HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I wish the President woul...

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:03 AM

I wish the President would just stay on vacation until January 1st...

He is just too eager to make a deal for my liking.

This is just my opinion but I think the House and Senate would have a better chance at reaching some sort of compromise without the President's input. Such budget matters are not in his job description anyway. We need to "go over the cliff" so we can restart negotiations on a more serious note.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I understand that many will disagree.

57 replies, 4258 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply I wish the President would just stay on vacation until January 1st... (Original post)
kentuck Dec 2012 OP
Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #1
daybranch Dec 2012 #12
Cleita Dec 2012 #2
grantcart Dec 2012 #3
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #4
lark Dec 2012 #13
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #22
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #28
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #9
merrily Dec 2012 #16
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #23
graham4anything Dec 2012 #26
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #29
graham4anything Dec 2012 #30
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #33
graham4anything Dec 2012 #34
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #35
kentuck Dec 2012 #38
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #40
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #43
grantcart Dec 2012 #32
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #36
grantcart Dec 2012 #47
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #57
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #52
Cobalt Violet Dec 2012 #5
stuffmatters Dec 2012 #6
merrily Dec 2012 #18
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #7
stuffmatters Dec 2012 #14
kentuck Dec 2012 #20
SugarShack Dec 2012 #25
graham4anything Dec 2012 #39
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #53
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #54
plethoro Dec 2012 #8
JoeyT Dec 2012 #10
MzShellG Dec 2012 #17
Skidmore Dec 2012 #11
datasuspect Dec 2012 #15
hfojvt Dec 2012 #21
hfojvt Dec 2012 #19
Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #24
greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #27
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #31
DevonRex Dec 2012 #37
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #41
kentuck Dec 2012 #42
malaise Dec 2012 #44
indepat Dec 2012 #45
watch the sky Dec 2012 #46
robinlynne Dec 2012 #48
aardvark401 Dec 2012 #49
Cha Dec 2012 #50
kentuck Dec 2012 #56
Warpy Dec 2012 #51
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #55

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:37 AM

1. Not that the outcome will be much different for cutting the Pentagon's budget, but it should be!

I know this poison pill cuts the military budget, but will whatever they come up with? My prediction is no, the military budget will not be cut until, and unless we can get

COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:12 AM

12. More than one way

The real problem is the wealthy are able to buy the influence they need in Congress. The best way to remove this influence is to make the representatives in Congress more accountable to voters. We can do this by ridding this country of gerrymandering. With the removal of gerrymandering the money will have less effect. Limiting the purchasing power of money in this way is the best kind of campaign finance reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:38 AM

2. I do agree with you. I think this fiscal cliff thing is another manufactured crisis. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:38 AM

3. If in fact he was "too eager" he would, by definition, already have agreed to a deal.


How patient he is will of course be known when an actual deal is made.

However it should be noted that the President consistently gets out more out of negotiations (like the ACHA) than many at DU think he will before the final negotiated settlement is in hand.

For example during the previous debt ceiling negotiation he basically got everything he wanted and Boehner got nothing, as can now be seen by his turning the tables with the entire 'fiscal cliff'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:46 AM

4. And the breathless DU prediction during the debt

Ceiling fight was that Obama was going to cave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:17 AM

13. Tax cuts extended for the rich

was an EPIC Obama fail and fold. That's why Repugs don't believe him now, he was willing to give up anything and everything the first go round. However, there's been an election since then and Obama doubled down on protecting the working class, so now we will see what's really important to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:49 AM

22. As a candidte in 2008, Obama made 2 promise about taxes.

Promise #1: He would not raise taxes on the 98% of Americans making under 205k.
Promise #2: He would end the tax breaks for the 2% of Americans making over 250k.

Now, let's go back to 2010 and review.

That summer, the Democratic Congress could have passed a bill to extend only the cuts for the 250k. They failed to do so. As a result, they also got their butts kicked in the 2010 midterms.

And so during the 2010 lame duck session, Obama had a problem.

If he let all the Bush tax cuts expire, he would keep promise #2, and BREAK promise #1. This is important because if he had done so, the media would have played clips of Obama promising to not raise taxes on the middle class side by side with clips of Bush #1 making and breaking the same basic promise. Those clips would have run on an endless loop from then until the 2012 election. And Obama, like Bush #1 would have been a 1 term President.

So, Obama kept promise #1 and delayed promise #2 by moving the expiration date to the end of 2012. By doing so he prevented the media from crucifying him over increasing the tax rate on 98% of all Americans, and he also got some addition stimulus and extensions to UE benefits (and a few other things).

Importantly, by moving the expiration into the 2012 lame duck, Obama ensured that he would make the decision about those cuts whether he won or lost the 2012 election. Pretty Smart.

Now, as you might have noticed, those top end cuts are going to expire, either in a deal, or on the last day of his first term (which btw, will make that a promise KEPT).

Ironically, if no deal is reached, all of the tax cuts expire and Obama will actual BREAK promise #1. But it won't matter politically and he can never run for President again, so the media can't really do much to him on this point. And better, if we do go over the cliff, the GOP is going to be blamed. And they'll be forced to retroactively reinstate those cuts for people under 250k.

And in the end, Obama keeps both promises AND gets a second term.

See how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:33 PM

28. He did. There was nothing breathless about it, he gave them the extension

on the disastrous tax cuts they wanted. And cost the country some more money towards the deficit they claim to want to do something about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:05 AM

9. So I guess Obama wanted the tax cut extensions?

Since Boner "got nothing"?



Stop, you've gone off the reality cliff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:00 AM

16. Reality is way too inconvenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:50 AM

23. See my post #22 on the tax cut extensions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:28 PM

26. How many anti-Obama posts are you going to write?

 

It gets so I don't even have to read the posts, i know what is coming

Obama forever + 1 day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:38 PM

29. You mean 'anti-policy' posts. If Obama has not put SS on the table then these

posts do not refer to him.

Is the Chained CPI on the table or not?

Has it been removed by the President yet?

Did Nancy Pelosi not make the false claim in her statement of support for the President's offer that the Chained CPI 'will strengthen SS'?

If you have information that the President intends to make a strong statement separating SS from the Deficit completely as he has now been asked to by millions of Americans, then please post it.

But until SS is safe from cuts, you are not going to be able to go anywhere where there are Democrats where this subject will not be discussed and acted on.

One more time. Criticizing policies is a citizen's duty and is in no way personal to any particular politician. Claiming that the politician is being attacked is merely a way to try to protect those policies. My question is why would any Democrat try to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

30. it's a game. Obama roped the dopes again, 9 steps ahead. No one plays it better

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:48 PM

33. Again, I will ask for the umpteenth time. Please explain this game to me

and to the Progressive Caucus, the Unions, the Progressive Orgs, Nancy Pelosi who thinks it's a great idea btw, AARP, SS advocacy groups, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and the millions of SS beneficiaries who must all be too stupid to see why a Dem President would play games with THEIR money, scare them to death which is cruel, and why all of them combined are too stupid to understand what you claim to be a fact.

I would really like someone to lay out this brilliant strategy for me point by point. Because if it is so clear to you, obviously it is clear to Republicans, but for some reason it is not clear to millions of Americans who are absolutely furious that SS is even being mentioned in these Deficit.

Explain this strategy slowly to me I would appreciate it.

What is the plan? Why is SS on the table? What specifically is it supposed to achieve, because what I am seeing now is that SS advocacy groups are thanking REPUBLICANS for 'SAVING SS'.

If it was a strategy, it appears to have backfired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:52 PM

34. millions of people are concerned about the snow/ice storm tonight...I don't hear anyone caring

 

about this except for political junkies like us on a political chat board

Do you leave a ballgame in the first or third or fifth inning?

Don't you want to wait for the ending of a movie before walking out?

How do you know what has been done, when done hasn't been yet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:57 PM

35. You still haven't explained the game you claim is being played, the strategy

you claim is so brilliant.

Maybe if I saw it laid out I would see it too.

How do YOU know what has been done?

This is what I know to be a fact.

The Chained CPI which will cut benefits for the disabled, seniors, veterans and dependent children is part of the offer made by the President despite the fact that SS had zero to do with the deficit.

You claim this is some brilliant strategy. I do not see any strategy other than what Pelosi verified. That the president means it, that he is willing to accept the Chained CPI/Cuts to SS.

So what are we millions of people all missing that you see so clearly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:04 PM

38. You are correct, Sabrina...

and the cheerleaders have no desire or intent to prevent it from happening. But they have a lot of faith that he will not let it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:11 PM

40. Save your typing, sabrina

Please explain this game to me and to the Progressive Caucus, the Unions, the Progressive Orgs, Nancy Pelosi who thinks it's a great idea btw, AARP, SS advocacy groups, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and the millions of SS beneficiaries who must all be too stupid to see why a Dem President would play games with THEIR money, scare them to death which is cruel, and why all of them combined are too stupid to understand what you claim to be a fact.


The KoolAid addicts are too thick to get this. No matter how Republican/elitist a policy this president advocates, they are just too unbalanced to see the truth. It was the same way 4 years ago when Obama campaigned on a Public Option, then threw it off the table when Big Insurance came calling after the election, and we ended up with insurance mandates that codify their ghoulish 20% profits, instead of Medicare For All like the civilized countries have.

I can seriously not name a single left-of-center/Dem/populist policy that this administration has fought for. Even the Heritage Foundation applauded his 2010 budget as "the final triumph of Reaganomics". And despite all of the bluster and chess bullshit, SS benefits are going to be cut, and in order for that to happen, Obama is going to have to approve that cut. The upcoming cuts are completely voluntary - there is no crisis and SS doesn't add a penny to the deficit. I expect Boner and McTurtle to try to kill seniors; they're Repukes. I expect a president with a (D) after his name to refuse to go along with such savagery. This one will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:00 PM

43. When he vocally supports ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS

(thanks tobvar22)

Things like:
*Lowering the Retirement Age to 62

*Raising the CAP

*EFCA

*Stop Federal Funds to Private Universities,
and DOUBLING or TRIPLING the funding for Public Universities

*Forgiveness of Student Loans

*Stop Subsidies to Oil Corporations

*MORE regulation of Wall Street

*EXPAND Medicare

*MASSIVE Jobs Programs, a la Republican President Dwight Eisenhower

*Medicare? allow Medicare to negotiate prices with Drug Companies

*Transaction Taxes for Stock Trades

*VAT Taxes or 15% Tariffs for Imported Manufactured Goods (like Europe)

*Fair Competition Regulations (Sherman Act)
that let Mom & Pop (small locally owned businesses) compete with WalMart
(Big Boxes) on a level playing field

*Not JUST let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, but go back to the Pre-Reagan Tax Rates


THEN says to Boner and the Republicans....
"OK. NOW lets talk compromise."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:43 PM

32. If you don't see how Obama got the supreme advantage by eliminating debt ceiling


considerations until after the year and then pinned the Republicans against the wall with the cliff then I am not going to waste any effort making grade school level explanations for you.

You are very talented in your use of smilies however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:01 PM

36. You have never wasted time explaining this brilliant strategy which you keep

talking about but which the Progressive Caucus, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, every single Dem/Progressive Organization in the country, AARP, SS advocacy groups all over the country and millions of worried SS recipients all fail to see.

So could you just lay out this strategy you keep talking about so I can stop calling my Senators and other Reps and join you in your celebrations? If it is so simple and so great, why not simply lay it out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:20 PM

47. Lawrence O'Donnell has a tutorial on it every night

Howard Dean speaks on it frequently

Here is an example




HOWARD DEAN: I make the argument that going off the ó as you call it the curb, I call it the slope, the press calls it the cliff, is actually the best deal progressive Democrats are going to get. And hereís why. One, we get the Clinton tax rates on everybody. Will it cause a problem? Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful. But two, we get defense cuts. Republicans are never going to agree to that. And three, there are some human services cuts, which weíre not going to like. But itís the least possible damage.

Now what do we get in exchange? A serious down payment of the deficit. The Wall Street people, who wringing their hands of this, are really full of it because what theyíre going to see is a big drop on Wall Street while all the hype comes and then itís going to be roaring back because finally somebody has done something serious about the deficit.

So, I think the fiscal curb, as you call it, is the best deal that progressive Democrats are going to get. And I think itís the best deal in the long run, not the short run.




Over the next two weeks the markets are going to be punishing the Republicans with a 15-20% reduction in market value.

Obama took the debt ceiling out of the equation and put the defense department on the table.

He has the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that the strategy isn't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:51 PM

57. I agree with Dean. Go over the phony cliff. Everything he says there is true.

Not to mention that Dems can then blame Republicans for the raising of taxes after which they can propose the tax cuts they wanted in the first place then blame Repubs if they refuse them.

However, we'll see if Dems allow this happen. If they do, great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:04 AM

52. All Obama had to do then, and now is NOTHING, and taxes would rise on the wealthy.

And now, we'd get rel defense cuts, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:47 AM

5. many will agree too!

I would prefer the cliff to cuts in the safety net. Why reward the republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:59 AM

6. Agreed, bkz Obama with Geithner as his wingman are hardly the Dems A team

More like the A team for The Third Way ...Pete Peterson (who is a Republican Billionaire), the Fix the Debt Austerity Safety Net Slashers, et Alios...Obama and Geithner are not representing the Democrats and I am completely puzzled. based on their proposals, who they think they are representing. Certainly not the people who reelected Obama or voted for Democratic candidates to protect
our safety net and raise taxes of all kinds on the top 2%. This chained Cpi scam of cheating soc sec beneficiaries out of 10% of their benefits is so sadistically cruel, so anathema to Democratic ticket principles that it will be destructive to our party for years to come.

I'm actually surprised no on has proposed organizing a class action lawsuit against Obama, Geithner and all Senators and Congressmen who vote for that Chained CPI rigged cost of living if it passes, charging the whole lot off them with Elder Abuse and Theft as well as Breach of Caretaker Trust and Fraud.

Yes,best to keep Obama and Geither out of this. Wall Street and the billionaires already are well represented by the Republicans at the table. Either send in some real Dems who are not Third Wayers...maybe Boxer and Milkulski, since they are the only two Old Timers who did not knee jerk vote for Repeal of Glass Steagall...and Sherrod Brown and Al Franken who have some good "Populist" cred. Of course Bernie Sanders would be choice #1. Or go over the fiscal "speed bump" wait for Liz Warren and a new, less Tea Party House and maybe filibuster lightened Senate and a President finally aware that it is his Presidential duty to protect the faith and credit of the Country through invoking the 14th amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stuffmatters (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:09 AM

18. The Third Way took over the Democratic Party after Clinton's election.

And the dwindling number of liberal Democrats usually fall in line with the rest of their caucus when voting time comes.


So, yes, Obama and his ilk are the A Team of today's Democratic Party.

BTW, Bernie Sanders would not be the Democratic A Team either, since he is not a Democrat.

And repeal of Glass Steagall was almost twenty years ago. There is not guaranty that people who voted against it in 1995 would do so again, given how the Party has changed.

As for Al Franken, he surprised me by voting against food stamps. What the hell was up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:01 AM

7. It seems like something/someone is pressuring him to cave in this week

If he really wants to do something before 1/1, he could come out strongly in favor of an assault weapons ban, or pardon Siegelman, or something else off-topic from the phony budget crisis.

It seems to me that the billionaires who actually run the country and make all the money off the government are pushing him to give in (again). Plouffe tipped the WH's hand the other day, and a lot of self-loathing Dems are on board with another surrender. I think the "Grand Bargain" will happen this week, and the right wing Big Media will cheer loudly. One will have to read Chris hedges or Tom Tomorrow or the like to get the real impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:42 AM

14. Elizabeth Warren

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I've never been a believer in the "great man/woman" theory of history, but I do believe that Obama and Geithner and all
of the Wall Streeters (including Wall Street) fear Elizabeth Warren. Granted Obama brought her to DC in the first place, and I greatly admired him for that. But there was a point where she became uncomfortable for him. And Geithner really, really wanted her
to go away. It's not just that she understood how the economy works, and could see through all of their scams and dodges, no matter how arrogantly presented and condescendingly they treated her questioning. (and she put up with plenty of that) Her power is that she is so persistent a fighter for the middle class, and that she can translate all their financial obfuscations and
deliberate mystifications into plain language that ordinary people can easily understand. She has plain values, she speaks plain English, and she delivers plain explanations for these complex financial woes created by our financial elites.
She will be the economic "translator in chief" for the middle class in all issues that come up in Congress.
The pressure of Elizabeth Warren impending arrival is that she not only promises to fight for the middle class but she brings a lifetime of financial knowledge to educate the middle class about how and what they should be fighting for.
Obama often waffles between representing Wall Street interests over Democratic and middle class voters. Elizabeth Warren never
has abandonned her lifelong commitment to middle class financial struggles. And when Warren speaks, no one questions the accuracy of her explanation. Imagine, for example, how quickly the Chained CPI discussion would have been challenged and eliminated by
mainstream Dem Congresspeople and perhaps the MSM if Warren had "translated " it upon presentation.
That's going to be the New Washington once Warren arrives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stuffmatters (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:26 AM

20. I think it is truthful to say...

...that Barack Obama was very hesitant and timid in his support for Elizabeth Warren and her ideas. I still do not think he is on board with her vision for reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stuffmatters (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:22 PM

25. Elizabeth is not there yet! Seems "O" wants to do it before a few progressives arrive...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stuffmatters (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:09 PM

39. Obama gave Liz the job. Like duh.

 

She can be a great senator for 12 to 18 years if her health lasts maybe 24.

she is on the same side as President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:05 AM

53. Perhaps it's the devil?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

54. That doesn't narrow it down much

there are so many Satanic people among those who run this country, you'll need to be more specific

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:04 AM

8. Of what year?..........nft

 

ddddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:07 AM

10. I hope he stays on vacation until

the first to spend more holiday time with his family before he gets sworn in again and is stuck with most of his time eaten up for the next four years. *shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:08 AM

17. I'm with you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:09 AM

11. I do think that the so-called "optics" of an extended

vacation would look bad, regardless of outcome. I do think he needs to return to Washington as planned. I'm not convinced that the House can work out any sort of deal amongst the members. Instead of focusing on the President, attention needs to be focused on the House and everyone should be pointing to it and the Senate too, for that matter, highlighting how totally corrupt and inattentive to the peoples' business legislators have been. Shame the hell out of them. They make the Do-Nothing Congress look like workaholics. Force them to do their jobs in a manner that responds to the actual will of the people or let them shut it down. Whatever works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:51 AM

15. a big dog and pony show

 

political horseshit theater intended to rile up the proles.

the "deal" was made a looooong time ago.

the 1% will get theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:30 AM

21. actuallly it is the 20% who gets theirs

Of the $160 billion annually that Obama proposes in giving in tax cuts to the top 20%, only $40 billion goes to the top 1%.

Of course, that was his original proposal. After he finally surrenders, they will likely get another $30 billion a year or so.

Which we will be expected to celebrate as "tax increases" on the rich.

Very Orwellian that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:24 AM

19. he is all too eager to give trillions in tax cuts to the rich

but some here are prepared to argue "he had to do it" and "he had to compromise" and "he got a good deal" no matter how much he gives away.

And no matter the fact that those tax cuts would not happen if he just did nothing.

On a practical point though, even if he was playing hardball, he would have to end his vacation to make it look like he wanted a deal, and so he could blame the Republican House for any bad things that may happen from the so-called cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:36 PM

24. agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:32 PM

27. We get it.

Nothing that President Obama does will ever be to your liking. Can you ever post something positive about him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:43 PM

31. Cutting SS is not to my liking no matter who does it. We did not elect

Democrats to offer SS cuts to Republicans.

If the president takes SS off the Deficit Table where it never belonged in the first place, then I am certain you will see many, many positive posts here on DU and elsewhere about him.

Unfortunately so far this has not happened. And it is not about the President. Not everything is about our favorite politicians, it is about current and future millions of Americans who will lose a part of the pittance they need to survive in their retirement years and who, imho, are way more important than any politician.

All he has to do is to say to all those millions why are asking him to do so 'I hear you and I will now remove SS from any further discussions about the Deficit'. It really is simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:03 PM

37. Why come back

at all since he's such a giant fuckup?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:23 PM

41. Do you really think this is about one politician? This is about cuts to SS that will

tragically and adversely affect millions of America's most vulnerable people.

And I don't know about you, but millions of Americans, including future generations who will one day need those benefits for which they paid, are way,, way more important to most of us than one politician or another.

I truly do not get this attempt to protect a politician, any politician, over the interests of the American people. And it is NOT protecting him. Because if he ends up being the first Dem President to allow cuts to SS, to offer them in fact, his legacy as a Democratic President will be forever tainted.

With that in mind, anyone who actually does care about him should be urging him right now to remove the Chained CPI from all discussions of the Deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:36 PM

42. 20/20 vision and walking around blind (hillbilly)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:15 PM

44. I think he's returning to the mainland because of G H W Bush's

deterioration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:12 PM

45. The only result one is likely to get when trying to appease a poisonous viper is

bitten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

46. agree

I don't think Obama's cutting his vacation short is all that bad an idea, but this news did remind me of McCain's idiotic idea to suspend his campaign to "help" with the financial meltdown four years ago. It also looks like a sign of weakness to the opposition only if he doesn't hold ground. I think he should've waited until the beginning of next week to return prematurely if at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:29 PM

48. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:40 AM

49. I wish he would just stay on vacation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aardvark401 (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:54 AM

50. I'm sure you do.. too Bad for you that Obama

is our President.

And, GOOD for our country!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aardvark401 (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:22 PM

56. Go away.

Before the pizza arrives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:01 AM

51. No disagreement from me, the Clown Congress

needs no encouragement and certainly not the dignity of having a chief executive try to bargain with them. Nothing decent would possibly come out of this one, not with all the bitter, lame duck teabaggers.

Yes, some of those teabaggers will be back, like Michele Bachmann. However, there will be fewer of the real loudmouths left this time and perhaps the next Congress will be a little more reasonable.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to negotiate with those fools. If Obama is doing this only as a PR measure, more power to him. If he really thinks he's going to get anything done with the fools in power now, shame on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:05 PM

55. I wish he would make them an offer

- NOTHING. No cuts to ANY benefits for working people, period. It would be an easy sell. First, he was elected to combat their extremism. Second, they created this mess - mention Boner, McTurtle, Ryan, and Cantor by name. Third, they lost the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread