Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

Not entirely true. Stafford Loan subsidies still exist for most college people. And it wasn't Obama that ended it for grads. It was the GOP that got voted in, in huge numbers in 2010 when the 20 something vote % sucked.

Get the right perspective.

Get the right perspective? I'm simply acknowledging reality while you're writing walls of Obama apologia. Go tell a bunch of young voters how the shit sandwich Obama is helping to serve them isn't really that shitty and let me know how it goes for you.

 

[Joe]

last nights Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-1-2011-freida-pinto

he kills everyone in the opening segment

 

[turnbuckle]

Live - Obama speaks on debt deal

Hasn't started yet

 

[bodyofanamerican]

The bold is so false that it needs to be repeated that Bush DID NOT get everything he wanted. This myth surprisingly is pushed mostly by progressives. There were many important things that Bush didn't get.

And many progressives seem to forget that the DEMs helped vote in lots of the things that Bush did get. Bush got more help from the DEMs, than Obama is getting from the GOP. And compared to your Canadian healthcare the bill does suck, but compared to what we had during the Bush years (and prior) it is clearly better.

With regard to "Dems need another Bush" (and I'm not attacking the person who made the original assertion by any means), I was just reading Andrew Sullivan and one of his readers wrote in with a 30,000 foot view thought on Obama overall.

(SullivanThe core point is that if you want to disempower the extremists, becoming one is not a long-term option. What Obama is trying to do is represent reason in an age of emotion. The minute he stops doing that will be the moment the Palinites win. Until then, the fight continues. And it maddens me to see so many liberals walk off in a huff. Another writes: (reader letter now)

They call him weak, YET he defeated the Clinton Machine (remember she was the frontrunner for a lonnnnng time) ...

They call him weak, YET, within his presidential powers and influence, he with the help of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid. got major, HISTORIC legislation passed from Lily Ledbetter to Healthcare to DADT to too many others to have to keep repeating to prove this man is competent and serious ...

They call him weak, YET, while the GOP was crowing he was too weak to handle a hostage situation with Somali pirates, he had already sent over a team to get the remaining hostage and gave the order to shoot to kill ...

They call him weak, YET, he found and took out bin Laden ...

They call him weak, YET, he's been the one Democratic president to break the GOP's one-stop messaging that has been prevalent for over 30 years ...

They call him weak, YET, he predicted that he'd have this debt ceiling situation handled by the deadline - and by the end of tonight it will be.

If this is him being "weak", I'll take his "weak" over Bush and Cheney's faux-style of strength any day ...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/obamas-pyrrhic-defeat-ctd-1.html

the "becoming an extremist in the other direction is not a long term solution" line really struck me.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the politicians in your country were smart and not all blatant corporatists, there would ONLY be a public option. That's the whole point. THAT would be reform.

Our country is different from yours. We have a completely different background (country wise) than Canada. Having an only government option is never going to happen, because it goes completely against what people want America to be (me included).

And that was not the point to health care reform when it was started in 2009. Nobody ran on that platform. And if they did they wouldn't be elected as the President of the USA.

 

[mckmas8808]

And the Dems are letting them. I don't want to reward them, I'm just explaining to those of you who are mystified for some reason about why young people aren't excited to vote for Dems.

Then who should they be excited for? Because it was the DEMs that increased their pell grants and allowed them to stay on their parents insurance until they were 26 years old.

Those two things were made directly for young people. Yet you think it's okay for those same people to allow more GOP members to come into office and take all of that away?

Get the right perspective? I'm simply acknowledging reality while you're writing walls of Obama apologia. Go tell a bunch of young voters how the shit sandwich Obama is helping to serve them isn't really that shitty and let me know how it goes for you.

And how has anything that I've said been an apologia for Obama? I called the debt ceiling bill a shitty bill too, because it is shitty.

 

[speculawyer]

Well, the economy is going to be shit next year unless we have some miracle. I think the only way for Obama to win re-election is to have a shitty opponent (definitely possible) and blame the economy on the GOP congress (difficult . . . people blame the president).

 

[empty vessel]

the "becoming an extremist in the other direction is not a long term solution" line really struck me.

I wouldn't call wanting minimally sane policy that would benefit instead of harm society "extremist," but I suppose that's what it is in this political environment.

I'll gladly be an extremist. This is all just semantics.

Having an only government option is never going to happen, because it goes completely against what people want America to be (me included).

Yes, it will happen, because it is the onlyway that health care costs will be controlled. Your aversion to national health insurance is utterly irrational. Can you articulate any rational basis for it other than sheer social conditioning? Your attitude makes me pay twice as much for health care than I need to spend, money that is going from my wallet into some business executive's bank account. And it's unacceptable. Change it.

 

[BotoxAgent]

I_am_not_jon_ames--yes, I always can rely on Andrew Sullivan for a bit of sanity. And I like what some of his readers are saying:

In the aftermath of the debt ceiling debate I am most of all disgusted by the political immaturity and spinelessness of my own party which is literally on display in your reader's post without the slightest hint of irony. They are simply not paying attention to realities of today’s Congress. The nihilism of the Right is so complete and so utterly focused on the destruction of a presidency that avoiding default should be considered a miracle unto itself. Democrats should be winding up to beat Republicans with the extent of their depravity and recklessness in 2012. The fact that Obama slipped in defense cuts without entitlements into the trigger and left the Bush Tax Cuts off the table only further proves he is actually paying attention and his style is the right one.

The correct meme isn’t that Obama caved it’s that he got the best deal he could under insane circumstances.

"Vote for me, I'm slightly less bad!" is not a very compelling message.

GTFO with this crap. This argument is getting old. It's misleading and I'm sick of it.

I'll continue to vote Democrat and Obama, because I am completely fuckin scared shitless of a Republican controlled Congress and a Presidency.

To say Obama is slightly less bad than Romney, Palin, Bachman, Newt, etc. is a complete mischaracterization. Obama is nowhere near comes close to the insanity, incompetence, and just plain old evilness of his opponents. Jesus Christ.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

I wouldn't call wanting minimally sane policy that would benefit instead of harm society "extremist," but I suppose that's what it is in this political environment.

I'll gladly be an extremist. This is all just semantics.



Yes, it will happen, because it is the onlyway that health care costs will be controlled. Your aversion to national health insurance is utterly irrational. Can you articulate any rational basis for it other than sheer social conditioning? Your attitude makes me pay twice as much for health care than I need to spend, money that is going from my wallet into some business executive's bank account. And it's unacceptable. Change it.

Oh absolutely. This is not to say we all need to be "Very Serious People/Centrists" in our personal beliefs, but to defuse extremists, you have to tread the somewhat sane center as closely as possible i suppose.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, it will happen, because it is the onlyway that health care costs will be controlled. Your aversion to national health insurance is utterly irrational. Can you articulate any rational basis for it other than sheer social conditioning? Your attitude makes me pay twice as much for health care than I need to spend, money that is going from my wallet into some business executive's bank account. And it's unacceptable. Change it.

Admittedly most of it is social conditioning. But I can't envision the day when America has a gov't only health care system. Hell the way the GOP views things like this, I don't even know if I want their to be a gov't only option.

Actually now thinking about it I don't want their to be a national only plan. I still would LOVE for there to be a gov't option (which I think we will have within 10 years).

 

[Chichikov]

I'd blame DEMs that were in office with Bush that helped him get the things that he did get. But at the same time, a lot of them weren't controversial so the DEMs signed on to them in high enough numbers for them to pass.

I blame the electorate.
When it was made clear that supporting the Iraq war is a something that can cost you your reelection, dems started to fall over themselves to prove that they hate the war the mostest and was always against it.

How many congresspeople got voted out of office for supporting the No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act or Medicare part D?

 

[Dude Abides]

Then who should they be excited for? Because it was the DEMs that increased their pell grants and allowed them to stay on their parents insurance until they were 26 years old.

Those two things were made directly for young people. Yet you think it's okay for those same people to allow more GOP members to come into office and take all of that away?

Do you know how many people actually take advantage of subsidized Stafford Loans as opposed to Pell Grants or their parent's insurance?

You're arguing with reality. The fact is young people are not excited about the Dems. I'm trying to explain why that is to you. You can reject the explanation, but then you're left with loosus' view that they're just dumb or lazy.

And how has anything that I've said been an apologia for Obama? I called the debt ceiling bill a shitty bill too, because it is shitty.

Many of your posts can be summarized as "It could be worse, and anyway it's the GOP's fault!"

 

[Dude Abides]

GTFO with this crap. This argument is getting old. It's misleading and I'm sick of it.

I'll continue to vote Democrat and Obama, because I am completely fuckin scared shitless of a Republican controlled Congress and a Presidency.

To say Obama is slightly less bad than Romney, Palin, Bachman, Newt, etc. is a complete mischaracterization. Obama is nowhere near comes close to the insanity, incompetence, and just plain old evilness of his opponents. Jesus Christ.

Yes yes, the GOP is going to kill grandma and only Obama can save her. I don't think that's gonna work in 2012.

 

[DasRaven]

<Clarkson> And across the line... </Clarkson>

74-26, with more Rep "nays" than Dem.

 

[besada]

Exactly.. I don't get that sentiment. The republicans are the ones doing this shit, but people like the Dude seem to want to reward them even more for this crap.

It's funny to me that it's not Obama's fault when he signs a bill you don't like, but it's Obama's victory when he signs a bill you do like, even though he submitted no legislation on either issue, and both were passed by the Congress.

It's less funny that you and the rest of the squad can't hear a complaint without stuffing words and motivations in the mouths of people. In fact, that's downright juvenile.

Discussing a complaint about a President does not, in any way, imply that one wants to reward the opposition party. It simply means one has a complaint. I wish you and others could manage to wrap your heads around that without immediately suggesting that people are closet Republicans. I find it particularly offensive, as I've been working with and for the Democratic party longer than you've been alive.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It's funny to me that it's not Obama's fault when he signs a bill you don't like, but it's Obama's victory when he signs a bill you do like, even though he submitted no legislation on either issue, and both were passed by the Congress.

That is not at all what I was saying.

It's less funny that you and the rest of the squad can't hear a complaint without stuffing words and motivations in the mouths of people. In fact, that's downright juvenile.

Discussing a complaint about a President does not, in any way, imply that one wants to reward the opposition party. It simply means one has a complaint. I wish you and others could manage to wrap your heads around that without immediately suggesting that people are closet Republicans. I find it particularly offensive, as I've been working with and for the Democratic party longer than you've been alive.

I never said complaining about the president is bad, or shouldn't be done.. but the complaints should be in line with reality, and also what I am hearing from people is that they want to give up and either not vote or vote for an opposing party.. THAT is downright juvenile.

and I never implied anyone was a closeted republican. where the fuck sis that come from?

 

[NihonTiger90]

Obama speaking: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-press-41

 

[Evlar]

The Democrats have to win my vote. They don't have it by default.

 

[planar1280]

oh shit he said more taxes! tea party goes crazy in 3....2....1...

 

[ReBurn]

Yes yes, the GOP is going to kill grandma and only Obama can save her. I don't think that's gonna work in 2012.

Could always run against Bush again. I bet that has a shot.

 

[Zzoram]

Admittedly most of it is social conditioning. But I can't envision the day when America has a gov't only health care system. Hell the way the GOP views things like this, I don't even know if I want their to be a gov't only option.

Actually now thinking about it I don't want their to be a national only plan. I still would LOVE for there to be a gov't option (which I think we will have within 10 years).

The GOP tells you that government run health care would ration to kill grandma, and cost way more because government is inefficient. Reality tells us that government run healthcare in every other 1st world country costs much less per capita than in the US, and "government rationing" would still result in equal or greater coverage than insurance companies denying legitimate claims of people who can't lawyer up. Whenever insurance companies deny claims, that in itself is rationing too, except it's being done for profit instead of by analysis of cost-benefit to citizens as a whole.

Also, in the US right now all seniors are on Medicare, government run health care. Only the young and healthy are in the private insurance market, since people with pre-existing conditions get forced out. All this means is that the US government is already insuring the highest cost citizens, but giving private companies the highly profitable healthy population to ensure. The whole point of insurance is to have both healthy and sick people under the same system, so that the healthy people paying into it offset the expenditures by the sick people.

In countries with government run health insurance, part of the lower costs is due to people feeling sick or noticing something strange and going to their family doctor to get it checked out. These countries catch many diseases and other problems much earlier than in the US, since people aren't discouraged from getting check ups due to no/bad health insurance, or expensive co-pays. Catching diseases early is known to dramatically reduce the cost of treatment, so this is one way in which government run healthcare for everyone is superior for cost management.

Another cost saving benefit of government run health insurance is FAR LESS paperwork and administrative cost than a private health insurance system, since there is only one set of forms to be sent to one location, and the process is standardized for everyone. In the US, hospitals can have entire floors filled with staff just to handle the tons of paperwork for all the different health insurance companies, so the private health care system actually has more administrative costs. Proof here:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada.

In the US, health insurance companies cherry pick healthy people to reap massive profits off while the government picks up the coverage tab for all the sick people. It makes no sense, and it's no wonder US health care costs way more than any country with entirely government run health insurance per capita.

 

[mckmas8808]

Do you know how many people actually take advantage of subsidized Stafford Loans as opposed to Pell Grants or their parent's insurance?

You're arguing with reality. The fact is young people are not excited about the Dems. I'm trying to explain why that is to you. You can reject the explanation, but then you're left with loosus' view that they're just dumb or lazy.



Many of your posts can be summarized as "It could be worse, and anyway it's the GOP's fault!"

Dude you keep saying subsidized Stafford Loans as if it's for all of them. It's just for grad students (not to say that it doesn't suck because it does), so that makes it slightly less bad than if it was for everybody.

And I'm not calling young people dumb or lazy. I'm just saying that getting mad at Obama and the DEMs and deciding to not vote will not make what they want a closer reality. And I'm just giving you tangile things that the DEMs passed that the GOP would never pass, so I don't see that as just a "it could be worse" tagline.

For instance many young people wanted DADT done away with and now it is. The GOP would have kept DADT stay forever if they could. There's a clear difference between the two parties. A difference big enough that should make young people vote, regardless of how mad they can get a some shitty bills being passed.

 

[turnbuckle]

Well that speech, like so much of Obama's presidency, was underwhelming.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Well, the economy is going to be shit next year unless we have some miracle. I think the only way for Obama to win re-election is to have a shitty opponent (definitely possible) and blame the economy on the GOP congress (difficult . . . people blame the president).

Obama definitely owns the economy now, I wonder if Moody and the other credit rating agencies will still downgrade the US, they were looking for a $4 trillion spending cut.

 

[turnbuckle]

Obama definitely owns the economy now, I wonder if Moody and the other credit rating agencies will still downgrade the US, they were looking for a $4 trillion spending cut.

Not much of a fuck should be given about what the rating agencies wanted or for if they downgrade our AAA status.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It was pretty much a given that the economy was going to tank once the stimulus dried up.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's funny to me that it's not Obama's fault when he signs a bill you don't like, but it's Obama's victory when he signs a bill you do like, even though he submitted no legislation on either issue, and both were passed by the Congress.

the hell?

The white house is not supposed to create legislation. While they are not forbidden to do such a thing constitutionally, it does shift legislative responsibility away from the legislature and towards the executive branch, which is a bad practice. The president should alert congress about priorities it would like to have addressed, and offer suggestions on how to address them, and can choose to sign a bill into law, not sign a bill into law (in which case it becomes law two weeks after being submitted to the president), or veto it, in which case congress can put the bill into law anyways with 2/3rds approval in both the house and senate. But the white house should not draft bills for congress to vote on. Ever. That it happened with past administrations does not mean the practice should be expected. It's not proper, not in the duties of the president, and it shirks responsibility from the people who are supposed to be accountable and responsible for writing legislation.

I notice people complaining about what obama does or doesn't do, and it almost always seems to be something that, well, the president really shouldn't be doing. Sure, you can hold the president accountable for congress when the president is using congress as an extension of the executive branch, but that's not the same thing as what we're talking about here.


Learn about the separation of powers and the roles of the different branches, and the contextual actions of different congresses and administrations, and maybe you'd be able to better place blame on the right people. Harry Reid and the senate GOP are the guys you should be upset with over stimulus and helath care neutering and constant holds on appointments in the white house. The house banking committee (IIRC) is where the finance regulation bill got neutered. Hold the right people accountable. All the president can do is provide suggestions for what gets written up, but when the legislation reaches his desk, his options are the legislation he's presented, or the "Nothing at all" option for what gets done.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Not much of a fuck should be given about what the rating agencies wanted or for if they downgrade our AAA status.

A lot of fuck should be given when interest rates go up, a downgrade is probably worse than the so-called default.

 

[StevieP]

With regard to "Dems need another Bush" (and I'm not attacking the person who made the original assertion by any means), I was just reading Andrew Sullivan and one of his readers wrote in with a 30,000 foot view thought on Obama overall.

In response to that reader post: How's the closure of Gitmo coming along?

Not much of a fuck should be given about what the rating agencies wanted or for if they downgrade our AAA status.

No, it would be quite bad...

Actually now thinking about it I don't want their to be a national only plan.

How can anyone living in a first world nation even think about not having a socialized health care system? I just don't get it. It's cheaper and better for everyone, as has been proven many times over.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

It was pretty much a given that the economy was going to tank once the stimulus dried up.

Lets' force Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to cough up their entire fortunes to fund another cash for clunkers.

 

[planar1280]

what would be the economic effect if a majority of Americans would start paying off their own credit card debt if you exclude their spending habits.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not much of a fuck should be given about what the rating agencies wanted or for if they downgrade our AAA status.

Ummmm.....yeah we actually should care about that.

 

[Chichikov]

Lets' force Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to cough up their entire fortunes to fund another cash for clunkers.

Force?
Both (Gates, Buffet, citation no longer needed) supports a more progressive taxation code.

 

[mckmas8808]

In response to that reader post: How's the closure of Gitmo coming along?

Ask Congress.

How can anyone living in a first world nation even think about not having a socialized health care system? I just don't get it. It's cheaper and better for everyone, as has been proven many times over.

I would like to see our country have a strong public option first. What's so wrong with that?

 

[bob_arctor]

It's funny to me that it's not Obama's fault when he signs a bill you don't like, but it's Obama's victory when he signs a bill you do like, even though he submitted no legislation on either issue, and both were passed by the Congress.

It's less funny that you and the rest of the squad can't hear a complaint without stuffing words and motivations in the mouths of people. In fact, that's downright juvenile.

Discussing a complaint about a President does not, in any way, imply that one wants to reward the opposition party. It simply means one has a complaint. I wish you and others could manage to wrap your heads around that without immediately suggesting that people are closet Republicans. I find it particularly offensive, as I've been working with and for the Democratic party longer than you've been alive.

besada dropping knowledge like always?? guess it must be Tuesday.

 

[turnbuckle]

A lot of fuck should be given when interest rates go up, a downgrade is probably worse than the so-called default.

If we were downgraded to BBB? Sure. AA? No.

Ummmm.....yeah we actually should care about that.

The ratings process is so subjective and political that to make decisions based on them is not only a bad precedent, it's bad policy. I'm not saying one shouldn't care about the causes for government being at any risk of default.

 

[mckmas8808]

Okay so Obama said in his speech that we need to start growing the economy by extending the middle class tax cuts next year. UGH!!!

WTF?!

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I would like to see our country have a strong public option first. What's so wrong with that?

Given the choice between a half-measure and a full one, some of us would like to see this problem fixed. As completely as possible.

Okay so Obama said in his speech that we need to start growing the economy by extending the middle class tax cuts next year. UGH!!!

WTF?!

An extension of EGTRRA is coming and you know it.

 

[GaimeGuy]

In response to that reader post: How's the closure of Gitmo coming along?

Obama ordered it closed in his first 100 days. Congress refused to authorize the closure, or allocate funds for the moving of guantanemo bay prisoners, so the prison stayed open. Obama has proceeded with military tribunals since it's better than holding people indefinitely.

To put it simply: Congress holds the purse strings. If there's no workpackage for the executive branch to charge an activity for, they can't really do the activity.

 

[airmangataosenai]

And the Dems are letting them. I don't want to reward them, I'm just explaining to those of you who are mystified for some reason about why young people aren't excited to vote for Dems.

Every time I meet a liberal like you I cringe. You're no better than the Tea Party in my eyes.

 

[Dude Abides]

Dude you keep saying subsidized Stafford Loans as if it's for all of them. It's just for grad students (not to say that it doesn't suck because it does), so that makes it slightly less bad than if it was for everybody.

Yes, fantastic. Run on that!

And I'm not calling young people dumb or lazy. I'm just saying that getting mad at Obama and the DEMs and deciding to not vote will not make what they want a closer reality. And I'm just giving you tangile things that the DEMs passed that the GOP would never pass, so I don't see that as just a "it could be worse" tagline.

Of course it will not make what they want a closer reality, but as an empirical matter what Obama and the Dems are doing does not appear to be working. So you can either try to figure out what the Dems are doing wrong and could be doing differently, or you can curse the voters. I think one of these strategies is much more likely to work than the others.

For instance many young people wanted DADT done away with and now it is. The GOP would have kept DADT stay forever if they could. There's a clear difference between the two parties. A difference big enough that should make young people vote, regardless of how mad they can get a some shitty bills being passed.

And yet they aren't, so are they dumb, lazy, or a bit of both? Or, could it be that small victories on issues that don't affect that many people are actually not that mobilizing?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lets' force Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to cough up their entire fortunes to fund another cash for clunkers.

I thought Cash 4 Clunkers was effective

It saved my family 10,000 dollars and got us a new car when we would have just bought an old used car for the same price.

 

[mckmas8808]

Given the choice between a half-measure and a full one, some of us would like to see this problem fixed. As completely as possible.


An extension of EGTRRA is coming and you know it.

That's fine to want full national healthcare. I wouldn't stop a soul from wanting it.

And extending the full EGTRRA would literally (imo of course) be the worse then Obama could do at this moment. And he would be a dumbass to extend the whole thing again. It would kill the economy and hurt America. At some point Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan realized that we have to pay for stuff that we have. You can't cheapen your way to being a first class nation.

 

[Dude Abides]

Every time I meet a liberal like you I cringe. You're no better than the Tea Party in my eyes.

That's nice. Every time I meet a beltway consensus squish like you I realize why the GOP has won the last two decades with ease.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Force?
Both (Gates, Buffet, citation no longer needed) supports a more progressive taxation code.

"Then why don't they write acheck to the IRS? hur durr?"

Spoiler

Answer: Because you don't want government to be run like a charity.

 

[StevieP]

Okay so Obama said in his speech that we need to start growing the economy by extending the middle class tax cuts next year. UGH!!!

WTF?!

Taxing the middle class is going to stretch them thinner. Taxing corporations (or even closing the damn tax code loopholes that the dems didn't even get! for shame) further wouldn't "kill jobs".

I would like to see our country have a strong public option first. What's so wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, per-say. It's just that you really have to consider that the only reason you don't have socialized medicine is a combination of social engineering and blatant corporatism on ALL of your politicians parts. And the way it's going, when the republicans get re-elected they will repeal the tiny morsel of change that Obama's passed already.

Ask Congress.

When Obama ran, he said he'd close Gitmo. Gitmo represents the poor social culture and the overstepping of the American war machine into way too many grey areas of the law. It's just another example of Obama stepping back from his lofty goals in a sea of just that.

Obama ordered it closed in his first 100 days. Congress refused to authorize the closure, or allocate funds for the moving of guantanemo bay prisoners, so the prison stayed open. Obama has proceeded with military tribunals since it's better than holding people indefinitely.

To put it simply: Congress holds the purse strings. If there's no workpackage for the executive branch to charge an activity for, they can't really do the activity.

The congress was Dem-controlled for how long?

 

[planar1280]

Okay so Obama said in his speech that we need to start growing the economy by extending the middle class tax cuts next year. UGH!!!

WTF?!

the middle class does need a tax cut , the people who own 51% of the economy and are 1% of the population do need to be taxed. they will still spend unlike middle class or poor who will not spend if they get a tax

 

[loosus]

I feel like I have warped to bizarro world. Are people aware that the President has little unilateral power? You can keep saying he "caved" on issues, or you can choose to look at reality and realize that he doesn't make most decisions on his own. If he "caved," it was his way of making the best out of an absolutely horrible situation.

I mean, he has (and continues to) push for a balance of increased revenue with spending cuts -- which is, by far, the best approach. Other than continually advocating that, THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO. If the radicals in Congress won't bend even just a little, all the macho, beating-of-the-chest bullshit that he can pull won't make them budge on revenue increases.

 

[jmdajr]

I feel like I have warped to bizarro world. Are people aware that the President has little unilateral power? You can keep saying he "caved" on issues, or you can choose to look at reality and realize that he doesn't make most decisions on his own. If he "caved," it was his way of making the best out of an absolutely horrible situation.

I mean, he has (and continues to) push for a balance of increased revenue with spending cuts -- which is, by far, the best approach. Other than continually advocating that, THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO. If the radicals in Congress won't bend even just a little, all the macho, beating-of-the-chest bullshit that he can pull won't make them budge on revenue increases.

what power does he have on Congress besides VETO?