SOTU: Spend More Money

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2009
67,733
7,923
1,840
Nashville
Does Obama think we're stupid? The answer is obviously yes. After a historic election that repudiated most of his policies he is going to propose in his state of the union address more spending. Of course he can't call it "spending" or "stimulus" because those terms are already discredited.
So it becomes "investment." Tell me, what "investment" has the gov't ever made that produced profit?
Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet.
Obama's economic agenda: Boost US competitiveness - Yahoo! News
 
Do we have to smack these people in the face with a 20 lb fish?

Cut spending. That is what the people told you loud and clear last November.

It's not difficult to understand.
 
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.
 
Last edited:
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.

That is something we can all agree on, but in many inner city schools there is zero parental involvement and too many with only one parent. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem.
 
Spend more money?

What money?

Aren't we already flat broke?
 
"Hey buddy. Can you spare a $trillion?"
 
Does Obama think we're stupid? The answer is obviously yes. After a historic election that repudiated most of his policies he is going to propose in his state of the union address more spending. Of course he can't call it "spending" or "stimulus" because those terms are already discredited.
So it becomes "investment." Tell me, what "investment" has the gov't ever made that produced profit?
Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet.
Obama's economic agenda: Boost US competitiveness - Yahoo! News


I would venture to guess if President Obama has perused your many threads Rabbi, he not only thinks your stupid but likely wonders if you're mentally ill also. Dual Diagnosis usually suggests mental illness and substance abuse; in your case (the really scary thing is) you seem sober, stupid and suffer from OCD.
 
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.

That is something we can all agree on, but in many inner city schools there is zero parental involvement and too many with only one parent. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem.

Yes big cities are a part of the problem in more ways than one.
 
So in other words, the Obama is gonna BLOW more smoke up our asses.

what a horrible President.
 
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.

That is something we can all agree on, but in many inner city schools there is zero parental involvement and too many with only one parent. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem.

You could start by cutting how much you pay a parent to have a kid in the inner city or at least capping it at two kids.
 
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.

That is something we can all agree on, but in many inner city schools there is zero parental involvement and too many with only one parent. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem.

Yes big cities are a part of the problem in more ways than one.

But we have to live in cities. It is much more efficient and easier to deliver services to the client err...commerade... I mean public in a city.
 
But people will forget the fish smack and re-elect the spenders next time around.
spenders of both parties.

However to invest more in education does not necessarially mean more time but parental involvement.

That is something we can all agree on, but in many inner city schools there is zero parental involvement and too many with only one parent. I don't know if there is an answer to the problem.

You could start by cutting how much you pay a parent to have a kid in the inner city or at least capping it at two kids.

this^

let's not have them until we can afford to......you know......like waiting and stuff? being an adult before bringing a child into the world? hmmm.......throw money at a kid all you want, unless there are caring parents, pfffttttt
 
Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet.

Yeah, why doesn't he just let America stagnant into one great big cultural cesspool. I really get tired of dems trying to save America, it is really sickening, and a waste of energy.
 
Save America? I thought the Democrats didn't want religion in government.

Mr. President please be PC in the SOTU address. Any reference to spending is forbiden. Steer clear of words like:

invest
fund
commit resources
mandate
buy

Also there are the dreaded target associated words you should avoid

Consider carefully the use of terms like

party of no
obstructionists
Bush's fault

I predict the shortest address in history.
 
Does Obama think we're stupid? The answer is obviously yes. After a historic election that repudiated most of his policies he is going to propose in his state of the union address more spending. Of course he can't call it "spending" or "stimulus" because those terms are already discredited.
So it becomes "investment." Tell me, what "investment" has the gov't ever made that produced profit?
Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet.
Obama's economic agenda: Boost US competitiveness - Yahoo! News


I would venture to guess if President Obama has perused your many threads Rabbi, he not only thinks your stupid but likely wonders if you're mentally ill also. Dual Diagnosis usually suggests mental illness and substance abuse; in your case (the really scary thing is) you seem sober, stupid and suffer from OCD.

I find it amazing that you know not only what barack Obama does in his spare time but what he thinks as well. Where do you get these super powers?
Your idiotic pathetic excuse for a post tells me I am spot on. The undocumented worker in the White House will stupidly endorse spending more money we don't have on things that have already proven a failure.
He is the most clueless president in the history of the United States. Anyone hoping he had learned from his mistkes ought to be sadly disappointed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top