Obama bows out. Clinton steps in

Discussion in 'Politics' started by canadyjd, Dec 10, 2010.

  1. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw the President's press conference today. There he was, standing with the Presidential seal behind him, at the Presidential podium where offical administration policy is discussed and reporters ask our president serious questions, waxing ever so eloquent with a determined look, quick wit, and a forceful argument.

    But it wasn't President Obama. (He said he had to go find his wife.) It was former President Clinton.

    Questions.....

    When President Obama walked off (in favor of finding his wife) and left Bill Clinton at the Presidential podium to answer questions...

    1. Did he admit that he is in over his head?

    2. Did he show the world that he is weak, dazed and confused?

    3. Did he admit that he is not qualified to be president?

    peace to you:praying:
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. No
    2. No
    3. No


    Here is the start of the event:

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hey, everybody. I thought it was a slow day, so I’ve --

    Q Slow news day, huh?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: -- bring the other guy in.

    Obviously, there’s a big debate going on about taxes, and about the need to grow the economy and to create jobs. And just about every day this week, I’ve been making an argument as to why the agreement that we’ve struck to provide billions of dollars in payroll tax cuts that can immediately help rejuvenate the economy, as well as tax cuts for middle-class families, unemployment insurance for folks who desperately need it, credits for college, Child Tax Credits, as well as a range of business investments credits are so important to make sure that we keep this recovery moving.

    I just had a terrific meeting with the former President, President Bill Clinton. And we just happened to have this as a topic of conversation. And I thought, given the fact that he presided over as good an economy as we’ve seen in our lifetimes, that it might be useful for him to share some of his thoughts.
    I’m going to let him speak very briefly. And then I’ve actually got to go over and do some -- just one more Christmas party. So he may decide he wants to take some questions, but I want to make sure that you guys hear it from him directly.

    FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, I feel awkward being here, and now you’re going to leave me all by myself. (Laughter.)
     
    #2 KenH, Dec 10, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2010
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    So with high unemployment - record deficts - record debt - Obama decides that rather than facing the American people and taking questions from the press he can hand the job off because he has a Christmas party?

    A Christmas party is more important?

    Really?
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The president already had a news conference the other day about this. There was no reason for him to do another one about the same thing in the same week.

    If President Obama helped an elderly lady cross the street I think there really are people who would find fault with his action.
     
  5. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    Let me see if I can put this in a different perspective:

    General Hotair: Men, we have a hill to take today, and it's going to be a hard hill to take. I know you all have questions, but I have to go talk to some congressmen about an official golf tournament. So I'm going to let General (retired) Hotwash take over from here.

    General (retired) Hotwash: Ahem, er, harrumph....
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A press conference about a flawed tax bill does not reach the level of a battle in a real war.

    How about keeping our eyes on defeating this tax bill instead of going after a big nothing such as this?
     
  7. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because as one who believes in a constitutionally limited government you are in favor of higher taxes to pay for all the things that the government is not constitutionally empowered to do?
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    Looking for his wife - I heard he was looking for his birth certificate!
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If someone proposes cutting spending alone to balance the federal budget I will be all for it. I would like to see at least a $200-250 billion cut from the defense budget as part of it. The rest can come out of domestic spending.

    The size of domestic spending should primarily be a function of the states.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me understand - you are for a constitutionally limited government that does only what the constitution empowers it to do.

    But if the government is going to spend a trillion dollars more than it has coming in - to do other than what it is constitutionally limited to doing - your solution is cut spending - but if they won't your next solution is to raise taxes?'

    Where is the constitutionally limited government part of your solution?

    Every other sentence from you is "constitutionally limited government" - but it appears that it is nothing more than words to you.

    Raising taxes to fund more stuff that the government is not empowered to do by the constitution is going the wrong direction.

    Can't you see that?

    If you are truly for a constitutionally limited government why would you ever support raising taxes for more unauthorized spending under any circumstances?

    Oh wait - you already answered - "Something is better than nothing."
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    What causes you to think I want to raise federal taxes?
     
  13. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know Targus better than that. Nothing you say will ever satisfy him because he isn't looking for answers. Like his clone Carpro, he is just looking for some way to bash others, especially President Obama. They are like gun barrels, straight as can be and totally empty.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I hope that Targus, and others, does not think that opposing this tax compromise that President Obama has embraced means that one is in favor of increasing taxes. This compromise actually increases taxes on the working poor. This compromise also extends unemployment benefits without cutting other spending to offset the increased cost. By the way, I thought the "new" Republican Party was supposed to be opposed to new spending without offsetting the cost elsewhere.
     
  15. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not extending unemployment payments is a "tax increase"?

    And not raising taxes is "new spending"?

    Ken, have you joined the ranks of liberal Democrats again?
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0

    What are you talking about? Read the following two sentences very, very carefully.


    Raising taxes on the working poor is a tax increase.

    Extending unemployment benefits is new spending.


    Do you understand now????
     
  17. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the tax increase on the poor that is being proposed?
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Obama-GOP Deal: A Tax Hike for the Working Poor

    "Why would the working poor pay more? Because the proposal would replace this year’s Making Work Pay (MWP) credit with a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. That’s a good deal for high earners, who got nothing from MWP (thanks to an income phaseout), but a bad deal for those making $20,000 or less.

    The math works this way: The MWP credit gave as much as $400 to each single worker and up to $800 to couples. If you’re single and earned at least $6,452 (and less than $75,000) in 2010, you got $400. Married couples with earnings over $12,903 (and less than $150,000) got $800.

    But you won’t get $400 from the payroll tax cut until your earnings reach $20,000; earnings have to be twice that high to yield the $800 that MWP gave to couples. So single taxpayers who earn less than $20,000 and married couples earning less than $40,000 will pay more in taxes under the payroll tax cut than under MWP (see graph). Like everyone else, those folks will keep their Bush-era tax cuts and everything else that would continue from 2010 into 2011. But because no other provisions would cut their 2011 taxes relative to 2010, those taxpayers are unequivocally worse off under the compromise in 2011 than under the tax law we have this year."

    - rest at http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010...-working-poor/


    Some form of the MWP should be kept so that the working poor do not see an increase in their taxes.
     
    #18 KenH, Dec 10, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2010
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    MWP was supposed to be for the years 2009 and 2010.

    It was not written to extend into 2011.

    So somehow not rewriting the temporary two year tax credit into another year becomes a "tax increase"?

    Why would a supporter of a constitutionally limited government want wealth transfering tax credits to continue indefinately?
     
  20. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be for the years 2001 to 2010.

    It was not written to extend into 2011.

    So somehow not rewriting the temporary nine year tax cut into another year becomes a "tax increase"?
     

Share This Page

Loading...