Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

Thanks for keeping it in this thread. It's amazing to me that, when you know you are in an historic drought, that you even CONSIDER cutting fire support. Have they convinced themselves that low taxes are more important then human lives and property?

 

[Gr1mLock]

Thanks for keeping it in this thread. It's amazing to me that, when you know you are in an historic drought, that you even CONSIDER cutting fire support. Have they convinced themselves that low taxes are more important then human lives and property?

Decency is a foreign concept to the GOP. You want money for aid? Come back when youre a corporation.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-wont-show-up-to-thursday-speech/#more-174491

CNN) – Actions speak louder than words, and at least five Republican members of Congress-two senators and three representatives –plan on sitting out the president's jobs speech before a Thursday joint session of Congress.
Call it an act of defiance, protest, or a simple "scheduling conflict"-some members just have other plans.

On Monday, Sept. 12th, CNN will broadcast the "Tea Party Republican Debate," live from Tampa, Florida at 8 p.m. ET. Follow all the issues and campaign news leading up to the debate on CNNPolitics.com and @cnnpolitics on Twitter.

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun also sat out the president's State of the Union address in January, tweeting from his office on Capitol Hill. This time, the congressman told CNN's American Morning Thursday that he's planning to host a "town hall meeting over Twitter" so that constituents can "communicate with me and tell me what they think about the president's speech."

The three-term Republican congressman accused President Obama of believing in socialism during his last tweet-and-response during a joint session, but this time, he said, will be different.

"We weren't holding a town hall meeting on that particular occasion," Broun clarified. "We're inviting people to come on board, to give me comments, to give me suggestions, to tell me what they think we should be doing."

"I'm trying to listen to my constituents," Broun said as he expressed skepticism about the president's intentions.

"This president does not listen. This is just another campaign speech," he stated.

"What we need to be doing is trying to create an environment so that job creators in the private sector will start hiring people, Broun continued.

"Not these ideas that have been proposed by the president. We've already seen them in the stimulus bill. They failed before. They'll fail again."

Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh echoed Broun's sentiments when he told CNN's "Newsroom" later, "It really does seem like every time someone skins their knee the president wants to make a big speech. We're beyond big speeches."

"If this president were serious about coming together, he wouldn't throw together a big campaign speech again."

Arguing that "you can't lead by speeches," the freshman congressman stated that he won't just be boycotting the president.

"I'm actually going to fly home this afternoon and instead of attending his speech I'm going to sit with 40-50 small businessmen and women–the job creators in this country–and they're going to give me their recommendations and I'm going to take them back to the president."

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint said he's "so tired of [Obama's] speeches" that he will read the text because "it's going to be hard" for the tea party leader to watch.
But House Speaker John Boehner wasn't in favor of actions by errant members of his party Thursday. "I have encouraged my colleagues to come tonight and to listen to the president," he addressed the floor.

"He is the president of the United States and I believe that all members ought to be here and do this. Doesn't mean they are going to. Remember, I am just the speaker, all right. I have 435 colleagues who have their own opinions and they are entitled to them. As an institution, the president is coming to our invitation. We ought to be respectful and we ought to welcome him."
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter just had bigger and better plans, but changed them to attend.
Though he originally stated, "I'm going to be watching from my family room in Metairie, Louisiana because I have a Saints game party there and I'm absolutely going to be there for the big game," spokesman Luke Bolar confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the vote schedule, effectively cancelling the senator's travel plans.
"Apparently my attending my own Saints game party at home in Louisiana is the latest casualty of Washington partisanship," Vitter wrote in an e-mail to staff. "This HAS gotten out of hand!"

When President Obama first proposed a joint session of Congress last week, the timing went up against a GOP presidential debate. He settled on the Thursday date countered by House Speaker John Boehner, going head-to-head with the NFL season opener featuring the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers instead.

Obama's speech at 7 p.m. ET is timed to occur shortly before the game begins.
Still, Texas Rep. Ron Paul won't leave the presidential campaign trail to attend.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has pressing family matters that will keep him away from the Capitol as well –though his absence is less than political.

Spokesman Alex Burgos told CNN, "Senator Rubio will be returning home early this afternoon to be with his mother, who has been hospitalized following a series of strokes."
And freshman Rep. Lou Barletta announced Thursday he will return to his home state of Pennsylvania to attend to matters related to "unprecedented flooding" in large parts of the Northeastern and Central portions of the state.

So professional. "I'm not even going to listen to what you have to say"

 

[Zoramon089]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-wont-show-up-to-thursday-speech/#more-174491



So professional. "I'm not even going to listen to what you have to say"

This is just disrespectful. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the President...Guy's, I think it's time to just call this what it is

Spoiler

racism

 

[gcubed]

Pathetic. Still, this is not an abstract political debate: people's lives and livelihoods are in danger. I hope they get all the fed help they need. Oh and fuck Eric Cantor

Definitely should be granted to help in whatever way they can.

Definitely should be brought up by outside sources while money is flowing in from the federal gov't when they cut the budgets of anything that could have helped

 

[mckmas8808]

The republicans are rampaging against the massive 1% the government spends on bike/walking funding from the transportation fund.

They suggest that this "enormous" one billion is the reason the highway trust fund is bankrupt, and must be completely eliminated.

Further note: When the tax was 30 cents a gallon, a gallon cost like $1, so the tax was 30%.

Today its 18 cents of $4. So the tax keeps going down in every way you can measure it.

So are you saying that the tax per gallon needs to go up?

 

[jamesinclair]

So are you saying that the tax per gallon needs to go up?

Having the tax be at a fixed rate is idiotic. Should have always been pegged to inflation.

They should raise it to 29 cents and then peg it to inflation after that.

And then start looking at mileage taxes, because as car efficiency goes up, revenue goes down....but roads dont fix themselves.

Thanks for keeping it in this thread. It's amazing to me that, when you know you are in an historic drought, that you even CONSIDER cutting fire support. Have they convinced themselves that low taxes are more important then human lives and property?

I wonder how fires fit into the free market. Was there an unmet demand for destruction?

 

[mckmas8808]

Having the tax be at a fixed rate is idiotic. Should have always been pegged to inflation.

They should raise it to 29 cents and then peg it to inflation after that.

And then start looking at mileage taxes, because as car efficiency goes up, revenue goes down....but roads dont fix themselves.

I like pegging it to inflation (I would peg it to half of what inflation is but that's another matter). But I hate your mileage tax. Sounds so cruel and unneeded.

Punish me because I got a job 20 miles away from my house? Why?

 

[AndyD]

I like pegging it to inflation (I would peg it to half of what inflation is but that's another matter). But I hate your mileage tax. Sounds so cruel and unneeded.

Punish me because I got a job 20 miles away from my house? Why?

Its not a punishment. The stated goal of the gas tax is to maintain roads. If you drive 20 miles on said roads, why should you not pay more than me, who drives 3, to fix the roads?

The idea was that all cars got a certain mileage, so gas tax made sense. But nowadays, with hybrids and electrics the gas tax makes less and less sense. Because I can use the same amount of gas to drive 3 in my honking giant SUV as you would in your Prius to drive 20 miles. So we would then pay the same amount towards road fixing when we used those roads very differently.

Some even argue there should be a weight related tax, as heavy trucks/SUVs do more damage to roads than lightweight sedans. The point is that if you are going to say the tax is designed for roads then apply it in a way that equitably taxes those using the roads.

 

[mckmas8808]

Its not a punishment. The stated goal of the gas tax is to maintain roads. If you drive 20 miles on said roads, why should you not pay more than me, who drives 3, to fix the roads?

The idea was that all cars got a certain mileage, so gas tax made sense. But nowadays, with hybrids and electrics the gas tax makes less and less sense. Because I can use the same amount of gas to drive 3 in my honking giant SUV as you would in your Prius to drive 20 miles. So we would then pay the same amount towards road fixing when we used those roads very differently.

Some even argue there should be a weight related tax, as heavy trucks/SUVs do more damage to roads than lightweight sedans. The point is that if you are going to say the tax is designed for roads then apply it in a way that equitably taxes those using the roads.

I do pay more because I use more gas, which means that I pay more taxes in gas. Why come up with a new system to tax me even more than the MORE that I am paying?

And I understand the Prius to SUV argument, but shouldn't we wait until at the very least 25% of vehicles on the road are hybrids/electric cars? With this new tax you'd be punishing most of the country just because....

 

[jamesinclair]

Punish me because I got a job 20 miles away from my house? Why?

Its 2025. Youre driving your all electric car.

How do you propose the roads get paid for...?

And how is distance based pricing cruel? You drive more = you use more = you pay more.

This isnt in addition to, its a replacement for the gas tax.

Protip: Look at the current government. This shit takes time to implement.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

LOL freshman congressmen from no where claiming they know more about being a politician than the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Who do these people think they are

 

[mckmas8808]

Its 2025. Youre driving your all electric car.

How do you propose the roads get paid for...?

And how is distance based pricing cruel? You drive more = you use more = you pay more.

This isnt in addition to, its a replacement for the gas tax.

Protip: Look at the current government. This shit takes time to implement.

I can understand it if in 2025 30% of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles. But right now? No way.

 

[AndyD]

I do pay more because I use more gas, which means that I pay more taxes in gas. Why come up with a new system to tax me even more than the MORE that I am paying?

Its a replacement system. And it takes time. And you may actually end up paying less not more, as you probably drive less than the average American.

And encouraging you to drive less has similar side effects to higher gas prices, people carpool more, avoid trips, live closer to work...

 

[jamesinclair]

I can understand it if in 2025 30% of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles. But right now? No way.

So the people that can afford a $40,000 electric vehicle today should pay zero road use taxes, but those who can only afford a $3,000 clunker should shoulder the burden?

I mean, sure, that sounds like a typical republican position....but come on!

 

[speculawyer]

Having the tax be at a fixed rate is idiotic. Should have always been pegged to inflation.

They should raise it to 29 cents and then peg it to inflation after that.

And then start looking at mileage taxes, because as car efficiency goes up, revenue goes down....but roads dont fix themselves.

Or peg it to the gas price (X% of the gas price). That way you have a steady amount in relation to gas usage.

Your mileage tax is a HORRIBLE idea . . . we want to encourage efficiency, not punish it. But if you did such a thing, it should include a weight factor since heavy vehicles destroy roads, not small cars.

EVs will eventually need a mileage charge . . . but not yet. There are far too few for it to matter. It can be phased in. First nothing. Then a fixed charge for annual registration. Then an actual mileage charge of some sort.

 

[RustyNails]

Spoiler

racism

Nail on the head.

"we wont be talked down by you boy"

 

[speculawyer]

I can understand it if in 2025 30% of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles. But right now? No way.

Carlos Ghosn (head of Nissan) is being laughed at by many for believing EVs may make up 10% of new car sales in 2020. That is quite optimistic. Probably too optimistic. And keep in mind that is sales . . . actual EVs on the road would be maybe 2% if that optimistic goal were reached.

 

[jamesinclair]

Or peg it to the gas price (X% of the gas price). That way you have a steady amount in relation to gas usage.
.

No, that doesnt work.

Say we tax it at 10%.

Gas drops to $1.00, so we get 10 cents.
Gas goes to $4.00, so we get 40 cents.

Does gas use drop/rise with price change? yes. But its not so elastic as to make up the difference. People wont drive four times more.

Your mileage tax is a HORRIBLE idea . . . we want to encourage efficiency, not punish it. But if you did such a thing, it should include a weight factor since heavy vehicles destroy roads, not small cars.

EVs will eventually need a mileage charge . . . but not yet. There are far too few for it to matter. It can be phased in. First nothing. Then a fixed charge for annual registration. Then an actual mileage charge of some sort

Of course it encourages efficiency. You drive more, you pay more, in both electricity and mileage fees.

Again, why do rich people get a free ride for 10 years?

 

[scorcho]

LOL freshman congressmen from no where claiming they know more about being a politician than the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Who do these people think they are

people who have no respect for long-standing institutions of the government. Republicans, especially the tea-party set, have no problem tearing to down to prove how ineffective it is.

 

[Cmagus]

Day one of the super committee and already CNN is reporting that one Republican member Jon Kyl is threatening to quit if any more cuts to military funding are implemented.

http://www.businessinsider.com/its-...lready-threatening-the-super-committee-2011-9

 

[speculawyer]

So the people that can afford a $40,000 electric vehicle today should pay zero road use taxes, but those who can only afford a $3,000 clunker should shoulder the burden?

LOL! Dude . . . we are paying those people $7500 in tax-credits to buy that $40K EV. That mileage-fee/gas tax is a rounding error compared to that!

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is just disrespectful. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the President...Guy's, I think it's time to just call this what it is

Spoiler

racism

They know their base wants no cooperation with Obama. Some of those constituents are racist, but most go insane whenever a democrat is in office regardless of race. I honestly think it has far more to do with abortion than race.

 

[speculawyer]

Of course it encourages efficiency. You drive more, you pay more, in both electricity and mileage fees.

You are confusing conservation with efficiency.

Gas drops to $1.00, so we get 10 cents.

We should also increase the defense budget to be ready to handle the army of monkeys that may fly out of my ass.

 

[jamesinclair]

LOL! Dude . . . we are paying those people $7500 in tax-credits to buy that $40K EV. That mileage-fee/gas tax is a rounding error compared to that!

Thats complete bs too.

Rob from the poor, give toys to the rich.

You are confusing conservation with efficiency.

An EV Smart will use less electricity than an EV Takoma.

Mileage tax should include weight classes. As should urban parking. You can fit 3 smarts in the space of an F150. Why do they both pay $2 an hour at the meter?

 

[scorcho]

Of course it encourages efficiency. You drive more, you pay more, in both electricity and mileage fees.

Again, why do rich people get a free ride for 10 years?

so what you're proposing is equivalent to a flat tax for driving.

how positively egalitarian of you.

 

[AndyD]

Or peg it to the gas price (X% of the gas price). That way you have a steady amount in relation to gas usage.

Your mileage tax is a HORRIBLE idea . . . we want to encourage efficiency, not punish it. But if you did such a thing, it should include a weight factor since heavy vehicles destroy roads, not small cars.

EVs will eventually need a mileage charge . . . but not yet. There are far too few for it to matter. It can be phased in. First nothing. Then a fixed charge for annual registration. Then an actual mileage charge of some sort.

I thought about percentage, but I think the problem is that it would fluctuate too much and there would be less govt incentive to lower the price of gas. Because the more it costs, the more they get. Not only that, but the govt would want a guaranteed income. So maybe a combination, say 25 cents plus 10% of the gallon price.

As to mileage tax, it does not discourage efficiency at all. If you take your car on a 100 mile trip in a hybrid you should pay more for the roads to be fixed than if you took a 10 mile trip in a clunker. With their weights being equal of course.

 

[RustyNails]

Gloria Berger: tl;dr, Obama better hit this out of the park, for his own good

And it's also easy to understand why the president is taking aim at the Congress: They're the only group in town more unpopular than he is. The CNN/ORC poll shows congressional approval at 14%. By comparison, the president's meager 45% approval rating looks gargantuan. "The Republicans haven't moved the ball at all," says another senior White House adviser. "We have our struggles, but look at them."

It all sounds so simple for the White House: Pick on the people the public dislikes more than they dislike you. Harry Truman is the model here: Run after the do-nothing Congress. And win.

Except that there are some real risks here. The president, in calling for a joint session, raises expectations about what he will say and propose. If he ends up offering a prosaic agenda, there could be a real mismatch between the venue and the ideas. If that's the case, he looks blatantly political. If you're going to build up a big speech, why not put something big—like his plans for deficit reduction—on the table? Isn't that just as important?

Then there's this: leadership. If Obama proposes to do something, the public wants to see that he has the juice to get it done. They're not worried that the GOP controls the House right now or that the Senate needs 60 votes to get anything passed. So if he fails, they're not just going to blame the Republicans.

...

...right now, the public is trying to figure out if it wants to re-hire Barack Obama. Maybe the year 1980 is the analogy here: Jimmy Carter wasn't popular and voters were looking for a reasonable alternative. Eventually, they landed on Ronald Reagan, and the rest is history. The Democrats are down to hoping that the Republicans nominate someone who can't seal the deal the way Reagan did.

Right now, though, Obama's main opponent is himself. He needs to be the incumbent with a record of leadership to run on. It's not about the cranky Republicans who challenge everything he does. Or Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, each of whom have their own flaws. It's about Obama's flaws and Obama's ability to make Washington work.

If he can't show progress, the race becomes exactly what the GOP wants: an Obama vs. Obama matchup. That's the fight they can't lose.

Lot of hype riding on this speech. Obama set himself up for something epic. If he falls, it's gonna sink his presidency.

 

[scorcho]

Gloria Berger: tl;dr, Obama better hit this out of the park, for his own good.

Lot of hype riding on this speech. Obama set himself up for something epic. If he falls, it's gonna sink his presidency.

can i already predict that people will be disappointed? he'll call for bipartisan efforts and throw Republicans flowery rhetoric to get them on board, then dial back once he realizes, again, that they want nothing to do with any successful administration policy.

 

[jamesinclair]

If you take your car on a 100 mile trip in a hybrid you should pay more for the roads to be fixed than if you took a 10 mile trip in a clunker. With their weights being equal of course.

Theres also one other thing I forgot to mention that you reminded me of...

We discourage driving not just because of air pollution, but because of congestion.

Studies have shown that those who purchase high efficiency cars are driving more, because it's cheaper to do so. That means more traffic....and thats not good.

Mileage fee eliminates this problem.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Oh boy, I just listened to Carney on Morning Joe. Doesn't sound good :/ Seems like he's just gonna propose small stuff that he thinks can get through congress. Sigh, what a pussy move if true.

 

[mckmas8808]

So the people that can afford a $40,000 electric vehicle today should pay zero road use taxes, but those who can only afford a $3,000 clunker should shoulder the burden?

I mean, sure, that sounds like a typical republican position....but come on!

What are you talking about? I didn't say that. I'm okay with your moving towards a mileage tax (I have ZERO idea how this would work by the way) if the vehicles on the road created the need. If we were losing so much tax money for roads because that many people started driving electric cars and trucks (what a great country we'd be then), then change the system to what you are stating.

But I just want enough vehicles on the road to cause that problem first. My only problem with it is what if people stop by electrics and hybrid because of this?

 

[speculawyer]

Thats complete bs too.

Rob from the poor, give toys to the rich.

Your understanding of the matter qualifies you to be a Fox news host.


It is not buying a 'toy' for the rich. It is encouraging the research, development, and deployment of technology that will be needed. Even with that tax-credit, the people currently buying Volts & Leafs paying more than they need to for basic transportation. It is those early adopters that are subsidizing the R&D for future EVs. The tax-credit acts as a government matching grant. That goal is to have a real alternative to oil-based transportation because:
-We import 2/3s of our oil such that it is a massive trade deficit that is draining our wealth
-Oil pollutes
-Oil contributes to CO2
-We are beholden to OPEC
-Diversify the transport system that is 97% dependent on oil
-Stop sending so much money to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ahmedinnerjacket, etc.
-Oil is going to keep going up in price (with occasional fall-backs) for the foreseeable future.

Almost no politician will talk about since it is bad news for which they have no good solutions. Republican Roscoe Bartlett is an old crank who is secure enough to talk about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9maqiPVxdsI

An EV Smart will use less electricity than an EV Takoma.

You said mileage tax. The amount of electricity used is not part of a 'mileage' tax.

 

[Evlar]

Road use tax is impractical and disadvantageous. You would need to take account of not just weight and distance traveled but the relative cost-per-person of maintaining the particular road you happen to be driving on. This is excessively burdensome on people who happen to live on expensive-to-maintain-yet-lightly-used thoroughfares.

More important, it obfuscates one of the purposes of the road system, arguably more important to their construction and maintenance than simply providing convenience to commuters: it facilitates the movement of goods and services from point to point across the country. This was the issue over which the use of federal (and state) funds to build roads was first fought; this was the original justification for them; and it has been wildly successful toward that end. So if you wanted to be fair and address the actual purpose of the roads in the tax system you would make people pay based on earning potential of the goods and services moved over them. This, of course, is nigh impossible.

The "gas tax is to pay for maintenance of the roads" line is merely an excuse, an after-the-fact justification. We could pay for them any number of alternate ways, none of which would be particularly fair in the economic sense I just mentioned (but not necessarily less fair, either). In the end we have public roads because they provide gigantic positive externalities to broad swathes of the economy and to the public.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

can i already predict that people will be disappointed?

I plan to be disappointed, but then again I doubt there is anything he could do anyway.

The way I see it Job Creators businesses are in the business of meeting demand and will only add jobs if that demand is increased which won't happen because any money pumped into the economy that ends up in consumers' hands will probably be spent paying down debt (in my case student loans which start in two months wah!) or savings

I think I'm on the ToxicAdam side of the "This is the new normal" fence

 

[mckmas8808]

Thats complete bs too.

Rob from the poor, give toys to the rich.

?

How the hell is a $40,000 for the rich? 3 years later and that car can be bought for $22,000 and also by someone in the middle class.

 

[RustyNails]

can i already predict that people will be disappointed? he'll call for bipartisan efforts and throw Republicans flowery rhetoric to get them on board, then dial back once he realizes, again, that they want nothing to do with any successful administration policy.

But I'm pretty sure that Obama/WH know that by now. No doubt, people are going to be disappointed. As much as I'd like to see Obama say "Fuck you assholes" to Boehner and Cantor, he wont. The reality is that he has to work with the party of no. The question is whether Obama can whip Congress into action with this speech or not. If he can't, he's doomed. At least, that's what the author of that article thinks.

 

[Measley]

Oh boy, I just listened to Carney on Morning Joe. Doesn't sound good :/ Seems like he's just gonna propose small stuff that he thinks can get through congress. Sigh, what a pussy move if true.

Doesn't matter. Small stuff won't get through congress either.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Doesn't matter. Small stuff won't get through congress either.

Everybody seems to know that except Obama.

 

[mckmas8808]

Gloria Berger: tl;dr, Obama better hit this out of the park, for his own good

Lot of hype riding on this speech. Obama set himself up for something epic. If he falls, it's gonna sink his presidency.

So Obama needs to somehow MAKE/FORCE the GOP to vote for his policies? If he can't then he's at fault?

Either way the GOP has no responsibility here it seems to help create jobs. Oh how convenient. It's 100% completely on Obama to create jobs in America. Ugh! Sometimes I hate the media.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Whatever happened to that mandate that Car Manufacturers had to BY LAW make cars with excellent gas mileage or face sanctions by the Feds? Or something akin to that?

 

[Zoramon089]

can i already predict that people will be disappointed? he'll call for bipartisan efforts and throw Republicans flowery rhetoric to get them on board, then dial back once he realizes, again, that they want nothing to do with any successful administration policy.

I hope, HOPE he doesn't do this. Someone in his administration has to have told him "Look, Mr. President. Excuse my french but fuck bipartisanship. Those guys want nothing to do with you so do what you want. Ignore them. And it'll work it's way out."

 

[mckmas8808]

I hope, HOPE he doesn't do this. Someone in his administration has to have told him "Look, Mr. President. Excuse my french but fuck bipartisanship. Those guys want to do with you so do what you want. Ignore them. And it'll work it's way out."

It won't work it's way out. That's not a realistic view of life. Nothing will pass and we will have to wait until 2013 for somethings to pass.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Everybody seems to know that except Obama.

Im starting to believe that he lives in an alternate universe the way the gop does except on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[AndyD]

Whatever happened to that mandate that Car Manufacturers had to BY LAW make cars with excellent gas mileage or face sanctions by the Feds? Or something akin to that?

Huh? There are mandated minimum mpg rates. And its been going up steadily.

 

[Zoramon089]

It won't work it's way out. That's not a realistic view of life. Nothing will pass and we will have to wait until 2013 for somethings to pass.

Obviously it's not realistic but is it any worse than his failed attempts at bipartisanship? In both cases Republicans get what they want (and complain still) but at last in that case Obama at least looks like he has a backbone

 

[RustyNails]

So Obama needs to somehow MAKE/FORCE the GOP to vote for his policies? If he can't then he's at fault?

This is the new reality. Best analogy I can come up with (bear with me): think of a lazy bull in a farm that won't plough the field. Now it's the farmer's job to whip that bull and force it into action. Yes, GOP is a mindless, immovable bovine creature. If the seeds aren't planted, the people aren't gonna blame the bull. They're gonna blame the farmer.

Pretty sure eznark can come up with a better farm analogy.

 

[mckmas8808]

Im starting to believe that he lives in an alternate universe the way the gop does except on the other side of the spectrum.

He knows this too. I think he does it for political reasons. I think he wants to be viewed as the guy trying to work with the other party, whereas the GOP couldn't care less.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I hope, HOPE he doesn't do this. Someone in his administration has to have told him "Look, Mr. President. Excuse my french but fuck bipartisanship. Those guys want to do with you so do what you want. Ignore them. And it'll work it's way out."

I honestly wonder if ANYONE has told him this considering how many times his hand has been bitten.

 

[Doc Holliday]

It won't work it's way out. That's not a realistic view of life. Nothing will pass and we will have to wait until 2013 for somethings to pass.

If nothing will pass whats the point of giving up so much to the GOP? Only thing that accomplishes is demoralizing his base and making himself look weak.

He knows this too. I think he does it for political reasons. I think he wants to be viewed as the guy trying to work with the other party, whereas the GOP couldn't care less.

Well it's not working for him. The economy still sucks, and his base is disheartened.