. Not to mention they turned over large portions of the stock they bought to the UAW. How does that help the general public again?