Democrats ill-informed or insincere?

It just amazes me what has come out of the Democrats’ mouths through the years, and people don’t say anything to them about it.

Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. He must have forgotten about the Boston Tea Party.

Now we have the Democrats and President Obama telling us that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s programs in the 1930s brought us out of the Depression. It was WWII that brought us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The last one is Obama telling us that America invented the automobile. Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile. He invented the automobile assembly line. The Library of Congress credits German Karl Benz with inventing the “first true automobile” in 1885.

So are the Democrats really stupid or just lying to us?

Alan Fisher
Independence

Comments

[Engineer]

Jim
I see you are the arbiter as to whether or not an answer is “sufficient”. I might point out that whether or not you deem an answer sufficient; an answer is still an answer. As to Russia, they seem to me to be a clear and present danger. If the problem escalates out of control, ‘cold war” type equipment will be required to face them.
What I have said is that I heard Obama say he intended to make cuts in the DOD budget and that these cuts would be of “cold war’ items no longer needed. I never said that he had stated, or that I knew, just what these cuts will be. This is true to his form as he rarely states, possibly because he doesn’t know, exactly what he is going to do. Other than promote programs to redistribute income and wealth to the greatest degree possible, of course. The 2/27/09 WSJ on page A6, published a resume of the proposed 2010 budget. The proposed DOD budget was listed at $663.7 Billion, including war costs. This was shown as being 1.4% greater than the last budget which did not include war costs. Estimates on 2009 war costs run around $136 Billion. From these figures it appears that there must be an intended reduction of well over $100 Billion in current DOD spending. That is the basis of my opinion, Obama’s statement and the figures I have presented.
What I said about the war costs under Bush is that those numbers were always readily available. They were never hidden. Hardly a day went by that some statement was not made about the amount of the war costs. The reason for not including them in the budget was that they were not an ongoing item that will always be with us and so should stand alone. In this way it was kept clear just what expenditures were for the wars. Under Obama’s way, clarity is lost. Obama is proposing record deficits. One way to make it seem in projections that he is decreasing the deficit in the uture is to include the costs of the Iraq war in the budget. The war is being won and is winding down so of course its costs will be decreasing. This is not honesty, this is smoke and mirrors. If he wanted honesty he could have included a separate “War Costs” item in his budget proposal.
If you asked the questions, as you say, I missed them when returning to the blog. I will give my answers to any question posed to me. They may not be the answers the questioner wants to hear, but they will be my answers.
As a final comment, it is rather sad to see that you seem to be incapable of having a discussion without inserting some “cracks” or insults. But I guess if you need to do this to bolster your ego, so be it.

[Jim]

Eng,

On more than one occasion, I've asked you to name one supposedly "dangerous" cut in Cold War programs in the Defense Budget. I've also asked for a specific case as to why such cuts would be dangerous. Simply saying "Russia's acting up again" is not sufficient (since we also know that, last summer, Georgia was doing plenty of "acting up" on their own).

I've also asked you why you think that keeping the war off the books is justifiable or even defensible, since you dishonestly say that Obama is using the real numbers to hide "dangerous" Defense cuts to Cold War programs.

I asked this on at least two occasions. You never responded. I did see you responding in other threads later in the day, so it was my conclusion that you simply wouldn't (or couldn't) answer them. This would not be a problem if you weren't returning the next day to parrot your talking points once again.

[Engineer]

Jim
You have falsely accused me of not answering questions. Despite frequent requests to give particulars you have not responded. Now you are not answering questions.

[Sammy]

Jim,

Regardless of what Obama technically said, is this the change you voted for? It looks like more of the same to me times 5.

Seth

[Jim]

Beaker (RBJ),

Perhaps you can help Roger with his little factual errors? Sitting in the peanut gallery doesn't suit you.

[solomon]

"beaker" of gin?

[beaker]

Jim is part of the OCJ. He and the other members must follow each perceived question of Obama with an result. Roger, did you miss the memo?

[Jim]

Roger,

Try again. You're not quoting the president. You're quoting a publication's take on what he said. Essentially, you're putting their words into his mouth.

They can't even provide a quote in which he says what you attributed to him earlier. The best they can do is:

“I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities,” Obama said."

That's not the same as what you said earlier. It's not even close.

After getting called out for taking what he said about the stimulus bill and acting as if he said it about the budget, it's becoming pretty clear you're unable to find an honest, straight up quote from the President where he actually makes the promise you said earlier he has broken.

I'm sorry that your feelings are sensitive to the fact that people see your dishonesty. If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try not being dishonest.

[Engineer]

Jim
Id it possible for you yo start a post without an insult?
As to the thread, Obama said "I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." Just when and how did he think he would do this? He can not do anything about items in a bill that has been passed. The President does not have line item veto power, at least the USSC doesn't think he does or that such power is constutional. And even if Pelosi and crew let him edit or write all spending bills, things could still be added in the House during passage. His statement appears to have been just "sounds good" rhetoric with no real means to carry out.

[Roger Lambert]

Jim,

Please lose the attitude. It makes this message board unreadable most days.

[Roger Lambert]

Jim and Sammy,

Here's an article quoting Obama saying the same thing about earmarks in the budget bill. That is, no earmarks.

"He also informed Congress he expected the budget to contain no earmarks just like the recently passed economic stimulus package, which brought laughs and hisses from the Republican side of the House chamber. Republicans have contended that the stimulus contained too many pet Democratic projects and not enough tax cuts."

http://www.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2009/02/24/obama-promises-budget-reform-no-earmarks/

[Jim]

Roger, you're stooping to the kind of dishonesty that has become commonplace for GOP hacks.

Obama upheld that promise in the stimulus bill. There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill.

The budget, however, does have earmarks in it. Every budget does. The budget is a separate bill entirely, and Obama promised to go line-by-line to ensure that money is being spent wisely, but never promised to eliminate earmarks from the budget altogether. That's the kind of stupid, unworkable promise that only McCain was desperate enough to try.

I don't get it. If Obama is so completely wrong about everything, why do you guys have to constantly lie about what he's saying or doing in order to argue against it?

[solomon]

"Obama sire"-Engineer

Who gets credit for coining that one?

[Sammy]

Technically Roger, Obama made that comment about the Economic Stimulus Package specifically, not the omnibus spending bill.

[Roger Lambert]

Sammy, as my quote below shows, Obama did promise "to ban all earmarks."

It's pretty clear he broke this promise about 9000 times in the stimulus bill.

[Sammy]

You're right Jim. He didn't promise to remove all earmarks. He said, "And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html

[Roger Lambert]

Jim, will MSNBC work?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28525113/

President-elect Barack Obama vowed Tuesday to bar lawmakers' pet projects from his massive economic stimulus plan and to bring unprecedented accountability to federal spending.

[snip]

He told reporters at his transition office that his package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. WE ARE GOING TO BAN ALL EARMARKS, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

[Jim]

"Two, promising to go through any spending bill line by line and remove all earmarks. The latest bill had something like 9000 earmarks, and Obama didn't remove any of them."

I must have missed this "promise." I remember him talking about doing that to the stimulus bill. I also remember him talking about the need to reform the earmark process. I don't remember hime ver saying he'd eliminate all earmarks.

I do remember John McCain making that promie, then quickly having to make exceptions when reminded that "all" earmarks would include our aid to Israel and military housing, among other third-rail items. McCain made an amateur hour mistake and you're trying to say that it was Obama.

Please show us all a quote from a reputable news source where Obama says exactly what you've written.

[Sammy]

Jayhawkin - What are Fisher's red herrings? I'm honestly trying to learn. I'm trying to fit my understanding of red herring into the context of your message and I can't quite figure it out. Thanks.

[Engineer]

Viet_ver
"Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes." Gee, Obama sire has been nominating a lot of non-patriotic people to his Cabinet. "Grownups pay their bills". And it appears he wasn't even nominating adults. As to the great depression, there is much thought that it was kept in place during the thirties by FDR's mistaken industrial policies and his refusal to let the system work.