Yes, let's think critically. Obama and his family going on a Christmas vacation. Let's think critically. Let us, think critically. Let us think critically?
No offense, but that's an incredibly disingenuous answer. One of the main themes of Obama's campaign was to raise revenue by raising the taxes on the wealthy. Apparently, there are many ways to interpret the constitution.
GladiatoRowdy is so taken over by his bias that even these basic points get lost on him. so obvious to see
No, it is a very realistic answer. Obama's job, per the Constitution, is to sign and enforce the law. While I agree that the President does have leadership and negotiation duties, one of the things I have not liked about Obama during his first term is his penchant for ceding too much ground right at the beginning of a negotiation. In this instance, I commend Obama for allowing the Republicans to stake out their own initial bargaining position, which they have basically refused to do. Obama has done the smart thing, in my opinion, by leaving and allowing Congress to see if they can work this out on their own (the entire reason for the poison pill in the first place). If they do, he can sign the legislation in Hawaii and if they don't, he can come back in at the end of the month, when (with any luck) the GOP's intransigence will have diminished some with the looming "cliff." Yes, and he has laid out the broad strokes of the proposal he came up with, as has Geithner. Reportedly, Mitch McConnell actually "burst out laughing" after hearing the proposal. If this is truly the case, then the GOP isn't even ready to BEGIN negotiations yet. Thus, Obama taking his family out for a Christmas vacation to his birthplace after a grueling campaign makes perfect sense to everyone except the most biased of partisans. Yes, and your "point" might have some validity if you can show me any passage in it or any Supreme Court decision that says it is the President's place to negotiate with opposition leaders in Congress. Go ahead, I'll wait.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Care to address my second point since you have given up even trying on the first?
So is his job to sign and enforce the law, or is it to lead and negotiate? There's a big difference. Do you honestly believe that Obama's proposal of "broad strokes" and increasing his presidential power is a good faith attempt at negotiations? I think that most people would agree that for the president, resolving the fiscal cliff is more important than a Christmas vacation.
His "job" is to sign and enforce the law. I would argue that he also has an "other duty as assigned" (my favorite line in my job description) to provide leadership. In this case, he has provided the GOP with the Democrat's beginning negotiating position, but the GOP has refused to provide a counter proposal, preferring that Obama negotiate with himself as he has on a great many other issues. Until the GOP gets real and puts together their counter to the President's proposal, Obama has every right to see to the needs of his family, needs that have likely been neglected over the past year or so during the election campaign. Absolutely. Obama provided the GOP with the Democrat's starting negotiating position. So far, the GOP has avoided even putting a proposal on the table, so I don't see why he should stay in DC just to listen to them whine. I don't understand what you mean by "increasing his presidential power" in the context of this discussion. Except that we are talking about the POTUS, not a line worker at a factory. Obama can do his job from anywhere in the entire world. If the GOP negotiators want to talk to him about their proposal, it is highly likely they could have him on the phone within minutes or on a video conference within an hour. If they pass a bill, it could be signed within eight hours or so. I would agree with you that most people who choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh would agree with your statement, but most reasonable people understand that Obama does not need to be in the White House for the fiscal cliff negotiations. At this point, Boehner is the one with the ball in his court. He is the one who needs to get some **** done, not Obama. As an aside, the reason that the right wingers want Obama in town is because they are hoping and praying that they can get Obama to negotiate with himself from the outset, as he did with the ACA. I believe Obama is doing the right thing by allowing them to go apoplectic about his vacation, showing them, their media outlets, and the consumers of those media outlets for the fools they truly are. Just like texxy has.
And that is the essential issue; whatever your political affiliation, that must happen. Personally, I think equal pain is the solution. In other words don't just cut entitlement programs, cut across the board. What kind of revenue would a ten percent across the board cut generate? I was once the administrator of a state agency, and we survived that quite easily. As someone once said, you would be surprised by how much government you can do without.
