This is typical. If it comes from the GOP the President will veto it and then
blame them for being partisan. We have 3.5 more years of this coming our way.
Sure hope the GOP retains the house and Senate so we are only stuck with $21
Trillion in debt rather than $25 Trillion at the end of this Presidential term.
This President doesn't even want to try to work with the House. He is as
polarizing a President as has been in the last 50 years. He wants his way in
everything, even with his own party. Since he never really had a job,
especially of this depth and breadth as the federal bureaucracy with Agencies
and Departments, he is beyond Murphy's law and Peter's Principle. It
appears he doesn't have a Cabinet that stands up to him and his
non-governance and uses public opinion as his basis for anything. Vetoes and threats are his way of life. He must have had a different type of
life than most Americans as most Americans at least try to get along with each
other. Most don't think they are above the law and most try to live by the
law. Most have to live within budgets and work with people which means having
to come to agreements. Agreements is one thing he doesn't seem to
understand. His way is, "Either my way or the road for you." That is
not how companies, organizations, States and local governments work. It's
a Nixon type government 1972-74.
Before Obama gets out his "veto pen", maybe he'd better re-read the
Constitution and tell us where the Federal Government was given the authority to
fund "head start" or any other social program. We are a nation governed
by law. The law tells us what the few duties of the federal government and it
also tells us that all other duties are to be left to the States or to the
people. We would have no budget crisis if Obama learned that one
lesson. His authority is very limited by the very people that he insults when he
steps up to the teleprompter and tells us that our children and our parents are
going to die unless we allow him to tax us to pay for their personal welfare.All this time, I thought that his grandparents housed him, clothed him
and fed him. I must have been dreaming. According to what he is telling us,
only the government can take care of our families.
We spend more money on education then all other countries combined through all
history.Would someone please explain how funding head start, and
standardized testing, have decreased poverty, and improved our society?Taking money from working Americans, and wasting it on nonproductive
programs is pathetic.
JWB:Based on the degree of anti-Obama rhetoric, he must be making
progress with conservatives, as you guys no longer compare him with Stalin and
Hitler. That's significant progress. Was it the birth certificate
non-issue or Romney's defeat that cooled you guys down?As for
Nixon, it's instructive to note that Utah was the only state where he had
an above 50% approval rating when he resigned, so I'm not sure this is your
best line of attack, either.As for the assertion that Obama is heavy
handed with the Veto, check Reagan's record.
10cc,Harry's obstructionist dem senate is saving BO from having to
use his veto. Either way, BO's veto or an obstructionist senate, the dems
are ensuring no progress is being made in dc.
"The GOP plan opposed by Obama restores cuts to the military while making
cuts to domestic programs favored by Democrats even deeper. "How
about a plan that cuts military deeper AND domestic programs.That is
compromise. Mike,Can you tell me in the constitution,
where it states that we get a tax deduction for church donations? Not everything is spelled out in the constitution. Even things you like.
JoeBlow,1st amendment. Yep, it's there. Of course we
know BO and his cabal are doing everything they can to eradicate that right.Repubs already compromised when they allowed higher taxes. BO has not.
As a country, we need to be relooking at where our leaders are taking us, all
the time. None of the Presidents, even Reagan took us down the path that our
country should have gone down. However, the Congress provided that balance
during that time as he did not have a Republican Congress. That is a balance of
power. The problem with balance of Congress is they have become so politicized
and polarized, in their own world of 535 members in the House and Senate that
don't necessarily want what the country needs. Ear marks, lobbyists,
unions, parties, private groups, bureaucrats, and organizations are getting
their buy-in, so to speak. Our Congressmen from Utah and Senators
have to have the same type of watch or surveillance on them. People have gone to
our Congressman's office in DC and he is as pompous there as he was at the
last Republican convention last month making a little dance up to a sponsor to
converse his dislike for the Common Core. He is an educator or at least he is
supposed to be. After seeing his display in government, I wonder what he taught
kids about government.Role Model? Not!
Hey, I look at it this way. Since the Dems lost majority in the House spending
has continued to decrease and the economy has somewhat stabalized(more like
bottomed out i guess). So as long as BO is focusing on vetoes and wasting his
time on partisan politics, he is not wasting all our money. Not the most ideal
situation, but i will take it. :)
Some questions:1. After spending cuts, will government find other
areas to spend,--negating any real effort to reduce deficits?2. A few
days after Moore Oklahoma was hit by a tornado, Obama forgot the name of this
town, and referred to it as Monroe Oklahoma. Are promises for federal help
going to happen?3. Are sequester cuts on spending, or on future
increases?4 Who created sequester cuts? Mitt Romney, George Bush,
Richard Nixon, or Barack Obama?
"Who created sequester cuts? Mitt Romney, George Bush, Richard Nixon, or
Barack Obama?"Strike 4. It was congress. Paul Ryan
even took credit for it. But, regardless, it was congress
And JoeBlow, it was Obama who agreed to sequester cuts and didn't veto that
legislation like he threatens to this legislation, so Obama has the ultimate say
so on sequester cuts, not Ryan. There!
We need a law that outlines acceptable vacation spots for the President. When
the President is in need of rest and relaxation the taxpayer will pay for
his/her stay at Camp David. Any other vacation spot, the president must pay for
out of pocket.The government is squabbling over financial concerns
and the president's vacations is costing the taxpayer tens of millions of
dollars. I'm not singling out Obama, President Bush's vacations and
trips back to Texas cost the taxpayer a lot of money. We have become a nation
of people thinking we are entitled to everything and that the government (tax
payer) should pay. Presidential vacations should not be an entitlement. Do we
elect people that think they are more important than everybody else, or is it
something with the nature of the office/service that causes people to think so.
The president is not royalty.As a nation, we need to get our fiscal
house in order. Most people do spend money on vacations when they do not have
it. The president needs to lead by example. Go to Camp David, get some rest,
get your thinking right and then get to work.