Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
born2be, you are right ... there is a segment of population that is unhappy because the President is not moving left fast enough. And then there are those who wanted to see him do things they thought he promised and he is not delivering.
But others are of the same mind as the ones who forced Clinton to make a choice of moving toward the center or being a one term president. Clinton chose to move toward the center. Obama won't do that.
Then there are those who feel that the spending and unpopular legislation we are seeing now is not an improvement over what we had with Bush and are seeing this administration trump any action they did not like with Bush. This group will vote to attempt to move us to a more conservative position than even Bush was.
You are right. JFK had RFK. FDR had Truman and the New Dealers. Johnson well had himself to be an attack dog.
Here's my take on why President Obama's approval rating has dropped. His base is disattisfied that he caved, in an effort for bipartisanship. They are disgusted that many of the democrats weren't tough enough to stand up against the demonizing of their President. They got an eyeful of crooked politics and lost hope.The people who voted him in, thought that "he" could get it done all by himself, not realizing that it wasn't entirely up to him. And yes, there are many who do not understand the way things work in Washington. Those who had so much hope in one man, soon realized that crooked politics always wins out.The GOP and Tea Party have done nothing but demonize him and everything he stands for, to the American people. It's disconcerting to those millions that placed their hopes in change, and basically got nothing but compromise, and nothing really changed for them. When a hope dies, blame starts and they will stay home in November. Unfortunately, they are just making it possible to revert to what was before. We will have 2 more years of in-fighting and gridlock and vetos and investigations, while the middle and lower class pays the price, again and again and again.The Republicans had better understand that things are about to bottom out and start trickling up to those that they are hell-bent on protecting and it ain't going to be pretty.
What could he say? I don’t know, but I know what I would do and say. I would go on Glenn Beck and ask why did he attack my daughter (which Beck had done two or three months ago) and DEMEND AN APOLOGY on AIR. So on to Sean Hannity, I would say “you bad talk me about Rev. Jerry Wright, but your friend was a Neo Nazi (HAL TURNER).
Heck take a look at when Presdient Bill Clinton bash Fox News reporter Mike Wallace during the interview.
Write in what could he say?
I disagree He should encounter his "enemies" at Fox News in PERSON !!!!!!! I want to see the return of the Johnson treatment or the "Give them Hell" talk from Harry Truman.
If our President's biggest problem were Fox and talk radio, it would be alot easier for him than it is now.
President Obama could have been one of the best presidents we have ever had. He had rapport with the people, a high approval rating, and a message many hoped to believe in. However, as his goals for our country became more apparent and the nation perceived his actions to be different than his promises, he started losing his support. Whether or not it was right for people to disagree with his policies, he did not pick up on the differences and address them. He let Fox do the talking. Then instead of going to the people, he chose to blame others and continue with an unpopular agenda, thereby losing trust and support. He probably did not realize his base was shrinking. Many kept dismissing what some Americans considered legitimate concerns as right wing talking points. His blaming of Bush and Fox and Palin only worked against him with his popularity. He did address this at one time, saying he would rather be a good president than serve two terms. I guess those who still support him will always consider him a good president. "Good" is an opinion.
Yes, he could have done more to defend his goals, but it would have done him no good to show up at Fox. The main stream media was happy to defend him and would have given him even more time to try to appeal to the American people. But when he addressed the people, he was not saying what the majority wanted to hear. So he tried more of the same.
This president could probably benefit from a change in running mate. But a move closer to the middle would probably win him more support and respect.
Where do I start? It is unlawful for General Colin Powell to be Secretary of Defense according to a post WWII military law. Larry Summers, Tim Giethner, and Rahm Emanuel needs to go. President Obama would have been better served if he had a different Vice President. That is his biggest mistake of making Joe Biden his running mate. I hope in 2012 the Democrats will dump Biden for a more moderate and southern ruminate. The Heck with James Carville, why not hire Me? No I am not joking. They are not dishing the right dirt to buried Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck at Fox. Plus they are wimps, I want them to either invite those two or make surprise, let me repeat SURPRISE, visits to the Fox News studio and challenge Beck and Hannity. If I were president, none of these fools on Fox News and hate talk radio would talk about me like a dirty damn dog. I was hoping the President to do the same.
To ignore them makes you look weak that’s why the White House lost its first 6 months against Fox. . In 2012, the Democrats will regain the US Senate and President Obama will be reelected why because the Tea Party and the Conservatives will overreach and they will offend moderates, independents, and others who don’t agree with them.
Legion, the government, except maybe for the New Deal, has unprecedented power over commerce and our economy. They will determine on a whim the life or death of a business. It is a recipe for high crimes and misdemeanors not mention bribes and corruptions - I'm repeating myself.
In fact what is going on now is eerily similar to the New Deal and almost as disastrous. We'll have to wait until healthcare and financial reform get fully implemented before we can decide if it's actually worse or not.
I know, $2B, chump change compared to the national debt, but hey a billion here a billion there and pretty soon your talking about real money.
Well Mike, both yourself and Born2beme are correct, sorta.
I did not propose a solution, because well, there really isn't one, why would a politician vote for campaign reform when that would diminish their ability to stay in their current position?
It is very true that campaign reform is needed, and I agree the Supreme Court ruling is a step in the wrong direction. Like I said above, that would limit the chances to be re-elected. Cut their own throat, in a way.
I also believe that way to much time is spent by incumbents campaigning for the next election. I did find some data on the amount of "hard money" raised by both parties for the 2010 election, a mid term election. It amounts to roughly $2 billion, and that's just hard money, lots of cash for a non presidential election.
But hey, the Democratic party looks to be ahead in the fund raising game!
For the record this is an excerpt from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about the Stimulus Package and Paul Krudman an advocate for the stimulus. Listen up everyone I did not write this, please make careful note of the quotation marks.
"On a too-small stimulus, this isn't what Democrats or most Keynesian economists told us at the time. Even Paul Krugman, who now denies intellectual paternity for this economy, wrote on November 14, 2008 that "My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion." The White House raised him by 33% two months later, but now we're told that wasn't enough.
Given that the stimulus program was so poorly structured and so overtly politicized, how do we know that, say, $500 billion more would have made a difference even on Keynesian terms? The money for government spending has to come from somewhere, which means from the private economy. Our guess is that by ensuring even higher debt and implying higher taxes, a bigger spending stimulus would have done even more harm.
To put it another way, the real roots of Mr. Obama's economic problems are intellectual and political. The Administration rejected marginal-rate tax cuts that worked in the 1960s and 1980s because they would have helped the rich, in favor of a Keynesian spending binge that has stimulated little except government. More broadly, Democrats purposely used the recession as a political opening to redistribute income, reverse the free-market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision-making. " ......end quote.
The point of this is it appears the stimulus was not really needed and it did nothing to "improve" the economy IMO.
You don't have to come back but the delete button overrides any more gibberish....
Leave me alone, I'm doing something else.
BTW, I put in the lefthand quote mark, but I forgot to put in the righthand one - for that I deeply apologize and hope that it never, ever happens again - there now don't we feel better? Sure you does, we all feel much better!!!
Are the men with the butterfly nets and straight jackets there yet?
Hello pot meet kettle....I have always hated plagiarism.
Mike, get help, I mean it, you sound like you're losing it.
Trying to make someone think that those are your words is cheating(plagiarizing)... What about the children? What will they think?
Not naming the tax code is still considered plagiarism because credit was not given.....
Throw a rock over the fence..hit dog barks.
I didn't plagiarize, it's the tax code any idiot can find it on the web - I rest my case.
Plagiarism is copying text word for word and not giving the source its due credit.... It is meant to give credit to the plagiarizer.
Qualified dividend income is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent under current law.
lower income earners in the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets on ordinary income are taxed at 5 percent on their dividend income through 2007 and at 0% for 2008 through 2010.These changes apply to dividends paid by domestic and some qualified foreign companies. Certain types of dividend income, such as those derived from REITs (real estate investment trusts) may not be eligible for the new tax rates.Note: Unless a further extension or new rules are enacted before then, dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates after December 31, 2010.
This comment was removed by the user.
Republican priorities: I seriously doubt anyone posting in the forum is making $250,000 of taxable income but it wouldn't be unusual for a poster being someone who is one the 14 million that are unemployed but no one came on to take up their cause in extending unemployment benefits.
Granted some seniors live on dividends but I seriously doubt they will go up over $250,000. Capital gains apply to the portion of the investment that is cashed out. In order to end to reduce the capital gain rates for seniors do you want to cut their Social Security and Medicare? The money has to come from somewhere because the tax real revenues just pay for the entitlements and defense spending......Shilling for the rich will always be funny.... I have dividends and might have some capital gains transactions in the future but I will pay my fair share. Going from 15% to 20% will not make or break me..... My sympathies are with the increase in poverty rate and joblessness.
Workers are not investing in their 401 K's because of the market financial crisis.....Since you are talking about something that hasn't even been discussed by either party,I think I will research how many little old ladies will be sent into poverty by an increase in their capital gains rate.... I bet not many.
Rollinstone, thanks. This is what I am hearing.
I looked some polls up just this morning. I just did a search. Got all kinds of results. I will try to put some links on this or if it does not work, will provide another post after this one.
The capital gains tax is something many investors think will be a problem. Most of the ones I talked to are retired and not rich. It may be the case that capital gains will not go up for everyone, but I am not sure how it reads. I am not one of them, but have heard the concerns. You may think it is funny, but I don't.
I am not sure what Fox says about tax cuts. I don't really care, as far as my own salary is concerned. I want what will help our economy most. Not give our government more to waste.
JBJ, this is how dividends will be taxed - obviously this will have a devastating impact on seniors.
"Qualified dividend income is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent under current law.
Lower income earners in the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets on ordinary income are taxed at 5 percent on their dividend income through 2007 and at 0% for 2008 through 2010.
These changes apply to dividends paid by domestic and some qualified foreign companies. Certain types of dividend income, such as those derived from REITs (real estate investment trusts) may not be eligible for the new tax rates.
Note: Unless a further extension or new rules are enacted before then, dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates after December 31, 2010.
bjThe right leaning Rasmussen Poll is in your favor.
Suppose you had a choice between extending the Bush Administration tax cuts for all Americans or extending the Bush Administration tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy. Which would you prefer?
48% Extending the Bush Administration tax cuts for all Americans40% Extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy12% Not sure
So,if it's that close for right wingers,it seems logical that 62% against it would be the logical, especially when six of the polls verify the results..... To each its own.
Even Fox News responders were more against the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Question:Some people support continuing the Bush tax cuts for families of all income levels. Other people support continuing the tax cuts only on incomes below two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. What do you think Congress should do: continue the tax cuts for everyone, continue the tax cuts only on incomes below $250,000 dollars, or allow the tax cuts to expire for everyone and let taxes go back up to their previous levels?"
40% continue for everyone44% continue for those under $250,00010% expire for everyone6% don't know.
OK,that's all I have.
I'm quoting some reliable polls like the New York Times /CBS,Gallup and others.... No one is forcing you to accept the results.... I understand how someone could think it's class warfare because I think everyone at sometime or another aspired to be rich but didn't to pay the taxes associated with it.This is taxable income after business expenses and then when you take it over to the 1040; it will be adjusted gross income less standard deduction and exclusion amount.
Here are some numbers you should look up because is not about some poor person living off Social Security trying to supplement their income.... That's a good one; the republican politicians aren't even going that far. You do have a good sense of humor.
67% of returns had an AGI of less than $50,000. 88% of returns had an AGI of less than $100,000.0.26% of returns – a total of just 350,000 households out of a total of 138 million – had an AGI of $1,000,000 of more...... This is who will pay the three or four more percent of taxable income.One other thing; hopefully this won't be the last tax cut ever...... This, is what we can afford to do right now. I think they should let all of tax cuts expire because a middle class cut will add about $2 or $3trillion to the deficit.... Most people think it's too high right now.
Again,can you provide some links where polls show that Americans want tax cuts extended to the rich...Last Sunday Chris Wallace told his panel that all polls show that people do not want the tax cuts for the rich...I would really like you see some contradicting polls but I bet you won't provide them.
I wish they would redefine "rich". Some of these tax cuts include taxes on money retired people are making. Some are trying to supplement their social security with investments and they need the capital gains tax to stay low. If I am not mistaken, this failure to extend tax cuts on investments may involve those making less than $250,000 per year and may have an impact on 401K's and other retirement plans, as well as the stock market. I wish someone would look into this before it is too late.
I have looked for polls on who thinks tax cuts for everyone should be extended and they are all over the place. Polls can be made to show about anything.
<--------yes that is the constitution.....
Pretty much sums it up eh?
I guess he'll have to come back and interpret.. :-)
As you can see, one kook can generate millions, making the established candidate resort to campaigning rather than concentrate on the issues before him. It's a double edged sword.... Unless they counter, how can they get elected to do the people's work? I've said all along that we need campaign finance reform because the recent Supreme Court ruling allows endless amounts of money to be used to influence politicians.... If Congress does not do anything about this, I can see where the ballot box will be useless.
I agree, I have seen a lot of politicians (democrats) scared of their shadow and many are afraid to go out and campaign.i.e..... At least seven polls (one yesterday) by 62% people do not want to extend tax cuts to the rich but I will bet my last dollar, the democrats will go along and allow the entire Bush tax cuts to stand because their donors have a lot of influence.
In the last two years I've seen a lot of filibustering just to kick a problem down the road.
I think what Legion was saying, or at least what I got out of it, is that politicians spend more time campaigning than doing what they were elected to do.They get so worried about fallout from how they vote that they are basically rendered useless.I've seen that a lot too.
I don't know what to make of your post because you stated that President Clinton and the first lady will start campaigning for democratic candidates in a day or two. Do you find some fault in that? I agree(in fact I have used the same words you did) it's a shame that elected candidates will start asking for 2012 campaign contributions the day after they get elected.
I think throughout the years the democrats and republicans have come up with a platform and for the most part, candidates run on those ideas. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I disagree with your solution because if I am going to give a $250 donation to a candidate of my choice, I want the candidate to use it for advertising and getting their message out, as to why they are the better candidate; not to be used for the national deficit. What you're proposing will make the candidate pay for advertising out of their own pocket; that ensures that the rich will always be in office. The only fair way is through public financing and shortening the campaign season to about six months. You are right we will never correct the process because as soon as we get a few politicians to agree on campaign finance reform; the lobbyist will come in with their checkbook; giving them a better option.
I don't think politicians leave unfinished problems because of job security because that would take 535 members to be on the same page.... It's hard to find that now.
I think our political system and the multinational corporations have become self sustaining entities and the recent Supreme Court decision just made it worse. There's a lot of blame to go to the voters because we put up with the nonsense, we don't learn the issues, and at times rather than not voting(protest vote) we vote for a candidate that is not worthy. There's plenty of blame to go around and I refuse to use 535 members of Congress as a scapegoat. That's just my take.
Mike you do a fine job of spoliation of the right, and you do not mind how you say it, you also sta’re deci’sis by the “left” whether right or wrong. You may have the quasi-possession, but that does not make you or the information correct. Other words you’re not the only cookie in the jar that has the ability to present facts. Qui facit per alium facit per se. You be the man!
I sooooooooooo agree with you
Mike, it appears that you are into titles. Who cares if Obama was the president of anything at Harvard? If anyone has a vivid imagination, you certainly fit that profile. Please enjoy your leftwing BS! No one else is buying it♣♣♣
Impreachment, oops impeachment, that's just a crazy idea floated out there by far right wingers. Not less crazy than some ideas proposed by the far left wingers, to each their own I guess.
IMO, being elected to a national position be it President, Senator or Representative, does not empower the elected to actually do what is right for America. Each and every one of them has their own agenda once elected.
The very day after a election the campaigning, and fund raising, starts for the next election, the goal to retain the powerful or not so powerful position.
Former President Clinton is out stumping for democratic candidates, and Mrs. First Lady Michele will start stumping in the next day or two.
It seems to me that the goal of each politician, is not not fix problems, (if they did they would be out of a job), but to retain the almighty power granted to them in the last election.
H3ll, the federal government could make a serious dent in the deficit if all the money raised by the RNC, DNC, and all the associated organizations where donated to reduce the deficit.
Yea, I know, it is never going to happen, but does anyone disagree that the American political system has become a self sustaining entity, h3ll bent on sustaining itself?
You'll probably will be getting some of the changes that you wanted the administration to do, which might help them in 2012.
I see where Larry Summers will leave after the election, Rahm Emanuel will probably run for Mayor Chicago and Hillary and Biden may switch positions. Perhaps someone will replace Timothy Geithner at treasury, and perhaps someone like Colin Powell will replace secretary of defense Robert Gates....
I know you still want an attack dog like a James Carville to keep Fox News and Glenn Beck at bay.... Perhaps that's in the works because right now the administration is trying to find ways of dealing with the tea party. Can't let the lies and distortions go unanswered. I guess I was wrong when I told you that the best tactic was to ignore them... They are relentless.
Have a good night
That's true about the voting record but both parties depend on the independent vote.It's funny how full employment turns anger into votes.
I hear what you say in because I have those same fears sometime, but they showed up than record numbers in 2008, and some of those who will vote in the 2010 off-season election will not be around for the 2012 election. I hope that doesn't sound sarcastic but that's just what the registered voter data shows; there will be some exceptions.
I don't have any data to prove it but I see a major portion of the economy turned around by October of 2012 but unemployment numbers will probably still be high but not as high... Remember Ronald Reagan had high unemployment numbers but they were trending down. All the troops will be out of Iraq by 2011(fingers crossed) and the president could change his mind and start drawing down forces in Afghanistan. I know you opposed the healthcare bill but it will be seen in a more favorable light because a lot of new portions of it will finally be in place. One last reason; the republican takeover in 2010 will produce a major gridlock and I wouldn't be surprised if we had another government shutdown..... and inventory doesn't fly off the shelf just because the rich get tax cuts.
True. The demographics will favor the Democrats, but they don't vote as often as Republicans or conservatives. This is why i am also concern about the apathy from those "demographics".
I've told you before I have better things to do than play childish games.... If you want to have a serious discussion or disagree in a civil matter; that's OK with me but I don't want to participate in something that will get me thrown out of the forum because I know I won't come back.
I've tried to ignore your agitations but it's getting to where that's all you do and it makes me upset when I see it just another comment from you.
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong and I admit it takes two to tango but it has been going on for too long and we both can find something else to do.
jbjI know the process of impeachment; I explained it but like Clinton, you can be impeached but not convicted. Read my explanation.
I've told you several times but it never resonates; this off year election will be about the angry right and some independents. Some of it is sour grapes, some of it anger at the administration, a lot of it is partisan politics, but there is gonna be a general election in 2012, which will undo any mistakes of the 2010 election. It is estimated that only about half of what voted in 2008 will vote in the general election... That's about 75,000,000.
The demographics don't favor the republicans in 2012 or future years because the democratic party is more diverse and they will regenerate their enthusiasm in 2012.
My definition of civilization is one where its citizens want the finer things of life such as higher education, great paying jobs, and a nation does that does not enter into wars ,unless our way of life is threatened. A civilized nation protects the power of the press and the ballot box. I believe taxes are a necessary evil to obtain and keep our form of civilization.
I do agree in the power of independent thinking.... I've been doing my own thinking since we attacked Iraq and I pay less attention to economist because they let the financial meltdown slip by them and if you read all the financial publications; you will see contradictory remedies in the same publication.
I remember an old boss would bring several of us into a room for brainstorming a problem area and he had a general rule " if nine of you bring me back the same solution; then nine of you are not thinking."
We don't have to agree but we will continue to be civil,John.
Mike, impeachment is a two step process. The Senate does have to have 2/3 vote. Charges do originate in the house. Punishment or removal from office is not in this process.
No one is denying that the economy and unemployment are the top concerns right now. But Anger that is fueling the movement to purge congress has more to do with the current administration's mismanagment. Arrogant disregard for the will of the voters is at the top of the list, and unpopular legislation is right there also. Whether this is a majority or not will be seen in Nov.
I fail to see a spin on what I wrote.
I hear what you're saying born2bme but it is my opinion that Social Security will never default because it is backed up by treasury notes(securities) with an obligation. Congress could come up with that so- called" lockbox" but I believe both parties would shy away because he would leave less for them at the trough.
A better answer.
The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are invested in special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds. If the trust funds begin running deficits, meaning more in benefits are paid out than contributions paid in, the Social Security Administration is empowered to redeem the securities and use those funds to cover the deficit.
It still has surpluses but we have a baby boomers going into the system at an alarming rate because we have an aging work force.
Bighorn.Ridiculous, You say? No it is not. If there is even a serious effort for an impeachment, the other side will react and become the counter balance to the tea party. The reason the tea party is successful or should I say partially successful because the “Obama voter” is idle and not angry as in 2008 or even 2006. If the Conservative were smart they wouldn’t entertain such an idea.
There is no such thing as the social security trust fund. Basically, all it is is part of the budget and any excess at the end of the year, is used as such, and has been since Lyndon Johnson (or one of those Presidents back then).
itisiYou have a vivid imagination and you are distorting the truth because in my opinion that was more of a nervous laugh than a mocking one.... The president was president of Harvard law review so he is not a dummy and he's able to digest what his economic advisers are telling him but it's not gonna happen overnight. You are trying to use Fox sound bites to make a point of not having someone who has not even run a beer joint in his administration... It's never been necessary and economics is about reading data, working with the fed, treasury and Congress to come up with a solution they think might work. Believe it or not it doesn't always work i.e. Supply side trickle down economics.
Since when did one town hall meeting and one voter set the tone for the United States of America. That's a stretch even for you.
I never said I was the only political junkie ,that is just a lie and condescending.
If you knew anything about the Security Security Trust fund; you would know that it was raided long before Harry Reid and company. Lyndon Johnson even gave it a special name but the GOP has use the same tactics. Actually, Social Security is still in relatively good shape and can be put on a solvent path in a couple days; it's Medicare that's in dire trouble.
Cuts in Social Security is a talking point? You might read your own party's economic plan that's due to come out on the 23rd where Congressman Paul Ryan presents privatizing a portion of Social Security and voucher's for Medicare..... It's a nice day, you probably should go study the issues before submitting bullet points of subjects you have no concept of.
You write just like Victore; in fact in your very first post (on my blog) you said you agreed with his thinking...Now,like him you claim I'm the only political junkie.... A lot of similarities.
Comment history is great....You want me to pull up a few?
So from what I gather, when you don't really know the subject ,you resort to sarcasm and call a source I use, names ,and say "generally laughed at by most knowledgeable economists and commentators " which is just your opinion and nothing else, because you certainly can't back up that statement..... When in doubt exaggerate,bloviate, change the subject and resort to lies.
You don't have to rely on me, post your ideas on how you would trim the budget, knowing it would have to meet the standards of the congressional budget office and see if it's just hot air or a workable plan. My comments in this forum are plentiful and your insinuation that I don't think that the budget could be trimmed it just a flat out lie; that you cannot prove..... My comments are in the comments section; prove it...Or else.
Now, why don't you run along since you are not going to submit any ideas and just want to continue the childish game of ad Hominem attacks.
Oh and one more thing the recession ended in June 2009 - my my that stimulus package worked mighty fast or maybe it wasn't even needed.
Paul Krudman (aka K-Thug) has become a partisan ideologue and is generally laughed at by most knowledgeable economists and commentators - EXCEPT of course for that jackass Chris Matthews.
So from what I gather from your tremendous insight is that we can never trim the federal budget, only continue on our merry way ever expanding it - where does that end? When will it be big enough? Please let us, the ignorant, the stupid, and the unworhty know Mike.
Yesterday, the working class put a shot right over the President’s bow during his town hall meeting. I hope he takes that warning serious, and the next time someone shows their discontent over his policies that he does not laugh in their face as he did.
I think the message she sent to him and his administration, it is time to remove the academic scholars that surround him, which have never had to make a payroll and have no experience at anything other than their chosen field. Why would you hire an attorney to fix your car?
Maybe he will put down his political sword and start showing leadership and stop chasing the republicans around the parking lot. And get away from this idea that the republicans drove the car in the ditch, because he is headed straight for the cliff.
Mike since you’re the political junkie here, does this Democratic person qualify for one of the 80% spots or as an Obama supporter?
Mike, cuts to SS and Medicare are all leftwing talking points. If ole Harry Reid BTW was instrumental in the removal of SS funds which were moved to the general fund, SS would not be in the shape it is in, now would it??
No one can ever accuse you of not thinking outside the box but I gather you're not a fan of Oliver Wendell Holmes who said"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.".....:-)
It's an interesting concept.
You make some excellent points,born2Bme, and it's a question president Obama had for the tea party,yesterday..... I've been hearing that line from the right, of smaller government (privatizing to the right), cut spending( Social Security and Medicare but not defense) and follow the constitution except when it comes to the 4th, 10th, 16th and 18th amendment, which has been violated or they want to amend and eventually repeal.
You won't get an answer when you ask for specifics such as are you willing to extend tax cuts for the rich by making cuts to Social Security and Medicare? The GOP is finally putting out their financial plan for the voters. I bet it will be vague until after the election.
I never said everyone approved of Keynesian economics' but unlike the WSJ, the New York Times will often have a OP-ED contributor like Richard Bove, to give a contradictory opinion to its Nobel Prize winner, economic columnist,Paul Krugman but it doesn't mean that Mr. Bove speaks for the New York Times as you indicated..... Using that old Fox News tactic, just throw out the lie and maybe the naive will believe it..
People like Thomas Sowell,George Will, and most right wingers don't believe in Keynesian and your economic guru, Ron Paul, believes in Austrian economics. Others believe in supply side trickle down economics'..... To each their own.
Oh BTW, it's just not me that thinks Keynesian economics is a bunch of crap, so does the New York Times, chuckle.
You're always talking about less government. Where, and how, would you make it smaller?Would your cuts be workable, or are they just a talking point? All of the past Presidents that talked about shrinking government to get elected, have proven to actually grow the government.Is it possible to shrink the government with the present population explosion, and all the negative things that it brings?
Jeeez, Mike calm down did you take a PO pill this morning? The thing about the time out is history. My question, if I may is really about big bloated government - is it good or bad for the economy?
If it's good then hell let's make it bigger. But I think you and I both know it is bad and it ends in a dead end with more not less misery.
BTW, extending the tax cuts for the rich is spending and if the 3% of all those in that top 2% are legitimate businesses then that will be Keynesian,which you are opposed to, but I guess someone that believes in Laissez-faire will make exceptions for the wealthy.
Classic:you said "What kind of lesson does that teach young people - win by what ever it takes. That's how we produce greedy people that you and I guess everyone have such contempt for. "
"It's about the children"...lol I haven't heard that since the nineties when those that were impeaching Bill Clinton would say" it's about the children ", I really laughed out loud...Someone out there thinks ,that there is morality in professional sports..... As Charles Barkley said" I'm not your role model; your parents are."... I'm paraphrasing but you get the picture.
You are correct but political junkies like me,equate ideology with politics... I forgot about that other world out there, that does not pay attention to people like me.
A red herring ?It was an article by a right wing extremist in yesterday's advocate ... The White House did have anything to do with the article. Everything is a red herring to the paranoid and those that dabble in conspiracies.
Now that's funny and it proves how partisan you really are, you want to use the minus key when it comes to tax cuts for the rich but in all other cases you just emphasize the deficit and the debt. I'm not going as lose any sleep worrying about the rich; I think they will do just fine because they won't really pay that 4% increase but you can keep lobbying for them,all you want.
I saw this morning where housing construction is up 10.5% in August; up from .4% in July but I'm a bit of a skeptic because I don't see the reason for that escalation... That's the whole story of this economy; yesterday, the stock market took a big jump upward; that's highly and unusual in September. We've been out of this recession since June of 2009 but we don't feel it.... Theories all over the place and today ,the fed will make an announcement whether they will buy more bonds or help out the housing industry but will probably leave the interest rates where they are for now but you probable think you have all the answers because you read the WSJ and you think calling a time out is cheating.
Will increasing taxes on the top 2% increase unemployment? If it does what will that do to the deficits? The problem is the spending and they give no indication they are serious about reducing it.
Impeachment talk is a red herring to change the focus of the debate from failing government policies.
Perhaps that's the reason that's why we went from number one to 12th in education, world wide. The emphasis on math and science has switched to religion and ideology.
That's not exactly how impeachment works, first the house judiciary committee would have to determine if there were grounds for impeachment, and if I remember correctly it just takes a simple majority of the house to send it over to the senate for trial.... It is in the senate where it takes 2/3 to convict.... Impeachment is pretty much a charge.
The two major issues are the economy and unemployment... They go hand and hand and everything else takes a distant second.
That's pretty good spin but it doesn't work especially since the democrats separated the tax cuts for the wealthy from the middle class tax cuts... Here is how it works....Today, the tax revenues just pay for the entitlements and defense; extending the Bush tax cuts would require us to borrow the money.That borrowing WILL increase the deficit; in fact if were to extended to the top 2% it would increase it by $700 billion.... The democrats say that even though it will increase the deficit; a middle class tax cut is needed right now but the top 2% don't need it.... That's where the republicans and some democrats are lobbying for their rich donors.
It seems like every blog I write turns into a discussion about economics.... A poster ones advised me to go with the flow, I guess it depends on the circumstances but OK.
I saw the president's CNBC town hall meeting and and three clips the media thought was important... I did see the part where the middle class Obama supporter talked about her frustration because her situation has not improved. I also saw where one GM representative thanked the president for sticking by GM and and another one told the president he was losing the message war. Not one of them said they will gonna vote republican. It reminded me of times when a big boss from headquarters would come down to talk to the workers; asking them how he could improve their work situation. Of course they were complaints but no one was thinking of quitting. It was a good town hall meeting with some hard and tough questions and I think the president did all right, except for his answer on tax cuts. Chris Matthews pointed it out, by saying that tax cuts allow people to keep their own money; it's not about Washington sending taxpayers a check.
Thank you very much,Tophat
That's a good point TrueOne, if a fringe representative walked into a future speaker Boehner's office with a petition to impeach the president of United States; John Boehner would tell the petitioner" "get out of my office."
Smart people in the republican party know that impeaching a president just because you do not like him extreme. These republicans will not speak out against any anti Obama rally cry for fear of seeming too weak and losing out to a tea party candidate. The only way that an impeachment could procede is if was based on "false witness".
Is it possible to impeach the Texas State Board of Education en masse?
Home schooling is looking more enticing by the minute...
You have to be kidding if you think it is not possible. If you take a look at all of the absolute crap going on now by both parties, you would know it is not impossible.I take everything I hear on the tv or read on the net with a grain of salt.
Born2me,Surely you have to be kidding me you think a GOP or Tea Party person could get within 15ft of the President, and make that statement. It was a top news story today…
How do you know what party the woman was from or how she actually voted? Just because she made those statements to President Obama, doesn't mean it was real. She could have been a plant. You and I both know that is not above the Tea Party or the GOP.
I mean that if they (Republicans) deliver on the promises they are making now, it will not be good for those that are having a hard time right now. If those people get really angry and come out and vote, it will spell doom for the GOP, because there are more and more of them getting left behind every day. Since the party in charge is the one that gets blamed, well you get the idea.I'm all for having good ideas, but all we've heard is Republicans wanting to return to the way it was, and that is no idea at all.
President Obama held a town hall meeting dedicated to economic issues on Monday. The event played a part in Obama’s high-profile push to rally support ahead of November’s high-stakes election midterms. However, it was a frustrated supporter of the president who captured the Web's attention after remarking that she's "exhausted" of defending the man she voted for.
"Quite frankly, I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people. And I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I -- I don't feel it yet ... Is this my new reality?"
My question, is this person one of those 80% that you were speaking of?
I do have to agree that Floyd Brown is an extremist, but the left certainly has their fair share of nut jobs. Impeachment is not warranted at this time, the voters will decide in 2012. Although the President does have a problem that could come back and bite him right the butt. If there is any more deaths on the U.S. Border that involve U.S. citizens or federal agents over the drug cartels that have caused over 28,000 deaths in Mexico since 2006. If President Obama does not take the appropriate action and show that he is willing to contain the violence on the border, he might as well resign from the Office of the President, because he will be in violation of the oath that he took to defend the constitution.
Born2be, what do you mean by, "... if they do deliver..., they will anger the very people who elected Obama."? Does that mean that you think if the Republicans come up with some good ideas and things get better people will be unhappy with them because they were successful?
I honestly hope people would be bigger than that. I want the Republicans to win because I think it will help our country. But if something happened that turned the economy around and things got better tomorrow, I would not be angry at the Democrats. I would be happy. First of all, I want our economy to do better.
As you said, Mike, in your blog..... Floyd Brown is an extremist. No point in getting riled up, it takes 2/3 of the Senate to impeach. Neither party will have that. Even if the idea was what Republicans want to do. Right now, they have other goals in mind. And they have their hands full. So do the Democrats. A good honest campaign on how a candidate will represent the voter would probably be more effective.
Diversions are what the parties use to upset potential voters. Plenty of them are out there.
From what I see, people on the right are not angry about the unemployment rate. They are concerned with it and want the economy to be better. The anger on the right comes from the way the government is spending money and not listening to the will of the people. They believe this is making the problem worse. I cannot speak for the left.
There are so many non truths and misconceptions. One big misconception is that Republicans want to extend tax cuts for the rich. Republicans do not want to extend tax cuts for the rich. They want to extend them for everyone. And that includes the people who are paying the most.
Just as ridiculous as claiming a million men showed up for some march.
Run his butt out of office on election day, if you don't like his politics and policies. The opposing side loses when BS like this is allowed to carry some weight. These comments are as much on the fringe as those of Al Franken and Keith Obermiester.
That is only because they get their news from one source and that is the one that mimics their own beliefs.They have no idea what the other side of America thinks or feels, nor do they care to find out. It's just easier for them to think they are in the absolute right. It helps them sleep better at night.
This is the way I see it and I think you have mentioned it before too. "IF" the Republicans gain control in November, then the high expectations that were placed on President Obama, will be placed on the Republican leadership. When they do not deliver what they promised, they will lose in 2012, and if they do deliver what they promised, they will lose, because both scenerios will anger the very people that elected President Obama into office.They talk a good game, but will not be able to deliver, because it is undeliverable, and unworkable for the majority of the middleclass, lower class, those that are unemployed, and those who are on social programs. And, there are a whole lot more of those voters.
If there is an impeachment, the tea party, Glenn Beck, and Hate Talk radio would be eplised by a "second" Million man march.
Haven't you heard; those that speak against the president speak for the American people... The polls show that 80% of democrats are still with president Obama. It's always the American people wanted this and they were angry about that, as if liberals were not asked and if they were, their views didn't matter...... I've never seen polls that were so erratic and the same goes for the views of economists because it doesn't matter that the recession has been over since June of 2009 or that deficit for August of this year is 13% lower than that of the August of last year. It's 8% lower than the first 11 months of the current fiscal year but as you always say; people will see what they want to see.
They want to replace the democrats with republicans that want to give tax cuts to the rich, as a first priority and then go on to repealing Health Care and finance reform. Then it's on to privatize a portion of Social Security and giving vouchers for Medicare.... They even have a candidate,Joe Miller of Alaska that thinks unemployment insurance is unconstitutional but he doesn't have a plan on what to do for those in poverty; nor will he give credit and to unemployment insurance for keeping three million more people from being in poverty..... The voters know this but they will overlook it just to throw out the democrats.....
HA, start throwing the word "impeachment" around, and President Obama's base just might get energized. None of them want their President to get impeached. Conservatives just might overplay their hand and bomb in November. It won't take much.
Yeah, I can see that happening from the likes of Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence,Jim DeMint, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. It will be laughable debate; made for Primetime. ....With that lineup; it's Obama/Clinton by 40 states.
Oh it's easy for right wingers not to want impeachment hearings; especially after the president hasn't done anything to warrant articles of impeachment. Even they know that the general public would not want such foolishness.
I'm with waywardwind on this one. Impeachment is a dumb idea. Electing enough Republicans to block his Socialist/Marxist schemes for the next two years and then voting him out of office is the way to go.
First of all it was not a seldom used end-around maneuver; I believe it's been used by the GOP. There was no complaining when tax cuts for the rich was passed by one vote using reconciliation. The republicans claim no knowledge of the $7 trillion Medicare Part D (that was not paid for) bill, so they do not get a pass . Now, I did not approve of the stunts Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson used; the issue was too important.
Other than these blogs, I pay very little attention to government and they don't look after my interest anymore than the private sector businesses do. To each its own and every man to himself is not " we the people.".... I have always believed that one man's pork it just an essential piece of legislation for others but it's waste is what I'm against; not an essential government building in a senator's district.
A majority of people want Wall Street to be regulated and I sincerely believe that Elizabeth Warren will reform consumer credit by making a credit agreement consists of a maximum two page document, written in plain English, that will define the terms of the contract and you and Wall Street will not like that.
The GOP welcomes the list of buffoons to get them across the finish line, so they don't deserve any credit for that.... That's politics..... In 2006 and 2008 democrats took the conservative blue dogs from the south.
Talk about hypocrites,Sens. Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn went to the Tennessee auto plant to get thanks for the Federal effort of keeping their GM plant alive. The workers booed senator Corker 'cause they remembered he voted for the Wall Street bailout but against the GM bailout.... It's like that all over ,where over 115 congressman voted against the stimulus but were there for the ribbon cutting and had their picture taken with the over-sized check.
Mike, it may have been parliamentary procedure, but it was the use of those procedures that have Americans angry. Using a seldom used end-around maneuver to pass a piece of legislation that impacts the entire nation is shady, even if it is legal. I never said, nor expect, a lawmaker should have to memorize the entire 2,000+ page document, but so many have commented on their lack of knowledge of the bill post its passage that I find it scary. You wouldn't think it was scary if the Republicans tried the same thing? I know I would.
I don't trust the government to look out for my best interests. I trust them even less, now. What they did with the healthcare law was a "just trust us" maneuver. Same thing with the banking/credit reform law.
They have been doing it to the American people for years in the form of earmarks and pork, but now they're starting to do it to each other. Slippery slope in my opinion.
I agree that the President hasn't done anything to require impeachment. These people are just another on a list of baffoons that continue to make the GOP look bad.
If there really were a million voters putting pressure on the republicans to impeach president Obama; that would wake up the sleeping democrats who will not vote, in November 2,2010 and it would drive the independents away. The Republicans' best bet is to keep riding the wave of anger all the way to the finish line and not listen to the crazies in their party.
Holein1,That was a rhetorical question to be tied in with the 6% loss in GDP and 1.7 million jobs lost.
I remember that anger and I mentioned it but the media went on to publicize the town hall meetings....Censure, are you kidding me? The healthcare bill was passed using parliamentary procedure and representatives that were elected by the people in 2006 and 08. The right wing views were not the only ones involved because liberals were angry because their input was ignored; so they were dissatisfied.
The healthcare bill was online for all to see and that talking point "Congressmen that voted for the bill didn't even read it" is irrelevant because it is well known that their staff keeps them informed of the pertinent information and no one is expected to memorize all 2000 pages of legalese.
My main point; the average citizen was not aware of the dire circumstances we were in,when Lehman Brothers went down and how much influence the fed and the treasury department had over the decisions the privates banks made that day.
This is about the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. My feelings toward BO are no secret, but his actions fall far short of impeachable offenses. I agreed with him when he killed the anti-missile system in (I think) Poland and again when he said one time the Sun rises in the east. Other than that, not so much, but I have NEVER believed impeachment was viable. These idiots want to set up a precedent that Congress would try to impeach any president anytime they didn't agree with his policies. I will vote against him in the next election, but he was elected for a four year term and should serve it unless we find out he holds up convenience stores on weekends. This, like Clinton's impeachment, is something that is without merit and should not be considered by Congress.
Taxpayer said"Man this is scary. I agree with you twice in a row." It is scary for me or you? ..:-)
I don't believe we should ever overturned an election (coolade or not) unless the high crimes and misdemeanors are so noticeable, severe, and without justification. Then like in the case of Richard Nixon (who was almost impeached) I believe a trusted member and the president's party will come forward. One should go down that road; or it will be always be part of the incoming party's agenda.
"Why was there a delay in outrage until the president's party tried to pass the controversial healthcare bill?"
Mike, there were many Americans angry and outraged prior to the passage of the healthcare bill. Perhaps you and others have forgotten. The uproar over the healthcare issue, I believe, has more to do with how the Obama administration chose to push it through Congress, and how many of the Congressmen that voted for the bill didn't even read it. That upset a lot of Americans, and rightly so. That should be enough for censure.