Can someone explain Obama please...
 

... so as I understand it, there are two bills in Congress right now. One by the Democrats wants spending cuts, the other by the Republicans wants spending cuts. Neither raises taxes on the wealthy, or close loopholes that let huge corporations like GE pay no taxes at all. Both are willing to take shots at social security, medicare, etc. The only real difference has to do with the elections in 2012.

Now we're being told by the White House today that maybe these two "spending cuts only" bills will be "merged" and that this would be the "bi-partisan" "compromise" that Obama wanted.

W ... T ... F ... ?!

Does anyone get this jackass?

It's nothing more than political grandstanding by both sides. Politicians long ago stopped doing their jobs and instead only focus on sound bites for their next campaign ad.

I wonder how many would get kicked out if this was happening next year.

If a movement (like the Tea Party) was ACTUALLY a "people" movement, against government on BOTH sides, and against corporate lobbyist interests over the people's interest, I would definitely get on board. That's likely the only way to make serious changes.

Unfortunately the Tea Baggers are an arm of the corporate lobbyists, and caucus with the right - so they are hardly the independent grassroots movement we all wish they were.

The problem with creating such a REAL movement, is figuring out how to fund it, and then convincing the corporate-owned media to cover it, likely against their own interests!

You cannot have a revolution unless you can harness the full will of the people - ALL people - without corporate manipulation.

http://themetapicture.com/media/funn...rporations.jpg

It wouldn't matter, because people are idiots and will blindly vote for their political party head regardless of what he has done. This is especially true on state level because half the voters likely don't even know who they are voting for and will just pick the guy on "their" political side.

If it wouldn't matter, then why is there a switch every election? It does matter. A lot of people were voted out last cycle and a lot of people will be voted out the next cycle. The possibility of a "debt default" during the election makes the likelihood of even more people getting voted out.

People may stick with their party lines, but they do vote for different people during primaries and they do go out to vote or stay home based on who is running, why they are running, and what has been going on recently.

With that said. Have you ever voted for someone outside of your "favored" political party?

More and more people feel they have no representation under the current system. Why pay taxes when you have no representation? Kind of rings a bell.

Can you explain how you discuss BOTH sides when it comes to the bill but can only ask about how is it that ONE "Jackass" that is only on ONE side holds the blame?

They're all assholes if you ask me.

I'm a independent that in the past might have voted Republican, but thanks to Bush's 8 years, I have really grown to despise what the Republican party has turned into. In the past I'd say that I would likely vote for whom I liked better, despite the party, but now days unfortunately I feel that I'm locked into having to vote Democrat just to counter the stupidity on the Right.

I wont say Democrats don't have their own issues, but they tend to not screw up the country as much as the Republicans do or at the very least, cater to my interests a bit more.

The tea party IMO aren't even a party worth mentioning as they are just meat puppets of the Right pretending to be something different.

The only solution I see to the problems in this country's political system would be term limits for everything.

Sure... he's a jackass because he's supposed to be on our side. It's no surprise what the conservative side is doing, that's been their position all along. They're doing what the people who put them there WANT them to do.

But Obama was put in office by people who want something else. He's a jackass because he has given away without a fight the core values of the people who elected him as their champion. And in the process, confirmed in many minds that the process is rigged, and there is nobody in power to champion interests not aligned with corporate rule.

When you say "our side", that means who? Liberals?....And if the conservatives are just "doing what th epeople who put them there WANT them to do", how come no blame falls on them for doing what the voters want?

You obviously don't understand the "checks and balances" system in American Politics....If Obama was a DICTATOR, then he could put through whatever he wants....However, you need the vote of the house and senate to pass laws here in America.

2012 is coming soon....Be sure to vote for someone other than Obama so when he wins a second term, you won't be able to bitch as much.

Not sure if something new came out this morning, but as of yesterday, I thought the Dem's bill cut 1.8-2.2 trillion while the Rep's would cut 800 billion - 1.2 trillion.

One thing to remember is Obama does not create the budget, he can only push a direction, so he's only pushing to merge them, while Congress still has to agree. If that's what it takes to get the deal done, and they both do it, that is a bi-partisan compromise, based around the current situation, it's the only compromise, assuming it goes through.

The people who voted in the republicans in 2010 didnt have spending in mind, they had jobs jobs jobs in mind. Where are they? Are the tax cuts creating jobs in america? How long should we wait for that pipe dream to trickle and flow?

Republican politicians always claim they were voted in to fix the soup of the day. It's a pretty old and lame sound byte, does anyone even tune in to it any more?

Yesterday the head of the tea party claimed that *HE* put out a call for people to contact their congressman and it shut down the websites and phone lines. And he was serious.

He came into office after biggest idiot in the world ran your country into the ground. Now you blame the guy after him? It doesn't matter who is in power now, or what they do, you can't come back from this.

Well you're kind of all over the place... I don't think you're following the discussion here, I think you're more worried about protecting your guy at all costs, so you're seeing what you want to see and arguing things nobody's talking about. If your suggestion is that his only option was to thoroughly cave and sell out the values of most Americans to please a fringe group that he can't please anyway, I think you're wrong. He's doing what he WANTS to do... he had and has other options.

Where is the compromise on the right? What part of spending cuts is against their stated goals here? I still fail to see what they're "giving up" in the debate.

The only thing I blame Obama for is his OWN decisions. I don't blame him for the state of the economy... but I do blame him for his approach to dealing with an uncompromising right wing. Cave, cave, cave. I do blame him for having a foreign policy that isn't really different from the last guy. Where's the "change" here exactly?

I voted for this guy with a LOT of enthusiasm. But at this stage of the game, other than his Supreme Court picks and some decent changes on health care, and maybe one or two small changes to credit card practices, not seeing a huge difference between him and G.W. in terms of the impact on the lives of most Americans.

the dollar went down as hell here in my country. I remember the good old days when the dollar fighting with euro and beat it sometimes. Not the dollar is less with 30% than euro :mad::mad:

Well none of the bills cut any spending. Saying you will lower your deficit is not cutting spending. Another problem is both bills, without a balanced budget amendment are completely fucking useless. This congress can not predict what future congresses will spend without a BBA. It is all a game.

Rand Paul and a few of the other tea party people (who want the BBA) are trying to make real change and get things under control. The rest are playing a "we are cutting game" when there is no real cutting and no real guarantee that the levels of spending they lay out for the next 10 years will not be exceeded. :2 cents:

Did you vote for him because of his voting record? His background? Because he and ALL the other democrats in 2005 and 2006 voted NOT to increase the debt ceiling. :error

The tea party was elected to do exactly that, stop the spending, it is now the democrats that have changed their mind. Who's playing politics and caving to special interest, over what is good for the country?

Obama's second quarter fundraising this year: Of the 10s of millions 99.9% came from corporations and pacs, .1% from individual donors.

I think that's the way a lot of people see him now. The word that comes to mind is: "disappointment"

He got elected talking a lot about changing stuff. Then he gets in and immediately seemed to bow down to Reid & Pelosi. And instead of jumping right away on the economy...they instead spent a year and a half on "healthcare" and that ended up being not much more than forcing Americans to buy insurance and making billions of more dollars for the insurance companies. They didn't even do one thing to actually make healthcare affordable (they even started the process by making a deal with the big pharmaceutical companies to ensure that Americans pay more than anybody else in the world for drugs)

In my mind...the fact that he wasted that first half of his term on a subject (healthcare) that wasn't the top priority of the American people really was a huge blunder. People are out of work and are losing their homes. With no money and no place to live, the only thing Obama offered them was: Now you HAD to buy insurance! And here's the great news...the insurance companies can't refuse to TAKE YOUR MONEY. Whoopty doo.

He seemed disconnected to the fact that a person with cancer and NO job and underwater on his mortgage can not afford insurance. He was supposed to do National Health Care...but the big insurance companies would be put out of business...so they sat his ass down and got things done in a way that will make them even more money.

And meanwhile the economy went further and further south.

I'm almost positive now that he is a one term president. I'm thinking we are going to have a President Romney in 2012. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'd much rather have a President Ron Paul at this point...but the media is too set against him.

I wish Obama had more of a spine from the moment he walked into office and had done the things he said he was going to do. But I think he still looked up to the people in his party who were in power for so many years like Reid and Pelosi and took their advice instead.

Guess it would probably help if voters were made to show ID when they voted, just a thought. Remember ACORN?

He's not a happy man..

http://www.mintesbabes.com/gfy/obama-presser.jpg

the "Other Crockett" hits the nail on the head. With term limits there is far less political pandering as there will be no need for "sound bites" for their next campaign.

Many years ago when I was in DC for the National Chamber of Commerce's conference, I had a conversation with a senator who told me the best thing for the country was term limits and in fact said that campaigning took him away from his job for nearly 25% of each term.

The question becomes, how do we go about this as congress has to approve it as the did with term limits on the presidency. We all know they aren't going to vote themselves out of a career. Some of the authors of the Constitution wanted this however, it did not make it into the final version of the constitution.

Well we're gonna be at odds because I see you're a Rand Paul fan, and I can't back anyone who's in favor of no regulation for huge corporate interests in vital industries ... i.e. energy, health care, etc.

That said, I'll be bluntly honest... I usually vote not for a person but for a platform. For a set of core values. Obama had me enthusiastic because in addition to being the supposed champion for the values I'm most aligned with, he clearly had the charisma to motivate people, and that's an asset for a politician that many don't have. (And yeah, an asset that can cut both ways, to be sure.)

I'll simplify here because it's a message board, but my reading of the conservative vision for America is this: large multi-national corporations > government > average individuals. In other words: let the corporations do anything they want to do, and use the government not to regulate them but instead to keep average individual people in line and behaving in ways deemed OK by the corporate elite.

I know this isn't the vision of the average conservative, I live in Texas and know many who don't want the world to be that way, but it's what the people they elect end up pursuing once in office nonetheless.

So I voted for Obama as a counter to this vision for America. Ideally, government should be a tool of average individuals. The power it does have should ensure a certain minimal standard of living for the people who are skilled, working hard and participating, and it should use its power to make sure that large corporations play fair and don't use THEIR immense power and advantage in ways that turn the rest of us into indentured servants.

Having said that... I'm not sure I'm seeing Obama fighting the fight that I hoped he would. He's looking pretty chummy with Wall Street these days. Which is what Clinton did really. So it's starting to look like those people who claim the game is rigged from both sides were correct all along. Other than a few social issues they let us argue over, not seeing a lot of difference between the two sides.

Yup, agreed. Very disappointed.

While there's a lot to like about Ron Paul, the problem with him is he's a "no regulation" guy. I'm not sure what chance most of us would have against energy companies, for example, without regulation. What if your home electricity bill tripled tomorrow... what are you going to do, not pay it?

I didn't like the mandate either... I would have been fine with it if there was a "public option" so we weren't forced to do business with huge private companies, but without the "public option" (another Obama cave -- and he caved before he even HAD to on that, suggesting he never intended to try for it) I agree the mandate is intolerable.

As for Romney... he'd just me more of the same, if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, he'd be a Mormon sleeper plant with all kinds of nasty social implications. lol

This is what happens when you have big government. That is not a left or right issue. IF you believe that the corporations, wall street, bankers, ect run the country (like I do) it would make no sense what so ever to make government bigger. Because the regulations and taxes the government (run by corporations) would only make it harder for the little guy to start a business and compete with these corporations.

You have to remember the reason some of the right want deregulation is not to help the big corporations but to help the small independent companies. Because those regulations are hurting the little guy more than the mega multi-nationals.

Agreed...the last thing any of us need are more wives to drive us fucking crazy. :1orglaugh

ask the republicants why we are here. the tea baggers want to bankrupt the us so the can cede. get use to it.

I love how the rabble always wants taxes raised on their betters.
you';d think they'd man up and try paying their own way.

That might be why some of the conservatives THINK they want "small government," but it always end up being welfare for large corporations when they elect their people and send them to Washington. And doesn't this all hinge on where and how government is made "small" anyway? If by making them "small" it means crippling the agencies that regulate companies like, I dunno, BP ... then I'd rather have "big" government in that specific case.

Now I give a nod to Paul on the social issues... he's an exception there to other conservative politicians, but when I think of what the rest of them want to do in terms of government intrusion into the average lives of Americans, they're anything but "small" government advocates. That's HUGE intrusive government. Again, Paul is an exception here and deserves credit for the consistency at least.

explain how cutting spending as the tea party wants will bankrupt us?


go get fitted for your paper hat. you'll be wearing them most of your life.

As I have said in these political discussions: I believe we are all being manipulated by politicians into buying into a "republican vs. democrat" game. I think they are ALL only interested in power for themselves.

For instance, one of the reasons "why we are here" is because the Dems didn't want to even TRY to do a budget for a couple of years when they had full control of The House and Senate. They were too worried about losing votes and power. And in the end, it happened anyway.

We still don't have a federal budget. :( But if you are going to get sucked into believing in the "political party" fantasy...then you have to put a big chunk of blame on the Democrats for not doing anything when they were in complete control. They could have already had a budget passed and done but they did not.

They could have done all the things that Obama promised in his campaign that got us all excited...but they did not.

ALL politicians are the same. And they all are only concerned with their own power and funneling as much FREE money (from taxpayers & borrowed money) back to their buddies in their home states as they can.

That depends on where your standing when you look. From where they both started, they've both compromised a good bit, just not on "some" key values.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Reps or Dems ever really said what the goal was (other than reps to blackball Obama every chance they get). Obama, I think, said he wanted 4 trillion cut + revenue increases (off set the war machine stopping later on) but neither side is going to give that up and he wants a budget past 2012.

Hehe, that's because "they" aren't giving up anything, "we" are....

Actually, THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC BILL.

They have made speechs, but put NOTHING in writing. The Republicans have come up with a budget, and three plans, all in writing, and all the Democrats have done is shot them all down.

Like I said in another thread... (and I'm not a republican, BTW, I'm a lbertarian):

Regardless of whether you and your liberal pundits don't like the plans that the Republicans put out, at least they put out a plan on paper for people to actually analyze. The Democrats, with only 4 days left, STILL HAVE OUT NOTHING ON PAPER. It seems pretty clear that the reasoning behind this is PURELY political. They would rather have the Republicans put something out, then if they can persuade them to change it in a way that alienates the Republican base, that works for the Dem's, while in the meantime always being able to say to the Democratic base that it wasn't the Dem's fault that the plan had stuff the Dem's didn't like in it, since it is a "Republican" plan.

So please get off the high and mighty horse, you Dem's out there. Your party is MUCH more interested in the politics of this situation than they are in putting out a real plan to fix it.



.

The democrats showed during their complete control of government power they were about as united as a herd of cats.

The GOP is starting to show that the foundation they got elected with the help of the tea party that they are drifting back into same ole shit

Actually, they have a proposal, which has details being argued over, so clearly, they have something.

What the Reps have done is pushed through 3 complete shit bills, all with a political agenda to set Obama up to fail in 2012, so they can block the budget then. That's before the actual bills being filled with trash cuts that didn't do anything important, other than move the talks up a year.

I would rather they stop putting out plans that waste everyones time... and actually create a plan that if voted down, would actually drive the base and other side mad - but that is far from what is being offered.

I really can't stand statements like that. It will only make such companies pull more out of the country than they already do. Do you know how much taxes they already pay ? I'm not thinking just income tax but also payroll taxes etc for all their employees. For every 10 they pay on payroll there is about 3,- ending up in taxes. For every employee they have its one person less on unemployment.

Why should they be required to pay more ? They should get cash back / bonuses for hirering anyone on unemployment

son you disappoint.

the tea party wants to weaken the federal government by putting into a financial tail spin. take away the feds ability to spend for anything. baggers such as yourself want states rights, not a strong federal government. undermining the financial stability of the federal government is the best way to do it.

http://agonist.org/numerian/20110728... he_tea_party

have son some reading how good your people are. and go fix a roof already you need the money.

Ding ding, we have a winner! :thumbsup

The early "Tea Party" was a libertarian movement... they got hijacked, and when they started moving in the religious fanatics, it became just a way for Republicans to re-brand themselves after historically low approval ratings. If they had stayed focused on Wall Street, I would have been right there with them.

Oh, are the poor victim huge corporations threatening to take their ball and go home? Good... they can get the fuck out then. Hopefully the door hits them on their ass on the way out. Look, if G.E. doesn't want to pay American taxes and wants to go overseas that's fine. There would still be a demand for the kinds of services they supply, so the solution seems simple ... let another company take their place, and slap some import penalties on G.E.'s ass to make sure they can't use slave labor in under-developed countries to keep living conditions down for the industrialized world.

You might enjoy this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...ik24-2010feb24

Look, either we get forced to compete with guys in small Asian countries for jobs ... which means moving down to their standard of living ... are you OK with that? ... or we solve the problem of large corporations using these guys to gain leverage over labor and governments.

I agree that the Tea Party was manipulated by the GOP, based on pure hate for what the government was doing, the democrats made that easy for them to do that.

But I also think that putting all Tea Party people in that catagory is a fallacy, just like the left doing all they could to discredit them, labeling them all racist, attacks like that sicken me, when they can't argue the facts, they start name calling.

You mean like they did for Harley Davidson?

China shouldn't be a trusted trade partner under the NAFTA, thats got to change

I cant even explain how to turn a computer on... :(

Let alone pollyticx

gee, if thats how the bottom rung sees it, its no wonder they're on the bottom rung.

Well, I REALLY hope they succeed. The Federal Government exceed the limit's imposed by the 10th amendment decades ago, and they need to be brought back under control. At the same time over the last 50 years, along with their gross overreaching into powers that they were never supposed to have, they have become less and less representative of the people, and more representative of themselves, (which is what the 10th amendment was written for in the first place, keeping power local).



.

thats pretty much been the left's position for the last 15 years and guess what, they've left and the only people hurt by it are the american workers.

simple minds run with simple slogans when their party spoon feeds it to them.

As one of the least friendly tax structures in the industrialized world, we've reaped what we've sown.

Other than no actual left people have been in real power over the last 15 yeas.

Dang, we agree on something... you summed the tea party up in one line.

Too bad our companies "actually" pay some of the lowest taxes out of developed countries, the rate on paper might be higher, but in reality we're one of the lowest. At that, if ours was so bad, and others so good, you would see companies moving to industrialized nations for those benefits. But in reality, most move to 3rd world countries so they can have slave labor and fuck the environment up without any regs or costs. That's a much larger profit than any tax code could ever take.

leftist fantasy has no place here.