Obama spars with GOP in no-holds-barred debate

Yeah. He should be very pushy and obstinate. It's important to get the liberal way for the public's benefit. If he does this he'll become grater than Lincoln, that's for sure.

He did it in the state of the union speech! With the supreme court sitting right there, haven't you seen the video.

Yes, but it's not good enough. Corporate America is going to try to quash the whole issue. In fact, I got a Time magazine today and it wasn't even mentioned! The Supreme Court makes the most radical decision in 200 years and apparently its not important enough to Time to devote a little space to it. This is just the beginning.

But he doesn't rule them. Three places of government for a reason. His ideas shouldn't dictate everyone's thinking. That's not a President's job.

The Supreme Court ruling helps mainstream media. Our political campaigns will be a 'cash cow'. They are going to quickly move us along, 'nothing to see here, move along' and we will. Just like the voting machine hackability problem. It wasn't fixed, we just 'moved along'.

In 2004 a judge in Cuyahoga County, ruled all ballots and related items from the 2004 Presidential Election was to be held until the pending court case was settled. What do you know, they were accidentally destroyed, leaving no evidence. To the best of my knowledge, no one was held accountable and the problems were not solved. We just moved along.

Spreading lies about that spending, when you get that right you can pretend to know something again.

"he alone has spent more money than ALL our presidents put together!!!"

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Your heroes, the Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible, are the biggest spenders and enlargers of government in history.

**In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

---hint: read a book

SleepDirt, my friend did you catch what the nimrod said about watching FOX news for an hour to get the truth. Thats what we are dealing with, the sooner these kind of droids are unplugged the better we all will be.

Michael,

You can criticize Obama all you want, and you can find some valid points to criticize him on.
But, his policies aren't anything close to Bolshevism. Anyone familiar with Modern Russian History laughs at that comparison. It's a conservative sound bite. Please look up Bolshevism.

I'm critical of all media. To get a well rounded sense of the world, you have to go to many different sources to get information. There is no such thing as a fair and balanced major media outlet.

Foxnews is a joke. They are a blatant conservative campaign machine. Sarah Palin is now a commentator- you can't get more obvious than that.

That's right Sleep! Obama hasn't raised spending a single cent. He's well within his bounds. He didn't break that promise to us.

And it's a good thing the Democrats have the donkey as their animal representative. They shall be obstinate and Obama shall do as he wishes and get what he wants done no matter what rapacious party (or Republican) will do or say.

*applauds and cheers*

Ok, that is excellent use of a standard MAC background. Looks really good.

He is the only one that could rule it justly. What God?

Is that not the law you cannot do that on private property? Or it is not the law? I think Republicans are bleh as well, but I didn't see them in that video. I saw an office and hotel staff.

Well the doctors have a good point that 45,000 people die every year for lack of healthcare solely for the sake of corporate insurance to make outrageous profits.

If you want to talk about what's legal, let's look at the U.S. government, and let's look at international law, morality and ethics. Is torture legal, ethical and moral? Preemptive war killing 1.5 million innocent Muslims? How about the ruling that corporations can have the same rights as people? The Patriot Act the rolls back basic human rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

Where does it end? The government is above the law, above the Constitution, and even makes the laws that are morally wrong and undemocratic. What alternative do people have but to break laws if that's what is necessary to even be heard?

It's called civil disobedience. It's called defying the law and authority. You may get arrested for it, but so what? These doctors expected they might get arrested. They've been arrested at protests and sit-ins many times before. What's legal and what'not legal is irrelevant.

Republicans at this conference had the choice to allow them to stay and make their protest. Just two people holding a banner in front of the hotel? What's so wrong with that? But instead they ordered them arrested. Who has the authority to order Republicans arrested if the majority of Americans agree that a single payer system should at the very least be considered but they won't allow it.

At some point the people have to take a stand and be heard. That's all this is about. Breaking the technical law that a hotel has the right to order you off their sidewalk is a moot point. The U.S. is a country built on revolution, defiance to authority, and the basic rights guaranteed to us to assemble and freely speak and publish what we want.

I agree with everything you have said, but the Republican thing about getting them to move. I did not see that in the video. Is that a fact? The rest of what you said is spot on. Good points. I cannot disagree with most of it.

The site has had some glitches of late

It is just another way of thinking. I am not bothered by other people's thoughts. I welcome all thoughts onto the field. Nazis do not scare me. I will not allow fear to grip my thinking.

They don't scare me. I just don't want to throw up on my computer every time I go on Current.

I love seeing Obama on the front page over any news. I think, even after a year, he's still exciting news. Then there is news about things I don't like. That is the right of any person to have interest that I do not have and I if I do not like it that is my right as well. I also do not have to speak about it or, in this case, post about it or in it. I do not find that difficult to handle. Is it difficult for you?

call of duty 2 is good for any nazi-busting urges you get. you dont even need a top of the line system to run it.

Again, it just a matter of avoiding my vomit reflex at the sight of the symbol that represents the most hateful time in human history.

He should invite them once a month. If they turn him down, be held accountable. They will truly be the party of 'no' participation, all campaign, no governing.

I suspect this is the strategy, to expose more broadly the GOP's efforts to be a disloyal opposition.

Sleep . I so hope you are right . Grownup discourse would do wonders .....

I agree. It won't have any effect on Republicans. This was for the voters. Watch for the next GOP lockstep vote....

It was just a show for us?

Actually, Bush Jr. did the same thing, twice I think.
But he didn't want it televised- probably a good idea for him, haha.

Ha, thank you for informing me of that. I think you're right, it wouldn't be good PR on Bush's part to televise such an event.

current89, where can I see this "debate"? i had no idea it was going to air... totally missed out... but it sounds better than the SOTU address itself!!! I have to find it!!!

You have obviously not been paying attention to the debate among the civilian population that are informed rather than fooled.

@Opressed1

A lecture is 1 person talking to a silent audience.
Did you even watch it?
Republicans were able to ask him anything they wanted to.
That was definitely not a lecture.
And unlike Bush, Obama was willing to have it televised for everyone to see.

You watch FoxNews salarbee? I couldn't even stomach it via channel surfing.

At the very least an intellectual politician, raised on civilized arguments within the community and the government, gives him the real edge in any debate.

Ahhh...to bad.

I think it was great that they had cameras. It's much harder to 'Spin' (distort) when there are cameras and recordings. I think President Obama should offer to do this once a month with both parties and maybe some day, both parties can talk on camera with honesty. Instead of spinning behind closed doors. Today was transparency! Kudos to President Obama!

Transparency with enemies of the state. What about health care?

Great stuff Sleep!!

oh crap... where can i see it? it sounds better than the SOTU address itself!!!