How about the country instead of the government. Since President Obama was not part of the government during the Clinton administration, it wouldn't make sense to use "we" if he was refering to the government. I think you are looking for a way to be offended.

You're making me dizzy with all of this spinning. Are you kidding me? Just because he wasn't part of government then doesn't mean squat. He's part of it now and government is exactly what he meant. No one says the country created those jobs under Clinton, or turned the deficit into a surplus. They say Clinton (government) did that.

How about the country instead of the government. Since President Obama was not part of the government during the Clinton administration, it wouldn't make sense to use "we" if he was refering to the government. I think you are looking for a way to be offended.

:lol: You most certainly need to be part of Obama's campaign. That was spintastic!

:lol: You most certainly need to be part of Obama's campaign. That was spintastic!

 

You talk about spin, when you justify your interpretation by inserting words that weren't said? ODS

Last night I briefly caught a couple of guest from each 'side of the isle' talking about the economic plan or capability for each candidate on Kentucky Affairs on PBS or KET.

 

The Obama/Democrat argument was we are not doing enough 'investing' in FEDERAL infrastructure projects. I capitalize federal because he emphasized this categorization. It caught me that he did that.

 

The thrust of the comments of Obama that have been discussed here or now the follows like the guest on last night is that we need more revenue going to federal government - either in taxes (tax the 'successful') or in another round of stimulus ('invest' in FEDERAL infrastructure).

 

Can anyone name one lasting benefit of the last stimulus. Did any new Hoover dams that would supply massive amounts of electricity get built? Did any new highways to more efficiently move product built in low cost labor areas like impoverished Eastern Kentucky (highway 66) get built?

 

I know I saw the signs on highways in various parts of the country claiming that ordinary road work was being paid for by the 'Recovery Act' (i.e. stimulus). Even though this work is supposed to be paid for by the large gasoline tax we pay to the state and federal governments. I know they fixed the Jefferson Memorial with stimulus money - as if they were going to let TJ slide into the Potomac without the funding. They provided funds to states to pay public sector unions. And they did do some 'tax breaks' with it. None of this - including the tax breaks - were 'investing'. Investing is building new capability, it is creating things that spin off other new ventuctures or capabilities. Like new hydro dams, like new highways that open up isolated parts of the country, like in our own state. But none this happened the last time. And the results are obvious.

 

Yet we are being told to either pay higher taxes to the Feds or to support a new stimulus package. But those in charge did not 'invest' last time - not one bit that we can tell. They 'spent' but they did not 'invest'. The scary part is they apparent do not know the difference.

You talk about spin, when you justify your interpretation by inserting words that weren't said? ODS

Take what he said word for word and there is only one conclusion. And it isn't the spin job your putting on it.

Take what he said word for word and there is only one conclusion. And it isn't the spin job your putting on it.

 

I disagree.

I disagree.

That is your right but based on the words that came out of his mouth you would be wrong. Now did he screw up and mean something else, possibly. However as RTS pointed out the tone of the entire quoted portion suggests he meant exactly what he said.

You talk about spin, when you justify your interpretation by inserting words that weren't said? ODS

Let's look at the first three paragraphs from the speech as posted earlier since they set the tone of the message:

 

THE PRESIDENT:* Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.* That’s not a deficit reduction plan.* That’s a deficit expansion plan.*

 

Here he talks about what will happen if you cut government programs.

 

**** I’ve got a different idea.* I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.* We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.* (Applause.)* Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.* And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.* If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.* Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.* (Applause.)

 

 

Here again, he speaks of the government. He almost gets an A for effort on this one when he talks about cutting government programs, programs that don't make government work efficiently, albeit. Then he says government can't help if somebody doesn't want help.

 

 

 

**** But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.* So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.* We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.* We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.* (Applause.)* And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.* We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.* We created a lot of millionaires.

 

Us...I'm...We've...We....We...We've...Bill Clinton...We....We. Pray tell, who is he speaking of here? The American people? Business owners? The middle class? No, he's speaking of the government. Clearly. Where did I insert anything or wrongly interpret in that paragraph?