Two Fundamental Flaws With Obama's State of the Union Message

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Obummer's response to this would be wait and see the next 6 trillion I spend just might help. The man doesn't have a clue lets face it people

jerry bouchet of KY 3:35PM January 31, 2012

Gridlock is good. The Framers designed a government to have as much gridlock as possible. They knew that government would try to take away our rights, so figured in the absence of politicians passing laws, we would be left free. The fewer laws Congress passes the better. Better yet, how about a moratorium on new laws for 5 years. It would be the best thing for the economy, short of removing the ones already on the books.

Bill Wright of CA 10:21PM January 26, 2012

Hey Bill,
Can you show me in that really long, unrelated rant where the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Medicare Part D are figured in? Thanks!

uncle_chester of IL 10:13AM January 24, 2012

obuma will continues HIS MISSTAKES...
"Obama partisans ignore facts when bashing Bush"...
08/04/11
“The GOP ran the House from 2001 to 2007, Bush's first six years in office, while Republicans only controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. (In Bush's first three months, the Senate was divided 50-50 until the May 2001 defection of Republican Sen. James Jeffords gave Democrats control.)"
“That tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy -- along with everybody else who paid income taxes.”
“After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That's a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) "Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts 'cost,'" says one GOP strategist. "We're saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue."
“...And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007.”
“Deficits went up in 2008 with the beginning of the economic downturn -- and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate."
“Finally, there's the national debt. When Bush took office in January 2001, the debt was about $5.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. When Bush was sworn in for his second term in January 2005, the debt stood at about $7.6 trillion. When Bush left office in January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. He had increased the national debt almost $2 trillion in his first term and $3 trillion in his second, for a total increase of nearly $5 trillion over both terms. (Of that $3 trillion increase in Bush's second term, $2 trillion came under a Democratic Congress.)"
obuma “ increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range -- more than Bush did in two terms.”
“...is it honest to refer to Bush's ballooning deficits when deficits actually trended down for much of his presidency -- at least before Democrats won control of Congress?”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/obama-partisans-ignore-facts-when-bashing-bush#ixzz1kLR2dOti

Bill Hedges of MO 11:24PM January 23, 2012