State of the UnionFollow

Yeah, as locke pointed out, Obama was very explicit on his spending freeze policy.

I'm still waiting for you to outline all the lies he told in his talk with the GOP. That's what we're talking about now.

I don't really care what the source for your list is, it's laughable. Protip, if you want to claim something is a lie, fucking back it up.

ie: "The bipartisan fiscal commission." -- What about this is a lie? It's not a statement or anything, it's just a commission. It hasn't even started yet, so claiming this is a lie really doesn't make sense from any angle.

Edited, Feb 1st 2010 2:36pm by Xsarus

Yes, all very nice talking points Gbaji. What I've heard of the spending freeze came out of the state of the union and he was very clear that it wouldn't be this year. Doesn't seem deceptive at all, seems more like laying out a plan. I know you like the improv version better though.

I could go over your other points but they're so asinine and misrepresenting, that it's just not worth it. It's ironic to complain about strawmen and then throw them around like candy. At any rate, we're not talking about any of this right now.

Varus said that his talk with the GOP was full of lies, so I challenged him on it. What did you think of the talk with the GOP? Lets stay on topic slightly shall we?

Edited, Feb 1st 2010 3:33pm by Xsarus

He couldn't have been much more explicit. He stated the plan (freeze spending), when it would start (2011), why he thought it shouldn't start immediately (preserve 2010 economy) and a brief remark to harumphing Republicans ("That's how budgeting works").

Mentioning it during the SotU was entirely appropriate. The Address is a time for the President to remark on the challenges the nation faces and how he plans to address them, not only in the next eleven months but throughout his term.

He explained exactly why he's spending this year. Disagree with his reasons if you want, but he's not being disingenuous about it.

No, he did it to explain his overall plan. People aren't complaining because they think oh well, at least he'll freeze spending next year, they're not complaining because they agree with his spending. The people who are complaining are complaining because they disagree with his spending, but at least most of them aren't making some scenario.

Economists would beg to differ, but what do they know. I know I know, you're better at understanding fields then the people who are experts in it. How's that SCOTUS case about Obama's birth certificate coming?

Edited, Feb 1st 2010 3:59pm by Xsarus

He was asked about that and he addressed that in his speech. Maybe you should watch/read it.

I think the best part of these recent talks was when Obama was challenged on why he didn't accept a proposed GOP bill and then he proceeded to rattle off all the elements they actually incorporated. I was actually surprised at the number of GOP suggestions that have been integrated into the dems bills. Not surprising that people ignore it though, it's hard to act all victimized when you're actually being listened to.

The only phenomenon we have to compare it with is the Crash of '29 which led to the Great Depression.

I assume that's the comparison he was making. Certainly the assumption in 1929 was that the economy would right itself, and we know that unemployment did reach 25% for several months in the 30's.

What model would you use?

A spending freeze doesn't stimulate the economy. That's sort of the point.

not a lie, sorry, he actually did this.

Yeah, he addressed that. He didn't kick out existing lobbyists that were on contract, but simply replaced ones whose contract has expired. There are occaisional exceptions for specifically qualified people, but he has the lowest number of lobbyists of any administration, and that number will only go down.

If he does it would be false

Edited, Feb 1st 2010 5:12pm by Xsarus

Then why mention the spending freeze? Are you seriously trying to argue that the inclusion of this proposed freeze for next year wasn't intended to soften resistance to the spending increases he's proposing this year? It's like all the other appeals to the right he's done. They're largely empty gestures designed to be "on paper" what the Right wants, but isn't actually what they want, but allows the folks on the left to tell the folks on the right to shut up because you got what you wanted...


Um... If the folks on the right are looking at this with skepticism and complaining about it, it's because it's *not* what we want. And no amount of others insisting it should be will make it so. This is just like the so called "Obama tax cuts", which while technically tax cuts, were not the sort of cuts which conservatives view as useful. There too, we were told we should be happy because Obama "cut taxes". Um... No. I don't think so.




Yes. Which allows him to sell the two as one package, thus making it easier for him to get the spending increases he's asking for. What part of that don't you understand?



Er? We're complaining about that. But we're *also* complaining that he seems to be using the promise of a spending freeze to buy support for a spending increase today. What part of that is confusing to you?



Really? You know that for a fact? Or you just assume it is true? I can quote a lot of economists who will support my statement *and* mine makes more sense. Feel free to show me evidence beyond political punditry that government spending actually creates more jobs than it costs.


And I mean "real jobs", not the bogus numbers the Obama administration keeps tossing around. Hiring 10 people for 4 hours a day for 2 weeks doesn't count as ten jobs.

Way to go with the rhetoric! ;)

How about "tax cuts on the portions of the economy which are primarily responsible for creating the most jobs, innovation, and standard of living increases for society as a whole". Those are the taxes we want to see lowered. That they happen to also fit into your semantic definition of "the rich" doesn't change the very real effect those taxes have on everyone else.

Obama's "tax cuts" consisted of tax cuts for portions of the economy which don't currently pay any taxes. That's not a "tax cut", unless taxes can be counted in negative numbers. See. When taxes are negative, that's a payout or a benefit. Obama just used some math tricks to label increased spending programs as tax cuts. And then folks like you insisted that conservatives shouldn't cry foul...

Funny!




Sure. Three points:

1. If you are compromising on an issue, you don't get to pretend that said issue is something you really supported all along.

2. If the thing you are compromising on isn't really what the other guy wants, you aren't really compromising.

2. If the thing you want happens now, and the thing you promise to do in return never happens, it's also not really a compromise either...




I agree that Obama has proposed a spending freeze. What I *don't* agree on is the relevance of said spending freeze, the degree to which said spending freeze justifies or balances out his proposed spending increases this year, and finally whether or not said spending freeze will actually happen when the time comes.


It's not about what he said. It's not about the words themselves. It's about the meaning and importance of the promise he's making. If you and I are arguing about what to have for dinner and I like meat, while you are a vegan, it would be absurd for me to propose a compromise in which tonight we eat veal but tomorrow night we'll have chicken salad. But it's salad, right! That's a compromise you should accept because it's got some leafy greens in it, right? Why are you complaining? Jeez!


See how silly that is? That's what your argument is like. You're insisting that I should be happy with Obama's proposals because they seem quite reasonable to you. Um... It's not a real compromise unless they seem reasonable to both sides.