Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:11 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.” Back to Topics
teacher_tim

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 1:01:00 PM

Oh Goody! Nothing to worry about then...

"Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 5:08:59 PM

gocatgo, "As long as cons continue on their narrow path of no compromise they will lose more followers."

Who was it that said they would not compromise on the debt ceiling?

It wasn't Rep. Boehner!
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 5:29:01 PM

"BS, Obama won the popular vote by only 2.5%, hardly a "landslide". Popular Vote Winner: Obama Won Popular Vote By Nearly 3 Percent."

That's just what I wrote!

Please re-read what I wrote with understanding instead of the usual Reactionary chip on your shoulder that leads too often to the Reactionary stepping into their own BS charge. That REALLY must STINK<G>.

"like Obama's huge Electoral Landslide win was NOT a landslide if you only took way people actually voted by popular vote instead of the "gerrymandered (by State)" Electoral College."

Did you miss the word "NOT"? I even capitalized it in case Reactionaries were reading and misunderstanding.


Didn't help. Should I petition the Mods to allow "bold" for those burdened with too many political cowchips on their shoulders?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 1:07:52 PM

Gerrymandering?! Try Maryland's electoral District 2 for a textbook example of THAT.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:01:35 AM

Passer, "What you missed, was that even in the last election, if the results were combined fairly and without segmented or divided with respect to how people voted in the recent past locally, the Democrats would have a majority of House seats -- and "the American People voted to keep Republicans in control of the House" would be more obviously shown to be NOT true -- which it wasn't --

like Obama's huge Electoral Landslide win was NOT a landslide if you only took way people actually voted by popular vote instead of the "gerrymandered (by State)" Electoral College."

BS, Obama won the popular vote by only 2.5%, hardly a "landslide". Popular Vote Winner: Obama Won Popular Vote By Nearly 3 Percent
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 5:27:11 PM

"Is there a significant difference in saying it that way than in saying "...the American people voted to keep Republicans in control of the House..."?

Yes. It gets to the purpose of Gerrymandering, to thwart the majority's fair representation by artificially drawing district lines so to give a minority of voters more political clout than they would otherwise have if district lines were drawn fairly and without respect to historical results.

What you missed, was that even in the last election, if the results were combined fairly and without segmented or divided with respect to how people voted in the recent past locally, the Democrats would have a majority of House seats -- and "the American People voted to keep Republicans in control of the House" would be more obviously shown to be NOT true -- which it wasn't --

like Obama's huge Electoral Landslide win was NOT a landslide if you only took way people actually voted by popular vote instead of the "gerrymandered (by State)" Electoral College.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,406
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 4:46:43 PM

Your right Passer House members are voted on by the people in their district. Enough people in enough districts voted to put the rebublican in place that the majority of House members are Republican - now are yoU satisfied.

Is there a significant difference in saying it that way than in saying "...the American people voted to keep Republicans in control of the House..."?

Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 4:35:24 PM

"...the American people voted to keep Republicans in control of the House as a check on the out of control spending on Osama's failed policies".

That is not accurate. House members are not elected nationally, they are elected by their own provincial voters and the fact is, most of the districts are gerrymandered so the incumbent doesn't face much opposition. Again, the fact is, nationally, the House voting in the last cycle was Democratic and the Democrats would have the majority even in the House, based on National, rather than local voting.

Again, that's why Republicans are losers. They create and believe their own myths and refuse to self examine themselves and how revolting their 1950's era prejudices look to the newer Demographics of the American People.


And it's only going to get worse for them. The American People flipped their Whigs once, and it seems, if the GOP don't mend their ways, they will be flipped as a majority party for national elections, too.

They are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own manufactured facts.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 11:47:54 AM

gocatgo, still, the American people voted to keep Republicans in control of the House as a check on the out of control spending on Osama's failed policies
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,406
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 11:02:09 AM

Speedy 100% of those Obama talks to do not think spending is oput of control. They all think we are not spending anywhere enough and we must tax the rich more.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 10:51:14 AM

In a recent poll, 83% of Americans said they think that government spending is out of control. Will Obama do what is necessary and cut government spending or will he concentrate on things like immigration reform (amnesty)?
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 10:47:21 AM

nstrd, "the fact remains" your candidate lost the election. It is time to move on. Nobody likes a poor loser. Had the election not gone my way I would say the same to my fellow dems.

Passer, "was it smoke and mirrors"? Easy now you are going to confuse cons with facts and a lesson in history. As long as cons continue on their narrow path of no compromise they will lose more followers.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2013 6:55:53 PM

"The reason obama won, is because he managed once again to fool the gullable among us with smoke and mirrors."

Was it the smoke or the mirrors that fooled Latinos that millions of them should "self deport"?

Was it the smoke or mirrors that troubled women about how Republican men running for the High Office of Senate had such deep "understanding" about them and the "unfortunate but God sanctioned" act of rape? And that Republican Talk Show Spokesmen and Leaders so easily called too many of them "sluts"?

Was it Obama's smoke and mirrors that had the Republican Nominee for President write off 47% of the voters before he even started?

ETC. ETC.

Noseatbelt, Too many Republicans are in such Denial that it is tantamount to a Political Psychosis that too many of you suffer from. But that makes me happy! The longer that the Reactionaries don't get help they need and stew in their hatreds and Denial, the longer that they will REMAIN losers! So Help Them God.










[Edited by: Passer at 1/20/2013 7:00:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 5:36:49 PM

gocatgo, "nstrd, some of the above is for you too. Still neither of you have mentioned the electoral college. Those numbers move the Obama majority closer to 2/3. Nstrd, I expected a little better from you. I suggest you take some time off and rest."

The fact remains that the same electorate voted to keep Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives in the same election.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 5:25:14 PM

The reason obama won, is because he managed once again to fool the gullable among us with smoke and mirrors. Iv'e already heard some that voted for him, say it was a mistake. I guess, the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fits people like that quite well.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 3:55:43 PM

Passer,

I didn't think I would have to explain this to you, but when I referred to marbles, I was referring to tax dollars. The question for you and Obama is: How much do you want to borrow/steal from your children and grandchildren?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,046
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 1:39:40 PM

Poop. It's what's for dinner.

Plenty to go around!
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 12:35:40 PM

101, in your outrage about losing the election you are trying to minimize the point that Obama won the election and I ain't buying it. Yes the HoR is con controlled and yes they also lost some seats to dems which you failed to mention. "52% of the people did not vote", being dismissive and grasping for straws does not change the election results. Did you have the same attitude after W Bush's first election? Of course not. Please keep reading.

nstrd, some of the above is for you too. Still neither of you have mentioned the electoral college. Those numbers move the Obama majority closer to 2/3. Nstrd, I expected a little better from you. I suggest you take some time off and rest.

Mich, "actually there were more votes for dems" people that can't read or listen because of biased attitudes are hard to get through to. Good Luck.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 8:38:45 PM

To simplify my earlier post, we have a PAYING problem.

If we want stuff, we have to pay for it. But no one wants to pay for the stuff they can get for free; Defense jobs, road construction jobs, welfare, Medicare, wars, foreign aid to "friendly" countries and just about everything else the government provides us with.

We want it all. But, like spoiled, selfish, bratty children, we refuse to pay for it. We throw temper tantrums about taxes. We throw temper tantrums about lost jobs, cuts in defense, cuts in medicare, cuts in anything.

Time to grow up and face the music.

Now, if you tell me you want welfare cut, but military increased, or military cuts, and welfare increases, I will not only call you a spoiled, selfish brat. I will call you a pathetic hypocrite.

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket", the Lieutenant gets a good line (one we all heard back then)

"It's a big s--t sandwich, and we all are gonna have to step up and take a bite"

That's about it.

Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,366
Points:1,941,250
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 7:10:08 PM

YDraigGoch said: "we have the highest debt to GDP ratio EVER"

It's not just that it's the highest ever, it's higher than the GDP, 103.9% at the end of 2012, by this reckoning. It was at 74.1% at the end of 2008.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:57:41 PM

"How do you play with a guy that just wants to keep taking more and more of your marbles and does not want to pay for them?"

Your country VOTED him "the Leader" playing fairly and by all the rules! Just because YOU lost don't cry and pout after YOU LOST! YOU are the sore loser and no amount of rationalization changes that fact.

Sour grapes will not satisfy nor be an adequate substitute for the marbles you lost.

Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:50:10 PM

"52% of the people that decided to vote is not most of America."

>>According to data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), 2008 marked the fourth straight presidential election in which fewer than 60% of Americans cast a ballot.<<

. . . and less people voted in 2012 than in 2008. I heard Obama received 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008 and Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain received.

So I guess the correct statement would be that 31.2% (or less) of America's registered voters supported Obama in 2012.

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 1/16/2013 5:50:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:45:36 PM

Passer,

How do you play with a guy that just wants to keep taking more and more of your marbles and does not want to pay for them?
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:39:39 PM

"52% of the people that decided to vote is not most of America."

But only the people who care enough to vote, make the decisions in a Democracy. ALL the others, don't really matter and have given up any right to decide anything.

Of course GOP Reactionaries, who were never big on Democracy itself, and who put it down at almost every chance they get, will tend to disagree. They are like spoiled children who if they don't get their way, take their marbles home and don't play out of spite. What they don't realize is that if they don't play they might as well have lost their marbles (which is not too unlike a Reactionary's Political Position) <G>.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:32:26 PM

Note (for clarity): "Them" and "they" (ie, the Losers) refer exclusively to the Republican Party in my last post, and not in any way to a Little League.





[Edited by: Passer at 1/16/2013 5:33:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:30:12 PM

gocatgo, read again what I wrote.

Half of the people that decided to vote is not most of America.

Let me reword it for you:

52% of the people that decided to vote is not most of America.

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 1/16/2013 5:31:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:13:57 PM

"The election is over, the people voted to keep the branch of government that controls spending to be run by republicans."

The Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and the House, and lost the presidency.

Only a Republican can gloat about that and call it a "victory". Yet they go ballistic when a Little League Baseball League gives a trophy to all the players.

I guess to them, the difference is whether or not they are the LOSERS

and as usual, the principle is buried so deep you would need one of their shovels to find it. But no problem, nobody has ever accused them of not being able to shovel anything with the best of 'em...
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:04:39 PM

"The part I don't "undeRstand" is that you seem to think that those very same people that voted for Obama also voted to keep the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. They were all elected on the same ballot as Obama was on.

The election is over, the people voted to keep the branch of government that controls spending to be run by republicans. ""



Actually when it came to the house races there were more votes for Dems than republicans. The only reason the Rs held onto the house was due to heavy gerrymandering.


[Edited by: michaelphoenix2 at 1/16/2013 5:04:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:00:40 PM

gocatgo, "101, "half of the people"? Obama got over half of the votes in the election and further, Romney got less than half. What part of that do you not understand?"

The part I don't "understand" is that you seem to think that those very same people that voted for Obama also voted to keep the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. They were all elected on the same ballot as Obama was on.

The election is over, the people voted to keep the branch of government that controls spending to be run by republicans.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 3:43:25 PM

101, "half of the people"? Obama got over half of the votes in the election and further, Romney got less than half. What part of that do you not understand? Mr Con the election is over unless you have a new conspiracy that I have not heard.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 1:41:24 PM

Boehner told Obama, “Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.”

Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

That about says it all.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2013 11:43:25 PM

>>I have a News Flash for you we just had an election and most of America disagreed with you.<<

Half of the people that decided to vote is not most of America.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2013 11:58:02 AM

Rab, "it certainly looks like we need a new President". I have a News Flash for you we just had an election and most of America disagreed with you.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2013 9:28:03 AM

Passer, "The difference is in the Bushy Tale. When the Neocons (but Cons, none the less) were in charge, (and they weren't just "reps" they were just as con-iving as the usual cons, ie spending up the wazoo right after Clinton handed them a balanced budget) they spent worse than Liberals but on their own GOP priorities, like wars and defense!"

OK, and what happened during the first year of Bush's term that caused us to spend more money, do you have a clue? I'll give you a date in his first year to see if you can figure it out, 9/11/2001.

BY the way, since Congress controls spending, it was the "con" controlled Congress that gave us the "surplus".

If you think that "The cons were spending up the wazoo" during the Bush years, what the heck do you call the massive increase from there that was spent under the Obama administration? Enough to add a trillion dollars a year to the debt???

Go ahead, give us your best defense for the Obama/dems increase in spending!
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,455
Points:2,334,790
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 5:34:20 PM

"I think you need to substitute "reps" for "cons". There is a difference."

The difference is in the Bushy Tale. When the Neocons (but Cons, none the less) were in charge, (and they weren't just "reps" they were just as con-iving as the usual cons, ie spending up the wazoo right after Clinton handed them a balanced budget) they spent worse than Liberals but on their own GOP priorities, like wars and defense!

"There is a difference".

Only in the speed in which you wag your Bushy Tail.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 5:16:59 PM

We don't have a spending problem.

We don't have a revenue problem.

We have a BUYING ON CREDIT problem.

Unless we pass a hard core law that forbids spending even one cent more than we take in, we will keep going deeper and deeper in debt.

Governments can spend as much as they like as long as they take in enough taxes to pay for it. When the taxes get high enough to get most of the people mad, they will fire the spenders.

But the people are not getting mad because we have the lowest tax burden since the fifties.

But at the same time, we have the highest debt to GDP ratio EVER.

So, two simple rules to keep things running smoothly.

1. If the money is not in the treasury, you cannot spend it. If you must spend more for unexpected emergencies (wars, disasters), then the revenue MUST be added to the following year to pay off the debt.

2. If you want to cut taxes, you MUST specify what spending cuts will be MANDATED. If the spending cuts are not agreed to, you cannot cut taxes.

By the way, number 2 was the advice O'Neil gave Bush. He was FIRED for that. Not a "team player". Not with the "feed the rich" protocol.

You see, every time we borrow to buy something, that something benefits rich investors in the company we buy from. They get to keep their profit.

WE get to pay the bill. Unless we borrow the money. From our kids.
Profile Pic
Edger
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:41,857
Points:2,692,735
Joined:Apr 2005
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 2:10:19 PM

When have you had a com org (community organizer) have a problem spending other people's money?
Obama has retained his com org characteristics and won't be changing them anytime soon.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:636
Points:74,970
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 10:28:23 AM

It certainly looks like we need a new president.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 10:27:11 AM

mud, cons = reps. Cons have no problem putting 2 wars on the Bank of China visa card. Both parties have contributed to the problem.

Tim, "cut every budget 5%", I agree we need to start somewhere. I think we know what doing nothing accomplishes. The problem is the Golden Cows of both parties. For cons military pay, aid to Israel, Nasa, new military weapons just to name a few. For dems there is Social Security, medicare, medicaid and Obamacare.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,746
Points:814,100
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 8:38:06 AM

Waiting for a White House Press reporter to ask the President's Press Secretary the question directly... but not holding my breath.

Simple enough. Cut every single Federal department budget by 5%. If you want new "initiatives" [ie. spending] in something, you need to take that money from some other area of the budget. If the number of entitlements are rising, you need to adjust the benefits downward to achieve the 5% reduction in the overall budget for that agency. Freeze hiring, reduce staff, reduce pensions, whatever it takes to get to 5%. The easiest way to start would be to require every budget within a department to start at zero and justify their budget from there, not start at last year's budget and justify the increases.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,437
Points:1,781,340
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 11:47:51 AM

gocat: "While most of the blame goes to dems, cons have had their share of paying problems too."


I think you need to substitute "reps" for "cons". There is a difference.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 11:40:23 AM

"Spending problem"? No, more like a paying problem. In 2008 I bought a brand spanking new car that cost about double my annual pension income. But I had money in the bank to get a check for the full amount. Sadly America is not as good at managing money as me, a "meer hi skoel" drop out with a Ged certificate. Who is at fault for not paying? Every politician that voted for spending money America did not have. While most of the blame goes to dems, cons have had their share of paying problems too.

While I don't know who said what but Congress better get busy and do some spending cuts with few if any exceptions.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 9:12:47 AM

jayrad, ""Reportedly" is the operative word here. Any proof Obama did say that? If not, nothing here. Time to move on."

Then explain why the fiscal cliff "compromise" had a 41:1 taxes to spending cut ratio.

If Obama believes that there is a spending problem, and wants "a balanced approach", why was there almost no spending cuts?

Actions speak louder than words.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 3:34:03 PM

proving, once again, just how clueless obama is.
Profile Pic
nraacct
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:8,892
Points:1,730,605
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 3:27:01 PM

No surprise here.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,904
Points:1,141,110
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 12:37:25 PM

The politicians in Washington do not have a spending problem. In fact they have just the opposite. They are way too good at spending, they will spend millions to figure out how to spend hundreds, but they defiantly do not have a spending problem.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,046
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 11:04:25 AM

jay, and other doubters, read this source (WSJ)

Yes, it was "reported". That's what "Reporters" are supposed to do. Talk to a person (Boehner, Speaker Of The House), and "report" what he said. Boehner was relating what the President had said. Again, more reporting. But unless the fly on the wall (no offense to a certain member from Utah) comes forward and makes a report, we'll have to accept the reporting that has been reported.

"The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"—he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that."

It all sounds plausible to me. Boehner ready to deal with the issues, the President dismissively avoiding the issues.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,207
Points:2,100,740
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:41:04 AM

"Reportedly" is the operative word here. Any proof Obama did say that? If not, nothing here. Time to move on.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,717
Points:3,035,010
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:37:09 AM

The first problem is "reportedly said" from that point this topic goes downhill. So did Boehner "reportedly" start bawling. As for a healthcare problem, medicare and medicaid costs between 2001-2010 have gone up up over 75%. And that is a major problem for every American.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,406
Points:1,423,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:05:56 AM

nstrdnvstr - agreed - pay little if any atention to what these people say. Watch carefully the results of what they do.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,381
Points:4,483,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 9:55:13 AM

worryfree, "No reason to believe the comment was ever made."

Actions speak louder than words. The deficit has INCREASED under Obama, even tough he promised to cut it by half.
Post a reply Back to Topics