Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

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.

let's not try to lump reagan in with those two. Reagan drastically lowered income taxes and then raised payroll taxes. The result is a shift in the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor, as well as a shift of government resources away from infrastructural investments. Among other things

 

[Invisible_Insane]

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.

I've got an avatar bet out there already regarding Jon Huntsman, but I'd love to double down because after the absolute farce we've just seen there's no way not to think EGTRRA is getting the full extension. He's not going to veto the extension after the Senate caves and sends it to his desk. Book it.

 

[Byakuya769]

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.

I think the problem is that he's never battled. He continually comes out with milquetoast bullshit. "We need to compromise and find a balanced approach." , "some people are unwilling to bend..", who's unwilling to compromise? Who is the problem? Why are they wrong? You're not going to gently coax them into agreement.

 

[ToxicAdam]

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.

Critics of it said it was not a cost-effective way to do what it intended to do (reduce energy consumption and stimulate the economy).

Personally, I loved it and wished the stimulus plan had more gimmicks like it.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.



The congress was Dem-controlled for how long?

Yeah he made a stupid mistake of overselling the closing on Gitmo as if he alone could do it. Maybe he didn't have all the knowledge of what it took, but the overselling was the problem. And the just because the DEMs controlled the Congress, doesn't mean there weren't 3 or 4 that were scared to along Gitmo prisoners in the country to stay.

 

[mckmas8808]

I've got an avatar bet out there already regarding Jon Huntsman, but I'd love to double down because after the absolute farce we've just seen there's no way not to think EGTRRA is getting the full extension. He's not going to veto the extension after the Senate caves and sends it to his desk. Book it.

You're probably right....

 

[Joe]

Matt Taibbi: Democrats Are NOT A Progressive Political Party-They Just Play One On TV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1634767


reading that, and then remembering this quote:

"liberals love to be denounced from the right, and the right loves to denounce them, because that makes them look like courageous defenders of freedom and independence while, in fact, they are imposing all of the presuppositions of the propaganda system"

makes me feel like all we do is watch political theater.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

At some point Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan realized that we have to pay for stuff that we have.

When Reagan was elected the national debt was at 1 trillion. After he left office it was at 2.9 trillion. Reagan's era was the beggining of modern day Republican's out of control unbalanced budget proposals.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

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.

Except he tried and Congress stopped him.

 

[planar1280]

Matt Taibbi: Democrats Are NOT A Progressive Political Party-They Just Play One On TV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1634767


reading that, and then remembering this quote:



makes me feel like all we do is watch political theater.

sensationalist piece. democrats are the realist bunch of the political process. you can't let the country default when the congress is held hostage by tea bagger congressmen and women. This was the only realistic outcome. if you want change. make sure you don't skip the vote during mid terms and let the looney's in

 

[StevieP]

Except he tried and Congress stopped him.

If leaders can't lead, what's the point of going through the expensive farce every 4 years?

This was the only realistic outcome. if you want change. make sure you don't skip the vote during mid terms and let the looney's in

No, a realistic outcome would've been something far more balanced. The dems didn't even get the corporate tax loopholes closed, let alone repealing the bush tax cuts.

 

[planar1280]

If leaders can't lead, what's the point of going through the expensive farce every 4 years?



No, a realistic outcome would've been something far more balanced. The dems didn't even get the corporate tax loopholes closed, let alone repealing the bush tax cuts.

you cannot have balance when the clock is ticking and the tea baggers will let the country default on the democratic president's watch, this was all in their plans. You have to find a way out and that is only through the electoral process. vote them out.

 

[eznark]

sensationalist piece.

Has Taibbi ever written anything but?

Except he tried and Congress stopped him.

Congress didn't force him to reverse his order halting the tribunals being held there.

 

[empty vessel]

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).

Your unreasonableness and irrational stubbornness are needlessly costing me and other Americans (including yourself) a lot of money. There is no intellectual justification whatsoever for your position, and you need to abandon it. It is not possible for me to convey the magnitude of how irrational your preference is. It's like you prefer to spend money unnecessarily "just because," and, frankly, I have very real cause to be upset with you for it, given the negative effect your obstinacy has on me and the rest of the country. You are doing the equivalent of walking around with a hole in your pocket that causes you to lose half of your money every time you go out. Worse, once told about the hole in your pocket, you shrug, and continue to walk around losing money. Worse, you somehow manage to force everybody else to walk around with the same hole, causing them to lose money. You are a significant obstacle to rational and sane policy.

 

[Joe]

sensationalist piece. democrats are the realist bunch of the political process. you can't let the country default when the congress is held hostage by tea bagger congressmen and women. This was the only realistic outcome. if you want change. make sure you don't skip the vote during mid terms and let the looney's in

ok now watch this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon----a-compromise-without-revenues

and tell me that you still feel like the democrats were really serious about what they said regarding the debt ceiling bill negotiations.

 

[KtSlime]

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

Exactly, default votes are what are ruining democracy, and have destroyed this country.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my political opinions, call that a throw away vote if you want, but voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid and is precisely what placed us in this situation. We keep moving to the right BECAUSE democrats keep voting for people that are slightly less on the right of the republican candidate, rather than the candidate that fits their ideological beliefs and is clearly on the left.

The whole system makes me sick.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Your unreasonableness and irrational stubbornness are needlessly costing me and other Americans (including yourself) a lot of money. There is no intellectual justification whatsoever for your position, and you need to abandon it. It is not possible for me to convey the magnitude of how irrational your preference is. It's like you prefer to spend money unnecessarily "just because," and, frankly, I have very real cause to be upset with you for it, given the negative effect your obstinacy has on me and the rest of the country. You are doing the equivalent of walking around with a hole in your pocket that causes you to lose half of your money every time you go out. Worse, once told about the hole in your pocket, you shrug, and continue to walk around losing money. Worse, you somehow manage to force everybody else to walk around with the same hole, causing them to lose money. You are a significant obstacle to rational and sane policy.

I think this post is the EV equivalent of this response. I read it in the same tone of voice. (And agree with it, incidentally.)

 

[planar1280]

ok now watch this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon----a-compromise-without-revenues

and tell me that you still feel like the democrats were really serious about what they said regarding the debt ceiling bill negotiations.

as I said, they were the only realists in the whole process. this was the only solution available aside from default when teabaggers held the congress hostage. the Senate was always easily passable

 

[planar1280]

Exactly, default votes are what are ruining democracy, and have destroyed this country.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my political opinions, call that a throw away vote if you want, but voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid and is precisely what placed us in this situation. We keep moving to the right BECAUSE democrats keep voting for people that are slightly less on the right of the republican candidate, rather than the candidate that fits their ideological beliefs and is clearly on the left.

The whole system makes me sick.

and when democrats don't vote they let Rand Paul in.

 

[empty vessel]

I think this post is the EV equivalent of this response. I read it in the same tone of voice. (And agree with it, incidentally.)

Ha. Seriously incredulous.

 

[turnbuckle]

I think this post is the EV equivalent of this response. I read it in the same tone of voice. (And agree with it, incidentally.)

I knew what this was going to be (And agree with it, incidentally.)

 

[eznark]

and when democrats don't vote they let Rand Paul in.

Oh man, if only more of you would stay home!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

As others have said, it's not Obama's fault that he's forced to work with a Congress that actively attempts to stick a dick in his eye at every opportunity.

However, it IS (partially) Obama's fault that they do so with relative impunity. The president has arguably one of the biggest bully pulpits in the nation and to date he has seemed almost afraid to use it and call out bullshit in its myriad forms on the Hill. Some news commentators have been more flattering toward his approach, calling him "above the fray" and "leading from behind" and all that but it's really either two things - cowardice or complicity.

This was not some grand compromise. Republicans successfully pushed the narrative that their compromise was voting in favor of a debt ceiling increase, which as we all know is certifiable bullshit. And yet that's practically all they had to "concede" in this debate, other than maybe their failed attempts to ensure that this debacle resurfaced in time for the 2012 elections and killing healthcare/financial reform in the name of austerity.

 

[Evlar]

and when democrats don't vote they let Rand Paul in.

I don't exercise the franchise merely to cancel out someone else's vote. I will express MY political will without regard for anyone else's voting preference.

 

[mckmas8808]

When Reagan was elected the national debt was at 1 trillion. After he left office it was at 2.9 trillion. Reagan's era was the beggining of modern day Republican's out of control unbalanced budget proposals.

Yep. But he still raised taxes at some point. Even he didn't lower taxes forever.

 

[KtSlime]

and when democrats don't vote they let Rand Paul in.

If we keep voting further and further to the right due to this lesser of two evils mentality we'll eventually be voting him* in anyway because he will be slightly to the left of some other big bad republican on the right.

*or someone very much like him.

 

[mckmas8808]

If leaders can't lead, what's the point of going through the expensive farce every 4 years?


.

So Congress aren't leaders?

 

[eznark]

"leading from behind" isn't flattery

 

[mckmas8808]

Your unreasonableness and irrational stubbornness are needlessly costing me and other Americans (including yourself) a lot of money. There is no intellectual justification whatsoever for your position, and you need to abandon it. It is not possible for me to convey the magnitude of how irrational your preference is. It's like you prefer to spend money unnecessarily "just because," and, frankly, I have very real cause to be upset with you for it, given the negative effect your obstinacy has on me and the rest of the country. You are doing the equivalent of walking around with a hole in your pocket that causes you to lose half of your money every time you go out. Worse, once told about the hole in your pocket, you shrug, and continue to walk around losing money. Worse, you somehow manage to force everybody else to walk around with the same hole, causing them to lose money. You are a significant obstacle to rational and sane policy.

I'm not stopping anything actually. If the Congress were talking about passing a national healthcare plan next year, I'd be for it in principle.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Oh man, if only more of you would stay home!

Why, do you own a business that serves the public and want to legally discriminate against blacks?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I've got an avatar bet out there already regarding Jon Huntsman, but I'd love to double down because after the absolute farce we've just seen there's no way not to think EGTRRA is getting the full extension. He's not going to veto the extension after the Senate caves and sends it to his desk. Book it.

Yup, not gonna happen. It will be extended and Obama will kick the can two years down the road, claiming he'll fight next time. And as the cuts continue blowing a hole in the deficit, republicans will continue going crazy over deficits.

The Bush tax cuts were truly a brilliant landmine.

 

[mckmas8808]

If we keep voting further and further to the right due to this lesser of two evils mentality we'll eventually be voting him* in anyway because he will be slightly to the left of some other big bad republican on the right.

*or someone very much like him.

95% of DEMs are nothing like Rand Paul. You're reaching.

 

[eznark]

Why, do you own a business that serves the public and want to legally discriminate against blacks?

If blacks would like to buy my grey market lightbulbs, Commando 450 shower head and high volume toilet bowl they are more than welcome. It's those damn fib's I want to discriminate against.

 

[KtSlime]

95% of DEMs are nothing like Rand Paul. You're reaching.

Are democrats voting further to the right then they had in the past? Will this trend continue? Have democrats devised a plan to start moving to the left? If not, while I may be reaching, I'm certain that our next democratic president will be even further right than Obama, and the next one further then that one. I'd like to be wrong, but this is what I have observed politically throughout my entire life - voting for the lesser of two evils is moving this country's political center to the right.

 

[Evlar]

95% of DEMs are nothing like Rand Paul. You're reaching.

We're talking about the rightward drift of politics. It does no good to protest that Democrats are to the left of some random Republican now when the thrust of the argument is that the party has been moving to the right and some of us would like to prevent that in the future. What is far to the right in the past has gradually become mainstream, and even "left". Obama, on budgetary policy, is at this moment to the right of the budget policy of George H. W. Bush, as expressed in his most recent State of the Union address.

 

[mckmas8808]

Are democrats voting further to the right then they had in the past? Will this trend continue? Have democrats devised a plan to start moving to the left? If not, while I may be reaching, I'm certain that our next democratic president will be even further right than Obama, and the next one further then that one. I'd like to be wrong, but this is what I have observed politically though out my entire life - voting for the lesser of two evils is moving this country's political center to the right.

I can't honestly say. On some things yes and others no. And maybe the political center is moving to the right because that's where the country honestly wants to be.

Does it really have anything to do with voting for the lesser of two evils?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Has Taibbi ever written anything but?




Congress didn't force him to reverse his order halting the tribunals being held there.

So you'd rather they be held indefinitely?

 

[Baraka in the White House]

"leading from behind" isn't flattery

More flattering than being called a pussy.

 

[KtSlime]

I can't honestly say. On some things yes and others no. And maybe the political center is moving to the right because that's where the country honestly wants to be.

Does it really have anything to do with voting for the lesser of two evils?

If you are advising people to vote for the democratic candidate simply to keep republicans out of office then yes, it has everything to do with voting for the lesser of two evils.

And I don't believe that is where the educated in this country want to be. The only people that want to be on the right are those who gain something by being there, and those that have been lied to about how it will be over there.

 

[TacticalFox88]

More flattering than being called a pussy.

Obama still in that "want everyone to like me" mentality.

 

[eznark]

More flattering than being called a pussy.

It's saying the same thing, unlike our Vice President some people still try and be respectful. I mean, not me, dude is a spineless pussy...you know, other people.

 

[ToxicAdam]

When Reagan was elected the national debt was at 1 trillion. After he left office it was at 2.9 trillion. Reagan's era was the beggining of modern day Republican's out of control unbalanced budget proposals.

Remind me again how the budget process works. The administration gives a proposal ... and then what happens? I know there is another component in this process you seem to be leaving out.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Remind me again how the budget process works. The administration gives a proposal ... and then what happens? I know there is another component in this process you seem to be leaving out.

IIRC, it also ends with someone signing something. Can't remember who or what, though.

What proposals to reduce the deficit did Reagan propose that Congress blocked, and what proposals to increase did Reagan make which Conress passed?

 

[Puddles]

and when democrats don't vote they let Rand Paul in.

What chance does America have when good people do nothing?

 

[Diablos]

Of course Democrats aren't a true progressive party anymore.

Progressive politics in the US has been getting clobbered over the head relentlessly ever since this prick took office. True progressive values in US politics are basically dead save a few tiny voices scattered throughout who can't do anything about it.

 

[StevieP]

So Congress aren't leaders?

What's the point of a president, again?

I can't honestly say. On some things yes and others no. And maybe the political center is moving to the right because that's where the country honestly wants to be.

If you honestly ask someone "so, should we reduce your grandmother's medicare cheques?" - do you think they would say "hell yes, the bitch doesn't deserve them. I prefer that the CEO of Goldman Sachs earn a slightly bigger salary so that they can "create jobs"

Spoiler

overseas

"? Honestly, do you think normal people - the majority of Americans - would say something like that?

 

[ToxicAdam]

IIRC, it also ends with someone signing something. Can't remember who or what, though.

At that point it's merely a formality. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act stripped the president of any real powers of eliminating spending found within the budgets. Thus, the push for the line item veto.

 

[mckmas8808]

What's the point of a president, again?



If you honestly ask someone "so, should we reduce your mother's medicare cheques?" - do you think they would say "hell yes, the bitch doesn't deserve them. I prefer that the CEO of Goldman Sachs earn a slightly bigger salary so that they can "create jobs"

Spoiler

overseas

"? Honestly, do you think normal people - the majority of Americans - would say something like that?

To your first question to run the country. But you can't act like that person literally has the power to enact anything he wants. Bush, Obama, Reagan, Clinton, etc didn't have this power and no President should. You wanting to give Congress a pass would be you cheapening the way our gov't is run.


And the average American would probably say no to that deal. But they in 2010 allowed more politicians into office that would be willing to lower the amount on the medicare check and allow CEOs have a bigger salary.

 

[StevieP]

To your first question to run the country. But you can't act like that person literally has the power to enact anything he wants. Bush, Obama, Reagan, Clinton, etc didn't have this power and no President should. You wanting to give Congress a pass would be you cheapening the way our gov't is run.

At the end of the day, the buck still stops somewhere.

And the average American would probably say no to that deal. But they in 2010 allowed more politicians into office that would be willing to lower the amount on the medicare check and allow CEOs have a bigger salary.

And herein lies the problem. Why? I assure you it's not because your country is *actually* moving to the right. Because if you put politics aside, I'm sure the majority of the people you'd ask that question to would answer the same way you or I would.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What's the point of a president, again?



If you honestly ask someone "so, should we reduce your grandmother's medicare cheques?" - do you think they would say "hell yes, the bitch doesn't deserve them. I prefer that the CEO of Goldman Sachs earn a slightly bigger salary so that they can "create jobs"

Spoiler

overseas

"? Honestly, do you think normal people - the majority of Americans - would say something like that?

Think of the president as the CEO of a company, and congress as the board of directors, and the CEO is NOT on the board.

It's not quite accurate, but it's somewhat analogous.