• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Odrama the Liar at it again

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I understand your position, I'm a bit more pessimistic. I believe if we do nothing, wallstreet will continue to try and get every penny they can extract from this economy which will send us plummeting further toward a depression.

If it were not for the greed of man, doing nothing might be a vialble solution and would help this economy right itself. However, if the government doesn't get involved the poor will just keep getting poorer and wallstreet will continue to take risk with our financial future.


Do nothing is a pejorative for not spending and it has no validity. The spending and the credit we are racking up is the problem. And what I mean by that is everyone in this country not just government. The whole economy has been established on buying what we cannot currently pay for. odrama campaigned on pay as you go. Of course he lied. And you should be willing to admit pelosi and company is only using this crisis to spend on pet projects. None of this spending has anything to do with helping the economy. It is about furthering the liberal agenda and nothing more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
President Obama sometimes strayed from the facts or made dubious claims during his hour-long evening news conference March 24.

* He said his budget projections are based on economic assumptions that “are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.” Not true. The average projection by leading private economists is now for substantially less economic growth than the administration’s forecast assumes.

* He said he is reducing “nondefense discretionary spending” to less than it was under the past four presidents. Not true. His own forecast for the final budget of his four-year term puts this figure higher than in many years under Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

* He said he was “angry” about “inexcusable” bonuses paid to AIG executives. But he glossed over the fact that his own aides insisted on watering down a Senate-passed amendment that might have prevented payment of such bonuses.

* He repeated that his budget is projected to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term. That’s true, but deficits also are projected to shoot up again later unless big policy changes are made.

One of the most dramatic claims came not from Obama but from a reporter who asked about children “who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country” and who said 1 child in 50 is “homeless.” The truth is far less dramatic. The study he cited doesn’t just count children with no roof over their heads. It also includes those whose families are staying with friends or family members, in hotels and motels, in trailer parks or in housing deemed to be “substandard.”


More Here

I have called O'bama rex a liar as you have. However, on reflection I am not sure that is proper. To call someone a liar implies they understand that there is a difference between a lie and the truth. Assuming that O'bama rex knows the difference, or for that most leftists know the difference, is probably a poor assumption.
 

JustChristian

New Member
Was I telling the truth about what? odrama's ties to the Annenburg organization, or its ties to factcheck.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

http://www.factcheck.org/

Then: Factcheck is owned by the Annenburg Corp which has always had close ties to Ayers and Obama. Nothign is credible about it.

Now:

Factcheck

Obama's Prime Time Pitch
March 25, 2009
Some exaggerations and misstatements from his evening news conference.
Summary
President Obama sometimes strayed from the facts or made dubious claims during his hour-long evening news conference March 24.

* He said his budget projections are based on economic assumptions that “are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.” Not true. The average projection by leading private economists is now for substantially less economic growth than the administration’s forecast assumes.

* He said he is reducing “nondefense discretionary spending” to less than it was under the past four presidents. Not true. His own forecast for the final budget of his four-year term puts this figure higher than in many years under Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

* He said he was “angry” about “inexcusable” bonuses paid to AIG executives. But he glossed over the fact that his own aides insisted on watering down a Senate-passed amendment that might have prevented payment of such bonuses.

* He repeated that his budget is projected to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term. That’s true, but deficits also are projected to shoot up again later unless big policy changes are made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, you claimed "Nothing is credible" about Factcheck. Now you use it as a source against Obama. Which statement is true and which one is not?
 

LeBuick

New Member
Do nothing is a pejorative for not spending and it has no validity. The spending and the credit we are racking up is the problem. And what I mean by that is everyone in this country not just government.

The people I understand but how is government spending or the deficit causing this problem?

. odrama campaigned on pay as you go. Of course he lied.

He did, I don't racall him saying he would pay as he goes. Do you have a link? I heard him promise a lot of spending, tax cuts for the middle class and an increase for the top 5% but I don't recall pay as you go.

And you should be willing to admit pelosi and company is only using this crisis to spend on pet projects. None of this spending has anything to do with helping the economy. It is about furthering the liberal agenda and nothing more.

Unless you call creating jobs no help to the economy then you are dead wrong here. And the stimulus it creates is not a false stimulating effect. True it won't be lasting but there is nothing false about a guy working to build a needed bridge.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The people I understand but how is government spending or the deficit causing this problem?

Spending money which do not not currently have in other words using credit is always the problem. It is over used and is never the solution.



He did, I don't racall him saying he would pay as he goes. Do you have a link? I heard him promise a lot of spending, tax cuts for the middle class and an increase for the top 5% but I don't recall pay as you go.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/



Unless you call creating jobs no help to the economy then you are dead wrong here. And the stimulus it creates is not a false stimulating effect. True it won't be lasting but there is nothing false about a guy working to build a needed bridge.

"Creating jobs" in liberal speak really means "expanding government". That only puts more of a burden on tax payers. That cancels out the impact any jobs created may have had. What we need is jobs created by the free market not government. Government has to get out of the way in order for that to happen.
 

LeBuick

New Member
When you are looking for a crisis you can always find one....

Walmart is doing good.. Saturn is selling cars...

You may have been to quick to judge, Walmart is feeling the crunch like every other company in the land...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090327-711420.html

The optical lab shuttering is the third layoff announcement Wal-Mart has made in the last month-and-a half.

In mid-February, Wal-Mart said it was cutting 700 to 800 positions at its corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., as the retailer realigned certain business areas.

The same week, Wal-Mart said it was closing its return center in Georgia in mid-September and laying off all 400 employees.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Spending money which do not not currently have in other words using credit is always the problem. It is over used and is never the solution.

But what specific problem is it causing the government and how is the government deficit creating our current situation?

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

I stand corrected, thanks for the info... I don't recall this being one of his talking points so I wonder why he would put something like this on his page. I guess that might have gotten him a few republican votes.

"Creating jobs" in liberal speak really means "expanding government". That only puts more of a burden on tax payers. That cancels out the impact any jobs created may have had. What we need is jobs created by the free market not government. Government has to get out of the way in order for that to happen.

Building bridges and roads is not expanding government. For one, it is something government is currently responsible for and two, government is paying money to private industries who intern employs people to do the work. So the jobs being created are not government jobs.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But what specific problem is it causing the government and how is the government deficit creating our current situation?
Slick question. It is causing a loss of jobs and income to begin with. When people and businesses have less money businesses cannot grow. When you take unconstitutional money from people they have less to spend. And what ever benefit is made by government jobs gets nagated by the high taxes that is taken away to sustain those jobs.



I stand corrected, thanks for the info... I don't recall this being one of his talking points so I wonder why he would put something like this on his page. I guess that might have gotten him a few republican votes.

He put it there because it was one of his campaign promises. You conveniently do not remember but I did.



Building bridges and roads is not expanding government. For one, it is something government is currently responsible for and two, government is paying money to private industries who intern employs people to do the work. So the jobs being created are not government jobs.

It is expanding government. First it is not the federal governments responsibility to build roads and bridges. Second why do libbie make the disingenuous attempts to de-emphisize what they are doing? You know darn well this spending is on much more that roads and bridges. The whole thing is not that simple or that innocent.
 

JustChristian

New Member
Was I telling the truth about what? odrama's ties to the Annenburg organization, or its ties to factcheck.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

http://www.factcheck.org/

You said FactCheck wasn;t credible when it was used to support Obama. You said that was because of their ties to the Annenburg organization. Now you're saying it's suddenly credible because you found a FactCheck article that was against Obama.

Is FactCheck credible or not? You don't get to say they are only if they agree with you.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Slick question. It is causing a loss of jobs and income to begin with. When people and businesses have less money businesses cannot grow. When you take unconstitutional money from people they have less to spend. And what ever benefit is made by government jobs gets nagated by the high taxes that is taken away to sustain those jobs.

When the government orders a fighter plane, it puts money in the private sector and creates private sector jobs. the government is the customer. It is no different with building roads and bridges, the government is the customer to all the private companies that will make the materials and build the roads and bridges. Private sector jobs will be used to do the work. American workers will be paid and not with a government check.

It is expanding government. First it is not the federal governments responsibility to build roads and bridges. Second why do libbie make the disingenuous attempts to de-emphisize what they are doing? You know darn well this spending is on much more that roads and bridges. The whole thing is not that simple or that innocent.

Someone should have told Eisenhower since he began the Interstate highway system with a federal tax. I am not saying the entire stimulus bill was to build highways and bridges, parts of the plan have other intension's like extending the benefits for the unemployed.
 

LeBuick

New Member
You said FactCheck wasn;t credible when it was used to support Obama. You said that was because of their ties to the Annenburg organization. Now you're saying it's suddenly credible because you found a FactCheck article that was against Obama.

Is FactCheck credible or not? You don't get to say they are only if they agree with you.

I thought it was credible...
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You said FactCheck wasn;t credible when it was used to support Obama. You said that was because of their ties to the Annenburg organization. Now you're saying it's suddenly credible because you found a FactCheck article that was against Obama.

Is FactCheck credible or not? You don't get to say they are only if they agree with you.


I never said they were credible. I also post from wiki, cbs, nbc, msnbc, washington times etc. None of which have any credibility. Your problem is when an op is posted you want to apply everything posted as if it was the person posting saying those very words. Which really seems to be a practice of a number of folks.

Obama is getting criticism on both sides. The anti-war folks are not happy with him, a good number of dems disagree with quite a few things, and now we have a partisan site that disagrees with him still. Really, I thought that was obvious.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When the government orders a fighter plane, it puts money in the private sector and creates private sector jobs. the government is the customer. It is no different with building roads and bridges, the government is the customer to all the private companies that will make the materials and build the roads and bridges. Private sector jobs will be used to do the work. American workers will be paid and not with a government check.

The money comes from taxes taken from you and me. The stimulus effect is voided out because of that fact. Jobs need to be created in the market by the market with no taxes involved. How many ways do I have to say it.



[qute]Someone should have told Eisenhower since he began the Interstate highway system with a federal tax. I am not saying the entire stimulus bill was to build highways and bridges, parts of the plan have other intension's like extending the benefits for the unemployed.[/QUOTE]

Adn yet you continue to over simplify and play down the reality of all this spending. Anyway it is not relevant who else gathered money to the federal level. There is no specific authority in the constitution to do this.
 

JustChristian

New Member
I never said they were credible. I also post from wiki, cbs, nbc, msnbc, washington times etc. None of which have any credibility. Your problem is when an op is posted you want to apply everything posted as if it was the person posting saying those very words. Which really seems to be a practice of a number of folks.

Obama is getting criticism on both sides. The anti-war folks are not happy with him, a good number of dems disagree with quite a few things, and now we have a partisan site that disagrees with him still. Really, I thought that was obvious.

Why do you post using sources that you believe to be not credible? It doesn't exactly booster your argument.
 
Top