Obama on O'Reilly's "The Factor"

[SB Shock]

First Segment was on Tonight.

It was good to see Obama go into the "No Spin Zone" and take some hard questions. To this point I think Obama did well.

Next Segments run next Mon-Wed. A must see.

[Denny Crane]

Re: Obama on O'Reilly's "The Factor"

First Segment was on Tonight.

It was good to see Obama go into the "No Spin Zone" and take some hard questions. To this point I think Obama did well.

Next Segments run next Mon-Wed. A must see.

The enemy, Barack, is Radical Islam. That includes the Mullahs who run Iran and Ahmadinner Jacket . Shouldn't be hard to answer for a Harvard Law Grad.

[double dribble]

Barry Hussein Obama will never name the true enemy because he is afraid it will offend them.
Barry suffers from a disease called "Lacka Nut Sacka"

[SB Shock]

Watched Part 2 of Obama. It was on the economy and taxation. Obama is being straight forward and honest. He believe those who are more well off have a responsbility to give their money to those who are not as well off - he called it being "Neighboraly".

O'Reilly hit up about the balanced budget and asked him that wasn't the real problem that we don't need to raise taxes, but restrain spending. O'Reilly pointed out that tax revenues had grown 20% under Bush. Obama pretty much just ignored it.

From what I can piece together his plan has 3 parts

1. Increase the taxes
2. Spend more on "programs" where there is need.
3. Hope that the tax increases bring more revenue than what is spent so someday the budget will be balanced.

The question I have - would he ever stand up to his party and veto wastefull spending bills from Congress/Senate? If past history is any meassure, he votes along with his party line at at 97% clip.

Tonight is his relationships with certain individuals.

[RoyalShock]

That is what bothers me about Dems and the left-leaning Repubs. Everyone agrees a balanced budget is needed, but they aren't willing to draw a line when it comes to the tax burden.

If there's a "need" (whether or not the federal goverment was given the power to address it - you know, that silly Constitution) they'll just raise taxes to pay for it.

[BostonWu]

That is what bothers me about Dems and the left-leaning Repubs. Everyone agrees a balanced budget is needed, but they aren't willing to draw a line when it comes to the tax burden.

If there's a "need" (whether or not the federal goverment was given the power to address it - you know, that silly Constitution) they'll just raise taxes to pay for it.

This is the one area in which Romney would have been the best possible candidate. I recall about 7-8 years ago during a debate while running for Mass. governor he made the comment that as a private business executive he’s never had the luxury of just “plugging” the numbers to make them fit (i.e. taxes). He’s always had to stick to a budget and cut out unnecessary expenditures. And that’s exactly what he did soon as he took office on Beacon Hill – he reorganized and streamlined the structure of state agencies (even doing away with whole departments) and sold the majority of the Commonwealth’s automobile fleet (just one small example). Romney’s all about streamlining organizations and getting rid of unnecessary expenditures and he would have attempted to do the same in Washington.

[RoyalShock]

When politicians reach Washington, particularly the executive branch, and realize they have a virtual blank check via the Federal Reserve and t-bill sales, they seem to forget how to be responsible with money. States don't have the same "luxuries" to raise revenue.

Maybe Romney would have insisted on a balanced budget, but as a war-supporter I doubt it could be pulled off without slight-of-hand reporting.