President Obama Ribs Iowa Crowd for Not Applauding His Warning About “Hard Choices” to Come About National Debt

WOW he couldnt even get support from a “planted” crowd about the deficit he has created. Doesnt look good for this regime.

David-This deficit existed before Obama’s tenure. He has just added to it with vigor. The debt falls at the footsteps of both parties, especially since one loves the warfare state and the other loves the welfare state. If these folks that were “planted” really cared about the debt, they would have voted for Ron Paul who has the only sensible voting record with regards to maintaining fiscal sanity.

MSNBC headline: its a crime to be an ILLEGAL alien in Arizona….LMAO, what Stupidity we have in the radicalized left wing media
Obama VS America

I hope American people are smart enough to choose good leaders– not someone who is good in making speeches and promises.

Obama is wanting them to pick up the tab for his little spending spree. He wants more taxes, but most Americans would prefer that spending be cut. That doesn’t line up very well with the left’s agenda, which will make the elections this fall a telling factor.

Obama is wanting them to pick up the tab for his little spending spree. He wants more taxes,
Jeff | Apr 28, 2010 10:58:52 AM
Citation please.
“I’m not going to say what’s in. I’m not going to say what’s out. I want this commission to be free to do its work.”
He did NOT say that spending cuts were out, and he certainly had the forum to go off on the ‘protecting the most vulnerable among us’ riff the far left loves so much.
What is supporting your opinion?

Any chance Obama will make the “hard choice” to give back the one million dollars he took in bundled campaign cash from Goldman Sachs PAC’s, executives, and employees??

“The health care “takeover” (how is changing insurance regulation taking over anything???) is budget neutral.”
Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 28, 2010 11:05:51 AM
David Axelrod’s OFA has you well trained:
Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told ABC News:
“…that provisions in the law meant to get federal health spending into the black would be ‘outweighed by the increased costs’ until beyond 2020.”

Any chance Obama will make the “hard choice” to give back the one million dollars he took in bundled campaign cash from Goldman Sachs PAC’s, executives, and employees??
The Chicago Way | Apr 28, 2010 11:08:38 AM
One – the majority of that cash was not bundled. Try not to use terms you don’t understand.
And two, I’m sure he’ll return it just as soon as Republicans return their million from Goldman Sachs – and growing. The March FEC filings show that the Goldman Sachs PAC is cutting off Democrats and funneling MUCH more money to Republicans – perhaps because Republicans are staying bought while Democrats remember that they work for the American people.

This joke of a president runs up trillion dollar deficits and then says we need to balance the budget. Guess how he intends to do that? He will tax us into the poorhouse so we will reside with the rest of the poor and dependent who exist on the public dole and have never worked nor held a job. This man is not only stupid, he is dangerous. He has zero wisdom, just idealogy that drives his agenda to divide and conquer the masses. When will we wake up to this man’s daily step by step destruction of the wealth of this once great nation? Where’s the birth certificate, Hussein? You spent 2 million keeping it hid. All of DC knows you are an illegal. After you’ve raped the nation, then maybe the people will demand to see the document that doesn’t exist!

“perhaps because Republicans are staying bought while Democrats remember that they work for the American people.”
This one of the most ridiculous statements you have made (among many other you have made). Which party received more from Wall Street in the 2008 election cycle? Well, Obama received $14.9 million from “Securities & Investment” industry while McCain received $8.7 million. The Democratic Party IS the party of Wall Street.
What about those of us Americans who are not union members (unions have consistently received favorable treatment vs. “other” Americans)? Are we not part of the “American people”?

Guess how he intends to do that? He will tax us into the poorhouse so we will reside with the rest of the poor and dependent who exist on the public dole and have never worked nor held a job. This man is not only stupid
Rene Teresa Bounds | Apr 28, 2010 11:35:36 AM
Can you provide any citations or rationale to support your opinion? For example, Obama is quoted as saying:
“I’m not going to say what’s in. I’m not going to say what’s out. I want this commission to be free to do its work.” (see a verifiable fact)
He did NOT say that spending cuts were out, and he certainly had the forum to go off on the ‘protecting the most vulnerable among us’ riff the far left loves so much. (and that is a rationale to my opinion supported by the verifiable fact)
Besides Obama – sorry – “Hussein” being “stupid” with “zero wisdom” and “illegal” with no birth certificate, do you have any verifiable facts or coherent rationale other than hatred to support your opinion?

I think they were just trying figure out how the government was going to make hard choices when Obama just promised he would look into fixing the sewer system for a town in Iowa.
Or they were trying to figure out how Obama made the UAW make tough choices during the bailout of GM and Chrysler when the bondholders were rammed over the head while the pensions, benefits and pay of the UAW were saved and they were given a stockholders stake in the company.
When your actions show you make no hard choices, it’s hard to take you seriously, Mr. President.

Which party received more from Wall Street in the 2008 election cycle? Well, Obama received $14.9 million from “Securities & Investment” industry while McCain received $8.7 million. The Democratic Party IS the party of Wall Street.
tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 11:42:13 AM
Wait – why do you ask which party and then quote the *candidate* totals? Anyone who cares, google up opensecrets for an excellent website summarizing this. If you’re lazy, here’s why tjp refers to parties and then dishonestly gives the canidate totals:
Securities & Investment Donations in 2008 cycle:
To Democrats $241,582,474
To Republicans $234,292,758
Not as compelling as what tjp posted, is it?
Here’s another fact: All five of McCain’s top donor companies – every one – was a big bank. All five.
Only one of Obama’s top five donor companies was a big bank (Goldman Sachs, #2 top donor after UC Berkeley).
Finally, look at reality. Which party is pushing a financial reform bill? Which party is fillibustering PUBLIC DEBATE – not passage of it, but merely televised debate? Republicans are demanding backroom deals be cut to satisfy their new best friends at Wall Street before even allowing public debate. Again, those are verifiable facts (the ‘new best friends’ crack is based on March FEC filings showing Wall Street PACs donating far more to Democrats than Republicans, as well as the publicized strategy meetings between Wall Street and Republican Senate leadership).

As a community organizer, Obama spoke to mostly uninformed and (pardon me but)
jbjm | Apr 28, 2010 11:50:39 AM
Why are you going back to his twenties? Most recently he spent 7.5 years in the Illinois Senate and then 3.5 years in the Federal Senate. During that time he also taught Congressional Law at the University of Chicago, where he was offered tenure.
He hasn’t worked as a community organizer for over two decades.

What about those of us Americans who are not union members (unions have consistently received favorable treatment vs. “other” Americans)?
tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 11:42:13 AM
And this is a documented lie. The unions “favorable treatment” in the final health care bill consisted of having taxes targeted disproportionately at unions… delayed. They’re not exempt, they don’t get special treatment, they are getting a bill that most non-union folks won’t.

“Hard Choices”? ! ?
Heck, almost any choice Obama makes is hard.
Remember the good old days when he couldn’t decide what kind of dog to give to his girls?
It took now dead Ted Kennedy to decide that for him.
(sigh)

Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 28, 2010 11:53:15 AM
Ridiculous. OFA has done well.
One thing I do agree with you on is I encourage anyone who is interested to check contributions on this excellent site. I’m getting tired of pulling figures to refute your claims.
Obama + Wall Street = Crony Capitalism

“If spending is increased by less than taxes are increased, the deficit does not increase (tax revenue – spending). See how that works?”
Hmm…You make assumption (as does the govt.) that taxation policy can be evaluated on a “static” basis (e.g., “if taxes are raised x%, govt. revenue will increase x%”). This a patently inaccurate approach as it does not take into account the motivations of individuals. Increases in taxes do not result in directly correlated (by %) increases in revenues as individuals seek to keep more of their income/avoid taxes (through multiple levers). See how that works?
“And cute how the CBO could be trusted when they blew apart the first few health care bill drafts, but now it’s all about a single previously-unknown Medicare actuary. Fishing much?”
As I hope you would be aware by now, the CBO “can only score what it is given”. The CBO does not judge the merit of the legislation, nor the likelihood the provisions will be executed (in this case, Medicare cuts specifically). Apply critical thinking much?

jbjm, to say Obama owns the national debt is ridiculous. Besides two wars, the country and much of the world is going through a terrible economic time which not only increases the need for government services, like unemployment extensions and stimulus bills, but decreases the government income through lower taxes as unemployment numbers remain high.
By the way, Bush, jr. increased our national debt 27%, Reagan and Bush, sr. had increased it by 19 and 13% respectively.
While Democrats Clinton and Carter decreased it by 9.7% and 3.3%.
So you can see historically that Republican administrations are the ones who ‘own’ increasing our national debt. Reagan and both Bush’s deficit growth was primarily through tax cuts for the rich. This resulted in much less income for the government. Funny how the tea party people didn’t notice the debt until Obama took office!

tip612, the majority of Wall street wants limits on greed, as they know as the economy falters, so while their companies. So it makes sense that they would give more to Obama, as he stated he wanted to re-regulate during his campaign.
I would say the majority of Americans want extreme greed prevented whether it is in Wall Street, insurance companies or energy companies. Because extreme greed hurts us all, as it hurts the economy.

Noz, I personally like a President who looks before he leaps. With Bush, there was way too much leaping first which got us all in hot water.
Even when picking a dog for your family, research is important, not only for those with allergies like the Obamas but to match the temperament and exercise needs of the breed to your family.
Common sense and research can save you a lot of aggravation and expense down the road.

“Let’s conveniently omit that for each $5,000 subsidy paid out to buyers, $20k-$25k was the total cost for subsidy + govt. admin. costs.”
ROFLMAO!
When in doubt just make it up huh tjp?

“tip612, the majority of Wall street wants limits on greed, as they know as the economy falters, so while their companies. So it makes sense that they would give more to Obama, as he stated he wanted to re-regulate during his campaign.”
No, Wall Street does NOT want limits on greed. They (as all other humans) are motivated based on self-interest. Wall Street wants regulation only to the extent it favors Wall Street (or chosen few such as Goldman Sachs). Wall Street gave to Obama because they believed Obama could be manipulated to meet their (Wall Street’s) interests. Other industries (Big Ag. comes to mind) do same with Republicans.
“I would say the majority of Americans want extreme greed prevented whether it is in Wall Street, insurance companies or energy companies. Because extreme greed hurts us all, as it hurts the economy.”
Agreed – But you left out one very important, greedy, self-serving entity: GOVERNMENT.

“Funny how the tea party people didn’t notice the debt until Obama took office!
Posted by: Lydia | Apr 28, 2010 12:29:06 PM”
Or that taxes were too high even though Obama did not raise them beyond the cigarette tax.

“When in doubt just make it up huh tjp?”
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 28, 2010 12:41:35 PM
I wish…
Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — October 28, 2009 — Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.
Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.
To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com’s analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
(p.s. I made an erro in my prior post – I stated $5,000 in subsidy for each vehicle sold, actual was $1,667)

“Hmmm tjp has been posting alot lately and accusing others of being paid posters.”
Actually, not so much. Far less than the handful of hard-core Leftists and Obama loyalists that can be found consistently on a daily basis on this blog (e.g., jhw, tierra, p-mama, you, etc.)

“Wall Street gave to Obama because they believed Obama could be manipulated to meet their (Wall Street’s) interests”
And they were wrong.
Posted by: Ryan C |
The last to know.

“Evidence?”
Wall Street money has shifted to the GOP in the last 2 months and the GOP shows it keeps its promises when selling influence and killed the financial bill.

“I think Obama knew all along that he was going to break most of his promises”
Politifact, the fact check website started by the St. Petersburg Times actually rates whether Obama has kept promises, the Obameter.
He stands at
110 Promise kept
34 Compromises
19 Promises Broken
83 Promises Stalled
255 Promises in the Works.

Most Americans have been making hard choices. It’s called a budget and cutting back on things we don’t really need.
Maybe Obama should try it.
What happened to that campaign promise:
I will go line by line on earmarks and veto wasteful spending.

“A lot of times politicians will tell you, ‘I’m going to cut your taxes, I’m going to lower the deficit, I’m going to expand Medicare.’””
Now that’s funny, coming from the Presidents mouth, after he told voters the same thing over and over agian.

Ryan C, no need to keep up with the news, Ford made a profit of 2.4 BILLION dollars in the first qtr., plus why did dead fish Emanuel meet with the top Goldman Sachs people 4 times behind closed doors in the WH. How much money did Soros make on that deal with GS????
and to tierra, when someone quadruples the deficit in ONE year, just think what he can do in 4.

As mishernameo said: Freddie and Fanny caused this economic “crisis”
No deals until regulation of Fanny and Freddie is done and no more bail outs.

Amazing how one can expand the size of government, increasin the amount of money it needs to survive while increasing the deficit 3 fold, and then claim we need to make some tough choices ahead to decrease are national deficit. Obama has no desire to decrease spending and spare me the everything is on the table rhetoric. Its just that, rhetoric.
And don’t come back with GWB started this expansion. I know he did, I couldn’t stand his compassionate conservatism BS. Obama has come in and and put GWB’s expansion to shame. As such, our country is sure to suffer.

The silence was simply because after the stimulus bills, and various bailouts, noone was buying what he was selling.

Some of you seem to have no idea that the economy went into an almost free-fall collapse under the Bush administration.
And you seem to have NO idea the effect an economic collapse (second only to the Great Depression) has on local, state and federal deficits and budgets.
This type of information would greatly benefit the Republican right in the crowd.

“They talked the economy down”
Are you kidding?

In academic terms, the solution to the debt is simple-increase revenues and decrease expenditures. The political dilemma is that by defintion, that means someone’s “ox will get gored”. There are lots of possible solutions, but, until we get control of soaring medical price increases, the debt will just keep rising. Of course, the brave hearts in government just ignored that part of the health care reform issue.

The political dilemma is that by defintion, that means someone’s “ox will get gored”.
B.Bear | Apr 28, 2010 2:56:39 PM
This has been solved before with closing military bases. NOONE ever wants a military base closed in their state – that’s a big chunk of jobs, cash, and prestige gone over night. But 350 have been closed since 1988 using the Base Realignment Closure Committee approach. Democrats tried to put together a similar committee, but united Republican opposition (even though they’d proposed the exact same thing in the past!) killed it.
The BRCC model works by the bipartisan committee drawing up a proposal that Congress is then required to vote up or down on, no amendments, no dealing, just yes or no. It ensures that the pain and responsibility is shared. It works. Unfortunately, the Party of No missed their chance to let it happen. (Traditionally, it was the liberal wing of the Democrats blocking it because such a panel would surely cut Medicare and Social Security just as much as Defense and raising taxes.)

“Many of the destroyed cars were good, late model used cars.”
Then they would not have qualified for the trade in.
Rules for eligible tradeins.
“(1) be in drivable condition;
(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and
registered in the same owner’s name for the one-year period immediately
prior to the trade-in;
(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of tradein
9 and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not
later than model year 2001; and
“so that two cars that aren’t that different in fuel efficiency and pollution are swapped.”
The new cars averaged nearly 10 miles per gallon better than the clunkers traded in.

“If the bipartisan commission he set up comes back with a plan that includes cutting Medicare and Social Security (as well as raising taxes), will you change your opinion of Obama? ”
No, but I will give him credit for it. I need to look only at his awful stimulus bill and huge expansion of government via the health care bill to know that he is not serious about cutting spending.

So, if Obama is asked exactly what it is he’s going to do, he’s “not going to play that game”. But if ANOTHER politician refers to balancing the budget and dealing with the deficit, we (and the media) are supposed to demand answers from them?
Shoe | Apr 28, 2010 4:18:36 PM
He has said exactly what he’s going to do: Support the recommendations of the bipartisan panel. He’s also indicated that he understands they’re likely to gore some of his sacred cows too (entitlements). Contrast that to Congress, which refused to create a bipartisan panel that would require them to take an up/down vote on the resulting bill (the very successful formula used for military base closures). Yeah, it’s likely to raise taxes on those under $250k and cut Medicare and Social Security (the obvious way is raise the eligibility age again). I won’t condemn Obama for doing what has to be done (and I never did forgive Republicans for condemning Bush Sr for the same ‘sin,’ which set the stage for the great boom under Clinton).
No Senator who opposed the Congressional debt committee (supported by 36 Democrats and 16 Republicans) can honestly claim to care about controlling the deficit. Period. If you care about the national debt, look up how your Senator voted and see if they care too.

“Yeah, it’s likely to raise taxes on those under $250k and cut Medicare and Social Security (the obvious way is raise the eligibility age again).”
I disagree.
The obvious way is to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

Ryan C wrote:”The obvious way is to eliminate the payroll tax cap.”
.
So do those who pay more payroll taxes get proportionally more benefits?
.
“I disagree.”
.
You would… from each according to his ability… to each according to his need.

“We could eliminate all foreign aid and all earmarks and we’d still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget.”
And I bet you anything Obama won’t do a thing about entitlements.

“And I bet you anything Obama won’t do a thing about entitlements.”
Which entitlements? Those for the super-rich who would have nothing without taking it from the working and middle classes whose wages have gone down over the last 50 years? Those who demand the right to make fortunes in this country but who think they own nothing back to the country and who believe they are entitled to pay a lower tax rate than working people?
Or how about the corporate entitlements? Most corporations pay zero taxes yet they rape the resources, screw the workers and pay crap wages while their executives make mega-millions.
Yes, let’s have entitlement reform. The super rich should be forced to pay their way in this country for a change. Bring back the tax rates we had under Reagan or Nixon.