Obama compares Congress to pre-pubescent schoolgirls

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:53 am

Obama scolds Congress over debt limit negotiations

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam ... 22867.html

article wrote:Amid ongoing frustration over a failure to reach a compromise on the debt limit, President Obama on Wednesday sharply scolded Congress, suggesting his daughters do a better job of getting things done ahead of time.

"Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time," Obama said during a press conference--his first major solo conference since March. "Malia's 13, Sasha's 10 … They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all nighters. Congress can do the same thing."

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:49 pm

That was pretty generous, if you had asked me I would have suggested that Congress hasn't even begun potty training yet.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:59 pm

he can't be TOO scathing...

he was apart of that Congress not too long ago...

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:07 pm

Daddy let Obama and his girls max out his credit cards.

[ Post made via Android ]

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:18 pm

Duper wrote:he can't be TOO scathing...

he was apart of that Congress not too long ago...

He's not part of that Congress.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:54 pm

Krom wrote:That was pretty generous, if you had asked me I would have suggested that Congress hasn't even begun potty training yet.

seconded, the comparison is an insult to schoolgirls everywhere.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:27 pm

That's strikes me as unprofessional, and I'm getting tired of hearing that kind of thing from him. Congress may have its problems, but it seems to me they should be held to a high standard with respect to their office and responsibility, not compared to the president's daughters. I take offense to that, and I see it as a prime example of Obama's character. It's also an example if him playing to his fans.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:29 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's strikes me as unprofessional, and I'm getting tired of hearing that kind of thing from him. Congress may have its problems, but it seems to me they should be held to a high standard with respect to their office and responsibility, not compared to the president's daughters. I take offense to that, and I see it as a prime example of Obama's character. It's also an example if him playing to his fans.

It's an example of calling it like it is. "Held to a high standard"? That's exactly why they need to be called out like this. They're playing an asinine game with this debt ceiling, one that could land us all in a massive load of ★■◆● if they can't get their act together and pass the damn thing.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:52 pm

That is a very juvenile defense.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:54 pm

Lol, and he patted himself on the back for Osama while he was at it.

I have not been impressed once by anything Obama has said or done in three years.

Sorry..

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:59 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That is a very juvenile defense.

I'm seriously still trying to figure out what you meant by your original post. You say that Congress should be "held to a high standard," then when Obama calls them out precisely for not living up to that high standard, you criticize him instead? How about criticizing the people who are going against your own wishes for them?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:00 pm

The reason is simply that our Congress being held to a high standard is not the topic of this thread. That's all.

Haven't you ever asked yourself, "what if the enemy of my enemy is an ★■◆●?"

In all seriousness, to welcome the abuse of our representatives, be they in the right or in the wrong is foolish and can only be self-defeating. Better to hold them to a high standard, as I said, as our representatives than compare them to little girls and so make a mockery of the ones they represent.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:09 pm

null0010 wrote:
Duper wrote:he can't be TOO scathing...

he was apart of that Congress not too long ago...
He's not part of that Congress.

It doesn't matter "what" Congress it is. It's the same machine. As we well know it's not run by the congressmen. Some of the faces change, but the bureaucracy remains the same.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:22 pm

Top Gun wrote:Obama calls them out precisely for not living up to that high standard, you criticize him instead?

Make no mistake, Obama criticized them because he wants the bill to pass, and because of his annoyance/frustration with their lack of cooperation with his political goals. To present it otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent much of their life in the real world. Many a holy man does not deserve the pure intentions you people so easily and consistently ascribe to this graduate of Chicago politics.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:33 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Top Gun wrote:Obama calls them out precisely for not living up to that high standard, you criticize him instead?
Make no mistake, Obama criticized them because he wants the bill to pass, and because of his annoyance/frustration with their lack of cooperation with his political goals. To present it otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent much of their life in the real world. Many a holy man does not deserve the pure intentions you people so easily and consistently ascribe to this graduate of Chicago politics.

"You people"? Am I supposed to be some sort of Obama cheerleader? The only reason I want this bill to pass almost as much as he does is that we are well and truly fucked if it doesn't. Do you really want to experience the consequences of the United States defaulting on its debt? The IMF has put it in pretty dire terms. I, for one, don't want us to get there, and unless Congress can magically pull off comprehensive long-term financial restructuring over the next week or two, they need to put aside their dick-waving and get the thing passed, and now.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:45 pm

So the government sets a debt ceiling…why even bother, whenever they are about to reach it…they just vote to raise it. Then people start to think, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Just get rid of the debt ceiling altogether…no wait, it has a good reason to be there…I’m confused.

There is something wrong with this picture.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:59 pm

Spidey wrote:…no wait, it has a good reason to be there…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... bt_ceiling

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 am

It amazes that people think it's a good idea to go further into debt to keep from defaulting on a debt. I think it's time to get out of debt and stop digging the hole which will still lead the US to a default on the debt on down the road. It's already apparent that we are in trouble.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:11 am

Heretic wrote:It amazes that people think it's a good idea to go further into debt to keep from defaulting on a debt. I think it's time to get out of debt and stop digging the hole which will still lead the US to a default on the debt on down the road. It's already apparent that we are in trouble.

True but neither party will volunteer to be the one to make the cuts to big expensive programs required to turn the tide because they both demagogue the mere mention that those programs need to be cut as a way to steal votes from the other party.
If we voters don't understand that game and stop playing into their hands that way the only time the U.S. will start to make proper corrections will be AFTER we default or enter a serious depression.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:26 pm

Krom wrote:That was pretty generous, if you had asked me I would have suggested that Congress hasn't even begun potty training yet.

No, they're just a bunch of spoiled 2 year old brats throwing temper tantrums and pouting in their respective rooms while the house is burning down around them, AND THEY DON'T CARE!

What's absolutely sick is that I think this is all a calculated tactic by the Republicans to destroy Obama, no matter what the cost. That the country goes down the toilet in this tantrum is just a sideshow to these morons. Collateral damage.

McConnell wrote:"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

McConnell also said in that same interview that he would work with Obama to meet him halfway. Well, I've seen no attempt at halfway so far, only "It's my way or the highway" from the Repubs. They've even reneged on ideas THEY came up with. They put out suggestions at cutting the budget, but promptly did an about face whenever Obama endorsed those same ideas. And now. they aren't willing to allow ANY increase in revenues, at all. No cutbacks in oil subsidies and tax breaks for some of the most profitable corporations in history (that Boehner even agreed with at one time) or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, etc. You can't balance the budget on just cutting spending. There also has to be some revenue generation as well. Austerity for just the poor and middle class of this country is just not right.

Boehner was for it before he was against it

Secondly, what if the Dems try to use the 14th Amendment to claim the debt ceiling is unconstitutional?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... nal/39408/

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:11 pm

Problem with raising taxes, and I don’t care if they get it from the rich or space aliens is…Congress will just spend it. Show me you can develop the discipline to actually cut and cap spending…then we can talk about taxes. Junkies rarely change.

Also the dirty little secret some people won’t tell you…

Businesses don’t pay any taxes…it’s just another expense, that they pass on to the consumer.

So it goes something like this….

A big oil company made 10 billion last year…yea get them with some taxes…

Next year, the same company makes another 10 billion…

Figure it out. (HINT: you paid for the extra taxes)

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:17 pm

Wait! That's not "giving back to society!"

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:58 pm

No, that is called pilfering

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:16 pm

Way to miss the point.

Well, if it’s pilfering, it’s pilfering by the government…because it’s just getting more tax revenue from you, with an indirect method.

The point is when people clamor about taxing business, they just end up taxing themselves. Only people pay taxes, that’s just a fact of life.

But to the point of “giving back”…what giving back? A business supplies you with something you need, it’s a mutual need relationship. Business doesn’t “owe anything back” it provides you with what you need, and you pay in return. The concept business owes somebody something, is a false liberal idea.

Besides business provides many benefits to society, such as jobs, products, services & technology…what more do you want?

You consume the oil and such…what do you “give back”?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 pm

I only say to give back in the area of wages. Considering that is a direct hand-in-hand partnership between corporations and us the employee's. When a CEO make 700% more than the average worker in his company, something is wrong.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:46 pm

tunnelcat wrote:You can't balance the budget on just cutting spending.

Yes you can. They just have to be very deep cuts.

The question is whether they're a good idea, or whether raising taxes is a better idea, or whether some hybrid between the two is.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:18 am

Some mix of the two seems like the only sensible resolution, at least to me. From what I understand, overall tax rates right now are at the lowest point in several decades, all adjustments taken into account, and this is at a time when we're running an insane deficit. Yes, we definitely have to cut spending, but unless we want to slice every single government program to shreds, we're going to need a boost in revenue as well. Cut some spending, raise certain tax rates reasonably, and (maybe most importantly) close some of the glaring loopholes that exist, and we might be getting somewhere.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:20 am

tunnelcat wrote:
Krom wrote:That was pretty generous, if you had asked me I would have suggested that Congress hasn't even begun potty training yet.
No, they're just a bunch of spoiled 2 year old brats throwing temper tantrums and pouting in their respective rooms while the house is burning down around them, AND THEY DON'T CARE!

What's absolutely sick is that I think this is all a calculated tactic by the Republicans to destroy Obama, no matter what the cost. That the country goes down the toilet in this tantrum is just a sideshow to these morons. Collateral damage.

The Republicans don't have to try to destroy Obama. Obama is destroying himself quite nicely. Notice how the economy is everyone elses fault? When Paul Ryan unveiled his austerity plan, Obama could only naysay it and not come up with one of his own? If anyone would take delight in ruining America just to hang on to his job, look no further than the guy sitting in the big leather chair in the White House......oh wait, maybe you should look for him out on the golf course. Better chance of finding him there.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:41 am

woodchip wrote:The Republicans don't have to try to destroy Obama.

having destroyed the nation's economy, Obama is all they have left to do in. Seriously, if the GOP gets its way, America starts to barrel down the road to ruin at a breakneck pace. Not that we haven't been sliding for a while, but you will be a generation away from a nation in which 1% of the populace controls everything.
And, I truly mean everything, not 90% or whatever.......everything. If they actually allow the default date to come and go without raising the debt ceiling, that day could come in a matter of a couple of years.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:16 am

callmeslick wrote:a nation in which 1% of the populace controls everything.

I think it's less than 1% actually. there are 300 millions people in this country and only about 500 people in federal office. if you know what I mean

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:57 am

Cuda, lots more elected officals and bureaucrats than that. Still, irrelevent, because those folks control NOTHING, just do the bidding of those that do.
Also, in the part I wrote above, by 'control', I was referring to all economic resources. The other 99% will effectively be peasants, serfs, whatever term one wishes to use. Essentially, neo-feudalism is what the current wave of conservatives will bring you, and the path could be irreversable well before enough people catch on......

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:35 am

callmeslick, for you to suggest it is the republicans that have destroyed the economy is ridiculous. the other half of the two-headed beast has just as much blame for our situation and the way you try to spin it is part of the problem. You have as much blame as anyone if you continue that line of crap.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Will Robinson wrote: You have as much blame as anyone if you continue that line of crap.

Nahhh…that would be fear politics, and we all know the left would do no such thing…the little angels.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:40 pm

I think Slick is referring to a different group. Before industrialization, the terms used were serfs and lords. After industrialization, the terminology became employee and employers. Next it's gonna be master and slave again

. One things for sure, A new age is upon us. Call it the information age, whatever, but at this point it is truly irreversible. In 1990, had enough people realized what was going on, and it's not like they were being sly about it, maybe it could have been reversed.
Around 1990, We passed NAFTA, the Berlin wall came down, The UN, through the first gulf war became a legitimate worldwide governing agency, The USSR dissolved and the European Union came into existence. This is just what I can think of in 2 minutes time. Does all that seem like an accident or forethought?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:21 pm

Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick, for you to suggest it is the republicans that have destroyed the economy is ridiculous.

no, it isn't. The GOP has brought us tax reduction in the face of two unbudgeted wars, deregulation that allowed millions of gullible folks to get screwed over and allowed our business to go offshore with profits and pay no tax. Ever since Reagan, they have been pushing the idea that government, and specifically government regulation, is bad, and even an old-style Republican like Eisenhower knew that was a recipe for disaster. The current batch of Republiclowns will take ideology to the extreme of allowing the nation to default, or cutting the legs out from under education, healthcare and other programs for those in society at greatest risk. Like I said, the old school GOP boys knew that such policies lead to disaster. Now, we have a disaster on our hands, and you want to blame the Dems? Sorry, to my mind the only thing the Dems have to be blamed for is not actually putting Democratic Party principles into play.
They've been cowed by the GOP steamroller for the past decade or so and have merely become GOP-lite.
I hold the GOP to blame for the operating principles that are going to make the America of the future a hell hole that resembles the tenement/sweatshop world of the 19th century more than any place one would call a modern civilization. And, you know, some folks will be alright with that........it's just that most of y'all that pushed for it to happen were too dumb to realize you got sold a load of crap until it's too late for yourself, or especially, your descendents.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:50 pm

http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/ ... -of-crazy/

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:56 pm

Ok, but to be wholly honest

, you would have to argue that both sides are fighting to the same means, with just ideological differences in dispute.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:04 pm

flip wrote:Ok, but to be wholly honest , you would have to argue that both sides are fighting to the same means, with just ideological differences in dispute.

actually, I'd argue that one side isn't fighting, and hasn't been for decades, to defend their principles. The end result is the same, as you note, nonetheless.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:12 pm

That's true in many respects.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:28 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick, for you to suggest it is the republicans that have destroyed the economy is ridiculous.
no, it isn't. The GOP has brought us ...snip rant full of some selective truth and much hyperbole....

Now comes the pathetic part that would be funny if he didn't think people with a brain will believe it!

callmeslick wrote:Sorry, to my mind the only thing the Dems have to be blamed for is not actually putting Democratic Party principles into play.
...

Lol. No fault at all of the Dem's for the current state of affairs huh?
That's OK, you go ahead and stay with that story, stick to it and say it loud and proud...it's important that people know what you really are about and I couldn't illustrate it any better than you are doing right now!