Thread: President Obama Q&A at the GOP House Issues Conference

President Obama Takes Questions at GOP House Issues Conference | The White House

Streaming video. The Q&A starts at 19:00 and the mic problem gets fixed during the first question (it starts out faint and almost inaudible). The transcript is linked on that page off to the side if you just want to read it.

IMHO, I'd say that Obama won that round clearly. It should be noted that the Q&A was without teleprompters and apparently Fox News cut away from the session twenty minutes before it ended.

Thoughts and comments?

Fox News cut before the end because there were no news to report at the event

nah, it was because they didn't give him teleprompters and none of the republicans had the balls to call him socialist to his face, all of them are just barry-lite (but don't ask chris matthews what that means ).


don't know about winning, in the ideal case both sides should be losing something and, to use the beloved phrase, the 'american people' winning, but that's not going to be clear for few months.
i'm pretty cynical, so my money is on election politics trumps everything, nothing's gonna change and the question is back to the tea.

when did he respond to congressman Ryan and his question about the large increase in spending?
my understanding is if the spending freeze does not take place, the new congress in 2011 can repeal the increases. but if the freeze takes place the new congress can't repeal the increase. therefore setting up a "shell game" by saying there is a freeze, when in reality there is a massive increase from Obama.
one thing more he has to quit blaming Bush for this increase. it was his increase after he took office. he needs to start taking credit for the economy and spending since he has been in office for over a year now.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

when did he respond to congressman Ryan and his question about the large increase in spending?
my understanding is if the spending freeze does not take place, the new congress in 2011 can repeal the increases. but if the freeze takes place the new congress can't repeal the increase. therefore setting up a "shell game" by saying there is a freeze, when in reality there is a massive increase from Obama.
one thing more he has to quit blaming Bush for this increase. it was his increase after he took office. he needs to start taking credit for the economy and spending since he has been in office for over a year now.

He did answer the initial questions; there were mandatory increases and then he had to do something to help the economy. I didn't agree with any of the bailouts, but it's hard to argue against the various economists who said that things would get worse without them.

He didn't mention Bush at all. Someone tried to pin the unemployment rate on his administration and he corrected them by saying that crap was worse than anyone expected and that people were losing jobs in the hundreds-of-thousands per month before he even had a chance to do anything. Don't mistake the facts of what he inherited with blaming Bush.

IMHO, the GOP blew a golden opportunity with this.

Originally Posted by commiecat

He did answer the initial questions; there were mandatory increases and then he had to do something to help the economy. I didn't agree with any of the bailouts, but it's hard to argue against the various economists who said that things would get worse without them.


IMHO, the GOP blew a golden opportunity with this.

i do not see where he addressed the 84 percent increases by him and his administration. these were not automatic increases. there have never been 84 percent increases that are on auto.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i do not see where he addressed the 84 percent increases by him and his administration. these were not automatic increases. there have never been 84 percent increases that are on auto.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: So my question is, why not start freezing spending now, and would you support a line-item veto in helping us get a vote on it in the House?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent.
Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this -- I'd be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.
So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul -- and I don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happened automatically.

I'd actually love to see where Mr. Ryan is getting this 84%. The freeze specifically says non-security spending, and if any military/security spending counts as "discretionary spending" then half of that is probably funding our MidEastern empire. You can't complain about our economy and say that our administration is not as focused on security in one argument and then also complain about the government spending money on those specific items in another.


Here's a nice paragraph from Wikipedia on Mr. Ryan:

On April 1, 2009, Paul Ryan introduced the GOP Alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would eliminate the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, cut the top tax-rate down to 25%, and impose a 5-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending. Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized for the lack of concrete numbers and the proposed privatization of Medicare. It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.

I have a hard time believing the numbers he gave to Obama when his own party voted against his proposal for making crap up.

the numbers Congressman Ryan used have been talked about since the state of the union speech. it is non defense, it is discretionary spending. the spending increases are from 24% up 84% on some programs and are in the CBO numbers if you care to look them up. these are increases that obama raised, not hold overs from the former administration. they belong to this president and this congress.
why are you citing Congressman Ryan's past? it is not relevant. he has a great question here. the relevancy is massive increase of spending and now trying to freeze that spending in place with only a small percentage(less than 1%) decrease. which leaves a massive increase instead of a lowering of spending.
congress in whole, both sides of the aisle has got to start cutting the insane spending and earmarks. we have got to eradicate the deficit and get rid of this massive national debt. we are spending not only our children's future, but also our grandchildren's future.
the president and congress have got to do something NOW and quit the "blame" game. remember the president has a stimulus package of $787 billion he got approved shortly after coming into office(which over $520 billion has not been spent so far). this stimulus over doubled the CBO deficit predictions alone.
the president stated the freeze would save $250 billion over 10 years. he then wants to start a jobs program that will cost at least $80 billion and as much as $100 billion in the first year. so we have a net sum loss of at least $65 billion the first year alone. these are the CBO numbers if you care to look them up and read at length.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I'd actually love to see where Mr. Ryan is getting this 84%. The freeze specifically says non-security spending, and if any military/security spending counts as "discretionary spending" then half of that is probably funding our MidEastern empire. You can't complain about our economy and say that our administration is not as focused on security in one argument and then also complain about the government spending money on those specific items in another.


Here's a nice paragraph from Wikipedia on Mr. Ryan:

On April 1, 2009, Paul Ryan introduced the GOP Alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would eliminate the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, cut the top tax-rate down to 25%, and impose a 5-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending. Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized for the lack of concrete numbers and the proposed privatization of Medicare. It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.

I have a hard time believing the numbers he gave to Obama when his own party voted against his proposal for making crap up.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

why are you citing Congressman Ryan's past? it is not relevant.

It is relevant. It was his proposal made quite recently as an alternative to the Recovery Act! When you have issues with the current plan, it helps if your alternative wasn't the one shot down because nobody believed your math.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

remember the president has a stimulus package of $787 billion he got approved shortly after coming into office(which over $520 billion has not been spent so far). this stimulus over doubled the CBO deficit predictions alone.
the president stated the freeze would save $250 billion over 10 years. he then wants to start a jobs program that will cost at least $80 billion and as much as $100 billion in the first year. so we have a net sum loss of at least $65 billion the first year alone. these are the CBO numbers if you care to look them up and read at length.

Apparently we're at odds here. I'll be the first to say that I was completely against the bank and auto bailouts, but the economy needed something according many economists. The CBO projected that our GDP growth would have been at almost -8% without the stimulus at the time and we'd still be around -6% now instead of -2.4%.

What would you propose amidst financial collapse that didn't involve the government spending money? The only precendent I know off-hand is the New Deal, and history seems to show that it worked out for the better.

Originally Posted by commiecat

It is relevant. It was his proposal made quite recently as an alternative to the Recovery Act! When you have issues with the current plan, it helps if your alternative wasn't the one shot down because nobody believed your math.



Apparently we're at odds here. I'll be the first to say that I was completely against the bank and auto bailouts, but the economy needed something according many economists. The CBO projected that our GDP growth would have been at almost -8% without the stimulus at the time and we'd still be around -6% now instead of -2.4%.

What would you propose amidst financial collapse that didn't involve the government spending money? The only precendent I know off-hand is the New Deal, and history seems to show that it worked out for the better.

you missed my point about Ryan, his question was great, irregardless of his
proposal. we can NOT afford either
i still think NO intervention would have been better. i hear a lot of talking heads "saying" we are better off and i hear a lot on the other side speaking just the opposite.
as for the "new deal" another abject failure. if it had not been for the onset of WWII we would have been in complete collapse and the economy would have suffered even more. the war, i hate to say this, saved us from complete monetary and economic chaos.
as you are fond of the WIKI here is the "REAL STORY" about the "new deal" and also notice the similar things taking place today
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia