Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes

Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-release-4-trillion-plus-budget-for-2017/2016/02/09/3cc719e6-cf0e-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_story.html

Markle

Markle

PkrBum wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-release-4-trillion-plus-budget-for-2017/2016/02/09/3cc719e6-cf0e-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_story.html

Nothing from our Progressive good friends.

Lame Duck President Obama ignores any sort of cuts in spending and goes for breaking the bank. Plunge us ever deeper into debt.

Hope your grand children become REALLY good earners!

Guest


Guest

The leftists should just promise to do away with taxes altogether. They could just print the federal budget.

Yea Team..!!

knothead

knothead

Unfortunately it is a moot exercise with the existing GOP House who also have lost all credibility in their capacity to govern . . . . . . they made a pact to not pass any initiative from Obama and they have been true to their word. Next year should be fun with Ryan as speaker-held-hostage by the Tea Party caucus.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:Lame Duck President Obama ignores any sort of cuts in spending and goes for breaking the bank.  Plunge us ever deeper into debt.

But it was okay when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran large deficits, correct?

I seem to remember it was Reagan who started the ball rolling by cutting taxes and simply printing the money he wanted to spend. What was his first deficit--$129 Billion back in 1981? Was this not unprecedented for that era? He showed every politician who followed him how to do it, and brother, they have!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Perhaps he shouldn't have shoved obamacaid down our throats by any means necessary? Including lies, backdoor meetings, bribes, fixed voting tactics, and hyperbole. If you recall... that lead to an historic rebuke at the voting booth in 2010.

knothead

knothead

PkrBum wrote:Perhaps he shouldn't have shoved obamacaid down our throats by any means necessary? Including lies, backdoor meetings, bribes, fixed voting tactics, and hyperbole. If you recall... that lead to an historic rebuke at the voting booth in 2010.


Are you implying that these tactics were a first in Washington? Politics is a blood sport unfortunately.

Guest


Guest

There's a further point too... after eight years of pumping money via debt into the economy to give an illusion of recovery... the national debt has grown enormously. That has apparently gone unnoticed... or even worse... gone unconcerned by from the useful idiots... but it will be over the long term. When interest rates actually start rising to service that debt... something that hasn't occurred for his term.... that's when Obama's presidency will really be the gift that keeps on giving. The implications of his presidency will be felt and paid for by generations to come. Congratulations comrades.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Perhaps he shouldn't have shoved obamacaid down our throats by any means necessary? Including lies, backdoor meetings, bribes, fixed voting tactics, and hyperbole. If you recall... that lead to an historic rebuke at the voting booth in 2010.


Are you implying that these tactics were a first in Washington? Politics is a blood sport unfortunately.

I'm not implying anything... I'm flat out telling you that it should be no surprise that there are repercussions.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Lame Duck President Obama ignores any sort of cuts in spending and goes for breaking the bank.  Plunge us ever deeper into debt.

But it was okay when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran large deficits, correct?

I seem to remember it was Reagan who started the ball rolling by cutting taxes and simply printing the money he wanted to spend. What was his first deficit--$129 Billion back in 1981? Was this not unprecedented for that era? He showed every politician who followed him how to do it, and brother, they have!

PLEASE, step up and show us where any President in history has surpassed the DEFICITS and DEBT accumulated by Lame Duck President Obama.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Perhaps he shouldn't have shoved obamacaid down our throats by any means necessary? Including lies, backdoor meetings, bribes, fixed voting tactics, and hyperbole. If you recall... that lead to an historic rebuke at the voting booth in 2010.


This has been explained to you countless times.  The "shellacking" that occurred during the midterms was due to house district gerrymandering.  Democrats actually won the popular vote during those elections.  That is, more people came out and voted for democrats than for republicans.  It is only due to the redrawing of districts that republicans were able to lose the popular vote, and yet "shellack" the democrats.  


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/26/lloyd-doggett/democrats-outpolled-republicans-who-landed-33-seat/


Republicans even released an internal memo conceding their victory to the strategy of house district gerrymandering.


http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/


As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data.

The rationale was straightforward:  Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.  Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

...

2010 proved to be an even bigger “wave” election at the state level than anticipated. Republicans flipped at least 19 legislative bodies to Republican control and hold majorities in 10 of the 15 states that will gain or lose U.S. House seats and where the legislature plays a role in redrawing the map.

Republicans have an opportunity to create 20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process over the next five election cycles, solidifying a Republican House majority.

We could not have succeeded and cannot continue to succeed without your support – Join Us Today.


See the part that I placed in bold there?  That is why republicans won in 2010 and 2012.  It has nothing to do with a rebuke of the ACA.

Well, unless you're a 'useful idiot'.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Ya... cause a motivated turnout never wins elections... lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

Approximately 82.5 million people voted. [2] The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections,with many seats switching to Republican Party control. Although the President's party usually loses congressional,statewide and local seats in a midterm elections,the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives,recapturing the majority,and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained sixseats in the U.S. Senate,expanding its minority,and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races, [3][4][5] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974. [5] This left Republicans in control of 26 state legislatures,compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election,Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Political analysts in October 2010 predicted sweeping Republican gains this election,but despite a reported "enthusiasm gap" between likely Republican and Democratic voters, [6] turnout increased relative to the last U.S. midterm elections without any significant shift in voters' political identification. [7] The swaying views of self-declared independent voters, however,were largely responsible for the shift from Democratic to Republican gains. [8]

Candidates and voters in 2010 focused on national economic conditions and the economic policies of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. Attention was paid to public anger over the Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush in late 2008. Voters were also motivated for and against the sweeping reforms of the health care system enacted by Democrats in 2010,as well as concerns over taxrates and record deficits. [9] At the time of the election,unemployment was over 9%, and had not declined significantly since Barack Obama had become President. Further eroding public trust in Congress were a series of scandals that saw Democratic Representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters,as well as Republican Senator John Ensign,all accused of unethical and/or illegal conduct in the months leading up to the 2010 election.

The fiscally-focused and quasi-libertarian Tea Party movement was a vocal force in mobilizing voters for Republican candidates nationwide. Their widespread exposure in the media contributed to the election's focus on economic,rather than social,issues.

The passage of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also contributed to the low approval ratings of Congress,particularly Democrats,in the months leading up to the election. Many Republicans ran on a promise to repeal the law,and beat incumbent Democratic opponents who had voted in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Lame Duck President Obama ignores any sort of cuts in spending and goes for breaking the bank.  Plunge us ever deeper into debt.

But it was okay when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran large deficits, correct?

I seem to remember it was Reagan who started the ball rolling by cutting taxes and simply printing the money he wanted to spend. What was his first deficit--$129 Billion back in 1981? Was this not unprecedented for that era? He showed every politician who followed him how to do it, and brother, they have!

PLEASE, step up and show us where any President in history has surpassed the DEFICITS and DEBT accumulated by Lame Duck President Obama.

What is $129 billion from 1981 in 2016 dollars? That gives a better perspective on what Reagan wrought.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Lame Duck President Obama ignores any sort of cuts in spending and goes for breaking the bank.  Plunge us ever deeper into debt.

But it was okay when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran large deficits, correct?

I seem to remember it was Reagan who started the ball rolling by cutting taxes and simply printing the money he wanted to spend. What was his first deficit--$129 Billion back in 1981? Was this not unprecedented for that era? He showed every politician who followed him how to do it, and brother, they have!

PLEASE, step up and show us where any President in history has surpassed the DEFICITS and DEBT accumulated by Lame Duck President Obama.

What is $129 billion from 1981 in 2016 dollars? That gives a better perspective on what Reagan wrought.

$129 BILLION today would be $336 BILLION today. Still, a drop in the budget compared to that "accomplished" by Lame Duck President Obama.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Ya... cause a motivated turnout never wins elections... lol.


PkrBum, I don't know how else to dumb this down for you any more than I already have but I'll try.  Democrats won the popular vote in both the 2010 and 2012 House elections.  In spite of that, republicans won more seats.   Let me repeat that for you again, more people turned out and voted for democrats than republican by a margin greater than 1,000,000 votes (estimates range from a 1.14 to 1.4 million popular vote victor) and yet republicans still cleaned house with less votes.  

You understand why that is, right?  I mean, I have explained it to you before.  I even explained it to you in this thread.  Your retort is to say "Yeah, lol, like turnout didn't have anything to do with it."  PkrBum, yes, there was high voter turnout.  And if we tally the votes, democrats won the popular vote by a margin of 1,000,000 +.    

What this means is that these elections were not a rebuke of anything.  More people came out and voted for democrats in each of those elections, but republicans still won more seats because of house district gerrymandering.  

You understand this, right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.

HAVING the first modern democracy comes with bugs. Normally we would expect more seats in Congress to go to the political party that receives more votes, but the last election confounded expectations. Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the second such reversal since World War II.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.



Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.


It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.


OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

1 + 1 = Representative Republic

boards of FL

boards of FL

So you have no response?  You accuse me of relying on a talking point, and yet your only contribution in this back and forth has been a talking point.  I'm trying to take the conversation beyond that.  I'm trying to elevate this to a level where we each present facts and evidence that inform our points of view and then we can see which theory, if any, is correct.

I just laid out my evidence.  1. Democrats won the popular vote by 1.4 million .  2.  Nevertheless, republicans still won their third largest house majority in US history. 3.  The phenomena of losing the popular vote but winning house seats has only ever occurred one prior time in US history.

So there is my evidence, again.  To date, we only have your talking point.  I feel the need to use one of your own quotes from this thread at this point:


PkrBum wrote:You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief.


Were you projecting there?  Aren't you fitting that description more than I am here?  I'm giving you a very precise assertion and I'm supporting that with multiple lines of evidence.  You have given me a talking point.

Is that it, talking-point-repeater-guy?  Is that all you're good for: repeating talking points?

Last chance for PkrBum.   Do you have anything to add here beyond a repeated talking point?

Uh oh...it's happening again.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Your "popular vote" point is a logical fallacy. We are not a populist democracy. But you know that and ignore it. I'm not interested in dancing in circles to your ideologue beat. There has been manipulations by both parties... but nothing on this scale:

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.

The amendment was proposed in the 62nd Congress in 1912 and became law in 1913 after being ratified by the required 36 state legislatures.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Imagine that, PkrBum "the talking point parrot", has nothing to offer beyond his original talking point. This is a character trait that he himself possesses, and yet incorrectly ascribes to others.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Imagine that... bofer has latched onto one factor... ignoring others... that allows for his desired partisan narrative.

Yawn...

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes Blog_deficit_cause

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.


It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.


OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???

Here is the topic: Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.


It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.


OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???

Here is the topic:  Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes.



Too true, Ole' Man Markle. Too, true.

Speaking of which, what year is this budget for? Do you know?


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum