WSJ: Obama Speech 'Most Dishonest in Decades'

The OP title is basically from the Drudge website. Here is the actual quote from the article:

The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards

Either way it is a ringing and severe condemnation from a part of the MSM that has often enthusiastically supported obama, at worst giving him a pass.

source

The speech obama gave was supposed to be a response to the Ryan budget proposals. How it was received - and perceived - turned out quite differently for obama.

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

Talk about "having it handed to you" ...

There is much, much more to this article. Quite a bit of "meat", actually.

Please review and comment ...

reply to post by centurion1211


It appears the Obama is becoming frustrated with the impact the Tea Party is having. We have been saying from the beginning that it would all boil down to what those Tea Party supported folks did when their feet are to the fire, and it appears they are holding steady. The concern was that once they got into office, they would play party politics and further their own careers instead of sticking to their promises. If that happens, the situation gets pretty dire, because the Conservatives will give up hope on the political process and start looking at other means, maybe even protests and revolts.

BUT!!!!

If these folks can stick to their guns, demand their $100B in preliminary cuts, filibuster the debt ceiling, and just continue to be a generalized thorn in the side of the entrenched politicians, and spend-crazies, then the political process has a chance to work, the government has a chance to survive and adapt, and the country can show some real improvement. There will still be bumps in the road, and a lot of personal sacrifice, but real progress is a possibility.

I think we will continue to see frustrated over-reactions from the entrenched powers that be. I think we will see the fangs come out, and see some real mud-slinging and dirty politics, but if the course can be maintained, there is finally some hope for some real representation in government.

Not one of his speaches were ever honest if you look back at what he said.

He is a pathetic liar and a fraud.

Soon the whole word will see and then this will get spun into a race thing and the great uniter will be known for the great divider.
He he he

If politicians were honest idiots wouldnt vote for them.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I see Senators Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Jim Demint are considering a filibuster against raising the debt ceiling. I strongly hope they do it.

www.politico.com...

reply to post by fltcui


I wasn't sure how I felt about Paul, but I like the bold budget proposal, and if he follows through on the filibuster, then I think he might be Presidential material for 2012!

Of course it is the usual suspects talking about how Obama is the bad guy...

Carry on...fight the idiotic fight..

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Obama isn't the "only" problem, or even the "main" problem, but he is the head coach right now, so that is where the responsibility falls first. Then the QB, and then finally the whole team.

This topic was about his dishonest speech. I happen to like Obama's speeches. He is one of the best orators of our time, as long as he has time to prepare, and a teleprompter. He doesn't do so well in interviews or cross-examination. Bill O'Reilly had to tone it way, way down to make their interview civil. It was easy to see that O'Reilly wanted to jump on several responses, but he chose to play low-key, which I think was appropriate respect for a sitting president.

So, this isn't a "bash Obama" thread. This is about the economy, the deficit, the budget, the debt ceiling, the politics as usual, the entrenched politicians, and the head guy up there putting icing on all of it and telling us "let them eat cake!"

The way i see things centurion, is our last several presidents have had an iq of about 2-by design of their handlers, and everything goes well for them as long as the American people stay out of the arena per se. BUT, when the economy sits in the gutter since 2008, it is hard to sell blantant lies to the American public.

As the hope and change insulin rush has wore off, and now Americans want some meat and potatoes, which there are none to be seen on this fictious dinner table

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Of course it is the usual suspects talking about how Obama is the bad guy...

Carry on...fight the idiotic fight..

It is rather obvious coming from Centurion, but you've got to admit Obama is a letdown, and a liar. Nothing worse than a bald-face liar. Although, they all lie and lie big. He's just really blatent about it.

I gave up giving him a chance. He's had the time to make change, and he ran in the other direction. I wanted our boys home, that was a big thing for me. He said he'd bring them home right away(basically) and look where we are now. That was all I wanted from him.

Originally posted by centurion1211

There is much, much more to this article. Quite a bit of "meat", actually.

Please review and comment ...

edit on 4/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: forgot the source

IMO ...as well as most journalists...the WSJ has declined since Ruport Murdoch (Owner of FOX News) purchased them in 2007. The Chief Editors left, the ethics committee was disbanded etc.

That said this is in the opinion section and written by a guy who consistently supports the far right view. He is one of Murdochs tools.

I am willing to discuss anything you see as "meat" in this opinion piece...but help me out and "show me the beef"

Anyone remember that lady?

Originally posted by SunnyDee
I wanted our boys home, that was a big thing for me. He said he'd bring them home right away(basically) and look where we are now. That was all I wanted from him.

I like this kind of critique because it has substance and is worth discussing. When Pres. Obama took office there were around 160,000 troops in Iraq, right now there are about 47,000 left "advising and assisting" Iraq Military. We lost 4,447 soldiers in Iraq since the conflict started, 226 on Pres. Obama's watch.

Afghanistan..We have around 100k troops there...dramatically increased since Pres. Obama took office and part of the "Surge"...about half of all casualities in Afghanistan have occured since Pres. Obama took office.

probonostats.wordpress.com...
icasualties.org...

Politifact gives him a "Promise Kept" for Iraq..."Last of the "combat" troops leave Iraq; peacekeepers stay behind
"
www.politifact.com...

Also...Pres. Obama promised to send MORE troops to Afghanistan, not less...which he has done.
www.politifact.com...

We may disagree with the strategy, (I do) but he hasn't broken promises as to troop levels yet.

Originally posted by maybereal11

I am willing to discuss anything you see as "meat" in this opinion piece...but help me out and "show me the beef"

OK ... How about obama's suggestion to solve the healthcare bureaucracy issue with ... wait for it ... MORE bureaucracy!

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

and on cutting defense spending to the point where we will be fighting the battles IN OUR STREETS:

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

And let's not forget that darling of all progressives - class warfare against "the rich". Read as obama tries to recapture support from the progressives through more already failed policies (my underline for emphasis):

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

You see what I underlined? Proof enough that this class warfare attempt is totally bogus?

Had enough proof of dishonesty yet?

Originally posted by maybereal11
Politifact gives him a "Promise Kept" for Iraq..."Last of the "combat" troops leave Iraq; peacekeepers stay behind
"
www.politifact.com...

No, the truth on iraq combat troops is:

NPR (big obama supporter) source

You could be forgiven if you thought there were no more U.S. combat brigades in Iraq since there was so much news media coverage earlier in the week about the "last combat brigade" exiting the Arab nation.

But as it turns out, there actually are still combat brigades there. They've just been renamed.

More dishonesty from obama. And obama's supporters such as yourself just keep repeating it ...

Unless he starts discussing the debt ceiling, then anything he says is dishonest.

When I watched his speech, I could have sworn he was rousing an audience of SEIU members.

Partisan? He couldn't have been more partisan if he finished with a burning of an effigy of George Washington!

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11

I am willing to discuss anything you see as "meat" in this opinion piece...but help me out and "show me the beef"

OK ... How about obama's suggestion to solve the healthcare bureaucracy issue with ... wait for it ... MORE bureaucracy!

Assuming you mean the Ind. Payment Advisory Board that is part of HCR? Old debate, but I'll play...comparing it to the GOP/Ryan plan which has no cost controls and simply ends Medicare for the elderly alltogether in favor of a voucher program leaving Senoirs to pay 68% of thier own HC expenses....and thats when they can actually get coverage by a private insurer..which will be a miracle in itself...so yes compared to the GOP plan of "ef off and die..you cost too much" I would prefer the Presidents plan of seeing if we can control costs first.

Originally posted by centurion1211
and on cutting defense spending to the point where we will be fighting the battles IN OUR STREETS:

Wow...is that the new spin the Military Industrial Complex is using?

Defense spending is the largest part of the budget. We need to include that in discussions...true fiscal conservatives (as rare as they are) agree and no... terrorists will not run wild in the streets of the USA unless Blackwater et al. gets paid billions.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Defense spending is the largest part of the budget. We need to include that in discussions...true fiscal conservatives (as rare as they are) agree and no... terrorists will not run wild in the streets of the USA unless Blackwater et al. gets paid billions.

Even more dishonesty from the progressive side.

The largest part of the budget is ...

Health and Human Services.

source (unlike those that just post opinions)

In other words, obamacare and other entitlement programs.

The truth (from now on) please ...

reply to post by centurion1211

The Defense amount is just the Department of Defense and includes spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but excludes certain defense-related spending in the Discretionary bucket (e.g., Homeland Security, Veteran's Affairs). Details on these departments are available in the President's budget document. Including these departments would move defense-related spending into the $800 billion range.

en.wikipedia.org...:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Notice I didn't cite an agenda site like "federalbudget.COM"...or did you not notice your source?

800B equals the biggest expenditure under the budget.

If we choose to exclude "Discretionary" miltary spending it puts the Military at 20% and Medicare and Medicaide at 23%...so yah, I guess if you want to completely ignore military discretionary spending...Medicare and Medicaide would squeek them out.

Now back to relevant conversation....why again should we never look to cut military spending? Wether it is 670 Billion or 700 Billion annually...it is still effen HUGE!.

An opinion article by someone who supports the right bashing something done by Obama? Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by centurion1211

 

The Defense amount is just the Department of Defense and includes spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but excludes certain defense-related spending in the Discretionary bucket (e.g., Homeland Security, Veteran's Affairs). Details on these departments are available in the President's budget document. Including these departments would move defense-related spending into the $800 billion range.

en.wikipedia.org...:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Notice I didn't cite an agenda site like "federalbudget.COM"...or did you not notice your source?

800B equals the biggest expenditure under the budget.

If we choose to exclude "Discretionary" miltary spending it puts the Military at 20% and Medicare and Medicaide at 23%...so yah, I guess if you want to completely ignore military discretionary spending...Medicare and Medicaide would squeek them out.

Now back to relevant conversation....why again should we never look to cut military spending? Wether it is 670 Billion or 700 Billion annually...it is still effen HUGE!.

edit on 14-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

And so pick any source you like and you will find that spending on HHS and entitlements is larger then the defense budget. You can't try to get out of admitting your error by just saying that the defense budget is large.

You said it was the largest part of the budget, and that - to be nice - is often repeated (by the left) false information.