Obama spending binge never happened: Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

AlphaPete · 2012-05-24T17:22:57.757456+00:00

This is all one huge numbers game and I am pretty sick of seeing five articles about it. The right is accurately saying Obama has spent more than any other president. They are not disputing his percentage growth or anything like that. Plain and simple his administration has spent the most money.

What is surprising is he tried to spend more, but congress shot him down on numerous occasions. So you boast Obama for his spending, and ridicule the congress that made it happen. Hypocrisy at work.

278225mw · 2012-05-23T20:37:59.093634+00:00

Agreed. It is ironic though. Plus nothing against you, but living in NY and being an O's fan its better to argue with a Yankee fan online than in real life.

reddit4 · 2012-05-23T19:44:36.972432+00:00

Holy fuck, do you not get it? Are you that blind that you don't see that this is an opinion article? Can you not see the OP's submission is a quote and then another snippet taken out of context?

The issue is not that Republicans are the victims. It is that this article and people like you who take it for fact are so obsessed with hating the Republicans that they can't see that it is the whole fucking system ruining this country, not just one party. You have Democrats on the payroll, and all they get is a quick glance at how much they are paid. No scathing remarks like the Republicans get, or no mention of how hypocritical the Democrats are.

278225mw · 2012-05-23T19:35:53.871338+00:00

Teams like the Yankees are why Billy Beane came up with his system. The only thing the Yankees do is throw money at their problems and hope they get fixed.

reddit4 · 2012-05-23T19:20:14.712891+00:00

Sticking the Volcker rule as an amendment into a bill they knew wasn't going to pass is a political trick that apparently fooled you and a few other liberals on here. Open your eyes and realize that all politicians have their hand in the cookie jar.

reddit4 · 2012-05-23T19:07:01.067760+00:00

A few times? How about closer to one time. The article never mention the stance the Democrats who are in the payroll have. It only singled out the Republicans like every other opinion article on r/politics.

reddit4 · 1 day

If course, another op-ed article blasting the Republicans and keeping the Democrats away from blame. The whole senate banking committee is on Jp Morgan Chase's payroll, and that includes the Democrats. So this writer only takes what the Republicans say and bashes them, but barely talks about the Democrats on the committee and what they said.

nomdeweb · 1 day

Well obviously you took what I said and stretched it to make a point for yourself. She is the daughter of the president, not just any relative. She holds power in that country more than just some relative.

It depends on their stance and views. Castro's daughter works in the government and obviously has no problem in how its run, so people are going to be outraged when she is given permission to come here. If its a relative that has nothing to do with government I don't see a problem. So nice try bud.

nomdeweb · 1 day

So we have a spokesman saying that she visited, and we should assume that she had visas. Yet there are no search results about her supposed trips, which is very confusing. I think we are at a place where nothing should be taken at face value, but that's exactly going on.

Also, I'm pretty sure that besides political reasons the backlash is due to the fact that she holds a pretty high position in the Cuban government since her father is now the president/ dictator. From what I have read Cuba is getting progressively worse, and inviting the daughter of Raul Castro will not sit well with millions of Cuban Americans who had to live through that oppression, and many still have family members in Cuba being affected.

Even if this story is true and Republicans are being hypocritical, I think people should still be outraged about this.

HouseSpeaker · 2 days

Your answer would be no. No you do not know how politics work, and no your reading comprehension is not good.

If you are a Republican or Democrat, you are expected to be vote for your party, but not mandated to. They would only need 2 people if it was mandated. So your poorly construed example is horrible reasoning, and you should not attempt to do that again.

Your second argument is just as bad. The reason behind the switch was incredible disappointment and pressure from the Democrat party. The Democrat party in Michigan is so horrible that they are dominated by the Republicans. So obviously it would be easier for him to vote as a Republican.

Your arguments are horribly put together and honestly I am getting a little bit embarrassed for you. The fact that you are basing your opinions off a hate filled editorial and I am basing mine off facts shows how wrong you are. The further you go you sound more and more like a liberal drone ignoring the facts.

HouseSpeaker · 2 days

This story happened a couple days ago. I am willing to bet that down the road you will see if he refunded any money, or if people want their moeny refunded at all.

Shall I go over who I voted for this past November?

County Legislature-Democrat

County Executive-Republican

Mayor-Democrat

I vote for who I think will do the most effective job. Just because I am registered for one party does not mean I have to vote for that party all the fucking time.

The problem with Democrats is how selectively they look at history. Bush was not the greatest president we ever had, but people who actually know about politics say time needs to pass to see how well or bad he actually did. You act like you forget that the majority of Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq, who voted for the Patriot act, and so on.

Do you see Republicans still harping about Clinton and all his horrible decisions/non decisions? Not even close to the number of Democrats still bitching about Bush, while giving Clinton and Obama a slide.The Republicans are trying to fix the current state of the government, not bitch about the past.

Basically you are an idiot. You think Republicans are interchangeable with the Tea Party, which is completely wrong. You bring up views that most Republicans do not have. Obama is a Kenyan? Technically he is part Kenyan, since his father was from there. And WMD's in Iraq was ten years ago now, get over it. The same Democrats you laud agreed and voted to go to war.

Your reasoning is piss-poor. I think you should leave the arguing to people who actually know something about politics. Your irony alone is troubling to say the least. I am sure any Democrat would be embarrassed to have someone like you speaking on their behalf. Educate yourself before you leave me another half-ass reply.

HouseSpeaker · 2 days

He specifically said if anyone had a problem with him switching parties, he would offer refunds. So obviously it isn't about the money. People likely voted for him as a person, since he won in 2008 in a Republican powered state. So I really doubt that many people will have a problem with him doing this, and if they do they get their money back. I honestly do not see anything sleazy about that.

When I vote, I choose the candidate I agree with the most. Party lines do not dictate how I vote, and it is that way for a lot of people.

You must be a Democrat- choosing to ignore facts.

HouseSpeaker · 2 days

Maybe the left should learn how to read.

I understand that many people on here are liberal, but this sub reddit has 1.5 million subscribers

I said many, not most. And implicated the r/politics sub reddit, not all of reddit. Nice attempt at some sort of put down, but you came up remarkably short.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

Do you know how politics work? If you are elected, you are expected to vote along party lines. Doesn't mean you have to by any means, but it is usually what happened.

The guy from OP's article even said that Michigan is controlled by Republicans. If you are a Democrat and vote against party lines in Michigan I would imagine it gets magnified by a huge amount.

The thing is, as a Democrat he was probably going to win. He had enough supporters to secure a victory. I honestly do not see why it is easier to believe that he is a huge douchebag dick asshole rather than he simply does not agree with the Democratic party. R/politics in a nutshell I guess.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

This article explains fully why he did it. It seems he didn't need to, but he wanted to. That is a perfectly fine reason for leaving a party.

If I had a representative who thought it would be better to switch parties so he could help his constituents more efficiently, then yes, that is what I would want from my representative. Having a bitter Democratic blogger calling it a dick move does not make it a dick move.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

First of all, I hope you got what I was inferring to when I asked if this is what r/politics is now. If you don't you are ignorant or choosing to be a dick. This article was heavily slanted and extremely biased. If it was an article explaining what happened, I would gladly read it and form my own opinion.

My question was geared towards who was on the ticket before he switched parties. Was there no Republican on the ballot? That is what I was wondering. I painstakingly read the article, and then realized that this guy is just a bitter Democrat bashing the Republicans instead of looking at how bad his own party is, at least in the state of Michigan. He complains how the Republicans control everything in Michigan, and then calls them dicks and assholes. I am not sure you want him as a voice of the Democratic party when they are struggling like they are.

Michigan Republican Speaker Jase Bolger: ‘We would not have beaten Roy Schmidt’

I'll just leave that there to counter basically the whole article the OP posted.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

According to this,

The money is unrestricted and he can use it as he sees fit, according to Fred Woodhams, a Secretary of State spokesman

and

“I believe 99 percent of the people came to support Roy Schmidt, not Democrat Roy Schmidt,” he said. “If they want a refund, it won’t be a problem.”

So your whole response was based upon him basically stealing money from the Democrats to fund his campaign only to jump ship. I am not sure how you think campaigns work, but a lot of money comes in from donations and fundraisers.

“We would not have beaten Roy Schmidt. He was going to win,” Bolger said. “This was not done out of political expediency or convenience. He was disenfranchised by the politics of the Democratic party.

That came from Republican speaker Jase Bolger. Obviously Schmidt did not need to switch parties. From what I have read he had a pretty big fan base regardless of party.

Your comment like the article the OP posted is based on skewed views without any real merit.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

Can you care to answer my questions? I have dabbled in politics here and there, and even in my small town there are multiple people from all parties planning for a worst case scenario just like this.

How trusted was this guy where he could simply pull off something like this. Even more, how badly run is the Democratic party in Michigan where someone would switch parties just to have a better shot at winning.

Also, there were basically no facts in this article, unless you consider calling someone a dick and asshole a fact. The only fact was that he switched parties. Everything else was hate filled opinion.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

The fact that this editorial reaches the front page of r/politics is the issue. I guarantee that an editorial by a Republican blog calling Democrats dicks and assholes would not see the light of day, let alone the top post.

My point is r/politics is turning into a joke. I understand that many people on here are liberal, but this sub reddit has 1.5 million subscribers. The circle jerking here has basically ruined the majority of it. There are moments where interesting, insightful articles are posted without any political bias or hatred. Unfortunately most of the time you have to dig deep to find them.

HouseSpeaker · 3 days

Is this what r/politics is now? I can understand editoralizing the title, but I never expected the actual article to have that title. This writer is as petty as some people here, with his childish use of words and blatant hatred for Republicans. This is not a reputable news source, it is obviously an opinion piece.

Trying to take this article seriously is a joke. He never said how long this guy was a Democrat, or why the Democrats trusted him. It seems to me that the Democratic party in Michigan is the real joke. Why didn't they have someone there for any situation.

Also, are they expecting me to believe that 10 minutes before registration ended there was neither a Republican or Democrat on that ticket? A horrible article all around

Socky42 · 5 days

You didn't have to say you know next to nothing about sports, I could already infer that by your comment. Either you love soccer or you hate it, there really is no casual watching of soccer. I've tried and it is one of the most boring things to watch. Its like watching a 90 minute comedy special and hoping maybe there will be a punchline or two at some point.

American football, hockey and lacrosse follow your system of being boring proud, yet they are exponentially more exciting than soccer.

ethicalking · 6 days

Well its obviously not as clear cut as you worded it. If you start a fight and the person you are fighting escalates to using deadly force than you can retaliate accordingly. If you are going to comment like a know it all a little research wouldn't hurt.

ethicalking · 6 days

Dude stop posting this when it doesn't apply here. I really don't care that you are taking some class so now you feel superior. This case is in Florida, which has a stand your ground law. Which negates what you posted 20 times.

If your CCW manual was 100% correct don't you think the DA wouldve charged Zimmerman instead of letting him go? Oops.

Trishlovesdolphins · 6 days

Sorry for the phone mistake. Although I am young, I grew up on The Band and The last waltz.

JumboJ3t · 6 days

Typical denial from a liberal when faced with facts. Obama has own super PAC by the easy, or are you choosing to forget that as well.

corby315

TROPHY CASE

corby315

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login