I suppose you are right. But I don't attribute that high rate to Obama personally. I understand that there are factors that were out of his control. I truly believe that Obama is trying to do the right thing and I can live with the unemployment rate if he manages to get our national debt solved in a fair and reasonable way. I think if I were to fault Obama it would be in that he was too ambitious with healthcare and he pissed off a lot of people because of it. But again, I suspect that Obama was prepared for the backlash somewhat but not a whole government shutdown.
Every one here pointing fingers is to blame for this mess our nation is in. You, me, the guy ghosting the forum from Isreal, the old lady wondering if shaq will ever become a Houston Rocket... all of us are to blame for the way our nation is. The democrats, the republicans, the liberals, the whatevers... we all sold each other out. the faster people realize that, the faster we get to solve our problems.
Dont give me this garbage. Debt levels suck but stop with the we're all responsible garbage. President Clinton actually paid off 10% of our debt while in office. It wasn't until an administration that balooned the deficit with tax cuts, an unnecessary war, a medicare drug benefit to get old people to vote republican (which mind you was more expensive than the Obama health care reform legislation), and a series of other garbage that this became a problem. His own VP said bluntly that deficits didn't matter. Also a bit old (since he's talking about the Obama tax cut compromise) but Fareed sets it straight when it comes to the bull**** surrounding taxes. <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iA64W4S76Lw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> A certain administration ****ed up royally and its time people get around to acknowledging it. Republicans cant take credit for the Clinton surpluses and pretend that the Bush administration didn't exist despite Republicans dominating all levels of government until 2006. One party deserves 90% of the blame here. Democrats may be the party of taxing and spending but Republicans are the party of spending and tax cuts. Tell me which one of those makes more fiscal sense.
I think his point is more general. Not that Obama is too blame as much as Bush, but that we as a nation have wanted to have high government benefits combined with low taxes for far too long. Also, the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 and Medicare Part D received plenty of votes from both sides of the isle.
Do you have a link or is this yet the latest in a LONG series of unfounded assertions by a Republican sympathizer?
You know, wasn't the whole "change" thing more of a "I'm going to try to create a leadership of consensus" and not "Goddamnit, these Republicans are going to get their asses whupped." kind of thing? Unfortunately, he didn't anticipate the Republicans going THIS insane in response to his victory. That's how I always saw it, and I know my friends saw it differently. Hence they're in rage over the fact that Obama is not Kucinich 2.0 and I think he's done a fine job.
Does not change the fact that those were GOP policies. We all know how politicians get boxed into "difficult votes" once the public gets sold on a specific framing of an issue. It ain't always as simple as both sides cast votes, so both sides are to blame. Also, I seem to recall that the administration goal in 2010 was eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy but keep the ones for the middle class, but a certain party was going filibuster crazy and forced a situation in which, if the Democrats wanted to keep tax cuts for the 90+% who made less than $250,000 a year and extend unemployment insurance, they also had to renew the cuts for the wealthy. Compromising does not make it a both sides issue. Still, this does not absolve democrats of being cowardly in the face of the FoxNews and conservative media/echo chamber onslaughts that distort facts and policies (death panels anyone?). Had congress simply voted on the tax cuts before the election, Obama would not have had to broker a deal with Republicans to keep tax cuts for the rich in return for middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment insurance.
Who cares if it's even true? There are more people int eh US than at any point in history, and they require more services, and as a consequence of the depression fo 2008, the drop in revenue was exponentially larger than anything in history - of course borrowing is going to be higher. THe crime isn't the numbers themselves being wrong (though they may be), it's the ripping themm from context and divorcing them from reality that insulates the feeble tea party brain and enables it to medicare scoot along.
That seems about right to me. The reactionary party outdid themselves when Obama got elected. I have very few good expectations for Obama from this point, but I do hope when he wins the next election that he'll follow the G.W. Bush pattern and get straight-up partisan. I don't much care for all the garbage that gets spewed out of either party, but I want to see measures that will decrease the influence of the wealthiest 1% in our country and our politics because it is inherently dangerous to have that much power concentrated in that small a group. We've been seeing the effects of it since the Reagan administration, and there is little difference between the two parties in this regard. At any rate, I hope Obama goes balls-out for his next term and stops giving a damn about politics. At the least, he may undo some of the damage that the Bush Administration did (though I'm not sure how likely that is - Obama didn't do **** to reduce federal wiretapping or to dial-back the power of our so-called "security" apparatus).
the presciption medicine plan is okay since the money eventually goes to pharmaceuticals. it helps out rich corpor...ugh excuse me, "job creators" we don't want to hurt job creators at this time
i posted an article basically saying if people think what happened during clinton's term is going to happen in the near future, they're crazy. the debt is too much larger, and too many people are about to retire.
The next time Rockets Pride, or gwayneco post an argument with actual facts to back it up will be their first. I won't bother responding to them anymore.
Lol, what's unethical about that? I think Obama done messed up there. I wanted him to let all the tax cuts expire. If he had, he could have the Republicans trying to get tax cuts from Democrats instead of refusing tax hikes from them.
The most important reason for ensuring that Obama is reelected are the courts - specifically the Supreme Court. We've already seen the damage that a John Roberts-led court has done to this country in Citizens United, so it's crucial that the next few S.C. appointees are not cut from the same cloth of ultra-conservative, pro-corporation radicalism. Ginsburg will be retiring within the next 5 years, and if a Republican is in office, the conservative S.C. replacement would tip the court into a conservative super-majority. I have no patience with liberals who think that Obama should be catering to the far left right now. He's been dealt a divided government (largely due to the Democrat's inability to control the political dialogue - and specifically the the Republican's misinformation - on issues that are overwhelmingly favored by the country), and so he MUST compromise. If we want the President to play the ultra liberal, we need to give him a legislature that's capable of supporting that.
