• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Gone Wild......**** the President!

Your Star said:
Bush spent more money on Stimulus deals, and the healthcare bill is like the one the republicans pushed for in the 90's. Obama has been a center left president at best. I think most people wish he would start being more liberal.
Click to expand...

To late he lost his filibuster proof majority. He can no longer ram things through
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong, Obama wants to appear to be bi-partisan to get votes in 2012.
Click to expand...

There is no need to appear bi-partisan when the majority of those asked agree with your policy regarding the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. You especially won't roll in the votes by further irritating your base, which is all that has happened with his endorsement of gains for the rich with very little in exchange.
 
The Prof said:
why before november 2 was he 100% consistent and adamant that tax cuts must not be extended to millionaires and billionaires?

why on monday this week did he suddenly reverse and announce that the bush tax cuts for ALL americans are "the right thing to do?"
Click to expand...

Because he has no spine... that was easy.
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
There is no need to appear bi-partisan when the majority of those asked agree with your policy regarding the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. You especially won't roll in the votes by further irritating your base, which is all that has happened with his endorsement of gains for the rich with very little in exchange.
Click to expand...

He is preparing the way since he has lost his majority next month. Democrats can no longer help Obama he will have to convince GOP to agree with him.
 
ptif219 said:
He is preparing the way since he has lost his majority next month. Democrats can no longer help Obama he will have to convince GOP to agree with him.
Click to expand...

.......and you convince the GOP to vote for you by calling them hostage-takers on legislation. Right... makes a lot of sense.
 
Dems Gone Wild....**** the President!

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “**** the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”


Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.
Click to expand...

» Dems Gone Wild: ‘F*%k the President’ - Big Government

Here I posted the link so the crybabies around here can cont to see the whining crying wussies democrats pitch a fit because they are not getting their way.

Liberals liberals liberals........

You got exactly what you asked for and he turned around and screwed you out of your rich envy.
 
apdst said:
He's a radical leftist socialist...that wants to get re-elected.
Click to expand...

Funny how he achieves that through constantly ignoring his base. Disapproval of Obama rose 3% among the Democrats last week. Republican support declined by 2%. Independent support only rose 1%. It's a bit hard to get reelected when a full quarter of your own party disapproves of you.

Furthermore, his approval dropped 3% in the past 3 days alone.

He has a funny way of getting elected, unless he's planning a fascist overthrow or something :roll:
 
ptif219 said:
To late he lost his filibuster proof majority. He can no longer ram things through
Click to expand...

As far as I know the new congress hasn't been seated yet. He's still got a month to ram through anything that he wants to ram through. He just knows that that will make him look bad. He's campaigning again.
 
Mickey Shane said:
As far as I know the new congress hasn't been seated yet. He's still got a month to ram through anything that he wants to ram through. He just knows that that will make him look bad. He's campaigning again.
Click to expand...

When given a choice between no tax cuts and the full Bush tax cuts, the nation chooses full Bush tax cuts 66% to 30%. When given a choice between the full Bush tax cuts and tax cuts for those earning below $250,000, they choose Bush tax cuts for those earning below $250,000, about 44% to 40%, but there are still 12% who don't want them at all, and they'd support the former before the latter. Also, this includes Republicans, who aren't going to vote for him next year anyway (that's.... why they're Republicans)

Thus, it was by no means politically impossible to do what his base wants. Instead, his base will continue to increase in their disapproval of him, while the Republicans will hate him just as much. It's healthcare reform all over again, but on a national scale :(

Some campaign D:
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
As far as I know the new congress hasn't been seated yet. He's still got a month to ram through anything that he wants to ram through. He just knows that that will make him look bad. He's campaigning again.
Click to expand...

He is setting up to work with the GOP ahead of time. This is a meassage to the dems
 
I'm absolutely fine with letting the tax cuts expire AS LONG AS a federal budget is provided and deep spending cuts are passed. If the tax cuts don't go through, I see no sense in allowing the unemployed to get yet another year of unemployment, when all they have to do is go online, lie on their form and collect their pay check. I say, bring back the way it used to be.

The unemployed goes down to the unemployment office, fills out their form with a pen, sits in front of a person who asks them about the minimum of 3 places they applied, and then calls those places to verify that the person in fact did apply and that the person was turned down. Then the unemployment office allows a check to be sent. No verification, no check. This has an added benefit - it means that more federal jobs would be needed to man the unemployment offices to get through all these people every week or two.
 
Ockham said:
I'm absolutely fine with letting the tax cuts expire AS LONG AS a federal budget is provided and deep spending cuts are passed. If the tax cuts don't go through, I see no sense in allowing the unemployed to get yet another year of unemployment, when all they have to do is go online, lie on their form and collect their pay check. I say, bring back the way it used to be.

The unemployed goes down to the unemployment office, fills out their form with a pen, sits in front of a person who asks them about the minimum of 3 places they applied, and then calls those places to verify that the person in fact did apply and that the person was turned down. Then the unemployment office allows a check to be sent. No verification, no check. This has an added benefit - it means that more federal jobs would be needed to man the unemployment offices to get through all these people every week or two.
Click to expand...

It will not help. They will not use the money to pay down the debt. If you keep giving them more money they will spend more
 
ptif219 said:
It will not help. They will not use the money to pay down the debt. If you keep giving them more money they will spend more
Click to expand...

the only way dems win elections is promising more spending on those who don't pay for it. raising taxes only will serve as an excuse for the dems to spend even more
 
ptif219 said:
It will not help. They will not use the money to pay down the debt. If you keep giving them more money they will spend more
Click to expand...

Then I'd have to go radical and would (if in congress) vote against the tax cuts. It would be the right thing to do.
 
ptif219 said:
How would voting against the tax cuts help?
Click to expand...

It would increase taxes and it would stir up the base of people who are fiscally already pissed off. It would give the Government yet MORE money to spend which I think they would be happy to do and raise the economic outrage to a flashpoint. That's probably what we need - some riots in the streets to get some real cuts and fiscal responsibility. I don't see it happening with this "compromise".
 
Ockham said:
It would increase taxes and it would stir up the base of people who are fiscally already pissed off. It would give the Government yet MORE money to spend which I think they would be happy to do and raise the economic outrage to a flashpoint. That's probably what we need - some riots in the streets to get some real cuts and fiscal responsibility. I don't see it happening with this "compromise".
Click to expand...

How low should we go?
 
digsbe said:
So does this mean the Dems are the party of no and against bi-partisan? Why do they have to hate the rich so much that they can't allow them to keep the tax cuts they already have in a time of economic trouble? Why can't the Dems compromise on something so small as extending the tax cuts for the rich as well as everyone else? I honestly don't understand it.
Click to expand...

i would really, really, really like you to defend your statement about dems in congress "hating the rich". do they hate themselves, then? seriously, dig, stop with the overblown, trite rhetoric. i will if you will.
 
liblady said:
i would really, really, really like you to defend your statement about dems in congress "hating the rich". do they hate themselves, then? seriously, dig, stop with the overblown, trite rhetoric. i will if you will.
Click to expand...

Especially considering that this would have to be considered self hating by very definition.

If they were self serving, however, they would be advocating the path that resulted in their own benefit.
 
liblady said:
i would really, really, really like you to defend your statement about dems in congress "hating the rich". do they hate themselves, then? seriously, dig, stop with the overblown, trite rhetoric. i will if you will.
Click to expand...

So you're saying "self hate" is a myth? First, not all Dems in Congress are rich but yes there's "rich guilt" too.

Young heirs grapple with wealth of ambivalence - washingtonpost.com


But then there's the political position of "hating the rich" which helps to position these Dems with the cliche of "Democrats fight for the little guy" and it advances that narrative. While, in reality, they don't hate the rich at all - some of them are VERY rich but they don't want to be portrayed that way. As long as Dems continue the narrative and continue to make the poor dependent upon their hand-outs, they have voters for life, and therefore it's all good.
 
Ockham said:
So you're saying "self hate" is a myth? First, not all Dems in Congress are rich but yes there's "rich guilt" too.

Young heirs grapple with wealth of ambivalence - washingtonpost.com


But then there's the political position of "hating the rich" which helps to position these Dems with the cliche of "Democrats fight for the little guy" and it advances that narrative. While, in reality, they don't hate the rich at all - some of them are VERY rich but they don't want to be portrayed that way. As long as Dems continue the narrative and continue to make the poor dependent upon their hand-outs, they have voters for life, and therefore it's all good.
Click to expand...

so you want it both ways? they hate the rich but they don't hate the rich? make up your mind here.

it's rhetoric designed to inflame, nothing more. it's perfectly possible to fight for the little guy and not hate the big guy. hate is a much overused word.
 
liblady said:
so you want it both ways? they hate the rich but they don't hate the rich? make up your mind here.
Click to expand...

One is political posturing, one is real life. What's confusing you about that?

liblady said:
it's rhetoric designed to inflame, nothing more. it's perfectly possible to fight for the little guy and not hate the big guy. hate is a much overused word.
Click to expand...
I never claimed it WASN'T possible.


red_herring.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom