Not happy with Obama's work on the economy? Have you run for office yourself? What can pass?

[RBInMaine]

First, Obama has signed not one but really two stimulus bills under the Dem congress which saved or created 2-3 million jobs and it was the MOST that could have passed the congress (so no screaching about how it wasn't enough. It was all that could actually PASS.) There have been MANY tax incentive bills aimed mainly at small businesses which is the most important engine of job creation, and there have been an array of tax breaks for the middle class. There has been the largest investment in green energy technologies in our history. Obama and Dems saved the American auto industry when Pukes were clammering to kill it, and now it is profitable again and adding great new products and more workers. And there are the Dem congressional/Obama plans to MAKE IT IN AMERICA, invest in education and technology, build infrastructure, implement high speed rail, etc. etc. etc. At the same time, Obama and our side vow to preserve Medicare and S.S. while finding ways to make them more efficient and solvent into the future. Obama and our side also support ending oil subsidies, closing off-shore tax loopholes, and no more extensions of tax breaks for the very rich. For anyone to say Obama and our side have done little to nothing in the face of the worst economic crisis since the great depression has their head in the sand.

Now the Pukes have the House. Anything our side tries to pass can't get passed, and the only plan the Pukes have is to kill Medicare, cut and gut programs for the poor and middle class, and give more tax breaks to the rich and big corporations. And at least we have Obama and a D Senate to stop that crap.

So, for anyone not happy with Obama and Dems, please tell me when you plan to run for office yourself to do better yourself and not just play the blame game, and please explain your own economic program which would dramatically improve the American economy as instantly as you wish and which can also actually PASS the RePUKElican House of Representatives. I'm all ears. Thanks.

[izquierdista]

1. There's a picture of my weiner on the net??

That's a big disqualifier there. Actually, I would trust the cast of a porn movie more than I would trust the upstanding local Republicans, but that's just me.

[dkf]

2. Right on the nose.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. I remember when I was told I couldn't complain if I didn't vote. Now if I didn't run, what's next?

...You shouldn't complain unless you WIN?

I think you're setting the bar a little high for those who aren't happy about the way things are or going...

[KoKo]

11. lol's...keep setting it higher and higher. good point.

[RBInMaine]

13. Maybe you should do more than complain. Ya think? Is ANYTHING being done good enough for you?

[FormerDittoHead]

22. There are plenty of things I'm happy with, but I won't stop complaining, if that's OK with you. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. The DU Goalposts not only have wheels so they can move, they're MOTORIZED.

V-8 supercharged Government Motors (formerly known as Chevy) big blocks coupled with Allison trannies and All-Terrain tires for extra traction.

[Marblehead]

4. ok

I am supposed to love a shit sandwich cause the ham sandwich is too hard to make.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

5. Run for office??? We can't even get people to bother to turn out and vote. n/t

[RBInMaine]

17. Well, in both 04 and 08 there was fairly high turnout, especially 08. So go get them out.

[elocs]

20. Why do people need to be begged & persuaded to cast their votes,

to do what is in their own best interests? It's like convincing children to eat their veggies. If the electorate truly cared nobody would have to "go get them out". But they sure like to complain about the results of elections in which they do not participate.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

6. Maybe he should run for reelection on a platform of things he can't do but would like to.

[msongs]

7. set the agenda? have a vision and be a truly fierce advocate for it? boy that's a big demand nt

[woo me with science]

10. Wow, what a concept. nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Klingon]

8. That's not really a legitimate request

We're not presidents. We're just citizens and voters. And we have all the rights to say it as we see it, with or without presenting solutions.

Want one thing that Obama could have done way better? The investigation into the causes of the current crisis. Make the guilty party pay the bill, rather than the taxpayer. That spells jail time in my book. It also spells the end of the too big to fail. It's also the only way to restore the taxpayer's trust in the financial system. And to prevent the same guys from doing it again.

[RBInMaine]

16. Yeah, you have the right to complain without offering solutions. But you add much more weight to

your opinions and your complaints when you actually step up just a bit more. Ever been in a situation where you've noticed that dynamic? Ever sit on a panel, or board, or been involved in any kind of leadership role? Did you just sit on the committee and bitch or did you actually do something more? Engaged citizenship is more than bitching and even just voting. It is about being ACTIVE in the process.

[Klingon]

23. That defense won't work for Obama

He's started his mandate having behind him the greatest enthusiasm and the most active young generation of any president in decades. They stormed both the real world and the virtual world for him. He cannot complain that his supporters only bitched instead of being actively involved. Obama was the one who blew it, not his supporters. Stop trying to shift the blame.

[woo me with science]

29. LOL. A lecture on "engaged citizenship" accompanied by

pleas to quit complaining because "anything our side tries to pass can't get passed."

[totodeinhere]

9. Until we can get meaningful campaign finance reform the average Joe doesn't have a

chance to run for national office. Without money to run a campaign against well financed opponents, it's impossible. So your suggestion that we run for office if we don't like it is disingenuous.

[Enrique]

12. this should be Obama's campaign slogan

"think you could do better?"

[RBInMaine]

18. You actually have a point there. Could apply to many pols. People gotta do more than bitch.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. I've been posing this question for over a year, and all anyone ever says

is that he should "make a speech."

Watch C-Span! He *HAS* made speeches. It's just that the Corporate Media refuses to air them.

[CakeGrrl]

21. But then the bar gets raised: "They're only words!"

As if there's a benchmark against which to measure all the progress that's been made after the damage the GWB inflicted.

You'd think the President was falling short of some comparable standard set by some magic Progressive.

Not.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Sometime proposals that cannot pass today will pass tomorrow if they are championed

and relentlessly fought for.

Sometimes by presenting ideas that aren't popular you expand the spectrum of acceptable dialog.

Only fight battles against the over matched weakens you over time. Envelops must be pushed for new horizons to become visible.

Politics like you espouse of only pushing what you already know can pass does not advance the dialog but rather constricts it.
You transform politics from the art of the possible to the game or restricting and reducing present and future possibilities.

Notice the opposition doesn't fret over what can pass at a given time, they throw out the certifiable and Lo and Behold, soon their fringe nuttery is common wisdom adopted by those that ran commercials against their radical ideas a few seasons ago.

Taking less than you want is reality, consistently taking less than the essential minimum is suicidal. Especially, when you are also ideologically driven to seek compromise with the opposition as well.

[yurbud]

25. the dog that didn't bark: which arms did he twist to get things past & which DIDN'T he?

The reality is, Obama could have gotten more done and gained political capital if, when he had both chambers of congress, he had pressured the corporate minority of Democrats instead of the progressive majority, and used the bully pulpit to fire up constituents in the districts and states of weak Republicans and force them to vote as the way their constituents tell them.

He also could have used the power of his office to tell the Senate that reforming the filibuster or at least working around GOP obstruction should be a top priority so they don't look like dickless losers who couldn't win a game of one of one basketball if their opponent fell over dead before the game started. More important than how they look, they would actually have gotten the right things done without such deep compromise that it was hard for the public to see the good they did, and maybe the Senate's corruption and inaction wouldn't have had the collateral damage of losing the House.

GOP governors and legislatures trying to break unions are backing down in some states in the face of grassroots uprisings. Imagine if the president had made a sustained, impassioned plea for real health care reform or financial reform that rolled back all the deregulation of the last three decades, or if he ordered his justice department to go after the big dogs on Wall Street and backed them to the hilt publicly when they did so. It wouldn't just be Republican governors and legislators facing recalls and certain eviction from office if Obama had done that, but Republicans and corporate Democrats in the US Congress who routinely ignore the will of their constituents.

[Raine]

28. Totally on point. nt

:thumbsup:

[yurbud]

26. the next corporate Democrat talking point: unless you've been ELECTED president, you can't bitch

I've said for a while and it gets truer all the time that the corporate Dems (like Republicans) want democracy to work like this: vote, then shut up or cheerlead. If you are unhappy, wait until the next election and repeat.

Obama campaigned as if he was going to do things differently, but it sure seems like the same top down, good-old boys in the smoke filled room crap.

[woo me with science]

30. A lot of countries do it that way.

Vote, then shut up and cheerlead. But for them, it's government enforced.

It's damned funny when Americans try to push it as a personal option. :rofl:

Sometimes I think half the posts on message boards in this country are posts telling other posters to shut up.

[bigwillq]

33. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[mikekohr]

31. I hold office as a County Board member and a Township Clerk

in a county that has been dominated by the Republican party for 176 years. Getting things done is not easy as you might imagine.

Having said, that President Obama is the among the most effective presidents we have had in the last 50 years. President Obama inherited the deepest economic downturn since the 1930's. He and we have a deep, wide, hole to fill in. It will take time just as it took FDR who is with-out a doubt the most accomplished president in US history. For those who forgot history here is a reminder of why if we want to avoid the pain of a long climb back from economic FUBAR we have to quit electing the asshats that dig the holes (Republicans).

?

[Avant Guardian]

32. Another of your attempts at blameshifting

Your making excuses for Obama's failures and trying to blame it all on the Democrats who helped get him elected. Lovely.

[yurbud]

34. corporate Democrats have updated the right's old ''love it or leave it'' talking point

[coalition_unwilling]

35. What is the purpose of this OP? It smacks of an "America: Love it

or Leave It" style of argumentation.

Is the OP really taunting DU to mount a true progressive primary challenge to Obama? Is the OP telling us to 'shut up' if we have not run for office or have no plans to?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. What a stunningly boring OP.

It would be insulting too, if it weren't too tedious to rise to the level of insult.

[RandomKoolzip]

38. That's all well and good, but...

I, for one, think it's mighty odd and suspicious that rightists and corporate-backed politicians can get whatever pro-business, pro-war, anti-working class legislation they want passed no matter what while any kind of legislation that may benefit ordinary people gets labeled as pie-in-the-sky, "unserious" nonsense. Why is it so easy for legislation that hurts people to pass while legislation that benefits people always stalls or gets abandoned? Bush never had a problem getting everything he wanted, while Obama is portrayed as an impotent victim by his own supporters - doesn't that strike anyone else as suspicious?

[Marrah_G]

39. What a silly, silly post.

[BR_Parkway]

40. Don't disagree with your major premise - but the Dems in Congress

when we had majorities everywhere did a lot of selling out to their corporate masters as well when they should have been sticking up for us.

As for Obama "selling out" to Wall St - I can't say I don't understand it, we were is a complete meltdown - he was looking for expert advice to handle a situation (as would any of us I think). I'm not sure that any experts on either side of the political divide would have been willing to say "let them fail". Even Krugman, who I admire and wish the admin would listen to more would not have advocated that position - any modern economist can't possibly be expected to envision not having Wall St in the position they hold.

HAMP was a well meaning program, poorly executed and I don't think most people in position to make policy decision even understood that the "servicing banks" would still make more money by not working the bad loans out with the homeowners at that point. I do think Obama was somewhat naive in thinking the banks being bailed out would do the right thing instead of simply seeking out the most profitable - his background of working to achieve consensus was a drawback at that point, someone with more of a business background would have seen that as the point to get concessions from the banks in exchange - but I'm not certain that a beholden to business Congress would have gone along with that either.

I do regret seeing the RW mantra of "tax cuts lead to more jobs" gaining traction with our representatives - but when we send a bunch of millionaires to Congress on either side of the aisle, it's pretty naive to think that they get what ordinary citizens are dealing with.

I'd love to see him take the bully pulpit more to tell the American public just how much the RW and Big Business are strangling a recovery

[mtnsnake]

41. When did running for office become a requirement for voters who wish to express their concerns?

Never, and that's regardless of whether those concerns are positive concerns or negative concerns.